PDA

View Full Version : For The Liberals On These Boards: What Is Your Idea Of Freedom?



NJCardFan
03-12-2010, 10:09 AM
Since a couple of our resident liberals feel it necessary to start inane threads like Christianity and Communism(or whatever the hell it was), I'd like to get their take on something very important and that is what is their idea of freedom. I ask that they do not be cowards. Have the courage to post honestly. Yes you'll get flamed(probably) but I'm really interested in the subject of liberals and freedom.

NJCardFan
03-12-2010, 11:50 AM
Either the liberals on these boards aren't on yet or they're cowards.

jediab
03-12-2010, 12:48 PM
Either the liberals on these boards aren't on yet or they're cowards.

They are probably sleeping in since most liberals dont have jobs.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-12-2010, 01:53 PM
Freedom doesn't really exist except in anarchy. We've never been a purely 100% country. Government, as a a necessary evil is at it's most basic level restricts freedom with the very founding; that is one of the government's (any government's) main purposes, that and the defense of it's people. Freedom isn't truly definable...I think o freedom in terms of security, and in knowing I can do what I want within reason. In many way as such we aren't a free country.

Zeus
03-12-2010, 03:18 PM
http://img.allposters.com/6/LRG/21/2145/HYDCD00Z.jpg


http://www.truthorfiction.com/images/FILE31168.JPG


http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/images/ANC_surroundings/images/image64_jpg.jpg


Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed - else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Jfor
03-12-2010, 05:16 PM
Freedom doesn't really exist except in anarchy. We've never been a purely 100% country. Government, as a a necessary evil is at it's most basic level restricts freedom with the very founding; that is one of the government's (any government's) main purposes, that and the defense of it's people. Freedom isn't truly definable...I think o freedom in terms of security, and in knowing I can do what I want within reason. In many way as such we aren't a free country.

Wow. I just lost 3 IQ points reading that.

Constitutionally Speaking
03-12-2010, 07:04 PM
Freedom doesn't really exist except in anarchy. We've never been a purely 100% country. Government, as a a necessary evil is at it's most basic level restricts freedom with the very founding; that is one of the government's (any government's) main purposes, that and the defense of it's people. Freedom isn't truly definable...I think o freedom in terms of security, and in knowing I can do what I want within reason. In many way as such we aren't a free country.

Anarchy actually is very restrictive of freedom - you must constantly be on the guard to protect what is yours. Minimal government increases freedom.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-12-2010, 10:38 PM
Anarchy actually is very restrictive of freedom - you must constantly be on the guard to protect what is yours. Minimal government increases freedom.


Wow. I just lost 3 IQ points reading that.

So your IQ must be around what, 75, 76 now?

papabull
03-12-2010, 11:13 PM
Liberals aren't going to tell you what their idea of freedom is. Not without lying about it, anyway. To them, freedom is the right to reach deep into everyone else's pockets and take whatever they deem "necessary" that they don't want to earn for themselves. Of course, they can't admit that because it's stealing and people would object to stealing. And freedom is being able to disarm our society so that the stealing is that much easier for them. Freedom is being able to drive religious people underground so that they can't have any say in community standards and expectations of behavior, leaving them "free" to wallow in immorality and decadence.

Of course they don't want to talk about their idea of freedom because the truth is ugly and stiffens resistance to their agenda. So silence or lies are all you get when you ask questions like that.

Sonnabend
03-12-2010, 11:15 PM
So your IQ must be around what, 75, 76 now?

As opposed to your single digit IQ, compared to you, he's a genius...then again compared to you, a cockroach is smart.

Rockntractor
03-12-2010, 11:30 PM
Most liberals only understand freedom in terms of whether they can use recreational drugs or not. They cannot wrap their heads around anything more difficult to understand than that!

NJCardFan
03-13-2010, 12:25 AM
Freedom doesn't really exist except in anarchy. We've never been a purely 100% country. Government, as a a necessary evil is at it's most basic level restricts freedom with the very founding; that is one of the government's (any government's) main purposes, that and the defense of it's people. Freedom isn't truly definable...I think o freedom in terms of security, and in knowing I can do what I want within reason. In many way as such we aren't a free country.

If you are representative of the youth of this country, we're fucked.

Rockntractor
03-13-2010, 12:28 AM
If you are representative of the youth of this country, we're fucked.
And he is smarter than Wei Wu Wei.:eek:

NJCardFan
03-13-2010, 12:39 AM
And he is smarter than Wei Wu Wei.:eek:

My dog is smarter than Wei Wu Wei.

linda22003
03-13-2010, 07:00 AM
Freedom doesn't really exist except in anarchy. We've never been a purely 100% country. Government, as a a necessary evil is at it's most basic level restricts freedom with the very founding; that is one of the government's (any government's) main purposes, that and the defense of it's people. Freedom isn't truly definable...I think o freedom in terms of security, and in knowing I can do what I want within reason. In many way as such we aren't a free country.

I read this three times looking for a cogent argument, and I didn't see one. I did see that you don't know when to use "its" and when to use "it's"; you used the word twice in your post, wrong both times. At least that could be taught. I thought it had been by college age.

We have never been a "100% country" (whatever that means) because we haven't been living in anarchy?

Constitutionally Speaking
03-13-2010, 07:09 AM
Caught,


Government is put in place by the people to increase their freedoms. That is the whole purpose of government. When government begins to become a hindrance to freedom instead a protector of freedom is when we start to have a problem.

wilbur
03-13-2010, 10:30 AM
I don't really identify as liberal, but that doesnt stop most here from assuming anyways... so I'll answer:

Freedom - a big word, with lots of different contexts... there's political freedom, freedom of will, etc.. so this thread is already kind of off to a false start - the OP needs to narrow it down a bit.

I'll give it a shot anyways. To boil it down as simply and concisely as possible, freedom is the ability to make choices according to how your beliefs, goals, and desires compel you.

The general idea behind a good society, is to maximize that ability as much as possible, for everybody.

Sonnabend
03-13-2010, 10:39 AM
The general idea behind a good society, is to maximize that ability as much as possible, for everybody.

Unless you're a Christian or dont buy into AGW, in which case you should be silenced for the good of all and the "consensus" :rolleyes:.

Right, wilbur?

wilbur
03-13-2010, 10:43 AM
Unless you're a Christian or dont buy into AGW, in which case you should be silenced for the good of all and the "consensus" :rolleyes:.

Right, wilbur?

You're a raving loon, you know that?

Sonnabend
03-13-2010, 10:46 AM
You're a raving loon, you know that?

Yeds well, being referred to as "ignorant" and being likened to a holocaust denier for daring to argue with the "consensus" and the "settled science" makes me a raving loon. :rolleyes:

Oh by the way, I am yet to see a single lie I posted about "Hide the decline" Jones.Still waiting to see that.

NJCardFan
03-13-2010, 12:21 PM
I don't really identify as liberal, but that doesnt stop most here from assuming anyways... so I'll answer:

Freedom - a big word, with lots of different contexts... there's political freedom, freedom of will, etc.. so this thread is already kind of off to a false start - the OP needs to narrow it down a bit.

I'll give it a shot anyways. To boil it down as simply and concisely as possible, freedom is the ability to make choices according to how your beliefs, goals, and desires compel you.

The general idea behind a good society, is to maximize that ability as much as possible, for everybody.

In other words, this is how Wilbur answered the question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mNDHTfdn1A

NJCardFan
03-13-2010, 12:37 PM
Seriously, you want me to narrow it down? OK, you asked for it.

You liberals seem to want the government to handle every aspect of your lives: education, healthcare, retirement, housing, food, jobs, etc. Is that really freedom? This country didn't go against all odds and fight the most powerful military of the time so it's people can be dependent on the government for their basic needs. Government, this government, is not put in place to increase freedoms. It was put in place to preserve freedom. To imply that government is in place to increase freedom is to insinuate that that freedom is granted by government. Sorry CS, you missed the boat on that one. As said in the Declaration of Independence, freedom is endowed on us by our Creator, whichever, if any, you believe. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You own personal pursuit of happiness, not happiness provided by government. As the Constitution was written, it was written to limit the scope of government, not increase it. Remember, the Founders were living under a system that was restricted by the ruling power. You couldn't wipe you ass without consent of the king. Worse yet, these rules were being imposed on the colonies while the colonies had virtually no say in the matter. When we won the war for independence and established the Constitution, this in turn gave everyone a say on how one is to be governed. From the sharecropper right on up to the plantation owner, governing officials were chosen by the people. All were. Congressmen, senators, and even the president were elected by the people, not appointed by the king as were the early governors.

But now our nation has turned into a nanny state. People want the proverbial apron strings to be made of iron when attached to the government. And they give credence for the government to take from one citizen and give to another. We also have to get permission from government for everything. Want to put an extension onto your house? Start building without permission from your local zoning board and see what happens. Over the decades, the government went from a body serving the people to the people serving the body. This is not freedom. This is the antithesis of freedom.

Is that narrow enough for you?

papabull
03-13-2010, 12:46 PM
Cardfan, I present to you.

The Four Liberals:

http://www.babypicturesphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/baby-birds-picture.jpg

Constitutionally Speaking
03-13-2010, 01:55 PM
S To imply that government is in place to increase freedom is to insinuate that that freedom is granted by government. Sorry CS, you missed the boat on that one. As said in the Declaration of Independence, freedom is endowed on us by our Creator, whichever, if any, you believe. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ?



No apology needed, I knew I wasn't wording it right. Was having trouble expressing it. You did a MUCH better job of it.


If you have read any of my posts on the founding of our country and the nature of our rights, you will know how badly I represented my beliefs on this. (did that make sense???)


Anarchy is NOT freedom though. It is simply mob rule.

AmPat
03-13-2010, 04:49 PM
While we're awaiting the resident liberals to have an original thought on this topic, a couple comments:
1. Thanks to Linda#'s for correcting the gobledygoop post from CaughtWithHisBrainDamaged.
2. I had no idea Charles Durning could move like that.

hazlnut
03-13-2010, 05:51 PM
Freedom is Liberty...

And Liberty...

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0904/liberty-world-turns-neocons-republicans-conservatives-demotivational-poster-1239394857.jpg (http://www.motifake.com/liberty-world-turns-neocons-republicans-conservatives-demotivational-poster-52926.html)

wilbur
03-13-2010, 06:06 PM
Seriously, you want me to narrow it down? OK, you asked for it.

You liberals seem to want the government to handle every aspect of your lives: education, healthcare, retirement, housing, food, jobs, etc. Is that really freedom? This country didn't go against all odds and fight the most powerful military of the time so it's people can be dependent on the government for their basic needs. Government, this government, is not put in place to increase freedoms. It was put in place to preserve freedom. To imply that government is in place to increase freedom is to insinuate that that freedom is granted by government. Sorry CS, you missed the boat on that one. As said in the Declaration of Independence, freedom is endowed on us by our Creator, whichever, if any, you believe. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You own personal pursuit of happiness, not happiness provided by government. As the Constitution was written, it was written to limit the scope of government, not increase it. Remember, the Founders were living under a system that was restricted by the ruling power. You couldn't wipe you ass without consent of the king. Worse yet, these rules were being imposed on the colonies while the colonies had virtually no say in the matter. When we won the war for independence and established the Constitution, this in turn gave everyone a say on how one is to be governed. From the sharecropper right on up to the plantation owner, governing officials were chosen by the people. All were. Congressmen, senators, and even the president were elected by the people, not appointed by the king as were the early governors.


Actually, the declaration speaks of 'unalienable rights', not freedom. Freedom and natural rights are independent concepts. Think of political freedom, economic freedom, free will - natural rights may not include guarantees or have anything to say at all about some of those freedoms, or some subsets of them. Our natural rights we hold to be inalienable, according to the declaration - but many aspects of our freedom are much more vulnerable to restriction (though I did say, a good society would try to maximize our freedoms).



But now our nation has turned into a nanny state. People want the proverbial apron strings to be made of iron when attached to the government. And they give credence for the government to take from one citizen and give to another. We also have to get permission from government for everything. Want to put an extension onto your house? Start building without permission from your local zoning board and see what happens. Over the decades, the government went from a body serving the people to the people serving the body. This is not freedom. This is the antithesis of freedom.

Is that narrow enough for you?

Your thesis seems to be something like "I have to buy a permit to add an addition to my house, therefore there's no freedom". But that kind of objection withers with a moments thought. While the myriad of residential statutes can be irksome, and oft abused by tax hungry governments, I'm quite happy that my neighbor will probably be disallowed from erecting a gargantuan tower that looms over my property, blocking the sun, among other things, and killing the property value of my plot and the other neighbors. While they aren't perfect, many of those sorts of regulations are inherently freedom maximizing, not the other way around. In principle, there is nothing wrong with those sorts of regulations, if done right.

I'm also happy I can call the cops on my neighbor if he decides to use his backyard as a trash dump, and that I can wield the power of government to force him to clean it up, even though he may meticulously ensure that none of that trash ever crossed his property line. While this reduces my neighbors freedom, I do not think any reasonable person would say that his 'natural rights' are unduly violated.

So it looks as if you are using the word freedom as a synonym for natural rights - but they arent necessarily the same thing. That is why I asked for clarification.

House
03-14-2010, 10:39 AM
I live in a social democracy and I'm very far to the left of any of your politicians. For my country, making it more difficult to become wealthy and stay wealthy is a reasonable compromise to me and most of the people I know because of what it gives us. We get healthcare that don't require us to deal with corrupt insurance companies that continously look for loopholes to avoid paying what they're required to pay. We get help if we need to get back on our feet and we give help if others need to get back on their feet. We ensure that people get the opportunity to get a proper education without having to get into ridiculous amounts of debt. Trips to the hospital in an ambulance aren't dependent on whether or not the insurance company thinks it's an emergency.

Do I like this system more than a system that lets a bunch of old money families get even richer, or lets poor people get even poorer, or lets people suffer so that you can protect the interests of the 1% of the population because they control 40% of the wealth, or lets people get into enormous amounts of debt because their insurance company decided that their stroke was a pre-existing condition, or lets the conservative right rewrite history because they feel their movement don't get enough credit for significant events in history, or lets Creationism get into science class rooms, or lets majority groups tread on the rights of minorities because a religious book says their existence is a sin, or lets companies with billions of dollars be able to donate as much as they want for political campaigns.

Yes, I like the system my country has more the system your country has - Because of the checks and balances that are in in place to ensure that even if you make mistakes you won't have destroyed the possibility of having a good life, while still having the possibility that exceptional people can become powerful, rich and go places that that ordinary people can't, our system just makes it harder for them to do that - but given the fact that they are exceptional, I don't see why that would be a problem(and it really isn't).

My idea of liberty is a system that allows you to try new things and experience great things, but with safety nets so that if you make mistakes, you won't have doomed yourself to a crap life. If that idea of liberty puts some restraints on people who try and succeed in their endeavours, that's okay because as the Bible says "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."(John 11:50).

Constitutionally Speaking
03-14-2010, 11:01 AM
I live in a social democracy and I'm very far to the left of any of your politicians. For my country, making it more difficult to become wealthy and stay wealthy is a reasonable compromise to me and most of the people I know because of what it gives us. We get healthcare that don't require us to deal with corrupt insurance companies that continously look for loopholes to avoid paying what they're required to pay. We get help if we need to get back on our feet and we give help if others need to get back on their feet. We ensure that people get the opportunity to get a proper education without having to get into ridiculous amounts of debt. Trips to the hospital in an ambulance aren't dependent on whether or not the insurance company thinks it's an emergency.

Do I like this system more than a system that lets a bunch of old money families get even richer, or lets poor people get even poorer, or lets people suffer so that you can protect the interests of the 1% of the population because they control 40% of the wealth, or lets people get into enormous amounts of debt because their insurance company decided that their stroke was a pre-existing condition, or lets the conservative right rewrite history because they feel their movement don't get enough credit for significant events in history, or lets Creationism get into science class rooms, or lets majority groups tread on the rights of minorities because a religious book says their existence is a sin, or lets companies with billions of dollars be able to donate as much as they want for political campaigns.

Yes, I like the system my country has more the system your country has - Because of the checks and balances that are in in place to ensure that even if you make mistakes you won't have destroyed the possibility of having a good life, while still having the possibility that exceptional people can become powerful, rich and go places that that ordinary people can't, our system just makes it harder for them to do that - but given the fact that they are exceptional, I don't see why that would be a problem(and it really isn't).

My idea of liberty is a system that allows you to try new things and experience great things, but with safety nets so that if you make mistakes, you won't have doomed yourself to a crap life. If that idea of liberty puts some restraints on people who try and succeed in their endeavours, that's okay because as the Bible says "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."(John 11:50).


The "corrupt" insurance company is LARGELY fiction. The VAST majority of them operate fairly - and if they do not, they can be sued and even prosecuted.

We have plenty of checks and balances, and because we DON'T have socialism, the chances we take are more likely to pay off. Even if they don't there is PLENTY of cushion to keep you from living in poverty.

I am a PRIME example of that. In my life, I have tried several businesses and for one reason or another, all but the last business I have started, failed.

If things here were as you say they are, I would be destitute and poor. However, my last business has succeeded well beyond my wildest expectations and I now live comfortably and employ several people who also can live comfortably.


There is a reason why America has lead the world in economic terms and in terms of freedom and lifestyle.

It is because we have resisted the soft chains of "democratic" socialism more so than many other countries. In fact - our economic prosperity has diminished as we have "progressed" along a path closer to yours.

