IQ

[Flamed03]

I'm not saying it's impossible because anything is attainable with hard work and effort. There are also exceptions to every rule. While i do think living your life on welfare and adding children to your family is rediculous... if it is a temporary fix to keep food on your table that is justifiable to me... Regardless of who is or isnt taxed in the process.

now, that i agree with 100%. a very temporary fix. as in a few months max. i know of people who have been on welfare for years. it burns me up.

[Elrichthain]

When FDR established welfare it was necessary for the times, and it helped fuel the economy and get us out of a depression. It was a wonderful thing. However, he established it as a temporary fix. I believe it still does a very good job in our society, but it definitely needs to be reformed, I will completely agree with that. Taking it away? No. I have it tends to HELP our economy more than hurt it. Yes, it does hurt the upper-middle to the upper classes, because they get (unfairly) taxed higher. However, I live with a woman who has two kids, and after her work went out of business unexpectedly, the compensation you so unwillingly delt helped her keep her kids. She did get back on her feet, and she's now managing a job in a Barnes & Noble cafe, and she hates the job, but she does it for her kids...to give them a chance she never had. She doesn't receive the help anymore, but without it would be without her two girls, and probably severly lack motivation.

The question is would you rather cancel the program because so many people abuse it and even breed people into a shitty life, and in so doing keeping people like my roommate unable to keep her kids, or would you rather help her out and give her kids a good life because she's TRYING, but in the meantime happen to encourage someone to take advantage. It NEEDS to be reformed, but it'd be too difficult to set a standard, or even make sure people meet the standards. I pray we find a good way to do so, it would save tons of money, but I would rather not cancel it completely in the meantime.

I agree with you about the gun thing. I think the laws can get ridiculuos, but should we have no way to control who gets a gun and who doesn't? You go to the extreme of insinuating we should have NO restrictions on buying guns. We need restrictions, for very obvious reasons. By the way, the Second Amendment, in context, is we have a right to bear arms for local militia, to preserve out natural rights. Tell me how many local militias you've come into contact with post-industrial revolution. I think we have the right to defend ourselves and our families--wouldn't deny anybody that right--but wouldn't you say we've kind of twisted the meaning of the Amendment?

By the way, we're always going to have guns: it's like drugs. There are too many people that will fight to keep it alive, so no democrat could be stupid enough to fight to elimiate guns in this country, just try to make sure it's going to the right people. So don't worry, you'll be able to keep your guns no matter who's running this country.

I'm not going to fight the gay marriage (because I've found it resides largely on your moral system, i.e. religion, and I take it your a hard core southern baptist based on the heat of your argument for being republican) except to say this: "marriage" is a religious institute, and should be determined by the religion of the person wanting to marry. What's being faught, essentially, are the privileges of a gay man or woman when being recognized by the government as "married" based on their institution of marriage. With that being the case, I believe the government SHOULD allow gay marriage, because it's not in their right (imo) to determine who is more worthy of marrying.

My last little is about your "if you don't like it, get out" attitude. This is a wonderful country, and we have a lot of great rights. However, we also have responsibilities, including fighting for our rights, as we feel we have. Believe me, if all the democrats left the country, you'd be miserable. You'd have nothing to fight, and more than likely our country would turn into a dictatorship or owned by corporations. Guess how many rights you'll have left then? As many that keeps them on top. So I'm sick of people saying "if you don't like it, leave." If we abolished guns, allowed gays to marry, and taxed the rich 70% or more of their earnings to help the homeless, would you move? Or would you fight to abolish it? We run on a pendulum, we go to extreme left and right, and we're sitting on extreme right. Don't get too upset or anything, but we're about to start swinging left, I could almost guarantee you.

[malfeas99]

When FDR established welfare it was necessary for the times, and it helped fuel the economy and get us out of a depression. It was a wonderful thing. However, he established it as a temporary fix. I believe it still does a very good job in our society, but it definitely needs to be reformed, I will completely agree with that. Taking it away? No. I have it tends to HELP our economy more than hurt it. Yes, it does hurt the upper-middle to the upper classes, because they get (unfairly) taxed higher. However, I live with a woman who has two kids, and after her work went out of business unexpectedly, the compensation you so unwillingly delt helped her keep her kids. She did get back on her feet, and she's now managing a job in a Barnes & Noble cafe, and she hates the job, but she does it for her kids...to give them a chance she never had. She doesn't receive the help anymore, but without it would be without her two girls, and probably severly lack motivation.

