(10-22-2012 09:44 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal.

Aren't you the "We're a nation of laws" guy?

How am I promoting anarchy? I'm saying that even though it was legal, Jefferson shouldn't have done it. That law should have been changed, and was, albeit nearly a century later.

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal. If we could transport you to the 18th century, you'd buy slaves then?

Congratulations. I don't think Evil Knievel culd have made that leap.

So, are his opinions worthless because he held slaves?

Max,

I want to help the vulnerable. I don't buy into the argument that charities can possibly pick up the slack, but something is fundamentally wrong about an able bodied person falling into the trap of government assistance. The D's lose the working class white guy because he sees the fraud surrounding him when he's putting in the hours. The Pelosi daughter did a recent documentary on it. I'm with you on 90% of your ideas but the slackers and moochers need reformed. The food stamp argument holds weight. The massive expansion of these programs holds weight. I don't have the answers, but I know what side of the street I'm on when it comes to free loaders.

(10-22-2012 09:51 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:44 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal.

Aren't you the "We're a nation of laws" guy?

How am I promoting anarchy? I'm saying that even though it was legal, Jefferson shouldn't have done it. That law should have been changed, and was, albeit nearly a century later.

Nearly all the forefathers of the Constitution had slaves.. Rephrase, nearly all wealthy men of that time had slaves, it was the norm unfortunately but it doesn't mean it was right.

Max if you were alive back then and rich, chances are you probably would've owned a few people and don't act all high and mighty about it, because it was the thing to do.

But you seem to have a problem with Jefferson being wealthy from the hard work of others.. Maybe try your logic with your law career, meaning don't cite other cases when trying to win one, I mean basically you're using another man's hard work to profit off of it, and you didn't pay the man to use it.

Many poor had slaves too. Blacks also owned slaves.

(10-22-2012 09:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal. If we could transport you to the 18th century, you'd buy slaves then?

Congratulations. I don't think Evil Knievel culd have made that leap.

So, are his opinions worthless because he held slaves?

You're the one who said what he did was legal, implying that that makes it okay. If you lived in Jefferson's time, it would be legal too. Ergo per your logic, it would be okay for you to do it.

I don't know if it makes his opinions worthless, but it's a very large grain of salt to add to any high minded statements of his about freedom and morality. He was a well read, learned man, but if he couldn't see the immorality of what he was doing, you the reader have to color what he said with a degree of skepticism.

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal. If we could transport you to the 18th century, you'd buy slaves then?

Apples and oranges, obviously.

If, since childhood, you grew up around something that was legal, condoned and encouraged all around you and never questioned, I think that'd mold your mindset a bit. Not an excuse, per se, but you have to give it some consideration. And even then, Jefferson was a bit of a walking contradiction, publicly questioning and criticising the slave trade and slavery, representing black people as a lawyer, yet still not freeing all his slaves. Abhorrent by today's standards, but actually more 'liberal' for a wealthy Southerner in the late 1700s. To even suggest "hey, this doesn't seem right, you know?" was rarely spoken in those parts in that day.

(10-22-2012 10:18 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal. If we could transport you to the 18th century, you'd buy slaves then?

Congratulations. I don't think Evil Knievel culd have made that leap.

So, are his opinions worthless because he held slaves?

You're the one who said what he did was legal, implying that that makes it okay. If you lived in Jefferson's time, it would be legal too. Ergo per your logic, it would be okay for you to do it.

I don't know if it makes his opinions worthless, but it's a very large grain of salt to add to any high minded statements of his about freedom and morality. He was a well read, learned man, but if he couldn't see the immorality of what he was doing, you the reader have to color what he said with a degree of skepticism.

You're imposing 21st century sensibilities on 18th century people.

(10-22-2012 09:55 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Max,

I want to help the vulnerable. I don't buy into the argument that charities can possibly pick up the slack, but something is fundamentally wrong about an able bodied person falling into the trap of government assistance. The D's lose the working class white guy because he sees the fraud surrounding him when he's putting in the hours. The Pelosi daughter did a recent documentary on it. I'm with you on 90% of your ideas but the slackers and moochers need reformed. The food stamp argument holds weight. The massive expansion of these programs holds weight. I don't have the answers, but I know what side of the street I'm on when it comes to free loaders.

To be clear, I'm not and I don't think anyone really supports fraud (which is to say, aid for people who don't need it) in the system. But I do support aid for people who need it. And I define "need it" as, "If you take it away, the person will go hungry/get sick/die." Maybe some people who need it can indeed find work, and the difference between you and me is that you would want to take away that person's aid. My problem is that if we took away aid for someone who is lazy and left them to starve, they'll go hungry/get sick/die just like the non-lazy dependent person. I don't want to throw any needy person out in the cold, lazy or not lazy. Besides, it's not like they're living so great on $12/day. Like I said, any of you conservatives are welcome to move to Peoria and live a few days in Harrison Homes if you think these "welfare queens" have it so good. My guess is you wouldn't stay there if I paid you.

