Obama is simply a traitor to America
martin
A total puke but a dangerous one.
tt
hal
You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
Socialism". You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
things up for decent people.
>
>tt
>
John Galt
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-amnesty/
>>
>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>
> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
> Socialism".
Let's put it this way:
An America that has reneged on its Constitution and its founding
principles (which a movement to socialism would require) isn't worth loving.
> You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
> things up for decent people.
Nice strategy: Insult the people you wish to govern.
We'll see how that works out.
JG
hal
wrote:
>hal wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-amnesty/
>>>
>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>
>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>> Socialism".
>
>Let's put it this way:
>
>An America that has reneged on its Constitution and its founding
>principles (which a movement to socialism would require) isn't worth loving.
Socialism is in no way in violation of the Constitution. If you think
it is then please cite the passage and explain how social programs are
unconstitutional.
>
>
>> You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>> things up for decent people.
>
>Nice strategy: Insult the people you wish to govern.
_I_ don't wish to govern _YOU_. _WE_ must learn to govern ourselves
for the sake and benefit of _ALL_PEOPLE_, not just the ultra wealthy.
>
>We'll see how that works out.
You haven't been able to figure it out yet, so I don't hold a lot of
hope for any of us. Your kind will continue to be obstructionist to
any real progress like you always have.
>
>JG
>
>
Curly Surmudgeon
Worse is that they wish Obama and America to fail. Fail from the very
programs they, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft,
Gonzales, Meyers, Libby, Pearl, Gates, Fleischer, Snow, Yee, and their
sycophants pushed for 8 years.
They are like small children who will submarine any agenda but their own
in spite, even if that includes destroying our nation.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Jesus Would Vote Republican
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hal
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:08:52 +0000, hal wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-
>amnesty/
>>>
>>>A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>
>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate America
>> and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil Socialism". You
>> people are stupid morons and you are still fucking things up for decent
>> people.
>
>Worse is that they wish Obama and America to fail. Fail from the very
>programs they, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft,
>Gonzales, Meyers, Libby, Pearl, Gates, Fleischer, Snow, Yee, and their
>sycophants pushed for 8 years.
>
>They are like small children who will submarine any agenda but their own
>in spite, even if that includes destroying our nation.
Frustrating as hell, isn't it? And they completely refuse to listen
to reason. Any amount of documentation and data is not enough. They
are consumed with hatred for anything but a right wing Christian
theocracy in America. They claim to be everyone's moral superior yet
would gladly watch children die from curable diseases and malnutrition
rather than accept "evil Socialism". Our sickness runs deep. I am
not confident there is any hope for us with people like that in the
world.
John Galt
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:40:17 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> hal wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-amnesty/
>>>>
>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>> Socialism".
>> Let's put it this way:
>>
>> An America that has reneged on its Constitution and its founding
>> principles (which a movement to socialism would require) isn't worth loving.
>
> Socialism is in no way in violation of the Constitution.
It is most certainly in violation of our founding principles. The
outlier issue is that there are no working models of socialism without
coersive levels that are indeed in violation of the Bill of Rights.
If you think
> it is then please cite the passage and explain how social programs are
> unconstitutional.
The first thing you need to do is figure out what you're talking about.
"Socialists" continue to conflate social programs (which can provide
some social benefit) with "SocialISM", which is the broad ownership (or
control) of the means of production.
That said, let's drill down on the two:
A "social program" is not in violation of the Constitution if the SCOTUS
determines that does not contain provisions that are in violation of the
10th Amendment. Having a few "social programs" does not make a free
market economy a socialized one. The problem with social programs is
that they *usually* have the effect of distorting the free market
environment they exist in, usually with undesireable results, and thus
may be unwise to implement.
SocialISM is permissible under the Constitution in the AIG/GM sense,
where if the government enters the capital markets and purchases a
controlling interest in a company. There isn't anything illegal about
that, assuming that Congress has properly allocated the funds. (It may
not be WISE, but its not illegal.) A government entering the market and
purchasing companies as outlined above is not at risk of creating a
socialIST government (at least in the US) because the market
capitalization of the US companies is significantly more than the money
available to the government to purchase them with. Any attempt to "go
socialist" in this manner would destroy the currency, further keeping
market caps out of reach as prices inflate.
"Going socialIST" using the nationalization route is most certainly
anti-Constitutional, because the government would be taking away from
individuals (shareholders) ownership of organizations without any legal
basis. It's theft.
>
>>
>>> You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>> things up for decent people.
>> Nice strategy: Insult the people you wish to govern.
>
> _I_ don't wish to govern _YOU_. _WE_ must learn to govern ourselves
> for the sake and benefit of _ALL_PEOPLE_, not just the ultra wealthy.
I quite agree. So, instead of spending your time figuring out how to
legally extract money from the wealthy (which is not possible, to any
significant extent), I suggest you figure out how to keep kids from
dropping out of school. You'd make far more headway in increasing
fairness in this society.
THEN, you could take certain steps to encourage the rich to invest in
businesses rather than financial markets, hopefully hiring those kids.
We've had tax codes in the past that very much encourage such investment.
The rich keep their money in financial markets because **the tax code**
encourages them to do so. If your goal is to lower the rich/poor divide,
then muck with the tax code in such a way that doesn't increase taking
from them in taxes, but instead encourages investment in business rather
than equity markets.
>
>> We'll see how that works out.
>
> You haven't been able to figure it out yet, so I don't hold a lot of
> hope for any of us. Your kind will continue to be obstructionist to
> any real progress like you always have.
Of course, because "we" consider statism to be a step backwards towards
the era of rule by kings, popes, and if not checked, feudal lords.
JG
Curly Surmudgeon
I believe this is a direct result of "faith." Faith trumps reason, logic
and critical thinking. We are seeing the result of abandoning reality
for wishes, hopes and superstition.
These Neanderthals are self-extinguishing. It will be perhaps centuries
before their species goes extinct and they will cause increasing levels
of strife however make no mistake, humankind is diverging, evolving, and
they are going to be left behind.
Too_Many_Tools
> > Like Jesus Would Vote Republican
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And the right wing Christian theocracy theme is just a sham.
We have seen anything goes as long as they benefit.
Consider them the American Taliban.
TMT
Shuurai
> >A total puke but a dangerous one.
>
> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
> Socialism". You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
> things up for decent people.
So how exactly is giving amnesty to millions of people who broke the
law making the country better? How is adding millions of people to
entitlement programs - programs that most of them have never paid into
- going to help?
This is nothing more than an attempt to secure votes, at the expense
of the American people. It has nothing to do with making things
better for anyone. It will simply encourage more illegal entry into
the country, which will raise unemployment, raise public debt, and
further strain social programs.
Did you even read the article? Of course not. You just saw the name
"Obama" in the header, realized the author was saying something
negative, and reacted with one of your usual mindless rants.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:19:20 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> That is because faith does not require reason, logic, or thinking of any
> kind. Matter of fact all of those things are almost anti-faith.
>
>>These Neanderthals are self-extinguishing. It will be perhaps centuries
>>before their species goes extinct and they will cause increasing levels
>>of strife however make no mistake, humankind is diverging, evolving, and
>>they are going to be left behind.
>>
> As are those that worship at the alter of Diversity, because at the root
> of that word is division.
Sorry, the root of "diversity" is "diverse," not "division."
> Without a great coming together, there can only be a great tearing
> apart.
That has not been the historical case. America has always been a
"melting pot" of cultures from English, German, Scandanavians, Italiams,
Poles, Spanish, Chinese, Philipino, Japanese, Mexican, American Indian,
East Indian, Czech, Slovak, Serb, Greek, Portuguese, African, Arab,
Berber, South African, French, Dutch, through religious diversity. Only
recently has xenophobia gotten out of control.
> Diversity and all if its tenants is not going to save the day, only be
> the ruination of the nation. Without a common people sharing common
> goals, there can be no common good.
Diversity has never been proposed as "saving the day," it's not Mighty
Mouse... "Common People" is a nebulous term, a diverse people can share
common goals. It is those common goals we must work toward and cease
stacking the deck with apartheid.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:28:57 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:08:52 +0000, hal wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-
>>amnesty/
>>>>
>>>>A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>
>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>> Socialism". You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>> things up for decent people.
>>
>>Worse is that they wish Obama and America to fail. Fail from the very
>>programs they, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell,
>>Ashcroft, Gonzales, Meyers, Libby, Pearl, Gates, Fleischer, Snow, Yee,
>>and their sycophants pushed for 8 years.
>>
> A desire to see him scale back some of his grandiose ideas is not a
> desire to see him fail. It is perhaps a desire to see him succeed.
True however the bulk of the loud voices want Obama to fail.
>>They are like small children who will submarine any agenda but their own
>>in spite, even if that includes destroying our nation.
>>
> Nation as a concept is pretty much already destroyed. The ideas of
> self-reliance, self-responsibility, and pretty much any other concept
> that puts the self into the picture were torpedoed long ago. Hells
> bells we can't even get the majority of the "Gimmies" to even chip into
> the pot anymore in the form of Service to their Country.
True also but not a reason to tilt the playing field to yet another
special interest group. _Level_ the playing field, not engage in culture
wars pitting one group against another.
> The concepts and speeches of are long forgotten, well except for perhaps
> the donut gaff. No longer is there even a desire to ask what you can do
> for your country, but simply what can you get out of it.
True again but implementing a system of "we got ours and fuck you" isn't
going to work either.
> Balls said the Queen; if I had a pair I'd be King!
No matter the gender, few politicians have the balls to do what is right.
Curly Surmudgeon
>> >A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>
>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate America
>> and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil Socialism". You
>> people are stupid morons and you are still fucking things up for decent
>> people.
>
> So how exactly is giving amnesty to millions of people who broke the law
> making the country better? How is adding millions of people to
> entitlement programs - programs that most of them have never paid into -
> going to help?
Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
> This is nothing more than an attempt to secure votes, at the expense of
> the American people. It has nothing to do with making things better for
> anyone. It will simply encourage more illegal entry into the country,
> which will raise unemployment, raise public debt, and further strain
> social programs.
An argument built upon a fantasy.
> Did you even read the article? Of course not. You just saw the name
> "Obama" in the header, realized the author was saying something
> negative, and reacted with one of your usual mindless rants.
Yes, I read the article. Show us the passage where Obama proposed
amnesty for illegal aliens.
TravIsGod
> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
> Socialism". You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
> things up for decent people.
socialism is what is causing the failure
Look at the debt projections to support the seminal socialist
progressive programs.
You clown; it was the SS surplus that permitted the ponzi gov't to
grow in the first place, enabled all the wars and all the wasteful
spending.
