PDA

View Full Version : ITT, we discuss why welfare parasites should be denied the right to vote


Car Key Boi
Jun 13th, 2004, 06:06 PM
i'm not addressing those hard-working working-class tards who've been suddenly laid off or whatever and need a safety net until they can get back on their feet

i'm not even refering to student tards living on student loans and the like (even thou most of them will probably vote for the Dems)

at least with student tards, there's the INTENT of getting themselves a decent education, a career, paying taxes, blah

nope, i'm talking about the LAZY BUMS who have NO INTENTION EVER of

a) getting a job
b) doing something constructive with their lives
c) trying to grab whatever brass rung that's within their reach

why the fuck should people who bring nothing to the table, have a stake in the election process?

jailbirds are denied voting rights, and so should those fucks who don't contribute anything constructive to society, spending their waking hours watching Jerry Springer, jacking off to internet porn, posting shit on internet message boards, scoring drugs blah, all of which is paid for courtesy of the taxpayer

if yuo want to have a say, you should earn the right, and that means PAYING FUCKING TAXES AND NOT SPONGING OFF THE STATE LIKE A FUCKING PARASITE!!!

- CAR KEY BOI :fiery:

lizchris
Jun 13th, 2004, 07:30 PM
i'm not addressing those hard-working working-class tards who've been suddenly laid off or whatever and need a safety net until they can get back on their feet

i'm not even refering to student tards living on student loans and the like (even thou most of them will probably vote for the Dems)

at least with student tards, there's the INTENT of getting themselves a decent education, a career, paying taxes, blah

nope, i'm talking about the LAZY BUMS who have NO INTENTION EVER of

a) getting a job
b) doing something constructive with their lives
c) trying to grab whatever brass rung that's within their reach

why the fuck should people who bring nothing to the table, have a stake in the election process?

jailbirds are denied voting rights, and so should those fucks who don't contribute anything constructive to society, spending their waking hours watching Jerry Springer, jacking off to internet porn, posting shit on internet message boards, scoring drugs blah, all of which is paid for courtesy of the taxpayer

if yuo want to have a say, you should earn the right, and that means PAYING FUCKING TAXES AND NOT SPONGING OFF THE STATE LIKE A FUCKING PARASITE!!!

- CAR KEY BOI :fiery:
Unless someone is a convicted felon or not a citizen, they will always have the right to vote or else you are violating the 14th Amendement and the Votoing Rights Act of 1965.

decemberlove
Jun 13th, 2004, 08:15 PM
they dont vote anyway.

Bacardi
Jun 13th, 2004, 08:22 PM
I'm with decemberlove, most of the Welfare Parasites don't vote, they don't even bother with politics. As long as some form of government (Dems/Repu) keep sending out their checks and free food, they don't give a shit. And no matter who wins, you won't see an end to Welfare, regardless of what the Repubs are saying, they've not stopped it with all the chances they had, they won't stop it again.
The only beef with it I have is I wish they would make some of those people go out and earn it. I believe in times past they used to have the men working planting trees and taking care of like highways, now they get to sit on their fat asses drink beer and smoke all day. I just wish they'd have them do little jobs like pick up trash along roadways, plant flowers/trees/etc, or even do some mowing or something. I mean if I could at least feel like they were doing some sort of work for my taxes I wouldn't care to be shelling out as much money as I do from my check every 2 weeks.

JonBcn
Jun 13th, 2004, 08:34 PM
Where do you draw the line between a "bum" and a unfortunate working class person who got laid off and stays on benefits longer than you'd like? Who do you recommend has the right to determine that?

Why should bums not have a say in the election process? Simply because they dont pay taxes? I have a solution: Perhaps we can give votes to people based on their wealth: if you're on benefits you get one vote, if you earn $100,000 per year, you get two, right up to ten votes for billionaires. Still broadly democratic (no one is denied their say), and best of all, it wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference, because whatever you think about American politics, the money and power are always concentrated in the hands of the same few anyway.

Martian Willow
Jun 13th, 2004, 09:04 PM
I'm with decemberlove, most of the Welfare Parasites don't vote, they don't even bother with politics. As long as some form of government (Dems/Repu) keep sending out their checks and free food, they don't give a shit. And no matter who wins, you won't see an end to Welfare, regardless of what the Repubs are saying, they've not stopped it with all the chances they had, they won't stop it again.
The only beef with it I have is I wish they would make some of those people go out and earn it. I believe in times past they used to have the men working planting trees and taking care of like highways, now they get to sit on their fat asses drink beer and smoke all day. I just wish they'd have them do little jobs like pick up trash along roadways, plant flowers/trees/etc, or even do some mowing or something. I mean if I could at least feel like they were doing some sort of work for my taxes I wouldn't care to be shelling out as much money as I do from my check every 2 weeks.

