"sigh...i think this thread is over "


It appears so. Looking over the old postings, there was an actual stirring intelligent debate going on here. Then I butted in and dumbed things down too much. Oh well, nice job anyway lads. Until the next inevitable capitalism vs. those God forsaken leftists battle, as we say here in South Texas, adios amigos.

Pagan

P.S. Cyrezar, anon 158 is stirring up trouble in the WTC disaster thread. Go get 'im.

sigh...i think this thread is over since it got taken off the 'hot thread' box. Oh well, well just have to go argue on the wolfenstein thread.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin

Thank god Apeman is okay. I thought I had bored him to death.

Not at all! I'm still here. As are the rest of you, from the looks of it.

Go on, somebody say something entertaining. I'm worried we're losing momentum...

Thank god Apeman is okay. I thought I had bored him to death.

Pagan

People having a love for freedoms foreign to your entire hemisphere is hardly a reason for them being stupid.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin

Ive nothing personal against Apeman, except his constant mockery of Americans.

Oh for Chrissake... I am not mocking Americans, I am mocking stupid people. Those two may or may not be the same.

"You put socialism and truth in quotations. Why is that?"

To indicate irony. You throw those words around as if you were in firm possession of both. I put quotes around them because I do not accept your definitions of either.

They are not my definitions.

"And, it is in fact the same, only the wording is changed. I don’t dictate the truth."

It isn't clear to me what you mean here, except that you seem to be repeating your claim that giving money to poor people on drugs is the same thing as raising taxes to help the poor, ergo every time you give money to the poor, you give money to people on drugs, ergo poor people who receive money (welfare) - are on drugs.
We can go around and around on this, but when you repeatedly prove my accusations, I see no reason for me to repeat them.

Wrong. You take my example as reasoning that all poor people are on drugs, when i have in fact said nothing to that point. I have made this clear twice now, there will not be a third time.

As for your statement that you "don't dictate the truth"--you've lost me completely here. Are you saying the truth is the truth, and you simply happen to be in possession of it? (If that is true, I guess I'll just have to take you on your word, that your "truth" is "the" truth.)

I mean that as saying if you dont accept the truth, fine. I dont make truth, i use it to make an argument. You seem to be under the impression that truth is relative. It isnt.

"It is only distributed by a welfare program when the government is in charge of it."

Yes? And your point is ... ? When we talk about raising taxes, I ASSUME that implies government is involved. Or are we talking about feudal landowners of the past? You've lost me completely here.

You stated that when resources are given to the poor by anyone it is welfare. I disagree, welfare is complusary and rigid as declared by the state, while charity conforms to individuals needs and is voluntary.

"Self destructive behavior plays a major role, but so do other causes; like being widowed or orphaned. I’ve mentioned this before."

I am glad you have some sympathy for the above groups. But I was not talking about what PUT them on welfare, I was talking about why they can't GET OFF it on their own. Many of the people who've been booted out of the system by Bill Clinton (don't tell me--he's a "socialist," right?) end up stuck in minimum wage jobs that actually pay less than the state used to. Your argument is that anyone who wants to, can work their way out of poverty without help from the state. If they don't, you claim it is their own fault.

The possibilty exists in a capitalist system that anyone can become wealthy from whatever background. This has been proven true countless times. However, if they are being given money and housing by the state, then why would they work for it? This is my arguement. It has been shown that in the majority, people who are given something for free regularly strive to improve themselves less.

If someone will not improve their own lot by choice, there is therefore no reason to feel sorry for them, as they choose to live that way.

Correct. But it is not their fault entirely. The handouts they recieve have disastrous effects, as i stated above. I feel sorry for them in that they are caught in the cycle, but they do not need pity. They need work, and a drive to improve themselves. This does not come with free items.

Let me quote you again:

"I did say that people can work themselves out of being poor."

Correct. Would you work for money when you were given it based on your 'need'?