We NEVER should have trusted these people with ANY money or ANY kind
of taxation power.
Taxation powers are a BLANK CHECK for Congress and the President.
Trav
TravIsGod
> some social benefit) with "SocialISM", which is the broad ownership (or
> control) of the means of production.
>
> That said, let's drill down on the two:
>
> A "social program" is not in violation of the Constitution if the SCOTUS
> determines that does not contain provisions that are in violation of the
> 10th Amendment. Having a few "social programs" does not make a free
> market economy a socialized one. The problem with social programs is
> that they *usually* have the effect of distorting the free market
> environment they exist in, usually with undesireable results, and thus
> may be unwise to implement.
>
> SocialISM is permissible under the Constitution in the AIG/GM sense,
> where if the government enters the capital markets and purchases a
> controlling interest in a company. There isn't anything illegal about
> that, assuming that Congress has properly allocated the funds. (It may
> not be WISE, but its not illegal.) A government entering the market and
> purchasing companies as outlined above is not at risk of creating a
> socialIST government (at least in the US) because the market
> capitalization of the US companies is significantly more than the money
> available to the government to purchase them with. Any attempt to "go
> socialist" in this manner would destroy the currency, further keeping
> market caps out of reach as prices inflate.
Horseshit. There was to be nothing legal about the USG entering the
market and buying companies. There is no specifically ENUMERATED
power in the Constitution that provides for that.
Buying AIG sure as SHIT isn't "regulating commerce between the several
states." If you can point me to a specific provision of the
Constitution that PERMITS or allows for the government purchasing
corporations, I am all eyes.
There are specific reasons that the USG was not trusted with taxation
powers or the power to enact socialist programs like SocSec and why
FDR had to court-stack to get rubber stamps for them. It's because
the Founders knew that taxation powers led to feudalism.
Everything the government does distorts the marketplace now. Look at
Cash for Clunkers...hailed by morons as a great program, "priming the
pump," classic "stimulus," blablabla. We got a one-time windfall of
sales, which have now collapsed and will not recover. Many
dealerships are in WORSE shape as a result because the USG hasn't been
timely in paying them as the administration of the program turned into
an affirmative action fest of hiring (which is all the USG does these
days). Edmunds has projected post-C4C SAAR at a 30 year low. And
there is now no evidence whatsoever that people will not wait until
the next round of free cash.
They have turned the entire automarket now into something REQUIRING a
subsidy to move any cars. Just by well-intentioned socialist
progressivism, they have destroyed the automobile market in the span
of a couple of weeks. Recent polls have also shown that there is a
larger bit of buyer's remorse on these vehicles than with any similar
program, ever. A good size of the people who fell for C4C and got
caught up in the hooplah of spending with debt are now saying oh fuck
I have to pay less on my CCs or less on my mortgage or less on
everything else because I owe Mr. Bankerman these car payments on a
piece of shit depreciating "asset."
Look at what C4C really did...it made people FURTHER into debt
slaves. There won't be much in the way of profits from this program
for ANYBODY except the banks who lent the money at interest. Our
system is now purpose-built to make us into debt peons.
This is all that these idiots can do, fuck things up. The Founders
built a framework where We the People were responsible for our own
lives. The socialist progressives have built a system where the
government just fucks everything up that it touches. Did anybody
really believe that a government chock full of affirmative action
hires could administer effectively?
> > You haven't been able to figure it out yet, so I don't hold a lot of
> > hope for any of us. Your kind will continue to be obstructionist to
> > any real progress like you always have.
>
> Of course, because "we" consider statism to be a step backwards towards
> the era of rule by kings, popes, and if not checked, feudal lords.
Feudalism is the ultimate socialism.
Trav
Beam Me Up Scotty
Did you just equate Christianity with the Taliban who gave cover and aid
to Al Qaeda?
Curly Surmudgeon
<Then-Destro...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> Did you just equate Christianity with the Taliban who gave cover and aid
> to Al Qaeda?
If he didn't then I will. And have. And do.
From the right wing evangelicals to the left wing radicals, they harbor
lunatics who frequently cross the line from simple lunatics to bat-shit
crazy.
Go talk to a snake.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Jesus Would Vote Republican
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hal
<Then-Destro...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>Did you just equate Christianity with the Taliban who gave cover and aid
>to Al Qaeda?
I equate the Taliban with the kinds of Christians who will murder
doctors, harass young mothers, and disrupt democratic town hall
meetings simply because people aren't doing what they say. There is
no difference with religious fanatics. Only the names change.
SaPeIsMa
"hal" wrote in message news:4abcd26b...@news.newsguy.com...
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:40:17 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>hal wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-amnesty/
>>>>
>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>
>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>> Socialism".
>>
>>Let's put it this way:
>>
>>An America that has reneged on its Constitution and its founding
>>principles (which a movement to socialism would require) isn't worth
>>loving.
>
> Socialism is in no way in violation of the Constitution. If you think
> it is then please cite the passage and explain how social programs are
> unconstitutional.
>
Feel free to show where the Constitution authorizes the Feds to run "social
programs"
>>
>>
>>> You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>> things up for decent people.
>>
>>Nice strategy: Insult the people you wish to govern.
>
> _I_ don't wish to govern _YOU_. _WE_ must learn to govern ourselves
> for the sake and benefit of _ALL_PEOPLE_, not just the ultra wealthy.
>
LOL
That's why you want the government to make those decisions for you
Little flaw in your logic there.
>>
>>We'll see how that works out.
>
> You haven't been able to figure it out yet, so I don't hold a lot of
> hope for any of us. Your kind will continue to be obstructionist to
> any real progress like you always have.
>
Ad hominem does not make you right
SaPeIsMa
"hal" wrote in message news:4abcd4e4...@news.newsguy.com...
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:28:57 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:08:52 +0000, hal wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-
>>amnesty/
>>>>
>>>>A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>
>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate America
>>> and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil Socialism". You
>>> people are stupid morons and you are still fucking things up for decent
>>> people.
>>
>>Worse is that they wish Obama and America to fail. Fail from the very
>>programs they, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft,
>>Gonzales, Meyers, Libby, Pearl, Gates, Fleischer, Snow, Yee, and their
>>sycophants pushed for 8 years.
>>
>>They are like small children who will submarine any agenda but their own
>>in spite, even if that includes destroying our nation.
>
> Frustrating as hell, isn't it? And they completely refuse to listen
> to reason. Any amount of documentation and data is not enough. They
> are consumed with hatred for anything but a right wing Christian
> theocracy in America.
Now there's a bigoted and hatefull statement
Ignorant too.
> They claim to be everyone's moral superior yet
> would gladly watch children die from curable diseases and malnutrition
> rather than accept "evil Socialism".
More bigoted and hatefull statements
> Our sickness runs deep. I am
> not confident there is any hope for us with people like that in the
> world.
>
Indeed
Maybe you should start by eliminating YOUR bigoted, ignorant and hateful
attitude
That would stop you from projecting your bigoted and ignorant attitudes on
others
hal
wrote:
>
>"hal" wrote in message news:4abcd26b...@news.newsguy.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:40:17 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>hal wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>>>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-amnesty/
>>>>>
>>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>>
>>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>>> Socialism".
>>>
>>>Let's put it this way:
>>>
>>>An America that has reneged on its Constitution and its founding
>>>principles (which a movement to socialism would require) isn't worth
>>>loving.
>>
>> Socialism is in no way in violation of the Constitution. If you think
>> it is then please cite the passage and explain how social programs are
>> unconstitutional.
>>
>
>Feel free to show where the Constitution authorizes the Feds to run "social
>programs"
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>>> things up for decent people.
>>>
>>>Nice strategy: Insult the people you wish to govern.
>>
>> _I_ don't wish to govern _YOU_. _WE_ must learn to govern ourselves
>> for the sake and benefit of _ALL_PEOPLE_, not just the ultra wealthy.
>>
>
>LOL
>That's why you want the government to make those decisions for you
> Little flaw in your logic there.
"The Government" is elected by _US_ (We The People). They are OUR
representatives. "THEY" are not some unseen, evil force, you seem to
see in your paranoid delusions.
>
>
>>>
>>>We'll see how that works out.
>>
>> You haven't been able to figure it out yet, so I don't hold a lot of
>> hope for any of us. Your kind will continue to be obstructionist to
>> any real progress like you always have.
>>
>
>Ad hominem does not make you right
>
no, but your stupidity does.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Being that you and Al Qaeda are both for baby killing, maybe you should
hold off on pointing fingers.
Beam Me Up Scotty
[1] is where it says "promote" It does not say "Provide".....
The difference between provide(giving) and Promoting(encouraging).
Had they wanter to GIVE the people welfare they surely would have use
the word *PROVIDE* as they did every where they talk about Providing
Common defence.
It is also in the Preamble which isn't an Article "in" the Constitution.
I agree that we need to promote general welfare of the people, unlike
the King did for the people. The King didn't do anything to make life
easier for the people and that is what this addresses.
Dan
You are welcome.
Dan
Dan
> hal wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-amnesty/
>>>
>>>
>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>
>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>> Socialism".
>
> Let's put it this way:
>
> An America that has reneged on its Constitution and its founding
> principles (which a movement to socialism would require) isn't worth
> loving.
That's why us liberals repudiate everything Republican. Socialism is
not the ONLY outcome or target of the Republican actions you stated above...
Dan
hal
It is good for a society to provide necessary services for those who
cannot care for themselves. That is not only a practice motivated by
morality but a practical one, as it leads to a more stable and
productive society. A societiy in which a very small priviledged few
live in opulance while the vast majority of the population lives in
squalor does not lead to productive, stable democracies.
TravIsGod
> cannot care for themselves. That is not only a practice motivated by
> morality but a practical one, as it leads to a more stable and
> productive society. A societiy in which a very small priviledged few
> live in opulance while the vast majority of the population lives in
> squalor does not lead to productive, stable democracies.
That is the eventual outcome of socialist progressivism.
Trav
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:53:35 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:41:00 -0700, Shuurai <shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>>
>>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>>> Socialism". You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>>> things up for decent people.
>>>
>>> So how exactly is giving amnesty to millions of people who broke the
>>> law making the country better? How is adding millions of people to
>>> entitlement programs - programs that most of them have never paid into
>>> - going to help?
>>
>>Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
>>
> Yet, but I wouldn't put it past him to. Especially if it was right
> before and election and Acorn could get them register to vote quickly
> enough.
That is how Bush/Cheney/Rove stampeded America into two blood-sucking
wars. You cannot rationally plan your future on fear, just look where it
got America.