Constitutionally Speaking
03-14-2010, 11:06 AM
Do I like this system more than a system that lets a bunch of old money families get even richer, or lets poor people get even poorer, or lets people suffer so that you can protect the interests of the 1% of the population because they control 40% of the wealth, or lets people get into enormous amounts of debt because their insurance company decided that their stroke was a pre-existing condition, or lets the conservative right rewrite history because they feel their movement don't get enough credit for significant events in history, or lets Creationism get into science class rooms, or lets majority groups tread on the rights of minorities because a religious book says their existence is a sin, or lets companies with billions of dollars be able to donate as much as they want for political campaigns.


What a crock of shit.

Our poor have all they need to move to the upper income classes and in fact - they OFTEN do - IF they resist the powerful drug of welfare.

You have so distorted everything here that someone might be inclined to think you are purposely lying.

linda22003
03-14-2010, 12:53 PM
Freedom is Liberty...

And Liberty...

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0904/liberty-world-turns-neocons-republicans-conservatives-demotivational-poster-1239394857.jpg (http://www.motifake.com/liberty-world-turns-neocons-republicans-conservatives-demotivational-poster-52926.html)

She's headed for the pole.

NJCardFan
03-14-2010, 03:58 PM
I'm going to answer House on this "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" stupidity by using an old axiom:

"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got."

A social experiment I wish I could do would be this: Take the entire country's income and divide it equally. There would be no more poor and no more rich. Everyone starts out with the same amount to the penny. The economic system in place today does not change one bit. My guess is that within 10 years, most of who were considered wealthy will be wealthy again and a vast majority who were considered poor will be poor again. There will be exceptions of course but if you want reality on how "poor: people handle money, just look at some lottery winners. A good many are broke in 5 years.

linda22003
03-14-2010, 04:31 PM
A social experiment I wish I could do would be this: Take the entire country's income and divide it equally. There would be no more poor and no more rich. Everyone starts out with the same amount to the penny.

There are already enough people in Congress and in the White House working on THAT social experiment, except eliminating the ability for the second part you describe.

Zeus
03-14-2010, 04:38 PM
I'm going to answer House on this "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" stupidity by using an old axiom:

"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got."

A social experiment I wish I could do would be this: Take the entire country's income and divide it equally. There would be no more poor and no more rich. Everyone starts out with the same amount to the penny. The economic system in place today does not change one bit. My guess is that within 10 years, most of who were considered wealthy will be wealthy again and a vast majority who were considered poor will be poor again. There will be exceptions of course but if you want reality on how "poor: people handle money, just look at some lottery winners. A good many are broke in 5 years.

Some yrs back a think tank did a study of the habits both personal & financial of wealthy people and poor folks. They then did as you suggest,divvy up the countries wealth evenly. They came up with everything would be back to the way it is now as far as wealth distribution, In less than 2 generations.

lacarnut
03-14-2010, 05:07 PM
Some yrs back a think tank did a study of the habits both personal & financial of wealthy people and poor folks. They then did as you suggest,divvy up the countries wealth evenly. They came up with everything would be back to the way it is now as far as wealth distribution, In less than 2 generations.

I would say it would take less than 1 generation. The stupid and the lazy would sit back, be unproductive, spend lavishly and wind up broke. The smart go getter's thru their labor would wind up with most of their money.

Constitutionally Speaking
03-14-2010, 06:19 PM
I would say it would take less than 1 generation. The stupid and the lazy would sit back, be unproductive, spend lavishly and wind up broke. The smart go getter's thru their labor would wind up with most of their money.


All you need to confirm this is to look at the lottery winners. Most of them die broke.

Rockntractor
03-14-2010, 06:19 PM
I live in a social democracy and I'm very far to the left of any of your politicians. For my country, making it more difficult to become wealthy and stay wealthy is a reasonable compromise to me and most of the people I know because of what it gives us. We get healthcare that don't require us to deal with corrupt insurance companies that continously look for loopholes to avoid paying what they're required to pay. We get help if we need to get back on our feet and we give help if others need to get back on their feet. We ensure that people get the opportunity to get a proper education without having to get into ridiculous amounts of debt. Trips to the hospital in an ambulance aren't dependent on whether or not the insurance company thinks it's an emergency.

Do I like this system more than a system that lets a bunch of old money families get even richer, or lets poor people get even poorer, or lets people suffer so that you can protect the interests of the 1% of the population because they control 40% of the wealth, or lets people get into enormous amounts of debt because their insurance company decided that their stroke was a pre-existing condition, or lets the conservative right rewrite history because they feel their movement don't get enough credit for significant events in history, or lets Creationism get into science class rooms, or lets majority groups tread on the rights of minorities because a religious book says their existence is a sin, or lets companies with billions of dollars be able to donate as much as they want for political campaigns.

Yes, I like the system my country has more the system your country has - Because of the checks and balances that are in in place to ensure that even if you make mistakes you won't have destroyed the possibility of having a good life, while still having the possibility that exceptional people can become powerful, rich and go places that that ordinary people can't, our system just makes it harder for them to do that - but given the fact that they are exceptional, I don't see why that would be a problem(and it really isn't).

My idea of liberty is a system that allows you to try new things and experience great things, but with safety nets so that if you make mistakes, you won't have doomed yourself to a crap life. If that idea of liberty puts some restraints on people who try and succeed in their endeavours, that's okay because as the Bible says "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."(John 11:50).

Nice little story but this place only exists in your head where you made it up.

wilbur
03-14-2010, 07:10 PM
What a crock of shit.

Our poor have all they need to move to the upper income classes and in fact - they OFTEN do - IF they resist the powerful drug of welfare.

You have so distorted everything here that someone might be inclined to think you are purposely lying.

Well, they have all they need except money, a decent education, opportunity, health care, the list goes on.

The romantic conservative fairy tale of the stoic poor man working his way out of poverty is just that - a myth. The few that do are the exception to the rule. Poverty is largely inherited. Conservatives like to think we're all nature and no nurture - at least when it comes to our responsibility to aid the poor.

Here in the US, though... we only provide the good saftey nets for the super rich and mega corps.... cuz I guess they need it more... or something.. (they're too big to fail!).

fettpett
03-14-2010, 08:45 PM
Well, they have all they need except money, a decent education, opportunity, health care, the list goes on.

The romantic conservative fairy tale of the stoic poor man working his way out of poverty is just that - a myth. The few that do are the exception to the rule. Poverty is largely inherited. Conservatives like to think we're all nature and no nurture - at least when it comes to our responsibility to aid the poor.

Here in the US, though... we only provide the good saftey nets for the super rich and mega corps.... cuz I guess they need it more... or something.. (they're too big to fail!).

if you're talking about moving from poverty to mega rich, yeah there are few that do that. but the number of people that move from poor to low-middle to low-high class happens all the time.

NJCardFan
03-14-2010, 09:04 PM
Well, they have all they need except money, a decent education, opportunity, health care, the list goes on.

The romantic conservative fairy tale of the stoic poor man working his way out of poverty is just that - a myth. The few that do are the exception to the rule. Poverty is largely inherited. Conservatives like to think we're all nature and no nurture - at least when it comes to our responsibility to aid the poor.

Here in the US, though... we only provide the good saftey nets for the super rich and mega corps.... cuz I guess they need it more... or something.. (they're too big to fail!).
My God are you incredibly stupid. They don't have the opportunity? Are you serious? Everyone is given the same opportunities, in general. Can't get a decent education? Well, they could if they were allowed to attend the school of their choice instead of being forced to attend the neighborhood school but be that as it may, no one prevents anyone from reading a book. Public libraries are free. Some of the greatest minds in history were self taught. Issac Newton comes to mind. Also, Bill Gates was a college dropout so your argument fails. A "decent education" does not necessarily lead to prosperity. I know people who have masters degrees but end up working in some menial environment because they just don't have the drive to be successful. Healthcare? Next. Never have I seen anyone, rich or poor, say that they're in the position they're in because of the healthcare they were provided. Humans have survived for centuries without government provided healthcare so get off of this liberal idiocy. As I said, we're all given relatively the same opportunities. It's what you do with it. There are countless stories of people rising up from poverty to prosperity.

As for aiding the poor, for decades churches were the most prominent in helping the poor. Mother Theresa spent her entire life helping the poor. One of the biggest charitable organizations on the planet is a Christian organization. Perhaps you've heard of them: The Salvation Army. And you want to bring up the bailouts? OK, I actually agree. However, there has been more money doled out for welfare and other social programs than all of these bailouts combined. How many people have been helped out of poverty by welfare? Um, none? My step mother used to work in a doctors office. She used to see generations of the same family on welfare. That means free food, housing assistance, etc. These people stay where they are because they're too stupid and lazy to prosper. So, put down the liberal talking points and actually take a good look at some people. They are where they are because of the effort they put in to their lives.

Big Guy
03-14-2010, 09:21 PM
Well, they have all they need except money, a decent education, opportunity, health care, the list goes on.

The romantic conservative fairy tale of the stoic poor man working his way out of poverty is just that - a myth. The few that do are the exception to the rule. Poverty is largely inherited. Conservatives like to think we're all nature and no nurture - at least when it comes to our responsibility to aid the poor.

Here in the US, though... we only provide the good saftey nets for the super rich and mega corps.... cuz I guess they need it more... or something.. (they're too big to fail!).

I am a classic example of someone who came from "Dirt Poor" roots and completely changed my own life.

I was raised in the projects of Flint, Michigan. I used to go to the store with foodstamps and a note from my Mom to get her a Coke and a pack of smokes. I would use the food stamps to get her a coke and then use the change to get her a pack of smokes. The first time I had new out of the box shoes was when I joined the Army in 1983.

I decided to break the chains and that I would NEVER get public assistance again.

Now I have a full time job, a part time job and I own a small buisness. I still pinch my pennies even though I dont have to. I will retire in a few years I will need for NOTHING.

I had the same money, education, opportunity, health care as everyone else in the projects. The big difference is that I have Pride, Drive and the belief that in this country ANYONE can "make it" if they aren't looking for a friggin hand out.

Freeman_Shadwell
03-14-2010, 11:00 PM
Big Guy, I have a similar background. It can be done, it just can't be handed to you.

Anyway, a liberal's idea of freedom is the more they get that is free to them,whether it be food stamps, subsidized housing, health care, safe link cell phone, etc. the more freedom they have. If that makes any sense.

linda22003
03-15-2010, 04:17 AM
They don't have the opportunity? Are you serious? Everyone is given the same opportunities, in general. Can't get a decent education? Well, they could if they were allowed to attend the school of their choice instead of being forced to attend the neighborhood school

Yes, but they want others to pay for it. This is where "conservatives" suddenly sound very liberal, in wanting a handout when a public education is already provided.

FlaGator
03-15-2010, 06:43 AM
I am a classic example of someone who came from "Dirt Poor" roots and completely changed my own life.

I was raised in the projects of Flint, Michigan. I used to go to the store with foodstamps and a note from my Mom to get her a Coke and a pack of smokes. I would use the food stamps to get her a coke and then use the change to get her a pack of smokes. The first time I had new out of the box shoes was when I joined the Army in 1983.

I decided to break the chains and that I would NEVER get public assistance again.

Now I have a full time job, a part time job and I own a small buisness. I still pinch my pennies even though I dont have to. I will retire in a few years I will need for NOTHING.

I had the same money, education, opportunity, health care as everyone else in the projects. The big difference is that I have Pride, Drive and the belief that in this country ANYONE can "make it" if they aren't looking for a friggin hand out.

I too am an example of being dirt poor and using the gifts that God gave me to be come financially secure and successful. Wilbur's myth is itself a myth. More people have done it than he is willing to believe.

Swampfox
03-15-2010, 06:47 AM
I'm very libertarian oriented, so my idea of freedom is strict adherence to the Constitution, a small, very limited federal government that keeps its nose out of the business of the private lives of individuals other than to protect property rights (i.e. arrest criminals that steal, murder, commit fraud, etc) and a few limited things.

noonwitch
03-15-2010, 08:03 AM
I am a classic example of someone who came from "Dirt Poor" roots and completely changed my own life.

I was raised in the projects of Flint, Michigan. I used to go to the store with foodstamps and a note from my Mom to get her a Coke and a pack of smokes. I would use the food stamps to get her a coke and then use the change to get her a pack of smokes. The first time I had new out of the box shoes was when I joined the Army in 1983.

I decided to break the chains and that I would NEVER get public assistance again.

Now I have a full time job, a part time job and I own a small buisness. I still pinch my pennies even though I dont have to. I will retire in a few years I will need for NOTHING.

I had the same money, education, opportunity, health care as everyone else in the projects. The big difference is that I have Pride, Drive and the belief that in this country ANYONE can "make it" if they aren't looking for a friggin hand out.


I used to hate it when people did that with food stamps! I worked at a store in the 80s, and there was nothing we could do about it, even when we saw it happening. People would give each of their kids a $1 food stamp, send each in to buy a candy bar or something, then take the change and come in to buy a pack of cigarettes. The EBT cards help prevent that to some extent.

Flint, man. I was there for work a couple of weeks ago, for a court hearing. Downtown is looking better than it did a few years ago.

Anyways, my definition of freedom, as a liberal. Freedom to me has always meant self-determination. As a free person, I have the right to choose how to live my life, and I have the responsibility to live by the consequences of the choices I make.

Sonnabend
03-15-2010, 09:20 AM
Liberty to me means I am my only master, to be free to come and go as I please and to live without governmental interference. I agree with laws, and if a man or woman abides by those laws, they should be left the hell alone.

"If that is granted, then all else follows" - Winston Smith.

AmPat
03-15-2010, 10:58 AM
She's headed for the pole.

I'll buy it for her.

AmPat
03-15-2010, 11:03 AM
I used to hate it when people did that with food stamps! I worked at a store in the 80s, and there was nothing we could do about it, even when we saw it happening. People would give each of their kids a $1 food stamp, send each in to buy a candy bar or something, then take the change and come in to buy a pack of cigarettes. The EBT cards help prevent that to some extent.

Flint, man. I was there for work a couple of weeks ago, for a court hearing. Downtown is looking better than it did a few years ago.

Anyways, my definition of freedom, as a liberal. Freedom to me has always meant self-determination. As a free person, I have the right to choose how to live my life, and I have the responsibility to live by the consequences of the choices I make.

You dear lady, are no liberal. You may feel free to call yourself one if it makes you feel good. Responsibility and freedom are anathema to liberals. They want others to be responsible for their well being and give up freedom to big government to ensure it.

Megaguns91
03-15-2010, 03:07 PM
I live in a social democracy and I'm very far to the left of any of your politicians. For my country, making it more difficult to become wealthy and stay wealthy is a reasonable compromise to me and most of the people I know because of what it gives us. We get healthcare that don't require us to deal with corrupt insurance companies that continously look for loopholes to avoid paying what they're required to pay. We get help if we need to get back on our feet and we give help if others need to get back on their feet. We ensure that people get the opportunity to get a proper education without having to get into ridiculous amounts of debt. Trips to the hospital in an ambulance aren't dependent on whether or not the insurance company thinks it's an emergency.

Do I like this system more than a system that lets a bunch of old money families get even richer, or lets poor people get even poorer, or lets people suffer so that you can protect the interests of the 1% of the population because they control 40% of the wealth, or lets people get into enormous amounts of debt because their insurance company decided that their stroke was a pre-existing condition, or lets the conservative right rewrite history because they feel their movement don't get enough credit for significant events in history, or lets Creationism get into science class rooms, or lets majority groups tread on the rights of minorities because a religious book says their existence is a sin, or lets companies with billions of dollars be able to donate as much as they want for political campaigns.

Yes, I like the system my country has more the system your country has - Because of the checks and balances that are in in place to ensure that even if you make mistakes you won't have destroyed the possibility of having a good life, while still having the possibility that exceptional people can become powerful, rich and go places that that ordinary people can't, our system just makes it harder for them to do that - but given the fact that they are exceptional, I don't see why that would be a problem(and it really isn't).

My idea of liberty is a system that allows you to try new things and experience great things, but with safety nets so that if you make mistakes, you won't have doomed yourself to a crap life. If that idea of liberty puts some restraints on people who try and succeed in their endeavours, that's okay because as the Bible says "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."(John 11:50).



You should try getting off acid for a second, buddy.

Another great new thing to experience for you would be a job!

NJCardFan
03-16-2010, 03:54 AM
I've yet to see any liberal here give their idea of what freedom is. Wilbur conveniently sidestepped the question, twice and the others have yet to give their opinions. This does nothing but confirm my suspicions that liberals are nothing but a bunch of bed wetting cowards. But I'm still willing to allow them to prove me wrong. Stop being cowards and answer the fucking question. Don't give me this crap about the question being ambiguous. It is not an ambiguous question. It's straight forward enough. Have the courage to explain your views. Tell me it's right to take from one by force and give to another. Explain to us why being attached to the proverbial hip of the federal government when it comes to your basic needs is your idea of freedom. I don't want to hear convoluted bullshit about your neighbor having a trash heap. That is side stepping the issue. Anyone with a brain knows that there needs to be law and order in a civilized society but freedom loving people understand that those laws must have limits. Neal Boortz, IMO, has the best explanation of what freedom is and that is having the ability to "live your life as you see fit as long as you do not infringe on anyone elses life, liberty, or property through force or fraud." But, libs, tell me how allowing the government to seize my property so you can have healthcare is freedom? Tell me how seizing my property so you can have a home is freedom? Tell me how seizing my property so you can eat is freedom? Don't give me any crap about how my taxes go toward the military or firefighters or police because I personally benefit from that service. However, taking from me so you can buy candy and potato chips doesn't benefit me one iota. So, stop being cowardly and explain to me what your view of freedom is. In fact, I double dog dare you to state your views on the subject and everyone knows that you cannot sidestep the double dog dare.

Speedy
03-16-2010, 05:30 AM
I'll tell Wilbur what my idea of freedom is. When I am working so some OTHER asshole can have everything I have, I'll feel free to stop contributing and let Wilbur support me.