Were people actually able to earn more at a minimum wage job--the kind of job they would be able to get--than they would on welfare, yes I think they would work for money. But that also assumes those same shitty Mc-jobs would provide some sort of childcare for the many working parents out there--which of course they don't. When people leave welfare for the workplace, that means, particularly in the case of working mothers, that they can no longer stay home to care for their children. Someone has to. Yet they often can't afford to pay for daycare on the wages that are available to them. The government should help them by providing affordable daycare, but then of course that would be "statist," wouldn't it?
This situation is much more complex than your black and white thinking will allow you to perceive.

Why would you work all day for a small amount of money more than what you cna get by not working? Especially when the money you get is based on 'need'. You get more money if you are unemployed. This also includes food stamps and possibly free housing. The daycare arguement is flawed; there are daycares tailored to the needs of the '9-5 slave trade' group. There are even charity daycares. If government attempted to follow suit with its own daycare, it would, if previous examples indicate, fail miserably. Government is not suited to taking care of small issues such as that. The situation is only complex if you allow it to be.

ME: If they can "work themselves" out of poverty, but choose not to do so, is not then, THEIR OWN FAULT?
YOU: It is. But the reason they are in poverty to start with may not be. You twist my words again.

How am I twisting your words? Forget it. Let's just say I twisted your words here. FINE. I know accuse you of blaming people for their CONTINUING state of poverty. Does that suit you better?

As i stated above, i accuse both government meddling and these people corrupted work ethic because of the governments meddling. Before you try to put words into my mouth again, i should say that this is not the rule. There are of course people who will try to better themselves.

[q"We should care about them, most certainly. But not by giving them handouts. Offering jobs or expecting work in return does far more than giving handouts. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life."

I agree. But in exactly what way should he be taught? You can't be suggesting that the government should subsidize his schooling, or a job-training program, to help him escape poverty, are you? Wouldn't that, in your world, be "statist?"
I suggest quite the opposite. The government should have no role in it whatsoever. This is where the minimum wage laws hinder things. If there were exceptions, so that people could work for less because of their unskilled nature, it would make this situation far easier. Charities and other private organizations could also fund it. So, my answer to that is a. the businesses train the people in exchange for lower pay while they are being trained and b. other private organizations could and do most certainly provide this help.

[q"Slave trade? How is going to work and making money a slave trade?"

I'll tell you exactly how. When the minimum wage is set at such a level that many of the working poor can not afford to pay for food, rent, utilities, health insurance, day care, etc etc, AND save enough money to escape from poverty, that's how. If those jobs were unionized, they might be able to collectively bargain for better wages or benefits, but then that would be ... well, we know what you think that would be, right?

The point is, that even though they are working, they are not "free" to improve their lot, because they are trapped in their situation through no fault of their own. Some manage to escape, yes, but the vast majority do not. They will remain poor until they die. You say it is their own fault. I say it is not.
Your arguement seems to hinge around the fact that, and i am paraphrasing, the 'majority' of the people work many many hours a week on minimum wage but remain poor. Most jobs that pay minimum wage are more of temporary jobs. I would like to see the figures and sources that say that most poor are working many hours a way in fast food restaraunts or such for all of their lives until they die. As for myself, i rarely see the same old man working at mcdonalds for 50 years. I see mostly younger people.

"Do you think that we should put everyone who works nine to five on welfare? Does working 9 to 5 make you a poor slave? I don’t think so. Your argument is ludicrous."

Now who's putting words in someone's mouth? Of course there are nine-to-five jobs that pay a decent salary. It's not the hours worked. It is the rate at which they are compensated.

Precisely. I cant really think of an all day, long term job that pays minimum wage.

"In the future, i will not respond to any of your posts unless you at least try to be civil and present valid points."

They are valid. You choose not to see them as such. However, I will plead guilty to the charge of failing, from time to time, to be civil. These arguments are not abstract to me, they involve real people and real suffering, often related to the greed of others. But nonetheless, you are right, it is best to present ones arguments in a civil tone, no matter how outrageous you think those of the other side are.

I will do my best to return this kindness to you. En garde.

Cyrezar



"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin
This comment was edited on Sep 15, 10:36.

"You put socialism and truth in quotations. Why is that?"

To indicate irony. You throw those words around as if you were in firm possession of both. I put quotes around them because I do not accept your definitions of either.