The question is would you rather cancel the program because so many people abuse it and even breed people into a shitty life, and in so doing keeping people like my roommate unable to keep her kids, or would you rather help her out and give her kids a good life because she's TRYING, but in the meantime happen to encourage someone to take advantage. It NEEDS to be reformed, but it'd be too difficult to set a standard, or even make sure people meet the standards. I pray we find a good way to do so, it would save tons of money, but I would rather not cancel it completely in the meantime.

I agree with you about the gun thing. I think the laws can get ridiculuos, but should we have no way to control who gets a gun and who doesn't? You go to the extreme of insinuating we should have NO restrictions on buying guns. We need restrictions, for very obvious reasons. By the way, the Second Amendment, in context, is we have a right to bear arms for local militia, to preserve out natural rights. Tell me how many local militias you've come into contact with post-industrial revolution. I think we have the right to defend ourselves and our families--wouldn't deny anybody that right--but wouldn't you say we've kind of twisted the meaning of the Amendment?

By the way, we're always going to have guns: it's like drugs. There are too many people that will fight to keep it alive, so no democrat could be stupid enough to fight to elimiate guns in this country, just try to make sure it's going to the right people. So don't worry, you'll be able to keep your guns no matter who's running this country.

I'm not going to fight the gay marriage (because I've found it resides largely on your moral system, i.e. religion, and I take it your a hard core southern baptist based on the heat of your argument for being republican) except to say this: "marriage" is a religious institute, and should be determined by the religion of the person wanting to marry. What's being faught, essentially, are the privileges of a gay man or woman when being recognized by the government as "married" based on their institution of marriage. With that being the case, I believe the government SHOULD allow gay marriage, because it's not in their right (imo) to determine who is more worthy of marrying.

My last little is about your "if you don't like it, get out" attitude. This is a wonderful country, and we have a lot of great rights. However, we also have responsibilities, including fighting for our rights, as we feel we have. Believe me, if all the democrats left the country, you'd be miserable. You'd have nothing to fight, and more than likely our country would turn into a dictatorship or owned by corporations. Guess how many rights you'll have left then? As many that keeps them on top. So I'm sick of people saying "if you don't like it, leave." If we abolished guns, allowed gays to marry, and taxed the rich 70% or more of their earnings to help the homeless, would you move? Or would you fight to abolish it? We run on a pendulum, we go to extreme left and right, and we're sitting on extreme right. Don't get too upset or anything, but we're about to start swinging left, I could almost guarantee you.

Just a couple of things I want to say, too lazy to truly argue atm, and you have a much more impressively realistic grasp of things than, say, jdmadatmypeniscuzitssmall or whoever.

1) You observe and note that welfare creates and sustains poverty, is wildly and widely abused, and fosters dependency on government. But you talk about welfare like it's the only way to help out that individual example you mentioned. How did a woman a few decades ago, when welfare wasn't even as close to comprehensive as it is now, handle that? She dealt with family, with friends, with the community, with her church, whatever. Private charities have the advantage of not only being far more efficient than any government program, but avoid having to take people's property by force and give it to others. You talk about supporting welfare like it makes you a caring, compassionate individual. What's compassionate about having other people's property taken from them to give to others? Forced altruism isn't altruism at all, it's compulsion, and it's government plunder.

2) This militia argument is tired, old, and I'm surprised you haven't been refuted on it yet. The 'militia', as defined at the time of the framing of the constitution, was ALL able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. Period. Not the 'national guard', not the 'state militia'. Given that' the case, I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment, in it's 'proper context' as you said, is designed to give every citizen the right to arm himself. What you say about gun regulation is true. I have no problem with regulation that keeps guns from getting into the hands of people that should not have them.. the mentally ill, felons, etc. The problem is, easily 99% of gun legislation that HAS been passed has done nothing to make it more difficult for anyone but law abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves, and incredibly often, has had no effect at ALL on a criminal's efforts to obtain one. Further, leglislation that has been passed up to this point has been lobbied and carried over by politicians and groups that have a STATED GOAL of removing private gun ownership rights, or constraining them as tightly as they possibly can.