I work because I am a consumer, I work because I would rather drive a Vette than a Hyundai. I bust my ass because I like my big plasma TV. I like my cable, my motorcycles, my guns and gadgets. I have healthcare right now because I am paying for it. Life is about decisions. Everybody can look at where they are in life and if they looked back over their life honestly they can see where they took the turns that put them where they are now.

I had a neighbor who was a welder that lived next door to me and next door to him lived another welder. My neighbor was dirt poor. His kids wore hand me downs. He got his utilites cutoff a couple of times a year. The other guy had nice things, spoiled his wife and bought new vehicles every couple of years. The difference? My neighbor had decided that he wanted a shitload of kids. He had a dozen of them. The other guy had two. Both worked just as hard. I never felt bad seeing how these kids lived. They had a dad. Now if the other guy all of a sudden was forced to lower his standard of living so the guy with all the kids could have his raised, would it be fair?

I tell you how I would react. I would curtail my productivity. I've gotten paycuts before. If I am making $20 an hour and all of a sudden I am paid $15, you will start getting $15 worth of work. If more money is going to the government, then I really curtail what I do.

wilbur
03-16-2010, 07:54 AM
I clearly already answered your question, as directly as I could, given its broad scope. Now near as I can tell, you seem to be perhaps digging for specifics as to how my idea of freedom influences policy? Please note: spittle flecked rants are not clearly posed questions.



..."live your life as you see fit as long as you do not infringe on anyone elses life, liberty, or property through force or fraud."

That's pretty compatible with the answer I gave, I think. Of course, infringing one someone elses life and property are impossible to avoid under any government.

The hard part figuring out how only to restrict non-essential freedoms, when needed, in a way that will maximize better and greater freedoms.



But, libs, tell me how allowing the government to seize my property so you can have healthcare is freedom?


Government already seizes your property in a number ways, most notably through taxes - even conservatives agree that government, in theory, has the right to seize some of our property. Most don't seem to feel too bad about taking tax money to fund faith based initiates, for example.

But anyhow.. I already established that I feel its a task of government to maximize freedom. So how does this play out on an issue like socialized health care?

Well, I'm not opposed to it philosophically (this is not an endorsement of the current plan, however). Some of the big motivations behind socialized medicine are the beliefs that it could deliver medical service cheaper per person, provide equal or better quality, be accessible to everyone, could prevent medical financial ruin in case of catastrophe (better than insurance), and that it will generally keep the workforce in better health than private systems. In other words, its proponents will argue that nearly all of us will be substantially better off to such a degree that it maximizes our essential freedoms (in comparison to a private system).

IF socialized medicine could deliver on those things, it would absolutely be government's duty to implement it, since it would be freedom maximizing (even for those who saw their taxes go up as a result). They are likely to benefit financially, through better health, and through economic opportunity in a successful socialized system.

Has socialized medicine ever delivered on those things, in practice? Yes. Socialized medicine has had some clear cut successes in some countries. In others, its had failures. It can be done, but I'm not convinced it could be done here - though I think it would be fairly trivial to improve, in many ways, over our mess of a private system. Its certainly our duty to consider it, and possibly even implement it, should we ever get a realistic, good plan.

Sonnabend
03-16-2010, 08:51 AM
The hard part figuring out how only to restrict non-essential freedoms, when needed, in a way that will maximize better and greater freedoms.

I cant think of any freedoms that are "non essential" :rolleyes:

wilbur
03-16-2010, 09:18 AM
I cant think of any freedoms that are "non essential" :rolleyes:

Well, than that simply tells us just how little you actually think, and that your mind has all the depth of a kiddie pool.

As I already expalined, I don't hold freedoms and natural rights to be the same thing. Natural rights are a subset of freedoms which are much less malleable to restriction.

Non-essential freedoms include things like the freedom to dump all your trash in your backyard, or the freedom to refuse medical care to a black person, or the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater. We restrict those types of freedom heavily.

Sonnabend
03-16-2010, 09:33 AM
Well, than that simply tells us just how little you actually think, and that your mind has all the depth of a kiddie pool.Or just how little you value individual freedom. So answer the question.

Define any freedom that is "non essential.

Cant be that hard, now, can it?


As I already expalined, I don't hold freedoms and natural rights to be the same thing. Natural rights are a subset of freedoms which are much less malleable to restriction.You didn't explain anything.

Natural rights are freedoms in every sense of the word.


Non-essential freedoms include things like the freedom to dump all your trash in your backyardCompost heaps? And it's my back yard, and why should I not be free to do with my own property as I see fit?


or the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theaterEven when it's on fire?


. We restrict those types of freedom heavily.Well, wilbur, we all know just how much you'd like to see freedoms restricted, voices silenced, dissent stifled.........

So tell me wilbur, do you see the right to keep and bear arms as a right that should be restricted? Freedom of speech? Freedom of expression? (C'mon wilbur, you're just itching to be able to ban any book that dares argue with the AGW "consensus", isn't that so?...be honest, you're the kind of person that would be happy to see some things "restricted for our own good"..admit it.)

The nanny state is all knowing, and all wise....right?

Oh and as for "refusing medical care to a black person", doctors are already refusing treatment to AIDS patients and refusing to operate on smokers.

Hm?

Wei Wu Wei
03-16-2010, 10:39 AM
Hmm I missed some threads while sleeping inside an icecube on top of a mountain. I'm in a hotel for another hour though so I'll take a stab at this one.

Freedom is an empty signifier. It doesn't refer to anything specific. It's an ideological blind spot that we constantly reference, and some even go as far as to die for, but it doesn't mean anything inherently.

We could say, as I think most people would agree with, that freedom is the securing of certain rights. The question then is, "what are legitimate rights, and what are not?".

Tricky thing is, the answer to this isn't as clear cut as it intuitively seems.

Wei Wu Wei
03-16-2010, 10:47 AM
There is no absolutely "right" or "true" answer to this. We as a collective society decide what freedoms are acceptable and what are not.

Fundamentalist thinkers love to try to find some ineffable anchor but there aren't any.

The types of things that are drilled into our heads as being the "true freedoms" are those that the ruling class has decided will help their interests.

wilbur
03-16-2010, 11:06 AM
Or just how little you value individual freedom. So answer the question.

Define any freedom that is "non essential.

Cant be that hard, now, can it?

Thought I did a pretty good job at explaining what I meant by non-essential freedom. I even gave examples.


You didn't explain anything.

I'm discovering its a pretty arduous task to get you to understand the meaning of basic phrases and words. So not really seeing the point in trying to explain much more to you.


Natural rights are freedoms in every sense of the word.

Proof positive that you don't read posts you respond too... or at least don't bother to try and understand them. I said natural rights are a subset of all freedoms, which necessarily implies that all natural rights are, in fact, freedoms. But not all freedoms are natural rights. All dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs. Got it?


Compost heaps? And it's my back yard, and why should I not be free to do with my own property as I see fit?

Because its relatively uncontroversial that such a restriction upon personal freedom is justified by the harm upon others that permitting such a freedom would cause. Perhaps over there in the outback one can do that without affecting others, but in any urban population, its not possible. Hence, its restricted.


Even when it's on fire?

Uh, no. Really? That example is a well known example of a justifiable restriction on the freedom of speech, when the yelling fire is not truthful.


Well, wilbur, we all know just how much you'd like to see freedoms restricted, voices silenced, dissent stifled.........

Unless one assumes that I'm being untruthful here, then my words in this thread show this to be absurd slander.


So tell me wilbur, do you see the right to keep and bear arms as a right that should be restricted? Freedom of speech? Freedom of expression? (C'mon wilbur, you're just itching to be able to ban any book that dares argue with the AGW "consensus", isn't that so?...be honest, you're the kind of person that would be happy to see some things "restricted for our own good"..admit it.)

Yes, all those freedoms are not carte blanche unrestricted. Not even speech. If I were to say in print, that I saw you rape a baby kangaroos, I can be prosecuted. And its a justified restriction on personal speech. There are justifiable restrictions on fire arm ownership, and just about everything else. Thats not even controversial.


Oh and as for "refusing medical care to a black person", doctors are already refusing treatment to AIDS patients and refusing to operate on smokers.

And I don't think thats right, depending on the circumstances.

fettpett
03-16-2010, 12:11 PM
Hmm I missed some threads while sleeping inside an icecube on top of a mountain. I'm in a hotel for another hour though so I'll take a stab at this one.

Freedom is an empty signifier. It doesn't refer to anything specific. It's an ideological blind spot that we constantly reference, and some even go as far as to die for, but it doesn't mean anything inherently.

We could say, as I think most people would agree with, that freedom is the securing of certain rights. The question then is, "what are legitimate rights, and what are not?".

Tricky thing is, the answer to this isn't as clear cut as it intuitively seems.


free·dom
   /ˈfridəm/ Show Spelled[free-duhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6.
exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7.
the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8.
ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.
frankness of manner or speech.
10.
general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11.
the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.
a liberty taken.
13.
a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14.
civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.
the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16.
the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17.
Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.Compare necessity (def. 7).


—Synonyms
1. Freedom, independence, liberty refer to an absence of undue restrictions and an opportunity to exercise one's rights and powers. Freedom emphasizes the opportunity given for the exercise of one's rights, powers, desires, or the like: freedom of speech or conscience; freedom of movement. Independence implies not only lack of restrictions but also the ability to stand alone, unsustained by anything else: Independence of thought promotes invention and discovery. Liberty, though most often interchanged with freedom, is also used to imply undue exercise of freedom: He took liberties with the text. 9. openness, ingenuousness. 12. license. 16. run.

dictionary.com

AmPat
03-16-2010, 02:09 PM
SUMMARY:

Liberal answers to this easy question are to generally act like Klintoon in that they don't know what the meaning of "is" is. Just like cockroaches, they fear the light.:cool:

wilbur
03-16-2010, 02:21 PM
SUMMARY:

Liberal answers to this easy question are to generally act like Klintoon in that they don't know what the meaning of "is" is. Just like cockroaches, they fear the light.:cool:

SUMMARY:

Person frustrated at scared at the prospect of deep or challenging thought, so retreat to simple minded old canards, and retreat meaningless, empty rhetoric.

Molon Labe
03-16-2010, 02:26 PM
There is no absolutely "right" or "true" answer to this. We as a collective society decide what freedoms are acceptable and what are not.

I call b.s.


This is one of the best visual representations of freedom I've come across. Alot of liberals need to watch this at least a dozen times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTQqvDtPzY0

FlaGator
03-16-2010, 02:37 PM
There is no absolutely "right" or "true" answer to this. We as a collective society decide what freedoms are acceptable and what are not.

Fundamentalist thinkers love to try to find some ineffable anchor but there aren't any.

The types of things that are drilled into our heads as being the "true freedoms" are those that the ruling class has decided will help their interests.

There is a right or true answer, but your question is overly broad and should be refined to be more specific. Freedom is a broad concept that covers a large number of more exacting concepts. For every specific concept of freedom that I can address you can counter it by showing the absence of freedom in a related but not the same concept. Liberal thinkers like to establish a debate around a very general concept such as "Freedom" in which there is much room to manuver and many points of view to work with. You refine your question and I will debate it with you.

stsinner
03-16-2010, 03:03 PM
I live in a social democracy and I'm very far to the left of any of your politicians. For my country, making it more difficult to become wealthy and stay wealthy is a reasonable compromise to me and most of the people I know because of what it gives us. We get healthcare that don't require us to deal with corrupt insurance companies that continously look for loopholes to avoid paying what they're required to pay. We get help if we need to get back on our feet and we give help if others need to get back on their feet. We ensure that people get the opportunity to get a proper education without having to get into ridiculous amounts of debt. Trips to the hospital in an ambulance aren't dependent on whether or not the insurance company thinks it's an emergency.

Do I like this system more than a system that lets a bunch of old money families get even richer, or lets poor people get even poorer, or lets people suffer so that you can protect the interests of the 1% of the population because they control 40% of the wealth, or lets people get into enormous amounts of debt because their insurance company decided that their stroke was a pre-existing condition, or lets the conservative right rewrite history because they feel their movement don't get enough credit for significant events in history, or lets Creationism get into science class rooms, or lets majority groups tread on the rights of minorities because a religious book says their existence is a sin, or lets companies with billions of dollars be able to donate as much as they want for political campaigns.

Yes, I like the system my country has more the system your country has - Because of the checks and balances that are in in place to ensure that even if you make mistakes you won't have destroyed the possibility of having a good life, while still having the possibility that exceptional people can become powerful, rich and go places that that ordinary people can't, our system just makes it harder for them to do that - but given the fact that they are exceptional, I don't see why that would be a problem(and it really isn't).

My idea of liberty is a system that allows you to try new things and experience great things, but with safety nets so that if you make mistakes, you won't have doomed yourself to a crap life. If that idea of liberty puts some restraints on people who try and succeed in their endeavours, that's okay because as the Bible says "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."(John 11:50).

The only part of this socialist post that I want to ask about is-what good is getting a college education if you're pretty much assured that you'll never get rich?

It sounds to me like you don't want to be responsible for earning anything that is given to you and are just fine to live off the work of your countrymen.. That attitude is very un-American, so it's good that you don't live here. .

Molon Labe
03-16-2010, 03:15 PM
My idea of liberty is a system that allows you to try new things and experience great things, but with safety nets so that if you make mistakes, you won't have doomed yourself to a crap life. If that idea of liberty puts some restraints on people who try and succeed in their endeavours, that's okay because as the Bible says "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."(John 11:50).

Wow. That's taken way out of context. Wasn't that said by Caephus? Not exactly one of the wisest men of the Bible and he wasn't exactly "Christ friendly".

Talking about Christ's "voluntary" sacrifice for humanity has nothing to do with a government that forces taxation and safety nets on the people.

Thus any saftey net or sacrifice is pointless unless it is done voluntarily by the individual. Otherwise it's coercion and immoral. You have a rather strange definition of freedom.

Zeus
03-16-2010, 03:21 PM
Wow. That's taken way out of context. Wasn't that said by Caephus? Not exactly one of the wisest men of the Bible and he wasn't exactly "Christ friendly".

Talking about Christ's "voluntary" sacrifice for humanity has nothing to do with a government that forces taxation and safety nets on the people.

Thus any saftey net or sacrifice is pointless unless it is done voluntarily by the individual. Otherwise it's coercion and immoral. You have a rather strange definition of freedom.

The so called social safety net has IMHO wrought more reckless and unconscionable behavior and actions than good. For either the individual or society at large

wilbur
03-16-2010, 03:56 PM
The so called social safety net has IMHO wrought more reckless and unconscionable behavior and actions than good. For either the individual or society at large

Having a safety net also encourages risk taking - the good kinds that produce innovation and progress.

Jfor
03-16-2010, 04:57 PM
Having a safety net also encourages risk taking - the good kinds that produce innovation and progress.

No it doesn't. What a safety net does is allow somebody to make a reckless decision and then say, oh well, I have a safety when this idiotic endeavor fails.

Sonnabend
03-16-2010, 05:01 PM
Perhaps over there in the outback one can do that without affecting others, but in any urban population, its not possible. Hence, its restricted.Seeing as I dont live in the Outback, and that more than 99.9% of all Australians dont live in the Outback, I'd say this describes you and not me.


Well, than that simply tells us just how little you actually think, and that your mind has all the depth of a kiddie pool.
There are justifiable restrictions on fire arm ownership, and just about everything else. Ah yes, the old liberal nanny state position, the nanny state knows all and knows far better than the people what is good for them and what is not. The restriction on firearm ownership cannot be justified, especially in the wake of rising crime waves, and the absolute proof that an armed society is a polite one.

The only restriction I would approve of is for felons and the mentally ill, other than that any law abiding citizen should be allowed to own and keep whatever firearms they like, and carry concealed any time they like.

Gun control only affects the law abiding. You know it. I know it.

Tell ya what, wilbur, I'll throw you a lifeline.

Let's talk freedoms.....let's talk guns, let's see if you can come up with a satisfactory reply to this simple question.

Prove to me conclusively that any level of gun control or "reasonable restriction" stops or prevents criminals from getting their hands on guns.

That cant be so hard now, can it?

FlaGator
03-16-2010, 05:05 PM
Having a safety net also encourages risk taking - the good kinds that produce innovation and progress.

Not the bad kinds like selling drugs to kinds from a government supplied apartment or allowing several generations of welfare mothers to suck the system dry while teaching their kids the ins and outs of living off the government teat. I guess you have to break a few eggs and all...

Molon Labe
03-16-2010, 05:58 PM
Having a safety net also encourages risk taking - the good kinds that produce innovation and progress.

Yes..as if there was never any innovation without one.


Do you seriously believe that?

wilbur
03-16-2010, 06:28 PM
Seeing as I dont live in the Outback, and that more than 99.9% of all Australians dont live in the Outback, I'd say this describes you and not me.

Ah yes, the old liberal nanny state position, the nanny state knows all and knows far better than the people what is good for them and what is not. The restriction on firearm ownership cannot be justified, especially in the wake of rising crime waves, and the absolute proof that an armed society is a polite one.

The only restriction I would approve of is for felons and the mentally ill, other than that any law abiding citizen should be allowed to own and keep whatever firearms they like, and carry concealed any time they like.

Gun control only affects the law abiding. You know it. I know it.

Tell ya what, wilbur, I'll throw you a lifeline.

Let's talk freedoms.....let's talk guns, let's see if you can come up with a satisfactory reply to this simple question.

Prove to me conclusively that any level of gun control or "reasonable restriction" stops or prevents criminals from getting their hands on guns.

That cant be so hard now, can it?