"And, it is in fact the same, only the wording is changed. I don’t dictate the truth."

It isn't clear to me what you mean here, except that you seem to be repeating your claim that giving money to poor people on drugs is the same thing as raising taxes to help the poor, ergo every time you give money to the poor, you give money to people on drugs, ergo poor people who receive money (welfare) - are on drugs.
We can go around and around on this, but when you repeatedly prove my accusations, I see no reason for me to repeat them.

As for your statement that you "don't dictate the truth"--you've lost me completely here. Are you saying the truth is the truth, and you simply happen to be in possession of it? (If that is true, I guess I'll just have to take you on your word, that your "truth" is "the" truth.)

"It is only distributed by a welfare program when the government is in charge of it."

Yes? And your point is ... ? When we talk about raising taxes, I ASSUME that implies government is involved. Or are we talking about feudal landowners of the past? You've lost me completely here.


"Self destructive behavior plays a major role, but so do other causes; like being widowed or orphaned. I’ve mentioned this before."

I am glad you have some sympathy for the above groups. But I was not talking about what PUT them on welfare, I was talking about why they can't GET OFF it on their own. Many of the people who've been booted out of the system by Bill Clinton (don't tell me--he's a "socialist," right?) end up stuck in minimum wage jobs that actually pay less than the state used to. Your argument is that anyone who wants to, can work their way out of poverty without help from the state. If they don't, you claim it is their own fault. If someone will not improve their own lot by choice, there is therefore no reason to feel sorry for them, as they choose to live that way.


Let me quote you again:

"I did say that people can work themselves out of being poor."

Correct. Would you work for money when you were given it based on your 'need'?

Were people actually able to earn more at a minimum wage job--the kind of job they would be able to get--than they would on welfare, yes I think they would work for money. But that also assumes those same shitty Mc-jobs would provide some sort of childcare for the many working parents out there--which of course they don't. When people leave welfare for the workplace, that means, particularly in the case of working mothers, that they can no longer stay home to care for their children. Someone has to. Yet they often can't afford to pay for daycare on the wages that are available to them. The government should help them by providing affordable daycare, but then of course that would be "statist," wouldn't it?
This situation is much more complex than your black and white thinking will allow you to perceive.

ME: If they can "work themselves" out of poverty, but choose not to do so, is not then, THEIR OWN FAULT?
YOU: It is. But the reason they are in poverty to start with may not be. You twist my words again.

How am I twisting your words? Forget it. Let's just say I twisted your words here. FINE. I know accuse you of blaming people for their CONTINUING state of poverty. Does that suit you better?

"We should care about them, most certainly. But not by giving them handouts. Offering jobs or expecting work in return does far more than giving handouts. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life."

I agree. But in exactly what way should he be taught? You can't be suggesting that the government should subsidize his schooling, or a job-training program, to help him escape poverty, are you? Wouldn't that, in your world, be "statist?"

"I am a conservative? not quite."

Fine. We'll just chalk it up to coincidence that all of your arguments fall into the conservative/libertarian section of the political realm.

"Slave trade? How is going to work and making money a slave trade?"

I'll tell you exactly how. When the minimum wage is set at such a level that many of the working poor can not afford to pay for food, rent, utilities, health insurance, day care, etc etc, AND save enough money to escape from poverty, that's how. If those jobs were unionized, they might be able to collectively bargain for better wages or benefits, but then that would be ... well, we know what you think that would be, right?

The point is, that even though they are working, they are not "free" to improve their lot, because they are trapped in their situation through no fault of their own. Some manage to escape, yes, but the vast majority do not. They will remain poor until they die. You say it is their own fault. I say it is not.


"Do you think that we should put everyone who works nine to five on welfare? Does working 9 to 5 make you a poor slave? I don’t think so. Your argument is ludicrous."

Now who's putting words in someone's mouth? Of course there are nine-to-five jobs that pay a decent salary. It's not the hours worked. It is the rate at which they are compensated.

"In the future, i will not respond to any of your posts unless you at least try to be civil and present valid points."

