USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[billybob2002 0]

Billybob, watch out. I'm really tempted to chage your member title.

Ah, I was in denial because I knew that Obama would probably win due to the high number of new registered voters that the Democratic machine signed up and the black vote in certain states (e.g., Virgina). I kept hope alive. Slim hope but still hope.

Very cheesy that they (I believe MSNBC...one of those cable new channels) showed black people reactions ala after the reading of the OJ Simpson verdict.

[scubaman3D 0]

it would appear that they are the only ones so completely obsessed with race.

[DrBobcat 0]

it would appear that they are the only ones so completely obsessed with race.

Because race is such an insignificant issue in America, right? [/sarcasm]

Really, I voted for Obama because I believe he will bring about widespread changes to the economy that McCain would not have if he had been elected. Only with considerable government involvement can the impoverished ever rise out of their current position. Conservative beliefs of "self-determination" and "elbow grease" ring hollow in the hearts and minds of many minorities throughout the nation. How can one take on a suitable career when real estate costs force you to live in the inner city, when unemployment pushes 50% and the only position available is that of cashier at your local Burger King, and when your neighborhood's schools are woefully underfunded and understaffed. [source]

Yes, the answer is to offer tax breaks to our country's leading corporations. It will all trickle down eventually...

- dRb

[Commando84 0]

taxes for th win! I dunno but I like to know that i help keep the machine alive and developing roads and hospitals and schools.

If we didn't have taxes I think most of the nations countries would have looked like afghanistan or something

I think america really needs to pursue the european ways a bit so it can evolve the country from the still industrial thinkings and move forward in the tech tree ( doing a rts games comparison here )

I don't know why some americans are so worried about Obama and his politics? But I don't think he will take it all the way maybe just 20-40% but it could be enough to help push things forward.

[scubaman3D 0]

Because race is such an insignificant issue in America, right? [/sarcasm]

To me and nearly every person I know, and apparently 60% of voters...yes. [/seriousness]

You think you know because you watch TV.

Anyways, new topic.

Since obama was elected president. I submit we can now eliminate all the reverse-discriminatory policies that were instituted in the US. The election shows that America is no longer influenced by race and therefore, I think affirmative action policies, which are essentially institutionalized racism against non-minorities to "level the playing field", are no longer needed.

[Panda-PL- 0]

The election shows that America is no longer influenced by race and therefore, I think affirmative action policies, which are essentially institutionalized racism against non-minorities to "level the playing field", are no longer needed.

It can also be the case the USA is positively racially discriminating. In which case elections would be the final symptome of problem, not proof of healthy tollerance.

And I also dare to remind of Ms. Clinton who who lost to black male.

I do not think racial card was played. Some people openly admitt on TV it was different in their case, yet I doubt this is representative.

I still cannot get over how noone ever asked the candidate what exactly his religious beliefs are. It's some sort of taboo, or what? I'd like to know what's obama view on for example Jesus' skin color in the light of what his church believes (his pastor in his sermons said he was an afroamerican crucified by whites - the italians).

And yeah, I never heard what McCain thinks of homosexuals aswell (but in this case I can guess).

[froggyluv 2135]

@ Nov. 06 2008,20:53)][ I'd like to know what's obama view on for example Jesus' skin color in the light of what his church believes (his pastor in his sermons said he was an afroamerican crucified by whites - the italians).

First off if he said that Jesus was a 'Afro-American' he's an idiot as their was no America in those times.

I think it's human nature for ethnic groups to 'idolize' their respective deity in the image of their respective ethnicity. Truth is, no one knows exactly what jesus looked like but judging by the people of that region, I doubt that he looked either sub-saharan Africa 'Black' nor Scandanavian 'Blond haired/Blue-eyed White'.

[scubaman3D 0]

@ Nov. 06 2008,20:53)]It can also be the case the USA is positively racially discriminating.

Could be part of it. We call it "white guilt" here. Like I said, we do not need affirmative action policies any longer. A black man has obtained the highest office in the land and is now arguably the most powerful person in the world.

Anyways, it was a decisive victory and although he does not appear to believe in the constitution, I do. So for now, he is my president.

