(10-22-2012 10:59 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(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:  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.

You have a point although that was a matter of national security. I disagree with the internment camps but at the time our very way of life was under real threat.

I don't think many liberals look at FDR as a civil rights champion anyway. Truman, yes, for integrating the armed forces, and LBJ for signing the Civil Rights Act.

(10-22-2012 11:19 AM)Smaug Wrote:  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.

I agree.

I'd much rather have my tax dollars spent on giving a black man that cannot work due to him not being physically able than giving it to a white man because he don't have to.

(10-22-2012 11:16 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(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.

They're poor, not criminals.

I don't think aid should be luxurious or afford any better standard of living than a person making minimum wage, but if someone has basic needs we should step up. We should make job training and education widely accessible but being poor is not a crime and we need not "crack down" on it.

I agree.

So, lets stop bragging about how many people we've ADDED to welfare rolls and see who we can help off them.

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

Like unborn babies?

(10-22-2012 11:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 11:16 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(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.

They're poor, not criminals.

I don't think aid should be luxurious or afford any better standard of living than a person making minimum wage, but if someone has basic needs we should step up. We should make job training and education widely accessible but being poor is not a crime and we need not "crack down" on it.

Being poor is not a crime, I agree. But if you draw a check, you shouldn't have a problem peeing in a cup.

Job training and education is accessible, but taking the effort to do it is the problem. You cannot tell me otherwise. I had to take out student loans because my parents couldn't afford to send me to college, but they made too much for me to get certain grants. However, I saw countless people getting the grants I never could get, but they never went to class. They usually got so many grants that they got money back every semester. So we as a nation rewarded people that were poor for not getting an education and punished those who did the right thing. Not saying every person that was poor and getting that aid didn't do the right thing, but I saw more of the other.

If you feed a stray animal it keeps coming around. I'm not saying cut them off, but you have to draw a line. If you say hey we know no one is hiring, you can join us in making your state look beautiful and pick up trash for 3 hours a day for 3 days a week. At least then we're getting something out of it, if they refuse, that's it. Write them off. You cannot keep giving able bodied people money to do nothing, if they never had pride to do work to begin with and you pay them, what's going to be the incentive?

The time of sunshine, rainbows, hugs, and giving ribbons for participating needs to end and go back to survival of the fittest.

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

I would make them a deal. They can rot but don't breed.

(10-22-2012 11:32 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

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

I would make them a deal. They can rot but don't breed.

That's another thing I disagree with. I'm all for women's rights, but if you can't afford a kid, don't have one. That's not fair to you or the child.

(10-22-2012 11:29 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

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

Like unborn babies?

Absolutely. Maxi is a firm believer in the necessity of aborting vulnerable babies.

Said this many many times before. Forced temporary sterilization if you want assistance. WIN WIN WIN. We should be giving out contraceptives like we give out toothbrushes. It probably has a multiplier in the high 20's. We could save so much money in the long run. An abortion should be so rare because it's so damn hard to have an unwanted pregnancy. That's something you "SHOULD" be able to get by both parties. But look at the grief Michelle Obama gets by trying to tackle the obesity problem. Times that by 100.

(10-22-2012 11:32 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 11:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 11:16 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(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.

They're poor, not criminals.

I don't think aid should be luxurious or afford any better standard of living than a person making minimum wage, but if someone has basic needs we should step up. We should make job training and education widely accessible but being poor is not a crime and we need not "crack down" on it.

Being poor is not a crime, I agree. But if you draw a check, you shouldn't have a problem peeing in a cup.

Job training and education is accessible, but taking the effort to do it is the problem. You cannot tell me otherwise. I had to take out student loans because my parents couldn't afford to send me to college, but they made too much for me to get certain grants. However, I saw countless people getting the grants I never could get, but they never went to class. They usually got so many grants that they got money back every semester. So we as a nation rewarded people that were poor for not getting an education and punished those who did the right thing. Not saying every person that was poor and getting that aid didn't do the right thing, but I saw more of the other.

If you feed a stray animal it keeps coming around. I'm not saying cut them off, but you have to draw a line. If you say hey we know no one is hiring, you can join us in making your state look beautiful and pick up trash for 3 hours a day for 3 days a week. At least then we're getting something out of it, if they refuse, that's it. Write them off. You cannot keep giving able bodied people money to do nothing, if they never had pride to do work to begin with and you pay them, what's going to be the incentive?

The time of sunshine, rainbows, hugs, and giving ribbons for participating needs to end and go back to survival of the fittest.

Come on grandma, pee in that cup!

(10-22-2012 11:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Said this many many times before. Forced temporary sterilization if you want assistance. WIN WIN WIN. We should be giving out contraceptives like we give out toothbrushes. It probably has a multiplier in the high 20's. We could save so much money in the long run. An abortion should be so rare because it's so damn hard to have an unwanted pregnancy. That's something you "SHOULD" be able to get by both parties. But look at the grief Michelle Obama gets by trying to tackle the obesity problem. Times that by 100.

I think there are better ways. And there are always unanticipated consequences to worry about when you start tinkering w/ people's bodies: http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-10...onsidered/

(10-22-2012 11:55 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 11:32 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 11:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 11:16 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

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

They're poor, not criminals.

I don't think aid should be luxurious or afford any better standard of living than a person making minimum wage, but if someone has basic needs we should step up. We should make job training and education widely accessible but being poor is not a crime and we need not "crack down" on it.

Being poor is not a crime, I agree. But if you draw a check, you shouldn't have a problem peeing in a cup.

Job training and education is accessible, but taking the effort to do it is the problem. You cannot tell me otherwise. I had to take out student loans because my parents couldn't afford to send me to college, but they made too much for me to get certain grants. However, I saw countless people getting the grants I never could get, but they never went to class. They usually got so many grants that they got money back every semester. So we as a nation rewarded people that were poor for not getting an education and punished those who did the right thing. Not saying every person that was poor and getting that aid didn't do the right thing, but I saw more of the other.

If you feed a stray animal it keeps coming around. I'm not saying cut them off, but you have to draw a line. If you say hey we know no one is hiring, you can join us in making your state look beautiful and pick up trash for 3 hours a day for 3 days a week. At least then we're getting something out of it, if they refuse, that's it. Write them off. You cannot keep giving able bodied people money to do nothing, if they never had pride to do work to begin with and you pay them, what's going to be the incentive?

The time of sunshine, rainbows, hugs, and giving ribbons for participating needs to end and go back to survival of the fittest.

Come on grandma, pee in that cup!

When's the last time you peed in a cup?

(10-22-2012 09:04 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:02 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The last four years.

Who's the morons.

The people who vote against their own economic interests. At least the Obamaphone lady knows who has her back. But you have millions of dumb rural whites, many of whom are on food stamps or some form of government aid, who will vote for the guy who wants to cut them off and give tax breaks to the rich.

The day I think the gubment has my back I've instructed my family to have me committed to THE NERVOUS hospital.

Democrats are the party of race baiting, derisiveness and arrogance. It will take years, decades to recover from this, if ever.