>>> This is nothing more than an attempt to secure votes, at the expense
>>> of the American people. It has nothing to do with making things
>>> better for anyone. It will simply encourage more illegal entry into
>>> the country, which will raise unemployment, raise public debt, and
>>> further strain social programs.
>>
>>An argument built upon a fantasy.
>>
> Even a fantasy can have a basis in a future reality. Just look at the
> writings of H.G. Wells. Science Fiction, or Science Fact -- sometimes
> just a matter of time.
There are fantasies and there are Fantasies. Most are trivial and
comforting, your's is based upon fear. I do not run my life that way.
>>> Did you even read the article? Of course not. You just saw the name
>>> "Obama" in the header, realized the author was saying something
>>> negative, and reacted with one of your usual mindless rants.
>>
>>Yes, I read the article. Show us the passage where Obama proposed
>>amnesty for illegal aliens.
There is no amnesty for illegal aliens in the article making the header a
lie. Seriously, bring up rational reasons to oppose Obama. This crap
undermines your resistance and platform.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:45:04 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> I wasn't speaking as in word origin, but diverse can work as well as it
> also means dissimilar, separate. Point being isn't it isn't a concept
> that is unifying and we need Unity much more then Diversity.
What else does "root of that word" mean but origin?
>>> Without a great coming together, there can only be a great tearing
>>> apart.
>>
>>That has not been the historical case. America has always been a
>>"melting pot" of cultures from English, German, Scandanavians, Italiams,
>>Poles, Spanish, Chinese, Philipino, Japanese, Mexican, American Indian,
>>East Indian, Czech, Slovak, Serb, Greek, Portuguese, African, Arab,
>>Berber, South African, French, Dutch, through religious diversity. Only
>>recently has xenophobia gotten out of control.
>>
> The term Melting-Pot means they melted in, that no longer happens, or is
> even expected.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=melting+pot
"melting pot" --Multicultural surrounding where all the different
cultures slowly become more uniformal generation after generation by
adopting bits and pieces of other cultures and giving away some of their
own traditions.
>>> Diversity and all if its tenants is not going to save the day, only be
>>> the ruination of the nation. Without a common people sharing common
>>> goals, there can be no common good.
>>
>>Diversity has never been proposed as "saving the day," it's not Mighty
>>Mouse... "Common People" is a nebulous term, a diverse people can share
>>common goals. It is those common goals we must work toward and cease
>>stacking the deck with apartheid.
>>
> I disagree. While they may hold common goals, such as a desire for a
> better life for their children, they'll use Diversity to throw the other
> guys kids under the bus to make sure their's gets on first.
Another straw man argument which has absolutely nothing to do with the
topic. A topic already proven false as the original poster/article
wasn't even about Obama.
John Galt
Never said it was. In fact, in another note, I gave a rather detailed
description of the problems with all the variants.
JG
SaPeIsMa
"hal" wrote in message news:4abd43f1...@news.newsguy.com...
Sorry
But then they fail, since the proposed health care plan will bankrupt the
country and cause far more grief than good, down the line
And then a generic statement does NOT trump the limited list of
jurisdictions defined elsewhere in the Constitution. ADDED to the Amendment
that says something about what is NOT defined as federal belongs to the
states or the people
Would you like to try again ?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>>>> things up for decent people.
>>>>
>>>>Nice strategy: Insult the people you wish to govern.
>>>
>>> _I_ don't wish to govern _YOU_. _WE_ must learn to govern ourselves
>>> for the sake and benefit of _ALL_PEOPLE_, not just the ultra wealthy.
>>>
>>
>>LOL
>>That's why you want the government to make those decisions for you
>> Little flaw in your logic there.
>
> "The Government" is elected by _US_ (We The People). They are OUR
> representatives. "THEY" are not some unseen, evil force, you seem to
> see in your paranoid delusions.
>
More stupid projections on your part
I don't see bureaucrats as "some unseen, evil force", I seen them as
unqualified and incompetent people who have already demonstrated that in
other areas, such as Amtrak, the Post Office, the EPA, Homeland Security,
and other such agencies where they consistently do the wrong thing and spend
themselves into bankruptcy.
This is just a bigger boondogle where clearly they are going to waste even
more ressources and taxpayer money doing something that clearly they are not
qualified to do.
The definition of the role of the Federal Government is quite circumscribed,
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>We'll see how that works out.
>>>
>>> You haven't been able to figure it out yet, so I don't hold a lot of
>>> hope for any of us. Your kind will continue to be obstructionist to
>>> any real progress like you always have.
>>>
>>
>>Ad hominem does not make you right
>>
> no, but your stupidity does.
Oh look, more ad hominem and no intelligent response
What a non surprise
SaPeIsMa
"hal" wrote in message news:4abd4d22...@news.newsguy.com...
Now that's a nice platitude, but there is a difference between nearly half
the population not paying their fair share of taxes while sucking on the
public tit.
When you increase the tax load on the productive part of society, all the
while doing everything to make it possible for less and less of the
population to be motivated to be productive, your democracy is guaranteed to
rot from within
Curly Surmudgeon
>>Now that's a nice platitude, but there is a difference between nearly
>>half the population not paying their fair share of taxes while sucking
>>on the public tit.
>>When you increase the tax load on the productive part of society, all
>>the while doing everything to make it possible for less and less of the
>>population to be motivated to be productive, your democracy is
>>guaranteed to rot from within
>>
> AbsoFUCKINlutely, truer words have never been written.
However it is incomplete.
No government can stand which allows monopolies to impoverish its
citizens. Somehow the Republican ire is misdirected at the poor trying
to survive rather than on the pirates which plunder the national economy.
Where were you two during the previous 8 years?
Heaping abuse on people trying to shelter and feed their families isn't
going to do you any good. Go after the crooks at the top, not blame
Acorn or Democrats. Republicans, Bush, neocons and their sycophants
spent eight years in a massive wealth transfer from the poor and middle
class to the rich.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otros Aires: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udYzFsyU7yg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
> While that maybe true, it is also a bad idea to provide anything for
> those who won't (not can't) provide for themselves. It breeds contempt
> for any type of initiative or desire to improve ones position in life.
AGain, your ire is misplaced. America will not let the poor starve, it
would quickly turn violent. Study the causes and resolve not to allow
the pirates to repeat, as some are again doing, but don't blame the poor
for wanting food and shelter.
Where is your ire against the corporate owners of health care, Pharma,
the FDA, AMA, ABA, and petrochemical giants? Why are you not pursuing
their front men rather than dismissing we who want to try them as having
"BDS"?
Until some very high up political whores are tried and punished there is
no consequence to the pirates from pushing another puppet into power.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:08:11 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> Uh duh, I just said that and also said it isn't quite working out like
> that anymore, especially when you have third or fourth generations that
> have not assimilated.
Instead of blaming immigrants abolish public translators in government
and require everyone who wishes to live and become a citizen to function
in English or provide their own interpretor.
>>>>> Diversity and all if its tenants is not going to save the day, only
>>>>> be the ruination of the nation. Without a common people sharing
>>>>> common goals, there can be no common good.
>>>>
>>>>Diversity has never been proposed as "saving the day," it's not Mighty
>>>>Mouse... "Common People" is a nebulous term, a diverse people can
>>>>share common goals. It is those common goals we must work toward and
>>>>cease stacking the deck with apartheid.
>>>>
>>> I disagree. While they may hold common goals, such as a desire for a
>>> better life for their children, they'll use Diversity to throw the
>>> other guys kids under the bus to make sure their's gets on first.
>>
>>Another straw man argument which has absolutely nothing to do with the
>>topic. A topic already proven false as the original poster/article
>>wasn't even about Obama.
>>
> Yeah and as threads normally do, it shifted away from the original core
> topic. Doesn't mean that what I had to say isn't germane regardless of
> whether the original author made a false statement or not.
True but I don't like the drift until the original issue is resolved.
How about starting one of your own on your own topics rather than
distracting these? Maybe you've noticed a pattern to my responses, I
drag topics back to the original issue a lot. Especially when the header
is a bunch of bullshit lies usually shoving it down the OP's throat.
Actually I'd like to flesh out your issues, some I share, and perhaps
offer suggestions to push those to some resolution. However here I want
the troll martin <martin.s...@gmail.com> to raise his head so I can
wack him again for lying...
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:02:38 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:27:03 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:53:35 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:41:00 -0700, Shuurai <shuu...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> >A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>>>>> Socialism". You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>>>>> things up for decent people.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how exactly is giving amnesty to millions of people who broke the
>>>>> law making the country better? How is adding millions of people to
>>>>> entitlement programs - programs that most of them have never paid
>>>>> into - going to help?
>>>>
>>>>Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
>>>>
>>> Yet, but I wouldn't put it past him to. Especially if it was right
>>> before and election and Acorn could get them register to vote quickly
>>> enough.
>>
>>That is how Bush/Cheney/Rove stampeded America into two blood-sucking
>>wars. You cannot rationally plan your future on fear, just look where
>>it got America.
>>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah.
Where were you when Bush began, expanded and failed in the two wars Obama
now has to contend with?
> Now Obama is expanding one far greater then it ever was before is
> scope, expense & troops.
That's more like it. Let's get our troops out of Afghanistan and nuke
Tora Bora and every known hidey-hole of al quaeda. Why didn't Bush/
Cheney? I'll answer my own question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
You are not going to get the U.S. Government out of Afghanistan until we
get election reform. It doesn't matter which party is in office,
corporations, fascists, control America.
> Additionally if his withdrawal from Iraq isn't done right and the
> country destabilizes that will be on him as well.
Fuck Iraq too. Let the Israelii's, Sauds, and Iranians deal with it.
Iraq was _never_ a threat to the United States. Where were you in 2003
when Bush lied America into the invasion?
> BTW -- I didn't say I was planning on anything, just said I wouldn't put
> it past him.
Huh?
>>>>> This is nothing more than an attempt to secure votes, at the expense
>>>>> of the American people. It has nothing to do with making things
>>>>> better for anyone. It will simply encourage more illegal entry into
>>>>> the country, which will raise unemployment, raise public debt, and
>>>>> further strain social programs.
>>>>
>>>>An argument built upon a fantasy.
>>>>
>>> Even a fantasy can have a basis in a future reality. Just look at the
>>> writings of H.G. Wells. Science Fiction, or Science Fact -- sometimes
>>> just a matter of time.
>>
>>There are fantasies and there are Fantasies. Most are trivial and
>>comforting, your's is based upon fear. I do not run my life that way.
>>
> I have no fear (in that particular area), all I said was that I wouldn't
> even put it past him. Oh and a little fear is good for you, it can help
> keep you aware. It is much better then the complacency most have
> slipped into.