Even though I fundamentally disagree with obama on so many levels its difficult to keep track, and even though I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, he will start with an A and work backwards - which he has already begun to do with some of the appointments he is making. So far he is showing no signs that he is willing to "reach across the isle".

[gsleighter 0]

I submit that it's not important what color a candidate thinks Jesus' skin was, more than what he takes away from Jesus' teachings.

[wld427 1705]

wouldnt it be great if they would have just teamed up, and said screw the party system....

THAT would have brought change to America..... McCains old fart been there done that experience and Obamas lets just do it attitude.....

[General Barron 0]

keep it civil. or I'll have to take some actions.

General Barron, consider yourself warned, as I explicitly said no gun politics discussino here.

I was specifically responding to a comment that someone else made about gun politics, and I had no reason to suspect the issue was off-limits. I guess I didn't read far enough back to catch that bit. Now I know though.

Quote[/b] ]Only with considerable government involvement can the impoverished ever rise out of their current position.

This belief really scares and confuses me.

For example, when I was in school, I worked 30 hours a week at a minimum wage job to pay both tuition and my bills. Yet, I was able to fully pay for myself, in addition to actually saving money. And I was living in a relatively expensive part of the country (between Seattle / Tacoma).

I wasn't getting money from my parents, nor was I working at any sort of a skilled job. I simply reduced my expenses as much as possible, lived with two roommates, and didn't buy luxieries.

How come I was able to do that, but others can not?

I have NEVER lived paycheck to paycheck, nor will I ever. Not because of the amount of my income, but because I have always made sure to keep my expenses as low as possible. I save money so that I have months of emergency funds, and I spend lots of money on insurance, instead of luxuries. If something goes wrong, I am protected. I do this because I believe it's my responsibility to take care of myself, instead of forcing other people to do it for me.

Other people have a horrible attitude towards money. They live paycheck to paycheck, even though they make more money then I did working 30 hours at minimum wage.

What we need is education about money in schools. Not social welfare programs. We need to "teach a man to fish", not give him fish.

Read The Millionaire Next Door, and then tell me if you still think there is no difference in thrift and attitude towards money between the "rich" and the poor / middle class.

Example:

Rich: want to drive used cars

Poor / middle class: want to drive new cars

[Baff1 0]

I concur with the above.

I know of many self made millionaires. Many rags to riches stories involving people who left school at thirteen worked two jobs to pay for their night school etc.

The only other kind I know of in my personal life is the inherited kind. I can't think off hand of anyone who has made it big running the state provided treadmill.

I don't think state support encourages personal dynamism at all.

If being poor is made more comfortable, the impetus to make money is reduced not increased.

The more socialist my country becomes (England), the greater the gap between rich and poor.

13 years into the most prosperous period of national history with the greatest public spending campaigns on health care and education and child support etc, class mobility has stalled.

It's about patronage. The traditional democratic principle of bribing the most voters you can to win. If the poor out number the rich, they should be the target of your bribery. If the middle classes, then them instead.

Sod the frugal, productive, sensible and motivated. Minorities = FTL in a democratic system.

The U.S. has this balanced by a lobby system. A system widely denounced for it's corruption. But it is a necessary system and an important counter balance to democratic patronage.

The kind of people who get rich or escape from poverty aren't the kind of people that need state help. They do it in spite of the state. Not because of it.

[scubaman3D 0]

I don't think state support encourages personal dynamism at all.

If being poor is made more comfortable, the impetus to make money is reduced not increased.

The more socialist my country becomes (England), the greater the gap between rich and poor.

I agree 100%

You cannot govern behavior. The sooner people figure out that they shouldn't rely on the government to take care of them and they go out and work hard to obtain independence from the government, the sooner their life will improve.

[Wolfrug 0]

Hm.

I'm not a student of economics, but then again if I were then I would certainly have been nicely indoctrinated to believe differently. All I can give you is the opinions of someone who's lived in a country that would probably be considered "OMG COMMUNIST!!!1" by half of you blind bastards. :P

Here's the deal: Sure capitalism blah blah hooray "the invisible hand" and the ridiculous idea that greed and money grabbing would somehow lead automatically to a just and fair system where everyone has equal opportunities to make it. All right : fine, let's pretend for a moment this is indeed the case. In the utopic United States, even the poorest hispanic dudette in the street corner can make it (in her lifetime, no less! to millionaire status: we just randomly kill the variables of race, gender, language skills, education, family, whatever.

