Reason I am a Liberal: Infrastructure in deep trouble/decay

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Man, you really said a whole lot of nothing here



    but just to remind you that welfare is a social service by definition since you apparently missed it



    social service: an activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance of the sick, destitute, or unfortunate. [webster]



    Look at the next post to see that health care is considered a part of infrastructure




    Yes and too bad we consider pretty much everyone "destitute" under your definition right?



    Yes, because I don't think that say people should receive federal assistance to buy a house means that I support leaving the "destitute" in that manner.



    Likewise social services are not infrastructure. You dismiss what I wrote because you couldn't refute it. Civil engineers defined and graded what the know is infrastructure. It doesn't include what you wish to fund and so you dismiss and ignore it.



    If you don't like the way civil engineers define infrastructure, take it up with them. In the meantime you are just digging yourself a deeper hole. Infrastructure as graded from their report is how they defined it. I would certainly trust a civil engineers definition of it over yours. Likewise your definition of destitute must include giving people housing down payments via section 8.



    You are a joke.



    Nick
  • Reply 42 of 80
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    If you don't like the way civil engineers define infrastructure



    snip




    OK, Nick, simple question: do you define 'infrastructure' in a social context purely in the single definition given to it by civil engineers?



    Bricks and mortar ... that's it, right?



    Edit, because it's bloody obvious that's all you mean.



    Buy. A. Dictionary.



    You can't buy a sense of society, but at least your definitions will be wider then the ones you picked off Fox or wherever.
  • Reply 43 of 80
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Trumpman



    in·fra·struc·ture



    n

    [list=1][*]An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system. [*]The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons. [/list=1]



    Why don´t you take it up with Websters?



    Ask a civil engineer what infrastructure is? Yeah right. They will of course not be coloured by what they do would they?
  • Reply 44 of 80
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    services



  • Reply 45 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    As I said before: I am willing to see it as part and partial of what foundations are needed for a civilization's proper and continued prosperity.

    Granted that the engineers were probably not taking in to consideration such a broad notion of infrastructure but I am.



    as for Trumps 'anti-collectivist' perspective: I think that your view is naive on three counts in particular

    1. that you assume that food stamp programs constitutes 'collectivism'

    and

    2. that we are Communists for wanting balance and for seeing that the increasing rift between the rich and the poor is negative to the well being of our culture at large (that means to everyone . . . including the rich)

    and

    3. That you think that you are an isolated autonomous subject who's 'freedom' is best expressed by denying the reality of living with others . . .that 'individualism' is best realized in denial of one's connection to the community within which that individuality can express itself. That is an unbalanced way of living.





    I think that Individualism is best realized when it is not founded on false representations of its inter-relationships with others, and, its situatedness in a culture. In other words: we are individuals but as individuals we are interelated in uncountable ways through teh form of civilization, including a responsibility for the infrastructure.



    So, politically I think that that means understanding a balance between civic responsibility and individual rights: not the Right's herd-like chanting of "we are all isolated individuals . . . keep you hands of my pie buddy" "DITTO"



    If we don't acknowledge that the foundations are dependant upon our input then they will continue to rot . . . the rich will continue to get richer and richer (just as in Ancient Rome) until the very grounds upon which they practiced their abuse dissolves under them



    . . . and believe me, these days there are millions upon millions who want to see exactly that happen to us . . .




    Wow you couldn't be more wrong.



    First not intending to redistribute wealth does not mean one is anti-collectivist. As I mentioned there can be agreed upon items for which we are all taxed and benefit. That taxation can even be progressive and the benefits, regressive.



    You admit yourself that the civil engineers are not defining infrastructure as you do, so basically you are twisting their words to your own agenda. You think I should be convinced by such actions, but they have just the opposite effect.



    On your three points.



    1) I do not consider food stamps to be collectivism. I consider it to be wealth redistribution. Taking proportional wealth from each member to pay for the items society needs, (roads, bridges, buildings, etc.) is communal. Taking disproportionate wealth from one member to simply give to another is redistribution. You are smart enough to see the difference.



    2) Please find where I called someone a communist. Second I never even claimed that taxation shouldn't be progressive. The increasing rift between rich and poor is not the result of lack of taxation. It is the result of giving a fish instead of teaching a person to be a fisherman. Marriage is a mechanism often helps build wealth while single parenting/divorce/illegitimacy often builds poverty. However we reward divorce. We have likewise rewarded illegitimacy and watched it grow by almost 800%.