They are valid. You choose not to see them as such. However, I will plead guilty to the charge of failing, from time to time, to be civil. These arguments are not abstract to me, they involve real people and real suffering, often related to the greed of others. But nonetheless, you are right, it is best to present ones arguments in a civil tone, no matter how outrageous you think those of the other side are.

ANON

Not hostilities. Just arguement. Arguement is one of the best ways to learn. I hope that if enough people see they can shed overbearing government and be more free and prosperous becuase of it that the current state of affairs will change. Ive nothing personal against Apeman, except his constant mockery of Americans. Anon is a bit more hostile, if he keeps it up he can argue by himself.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin

"Present a point for arguement and lets go. Until then, dont accuse me of saying things i didnt."


Yikes! Hostilities are about to break out once again. Cyrezar, I'm trying to use reason on Apeman and his comrade.
If war re-occurs, it'll make it harder for me to turn them to the dark side (lol in an evil fashion).

Pagan

That last sentence is telling. The first part is your version of what a "socialist" would say, were he to be telling the "truth." But that last sentence, "It's exactly the same"--that's all you.

You put socialism and truth in quotations. Why is that?
And, it is in fact the same, only the wording is changed. I dont dictate the truth.

So. Giving money "to poor people who are addicted to drugs" is EXACTLY THE SAME, in YOUR words, as "raising taxes to help the poor children."

Wrong. You take my words out of context. The end result is the same. The wording is different.

If you raise taxes to give money to the poor - it what form is it mostly distributed?

You know very well what form.

In the form of "welfare."

It is only distributed by a welfare program when the government is in charge of it.

You further reveal the hollowness of your own arguments by claiming in your last post, that you do NOT say it is always the fault of the poor, for being poor. Oh yes?

Oh yes. Self destructive behavior plays a major role, but so do other causes; like being widowed or orphaned. Ive mentioned this before.

Let me quote you again:

"I did say that people can work themselves out of being poor."

They can? If that's true, if people who wish to work themselves out of being poor, "can," do so, then those who do NOT work their way out of being poor - must therefore CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO.

Correct. Would you work for money when you were given it based on your 'need'?

Is that not so? By your own, black and white logic, is that not the case? I'll make it easy on you. Let's exclude, say, the disabled. In your little social-darwinistic heart, perhaps even you have room for them, though you did not exclude them from your statement.
BUT everyone else, who is physically capable of working, who CAN choose to work--has the ability to work themselves out of poverty, is that not what you have argued?

If they can "work themselves" out of poverty, but choose not to do so, is not then, THEIR OWN FAULT?

It is. But the reason they are in poverty to start with may not be. You twist my words again.

If it is their own fault--why should we care about them?

We should care about them, most certainly. But not by giving them handouts. Offering jobs or expecting work in return does far more than giving handouts. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life.

Upon such simple-minded logic, rests the cornerstone of many a conservative's philosophy.

I am a conservative? not quite.

The fact is, to anyone who knows anything about the poor in this country--not just what they learned in Economics 101--there are MANY poor people who work hard all day, and are unable to escape the nine-to-five, minimum wage slave trade.

Slave trade? How is going to work and making money a slave trade? Do you think that we should put everyone who works nine to five on welfare? Does working 9 to 5 make you a poor slave? I dont think so. Your argument is ludicrous.

I didn't put words in your mouth. You put them there. At least have the consistency not to deny them

You have indeed put words into my mouth, twisted what i have said, and pulled things out of context to attempt to form an arguement. You have failed. In the future, i will not respond to any of your posts unless you at least try to be civil and present valid points.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 12:19.

I presented several points, as you very well know. You are avoiding them. That's fine, if you don't want to answer, then don't, but don't pretend there is nothing to respond to.

Present a point for arguement and lets go. Until then, dont accuse me of saying things i didnt.

"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin

Okay, so I guess my Communist Youth Instruction didn't cover everything AFTER all ... looks like they left out basic fractions.
But hey--9 out of 10 aint bad, eh?

"There. Happy now? "


Sniff. Yes thank you. Wait one damn minute. You had dropped me to one tenth and now you raise me 15. Using the finger count method I learned in my superior US public school education, that comes out to .... uhhhh ..... just a moment ..... ah ha 15.1 You owe me .... uhhhh ..... damn those decimals ..... 9.9 witty and clever points.