Quote[/b] ]I have NEVER lived paycheck to paycheck, nor will I ever. Not because of the amount of my income, but because I have always made sure to keep my expenses as low as possible. I save money so that I have months of emergency funds, and I spend lots of money on insurance, instead of luxuries. If something goes wrong, I am protected. I do this because I believe it's my responsibility to take care of myself, instead of forcing other people to do it for me.

So, in our weird little world, The SOLE AND ONLY reason she's not making it (if she's not making it! is because she lacks the vision/courage/pluck to do so - basically what you're all saying is the difference between rich people and poor people is that the one has "good" qualities that allow them to become rich (such as thriftiness and the ability to plan ahead), the other has "poor" qualities (such as slothfulness and wastefulness) that leave them at the bottom rung of society.

THIS, my good friends, is an opinion that scares and confuses ME. Are you even listening to yourselves? How is it you have been able to delude yourselves into thinking that you're sitting where you're sitting 100% thanks to yourselves? Sheeze, talk about entitlement issues. The idea that poor people are poor because they earned it, and rich people are rich for the same reason is, at best, MEDIEVAL in its outlook - at worst Indian caste system. You're probably white, middle-classed males who are native English speakers. You compare that to a hispanic, first generation woman who speaks English as her second or third language. Is it her fault her skin colour is different, she didn't learn English in school, or the inescapable fact that she's a woman? No, it's not, yet in the REAL world, these factors matter.

In short: socialism is there to patch up where society as a whole has failed. No, you can't hope "charity" will do it for you, that's a ridiculous idea in a pure capitalist system. I know that if I get sick, I can get help from the government. I know that if I am without work, I will get help from the government until I find more work. I know that my education is FREE, which means I can study whatever I want for no cost at all. I know that if I had children, I could send them to school for free, where they will be fed for free, and given free books and free lessons - and in addition to this, I would be given aid from the state to support my children. I would be given fully-paid, government assured (as in, they're not allowed to fire you because of it) paternity leave from work to be with them.

This doesn't mean, will never mean, that I will stop working and just slouch off for the rest of the my days because "the Man provides". No, it means I will work my ass off as far as I can to REPAY what the state has ALREADY GIVEN ME. Welfare does not provide an incentive to slack off, it gives birth to more equal, more educated and more motivated individuals who are not living in fear constantly.

This is just my opinion, of course, and I'm sure all y'all have differing opinions. Just stop looking at your own bellybuttons for a moment, open your eyes, and look at the world out there. It's not filled with lazy, good-for-nothing, welfare-bums ; no more than it's filled with money-grabbing, greedy Jews. Blaming the poor for being poor is...yeah. Not nice.

Phoie. I had my say. Eech, scary opinions you people have. Show some compassion for pete's sake, stop thinking the world is an equal-opportunites place just because you happened to be entitled to it.

Regards,

Wolfrug "the socialist nutjob"

[Balschoiw 0]

Great post Wolfrug. 100 percent agreed.

[sanctuary 19]

Very good post Wolfrug

Seeing the world and judging it from an ivory tower will never allow one to understand its reality.

I wish during the education system there was a part of your life that would force every kids to take 6 months to join one of the association trying to help the poor to get back on their feet.

A bit like forcing every kids to join the military service.

This would really be opening your eyes on how lucky you are to live the way you are, i have never been the same after seeing some cases, maybe then you would understand what is really poverty instead of continuing posting nonsense about it.

Then maybe people would understand that no, people living in poverty are not enjoying it at all, it is not "their fault because they are lazy" or because they are "cowards without any balls to stand up for themselves and do something", they are not after the "new car that they want it now !", they just try to survive in a society that has really closed every doors to them, and that does not get better because none care for anyone that is poor.

Of course there are parasites, of course there are bad people and other kind of gangsters : they exist in any kind of class in the world rich or poor makes no difference.