...if you're giving them a job you should pay them for doing it... :)

*JR*
Jun 13th, 2004, 09:19 PM
now they get to sit on their fat asses drink beer and smoke all day.....
Sounds like One Of your NASCAR crowds! :devil:

BigB08822
Jun 13th, 2004, 10:42 PM
Thanks, this thread reminded me I wanted to jack off to internet porn!

BritneySpearsIsHot
Jun 13th, 2004, 10:43 PM
You could add asylum seekers to your list

ys
Jun 13th, 2004, 10:46 PM
i'm not addressing those hard-working working-class tards who've been suddenly laid off or whatever and need a safety net until they can get back on their feet

i'm not even refering to student tards living on student loans and the like (even thou most of them will probably vote for the Dems)

at least with student tards, there's the INTENT of getting themselves a decent education, a career, paying taxes, blah

nope, i'm talking about the LAZY BUMS who have NO INTENTION EVER of

a) getting a job
b) doing something constructive with their lives
c) trying to grab whatever brass rung that's within their reach

why the fuck should people who bring nothing to the table, have a stake in the election process?

jailbirds are denied voting rights, and so should those fucks who don't contribute anything constructive to society, spending their waking hours watching Jerry Springer, jacking off to internet porn, posting shit on internet message boards, scoring drugs blah, all of which is paid for courtesy of the taxpayer

if yuo want to have a say, you should earn the right, and that means PAYING FUCKING TAXES AND NOT SPONGING OFF THE STATE LIKE A FUCKING PARASITE!!!

- CAR KEY BOI :fiery:I kinda agree.. I think that a person should not have a right to vote until
(s)he pays certain amount of taxes. Having voter's votes having weights proportional to the taxes they pay is even better. Those who don't contribute to the budget should not have a say about what to do with those money.

DelMonte
Jun 13th, 2004, 10:56 PM
I kinda agree.. I think that a person should not have a right to vote until
(s)he pays certain amount of taxes. Having voter's votes having weights proportional to the taxes they pay is even better. Those who don't contribute to the budget should not have a say about what to do with those money.

so you think it's a good idea to link voting rights with an individual's capacity to pay taxes??

what about parents (housewives and househusbands) who stay at home and raise children and don't have a paying job?

how about disabled people who are not physically capable of working?

ys
Jun 13th, 2004, 11:13 PM
so you think it's a good idea to link voting rights with an individual's capacity to pay taxes??
Yes. You reserve the right to decide to do with the money you earn, right? Same here, if you do not contribute to the financial ability to the state, why should you be given a right to decide what to do with that?

what about parents (housewives and househusbands) who stay at home and raise children and don't have a paying job?They need money to raise children, right? Then they have some money at their disposal. Why don't they voluntarily pay some of that to state budget to buy their right to have a say if it is really important for them?

how about disabled people who are not physically capable of working?I think being unable to vote won't contribute much to their existing problems.

DelMonte
Jun 13th, 2004, 11:21 PM
Yes. You reserve the right to decide to do with the money you earn, right? Same here, if you do not contribute to the financial ability to the state, why should you be given a right to decide what to do with that?

They need money to raise children, right? Then they have some money at their disposal. Why don't they voluntarily pay some of that to state budget to buy their right to have a say if it is really important for them?

I think being unable to vote won't contribute much to their existing problems.

enough said. good night.

ys
Jun 13th, 2004, 11:30 PM
enough said. good night.
Good night.

Kirt12255
Jun 13th, 2004, 11:43 PM
:fiery: :fiery: Absolutely Disgusting!

I'll begin by saying I don't know the US system of voting....welfare recipients are HUMANS!!! ty!!!

I think alot of you have to become alot less concerned about the Gucci stain and become more level.

Do you all truely believe you become less human if you are on Welfare? Perhaps someone on welfare was the person who helped you at some stage....they don't deserve to vote? Perhaps the administration can't afford their voice....sounds like an election in Chad!

jack duckworth
Jun 13th, 2004, 11:47 PM
:haha:BigB08822...that was so funny:)

Bacardi
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:17 AM
...if you're giving them a job you should pay them for doing it... :)

Exactly, why not have a manditory 3 years max in a row on Welfare if within that time you cannot find a job the state gives you a job like cleaning up roadways or something. And pay them for doing that work, I'd have no problem with some of them working. This area I live in is bad for people staying in the system. I know a girl that graduated high school with me that got pregnant 4x's and is on the entire Welfare WIC system, and it disgusts me. Of course her family was on it back when she was in school too, I guess they can't break the trend of sitting on their asses and collecting our money. Don't tell me half of you aren't annoyed by the countless people that pop babies out just to get the $$$? I'm not saying they aren't human and don't deserve to vote, I'm just saying most of them don't vote cuz they could give a shit less.... I'm just saying I'd like to see them do something for the community, since the community pays their bills.