Oh dear - you've gone and forgotten what the argument is about again. Don't really care about gun control, but FWIW, I am more conservative on the issue than liberal (though with the caveat that I'm only superficially familiar with the arguments from either side) But it doesnt matter, because I wasnt inviting you to an argument about gun control, nor inviting myself into one. You seem to have a thing for irrelevant tangents. Perhaps because if you keep hopping from one irrelevant tangent to the next, you'll eventually hit something where you feel you can come out on top.

My sole purpose in mentioning gun restrictions (one minor example among several others that you are choosing to ignore now, btw) was simply to confront you with the fact that, you, me, every sane person in the world, favors some restrictions on some freedoms, whether its gun control, the ability to shout fire in crowded spaces, or any number of other possibilities. If restrictions on gun ownership is too problematic of an example here, fine - forget about it. I offered others.

There are justifiable reasons to restrict freedoms for the benefit of others in society. If you have beef with that, make your case. If not, then wtf are you doing here?

wilbur
03-16-2010, 07:29 PM
Yes..as if there was never any innovation without one.

Thats not what I claimed. Some safety nets, if well designed and planned, can help create an environment that is more fertile for innovation than without. I'm not saying safety nets are responsible for all innovation at all. They just help.


Do you seriously believe that?

Of course, and so do you, at least a little - that is, unless you want to get rid of bankruptcy and bring back debtors prisons.

FlaGator
03-16-2010, 08:29 PM
Thats not what I claimed. Some safety nets, if well designed and planned, can help create an environment that is more fertile for innovation than without. I'm not saying safety nets are responsible for all innovation at all. They just help.



snip

Can you elaborate on that perhaps with an example.

AmPat
03-16-2010, 08:46 PM
SUMMARY:

Person frustrated at scared at the prospect of deep or challenging thought, so retreat to simple minded old canards, and retreat meaningless, empty rhetoric.

So answer the simple question. He didn't ask you to define freedom. He didn't ask you to solve for pi. He didn't ask you for Kierkegaard or Neitzsche's thoughts. He ask what LIBERALS idea of freedom is. Stop building a freaking watch everytime somebody asks you for the time.

Wei Wu Wei
03-16-2010, 09:55 PM
I live in a social democracy and I'm very far to the left of any of your politicians. For my country, making it more difficult to become wealthy and stay wealthy is a reasonable compromise to me and most of the people I know because of what it gives us. We get healthcare that don't require us to deal with corrupt insurance companies that continously look for loopholes to avoid paying what they're required to pay. We get help if we need to get back on our feet and we give help if others need to get back on their feet. We ensure that people get the opportunity to get a proper education without having to get into ridiculous amounts of debt. Trips to the hospital in an ambulance aren't dependent on whether or not the insurance company thinks it's an emergency.

Do I like this system more than a system that lets a bunch of old money families get even richer, or lets poor people get even poorer, or lets people suffer so that you can protect the interests of the 1% of the population because they control 40% of the wealth, or lets people get into enormous amounts of debt because their insurance company decided that their stroke was a pre-existing condition, or lets the conservative right rewrite history because they feel their movement don't get enough credit for significant events in history, or lets Creationism get into science class rooms, or lets majority groups tread on the rights of minorities because a religious book says their existence is a sin, or lets companies with billions of dollars be able to donate as much as they want for political campaigns.

Yes, I like the system my country has more the system your country has - Because of the checks and balances that are in in place to ensure that even if you make mistakes you won't have destroyed the possibility of having a good life, while still having the possibility that exceptional people can become powerful, rich and go places that that ordinary people can't, our system just makes it harder for them to do that - but given the fact that they are exceptional, I don't see why that would be a problem(and it really isn't).

My idea of liberty is a system that allows you to try new things and experience great things, but with safety nets so that if you make mistakes, you won't have doomed yourself to a crap life. If that idea of liberty puts some restraints on people who try and succeed in their endeavours, that's okay because as the Bible says "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."(John 11:50).

sounds very nice.

most of what I se here is nothing but ideology (in the classic sense) atwork

patriot45
03-16-2010, 10:00 PM
sounds very nice.

most of what I se here is nothing but ideology (in the classic sense) atwork

Freedom is gone. When I grew up we were free, free from asshole gov intervention. You can't even pick your nose now without some gov regulations!

Wei Wu Wei
03-16-2010, 10:06 PM
Freedom is gone. When I grew up we were free, free from asshole gov intervention. You can't even pick your nose now without some gov regulations!

Really? When did you grow up? During the American Anarchy of 1889?

oh wait...

Wei Wu Wei
03-16-2010, 10:09 PM
Freedom is gone. When I grew up we were free, free from asshole gov intervention. You can't even pick your nose now without some gov regulations!

You didn't have the FDA back then?

how about the Commerce Department? The Department of Transportation (this one is possible)? Food and Drug administration?

and so on and so on

patriot45
03-16-2010, 10:14 PM
Really? When did you grow up? During the American Anarchy of 1889?

oh wait...

I'm talking about real freedom asshole. Freedom to be an American! Go out and play in the actual outdoors without a mandate for elbow pads or a helmet! Without the threat of a lawsuit if you broke your arm falling out of a nieghbors tree! What is freedom to you , you asshole!???

NJCardFan
03-16-2010, 11:49 PM
Having a safety net also encourages risk taking - the good kinds that produce innovation and progress.

Oh this is rich. Again, this is not freedom. When said safety net comes from others is not freedom. For example: A woman goes and has unprotected sex and gets pregnant. She has the child yet cannot afford to raise the child so she goes on welfare, which is paid for by the taxpayer. Now, a thinking person can look at the preceding analogy and see Wilbur's comment gone askew. Yes this woman did exercise a freedom by having sex. Her choice, n'est ce-pas? And did she not take a risk by having unprotected sex even though she knew that if she got pregnant she couldn't afford to raise the child? She had the safety net of welfare as well as other social programs but these programs are paid for by seizing someone elses income. What was freedom to her ended up infringing on someone elses freedom. And safety nets to not encourage risk taking. Besides, what the hell do you mean? Do you mean that someone can take a risk and if they fail, the gubment is there to help them out? OK, this help is in the form of taxes which infringe on someone elses freedom, no? And don't give me this load of bullshit:

Government already seizes your property in a number ways, most notably through taxes - even conservatives agree that government, in theory, has the right to seize some of our property. Most don't seem to feel too bad about taking tax money to fund faith based initiates, for example.
This is the typical liberal response. Conservatives do not have a problem with taxation. We don't. You just hear us bloviate about taxes but you don't listen closely enough. It's not that conservatives don't want to pay any taxes, we're pissed about how those taxes are handled. We're fine with police, fire, military, 1st responders, prisons, courts, infrastructure, etc. We're pissed when taxes go to welfare, the National Endowment For the Arts, federal education control, etc. and when they start running our of money to spend, they raise taxes, again. When taxes are spent on something everyone benefits from(police, etc), conservatives are a-ok with it. It's when things aren't done to benefit all. Let me ask you. Say I lose my job through no fault of my own tomorrow. Do you think I'll be able to walk into my local welfare office and get assistance? Not on your life buddy and I know this from personal experience. So, again, you fail in your argument.

Sonnabend
03-17-2010, 06:39 AM
If you have beef with that, make your case. If not, then wtf are you doing here?

Proving what a fool you are. :D

Molon Labe
03-17-2010, 07:14 AM
Freedom is gone. When I grew up we were free, free from asshole gov intervention. You can't even pick your nose now without some gov regulations!

Right you are. I just saw an interview with a man who is in his early 70's. He clearly doesn't look under 21. He was recently required to show his ID when he bought a beer at the airport. REQUIRED. It is now the law to show some form of ID not because you look under age, but because you have to. That's not what this country was all about.

AmPat
03-17-2010, 12:24 PM
You certainly are Retarded if:


Quote:
Originally Posted by RetardedRadical
You attend Tea Parties and don't understand any of the references to freedom or the Constitution.
You are pro union even though you never had a job and still live in mommy's basement .
You watch/listen to Beck, Hannity, Boortz, Rush etc, and still deny logic, sanity, reason and facts.
You think Fox News is biased, but Blabberman, John Stewart and Huffy-Puffy Post are completely rational, fact-based news outlets.
Your mommy owns a small, non union business, yet you promote big government and greater taxation and fail to understand why mommy is going out of business this month.You support the Progressive Tax because your handlers told you to, even though those mean rich people have been supporting your worthless hide your entire life and the Fair Tax you know nothing about would provide more tax money to those useless programs you love.You've ever falsely accused Conservatives of making a racially based Obama joke.
You act like progress and "Progressive" is a synonym and mask its true meaning and origin of the word as though the rest of us are as stupid as you.
You complain about public schools before of (sic) after you put your kids on the public school bus because: Big Brother government taxes you for this service and fails to deliver a good product, even though you would opt out if they would only give you a voucher to send your children to much better private schools. Schools for example like all the DIMocRATs do for their children.
You think CEOs should be demonized and penalized while UAW workers can hijack the business that fed their miserable butts for years before their union ran the company into bankruptcy or flight overseas.
And last but not least...
You vote for the "TURD" party aka DIMocRAT.

Fixed!Found this on a past post. Illustrative of what the libberturds have been posting regarding the question of freedom.

wilbur
03-17-2010, 10:58 PM
Oh this is rich. Again, this is not freedom. When said safety net comes from others is not freedom. For example: A woman goes and has unprotected sex and gets pregnant. She has the child yet cannot afford to raise the child so she goes on welfare, which is paid for by the taxpayer. Now, a thinking person can look at the preceding analogy and see Wilbur's comment gone askew. Yes this woman did exercise a freedom by having sex. Her choice, n'est ce-pas? And did she not take a risk by having unprotected sex even though she knew that if she got pregnant she couldn't afford to raise the child? She had the safety net of welfare as well as other social programs but these programs are paid for by seizing someone elses income. What was freedom to her ended up infringing on someone elses freedom. And safety nets to not encourage risk taking. Besides, what the hell do you mean? Do you mean that someone can take a risk and if they fail, the gubment is there to help them out? OK, this help is in the form of taxes which infringe on someone elses freedom, no? And don't give me this load of bullshit:

This is the typical liberal response. Conservatives do not have a problem with taxation. We don't. You just hear us bloviate about taxes but you don't listen closely enough. It's not that conservatives don't want to pay any taxes, we're pissed about how those taxes are handled. We're fine with police, fire, military, 1st responders, prisons, courts, infrastructure, etc. We're pissed when taxes go to welfare, the National Endowment For the Arts, federal education control, etc. and when they start running our of money to spend, they raise taxes, again. When taxes are spent on something everyone benefits from(police, etc), conservatives are a-ok with it. It's when things aren't done to benefit all. Let me ask you. Say I lose my job through no fault of my own tomorrow. Do you think I'll be able to walk into my local welfare office and get assistance? Not on your life buddy and I know this from personal experience. So, again, you fail in your argument.

The problem I see is that most of you are largly fueling your angst towards social programs off of pure urban legend and anecdote. I wonder how many have bothered to look and see just how much of the budget welfare programs take?

Then answer: next to nothing. When one looks at the budget, you'll find that welfare spending is absolutely tiny. If its your personal mission to keep more of your tax money, I'm sorry to say, that if you ended welfare tomorrow... it wouldnt do shit. It doesnt even break the single digits, percentage wise.

The conservative anger towards relatively successfull social programs like welfare is woefully stupid.

Rockntractor
03-17-2010, 11:05 PM
The problem I see is that most of you are largly fueling your angst towards social programs off of pure urban legend and anecdote. I wonder how many have bothered to look and see just how much of the budget welfare programs take?

Then answer: next to nothing. When one looks at the budget, you'll find that welfare spending is absolutely tiny. If its your personal mission to keep more of your tax money, I'm sorry to say, that if you ended welfare tomorrow... it wouldnt do shit. It doesnt even break the single digits, percentage wise.

The conservative anger towards relatively successfull social programs like welfare is woefully stupid.
What a dweeb!:rolleyes:

rjas77
03-18-2010, 04:01 AM
So your IQ must be around what, 75, 76 now?

Unlike you, he doesn't lose IQ points everytime he takes a dump, and yes your post makes zero sense

rjas77
03-18-2010, 04:18 AM
The problem I see is that most of you are largly fueling your angst towards social programs off of pure urban legend and anecdote. I wonder how many have bothered to look and see just how much of the budget welfare programs take?

Then answer: next to nothing. When one looks at the budget, you'll find that welfare spending is absolutely tiny. If its your personal mission to keep more of your tax money, I'm sorry to say, that if you ended welfare tomorrow... it wouldnt do shit. It doesnt even break the single digits, percentage wise.

The conservative anger towards relatively successfull social programs like welfare is woefully stupid.

The problem with your post is that it's not the Government role to be in the Charity business, infact read the Preamble and you'll find phrases like

establish Justice, Too establish laws that govern a civil society and provide penalties when violated to a reasonable degree of certainty and penalty

insure domestic Tranquility, To guarantee that there will be law and order in our country

provide for the common defence, To protect us from hostilities from other nations

promote the general Welfare notice how it says to promote...NOT to provide, or to establish, or to insure...I don't know about you, but words have meanings and it's pretty clear what those words mean.



You claim I'm woefully stupid with this comment...The conservative anger towards relatively successfull social programs like welfare is woefully stupid..nope...just not wanting the Government to seize my personal property, to give it to someone else with out my consent...That is what charity is for. In fact it is you that is woefully stupid to even suggest that the government role is to provide for the general welfare when it is explicitly written in the Preamble to the oposite

AmPat
03-18-2010, 07:34 AM
The problem I see is that most of you are largly fueling your angst towards social programs off of pure urban legend and anecdote. I wonder how many have bothered to look and see just how much of the budget welfare programs take?

Then answer: next to nothing. When one looks at the budget, you'll find that welfare spending is absolutely tiny. If its your personal mission to keep more of your tax money, I'm sorry to say, that if you ended welfare tomorrow... it wouldnt do shit. It doesnt even break the single digits, percentage wise.

The conservative anger towards relatively successfull social programs like welfare is woefully stupid.

Wow! You really did develop quiet a taste for that Kool Aid. You stumble all over yourself on a simple question of defining YOUR IDEA of freedom yet you shamelessly call welfare "relatively successful." In what alternate universe is welfare remotely successful?

wilbur
03-18-2010, 07:46 AM
Wow! You really did develop quiet a taste for that Kool Aid. You stumble all over yourself on a simple question of defining YOUR IDEA of freedom yet you shamelessly call welfare "relatively successful." In what alternate universe is welfare remotely successful?

The one where you actually look at facts, and not the scary anecdotes delivered by media panic merchants.

wilbur
03-18-2010, 08:02 AM
insure domestic Tranquility, To guarantee that there will be law and order in our country


In fact, the welfare program serves this goal quite well.



You claim I'm woefully stupid with this comment...The conservative anger towards relatively successfull social programs like welfare is woefully stupid..nope...just not wanting the Government to seize my personal property, to give it to someone else with out my consent...That is what charity is for. In fact it is you that is woefully stupid to even suggest that the government role is to provide for the general welfare when it is explicitly written in the Preamble to the oposite

But government seizes next to nothing of your property for welfare. And in fact, the hallmark of a well designed social program, is one that actually saves you money, despite a slightly higher tax rate. Benefits come back to the taxpayer. We have to spend less on criminal justice, the police force, economic and quality of life concerns due to crime, etc.

So again, your stands on principle here are ill convieved. Well designed social programs actually increase your freedom, social tranquility, and actually SAVE taxpayer money.

Of course, this doesnt mean I think our government is fiscially responsible to take even more cash, or that our overall entitlement spending doesnt need to be reduced - but good social programs actually ARE good. Welfare is one of them.

AmPat
03-18-2010, 08:08 AM
The one where you actually look at facts, and not the scary anecdotes delivered by media panic merchants.

Here's a fact. I don't like government taking my money and giving it to others. I give my money when and where I see fit. We need to start weening these lazy ticks off of the government tit and make it welfare for the needy, not a career choice for lazy pieces of crap who are more able bodied than most taxpayers.

wilbur
03-18-2010, 08:41 AM
Here's a fact. I don't like government taking my money and giving it to others. I give my money when and where I see fit. We need to start weening these lazy ticks off of the government tit and make it welfare for the needy, not a career choice for lazy pieces of crap who are more able bodied than most taxpayers.

Most welfare recipients are, in fact, needy and it just so happens, they are weened of the "government tit", since they stay on welfare no more than a few years. So by your measure, the program is a success.

Wei Wu Wei
03-18-2010, 03:03 PM
The problem with your post is that it's not the Government role to be in the Charity business, infact read the Preamble and you'll find phrases like

There is no "correct" role of the government. As the representative of the people, the Government's role is what the people decide it to be.




establish Justice, Too establish laws that govern a civil society and provide penalties when violated to a reasonable degree of certainty and penalty

insure domestic Tranquility, To guarantee that there will be law and order in our country

provide for the common defence, To protect us from hostilities from other nations

promote the general Welfare notice how it says to promote...NOT to provide, or to establish, or to insure...I don't know about you, but words have meanings and it's pretty clear what those words mean.




How does one come to the "correct" interpretation of the meaning of a text (assuming there is one correct interpretation which can be reached)?


You claim I'm woefully stupid with this comment...The conservative anger towards relatively successfull social programs like welfare is woefully stupid..nope...just not wanting the Government to seize my personal property, to give it to someone else with out my consent...That is what charity is for. In fact it is you that is woefully stupid to even suggest that the government role is to provide for the general welfare when it is explicitly written in the Preamble to the oposite

paranoia

Megaguns91
03-18-2010, 05:43 PM
Wee Wee I fail to see how one's disdane for another entity taking that which is theirs is paranoia. If it's so acceptable for one to undertake this kind of behavior by no other than those who are established to help, not hurt, established by and for citizens, then you would be more than willing to post your address and valuables and what time you'll be out of your home for all criminals to see, correct? Make sure you leave the door unlocked so they can help themselves.