P.S.: A lot of FDR's 'New Deal' government spending policies actually prolonged the Depression.

[MachNU]

Just a couple of things I want to say, too lazy to truly argue atm, and you have a much more impressively realistic grasp of things than, say, jdmadatmypeniscuzitssmall or whoever.

1) You observe and note that welfare creates and sustains poverty, is wildly and widely abused, and fosters dependency on government. But you talk about welfare like it's the only way to help out that individual example you mentioned. How did a woman a few decades ago, when welfare wasn't even as close to comprehensive as it is now, handle that? She dealt with family, with friends, with the community, with her church, whatever. Private charities have the advantage of not only being far more efficient than any government program, but avoid having to take people's property by force and give it to others. You talk about supporting welfare like it makes you a caring, compassionate individual. What's compassionate about having other people's property taken from them to give to others? Forced altruism isn't altruism at all, it's compulsion, and it's government plunder.

2) This militia argument is tired, old, and I'm surprised you haven't been refuted on it yet. The 'militia', as defined at the time of the framing of the constitution, was ALL able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. Period. Not the 'national guard', not the 'state militia'. Given that' the case, I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment, in it's 'proper context' as you said, is designed to give every citizen the right to arm himself. What you say about gun regulation is true. I have no problem with regulation that keeps guns from getting into the hands of people that should not have them.. the mentally ill, felons, etc. The problem is, easily 99% of gun legislation that HAS been passed has done nothing to make it more difficult for anyone but law abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves, and incredibly often, has had no effect at ALL on a criminal's efforts to obtain one. Further, leglislation that has been passed up to this point has been lobbied and carried over by politicians and groups that have a STATED GOAL of removing private gun ownership rights, or constraining them as tightly as they possibly can.

P.S.: A lot of FDR's 'New Deal' government spending policies actually prolonged the Depression.

1. = WOW i think you just contradicted yourself or i really didnt understand what you wrote. But unless you are saying that it is stupid for tax payers to pay for poeple who cant or wont find a job, then i agree. But if your saying you agree with welfare then your a dumbass! LOl but thats only if you agree with welfare.

2. = Agree

[malfeas99]

1. = WOW i think you just contradicted yourself or i really didnt understand what you wrote.

I'm gonna go with #2 on that one.

[Flamed03]

I'm gonna go with #2 on that one.

agreed. you dont have to be an english major to understand what you wrote.
and thanks for adding your view. i was getting tired of argueing.

[MachNU]

1. = WOW i think you just contradicted yourself or i really didnt understand what you wrote.

But unless you are saying that it is stupid for tax payers to pay for poeple who cant or wont find a job, then i agree.

2. But if your saying you agree with welfare then your a dumbass! LOl but thats only if you agree with welfare.

LOl it was a statement with a question. I was trying to shorten what he wrote in to one short and sweet statement to figur eout what he wrote.

[DrivenMind]

Unfortunately I don't follow politics.

Actually... I don't think I've ever even been to this section of the forum before.

Perhaps I'm ignorant for not paying more attention to the people who make important decisions regarding my freedoms, but truthfully from an outsiders perspective looking in everything in, and surrounding politics is far to opinionated to make a "correct" or accurate decision on political leadership in this country. I believe the people making up the media, are also biased in their presentation of "facts" and "truths". Not intentionally so, but because trying to make sense out of the enormous amount of information (accurate, close to accurate, or inaccurate) you hear on the radio, television and various other sources results in sensory overload.

From an outsiders standpoint I don't know who, or what to believe when it comes to politics.

From my perspective (a socially active youth and student) I get so many different opinions, and contrasting, though seemingly valid points that is seems stupid, almost futile to try and accurately decipher between the unbiased truth, and the opinionated bullshit... as they can both be equally appealing.

[Jaimecbr900]

Interesting reading.

malfeas has pretty much summed what I would've said had I seen this discussion earlier, except he was much nicer about it than I would've.....

[{X}Echo419]

yeah dude i would check your facts next time around. I'm a democrat and avid hater of George Bush, and even I say you are an ass if you took that seriously.

Anyway... Arent you technically retarded if you iq is that low?

it's bad when someone who drinks that mucj Kool-Aid to say that....damn

^just kidding^ don't flip out