    The folks that wind up in poverty when they buy the lie that sex can be without consequence, that commitment and couplings are only for convenience, and that no one is responsible for outcomes, there are just lottery winners, leads to this lack of wealth creation.



    3. You claim the right is chanting for individual with no sense of community, yet I believe it is the left that have elevated individual rights to such a status that it destroys community.



    How can I have a sense of community with those who would sue the local hamburger stand for selling them a hamburger that later contributed to their obesity?



    How can I have a sense of community with those who practice racism and declare that something like posting a flyer for a black conservative speaker leads to a likely suspension from school for the white student who attempted to post it?



    How can I have a sense of community with a family court that would allow a woman to file divorce for no other grounds than feelings of dissatisfaction and possibly take his own childrem from the father who cared for them?



    I could go on, but the point is that there is plenty of taxation going on while the left elevates person rights to a level so high, community is practically impossible.



    Don't ask me to pay for a school where I can't express my opinion because of speech codes. Don't ask me to pay for a family court system that would attempt to put me in jail if I called my children on the wrong day. Don't expect me to fund courts that award million dollar lottery lawsuits to those seeking absolution from their own responsibility.



    I could go on but I believe the point is made. Building community is done with more than dollars. The left wants the dollars and then wants the people providing them to keep their beliefs, opinions, and rights out of the community.



    Nick
  • Reply 46 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    OK, Nick, simple question: do you define 'infrastructure' in a social context purely in the single definition given to it by civil engineers?



    Bricks and mortar ... that's it, right?



    Edit, because it's bloody obvious that's all you mean.



    Buy. A. Dictionary.



    You can't buy a sense of society, but at least your definitions will be wider then the ones you picked off Fox or wherever.




    I see nothing in that definition that supports the conclusions drawn by the people who posted it.



    The definition speaks of exactly what the engineers spoke of, it even mentions examples. It says nothing about wealth redistribution. Even Pfflam who posted it said his definition was wider than the one used in the article.



    However neither the article nor the dictionary supports the conclusions draw via their definitions. The folks supporting those views are just making a logical leap. The see funding a communications system or road as meaning you have to give the people the vehicles that would drive upon it. That isn't part of infrastructure.



    We need to insure our communcations systems work so that hospitals may use them for example. That doesn't mean everyone should have free universal health care. That extention is not part of infrastructure.



    Nick
  • Reply 47 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Trumpman



    in·fra·struc·ture



    n

    [list=1][*]An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system. [*]The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons. [/list=1]



    Why don´t you take it up with Websters?



    Ask a civil engineer what infrastructure is? Yeah right. They will of course not be coloured by what they do would they?




    I'll gladly side with Webster's because there is nothing in that definition that says to fund wealth redistribution posing as social policy attempting to be defined as infrastructure.



    Nick
  • Reply 48 of 80
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Bloody hell.



    Are we reading the same sentences?



    "An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system."



    A society build on principles including the idea that only humans that doesn´t suffer from immediate material needs can pursue freedom and happyness will often include redistribution of material goods from "those who have" to "those who have less". Redistribution of goods then becomes the underlying foundation for the state as a organisation.
  • Reply 49 of 80
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Besides it was not redistribution but an easier target from you I was going after:



    Quote:

    Likewise social services are not infrastructure.



  • Reply 50 of 80
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    I love how this is considered 'wealth redistribution.' You keep calling it that in hopes that it'll become true.
  • Reply 51 of 80
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Allow me to go a bit OT.



    An artiss impression of a typical Trumpman post:





    "Blablablablablablablabla and that is why marriage is the saviour for our society and divorse is bad for everybody, give headache and acne"



    Whats up with that?
  • Reply 52 of 80
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Yeh and what gets me is that those women have it all tehir own way. The always gets more then men when the divorse does hapen.
  • Reply 53 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    That's not Welfare. Sorry, you lose. Come on back and recant please, and eat your words.



    Except I don't lose. You've shown nothing and there's nothing for me to recant.
  • Reply 54 of 80
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Except I don't lose. You've shown nothing and there's nothing for me to recant.