Nope, fear makes you do weird shit.
>>>>> Did you even read the article? Of course not. You just saw the
>>>>> name "Obama" in the header, realized the author was saying something
>>>>> negative, and reacted with one of your usual mindless rants.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I read the article. Show us the passage where Obama proposed
>>>>amnesty for illegal aliens.
>>
>>There is no amnesty for illegal aliens in the article making the header
>>a lie. Seriously, bring up rational reasons to oppose Obama. This crap
>>undermines your resistance and platform.
>>
> I didn't address the article, watch your attributes. And in case your
> suffer from short-attention span theater I've already stated that I
> don't oppose Obama, just the scope of some of his ideas.
Good, open a topic on Obama while I shove this thread up the original
posters ass for lying.
Strabo
Whack him for the Washington Times piece on Obama's relentless push
for illegal aliens or for past grudges?
Amnesty is how Obama plans to get millions more people under
his nationalized medicine scheme.
This will be followed by more pan-American 'treaties' and softening
the borders while he continues to give away the future treasury.
<
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-amnesty/
>
Strabo
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:40:21 GMT, hal wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:28:57 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:08:52 +0000, hal wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>>>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-
>>> amnesty/
>>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate America
>>>> and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil Socialism". You
>>>> people are stupid morons and you are still fucking things up for decent
>>>> people.
>>> programs they, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft,
>>> Gonzales, Meyers, Libby, Pearl, Gates, Fleischer, Snow, Yee, and their
>>> sycophants pushed for 8 years.
>>>
>>> They are like small children who will submarine any agenda but their own
>>> in spite, even if that includes destroying our nation.
>> Frustrating as hell, isn't it? And they completely refuse to listen
>> to reason. Any amount of documentation and data is not enough. They
>> are consumed with hatred for anything but a right wing Christian
>> theocracy in America. They claim to be everyone's moral superior yet
>> would gladly watch children die from curable diseases and malnutrition
>> rather than accept "evil Socialism". Our sickness runs deep. I am
>> not confident there is any hope for us with people like that in the
>> world.
>>
> ideology, why yes, but of course. However, like most extremes their
> is one that is the exact polar opposite which is just as bad.
> Unfortunately there is no great desire to meet somewhere in the middle
> and work things out in a compromise position, everything must now be
> an absolute. This absolutely sucks!
>
> While the sickness may run deep, on both sides of the fence, there are
> those who will not accept the cure regardless of how hard you try.
>
Of course not. Individuals have personal needs and survival is
paramount. It's called self-interest. Nevertheless, individuals
left to their own devices tend to work things out. It's when
zealots like Curly and Hal lay hold of power and attempt to force
you to their ends "for your own good" that real trouble arises.
Note that there is no attempt to remedy the economic stresses.
If there were then major banks would be dissolved and the thieves
responsible for the toxic assets would be jailed.
Note that there is no attempt to remedy the health care crisis. If
there were then unions and insurance companies would be kept away
as a new method of transacting like 'time and materials' is introduced.
One that would collapse medical costs overnight.
No, the power players in government want as much chaos and
strife as possible and most of these bozos play right along
their leaders.
Thanks to Obama-Soetoro and his band of Communist radicals the
country is now split along all lines. The best result would be if
Obama fails to rally Congress and the country is left to settle down
and deal with health care and illegal aliens according to the
Constitution. If he succeeds, blood will flow from all quarters.
But understand, Obama knows this. The agenda is to destroy the
country from within so that what remains of the US can be absorbed
into a global government.
Strabo
>>> You're the traitor to America. � You right wing nutjobs who hate America
>>> and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil Socialism". � You
>>> people are stupid morons and you are still fucking things up for decent
>>> people.
>> making the country better? How is adding millions of people to
>> entitlement programs - programs that most of them have never paid into -
>> going to help?
>
>
Obama has proposed amnesty for illegal aliens many times.
>
>> This is nothing more than an attempt to secure votes, at the expense of
>> the American people. It has nothing to do with making things better for
>> anyone. It will simply encourage more illegal entry into the country,
>> which will raise unemployment, raise public debt, and further strain
>> social programs.
>
> An argument built upon a fantasy.
>
Tell it to the convicted ACORN vote riggers.
>
>> Did you even read the article? Of course not. You just saw the name
>> "Obama" in the header, realized the author was saying something
>> negative, and reacted with one of your usual mindless rants.
>
> Yes, I read the article. Show us the passage where Obama proposed
> amnesty for illegal aliens.
>
He's too sneaky for that. His buddies just pass a separate bill.
Obama's next push is amnesty
President intends to install a long-term Democratic majority
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Amnesty is back, and with a vengeance. This was the dominant theme I
heard at this week's annual talk-radio gabfest in Washington sponsored
by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the country's
leading anti-amnesty organization.
"As we gather here in the nation's capital, another illegal alien
amnesty bill has been introduced in the Senate," FAIR President Dan
Stein said.
It is no surprise that, after passing health care "reform," President
Obama plans to move on to his next big domestic initiative: granting
citizenship to more than 12 million illegal immigrants. For decades,
Beltway and business elites have championed a policy of open borders and
unlimited Third World immigration. Amnesty is simply its logical
culmination: the triumph of political and corporate interests over
patriotism.
America has endured a massive invasion of millions of illegal
immigrants. The southern border is a bleeding sore. Hospitals are
overwhelmed, forced to provide free medical care to illegals. School
systems must absorb the unnecessary costs of educating the illegal
immigrants' children. Welfare rolls are swelling with illegal immigrants
taking advantage of public assistance. Nearly one-third of the federal
prison population is composed of illegal immigrants. Mexican cartels
import drugs, crime and human trafficking. Washington has lost control
of the nation's borders -- and with it, our national sovereignty.
Moreover, the waves of illegal immigration represent an onslaught on
America's historic and cultural core. The great myth of our time,
promoted by both the multicultural left and the neoconservative right,
is that the United States is a creedal nation. They argue that the
country was founded upon abstract ideas embodied in the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution and that it is united by its
commitment to universal principles such as democracy and equality. This
is a historical fraud. The Founding Fathers were neither democrats nor
believers in egalitarianism. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were
slaveholders. John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison deeply
distrusted democracy.
"Democracy ... wastes, exhausts, and murders itself," Adams wrote.
"There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
In other words, the Founding Fathers were not only republicans. They
were nationalists who believed they had established a distinct and
unique nation based on a common language, faith, heritage and culture.
America is an outgrowth of Christianity and English civilization. Its
roots are European. The previous waves of immigrants who came to its
shores not only deliberately assimilated, but embraced a common national
identity: They became Americans.
This is not the case with the army of illegal immigrants. The
combination of uncontrolled immigration with multiculturalism is a
recipe for balkanization -- the fracturing of America along racial and
ethnic lines.
Already, many Hispanic radicals, including some in the advocacy group La
Raza ("the race"), are calling for the annexation of the Southwest back
into Mexico. They think amnesty will accelerate the process of
reacquiring former Mexican territories. For them, demography is destiny.
Large chunks of California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and
Florida have become Spanish-speaking enclaves. They are part of the
United States in name only. Immigrants are no longer required to learn
English. The fastest-growing TV and radio stations are those
broadcasting in Spanish. Everywhere one goes -- ATMs, restaurants, state
motor vehicle departments -- Spanish is prevalent. Many urban schools in
Los Angeles, Chicago and New York teach bilingualism. We are no longer
one people who share the same language, culture, history, customs,
heroes, literature and traditions. The bonds of national union are
slowly being torn apart.
Mr. Obama already has shown he is the most leftist president in U.S.
history. Not only have his statist policies and massive budget deficits
crippled the private sector. He is erecting a corporatist state -- the
amalgamation of big business, big government and big labor -- that
represents a clear break from capitalist individualism.
Success in his drive for government-run health care would transform
America into a European-style social democracy. This would permanently
shift the political landscape to the left, fostering a culture of
dependency and entitlement.
Mr. Obama is an internationalist socialist. His ultimate goal is to
erect a liberal ruling class: to forge a Democratic majority coalition
-- one that would dominate for decades. Amnesty would put millions of
illegal immigrants into the voting booths -- and into the welcoming arms
of Democrats.
Amnesty also would sound the death knell of traditional America. It
would signify a cultural revolution, the establishment of a de facto
bilingual, binational Tower of Babel. It would be Mr. Obama's most
radical -- and destructive -- achievement.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president
of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington-based think tank.
John Galt
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:49:53 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> Now that's a nice platitude, but there is a difference between nearly
>>> half the population not paying their fair share of taxes while sucking
>>> on the public tit.
>>> When you increase the tax load on the productive part of society, all
>>> the while doing everything to make it possible for less and less of the
>>> population to be motivated to be productive, your democracy is
>>> guaranteed to rot from within
>>>
>> AbsoFUCKINlutely, truer words have never been written.
>
> However it is incomplete.
>
> No government can stand which allows monopolies to impoverish its
> citizens. Somehow the Republican ire is misdirected at the poor trying
> to survive rather than on the pirates which plunder the national economy.
>
> Where were you two during the previous 8 years?
What "monopolies" has the current administration brought suit against
that Bush did not?
You're not using "monopoly" in the legal sense, are you? You seem to
have your own definition.
JG
hal
wrote:
>>Now that's a nice platitude, but there is a difference between nearly half
>>the population not paying their fair share of taxes while sucking on the
>>public tit.
>>When you increase the tax load on the productive part of society, all the
>>while doing everything to make it possible for less and less of the
>>population to be motivated to be productive, your democracy is guaranteed to
>>rot from within
>>
>AbsoFUCKINlutely, truer words have never been written.
Nonsense, it's not true at all. It doesn't have to be that way.
>--
>
>Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms should be aisles in a
>convenience store; not a Government agency!
hal
wrote:
>>It is good for a society to provide necessary services for those who
>>cannot care for themselves. That is not only a practice motivated by
>>morality but a practical one, as it leads to a more stable and
>>productive society. A societiy in which a very small priviledged few
>>live in opulance while the vast majority of the population lives in
>>squalor does not lead to productive, stable democracies.
>>
>While that maybe true, it is also a bad idea to provide anything for
>those who won't (not can't) provide for themselves. It breeds
>contempt for any type of initiative or desire to improve ones position
>in life.
>--
It doesn't have to be that way. Social safety net programs can be
designed to encourage or even enforce work programs. The problem is
now there are no jobs for most people. Most people would rather work
if they have the chance. Offer people decent, good paying jobs and by
far the vast majority will gladly work. Most people don't want to sit
around all day and be on the dole. The contention that social
programs encourages lazyness is nothing but right wing garbage. By
far most people want to be productive, contributing members of
society. But you have to give them the opportunities, and sometimes a
little help up when needed. But you can't help people with jobs when
you ship them all overseas and completely trash the economy.
