(02-16-2009 11:21 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  What is the political persuasion of the vast majority of people in journalism?

Again, I did not realize the career path of journalism was defined by political persuasion, trust funds, and a wealthy middle class upbringing.

Anyway, I'm sorry for interrupting your circle jerk. Carry on.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Benjamin Franklin

D@mn Rebel,

These liberals against Rebel is like a one legged liberal man in an @ss kicking contest.

Rebel, the first time I've seen you articulate your point, which I respect, instead of just calling people idiots.

(02-16-2009 01:20 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Rebel, the first time I've seen you articulate your point, which I respect, instead of just calling people idiots.

Thats because he copy and pasted his OP....

(02-16-2009 12:05 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 11:21 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  What is the political persuasion of the vast majority of people in journalism?

Again, I did not realize the career path of journalism was defined by political persuasion, trust funds, and a wealthy middle class upbringing.

So don't blame me for your ignorance. BTW, I didn't say anything about trust funds or wealth...that's your straw man.

(02-16-2009 04:34 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 12:05 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 11:21 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  What is the political persuasion of the vast majority of people in journalism?

Again, I did not realize the career path of journalism was defined by political persuasion, trust funds, and a wealthy middle class upbringing.

So don't blame me for your ignorance. BTW, I didn't say anything about trust funds or wealth...that's your straw man.

Ignorance? I havent exactly seen you back up any of your assertions with statistics or facts.

.

Why I Think Liberals are BAD! for this Country

And all this time I thought it was simply that their lying filthy mouths kept moving.

.

(02-16-2009 04:18 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 01:20 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Rebel, the first time I've seen you articulate your point, which I respect, instead of just calling people idiots.

Thats because he copy and pasted his OP....

No, I used to post drawn out essays. After 8 years of arguing with liberal dolts, the time required just isn't worth it.

(02-16-2009 10:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 09:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm for social security because those people worked for the benefit. I to see too many people on the corners doing nothing. Poverty is a ***** boys. I've had the pleasure of living in inner city Cleveland for the last year. Put my wallet in my front pocket and walk two blocks twice a week. I have no ill will towards the poor but they need motivation to escape their lot in life. I can't stand the fact that Democrats are lumped in with the dead beats who won't get a job. Reb paints with a broad brush always has. He totally ignores the N.E. whose population has the highest I.Q. and vote overwhelmingly blue. With the exception of Vanderbilt and Rice I can't think of an academic institution in the south that is respected for it's academics. It is what it is.

Want to motivate them?....End the welfare state and let private charity take care of those in real need.

Add Davidson, Emory,The Citadel,VMI,George Mason to Torch's list.

Do you think private charity will be enough? Honestly, from the appeals I get from various charities saying how short they are of funds (moreso now with the economy and thus donations being what they are), I wonder if charities could or would come anywhere close to doing what the government currently is doing. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, I just wonder about that. If the economy is bad, donations will be down right at the time when more people will need help. And if large numbers of people don't find some kind of minimal safety net, I wonder how bad crime will get?

(02-17-2009 03:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 10:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 09:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm for social security because those people worked for the benefit. I to see too many people on the corners doing nothing. Poverty is a ***** boys. I've had the pleasure of living in inner city Cleveland for the last year. Put my wallet in my front pocket and walk two blocks twice a week. I have no ill will towards the poor but they need motivation to escape their lot in life. I can't stand the fact that Democrats are lumped in with the dead beats who won't get a job. Reb paints with a broad brush always has. He totally ignores the N.E. whose population has the highest I.Q. and vote overwhelmingly blue. With the exception of Vanderbilt and Rice I can't think of an academic institution in the south that is respected for it's academics. It is what it is.

Want to motivate them?....End the welfare state and let private charity take care of those in real need.

Add Davidson, Emory,The Citadel,VMI,George Mason to Torch's list.

Do you think private charity will be enough? Honestly, from the appeals I get from various charities saying how short they are of funds (moreso now with the economy and thus donations being what they are), I wonder if charities could or would come anywhere close to doing what the government currently is doing. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, I just wonder about that. If the economy is bad, donations will be down right at the time when more people will need help. And if large numbers of people don't find some kind of minimal safety net, I wonder how bad crime will get?

Ending a welfare state that lumps in the needy with free riders would be necessary. Charities do a great job at both making sure that someone "actually" needs help...and putting the assets to work efficiently. The welfare state return 30%, while private charity returns 70%. The difference is that bureaucrats are motivated to hand out as much money as they can. They know that justifies their jobs. Private charity is in competition for funding...They are motivated to give donors the "best bang for their buck". I'm not 100% sure it would work...but...I oppose any and all welfare...simply because of the involved theft from others to fund it. I am fully willing to support private charity even more than I do now if the welfare state was ended.

There would also be economies of purpose... meaning that (as an example) the millions of dollars spent arguing about welfare in congress, on tv, in the streets could be diverted to actually DOING something about it.

(02-17-2009 05:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  There would also be economies of purpose... meaning that (as an example) the millions of dollars spent arguing about welfare in congress, on tv, in the streets could be diverted to actually DOING something about it.

And ending the welfare state would also start to address the "traveler" problem. Cutting off benefits to travelers would motivate them to return home after the harvest as they did for centuries.

(02-17-2009 05:46 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2009 05:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  There would also be economies of purpose... meaning that (as an example) the millions of dollars spent arguing about welfare in congress, on tv, in the streets could be diverted to actually DOING something about it.

And ending the welfare state would also start to address the "traveler" problem. Cutting off benefits to travelers would motivate them to return home after the harvest as they did for centuries.

Making it easier (instead of harder) for them to get back & forth across the border would do far more.

(02-17-2009 03:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Do you think private charity will be enough? Honestly, from the appeals I get from various charities saying how short they are of funds (moreso now with the economy and thus donations being what they are), I wonder if charities could or would come anywhere close to doing what the government currently is doing. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, I just wonder about that. If the economy is bad, donations will be down right at the time when more people will need help. And if large numbers of people don't find some kind of minimal safety net, I wonder how bad crime will get?

I also think this is an interesting question, although the fact that we have all, at least on some level, been conditioned to expect the governement to take care of these issues can't be ignored.

I recently took part in an internet survey about how the recent economic downturn has affected charitable giving. I'm not sure if it will qualify as a scientific survey, but the results are being released later this month. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

(02-17-2009 10:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(02-17-2009 03:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Do you think private charity will be enough? Honestly, from the appeals I get from various charities saying how short they are of funds (moreso now with the economy and thus donations being what they are), I wonder if charities could or would come anywhere close to doing what the government currently is doing. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, I just wonder about that. If the economy is bad, donations will be down right at the time when more people will need help. And if large numbers of people don't find some kind of minimal safety net, I wonder how bad crime will get?

I also think this is an interesting question, although the fact that we have all, at least on some level, been conditioned to expect the governement to take care of these issues can't be ignored.

I recently took part in an internet survey about how the recent economic downturn has affected charitable giving. I'm not sure if it will qualify as a scientific survey, but the results are being released later this month. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

We are in agreement....I contend without the onerous theft by the federal government that Americans would gladly volunteer to help those in "real" need. Hell...We do it NOW even in a crappy economy. The examples are never ending of the generosity of Americans.

What I oppose is having a gun put to my head to extract my wages from me to support ANY damn thing. I oppose it on a moral principle.
I would not go over to my neighbors house and put a gun on him to make him pay for things that I want.....So..Why would I support ANY extraction of wealth form another person...for ANY DAMN REASON.