Right now though, with the lack of job availability, it's a red herring. In this economy, many people can't find a job if they want to and there are 4 applicants for every job opening. People whose welfare has run out are destitute and turn to crime, or prostitution, or eating out of garbage cans.

You're a New Democrat, in the mold of Clinton, who signed welfare reform. I'm not. I'd like to remove the work requirement. I understand the theoretical appeal of the welfare work requirement, but in reality when you remove it, the lazy don't all shape up, and human misery follows. In the richest country in the world, that's unacceptable.

(10-22-2012 10:31 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 10:18 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal. If we could transport you to the 18th century, you'd buy slaves then?

Congratulations. I don't think Evil Knievel culd have made that leap.

So, are his opinions worthless because he held slaves?

You're the one who said what he did was legal, implying that that makes it okay. If you lived in Jefferson's time, it would be legal too. Ergo per your logic, it would be okay for you to do it.

I don't know if it makes his opinions worthless, but it's a very large grain of salt to add to any high minded statements of his about freedom and morality. He was a well read, learned man, but if he couldn't see the immorality of what he was doing, you the reader have to color what he said with a degree of skepticism.

You're imposing 21st century sensibilities on 18th century people.

And you're trying to impose 18th century peoples' sensibilities on me.

(10-22-2012 10:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  And you're trying to impose 18th century peoples' sensibilities on me.

No one should ever try to impose anything sensible on you since you will also reject it out of hand. You don't do sensible. Or facts. Or logic. Or reason. You do love bigotry though.

(10-22-2012 10:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 10:31 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 10:18 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Well, as long as it's legal. If we could transport you to the 18th century, you'd buy slaves then?

Congratulations. I don't think Evil Knievel culd have made that leap.

So, are his opinions worthless because he held slaves?

You're the one who said what he did was legal, implying that that makes it okay. If you lived in Jefferson's time, it would be legal too. Ergo per your logic, it would be okay for you to do it.

I don't know if it makes his opinions worthless, but it's a very large grain of salt to add to any high minded statements of his about freedom and morality. He was a well read, learned man, but if he couldn't see the immorality of what he was doing, you the reader have to color what he said with a degree of skepticism.

You're imposing 21st century sensibilities on 18th century people.

And you're trying to impose 18th century peoples' sensibilities on me.

I'm beginning to understand why the left doesn't respect the Constitution.

(10-22-2012 10:24 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal. If we could transport you to the 18th century, you'd buy slaves then?

Apples and oranges, obviously.

If, since childhood, you grew up around something that was legal, condoned and encouraged all around you and never questioned, I think that'd mold your mindset a bit. Not an excuse, per se, but you have to give it some consideration. And even then, Jefferson was a bit of a walking contradiction, publicly questioning and criticising the slave trade and slavery, representing black people as a lawyer, yet still not freeing all his slaves. Abhorrent by today's standards, but actually more 'liberal' for a wealthy Southerner in the late 1700s. To even suggest "hey, this doesn't seem right, you know?" was rarely spoken in those parts in that day.

I understand that. It was a different time, with different sensibilities, and Jefferson encapsulated that. Which is why quoting Jefferson on welfare is bunk.

To paraphrase what you said, to even suggest "Hey, these people dying on the streetcorner doesn't seem right, you know?" was rarely spoken in those parts in that day.

(10-22-2012 10:35 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Right now though, with the lack of job availability, it's a red herring. In this economy, many people can't find a job if they want to and there are 4 applicants for every job opening. People whose welfare has run out are destitute and turn to crime, or prostitution, or eating out of garbage cans.

Four more years! Four more years!

(10-22-2012 10:43 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm beginning to understand why the left doesn't respect the Constitution.

That's an easy one... The constitution is about limiting Government and that poison to the leftist. Folks too far over on the right have their problems as well but nobody relies on the Government to make things better quite like leftist..

Max, I'll agree with you on the point you made about the living conditions some of these people live in. I find some of the Section 8 housing or HUD however you want to call it, conditions that I don't want to live in. I've built a house for Humanity, and I wouldn't want it either.

However, nothing pisses me off worse than driving by a house that looks run down and deplorable, with able body people sitting in front of it all day drinking beer and smoking something I'm only assuming are cigarettes, with an older model car in the yard, that has a new paint job and high dollar rims on it. I think some of these people, no matter the race, spend money foolishly. Instead of banking $1500, they go buy a radio system. Instead of investing $2000, they go take their car in and paint it like a f'n cereal box.