HH&C
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:41:45 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby-W...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:08:11 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>
> >>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:21:14 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby-W...@cox.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:45:04 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>
> >>>>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:26:52 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby-W...@cox.net>
You could make a lot of money off of your in-laws acting as a
translator for them.
I trust they are here legally.
> >>>>> Diversity and all if its tenants is not going to save the day, only
> >>>>> be the ruination of the nation. Without a common people sharing
> >>>>> common goals, there can be no common good.
>
> >>>>Diversity has never been proposed as "saving the day," it's not Mighty
> >>>>Mouse... "Common People" is a nebulous term, a diverse people can
> >>>>share common goals. It is those common goals we must work toward and
> >>>>cease stacking the deck with apartheid.
>
> >>> I disagree. While they may hold common goals, such as a desire for a
> >>> better life for their children, they'll use Diversity to throw the
> >>> other guys kids under the bus to make sure their's gets on first.
>
> >>Another straw man argument which has absolutely nothing to do with the
> >>topic. A topic already proven false as the original poster/article
> >>wasn't even about Obama.
>
> > Yeah and as threads normally do, it shifted away from the original core
> > topic. Doesn't mean that what I had to say isn't germane regardless of
> > whether the original author made a false statement or not.
>
> True but I don't like the drift until the original issue is resolved.
So take it up with martin.
> How about starting one of your own on your own topics rather than
> distracting these? Maybe you've noticed a pattern to my responses, I
> drag topics back to the original issue a lot. Especially when the header
> is a bunch of bullshit lies usually shoving it down the OP's throat.
You can always use the kill file.
> Actually I'd like to flesh out your issues, some I share, and perhaps
> offer suggestions to push those to some resolution.
There is no resolution as long as those you voted for are still in
control of the government. This is the part where you say you are an
anarchist but support the constitution.
> However here I want
> the troll martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> to raise his head so I can
> wack him again for lying...
Sad and funny at the same time... misc.surv's biggest liar wanting to
wack another liar.
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hispanic Polka: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udYzFsyU7yg
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Galt
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:36:47 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> It is good for a society to provide necessary services for those who
>>> cannot care for themselves. That is not only a practice motivated by
>>> morality but a practical one, as it leads to a more stable and
>>> productive society. A societiy in which a very small priviledged few
>>> live in opulance while the vast majority of the population lives in
>>> squalor does not lead to productive, stable democracies.
>>>
>> While that maybe true, it is also a bad idea to provide anything for
>> those who won't (not can't) provide for themselves. It breeds
>> contempt for any type of initiative or desire to improve ones position
>> in life.
>> --
> It doesn't have to be that way. Social safety net programs can be
> designed to encourage or even enforce work programs. The problem is
> now there are no jobs for most people.
There are jobs for most people. BLS is at 10% unemployment, the whisper
number is more like 17%. That said, it would indeed be good if the
wealthy had more incentive to invest in businesses that employ people
rather than the stock market.
> Most people would rather work
> if they have the chance. Offer people decent, good paying jobs and by
> far the vast majority will gladly work. Most people don't want to sit
> around all day and be on the dole.
I quite agree.
The contention that social
> programs encourages lazyness is nothing but right wing garbage.
It's not garbage in the least. Sweden, for example, has the highest % of
able-bodied people in the world who don't work. You can google up the
articles that discuss it. This is what happens when the social welfare
payment comes close to your the wage an unskilled person expects to earn
if they do work. As you say, people PREFER to work, but if I can only
expect to earn (for example) $7 bucks if I work but my dole is $6.50 and
never shuts off, you encourage that lazy streak which all people have
but prefer not to indulge.
> By
> far most people want to be productive, contributing members of
> society. But you have to give them the opportunities, and sometimes a
> little help up when needed. But you can't help people with jobs when
> you ship them all overseas and completely trash the economy.
I agree that the US ought to be incenting onshore employment. It would
help if the leftists quit labeling such incentives "corporate welfare"
when they're suggested.
JG
pyotr filipivich
<Zomby...@cox.net> reported Elvis on Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:34:14
-0400 in misc.survivalism:
>
>>Heaping abuse on people trying to shelter and feed their families isn't
>>going to do you any good. Go after the crooks at the top, not blame
>>Acorn or Democrats. Republicans, Bush, neocons and their sycophants
>>spent eight years in a massive wealth transfer from the poor and middle
>>class to the rich.
>>
>think that I am not trying to ensure that I have a some-what
>comfortable retirement? These things are my responsibility and I am
>trying to take care of them.
>
>I'll blame any damn one of them I damn please. One can not transfer
>wealth, especially from the Poor and/or Middle Class who would have
>none to begin with. You can redistrbute a certain level of money,
>goods and service, but never ever wealth. There are even several
>cases of the "Poor" winning millions in lotteries only to end up
>living in a shack with a lawn littered with broken possessions and in
>bankruptcy court because they simply had no idea how to handle the
>money.
That is the tendency whether it is a lottery, or an inheritance.
About five years later, they're in the same shape they were before -
no money, stuff they can't afford, and a pile of bills.
>--
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
hal
wrote:
>The contention that social
>> programs encourages lazyness is nothing but right wing garbage.
>
>It's not garbage in the least. Sweden, for example, has the highest % of
>able-bodied people in the world who don't work. You can google up the
>articles that discuss it. This is what happens when the social welfare
>payment comes close to your the wage an unskilled person expects to earn
>if they do work. As you say, people PREFER to work, but if I can only
>expect to earn (for example) $7 bucks if I work but my dole is $6.50 and
>never shuts off, you encourage that lazy streak which all people have
>but prefer not to indulge.
If all you offer people is minimum wage service jobs many will choose
welfare. You have to give people incentives to work and the only
incentive is good pay and benefits.
>
>> By
>> far most people want to be productive, contributing members of
>> society. But you have to give them the opportunities, and sometimes a
>> little help up when needed. But you can't help people with jobs when
>> you ship them all overseas and completely trash the economy.
>
>I agree that the US ought to be incenting onshore employment. It would
>help if the leftists quit labeling such incentives "corporate welfare"
>when they're suggested.
There are already plenty of incentives to build businesses here. The
problem is the corporatists made it more profitable to export the good
jobs, and import foreign workers. They do it because they don't want
to pay Americans decent living wages. That is what is wrong with our
economy right now. The corporatists are not willing to pay Americans
decent living wages, but will only consider getting us more and more
into debt, and destroying any worker organizations like unions that
fight for the rights of working Americans.
>
>JG
Curly Surmudgeon
You're smarter than that, Strabo. Look at the Subject line which blasts
Obama while the article posted doesn't even mention him. In other words
the original poster is another lying troll.
> Amnesty is how Obama plans to get millions more people under his
> nationalized medicine scheme.
>
> This will be followed by more pan-American 'treaties' and softening the
> borders while he continues to give away the future treasury.
>
>
> <
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-
amnesty/
> >
You're smarter than that, Strabo. It's an opinion piece without a shread
of evidence. In other words that, too, is bullshit.
Curly Surmudgeon
>>>>>>> Without a great coming together, there can only be a great tearing
>>>>>>> apart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That has not been the historical case. America has always been a
>>>>>>"melting pot" of cultures from English, German, Scandanavians,
>>>>>>Italiams, Poles, Spanish, Chinese, Philipino, Japanese, Mexican,
>>>>>>American Indian, East Indian, Czech, Slovak, Serb, Greek,
>>>>>>Portuguese, African, Arab, Berber, South African, French, Dutch,
>>>>>>through religious diversity. Only recently has xenophobia gotten
>>>>>>out of control.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The term Melting-Pot means they melted in, that no longer happens,
>>>>> or is even expected.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=melting+pot "melting
>>>>pot"
>>>> --Multicultural surrounding where all the different cultures slowly
>>>>become more uniformal generation after generation by adopting bits and
>>>>pieces of other cultures and giving away some of their own traditions.
>>>>
>>> Uh duh, I just said that and also said it isn't quite working out like
>>> that anymore, especially when you have third or fourth generations
>>> that have not assimilated.
>>
>>Instead of blaming immigrants abolish public translators in government
>>and require everyone who wishes to live and become a citizen to function
>>in English or provide their own interpretor.
>>
> Its much more then just speaking the language, but I'd go along with
> that as a start. I was in a Las Vegas ER and a sign had the 47
> different languages they delivered services in, English wasn't on that
> list.
Of course not, English is the default.
pyotr filipivich
-0400 in misc.survivalism:
>
>I'll offer them a job that is within scope of their skills &
>abilities, but one of the major problems is that those with the least
>skills & abilities think that for them a decent job should be paying
>$50 bucks an hour with a six-hour workday with a 2-hour paid lunch,
>free child care and a limo to ferry them back & forth to work.
When can I start? You can skip the free child care, unless you're
going to be providing the free child as well...
I'm usually looking for a job which requires that I clock in
Wednesdays at 12, take an hour lunch, and leave at 1, for 33,000 a
year plus benefits. Of course, I'll be representing the company while
on my time off, so I'll be expecting those expenses to be covered as
well, plus the usual per diem. But I like your offer a little
better.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Zombywoof
> <Zomby...@cox.net> reported Elvis on Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:46:33
> -0400 in misc.survivalism:
>> I'll offer them a job that is within scope of their skills &
>> abilities, but one of the major problems is that those with the least
>> skills & abilities think that for them a decent job should be paying
>> $50 bucks an hour with a six-hour workday with a 2-hour paid lunch,
>> free child care and a limo to ferry them back & forth to work.
>
> When can I start? You can skip the free child care, unless you're
> going to be providing the free child as well...
Go to ACORN they can get you a 13 year old El Salvadorian Prostitute to
adopt. That is as long as your wife isn't a controlling bitch.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:54:19 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:49:53 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Now that's a nice platitude, but there is a difference between nearly
>>>>half the population not paying their fair share of taxes while sucking
>>>>on the public tit.
>>>>When you increase the tax load on the productive part of society, all
>>>>the while doing everything to make it possible for less and less of
>>>>the population to be motivated to be productive, your democracy is
>>>>guaranteed to rot from within
>>>>
>>> AbsoFUCKINlutely, truer words have never been written.
>>
>>However it is incomplete.
>>
>>No government can stand which allows monopolies to impoverish its
>>citizens. Somehow the Republican ire is misdirected at the poor trying
>>to survive rather than on the pirates which plunder the national
>>economy.
>>
> We have anti-monopoly laws few if any exist (can't think of any right
> now), but would that be another area where the government is failing if
> we do?