AmPat
03-18-2010, 07:14 PM
Most welfare recipients are, in fact, needy and it just so happens, they are weened of the "government tit", since they stay on welfare no more than a few years. So by your measure, the program is a success.

Why should I be compelled to give up any of my hard earned money regardless of reason? Need? I need. When I do, I provide.

NJCardFan
03-18-2010, 08:51 PM
Wee Wee I fail to see how one's disdane for another entity taking that which is theirs is paranoia. If it's so acceptable for one to undertake this kind of behavior by no other than those who are established to help, not hurt, established by and for citizens, then you would be more than willing to post your address and valuables and what time you'll be out of your home for all criminals to see, correct? Make sure you leave the door unlocked so they can help themselves.

Good point. When someone walks into your house uninvited and takes food from your refrigerator, it's called breaking and entering for one and theft for another. This a crime punishable by jail time. However, it's apparently for the government to take from me, by force, and give to someone who didn't earn it. This logic makes no sense.

patriot45
03-18-2010, 08:54 PM
Good point. When someone walks into your house uninvited and takes food from your refrigerator, it's called breaking and entering for one and theft for another. This a crime punishable by jail time. However, it's apparently for the government to take from me, by force, and give to someone who didn't earn it. This logic makes no sense.

If you haven't already, read some Walter Williams. He confronts this ad nauseum!
You can catch him on TownHall.com.

wilbur
03-18-2010, 10:21 PM
Good point. When someone walks into your house uninvited and takes food from your refrigerator, it's called breaking and entering for one and theft for another. This a crime punishable by jail time. However, it's apparently for the government to take from me, by force, and give to someone who didn't earn it. This logic makes no sense.

Well, if a social program works, you actually have to pay less out of pocket... so what do you call that?

wilbur
03-18-2010, 10:25 PM
Why should I be compelled to give up any of my hard earned money regardless of reason? Need? I need. When I do, I provide.

Because you give it up anyways, despite the fact that you can't see it directly or tangibly as a specific line item in a budget. You keep pretending as if you won't pay any social or monetary cost for those in need if there is no welfare program to help them. Sorry, but you will, whether its through crime, incarceration, medical bills, unpayable debt, or charity to support them when they lose a home. You pay for them regardless. You are compelled to give up your hard earned money, whether welfare exists or not, even if you don't realize it. A good social program curbs the cost of those problems while, ideally, turning those otherwise negative forces into positive ones. Instead of creating chain reactions that lead to more negative and costly reactions, you create chain reactions that lead to positive beneficial reactions - so you lose less in the long run.

Wei Wu Wei
03-18-2010, 10:34 PM
the problem here is the adolescent belief that you are an island. People like to think of themselves as seperate, special, not part of the system. You are part of the system. You say you worked for everything you have but I promise there are laws in place that protected you every step of the way. There are policies and programs that make your life possible. People want all the benefits of an advanced society while simultaniously wishing to not pay for it.

Living on your own means conquoring a piece of land, defending that land from anyone who may take it, and sustaining yourself on the food and resources that the land provides for you, all while never being a citizen of a nation. Even the most remote tribes don't live like this, even they have a system of rules and contribution, working as a group to survive.

No American is fully independent in this sense, you are where you are not only because of your own sweat ( saying you are is just masturbation), but also because of the system.

If you are part of society you have no right to demand to be treated like an island.

AmPat
03-18-2010, 11:59 PM
Because you give it up anyways, despite the fact that you can't see it directly or tangibly as a specific line item in a budget. You keep pretending as if you won't pay any social or monetary cost for those in need if there is no welfare program to help them. Sorry, but you will, whether its through crime, incarceration, medical bills, unpayable debt, or charity to support them when they lose a home. You pay for them regardless. You are compelled to give up your hard earned money, whether welfare exists or not, even if you don't realize it. A good social program curbs the cost of those problems while, ideally, turning those otherwise negative forces into positive ones. Instead of creating chain reactions that lead to more negative and costly reactions, you create chain reactions that lead to positive beneficial reactions - so you lose less in the long run.

I should give up my money because I give it up anyway? Is this what passes for logic in your universe?

One more time: I want to choose when and where my money goes. The government is not the best broker of handouts. Churches do a much better job than Gov't at providing for the poor.
I give as a matter of faith, not force. If I didn't have to support the worthless by force, I would support the poor by choice.

As for your unprovable assertion that my coerced welfare taxes are somehow saving me money, why do we still have generations of welfare families, high rates of incarceration for same, crime, etc, etc. Wouldn't the argument, your argument, mean that my coerced welfare dollars negate the need and existence of all the other woes you list?

rjas77
03-19-2010, 01:01 AM
In fact, the welfare program serves this goal quite well.

Totally disagree on a few points..

First...The welfare program comes at the loss of freedom of the taxpayer.

Second...Take a look at the projects of any major inner city and tell me just how welfare programs serve this goal quite well

Third...These welfare programs have done more to destroy the Black family than the Imperal Wizard of the KKK could possibly dream of. Black families used to be very strong morally and figuratively..Not any more...Why? I'll argue by taking the responsibility and the authoritive fugure of the father and placed it in the government hands. And at the risk of being called a racist...it's starting to affect the White family as well.



But government seizes next to nothing of your property for welfare.

It doesn't matter how much it...the fact that what it does take to pay for is mine. Agree or disagree?

Again read the Preamble or the Constitution for that matter, no where does it say that the government has the right to sieze my property without due cause...in fact it explicitly states the opposite.



And in fact, the hallmark of a well designed social program, is one that actually saves you money, despite a slightly higher tax rate. Benefits come back to the taxpayer. We have to spend less on criminal justice, the police force, economic and quality of life concerns due to crime, etc.

You're kidding me right? Again look at the inner cities...or even the suburbs for that matter and justify your statement.


So again, your stands on principle here are ill convieved. Well designed social programs actually increase your freedom, social tranquility, and actually SAVE taxpayer money.

Of course, this doesnt mean I think our government is fiscially responsible to take even more cash, or that our overall entitlement spending doesnt need to be reduced - but good social programs actually ARE good. Welfare is one of them.

Well...I've yet to see a Good welfare program

rjas77
03-19-2010, 01:05 AM
Oh and one more thing...65 years ago the Democrats and their Great Society promised to wipe out poverty with your so-called successfult welfare programs in a generation..

How'd that work out? Seems to me..Poverty is winning..Why? Cuz the Government takes money from thjose who have earned it and gives it to those that haven't...in short...the taxpayer...aka..me pays people to remain poor.

There's an old saying...If you give a man a fish...he eats for a day...Teach a man to fish and they never go hungry again.

wilbur
03-19-2010, 09:10 AM
Totally disagree on a few points..

First...The welfare program comes at the loss of freedom of the taxpayer.

Second...Take a look at the projects of any major inner city and tell me just how welfare programs serve this goal quite well

Third...These welfare programs have done more to destroy the Black family than the Imperal Wizard of the KKK could possibly dream of. Black families used to be very strong morally and figuratively..Not any more...Why? I'll argue by taking the responsibility and the authoritive fugure of the father and placed it in the government hands. And at the risk of being called a racist...it's starting to affect the White family as well.


The HUGE mistaken assumption here is that welfare is an "inner city black" phenomenon. But in fact, white rural Americans are the single biggest beneficiary of welfare.




It doesn't matter how much it...the fact that what it does take to pay for is mine. Agree or disagree?

Again read the Preamble or the Constitution for that matter, no where does it say that the government has the right to sieze my property without due cause...in fact it explicitly states the opposite.




You're kidding me right? Again look at the inner cities...or even the suburbs for that matter and justify your statement.



Well...I've yet to see a Good welfare program

Well, it seems you've yet to actually look and learn about welfare.

Megaguns91
03-19-2010, 10:16 AM
Let me jog my memory and see where a chunk of my tax dollars have gone.

Oh yeah....
here they are:


http://www.judicialwatch.org/weeklyupdate/2010/04-pelosi-party-planes#anchor1


Last year, Judicial Watch made big news by exposing Nancy Pelosi’s boorish demands for military travel. According to the internal DOD correspondence we uncovered the Speaker has been treating the U.S. Air Force as her own personal airline. And not only was her staff demanding, arrogant and rude, but the Speaker cost taxpayers a lot of money by making last minute cancellations and changes to the itinerary.

This week, Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Air Force that shed a bit more light on this ugly story.

According to the documents, which we obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Speaker’s military travel cost the Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. (Lots and lots of alcohol.) The following are highlights from the recent release of about 2,000 documents, which you can read here:

Speaker Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. The average cost of an international congressional delegation (CODEL) is $228,563.33. Of the 103 Pelosi-led CODELs, 31 trips included members of the House Speaker’s family.
One CODEL traveling from Washington, D.C. through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq from May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. Purchases for the CODEL included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.
According to a “Memo for Record” from a CODEL March 29 – April 7, 2007, that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring Kosher items into the Hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the Delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. Bourbon, Whiskey, Scotch, Vodka, Gin, Triple Sec, Tequila, etc.”
The Department of Defense advanced a CODEL of 56 members of Congress and staff $60,000 to travel to Louisiana and Mississippi July 19-22, 2008, to “view flood relief advances from Hurricane Katrina.” The three-day trip cost the U.S. Air Force $65,505.46, exceeding authorized funding by $5,505.46.
If you have a moment, take a look at the documents for yourself. And pay special attention to the receipts, noting the large quantities of food and alcohol purchased at taxpayer expense. Doesn’t it seem as if the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else? It certainly seems that way to me.

At the heart of the issue of corruption, is a sense of entitlement on the part of our elected officials. Nancy Pelosi clearly believes she deserves special treatment at taxpayer expense. This message comes across loud and clear in the disrespect she has demonstrated towards the U.S. Air Force and the American taxpayer.



I rest my case.
Tax dollars are silver spoons to the corrupt politicians that support the feeding of METHAMPHETAMINE addicts and their habits. What percentile of people that are on welfare are non-drug users?

Riddle me this, oh wise liberals...

rjas77
03-19-2010, 11:47 AM
The HUGE mistaken assumption here is that welfare is an "inner city black" phenomenon. But in fact, white rural Americans are the single biggest beneficiary of welfare.

That's because rural White America makes up prolly 55-60% of the total US population while inner city Blacks comprise of prolly less than five percent...Logic wilbur...use it or lose it.

The argument that the Black family has been destroyed by the Democrats Great Society still stands. Pay people to remain poor and they'll most always remain poor.


Well, it seems you've yet to actually look and learn about welfare.

Actually..I have a unique personal perspective and knowledge of successful welfare is...but I noticed you glossd over a rather important aspect which is...Do you think the Government has the right to take my personal property and give it to someone else?

FlaGator
03-19-2010, 12:25 PM
Percentage on welfare

White 38.8%
Black 39.8
Hispanic 15.7
Asian 2.4
other 3.3

Source http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

U.S. Population by Race

White 80.2%
Black 12.8%
Hispanic 14.4%
Asian 4.3%

Source http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html

wilbur
03-19-2010, 01:00 PM
That's because rural White America makes up prolly 55-60% of the total US population while inner city Blacks comprise of prolly less than five percent...Logic wilbur...use it or lose it.


Which still does not change the reality that the lions share of welfare dollars are not going to black people.



The argument that the Black family has been destroyed by the Democrats Great Society still stands. Pay people to remain poor and they'll most always remain poor.


Well, actually, I think blacks have had a whole lot more working against them, for a hell of a long time, than *gasp* welfare checks.



Actually..I have a unique personal perspective and knowledge of successful welfare is...but I noticed you glossd over a rather important aspect which is...Do you think the Government has the right to take my personal property and give it to someone else?

Of course - but this is rather uncontroversial, because unless you are a pure bred anarcho-capitalist, then you also assent to that proposition. Conservative, Democrat, everybody. The rest is just bickering over what constitutes worthwhile reasons to confiscate your money.

AmPat
03-19-2010, 01:16 PM
Of course - but this is rather uncontroversial, because unless you are a pure bred anarcho-capitalist, then you also assent to that proposition. Conservative, Democrat, everybody. The rest is just bickering over what constitutes worthwhile reasons to confiscate your money.

One more time for the slow:
I dissent to my tax dollars going to abortion, ACORN (or NUTS if you prefer), and bailouts. I also don't want my tax dollars going toward worthless, career, welfare slobs. I dissent to OBlah Blah as president and his not-so-merry band of usless idiots who support and enable him. Just because I am FORCED to pay taxes that go to these unConstitutional programs doesn't mean I "assent" to them. I will fight against tyrrany wherever and whenever I can. I will do this within the government that was hijacked by these anti-American Jackasses and not from a "pure bred anarcho-capitalist" angle.

wilbur
03-19-2010, 01:25 PM
One more time for the slow:
I dissent to my tax dollars going to abortion, ACORN (or NUTS if you prefer), and bailouts. I also don't want my tax dollars going toward worthless, career, welfare slobs. I dissent to OBlah Blah as president and his not-so-merry band of usless idiots who support and enable him. Just because I am FORCED to pay taxes that go to these unConstitutional programs doesn't mean I "assent" to them. I will fight against tyrrany wherever and whenever I can. I will do this within the government that was hijacked by these anti-American Jackasses and not from a "pure bred anarcho-capitalist" angle.

Do you favor farm subsidies? Tax credits to families? For children? Any kind of government spending where you are not the direct beneficiary? Then you support the confiscation of money, by the government, from its citizens . Certainly there are probably a few people who do not want any of those things - yet you feel its within your power to take their money with the threat of force, and spend it.

AmPat
03-19-2010, 01:50 PM
Do you favor farm subsidies? Tax credits to families? For children? Any kind of government spending where you are not the direct beneficiary? Then you support the confiscation of money, by the government, from its citizens . Certainly there are probably a few people who do not want any of those things - yet you feel its within your power to take their money with the threat of force, and spend it.

Nice yet wrong assumption, therefore false conclusion. You may go wipe the feces off your mouth now.

Megaguns91
03-19-2010, 01:58 PM
Do you favor farm subsidies? Tax credits to families? For children? Any kind of government spending where you are not the direct beneficiary? Then you support the confiscation of money, by the government, from its citizens . Certainly there are probably a few people who do not want any of those things - yet you feel its within your power to take their money with the threat of force, and spend it.


http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/myspace-graphics/funny-pictures/pink-pig-fairy.jpg

Sonnabend
03-19-2010, 04:59 PM
Okay...that is just WRONG in oh so many ways.....:eek:

fettpett
03-19-2010, 08:40 PM
Do you favor farm subsidies? Tax credits to families? For children? Any kind of government spending where you are not the direct beneficiary? Then you support the confiscation of money, by the government, from its citizens . Certainly there are probably a few people who do not want any of those things - yet you feel its within your power to take their money with the threat of force, and spend it.

one, Farm subsidies are a joke, all they do is allow farmers to sit on their ass and not grow crops when there has been shortages and many places in the world such food could be sold too, yet it gets pissed away either rotting in silos or put into gas tanks as ethanol.

Second, Tax Credits wouldn't be needed if we kept more of our own many during the year. There are legit reasons for Taxes, and uses for them, Social Welfare is not one of those

rjas77
03-20-2010, 03:36 AM
Which still does not change the reality that the lions share of welfare dollars are not going to black people.


Percentage on welfare

White 38.8%
Black 39.8
Hispanic 15.7
Asian 2.4
other 3.3

Source http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

U.S. Population by Race

White 80.2%
Black 12.8%
Hispanic 14.4%
Asian 4.3%

Source http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html

With real numbers instead of facts from heaven....I rest my case




Well, actually, I think blacks have had a whole lot more working against them, for a hell of a long time, than *gasp* welfare checks.

So? What does that have to do with the hear and now? Absolutely nothing...Fact is thanks to the Democrats Great Society...many Blacks are still on the plantations so to speak.




Of course - but this is rather uncontroversial, because unless you are a pure bred anarcho-capitalist, then you also assent to that proposition. Conservative, Democrat, everybody. The rest is just bickering over what constitutes worthwhile reasons to confiscate your money.

I assent to nothing other than what I've posted.

Now you staed thusly Which still does not change the reality that the lions share of welfare dollars are not going to black people which is factually true...However, while Blacks comprise only 13% of the US population they make up the majority on welfare and they almost always vote Democrat...Why? cuz they know that the DEMS will keep giving them freebees thus keeping Blacks under their boot.

Thankfully some Blacks are beginning to realize this and are breaking free form the political chains that keep them on thei political plantations

rjas77
03-20-2010, 03:40 AM
Oh and wilbur...For your reading enjoyment

http://blog.afroconservative.com/2009/10/01/liberal-democrats-destroyed-black-america-who-wants-next.aspx

AmPat
03-20-2010, 01:43 PM
So? What does that have to do with the hear and now? Absolutely nothing...Fact is thanks to the Democrats Great Society...many Blacks are still on the plantations so to speak.
Thankfully some Blacks are beginning to realize this and are breaking free form the political chains that keep them on thei political plantations

No, no, no, no, no,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Only the Uncle Toms are breaking free. Real Blacks continue their servitude toward their Jackass Masters. They would never actually think through their years of poverty and decaying family structure as being related to their mindless subservience to DUmboRAT associations. They are merely following one of their great leaders who told them that he'd have them "Nigras voting DemocRAT for 200 years" :cool:

Rockntractor
03-20-2010, 01:49 PM
Do you favor farm subsidies? Tax credits to families? For children? Any kind of government spending where you are not the direct beneficiary? Then you support the confiscation of money, by the government, from its citizens . Certainly there are probably a few people who do not want any of those things - yet you feel its within your power to take their money with the threat of force, and spend it.