But they are an incredibly small percentage that you prefer focusing on because it allows you to ignore the whole poverty around you and then not care while thinking you are even doing something right.

People know so few of the world that i am amazed how it is even possible in countries that have access to so much informations without a real censoring of them.

The usual argument to conclude all those kind of question, either you are a damned communist or a damned capitalist is completely wrong : none of those system is responsible.

The primary guilty is your own heart because you have decided to remove compassion and charity in your comfortable homes.

The problem existed way before those 2 damned system existed.

Just get out of the ivory tower.

[gsleighter 0]

Wow, thanks Wolfrug!

I wanted to say something like that, but I'm just going to give you a +1 for my inability to put it as well and impassioned as you have.

As an American, I see plenty of lower class people working their asses off to support themselves and their family, and the whole idea that somehow they're not good enough people to be successful makes me ill.

[scubaman3D 0]

This doesn't mean, will never mean, that I will stop working and just slouch off for the rest of the my days because "the Man provides". No, it means I will work my ass off as far as I can to REPAY what the state has ALREADY GIVEN ME. Welfare does not provide an incentive to slack off, it gives birth to more equal, more educated and more motivated individuals who are not living in fear constantly.

I couldn't disagree more. Your philosophy is backwards from where I stand.

We do not owe the government anything. Our sweat, blood and tears forged the government out of nothing. We do not live to "repay" the government.

Also, if history has proven anything, its that the least educated among us are those on welfare the most. It absolutely fosters an attitude of laziness because it is almost always implemented incorrectly by Democrats.

You know why? You cannot govern behavior, you can only incentiveize people. How can you provide incentive when a person goes from making $13/hr to $14/hr, will loose almost all of their benefits - like what happened to a good friend of mine in NY state (where we have social medicine). You know, she actually turned down a promotion because of this. We have created disgusting conditions which holds the lower class down where they are because making the jump to the next level is simply too costly.

Also, implementing it correctly - which I have a couple creative ideas about, would have an incredibly high initial costs for several years. It would likely double the amount of money we'd have to spend on it because initially more people would have to be in the system. It will get too expensive to do it "right" and in a free society like America - the people eventually make a stand against higher and higher taxes.

Nobody is proposing the elimination of these social programs and there certainly needs to be a balance. I have said before, most tax payers simply resent those individuals taking advantage of the system.

Lets find creative ways to encourage them to get off the system, get them educated so they realize the government isn't just a gravy train. Also, there are plenty of places to cut spending to free up more money for social programs. Raising taxes to ungodly amounts should only be a last resort.

Speaking of which, it is a travesty that under obama's proposed tax plan, there will be people in this country paying 60% of their income to the government. It is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, you are 60% your way to marxism. An interesting poll I saw recently shows most people feel the maximum amount that a person should ever be taxed is 40% (don't ask for the reference, I don't remember). But we are already taxing our people that much under the evil "Bush tax cuts".

[Wolfrug 0]

Way to go ignoring my post, and point, good sir. Here's a fact: this is not an equal opportunities society, and your "philosophy" will not take it one step closer to that either.

First of all:

Quote[/b] ]most tax payers simply resent those individuals taking advantage of the system.

As someone else said, there are certainly people taking advantage of the system, but those exist on all ends of the spectrum. I would like to claim there are more of them in the higher ends than in the lower, actually - but that doesn't matter. There is no system that is somehow safe from people wanting to abuse it. The free market economy that you so valiantly fight for is no less susceptible to it - how about, say, monopoly? In a true free market economy, with no government influence, you would be living in Cyberpunk world right now, and your leader wouldn't be an elected representative but whomever happens to own you, your house, your job, and your family.

Next:

Quote[/b] ]We do not owe the government anything. Our sweat, blood and tears forged the government out of nothing. We do not live to "repay" the government.

Do you think you live in a vacuum? You were born in a family that survived to give birth to you thanks to the government. You went to school, got your education, learned the skills necessary in life thanks to the government. You are sitting in front of your computer typing things now thanks to the government. What government, you ask? The one that enforces the law. You know. Like the right to not be attacked and robbed on your way to work. The one that makes sure your mother had access to a clean and sanitary environment to give birth to you. The one that, in essence, assured your right to live free.