We do. In the USA they are called "anti-trust laws":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#United_States_antitrust
And have been used twice with great success previously, against Standard
Oil and AT&T. It's time to use them again, liberally.
> The point is, some of the "poor" if not the majority, aren't
> trying to survive. They're trying to use the government to fleece their
> fellow citizens wallet.
Those aren't the issue, we can agree to let them suffer in their own
juices.
>>Where were you two during the previous 8 years?
>>
> Working my ass off, you?
Yup, working my ass off. While doing everything in my power to thwart
the programs of Bush and his ilk. Those johnny-come-latelies who have
suddenly turned against Iraq and Afghanistan deserve to be bitch-slapped.
I speak of those who either remained silent, or actively supported, these
programs and wars when Bush was doing it but are suddenly opposed when
Obama does it. They're fucking hypocrites and get a double-dose of my
ire.
>>Heaping abuse on people trying to shelter and feed their families isn't
>>going to do you any good. Go after the crooks at the top, not blame
>>Acorn or Democrats. Republicans, Bush, neocons and their sycophants
>>spent eight years in a massive wealth transfer from the poor and middle
>>class to the rich.
>>
> Do you think I am not trying to shelter & feed my family? Do you think
> that I am not trying to ensure that I have a some-what comfortable
> retirement? These things are my responsibility and I am trying to take
> care of them.
You misunderstand, I was speaking of the poor who are trying to feed and
shelter their families.
> I'll blame any damn one of them I damn please. One can not transfer
> wealth, especially from the Poor and/or Middle Class who would have none
> to begin with. You can redistrbute a certain level of money, goods and
> service, but never ever wealth. There are even several cases of the
> "Poor" winning millions in lotteries only to end up living in a shack
> with a lawn littered with broken possessions and in bankruptcy court
> because they simply had no idea how to handle the money.
Yes, you can. That is the purpose of government. There is no reason
other than to tranfer wealth for government. All governments transfer
wealth. Government is coercion. What we are discussing is the level and
enrollment of wealth transfer by coercion.
Bama Brian
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:40:17 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> hal wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-amnesty/
>>>>
>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>> Socialism".
>>
>> An America that has reneged on its Constitution and its founding
>> principles (which a movement to socialism would require) isn't worth loving.
>
> Socialism is in no way in violation of the Constitution. If you think
> it is then please cite the passage and explain how social programs are
> unconstitutional.
Geez, Looeeze! Maybe I should just start with the Ad Homs; certainly
you don't seem to have enough IQ points to understand what you just said.
Still, try reading this for comprehension: "The United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of
the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be
convened) against domestic Violence."
I leave it to you to identify the law of the land where you can find this.
<snip>
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Curly Surmudgeon
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:41:00 -0700, Shuurai <shuu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>> You're the traitor to America. Â You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>>> Socialism". Â You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>>> things up for decent people.
>>> So how exactly is giving amnesty to millions of people who broke the
>>> law making the country better? How is adding millions of people to
>>> entitlement programs - programs that most of them have never paid into
>>> - going to help?
>>
>> Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
>>
>>
> Obama has proposed amnesty for illegal aliens many times.
Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
>>> This is nothing more than an attempt to secure votes, at the expense
>>> of the American people. It has nothing to do with making things
>>> better for anyone. It will simply encourage more illegal entry into
>>> the country, which will raise unemployment, raise public debt, and
>>> further strain social programs.
>>
>> An argument built upon a fantasy.
>>
>>
> Tell it to the convicted ACORN vote riggers.
>
>
>
>>> Did you even read the article? Of course not. You just saw the name
>>> "Obama" in the header, realized the author was saying something
>>> negative, and reacted with one of your usual mindless rants.
>>
>> Yes, I read the article. Show us the passage where Obama proposed
>> amnesty for illegal aliens.
>>
>>
> He's too sneaky for that. His buddies just pass a separate bill.
Then you admit that the header, story, and thread have absolutely no
validity.
> Obama's next push is amnesty
>
> President intends to install a long-term Democratic majority
I'm not going to follow your fears, projections and fantasies. See a
shrink.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:09:22 -0400, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:41:00 -0700, Shuurai <shuu...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>>> You're the traitor to America. Â You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>>>> Socialism". Â You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>>>> things up for decent people.
>>>> So how exactly is giving amnesty to millions of people who broke the
>>>> law making the country better? How is adding millions of people to
>>>> entitlement programs - programs that most of them have never paid into
>>>> - going to help?
>>> Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
>>>
>>>
>> Obama has proposed amnesty for illegal aliens many times.
>
> Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
So you want to go on only what he has accomplished since taking office?
That would be Nothing....
Curly Surmudgeon
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Zombywoof
>> <Zomby...@cox.net> reported Elvis on Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:46:33 -0400
>> in misc.survivalism:
>>> I'll offer them a job that is within scope of their skills &
>>> abilities, but one of the major problems is that those with the least
>>> skills & abilities think that for them a decent job should be paying
>>> $50 bucks an hour with a six-hour workday with a 2-hour paid lunch,
>>> free child care and a limo to ferry them back & forth to work.
>>
>> When can I start? You can skip the free child care, unless you're
>> going to be providing the free child as well...
>
> Go to ACORN they can get you a 13 year old El Salvadorian Prostitute to
> adopt. That is as long as your wife isn't a controlling bitch.
Ah, the voice of experience...
Luckily no one here, except for you and your aliases, has even alluded to
such a perversion. Are you aware that is illegal?
Strabo
Zombywoof wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:53:35 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>> Did you even read the article? Of course not. You just saw the name
>>> "Obama" in the header, realized the author was saying something
>>> negative, and reacted with one of your usual mindless rants.
>
>> Yes, I read the article. Show us the passage where Obama proposed
>> amnesty for illegal aliens.
>
Obama's next push is amnesty
President intends to install a long-term Democratic majority
Curly Surmudgeon
<Then-Destro...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:09:22 -0400, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:41:00 -0700, Shuurai <shuu...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>>>> You're the traitor to America. Â You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>>>>> Socialism". Â You people are stupid morons and you are still
>>>>>> fucking things up for decent people.
>>>>> So how exactly is giving amnesty to millions of people who broke the
>>>>> law making the country better? How is adding millions of people to
>>>>> entitlement programs - programs that most of them have never paid
>>>>> into - going to help?
>>>> Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Obama has proposed amnesty for illegal aliens many times.
>>
>> Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
>
> So you want to go on only what he has accomplished since taking office?
No, and next time phrase that as an inquiry without putting words into my
mouth. I want to nail politicians for their actions and proposals.
Obama has moved right of center since taking office and changes a goodly
number of his prior positions. People change, sometimes for the better
and I await a clear sign on this issue.
The Subject line and thread here is a lie without basis and founded upon
your fears.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Zombywoof wrote:
> Zombywoof wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:53:35 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Did you even read the article? Of course not. You just saw the name
>>>> "Obama" in the header, realized the author was saying something
>>>> negative, and reacted with one of your usual mindless rants.
> >
>>> Yes, I read the article. Show us the passage where Obama proposed
>>> amnesty for illegal aliens.
> >
> >
> Obama's next push is amnesty
>
> President intends to install a long-term Democratic majority
You've already posted that opinion piece and it has not one iota of data
to support the authors, and your, fears.
RD (The Sandman)
news:pan.2009.09...@live.com:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:49:53 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net>
wrote:
>
>>>Now that's a nice platitude, but there is a difference between nearly
>>>half the population not paying their fair share of taxes while sucking
>>>on the public tit.
>>>When you increase the tax load on the productive part of society, all
>>>the while doing everything to make it possible for less and less of
the
>>>population to be motivated to be productive, your democracy is
>>>guaranteed to rot from within
>>>
>> AbsoFUCKINlutely, truer words have never been written.
>
> However it is incomplete.
>
> No government can stand which allows monopolies to impoverish its
> citizens. Somehow the Republican ire is misdirected at the poor trying
> to survive rather than on the pirates which plunder the national
economy.
>
> Where were you two during the previous 8 years?
>
> Heaping abuse on people trying to shelter and feed their families isn't
> going to do you any good. Go after the crooks at the top, not blame
> Acorn or Democrats. Republicans, Bush, neocons and their sycophants
> spent eight years in a massive wealth transfer from the poor and middle
> class to the rich.
Between your diatribes at the folks on the right and those folks on the
right ranting at the left, an honest person would truly believe that the
real truth is somewhere in the middle.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
"Fear is the foundation of most governments."
President John Adams
Curly Surmudgeon
An honest person would view all statements, do their own research and
derive their own opinion.
An honest person wouldn't guess or follow public opinion
An honest person would realize that both the right and left are full of
wackos.
TravIsGod
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:36:47 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby-W...@cox.net>
So Pat Buchanan is your new candidate? Because Bama is an UNABASHED
free-trader.
Trav
TravIsGod
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:24:56 -0500, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com>
this is a good theory. I am a big proponent of unions as they are
responsible, not government, for the leveling of the wage playing
field.
However, our modern unions have BECOME corporatist. Same revolving
door of executives. Did you know that union leadership often sits on
corporate boards, shuttles in and out of the same social clubs,
government positions, and ultimately the private sector? Their kids
go to the same exclusive private schools as the business leadership
they are supposed to oppose in negotiation!
There is NO difference between the current unions and the plutocat
"corporatists." The national unions SUPPORTED NAFTA you dumbfuck.
The common man trying to better himself no longer has ANY advocate.
Trav
TravIsGod
> isn't that way.
>
> There are jobs, my local paper has stopped running its help wanted
> section, and it is pretty much the same size as it has always been
> with the same careers looking to be filled as it pretty much has been
> since I've been reading it. One of the big problems is that there
> aren't the qualified people to fill those positions.
complete horseshit.
They are largely running those ads as a scam to bypass the immigration
and H1B caps. They run them because they law mandates that they make
a good-faith effort to hire an American but I can point you to video
of a symposium run by immigration attorneys where they SPECIFICALLY
ADVISE how to get around this.
In fact, here it is:
http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=112298&page=1
Scroll about halfway down to the embedded video about defauding
american workers. Watch as these consultants advise on how to cheat
the system and avoid having to hire an american.
> I'll offer them a job that is within scope of their skills &
> abilities, but one of the major problems is that those with the least
> skills & abilities think that for them a decent job should be paying
> $50 bucks an hour with a six-hour workday with a 2-hour paid lunch,
> free child care and a limo to ferry them back & forth to work.
This is complete horseshit.