    Your definition of welfare is grossly inaccurate.
  • Reply 55 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Bloody hell.



    Are we reading the same sentences?



    "An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system."



    A society build on principles including the idea that only humans that doesn´t suffer from immediate material needs can pursue freedom and happyness will often include redistribution of material goods from "those who have" to "those who have less". Redistribution of goods then becomes the underlying foundation for the state as a organisation.




    Yes we are reading the bloody hell same sentence.



    Base of foundation does not mean giving people those things that they want but cannot afford so that they can pursue freedom and happiness.



    The leap is yours.



    BTW what is your checking account number?



    I haven't had enough happiness this weekend.



    Nick
  • Reply 56 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Allow me to go a bit OT.



    An artiss impression of a typical Trumpman post:





    "Blablablablablablablabla and that is why marriage is the saviour for our society and divorse is bad for everybody, give headache and acne"



    Whats up with that?




    I'll return the favor.



    "blablablablablablab" so give me your wallet since I don't have any money left after sleeping, druggin and screwing around and now I want to pursue "happiness."



    Nick
  • Reply 57 of 80
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I'll return the favor.



    "blablablablablablab" so give me your wallet since I don't have any money left after sleeping, druggin and screwing around and now I want to pursue "happiness."



    Nick




    A blindly ignorant opinion like this makes for a poor argument. Anyone on welfare is sleeping, drugging and screwing around? Your bias is just stupid.
  • Reply 58 of 80
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    trump, the examples that you use as exemplifying liberalism are insipid and absurd . . . what does an idiotic lawsuit against McDonald's have to do with Liberalism . . . or your 'speech code' issues . . . that's the same litany from the media campaign that branded the term "PC" in the late 80s . . . and it has very little to do with the average liberal.



    and as for you seeming to agree with my three points: you yourself equated my position with "collectivist utopia" just after also slamming some vague demon known as "wellfare" . . . therefore, you are saying that I am communistic(collective utopian) and wellfare is my mistake and the proof of my 'collectivism'. . . .

    you also go off on what I feel is simply reactionary humdrum that amounts to some kind of moralism about sexual mores and their relation to the job market (heehee) . . .

    "teaching how to fish..." yes yes nice little folksy wisdom sound bite . . . but realistic job training programs would be just that . . . and don't get me going on foodstamps . . I know that they are not the evil you continually portray, they helped me out when I needed it and now I can take care of myself quite well thank you, I am certainly not a 'slave' to handouts! they can also allow people a bit of time for fishing



    the third point also I find unconvincing, just the other day I was at a garage sale and the poeple there had some ubiquitous right-wing talk show host blaring on the radio. the host was saying, in effect : "if you support liberalism then you are supporting a totalitarian ideology that does not believe in the individual and wants to irradicate individualism through any means necessary that believes that we are cogs in a vast collectivist bureacracy that is above truth . . . blah blah etc etc evil evil etc"

    That is anti-individual fear mongering and it is as ubiquitous as right-wing talk show hosts . . .everywhere these days.



    Now: I meant this to not digress into a debate about wellfare, I am referring to the article and the need for 'infrastructure' . . . both in my sense (which would include some measure of programs often called 'wellfare') but also in the limited sense of what the other folks (and yes, probably the engineers) meant by it: namely money for the physical support services: and I simply don't believe the Conservatievs when they say that they too 'want to build roads' . . . not realistically, and not with actual tax payers money . . . not with any actual organized plan, no simply cut all regulations and give it up to a corporation to pump money out of a culture that needs the services in question . . . . .a plan with the goal of actually benefitting the public would simply run counter to their 'cut taxes' ideology and we are seeing the proof of the pudding right in front of us . . .
  • Reply 59 of 80
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The folks that wind up in poverty when they buy the lie that sex can be without consequence, that commitment and couplings are only for convenience, and that no one is responsible for outcomes, there are just lottery winners, leads to this lack of wealth creation.



    Sex can be "without consequence." Why even attempt to lie about that?
  • Reply 60 of 80
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    A blindly ignorant opinion like this makes for a poor argument. Anyone on welfare is sleeping, drugging and screwing around? Your bias is just stupid.



    It's called satire....



    I'm sure you thought the blah, blah, blah part convincing too.



    It did have a smilie.



    Nick
Sign In or Register to comment.