White folks are the same way. They'll drop that kind of money on guns or trucks or tvs. It's a vicious cycle.

There's no easy way to fix it either. Someone is going to get hurt but you can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs.

(10-22-2012 10:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 10:24 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal. If we could transport you to the 18th century, you'd buy slaves then?

Apples and oranges, obviously.

If, since childhood, you grew up around something that was legal, condoned and encouraged all around you and never questioned, I think that'd mold your mindset a bit. Not an excuse, per se, but you have to give it some consideration. And even then, Jefferson was a bit of a walking contradiction, publicly questioning and criticising the slave trade and slavery, representing black people as a lawyer, yet still not freeing all his slaves. Abhorrent by today's standards, but actually more 'liberal' for a wealthy Southerner in the late 1700s. To even suggest "hey, this doesn't seem right, you know?" was rarely spoken in those parts in that day.

I understand that. It was a different time, with different sensibilities, and Jefferson encapsulated that. Which is why quoting Jefferson on welfare is bunk.

To paraphrase what you said, to even suggest "Hey, these people dying on the streetcorner doesn't seem right, you know?" was rarely spoken in those parts in that day.

If we apply this litmus test to Jefferson, then we can certainly apply it to FDR. Any feel-good liberal quotes on civil rights Roosevelt might've said could be considered bunk given his authorization of throwing 100K Japanese-Americans into internment camps during the onset of WWII (for which President Ronald Reagan later officially apologied on behalf of the federal government). And FDR lived in more modern times and wasn't warped by 18th Century norms either.

(10-22-2012 10:58 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Max, I'll agree with you on the point you made about the living conditions some of these people live in. I find some of the Section 8 housing or HUD however you want to call it, conditions that I don't want to live in. I've built a house for Humanity, and I wouldn't want it either.

However, nothing pisses me off worse than driving by a house that looks run down and deplorable, with able body people sitting in front of it all day drinking beer and smoking something I'm only assuming are cigarettes, with an older model car in the yard, that has a new paint job and high dollar rims on it. I think some of these people, no matter the race, spend money foolishly. Instead of banking $1500, they go buy a radio system. Instead of investing $2000, they go take their car in and paint it like a f'n cereal box.

White folks are the same way. They'll drop that kind of money on guns or trucks or tvs. It's a vicious cycle.

There's no easy way to fix it either. Someone is going to get hurt but you can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs.

You're always going to have people who are lazy, or bad decision makers, or just very low IQ dumb. But these people shouldn't be looked upon as "eggs" to be "broken." The conservative (and New Democrat) theory goes that if you want to help these people, threaten to (and follow up on) take away their aid, and they'll pull themselves up by their bootstraps and rise to the occasion. It just doesn't work like that. No light switch is going to flip on en masse. And if you do it enough you might end up with riots or something bigger.

(10-22-2012 11:13 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 10:58 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Max, I'll agree with you on the point you made about the living conditions some of these people live in. I find some of the Section 8 housing or HUD however you want to call it, conditions that I don't want to live in. I've built a house for Humanity, and I wouldn't want it either.

However, nothing pisses me off worse than driving by a house that looks run down and deplorable, with able body people sitting in front of it all day drinking beer and smoking something I'm only assuming are cigarettes, with an older model car in the yard, that has a new paint job and high dollar rims on it. I think some of these people, no matter the race, spend money foolishly. Instead of banking $1500, they go buy a radio system. Instead of investing $2000, they go take their car in and paint it like a f'n cereal box.

White folks are the same way. They'll drop that kind of money on guns or trucks or tvs. It's a vicious cycle.

There's no easy way to fix it either. Someone is going to get hurt but you can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs.

You're always going to have people who are lazy, or bad decision makers, or just very low IQ dumb. But these people shouldn't be looked upon as "eggs" to be "broken." The conservative (and New Democrat) theory goes that if you want to help these people, threaten to (and follow up on) take away their aid, and they'll pull themselves up by their bootstraps and rise to the occasion. It just doesn't work like that. No light switch is going to flip on en masse. And if you do it enough you might end up with riots or something bigger.

But you think we should just keep giving them money in hopes of it changing? I disagree, we have to become aggressive. Make'em take drug tests, I have to pee in a cup every so often at my job. Give'em ultimatiums-- find employment so we can reduce the cost or lose it all together. Offer jobs along state roads, federal roads, etc to cover the costs at which we're paying them.. If they are able.

No able-bodied person should spend their entire lives on government assistance.

I'm all for (and always have been) helping the truly needy. The worthless can rot.