I would favor putting you in a straight jacket and locking you up in a nut house where you belong. that would be a good investment.



some one needs to quote this so the ignoring little bitch will have to read it!:D

Sonnabend
03-20-2010, 04:38 PM
RocknTractor has a message for wilbur


I would favor putting you in a straight jacket and locking you up in a nut house where you belong. that would be a good investment.

Hansel
03-20-2010, 06:07 PM
http://img.allposters.com/6/LRG/21/2145/HYDCD00Z.jpg


http://www.truthorfiction.com/images/FILE31168.JPG


http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/images/ANC_surroundings/images/image64_jpg.jpg


Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed - else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower



Referring to Ike's quotation, it is said that we have to refresh by bleeding and dying, just so the whiners and the losers can continue their whining and losing.

Ike is buried here in Abilene, and he is my guy. Maybe the last truly great president we have had.

Hansel
03-20-2010, 06:11 PM
In other words, this is how Wilbur answered the question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mNDHTfdn1A
One man's freedom ends where the next man's freedom begins. As a people we have agreed to live in concert for the common good, and with that comes certain limitations of our behavior. It beats a cave man existence.

How do you get the emoticons to the post?

Hansel
03-20-2010, 06:15 PM
Cardfan, I present to you.

The Four Liberals:

http://www.babypicturesphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/baby-birds-picture.jpg

The lazy self centered ones over at newsrake need to see this one. They are really into the nanny tit thing.

Hansel
03-20-2010, 06:18 PM
No apology needed, I knew I wasn't wording it right. Was having trouble expressing it. You did a MUCH better job of it.


If you have read any of my posts on the founding of our country and the nature of our rights, you will know how badly I represented my beliefs on this. (did that make sense???)


Anarchy is NOT freedom though. It is simply mob rule.
Early on the people did not elect the senators. This may have been a carrover from the good old boys days, the elitists. You know, the assumption that the people aren't bright enough to make the right decisions about government policy.

I hope things settle down in WDC because now it is a mob scene and we the people are picking up the tab as usual. If I have to paythe fiddler I want to dance.

Hansel
03-20-2010, 06:25 PM
Actually, the declaration speaks of 'unalienable rights', not freedom. Freedom and natural rights are independent concepts. Think of political freedom, economic freedom, free will - natural rights may not include guarantees or have anything to say at all about some of those freedoms, or some subsets of them. Our natural rights we hold to be inalienable, according to the declaration - but many aspects of our freedom are much more vulnerable to restriction (though I did say, a good society would try to maximize our freedoms).



Your thesis seems to be something like "I have to buy a permit to add an addition to my house, therefore there's no freedom". But that kind of objection withers with a moments thought. While the myriad of residential statutes can be irksome, and oft abused by tax hungry governments, I'm quite happy that my neighbor will probably be disallowed from erecting a gargantuan tower that looms over my property, blocking the sun, among other things, and killing the property value of my plot and the other neighbors. While they aren't perfect, many of those sorts of regulations are inherently freedom maximizing, not the other way around. In principle, there is nothing wrong with those sorts of regulations, if done right.

I'm also happy I can call the cops on my neighbor if he decides to use his backyard as a trash dump, and that I can wield the power of government to force him to clean it up, even though he may meticulously ensure that none of that trash ever crossed his property line. While this reduces my neighbors freedom, I do not think any reasonable person would say that his 'natural rights' are unduly violated.

So it looks as if you are using the word freedom as a synonym for natural rights - but they arent necessarily the same thing. That is why I asked for clarification.
When a people agree to incorporate under a commong government then some of their inalienable rights may have to give way to avoid trmpling on the rights of others in the community.

In the case of the neighbor's trash I would say that condition might be a threat to the health and well being of others in the hood. I help with canvassing sometimes and with some homes you can smell the stench from the sidewalk. Some of that stench comes from rotting compositions shingles and whatever is caught or growing in them, but a lot is just poor sanitation and housekeeping. Such conditions breed roaches and rats, and these little critters can pay the neighbors a visit.

Hansel
03-20-2010, 06:32 PM
I'm going to answer House on this "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" stupidity by using an old axiom:

"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got."

A social experiment I wish I could do would be this: Take the entire country's income and divide it equally. There would be no more poor and no more rich. Everyone starts out with the same amount to the penny. The economic system in place today does not change one bit. My guess is that within 10 years, most of who were considered wealthy will be wealthy again and a vast majority who were considered poor will be poor again. There will be exceptions of course but if you want reality on how "poor: people handle money, just look at some lottery winners. A good many are broke in 5 years.

People who never have had anything of value don't know how to take care of it, and that includes money.
A crippling divorce sent me to the back streets of Dallas for a few years and it amazed me at how little the slum dwellers cared about possessions or themselves for that matter. They seem to live by hook or crook and from hand to mouth day after day.

I married one with some brats and after 8 years she hadn't changed. She left me for a kid that was 12 years younger than me and soon ended up back in the slums. With me she had a nice place to live, good food, nice clothes and cars, and healthcare for the brats. But she threw that all away and I gladly helped her to load it on the truck whe she left.

She was a good partner in many ways and we remained friends, but she just couldn't shake the loser attitude.

Speedy
03-20-2010, 07:01 PM
The problem I see is that most of you are largly fueling your angst towards social programs off of pure urban legend and anecdote. I wonder how many have bothered to look and see just how much of the budget welfare programs take?

Then answer: next to nothing. When one looks at the budget, you'll find that welfare spending is absolutely tiny. If its your personal mission to keep more of your tax money, I'm sorry to say, that if you ended welfare tomorrow... it wouldnt do shit. It doesnt even break the single digits, percentage wise.

The conservative anger towards relatively successfull social programs like welfare is woefully stupid.

And what does this have to do with freedom? You idea of freedom is having government take care of you. And what is so successful about welfare? I have seen too many people live in poverty on welfare because it is easier to settle thant to work to achieve something.

And not paying taxes has nothing to do with liberty and freedom. People in Taliban held territories in Afghanistan pay few if any taxes. They have no freedom or liberty.

rjas77
03-22-2010, 12:34 PM
So is it just me, or did wilbur never really answer the OP's question? :rolleyes:

fettpett
03-22-2010, 12:47 PM
nope, neither wil wenie boy

AmPat
03-22-2010, 12:51 PM
They're Libberweenies, what'd you expect?

NJCardFan
03-22-2010, 03:53 PM
So is it just me, or did wilbur never really answer the OP's question? :rolleyes:
Hence this response from me:

In other words, this is how Wilbur answered the question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mNDHTfdn1A

Rebel Yell
03-22-2010, 03:58 PM
Since a couple of our resident liberals feel it necessary to start inane threads like Christianity and Communism(or whatever the hell it was), I'd like to get their take on something very important and that is what is their idea of freedom. I ask that they do not be cowards. Have the courage to post honestly. Yes you'll get flamed(probably) but I'm really interested in the subject of liberals and freedom.

Their idea of freedom is freedom from having to lift a finger to take care of themselves.

wilbur
03-22-2010, 04:10 PM
I defined, in broad terms, what I believe freedom to be, and also gave you examples as to how this applies to public policy.

Sorry you guys don't like the answer - but i gave it.

AmPat
03-22-2010, 04:12 PM
I defined, in broad terms, what I believe freedom to be, and also gave you examples as to how this applies to public policy.

Sorry you guys don't like the answer - but i gave it.

There's your problem. Just answer the question. Who asked for the "broad terms" or "how it applies" crap?

Rockntractor
03-22-2010, 04:23 PM
There's your problem. Just answer the question. Who asked for the "broad terms" or "how it applies" crap?

Wilbur can say nothing in a simple coherent sentence. You always have at least a page of nonsensical double speak.

Megaguns91
03-22-2010, 06:14 PM
My idea of freedom is being able to shoot a deer from my kitchen window.

Wei Wu Wei
03-22-2010, 06:27 PM
My idea of freedom is not being carded when I try to buy some Jack Daniels at 11:30 AM.

rjas77
03-22-2010, 07:14 PM
My idea of freedom is keeping my money instead of the government coming into my private life taking my money and giving it to people who haven't done anything to earn it

AmPat
03-22-2010, 08:58 PM
My idea of freedom is not being carded when I try to buy some Jack Daniels at 11:30 AM.

Strange idea. Let's not worry about underage drinkers. Be concerned though, if the regressives can figure a way to get more money and control from your J.D. they'll do it.

NJCardFan
12-07-2010, 11:20 AM
I'm resurrecting this old thread for 2 reasons. #1, Ody mentioned it in another thread and it got me laughing and #2, we never got a direct answer from the resident leftists on the original question. They danced around it but never answered it. As I expected actually.

AmPat
12-07-2010, 06:13 PM
Wilbur can say nothing in a simple coherent sentence. You always have at least a page of nonsensical double speak.
That's why I can't abide his posts.
Wilbur, what time is it?
[Wilbur proceeds to build a watch]

Gingersnap
12-08-2010, 10:00 AM
Bumping for NJCardFan.

NJCardFan
12-08-2010, 10:25 AM
Bumping for NJCardFan.

Meh, all I'm getting is crickets. I expected as much.

wilbur
12-08-2010, 11:44 AM
Man, its funny to read back on some of my my old post - forgot just how much whoop-ass I dished out in this one - thanks for reminding me;)

And hey, if it makes you feel better, I'll re-paste my first post in this thread, which directly answered your question:



To boil it down as simply and concisely as possible, freedom is the ability to make choices according to how your beliefs, goals, and desires compel you.

The general idea behind a good society, is to maximize that ability as much as possible, for everybody.

NJCardFan
12-08-2010, 11:59 AM
Man, its funny to read back on some of my my old post - forgot just how much whoop-ass I dished out in this one - thanks for reminding me;)

And hey, if it makes you feel better, I'll re-paste my first post in this thread, which directly answered your question:

To boil it down as simply and concisely as possible, freedom is the ability to make choices according to how your beliefs, goals, and desires compel you.

The general idea behind a good society, is to maximize that ability as much as possible, for everybody.....

And then you go on to say that living off of the government is freedom. You're too stupid to realize that true freedom means not infringing on someone elses freedom. This welfare system you seem to be so proud of infringes on someone elses freedom. To a Libertarian like me, true freedom is doing that you please as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses life, liberty or property by force or fraud. Living off of my taxes infringes on my freedom. And only in your puny mind would you ever think you had the upper hand in this argument. You couldn't win a debate with a blind deaf mute.

wilbur
12-08-2010, 12:09 PM
And then you go on to say that living off of the government is freedom. You're too stupid to realize that true freedom means not infringing on someone elses freedom. This welfare system you seem to be so proud of infringes on someone elses freedom.

Meh - I quick jaunt through the thread will show that I've responded to this simplistic BS several times by now - bring something new and interesting to the table.

For the lazy, I'll post the first one I found, scrolling back - NJCardFan has never countered the substance of these points, but just continues to sling more of the same simplistic and empty rhetorical shit, in response.



Because you give up [your tax dollars] anyways, despite the fact that you can't see it directly or tangibly as a specific line item in a budget. You keep pretending as if you won't pay any social or monetary cost for those in need if there is no welfare program to help them. Sorry, but you will, whether its through crime, incarceration, medical bills, unpayable debt, or charity to support them when they lose a home. You pay for them regardless. You are compelled to give up your hard earned money, whether welfare exists or not, even if you don't realize it. A good social program curbs the cost of those problems while, ideally, turning those otherwise negative forces into positive ones. Instead of creating chain reactions that lead to more negative and costly reactions, you create chain reactions that lead to positive beneficial reactions - so you lose less in the long run.

NJCardFan
12-08-2010, 12:19 PM
Meh - I quick jaunt through the thread will show that I've responded to this simplistic BS several times by now - bring something new and interesting to the table.

Um no because it's the truth you twit. How about you bring something logical for once. As for my comment being simplistic, yes, it is. That's the point. Freedom is indeed this simple. To imply that seizing from me to give to another is freedom is idiocy on it's face. You can not decree freedom on someone by removing it from someone else. What part of that do you not understand? Most people on welfare are on it by the choices they made, however, I'm made to pay for those choices. How is that freedom? A woman has several children from different fathers and has to rely on welfare to feed and clothe them. How is this freedom to me when I work in a dangerous job only to see 40% of my paycheck get seized and part of which is given to this irresponsible woman. How is that freedom? I don't give a flying fuck if only 50 cents is given to this woman from the taxes I pay, it's still money seized from me and given to someone who did nothing to earn it except open her legs. Or to the drug addict who sells his food stamps for drug money. How is this freedom to me? Explain this. How is it freedom to me when I have to watch my budget and clip coupons and try to squeeze everything I can out of every dollar I spend while the frigging illegal in front of me is buying bullshit and using her Family First card to pay for it? How is this freedom to me? C'mon you fucking dolt. Don't be the coward you usually are. Tell me how this is freedom? Tell me how this doesn't infringe on my freedom. C'mon, chicken shit.

NJCardFan
12-08-2010, 12:35 PM
Because you give up [your tax dollars] anyways, despite the fact that you can't see it directly or tangibly as a specific line item in a budget. You keep pretending as if you won't pay any social or monetary cost for those in need if there is no welfare program to help them. Sorry, but you will, whether its through crime, incarceration, medical bills, unpayable debt, or charity to support them when they lose a home. You pay for them regardless. You are compelled to give up your hard earned money, whether welfare exists or not, even if you don't realize it. A good social program curbs the cost of those problems while, ideally, turning those otherwise negative forces into positive ones. Instead of creating chain reactions that lead to more negative and costly reactions, you create chain reactions that lead to positive beneficial reactions - so you lose less in the long run.

Wow. I haven't seen this much bullshit since I went to a rodeo. Explain this to me then. How, since the foundation of Johnson's "Great Society", the crime rate has increased nearly 3 fold (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)? And why does the poverty rate keep going up (http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/16/news/economy/Census_poverty_rate/index.htm)? And what good social program is there? Name me one that isn't a bureaucratic boondoggle? Just one? Who is welfare helping? Whatever happened to self reliance? Read this:

Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america

I don't know what world you live in but in the one I live in, taking from me and giving it to someone who did nothing to earn it is called theft.

wilbur
12-08-2010, 12:50 PM
Listen up this time, so I don't have to repeat myself again.


Um no because it's the truth you twit. How about you bring something logical for once. As for my comment being simplistic, yes, it is. That's the point. Freedom is indeed this simple.

The principle "unnecessarily harming others is wrong" is as simple as can be. But things get pretty convoluted really fast when trying to apply it to all kinds of real world scenarios.

Similarly, the concept of freedom is simple. But in the real word, its extremely hard and difficult to work out just how to apply it properly, in all sorts of everyday scenarios.

This is why lawyers and judges get paid lots of money.


To imply that seizing from me to give to another is freedom is idiocy on it's face. You can not decree freedom on someone by removing it from someone else. What part of that do you not understand?

I don't know how many times I'll have to bludgeon you with this little wake-up call before it clicks, but here is one more shot.

You - NJCardFan - yes, I am pointing at you - believe that its possible (and necessary) to enhance our freedom by taking money and property from others by force. Everybody here does. Every single poster here. (the only exception would be any anarcho-capatalists floating around, but I don't think there are any here)

Unless you favor the repeal of *any* and *all* taxes, across the board - you implicitly concede to the principle that its morally acceptable to take property from innocent citizens, by force.

Is this sinking in yet? If not, then simmer on it for a while, till it does.

When you can finally grasp this point, we can then move on in the conversation.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 01:01 PM
Um no because it's the truth you twit. How about you bring something logical for once. As for my comment being simplistic, yes, it is. That's the point. Freedom is indeed this simple. To imply that seizing from me to give to another is freedom is idiocy on it's face. You can not decree freedom on someone by removing it from someone else. What part of that do you not understand? Most people on welfare are on it by the choices they made, however, I'm made to pay for those choices. How is that freedom? A woman has several children from different fathers and has to rely on welfare to feed and clothe them. How is this freedom to me when I work in a dangerous job only to see 40% of my paycheck get seized and part of which is given to this irresponsible woman. How is that freedom? I don't give a flying fuck if only 50 cents is given to this woman from the taxes I pay, it's still money seized from me and given to someone who did nothing to earn it except open her legs. Or to the drug addict who sells his food stamps for drug money. How is this freedom to me? Explain this. How is it freedom to me when I have to watch my budget and clip coupons and try to squeeze everything I can out of every dollar I spend while the frigging illegal in front of me is buying bullshit and using her Family First card to pay for it? How is this freedom to me? C'mon you fucking dolt. Don't be the coward you usually are. Tell me how this is freedom? Tell me how this doesn't infringe on my freedom. C'mon, chicken shit.

Do you own your own land? Did you conquer this land yourself? Is this land not part of the United States or any other sovereign state? Do you defend this land from invaders and provide police security? Do you grow/catch all of your own food and build all of your tools and live off of the land?

If you are a non-citizen who owns his own island and protects it and puts forth 100% of the labor needed to sustain your way of life, and you don't benefit from any system of laws or government, then you have a point.

If you're like the rest of us, an adult who lives in a society of laws with other people, then shut up and stop crying you privileged baby.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 01:03 PM
http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-qq.gif

I can only afford to eat steak 6 times a week and some stupid poor woman wants ME to pay for her insulin?! DON'T TREAD ON ME

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 01:16 PM
You - NJCardFan - yes, I am pointing at you - believe that its possible (and necessary) to enhance our freedom by taking money and property from others by force. Everybody here does. Every single poster here. (the only exception would be any anarcho-capatalists floating around, but I don't think there are any here)

Unless you favor the repeal of *any* and *all* taxes, across the board - you implicitly concede to the principle that its morally acceptable to take property from innocent citizens, by force.