So, yes. You do have something to pay back for, I'm sorry to say.

And do you know why you haven't got MORE to pay back for? Because you're lucky, that's why. You never had to live on welfare, you never had to rely on the (rather poor excuse for a) public healthcare system. Your dad and mom didn't have to do that. Your friends or partner didn't have to do that. And do you know why?

Not because they were better people. If anything, they were lucky. They got to keep their jobs, they weren't discriminated against, they weren't disabled by sickness, mental or physical. And if they were, and pulled through, then good for them - maybe they got help from their friends and family, who in turn were luckier than them. Somewhere along the line, probably in more places than you give credit for, the government stepped in and helped.

This is why you're entitled. Not because you're a better person, just because you're a luckier person. You had the incredible luck of being born a white, middle-class, English-speaking American, from a family whose line of work is presently not in any danger of being fucked over by the "system".

In Finland, which is the country of which I speak, and in which a modern, social democratic system is in place, and, I hope, will still be in place for a long time to come, you can be born in any kind of family and still make it. I have a personal acquaintance who has come from the kind of background and family that can only be called extremely unfortunate. She now studies at a university and, barring any unforeseen consequences, will become, for instance, a teacher. Happening to know her history, I know for a fact that had she not gotten help from the social insurance system, she, her sisters and her family would not be where they are now.

This, if anything, proves to me that Finland is considerably more equal-opportunity system than what you pretend you can achieve with your ancient laissez-faire ideas. Someone born from squalor, will be given a free education, and then the ability to enter university and study for FREE, while receiving free health care all the while, until they are educated, motivated and healthy individuals, more than capable of giving back to their country, and fellow countrymen, every single drop they got. I know way more people who belong to this category than any ridiculous pot-smoking beach bums that you seem to be referring to.

YES there will be people failing, falling through the cracks despite the chances they get. YES there will be people abusing the system, leeching the government. YES there will be all kinds of bastards who just want to leave the easy life without ever giving anything back. But so what? I would gladly let 100 people never lift a finger in their lives, if that would mean I could help 1000 people rise from poverty and destitution.

As to your other crap, such as:

Quote[/b] ]How can you provide incentive when a person goes from making $13/hr to $14/hr, will loose almost all of their benefits - like what happened to a good friend of mine in NY state (where we have social medicine)

Well, that's a bit weird isn't it? How about, instead of claiming this to be proof of the failure of the welfare system, how about whining about this being the failure of the NY state to implement it fairly? Which it is. In Finland, to continue my example, rich or poor get the same basic healthcare. For free. Covers everything. In Finland, rich and poor people, surprise surprise, have the exact same right to send their children to school and university for free. Isn't that something? Hell - if you become unable to work for the rest of your life before you even get your first job, you will STILL receive a sick pension, free healthcare, and nurses that come and make sure you're not drowning in your own poo. Yes, paid for by everyone else.

I am humbled by the system we have here in Finland, and I would gladly do whatever it takes to protect it. It is, in short, the best damned thing since bread came sliced. It's not perfect, it can still be improved, but dammit if it's not worth raving at the Internet for. Some of you think it's not possible in your countries, but it IS, if you have the political will to go through with it. I don't even think about losing parts of my income - it's always implied, hell, if it weren't for the fact everyone has a slightly different % of tax to pay, I'd gladly be told what my income is in post-tax numbers. VAT is automatically added to the price of everything in the store, it's an invisible taxation (and makes it a hell of a lot easier to know how much your shopping is going to cost you). We don't tip our waitresses, since they get PAID for serving you food, for fuck's sake, they don't NEED our change.

Pardon the rant, but, something was just tickled in me with the array of "damned welfare-bums!".

Regards,

Wolfrug

[scubaman3D 0]

Way to go ignoring my post, and point, good sir

Are you incapable of having a reasonable debate with somebody?

I think my opinions are fairly balanced - as I admit that social programs have their role in society. I just do not agree that we need to take it to the extreme view you have.

In addition, I could lob the same accusation to you of "missing the point", since you obviously didn't read my post closely enough to realize that what you said here:

Quote[/b] ]how about whining about this being the failure of the NY state to implement it fairly?