Pagan

Pagan wrote:

"No, I'm not going to rip off the one tenth line. My spirit was crushed by those few simple words. I wouldn't wish the same on you."

Though I feel like a sucker, on the off chance that you weren't joking here, Pagan, I'll retract my earlier figure. I'll not have it said that I crushed someone's spirit, so I'll raise you 15, back to the original quarter you had asked for. You ARE a quarter as witty as you think you are.
There. Happy now?

Speaking of "trying to reply," Cyrezar, you had accused me of putting words in your mouth. I backed up what I had to say--and haven't heard a peep from you since. Throwing in the towel, old boy?

"Well, that's me in a nutshell. How about you then? I assume you voted Republican? Is the current government doing what you wanted it to? "


If I had to classify myself, it would be fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I would rather pay off our national debt than cut taxes. I don't want to be controlled by either the religious right or a dominating government.

I vote Republican about 60% with the rest going to Democrats and Independents. I avoid the nutty parties such as the Communist, Socialists, Green, Libertarian and now sadly the Reform since they nominated Pat "I never met a Nazi I didn't admire" Buchanan for president last time.

Sigh, yes I voted for Bush last time. It was more of an anti-Gore vote than anything else. I find myself voting against people far more often than for. In fact, the only national election I was enthused about was in 1996 when Jack Kemp ran as VP with Bob Dole (groan) at the top of the ticket. They were soundly thumped by Clinton/Gore. Kemp is my kind of Republican. I have no idea what he is doing these days but Dole spends his time making commercials for Viagra. Make of that what you will. As far as my judgement of Bush: not impressed so far but willing to give him more time. You may have heard about our latest national emergency. We'll have to see how he handles it. Hopefully, he'll take his time, avoid spilling innocent blood and my God please, no nukes.

I don't know how it is in the UK but money has a stranglehold here on every election. We don't get quality men and women running for public office. Instead we get robotic ass kissers who constantly plead for money so they can put asinine meaningless commercials on the air that are selling a product rather than ideas. This money indebts them to whoever paid whether it's Microsoft or the AFL-CIO.
And we all know those guys have everyone's interests at heart (uh-oh, I'm starting to sound like you).

Uh, sorry about the length. I know it's late there. If you made it through without dozing off, thanks.

Pagan

I'll assume you're not a royalist then.

Hell no! Line 'em up against the wall, I say!

I'm on the right of the political spectrum, you're on the left. I wouldn't want another Hitler, you would fight a Stalin. We both want a representative democracy. I'm all for a social safety net but want to gently prod the capable out of it. You don't want big business running amok, sadly it has too much influence in this country. I want a strong national defense. I know it's a cliche, but our freedom wasn't free. It was paid for in blood. I don't know your feelings on that subject. Surely there is somewhere in the middle where we can meet.

Wow. Not only am I grateful you have dropped your sarcasm levels slightly but I also take off my hat to your succinct summary of centre-left versus centre-right points of view, I think it hit the nail on the head. In reality I am not as radically left-wing as I might come across in some of my posts. I realize the need for a largely unfettered market that is able to compete internationally blah blah. I guess you are right, both of us would be looking to some kind of representative democracy as our ideal form of government (it seems to have proven itself as what works best, at least in our parts of the world). In that sense we probably have more in common with one another than with extremists on either political wing. So what kind of government do I want? Personally, the current US government is too right-wing for my tastes. In fact, even my beloved Labour government has made some dubious policy decisions of late. So I guess what I would like to live under, for reasons such as some of the ones you listed, would be one of those Scandinavian-style social democracies, that are traditionally somewhat left-leaning (though by no means socialist).

Well, that's me in a nutshell. How about you then? I assume you voted Republican? Is the current government doing what you wanted it to?

Best Regards from merry olde England,

apeman

Yankee=American fron the NE part of the country.

I know, I know. Sorry for mis-using that term.
In case you didn't know, "Yankee" is also used as a derogatory term for citizens of the USA at times.