> Go check out Monster.com, Careerbuilder.com or any other of the
> numerous websites on the subject and tell me they are empty. If the
> little burg you live in runs out of jobs, move to the one that has
> them. If you don't have the skills & abilities that the current job
> market demands, go get them.
Yeah, just move. It's that easy. A lot of the ads on these sites are
fraud. See the above link.
Trav
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:28:38 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Zombywoof
>>> <Zomby...@cox.net> reported Elvis on Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:46:33 -0400
>>> in misc.survivalism:
>>>> I'll offer them a job that is within scope of their skills &
>>>> abilities, but one of the major problems is that those with the least
>>>> skills & abilities think that for them a decent job should be paying
>>>> $50 bucks an hour with a six-hour workday with a 2-hour paid lunch,
>>>> free child care and a limo to ferry them back & forth to work.
>>> When can I start? You can skip the free child care, unless you're
>>> going to be providing the free child as well...
>> Go to ACORN they can get you a 13 year old El Salvadorian Prostitute to
>> adopt. That is as long as your wife isn't a controlling bitch.
>
> Ah, the voice of experience...
>
> Luckily no one here, except for you and your aliases, has even alluded to
> such a perversion. Are you aware that is illegal?
>
Are you sure, I hear that the Government, subsidizes that kind of
behavior. If it were illegal our tax dollars wouldn't be spent on it.
If it's such a perversion then I suspect all the Democrats voted to drop
tax subsidies for ACORN who is very helpful in those areas.
Michael Coburn
> This will be followed by more pan-American 'treaties' and softening the
> borders while he continues to give away the future treasury.
This is the sort of economic ignorance with which we are faced. It comes
from a total misunderstanding of government and of money and of society
in general.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
RD (The Sandman)
Yep.
> An honest person wouldn't guess or follow public opinion
Other than as an interesting exercise.
> An honest person would realize that both the right and left are full of
> wackos.
>
I think that is basically what I said. ;)
Curly Surmudgeon
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
No, that is not what you said.
hal
I suggest you look up what a Republican form of government is.
John Galt
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:24:56 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> The contention that social
>>> programs encourages lazyness is nothing but right wing garbage.
>> It's not garbage in the least. Sweden, for example, has the highest % of
>> able-bodied people in the world who don't work. You can google up the
>> articles that discuss it. This is what happens when the social welfare
>> payment comes close to your the wage an unskilled person expects to earn
>> if they do work. As you say, people PREFER to work, but if I can only
>> expect to earn (for example) $7 bucks if I work but my dole is $6.50 and
>> never shuts off, you encourage that lazy streak which all people have
>> but prefer not to indulge.
>
> If all you offer people is minimum wage service jobs many will choose
> welfare. You have to give people incentives to work and the only
> incentive is good pay and benefits.
Granted. The point is that rational people will analyze what they can
get for free and what they can get from working, and if the former is
close enough to the latter so as to make the effort nonworthwhile,
they;ll choose the dole. Nobody;s going to choose to flip burgers at
Mickey D's if the dole is ten cents an hour less.
>
>>> By
>>> far most people want to be productive, contributing members of
>>> society. But you have to give them the opportunities, and sometimes a
>>> little help up when needed. But you can't help people with jobs when
>>> you ship them all overseas and completely trash the economy.
>> I agree that the US ought to be incenting onshore employment. It would
>> help if the leftists quit labeling such incentives "corporate welfare"
>> when they're suggested.
>
> There are already plenty of incentives to build businesses here. The
> problem is the corporatists made it more profitable to export the good
> jobs, and import foreign workers.
No, that's the core issue of being able to hire an Indian with the
equivalent of an MIT engineering degree at 20% of our cost there; he
will of course work for 60% of our cost here. It's not anybody's fault
that developing nations are "developing." It's a systemic factor that
must simply be mitigated.
They do it because they don't want
> to pay Americans decent living wages. That is what is wrong with our
> economy right now. The corporatists are not willing to pay Americans
> decent living wages, but will only consider getting us more and more
> into debt, and destroying any worker organizations like unions that
> fight for the rights of working Americans.
Why the HELL would any business owner want to pay an employee more money
"just cause?" The core business proposition is to pay as little as you
can for your product to be manufactured, and then sell it for as much as
you can get for it.
The problem is not the business owner; the problem is systemic. His
business is to maximize his margins, and thus his profits. A hundred
years ago, you were limited to the workforce in and around your factory.
The auto and the truck changed that equation to the nation, and jobs
moved away from the Rust Belt to the South where people were glad to
work cheaper; the infomation age moved those jobs overseas where Indians
are glad to make ten bucks an hour.
That's the issue, not "greed." And all the unions do in this equation is
chase more jobs overseas.
JG
Dan
>> It is good for a society to provide necessary services for those who
>> cannot care for themselves. That is not only a practice motivated by
>> morality but a practical one, as it leads to a more stable and
>> productive society. A societiy in which a very small priviledged few
>> live in opulance while the vast majority of the population lives in
>> squalor does not lead to productive, stable democracies.
>
>
> Trav
I see you don't have a counter argument.
Dan
TravIsGod
This has knockon effects that prove ultimately bad for business.
> The problem is not the business owner; the problem is systemic. His
> business is to maximize his margins, and thus his profits. A hundred
> years ago, you were limited to the workforce in and around your factory.
> The auto and the truck changed that equation to the nation, and jobs
> moved away from the Rust Belt to the South where people were glad to
> work cheaper; the infomation age moved those jobs overseas where Indians
> are glad to make ten bucks an hour.
>
> That's the issue, not "greed." And all the unions do in this equation is
> chase more jobs overseas.
The cost of living in the USA is obviously too high.
Trav
Dan
> Dan wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> hal wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>>>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-amnesty/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>>
>>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>>> Socialism".
>>>
>>> Let's put it this way:
>>>
>>> An America that has reneged on its Constitution and its founding
>>> principles (which a movement to socialism would require) isn't worth
>>> loving.
>>
>> not the ONLY outcome or target of the Republican actions you stated
>> above...
>
> Never said it was. In fact, in another note, I gave a rather detailed
> description of the problems with all the variants.
>
> JG
Then consider the above "reiterating." I'm easy - hell, I'm even cheap.
Dan
Dan
>
> "hal" wrote in message news:4abd43f1...@news.newsguy.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:11:59 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "hal" wrote in message news:4abcd26b...@news.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>>> hal wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>>>>>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-push-is-amnesty/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>>>>> Socialism".
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's put it this way:
>>>>>
>>>>> An America that has reneged on its Constitution and its founding
>>>>> principles (which a movement to socialism would require) isn't worth
>>>>> loving.
>>>>
>>>> it is then please cite the passage and explain how social programs are
>>>> unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "social
>>> programs"
>>
>> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
>> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
>> common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
>> do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
>> America.
>>
>
> Sorry
> But then they fail, since the proposed health care plan will bankrupt
> the country and cause far more grief than good, down the line
The moon is made of green cheese.
> And then a generic statement does NOT trump the limited list of
> jurisdictions defined elsewhere in the Constitution.
What part of "The Congress shall have Power To... ...provide for the
common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" did you not
understand. Right there in "the limited list of jurisdictions defined
[elsewhere] in the Constitution.
Would you like to try again?
> ADDED to the
> Amendment that says something about what is NOT defined as federal
> belongs to the states or the people
So, are you arguing that something specified as an enumerated Power in
the body of the Constitution is "...not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution?"
> Would you like to try again ?
Nope, I already read the document you seem so unfamiliar with.
>>>>>> You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>>>>> things up for decent people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice strategy: Insult the people you wish to govern.
>>>>
>>>> _I_ don't wish to govern _YOU_. _WE_ must learn to govern ourselves
>>>> for the sake and benefit of _ALL_PEOPLE_, not just the ultra wealthy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL
>>> That's why you want the government to make those decisions for you
>>> Little flaw in your logic there.
>>
>> "The Government" is elected by _US_ (We The People). They are OUR
>> representatives. "THEY" are not some unseen, evil force, you seem to
>> see in your paranoid delusions.
>>
>
> More stupid projections on your part
> I don't see bureaucrats as "some unseen, evil force", I seen them as
> unqualified and incompetent people who have already demonstrated that in
> other areas, such as Amtrak, the Post Office, the EPA, Homeland
> Security, and other such agencies where they consistently do the wrong
> thing and spend themselves into bankruptcy.
You picked the wrong agencies for your examples. One is enumerated in
the Constitution itself as a necessary function of government, one was
rescued from private industry which failed to make a go of it, but still
seen as contributing to the general Welfare (and the reason it does not
fare as well as it could is because it is relegated by private industry
to third class status), and is actually doing quite well, regardless,
one is doing VERY WELL by any rational standard, and the last is a
stepchild of an emergency, created by the very Party who allowed the
emergency to occur on its watch.
Would you like to try again?
> This is just a bigger boondogle where clearly they are going to waste
> even more ressources and taxpayer money doing something that clearly
> they are not qualified to do.
The moon is still made of green cheese.
> The definition of the role of the Federal Government is quite
> circumscribed,
adn certainly includes functions obviously related to the general
Welfare of the United States...
So, do you have anything constructive to say, or do you just retell
nonsense promulgated by the desperate-to-survive propaganda department
of a failed political party?
Just asking...
Dan
Dan
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:41:45 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:08:11 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:21:14 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:45:04 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:26:52 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:19:20 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:40:21 +0000, hal wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:28:57 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>>>>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:08:52 +0000, hal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT), martin
>>>>>>>>>> <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/20/obamas-next-
> push-
>>> is-
>>>>>>>>> amnesty/
>>>>>>>>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>>>>>>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>>>>>>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>>>>>>>>> fucking things up for decent people.
>>>>>>>>> very programs they, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice,
>>>>>>>>> Powell, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Meyers, Libby, Pearl, Gates,
>>>>>>>>> Fleischer, Snow, Yee, and their sycophants pushed for 8 years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are like small children who will submarine any agenda but
>>>>>>>>> their own in spite, even if that includes destroying our nation.
>>>>>>>> Frustrating as hell, isn't it? And they completely refuse to
>>>>>>>> listen to reason. Any amount of documentation and data is not
>>>>>>>> enough. They are consumed with hatred for anything but a right
>>>>>>>> wing Christian theocracy in America. They claim to be everyone's
>>>>>>>> moral superior yet would gladly watch children die from curable
>>>>>>>> diseases and malnutrition rather than accept "evil Socialism".
>>>>>>>> Our sickness runs deep. I am not confident there is any hope for
>>>>>>>> us with people like that in the world.