Is this sinking in yet? If not, then simmer on it for a while, till it does.

When you can finally grasp this point, we can then move on in the conversation.


Good grief Wilbur. Just because ^ this exists doesn't make it moral to do so...:confused:

And yes.....any and ALL forms of taxation and legalized theft are wrong. And I don't consider myself an anarcho capitalist.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 01:24 PM
How is the government to function at all, even if we accept a minimalist position on the role of government so they only have a few core jobs to do, if we do not levy taxes?

What sort of leverage can we possibly claim to have over the workings of government if not through our tax dollars? It's one of the few ways that we can claim the government as For The People.

wilbur
12-08-2010, 01:25 PM
Good grief Wilbur. Just because ^ this exists doesn't make it moral to do so...:confused:

And yes.....any and ALL forms of taxation and legalized theft are wrong. And I don't consider myself an anarcho capitalist.

Interesting... explain a little more? What is your alternative to a government paid for by taxes?

*And if you believe that *all* taxes should be repealed, then my comment doesnt really apply to you

AmPat
12-08-2010, 02:47 PM
To boil it down as simply and concisely as possible, freedom is the ability to make choices according to how your beliefs, goals, and desires compel you.The general idea behind a good society, is to maximize that ability as much as possible, for everybody. I'll make this simple: Why then do Libertards like you attempt to stifle this with legislation and confiscatory taxation. Why do you libertards demand more, larger, and invasive government when that is exactly the theives that steal freedom?

NJCardFan
12-08-2010, 11:47 PM
You - NJCardFan - yes, I am pointing at you - believe that its possible (and necessary) to enhance our freedom by taking money and property from others by force. Everybody here does. Every single poster here. (the only exception would be any anarcho-capatalists floating around, but I don't think there are any here)

Unless you favor the repeal of *any* and *all* taxes, across the board - you implicitly concede to the principle that its morally acceptable to take property from innocent citizens, by force.

Is this sinking in yet? If not, then simmer on it for a while, till it does.

When you can finally grasp this point, we can then move on in the conversation.

Um, no I don't. Because there are some things that have to be paid for. Infrastructure, police, fire, prisons, military, courts, are all necessary AND enumerated in the Constitution. See, since you don't seem to have a working brain cell, let me post something for you:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

See? Establish. Insure. Provide. Secure. Is there anything ambiguous about this? How about we find the definitions of each of those words:

Establish-1.
a. To set up; found. See Synonyms at found1.
b. To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.
2.
a. To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They established me in my own business.
b. To make firm or secure.
3. To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.
4. To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.
5. To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.
6. To make a state institution of (a church).http://www.thefreedictionary.com/establish

Insure-1.
a. To provide or arrange insurance for: a company that insures homeowners and businesses.
b. To acquire or have insurance for: insured herself against losses; insured his car for theft.
2. To make sure, certain, or secure.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insure

Provide-1. To furnish; supply: provide food and shelter for a family.
2. To make available; afford: a room that provides ample sunlight through French windows.
3. To set down as a stipulation: an agreement that provides deadlines for completion of the work.
4. Archaic To make ready ahead of time; prepare.
v.intr.
1. To take measures in preparation: provided for the common defense of the states in time of war.
2. To supply means of subsistence: She provides for her family by working in a hospital.
3. To make a stipulation or condition: The Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/provide

Secure-1. Free from danger or attack: a secure fortress.
2. Free from risk of loss; safe: Her papers were secure in the vault.
3. Free from the risk of being intercepted or listened to by unauthorized persons: Only one telephone line in the embassy was secure.
4. Free from fear, anxiety, or doubt.
5.
a. Not likely to fail or give way; stable: a secure stepladder.
b. Firmly fastened: a secure lock.
6. Reliable; dependable: secure investments.
7. Assured; certain: With three goals in the first period they had a secure victory, but somehow they lost.
8. Archaic Careless or overconfident.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secure

Pretty straight forward, yes? Now...

Promote-1.
a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/promote

Promote, to put it simply, means to suggest. Again, the Constitution is not ambiguous. I, and others like me, don't mind taxes when we get something back in return like police protection, protection from foreign invaders, a great highway system, ect. Giving some shlub money so they can sit home and be a shlub does nothing for me.

And while we're on the subject of taxes, roll this around your pointed head. It's not equitable. 50% of all wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. This means that there are 50% who pay only 4% and some who actually receive back money they didn't earn with bogus programs like earned income credit and bullshit like that. Do you know what it's like to open your paycheck and see only 50% of the gross left for you? I do. Of course I have payments like health insurance, pension, pension loan, dental, union dues and the like which is fine but then my tax money pays for others medical care and such. That's freedom to you? Probably because you're probably one of the shlubs I mentioned. Fuckbag.

Wei Wu Wei
12-09-2010, 03:45 AM
Um, no I don't. Because there are some things that have to be paid for. Infrastructure, police, fire, prisons, military, courts, are all necessary AND enumerated in the Constitution. See, since you don't seem to have a working brain cell, let me post something for you:


See? Establish. Insure. Provide. Secure. Is there anything ambiguous about this? How about we find the definitions of each of those words:

Establish-1.
a. To set up; found. See Synonyms at found1.
b. To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.
2.
a. To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They established me in my own business.
b. To make firm or secure.
3. To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.
4. To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.
5. To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.
6. To make a state institution of (a church).http://www.thefreedictionary.com/establish

Insure-1.
a. To provide or arrange insurance for: a company that insures homeowners and businesses.
b. To acquire or have insurance for: insured herself against losses; insured his car for theft.
2. To make sure, certain, or secure.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insure

Provide-1. To furnish; supply: provide food and shelter for a family.
2. To make available; afford: a room that provides ample sunlight through French windows.
3. To set down as a stipulation: an agreement that provides deadlines for completion of the work.
4. Archaic To make ready ahead of time; prepare.
v.intr.
1. To take measures in preparation: provided for the common defense of the states in time of war.
2. To supply means of subsistence: She provides for her family by working in a hospital.
3. To make a stipulation or condition: The Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/provide


Secure-1. Free from danger or attack: a secure fortress.
2. Free from risk of loss; safe: Her papers were secure in the vault.
3. Free from the risk of being intercepted or listened to by unauthorized persons: Only one telephone line in the embassy was secure.
4. Free from fear, anxiety, or doubt.
5.
a. Not likely to fail or give way; stable: a secure stepladder.
b. Firmly fastened: a secure lock.
6. Reliable; dependable: secure investments.
7. Assured; certain: With three goals in the first period they had a secure victory, but somehow they lost.
8. Archaic Careless or overconfident.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secure

Pretty straight forward, yes? Now...



lol you highlighted all the less important words.

The content of the meaning of mostly in the words Justice, Domestic Tranquility, Common Defense and General Welfare

These should be examined.



Promote-1.
a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/promote

Promote, to put it simply, means to suggest. Again, the Constitution is not ambiguous. I, and others like me, don't mind taxes when we get something back in return like police protection, protection from foreign invaders, a great highway system, ect. Giving some shlub money so they can sit home and be a shlub does nothing for me.

When you say "to put it simply" do you mean "ignore the definitions that don't fit what I'm saying"? These dictionary copy paste games are childish, but if you're going to play them at least read the definitions. 2 says to contribute to the progress or growth, 5 says to help establish or organize financially.



And while we're on the subject of taxes, roll this around your pointed head. It's not equitable. 50% of all wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. This means that there are 50% who pay only 4% and some who actually receive back money they didn't earn with bogus programs like earned income credit and bullshit like that.

It's representative of the income distribution. The top 2% have more than the bottom 50% combined.


Do you know what it's like to open your paycheck and see only 50% of the gross left for you? I do. Of course I have payments like health insurance, pension, pension loan, dental, union dues and the like which is fine but then my tax money pays for others medical care and such. That's freedom to you? Probably because you're probably one of the shlubs I mentioned. Fuckbag.

http://i.imgur.com/rkQsB.gif - Boo hoo I'm an overprivileged manbaby don't you DARE use a dollar of my tax money to feed some filthy underpaid worker who makes my bougie parasite life possible.

Molon Labe
12-09-2010, 09:18 AM
Interesting... explain a little more? What is your alternative to a government paid for by taxes?

*And if you believe that *all* taxes should be repealed, then my comment doesnt really apply to you

I'm not unrealistic to believe that most people will ever buy into a completely voluntary society of taxes. But it always surprises me at how the left believes in a version of liberty with coercion at it's core and as it's method of choice. Immoral.....

I could envision a tax system where people have a much more "choice" in the matter than they currently do. For starters....... No income tax. Everyone gets what they earn. Period. At least at that starting point a person then controls more of their destiny.

You can't tell me our fore fathers envisioned an average American working 4 months out of the year for the State.

Rebel Yell
12-09-2010, 10:40 AM
http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-qq.gif

I can only afford to eat steak 6 times a week and some stupid poor woman wants ME to pay for her insulin?! DON'T TREAD ON ME

Exactly. I can't afford to eat steak 6 times a week. I kill most of what we eat. I probably make less than anyone else on this board, yet I own my home, have 3 vehicles that are paid for, and own the lot next door. You know how I did that? I worked my ass off, and managed my money. There is no reason why any other able bodied person can't do the same thing.

And I did it without asking for a fucking hand out from anybody. Do I wish I had money like the wealthiest of America? Sure. Do I think they owe me a fucking thing? Hell no. I don't have much, but by God, what I do have is mine, and I got it without any help from the government. That, my friend, is freedom. Freedom comes with responsibility. You are responsible for how your life turns out, not anyone else. It may suck for some, but that's the price of freedom.

Molon Labe
12-09-2010, 10:54 AM
Exactly. I can't afford to eat steak 6 times a week. I kill most of what we eat. I probably make less than anyone else on this board, yet I own my home, have 3 vehicles that are paid for, and own the lot next door. You know how I did that? I worked my ass off, and managed my money. There is no reason why any other able bodied person can't do the same thing.

And I did it without asking for a fucking hand out from anybody. Do I wish I had money like the wealthiest of America? Sure. Do I think they owe me a fucking thing? Hell no. I don't have much, but by God, what I do have is mine, and I got it without any help from the government. That, my friend, is freedom. Freedom comes with responsibility. You are responsible for how your life turns out, not anyone else. It may suck for some, but that's the price of freedom.

Great post.


Boo hoo I'm an overprivileged manbaby don't you DARE use a dollar of my tax money to feed some filthy underpaid worker who makes my bougie parasite life possible.

Where do you get the right to focibly take something from someone else and give it to another again? Where do you justify legalized theft again?

I don't know NJCardfan or RY personally, but I know the formers line of work and that field doesn't exactly have "wealthy" written on it. Maybe if people like us were able to get back all of what we earned we would give more to people who need it. I know I would.

NJCardFan
12-09-2010, 12:02 PM
How am I overpriviliged? I'm not getting the correlation. Because I have a good paying job? That I got "lucky" by getting that job? Last I looked, I had to go through 16 weeks of a boot camp type training academy, at 40 years old, to get this job. Then I go to a place that's filled with murderers, gang bangers, drug dealers, child molesters, and some really batshit crazy people. I also work in a field that has a high divorce and suicide rate not to mention that assaults on staff happen a lot. Almost on a daily basis. Every day I kiss my wife goodbye and I go to work knowing that I might not come home. I earn every nickel I get. And I also love when you libs throw out hypotheticals like "some poor woman won't get her insulin". Um, give me names. And if you feel so badly about it, you pay for that woman's insulin. But show me actual names of people who have gone to the hospital and been denied medical care. Give me actual people, not made up bouncies. Oh, and some of these poor people you speak of have more crap than I do. Like that poor woman who can't get her insulin. Maybe she should have opted for a cheaper cell phone(see, I can play that game too). It's all about priorities and people in this country put accumulating bullshit ahead of necessities. But then idiots like WeeWee and Wilbur think it's ok to take from me and contribute to that irresponsibility.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-09-2010, 03:23 PM
http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-qq.gif

I can only afford to eat steak 6 times a week and some stupid poor woman wants ME to pay for her insulin?! DON'T TREAD ON ME


Well, as long as we are going to use stereotypes ----

Why should I, as a person who works 75-85 hours a week, as a person who employs a dozen other people, as a person who spent nearly a decade in college preparing myself, as a person who worked two full time jobs to pay for said college education, as a person who sacrificed my home MORE than once to start up a business, as a person who denied himself college and high school parties -- why should I pay for ANYTHING that a person who CHOSE to party their way through high school (if they bothered to attend classes), and refuses to work wants.

Wei Wu Wei
12-09-2010, 07:24 PM
Well, as long as we are going to use stereotypes ----

Why should I, as a person who works 75-85 hours a week, as a person who employs a dozen other people, as a person who spent nearly a decade in college preparing myself, as a person who worked two full time jobs to pay for said college education, as a person who sacrificed my home MORE than once to start up a business, as a person who denied himself college and high school parties -- why should I pay for ANYTHING that a person who CHOSE to party their way through high school (if they bothered to attend classes), and refuses to work wants.


Sorry about your lack of college parties but not everyone is out to scam you, some people really do need help. You know as well as I do that not everyone who needs government assistance is in that situation purely because they "chose to party". There are children who suffer through no fault of their own. Are there people who abuse the system? Yes there are, but what kind of people are we when we refuse to assist those in need and justify it by pointing to scammers?

A girl is raped as a teenager, becomes pregnant. She's forced to drop out of school to take care of her baby. She has no resources, money for child care or people to help her. She has a hard time getting work, holding only unskilled positions at near-minimum wage. She can barely afford rent and food, she relocates homes often and stops by food banks for help. She can barely afford a cell phone, which she needs as an unchanging number to give potential employers. She gets sick, she needs medical attention but she doesn't have insurance. The ER determines she is not in urgent danger so they hand her some pills and she checks out until she's sick enough that the ER cannot turn her away.

Do you honestly saying that you are totally opposed to her government helping her pay some bills or getting her medical attention just because some 20 year old losers might try to milk the system?

If that's how you really feel then there's not much else I can say, that's just where we disagree.

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 08:07 PM
some people really do need help.

How much have you given this year, who did you help to get back on their feet? It is within your personal reach to help others and I wouldn't be surprised if you actually are.
Don't wait for the government to do it, step out and help someone yourself.

Wei Wu Wei
12-09-2010, 08:13 PM
I do what I can, and of course it's never enough. It's good when anyone does charitable acts but charity alone simply cannot solve the problems caused by American "Capitalism"

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 08:14 PM
I do what I can, and of course it's never enough. It's good when anyone does charitable acts but charity alone simply cannot solve the problems caused by American "Capitalism"
Then you will have to work harder at helping people.

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 08:21 PM
.......

Good resurrection, Jersey.

And, dare I say, well done to our resident libs, too.

Play fair and be polite, gentlemen and gentlewomen, and everything will be fine. :D

Constitutionally Speaking
12-09-2010, 08:22 PM
Sorry about your lack of college parties but not everyone is out to scam you, some people really do need help. You know as well as I do that not everyone who needs government assistance is in that situation purely because they "chose to party".

And you know as well as I do that most people that oppose higher taxes are not eating steak 6 days of the week. Of course I know that people really do need help, but I submit that the majority of them would be better off if the government left charity to charitable organizations, instead of using tax money to destroy their jobs. That way, less people need help. Conservatives know that people need help - and that is why we give our money VOLUNTARILY to organizations that actually help people. We give FAR more percentage - wise to charity than do liberals. In addition OUR charities are designed to help people, LIBERAL "charities" are usually pushing a liberal cause. (PETA, WWF, etc)

Constitutionally Speaking
12-09-2010, 08:23 PM
I do what I can, and of course it's never enough. It's good when anyone does charitable acts but charity alone simply cannot solve the problems caused by American "Capitalism"


American capitalism is the CURE for most of the need for charity.

Speedy
12-10-2010, 12:17 AM
A girl is raped as a teenager, becomes pregnant. She's forced to drop out of school to take care of her baby. She has no resources, money for child care or people to help her. She has a hard time getting work, holding only unskilled positions at near-minimum wage. She can barely afford rent and food, she relocates homes often and stops by food banks for help. She can barely afford a cell phone, which she needs as an unchanging number to give potential employers. She gets sick, she needs medical attention but she doesn't have insurance. The ER determines she is not in urgent danger so they hand her some pills and she checks out until she's sick enough that the ER cannot turn her away.

Do you honestly saying that you are totally opposed to her government helping her pay some bills or getting her medical attention just because some 20 year old losers might try to milk the system?

If that's how you really feel then there's not much else I can say, that's just where we disagree.

You know, I have never, not once run into a girl like the one in your example. But I havr run into countless girls like my girlfriend's niece. She has two kids (3 and 2). The father of the oldest one is a piece of shit Mexican nation who was deported. The father of the second is a piece of shit Mexican national who will be deported once he completes his prison sentence. Her lasy boyfriend was a guy that beat her and her boys. She is stupid enough to MAKE THE CHOICE to get in with pieces of shit like that. She makes her own decisions and she should live with them.

The sad part is that she could do so much better. She is stunningly gorgeous and smart enough that school was never a problem. Instead, she CHOSE to be a slut. She CHOSE to have kids thinking that that was a way to hold on to a man. I don't care that she did not intend to become pregnant, she engaged in the very behavior that causes pregnancy.

I have told my girlfriend that she better not ask me for anything if she ever give that girl anything. How that little whore lives and what she goes through is something I had nothing to do with and should not effect me in any way at all.

That is where our tax dollars are going. Not to poor girls who's rape induced pregnancy ruined their plans for college.