Is exactly what I said here:

Quote[/b] ]It absolutely fosters an attitude of laziness because it is almost always implemented incorrectly by Democrats.

So, now are you disagreeing with me only for the sake of proving yourself "righter" than me?

It appears that we will never agree on the role of government in society. You would prefer to be a slave to your government, and I would like to be more free from it.

And what is this "good sir" trash?  What are you? Some sort of noble from the middle ages? Pseudo-Intellectualism.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]your leader wouldn't be an elected representative but whomever happens to own you, your house, your job, and your family.

And this is the person I will only ever recognise as my leader.

I don't wished to be owned by a nameless faceless state who has never met me and doesn't give a shit about me. Who's first priority is to look after themselves and their own family and for whom manipulating me and "my vote" is their means to this end.

In fact I have reached that point where I am seriously considering a cyber punk styled society as preferable.

I would far rather be owned by my father or my uncle or my boss or myself. Someone who has an emotional and personal bond with me. Someone to whom I can hold to personal account. Physically if necessary.

No more Joe Stalins for me please.

Sorry but no one could be less trustworthy for this role than some idealist who wishs to join the government, or a salaryman just doing wha gets him the highest pay.

A mafia boss is more reassuring.

If I am going to be owned at all, I won't willingly choose to be owned by a nameless faceless beaurocracy.

I understand and agree with you about the social state. I am also proud of my own countries.

However, I don't use it personally.

I think of the Molerats.

In a community of molerats, one male does all the tunneling and hunting and 10 more molerats wait in the nest and sleep all their lives.

If alpha molerat dies one of the slackers takes over. Or if the nest is invaded all the molerats mobilise to defend it.

I'm a social person and I recognise the strength and benefit of numbers and I recognise the goal to prepare people for possible roles they may be required to take on.

Quote[/b] ]This is why you're entitled. Not because you're a better person, just because you're a luckier person. You had the incredible luck of being born a white, middle-class, English-speaking American, from a family whose line of work is presently not in any danger of being fucked over by the "system".

You've hit the nail on the head, (except I'm english).

This is the problem. My line of work is now and has always been in imminent danger of being fucked over by the system.

In fact the same is true for most of the people I know too.

The system has it's finger in every pie and it likes to stir things up. Change things around to suit it's current fashions and ideals.

People who shouldn't have any influence in my life, do.

In the end it's a question of trust.

Do you trust yourself to know how best to spend your money?

Which schools and hospitals to sponsor, which people need help to get ahead and which are just abusing your charity.

You who have earnt that money from hard work. You who have a long track record of spending it wisely and frugally, or an unspecified member of your government. Most likely with an overdraft and a mortgage and a car on hire purchase.

Do you trust yourself to know how best to spend your money or do you feel you need more help with this?

I look at this country and I think "what would I have to give up in an anarchy".

Police protection?  I dail 999 they don't come. But they intimidate my 90 year old father when he parks outside the local post office.

Whe I need security, I hire a guard not dial 999.

In fact without the police I would be able to protect myself far better. Buy stuff I am banned from buying currently. A real stinger with hollow nails instead of the hiome made one I curently have. A gun with more than 2 bullets capacity.

Health care? I use private.

Education? I use private.

The military.   I would miss our military. The ability to live without fear of invasion and the power to intervene and protect my intrests abroad.

The roads, I would miss the roads. But no the ones near me where the government keep adding "safety features".

I wouldn't miss public transport or state schools or hospitals. I don't use them. I wouldn't miss the tax.

And I think about countries where anarchy is a little more abundant. America, Canada, New Zealand, Kenya where I can just live so far away from other people that no one will be bothered to drive 60 miles just to come and harass me.

I've been in a socialist police state for too long. I want a little Cyberpunk in my life. I want to be free.

I think Scuba has a very valid point about NY. The problem with state management, is not that the ideal is wrong, it's that the realisation is bound to be inefficient.

Healthcare for everyone! Great!.

Only do you prefer an individual choice of smaller more personally accountable private providers, or one giant one on which you can vote about once every four years, (only you will have to also share that vote with any number of other issues such as the economy, wars, race and god knows what else).