>>>>>>> I believe this is a direct result of "faith." Faith trumps reason,
>>>>>>> logic and critical thinking. We are seeing the result of abandoning
>>>>>>> reality for wishes, hopes and superstition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is because faith does not require reason, logic, or thinking of
>>>>>> any kind. Matter of fact all of those things are almost anti-faith.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These Neanderthals are self-extinguishing. It will be perhaps
>>>>>>> centuries before their species goes extinct and they will cause
>>>>>>> increasing levels of strife however make no mistake, humankind is
>>>>>>> diverging, evolving, and they are going to be left behind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As are those that worship at the alter of Diversity, because at the
>>>>>> root of that word is division.
>>>>> Sorry, the root of "diversity" is "diverse," not "division."
>>>>>
>>>> I wasn't speaking as in word origin, but diverse can work as well as
>>>> it also means dissimilar, separate. Point being isn't it isn't a
>>>> concept that is unifying and we need Unity much more then Diversity.
>>> What else does "root of that word" mean but origin?
>>>
>>>>>> Without a great coming together, there can only be a great tearing
>>>>>> apart.
>>>>> That has not been the historical case. America has always been a
>>>>> "melting pot" of cultures from English, German, Scandanavians,
>>>>> Italiams, Poles, Spanish, Chinese, Philipino, Japanese, Mexican,
>>>>> American Indian, East Indian, Czech, Slovak, Serb, Greek, Portuguese,
>>>>> African, Arab, Berber, South African, French, Dutch, through religious
>>>>> diversity. Only recently has xenophobia gotten out of control.
>>>>>
>>>> The term Melting-Pot means they melted in, that no longer happens, or
>>>> is even expected.
>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=melting+pot "melting pot"
>>> --Multicultural surrounding where all the different cultures slowly
>>> become more uniformal generation after generation by adopting bits and
>>> pieces of other cultures and giving away some of their own traditions.
>>>
>> Uh duh, I just said that and also said it isn't quite working out like
>> that anymore, especially when you have third or fourth generations that
>> have not assimilated.
>
> Instead of blaming immigrants abolish public translators in government
> and require everyone who wishes to live and become a citizen to function
> in English or provide their own interpretor.
He made an unsupported assertion, and you just let it pass. His
statement is, of course, total nonsense (unless you are talking about
the Cajuns in Louisiana, and that is not even actually true).
NeoClowns are nothing if not impatient (to go along with their stupidity).
Dan
Dan
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:34:52 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:02:38 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:27:03 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:53:35 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:41:00 -0700, Shuurai <shuu...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're the traitor to America. You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>>>>> America and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil
>>>>>>> Socialism". You people are stupid morons and you are still fucking
>>>>>>> things up for decent people.
>>>>>> law making the country better? How is adding millions of people to
>>>>>> entitlement programs - programs that most of them have never paid
>>>>>> into - going to help?
>>>>> Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
>>>>>
>>>> before and election and Acorn could get them register to vote quickly
>>>> enough.
>>> That is how Bush/Cheney/Rove stampeded America into two blood-sucking
>>> wars. You cannot rationally plan your future on fear, just look where
>>> it got America.
>>>
>> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah.
>
> Where were you when Bush began, expanded and failed in the two wars Obama
> now has to contend with?
>
>> Now Obama is expanding one far greater then it ever was before is
>> scope, expense & troops.
>
> That's more like it. Let's get our troops out of Afghanistan and nuke
> Tora Bora and every known hidey-hole of al quaeda. Why didn't Bush/
> Cheney? I'll answer my own question:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
>
> You are not going to get the U.S. Government out of Afghanistan until we
> get election reform. It doesn't matter which party is in office,
> corporations, fascists, control America.
>
>> Additionally if his withdrawal from Iraq isn't done right and the
>> country destabilizes that will be on him as well.
>
> Fuck Iraq too. Let the Israelii's, Sauds, and Iranians deal with it.
> Iraq was _never_ a threat to the United States. Where were you in 2003
> when Bush lied America into the invasion?
>
>> BTW -- I didn't say I was planning on anything, just said I wouldn't put
>> it past him.
>
> Huh?
The old "Some people say..." method of political discourse (i.e.,
"propaganda"). Works on weak-minded fools, who often repeat it verbatim
in their pathetic zeal to try and ingratiate themselves with their masters.
>>>>>> This is nothing more than an attempt to secure votes, at the expense
>>>>>> of the American people. It has nothing to do with making things
>>>>>> better for anyone. It will simply encourage more illegal entry into
>>>>>> the country, which will raise unemployment, raise public debt, and
>>>>>> further strain social programs.
>>>>> An argument built upon a fantasy.
>>>>>
>>>> Even a fantasy can have a basis in a future reality. Just look at the
>>>> writings of H.G. Wells. Science Fiction, or Science Fact -- sometimes
>>>> just a matter of time.
>>> There are fantasies and there are Fantasies. Most are trivial and
>>> comforting, your's is based upon fear. I do not run my life that way.
>>>
>> I have no fear (in that particular area), all I said was that I wouldn't
>> even put it past him. Oh and a little fear is good for you, it can help
>> keep you aware. It is much better then the complacency most have
>> slipped into.
>
> Nope, fear makes you do weird shit.
This person is obviously very fearful, or they wouldn't be repeating the
same old tired discredited nonsense as though it were true.
Dan
Dan
> Thanks to Obama-Soetoro and his band of Communist radicals the
> country is now split along all lines.
Credibility has now reached negative levels.
Strabo, your mental illness has progressed past the level where rational
discourse is possible. Sad, but so obviously true.
If you want to prove me wrong, start arguing from rational premises and
demonstrable evidence, and start using a real dictionary to sort out
your terminology. That's all any of us can ask.
Dan
Dan
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:41:00 -0700, Shuurai <shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> A total puke but a dangerous one.
>>>> You're the traitor to America. � You right wing nutjobs who hate
>>>> America
>>>> and want to see it fail rather than see any more "evil Socialism". �
>>>> You
>>>> people are stupid morons and you are still fucking things up for decent
>>>> people.
>>> So how exactly is giving amnesty to millions of people who broke the law
>>> making the country better? How is adding millions of people to
>>> entitlement programs - programs that most of them have never paid into -
>>> going to help?
>>
>> Straw man, President Obama has proposed no such thing.
>>
>
Not in current legislation, which is what the author was obviously
saying, despite his misuse of a confusing English tense...
>>> This is nothing more than an attempt to secure votes, at the expense of
>>> the American people. It has nothing to do with making things better for
>>> anyone. It will simply encourage more illegal entry into the country,
>>> which will raise unemployment, raise public debt, and further strain
>>> social programs.
>>
>> An argument built upon a fantasy.
>>
>
> Tell it to the convicted ACORN vote riggers.
I would love to, but THERE AREN'T ANY that we know of... When you find
some, please to let us know of their existence, right after you report
them to the authorities, who will be more than happy to try them and fry
them (like the recent cowardly Congressional action without cause).
>>> Did you even read the article? Of course not. You just saw the name
>>> "Obama" in the header, realized the author was saying something
>>> negative, and reacted with one of your usual mindless rants.
>>
>> Yes, I read the article. Show us the passage where Obama proposed
>> amnesty for illegal aliens.
>>
>
> He's too sneaky for that. His buddies just pass a separate bill.
>
>
> Obama's next push is amnesty
>
> President intends to install a long-term Democratic majority
Political nonsense. Come on, Strabo, even YOU can do better than that.
Dan
Dan
> If people want to stop getting raped & pillaged by the Butt-Pirates,
> they should at least begin to stop bending over in front of them.
So you are pro-union. That is good to know.
Dan
Tim Miller
Odd. Sounds like an ANTI-union argument.
Dan
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Zombywoof
> -0400 in misc.survivalism:
>> I'll offer them a job that is within scope of their skills &
>> abilities, but one of the major problems is that those with the least
>> skills & abilities think that for them a decent job should be paying
>> $50 bucks an hour with a six-hour workday with a 2-hour paid lunch,
>> free child care and a limo to ferry them back & forth to work.
>
> When can I start? You can skip the free child care, unless you're
> going to be providing the free child as well...
>
> Wednesdays at 12, take an hour lunch, and leave at 1, for 33,000 a
> year plus benefits. Of course, I'll be representing the company while
> on my time off, so I'll be expecting those expenses to be covered as
> well, plus the usual per diem. But I like your offer a little
> better.
> -
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
See, he wants a job that fits his skills!
Of course, Zomby is just offering a straw man argument, so your begging
for money was in vain.
Dan
Strabo
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:36:47 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> While that maybe true, it is also a bad idea to provide anything for
>> those who won't (not can't) provide for themselves. It breeds contempt
>> for any type of initiative or desire to improve ones position in life.
>
> would quickly turn violent. Study the causes and resolve not to allow
> the pirates to repeat, as some are again doing, but don't blame the poor
> for wanting food and shelter.
>
Keep in mind everyone, we are talking about institutional welfare, a
permanent underclass of dependents, wards of the state, who do
the biding of ruling elites. Democratically chosen, once begun, this
class can only grow.
At two points in the duration of a welfare state the poor starve -
at its beginning and at its end - for no state can survive
redistributing finite resources to increasing demand.
But the poor can only truly starve once. Then there would be no more
poor. So *the poor* is a relativistic term referring to political
operatives of the state defined by socio-economic class.
This is standard Marxist dialectic.
The US has reached it's limit so, according to some the time has
come to *change* the nature of the state.
One of the goals of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party
is to redefine the jurisdiction and scope of the US government thereby
allowing for an *expansion* of state dependencies. 20 to 30 million
illegal aliens will be immediately absorbed to be followed by 50 million
Near Eastern and African Muslims. Meanwhile plans are afoot to remove
its borders entirely.
Needless to say there will soon no longer be a recognizable America.
The collapse of all nation states and a global super-state is the
mid-term vision of liberal-progressives.
>
> Where is your ire against the corporate owners of health care, Pharma,
> the FDA, AMA, ABA, and petrochemical giants? Why are you not pursuing
> their front men rather than dismissing we who want to try them as having
> "BDS"?
>
Each of these, and there are more, is a monopoly protected by the state.
In fact, 90% of the federal government is a regulatory body for a
system of interconnected monopolies.
Once the details are known, ire gushes forth.
>
> Until some very high up political whores are tried and punished there is
> no consequence to the pirates from pushing another puppet into power.
>
And since that won't happen under normal circumstances we can only
await the inevitable.
Strabo
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:15:36 -0400, Strabo wrote:
>
>
>> This will be followed by more pan-American 'treaties' and softening the
>> borders while he continues to give away the future treasury.
>
> This is the sort of economic ignorance with which we are faced. It comes
> from a total misunderstanding of government and of money and of society
> in general.
>
Right.
Hang on, more coming soon.