NJCardFan
12-10-2010, 01:24 AM
You know, I have never, not once run into a girl like the one in your example. But I havr run into countless girls like my girlfriend's niece. She has two kids (3 and 2). The father of the oldest one is a piece of shit Mexican nation who was deported. The father of the second is a piece of shit Mexican national who will be deported once he completes his prison sentence. Her lasy boyfriend was a guy that beat her and her boys. She is stupid enough to MAKE THE CHOICE to get in with pieces of shit like that. She makes her own decisions and she should live with them.

The sad part is that she could do so much better. She is stunningly gorgeous and smart enough that school was never a problem. Instead, she CHOSE to be a slut. She CHOSE to have kids thinking that that was a way to hold on to a man. I don't care that she did not intend to become pregnant, she engaged in the very behavior that causes pregnancy.

I have told my girlfriend that she better not ask me for anything if she ever give that girl anything. How that little whore lives and what she goes through is something I had nothing to do with and should not effect me in any way at all.

That is where our tax dollars are going. Not to poor girls who's rape induced pregnancy ruined their plans for college.
Ditto. Again, hypotheticals are all well and good, however, I can give a thousand examples of teens, or other women, having children as the result of unprotected sex. Irresponsible behavior. My niece for example. She wasn't raped. She was irresponsible. Thankfully for her, she has a good family structure. My half sister is another. Her oldest son was from her first marriage. Her other son and daughter, not so much and she's on public assistance. My wife's step brother is one of the biggest leeches I know. My inlaws even got him a job at my jail which was complete with benefits and a good salary. He ended up quitting(in truth, he stopped coming to work) because the money he was making didn't allow for him and his family(son and then fiancée, they've since married) to stay in their low rent housing. Again, the biggest leech I know(and if you knew my father-in-law, you'd see his children and think, 'wtf'). These people have children out of wedlock not by rape or incest but by their own irresponsible behavior.

malloc
12-10-2010, 07:44 AM
I do what I can, and of course it's never enough. It's good when anyone does charitable acts but charity alone simply cannot solve the problems caused by American "Capitalism"
American capitalism is the CURE for most of the need for charity.

Amen. Wee Wee is so misguided he dumbly puts his favorite collective ideology over history and facts. Capitalism has created a society within America where even our poor are wealthy when compared to a vast majority of the world, and only through capitalism is it possible for any significant portion of the poor to become fat. Capitalism has increased the average lifespan of people in capitalist nations from less than 50 years to over 75 from 1810 to 2010. Furthermore, capitalism has exported these benefits to even the poorest regions of the world. Capitalism has benefited our standard of living through innovations like cell phones, space age technology, and nuclear power. American capitalism drives the U.S. to deliver an average of 18,000 scientific units of advancement a year. More than 5 times the amount of our nearest competitor, the U.K., and up to hundreds of times more advancements than almost any other socialist nation.

When one looks at historical fact over ideological collectivist fiction, capitalism has brought more good and less evil into this world than any other socioeconomic system ever devised, and by a very, very large margin. I think this fact upsets Wee Wee, which in turn fuels his stubborn fixation with obsolete class warfare models. Wee Wee cannot reconcile reality with his own world view. Therefore he chooses to believe in a fictional version of economic reality in order to sustain his personal illusion that he is some sort of idolized, morally superior, crusader in a battle to right the wrongs of the world. This hallucination is necessary to sustain the outright narcissism Wee Wee displays in his posts. After all, if his philanthropy were genuine he would be crusading against the North Korean and Cuban systems which institutionalize poverty instead of cheerleading for them. Since the humanitarian angle he showcases is disingenuous, he must project the characteristics of poverty inducing socioeconomic systems onto the poverty solving capitalistic system in order to have a windmill to tilt against. It's hard to feel any empathy towards narcissists due to the repulsiveness of their arrogance, but occasionally I pity the guy. It must be very depressing indeed to have to make up a completely baseless version of reality in order to maintain the illusion of being a champion for the poor.

wilbur
12-10-2010, 10:28 AM
Um, no I don't. Because there are some things that have to be paid for. Infrastructure, police, fire, prisons, military, courts, are all necessary AND enumerated in the Constitution. See, since you don't seem to have a working brain cell, let me post something for you:


Fire departments enumerated in the constitution? LOL! Roads?! Ha!

Its by no means a given that a government *must* or *should* pay for those things. But the belief is widely accepted, that the benefits those services provide are so great, that they override the objections of any particular individual who may not want to pay for them. We don't give those individuals the option to opt out, do we?

We take their money by force. You take their money by force.

Molon Labe
12-10-2010, 10:59 AM
Fire departments enumerated in the constitution? LOL! Roads?! Ha!

Its by no means a given that a government *must* or *should* pay for those things. But the belief is widely accepted, that the benefits those services provide are so great, that they override the objections of any particular individual who may not want to pay for them. We don't give those individuals the option to opt out, do we?

We take their money by force. You take their money by force.

There are plenty of free market answers to all of these dilemmas....but it requires a paradigm shifting.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 11:43 AM
American capitalism is the CURE for most of the need for charity.

This makes no sense. If the Americansystem is the cure for poverty, then there should be no poverty in America.

NJCardFan
12-10-2010, 12:00 PM
Fire departments enumerated in the constitution? LOL! Roads?! Ha!

Its by no means a given that a government *must* or *should* pay for those things. But the belief is widely accepted, that the benefits those services provide are so great, that they override the objections of any particular individual who may not want to pay for them. We don't give those individuals the option to opt out, do we?

We take their money by force. You take their money by force.

You are such an asshole it's sad. And you so don't get it that it's even sadder. Yeah, keeping the roads in good shape and giving money to assholes like you so you can stay home and jerk off all day is exactly the same. :rolleyes: Tell us, what do you do for a living? Do you even do anything productive?

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 12:06 PM
You are such an asshole it's sad. And you so don't get it that it's even sadder.

Good point smart guy.


Yeah, keeping the roads in good shape and giving money to assholes like you so you can stay home and jerk off all day is exactly the same.

Exactly the same? Who said that?

The Night Owl
12-10-2010, 12:07 PM
See? Establish. Insure. Provide. Secure. Is there anything ambiguous about this? How about we find the definitions of each of those words:

Establish-1.
a. To set up; found. See Synonyms at found1.
b. To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.
2.
a. To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They established me in my own business.
b. To make firm or secure.
3. To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.
4. To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.
5. To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.
6. To make a state institution of (a church).http://www.thefreedictionary.com/establish

Insure-1.
a. To provide or arrange insurance for: a company that insures homeowners and businesses.
b. To acquire or have insurance for: insured herself against losses; insured his car for theft.
2. To make sure, certain, or secure.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insure

Provide-1. To furnish; supply: provide food and shelter for a family.
2. To make available; afford: a room that provides ample sunlight through French windows.
3. To set down as a stipulation: an agreement that provides deadlines for completion of the work.
4. Archaic To make ready ahead of time; prepare.
v.intr.
1. To take measures in preparation: provided for the common defense of the states in time of war.
2. To supply means of subsistence: She provides for her family by working in a hospital.
3. To make a stipulation or condition: The Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/provide

Secure-1. Free from danger or attack: a secure fortress.
2. Free from risk of loss; safe: Her papers were secure in the vault.
3. Free from the risk of being intercepted or listened to by unauthorized persons: Only one telephone line in the embassy was secure.
4. Free from fear, anxiety, or doubt.
5.
a. Not likely to fail or give way; stable: a secure stepladder.
b. Firmly fastened: a secure lock.
6. Reliable; dependable: secure investments.
7. Assured; certain: With three goals in the first period they had a secure victory, but somehow they lost.
8. Archaic Careless or overconfident.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secure

Pretty straight forward, yes? Now...

Promote-1.
a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/promote

Promote, to put it simply, means to suggest. Again, the Constitution is not ambiguous. I, and others like me, don't mind taxes when we get something back in return like police protection, protection from foreign invaders, a great highway system, ect. Giving some shlub money so they can sit home and be a shlub does nothing for me.

Fail. The US Constitution contains two clauses pertaining to the general Welfare. You provided one. Here is the 2nd:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Provide for the common Defence and general Welfare. Like you said, there is nothing ambiguous about that.

NJCardFan
12-10-2010, 12:09 PM
Fail. There are two clauses pertaining to the general Welfare of the United States. You provided only one. Here is the 2nd:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Okay?

That's general welfare, not provide a living for millions. OK? Another leech I presume. Read the Federalist papers asshole.

The Night Owl
12-10-2010, 12:13 PM
That's general welfare, not provide a living for millions. OK? Another leech I presume.

My point is that you were wrong to suggest that the US Constitution allows for nothing more than the promotion of the general Welfare.

NJCardFan
12-10-2010, 12:17 PM
My point is that you were wrong to suggest that the US Constitution allows for nothing more than the promotion of the general Welfare.

It doesn't say "provide a living for leeches like Night Owl" does it. Read the Federalist Papers on the subject. Show me where general welfare means provide a living. Show me. I'll wait.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 12:21 PM
That's general welfare, not provide a living for millions. OK? Another leech I presume. Read the Federalist papers asshole.

We are a nation of Laws. The law allows for the Government to collect taxes for the purposes of General Welfare, among other things.

So what is General Welfare?

Well, what has the Supreme Court decided?

Molon Labe
12-10-2010, 12:30 PM
We are a nation of Laws. The law allows for the Government to collect taxes for the purposes of General Welfare, among other things.

So what is General Welfare?

Well, what has the Supreme Court decided?

The SCOTUS has gotten alot wrong.

I guess you need to read what the founders believed General welfare meant. Hint: It's not how it's broadly defined today.

If you're suggesting the current confiscatory tax rates and system are what is meant by that passage of collecting taxes....that borders on delusion.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 12:37 PM
The SCOTUS has gotten alot wrong.

lol yeah I thought about that right after posting that. they may not be the best standard because i do disagree with their decisions often, but their decision still stands.



I guess you need to read what the founders believed General welfare meant. Hint: It's not how it's broadly defined today.

If you're suggesting the current confiscatory tax rates and system are what is meant by that passage of collecting taxes....that borders on delusion.

well I do think this "original intent" move is sort of unrealistic because the founders lived in an entirely different world, with an entirely different system, in an entirely different time than we do.

Modern style corporations didn't exist back then. Large scale poverty wasn't really a societal problem as it was a local problem. Back then it was fairly easy for someone to obtain a plot of land and grow their own food.

There's absolutely nothing in the founders' documents about Digital Copyright laws or contemporary threats of Terrorism or any issues that didn't exist back then. it's necessary for our system to evolve to the changing world.

the world changes and any system that cannot adapt is destined to fail. the founders wrote addressing the problems of their time as well as the foreseeable problems that may arise in the future but they simply could not see the year 2010 nor any of the problems we've faced during it.

I mean for the love of God they allowed Slavery back then, is it really best to blindly accept all of their positions as infallible?

Molon Labe
12-10-2010, 01:09 PM
lol yeah I thought about that right after posting that. they may not be the best standard because i do disagree with their decisions often, but their decision still stands.

well I do think this "original intent" move is sort of unrealistic because the founders lived in an entirely different world, with an entirely different system, in an entirely different time than we do.

Modern style corporations didn't exist back then. Large scale poverty wasn't really a societal problem as it was a local problem. Back then it was fairly easy for someone to obtain a plot of land and grow their own food.

There's absolutely nothing in the founders' documents about Digital Copyright laws or contemporary threats of Terrorism or any issues that didn't exist back then. it's necessary for our system to evolve to the changing world.

the world changes and any system that cannot adapt is destined to fail. the founders wrote addressing the problems of their time as well as the foreseeable problems that may arise in the future but they simply could not see the year 2010 nor any of the problems we've faced during it.

I mean for the love of God they allowed Slavery back then, is it really best to blindly accept all of their positions as infallible?

I hear that cop out alot by left and right. That we live in different times. That men from the past can't possibly understand modern man. When you strip away all of those platitudes it's really just a matter of technology as the only difference between us and the past.

One of my favorite sayings is there is nothing new under the sun. Human relations don't really change except by what our medium of communication happens to be or lack there of.

And who said the founders were infallible? Just better critical thinkers than most people today. It was hypocrisy that continued slavery and ignoring the principles...not that the principles were unsound.

Our modern society is stupid. There were more thinking men 250 years ago in Boston, Massachussets than there are in Washington D.C and the whole state of Virginia today.

Oh and the Boston Tea party was a result of problems witha a mega corporation the East India Company, so I'm supremely confidant the founders would understand corporate danger.

Molon Labe
12-10-2010, 01:31 PM
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country- Thomas Jefferson


I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance - Thomas Jefferson


All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
–John Adams, at the Constitutional Convention


As another person put better than I could. "Does that sound like men ready to give corporations all legal rights of personhood and right to free and unfettered speech?"

malloc
12-10-2010, 01:39 PM
Fire departments enumerated in the constitution? LOL! Roads?! Ha!

You claim to be a some sort of super genius, but then you contradict your own claim by posting ridiculous stuff like this. Fire Departments are established by the several states, or their counties, or municipalities, therefore their basis in the U.S. Constitution is the 10th Amendment. Interstate highways is one of the few proper applications of the Commerce Clause. If Arizona decides to pave a road a Utah, but not California and New Mexico, that situation may be of benefit to Arizona, but it doesn't keep trade between all states in "good working order", which is the 18th century definition of the word "regulate".



We don't give those individuals the option to opt out, do we?


Maybe in your locality you don't have the option to opt out of EMS and fire services, but since such services are run locally and not in a "one size fits all" federal fashion, many people in certain areas have the option to opt out of such services. In San Tan Valley where I live, I have the option of paying an annual or monthly fee to purchase EMS & Fire coverage from the County. If I did not have the coverage I would be billed a premium if I need to have EMS/Fire come out. However, since I do have the coverage, I pay nothing if I need them to come out. This is how our fire department and ambulance service is funded, and it works great in my area.

Wei Wu Wei
12-10-2010, 01:50 PM
As another person put better than I could. "Does that sound like men ready to give corporations all legal rights of personhood and right to free and unfettered speech?"

That's precisely the first ruling that came to mind when thinking about fudged up SCOTUS decisions

NJCardFan
12-10-2010, 10:55 PM
I hear that cop out alot by left and right. That we live in different times.

Actually, WeeWee is on to something here. People were more self reliant back then. People did for themselves. They didn't rely on government to feed and clothe them. They also lived within their means. Not people like wee wee and wilbur.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-14-2010, 06:45 AM
Fail. The US Constitution contains two clauses pertaining to the general Welfare. You provided one. Here is the 2nd:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Provide for the common Defence and general Welfare. Like you said, there is nothing ambiguous about that.


FAIL???

I would say YOU failed - at least in the eyes of the AUTHOR of the Constitution.

ABSOLUTELY ridiculous.


Go read Federalist #41 - James Madison (the main author of the Constitution) was OUTRAGED that anyone would interpret this in the way you proclaim.



Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

Pretty much what the left and you are arguing today.


No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

He proclaimed such things as dispicable and anyone STOOPING so low proved just how desperate those who argue against the Constitution by implying the "general welfare" wording in such a way were.

James Madison continues:


A power to de- stroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare. ‘’But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?


He is stating that ALL of the powers of congress are specifically listed, and to include General welfare as such a power would be the power to destroy the press, trial by jury etc., would literally give the government any power it desired - all they had to do was to couch it in the terms "for the general welfare".

But because of the way it is written, Madison argued, no well meaning person would argue that the Constitution could be interpreted that way
He said: (picking up part of the earlier quote for clarity)


But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions
be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.


The author of the Constitution itself would beg to differ.


Here is Federalist #41 in it's entirety. The parts I excerpted begin on page 185 (left column)

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1c1ALWOidQHZGYyMjM2NzEtOTFhNi00MGJkL Tg2ZjAtMTE1YzRmNWJlODBl&hl=en&pli=1




All replies to this post should go to the new topic that I started here:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=345680#post345680

Speedy
12-14-2010, 09:12 AM
Doesanyone find it telling that every descripttion of freedom by liberals has the government bestowing stuff on them?

NJCardFan
12-14-2010, 11:19 AM
Doesanyone find it telling that every descripttion of freedom by liberals has the government bestowing stuff on them?

Funny ain't it.

Freedom to a liberal means being a slave to the government. Wow.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-14-2010, 11:44 AM
Doesanyone find it telling that every descripttion of freedom by liberals has the government bestowing stuff on them?


Not just that, but stuff the government could ONLY get by DENYING a certain amount of freedom to someone else.

jediab
12-14-2010, 11:47 AM
Doesanyone find it telling that every descripttion of freedom by liberals has the government bestowing stuff on them?

That's because the line in the Declaration of Independence that states, "that they are endowed by their Creator", means government. To libtards, government is what they worship.

AmPat
12-14-2010, 04:53 PM
well I do think this "original intent" move is sort of unrealistic because the founders lived in an entirely different world, with an entirely different system, in an entirely different time than we do.
What a stupid thing to say. One could also say that a day after the Constituion was ratified was a different day.

The founders looked deep into history as well as present governments in formulating a new government. They put safeguards into place to limit gov't encroachment into our lives. Now we have liberal-"progressives" pushing and justifying those same encroachments on our freedom by suggesting it is ok now since we are in a new time.:rolleyes:

Encroachment on freedom is not more tolerable just because times are different. Freedom is not regained after experimenting with governmental chains.

If you "progressives" desire to change the constitution, go start your own country.

NJCardFan
12-14-2010, 09:12 PM
Not just that, but stuff the government could ONLY get by DENYING a certain amount of freedom to someone else.

Hence when I said that what these libtards consider freedom isn't freedom when it infringes on someone else's freedom.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-16-2010, 09:21 PM
Hence when I said that what these libtards consider freedom isn't freedom when it infringes on someone else's freedom.



Well, that too. :o