Socialism is democratically accountable and that is about as directly unaccountable as things can get on this planet.

With regards to doleheads sitting on welfare and not working, this is a drawback.

On the other hand someone who could use the money or the helathcare not getting it is a drawback if we take the other route.

There aren't any "I win" choices here where everyone lives in utopia due to our smart thinking. There are going to be winners and losers with either philosophy.

For me it is a pratical decision.

greater socialism decreases persoanl dynamism and independance and lower socialism encourages it more.

Given that there will be winners and losers, I would prefer to make winners out of those people who are most beneficial to society.

The productive the independant, the self motivated, the frugal and the smart.

This is for the greater good.

If you really think you will work just as hard to make your self more comfortable when you are not hungry or cold, you haven't been there.

I suggest you re-evaluate your position on that one.

If you really think you owe so much to the state, why don't you donate more of your money to them. Why are you not paying more in taxes than they are forcing you too.

Why not skip buying that Xbox game and invest the money in your society.

I'll take a large bet that you aren't going to.

A frugal person, saves more for personal motives. Take away the personal, and the same level of motivation is gone.

This is just human nature.

Moral or immoral. It's just how it is.

[ralphwiggum 6]

keep it civil. or I'll have to take some actions.

General Barron, consider yourself warned, as I explicitly said no gun politics discussino here.

I was specifically responding to a comment that someone else made about gun politics, and I had no reason to suspect the issue was off-limits. I guess I didn't read far enough back to catch that bit. Now I know though.

Even responding is part of discussing the topic. Furthermore, you had chance to read. You had two posts before I gave you warning. Plenty of time inbetween.

wolfrung and scubaman, both of your posts are good, except for a few low-level name calling. Keep that part out.

[Wolfrug 0]

Way to go ignoring my post, and point, good sir

Are you incapable of having a reasonable debate with somebody?

I think my opinions are fairly balanced - as I admit that social programs have their role in society. I just do not agree that we need to take it to the extreme view you have.

In addition, I could lob the same accusation to you of "missing the point", since you obviously didn't read my post closely enough to realize that what you said here:

Quote[/b] ]how about whining about this being the failure of the NY state to implement it fairly?

Is exactly what I said here:

Quote[/b] ]It absolutely fosters an attitude of laziness because it is almost always implemented incorrectly by Democrats.

So, now are you disagreeing with me only for the sake of proving yourself "righter" than me?

It appears that we will never agree on the role of government in society. You would prefer to be a slave to your government, and I would like to be more free from it.

And what is this "good sir" trash?  What are you? Some sort of noble from the middle ages? Pseudo-Intellectualism.

I apologize, I usually try to edit those things out, but I suddenly had to go and couldn't leave that massive post unposted. So yes, I do apologize for the way that came out. I have no reason to be patronizing towards you. I don't know if the moniker "pseudo-intellectual" is quite warranted though (or noble from the middle ages)! Anyway, my sincere apologies, mud-slinging doesn't do it either way.

Seeing as I'm just a layman when it comes to both the economical and political sides of this whole argument, I figure this might be a good time to just bow out. It all boils down to values, anyway. One of my primary values is the right to education - universal, objective and FREE. Another is the right to live a healthy life - once again provided for through universal and free healthcare. It is simply my opinion that these two things should be provided for - and until someone comes up with a better way of doing it, the state seems to be the only option for it (either through physically owning and paying for the schools and hospitals, or through legislation that guarantees this via privately owned enterprises. I don't care). The state needs ways to finance these things - and once again, the only manner of doing this that I can see is taxation : if you can figure out an alternative system, then please do so. Until then, I can happily give them 50% of my income, as long as everyone else does that too.

So, that's the jist of it. To corrupt poor ol' Tory Churchill's words, "Socialism is the worst form of political system there is, except all the others that've been tried"

I'll be quiet now, anyway. Once again, pardon the tone in my previous post(s), I didn't mean to get overly emotional.

Peace out!

Wolfrug

[Commando84 0]

+1 to Wolfrug!

[thomas c 0]

+1 to Wolfrug, quite human.