Bacardi
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:17 AM
Sounds like One Of your NASCAR crowds! :devil:

Yes, and that's why if the Bristol races were held around the first of the month, there'd be even more demand for seats. :lol:

Crazy Canuck
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:23 AM
I kinda agree.. I think that a person should not have a right to vote until
(s)he pays certain amount of taxes. Having voter's votes having weights proportional to the taxes they pay is even better. Those who don't contribute to the budget should not have a say about what to do with those money.
Seeing as I get my loans from the government, my healthcare is decided by the government, whether or not my tuition is hiked is decided indirectly by the government, and so on and so forth... I sure as Hell deserve to check a ballot every bit that my father - or anybody else who has paid far more taxes than myself - does.

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:31 AM
I think that the problem that we are touching here is only a tip of an iceberg.

The real problem is called "Democracy". Any Democracy where everyone has a right of vote inevtably pushes the country into the socialist ways - dead end way. It is inevitable because this kind of democracy is equivalent of the "everything for everyone" slogan which is a socialist line. US economy is developing in extensive way for quite a while already feeding the engine of economy growth by expansion of consumer base. It is dead end, it is not sustainable, it will blow eventually. And the key problem here is Democracy, because the majority is nearly always socialist deep inside. We are already pretty much a socialist country.

I think that sooner or later USA will have to revise its political system. Only those who can prove that they are capable of thoughtful, non-emotional, non-selfish, responsible choice can be allowed to vote. Not 70%. Not even 50 or 30 or 20. 1-2% at most. Combined of country's economical and intellectual elite. That will be better for everyone. In this context the question of whether those non-working should be able to vote or not is nonsensical.

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:32 AM
Seeing as I get my loans from the government, my healthcare is decided by the government, whether or not my tuition is hiked is decided indirectly by the government, and so on and so forth... I sure as Hell deserve to check a ballot every bit that my father - or anybody else who has paid far more taxes than myself - does.
Do you really need that ballot? Do you really want it?

BritneySpearsIsHot
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:34 AM
I think everyone should be able to vote, minus those with a criminal record beyond a certain repute and those without jobs under 25 (random number their)

That way if they want to vote, they'll get a job (even if it's part-time) I work with a student who works part time, so if she can do it................

Now i work Full Time and get to vote, but don't..............because they all talk shit anyway

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:37 AM
Now i work Full Time and get to vote, but don't..............because they all talk shit anyway
Exactly. How big is percentage of those who really vote for the reason, because they really understand the difference, not because "Bush is Rep" and "Kerry is Dem"? Or not because "Bush looks a moron and Kerry does not". This all very important process is turned by this political system into Reality TV game..

BritneySpearsIsHot
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:39 AM
Exactly. How big is percentage of those who really vote for the reason, because they really understand the difference, not because "Bush is Rep" and "Kerry is Dem"? Or not because "Bush looks a moron and Kerry does not". This all very important process is turned by this political system into Reality TV game..
All i see is lies, misleading and more lies.

I also agree with your point to a degree. Those out of work are giving less to society, putting less back in, therefore, should be given less or GET A JOB

decemberlove
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:46 AM
I think everyone should be able to vote, minus those with a criminal record beyond a certain repute and those without jobs under 25 (random number their)

That way if they want to vote, they'll get a job (even if it's part-time) I work with a student who works part time, so if she can do it................

Now i work Full Time and get to vote, but don't..............because they all talk shit anyway
thats nice that you work with a student who works part time and goes to schol full time . but many people in school simply can't . they have people to take care of in their lives or they have too many after school activities . sports.clubs.etc . or maybe they do work part time but work under the table . what is your solution to that one?

agism :rolleyes:

not too many people who are under 25 vote . and those that do make sure they are aware of all the issues .

BritneySpearsIsHot
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:51 AM
thats nice that you work with a student who works part time and goes to schol full time . but many people in school simply can't . they have people to take care of in their lives or they have too many after school activities . sports.clubs.etc . or maybe they do work part time but work under the table . what is your solution to that one?

agism :rolleyes:

not too many people who are under 25 vote . and those that do make sure they are aware of all the issues .
Their are exceptions.............sports clubs is not a valid reason, caring for someone is valid...........by under the table you mean............off the record.......thus cheating the system anyway? Or maybe you mean something else............

In Britain i know a few people who have voted......under 25.........they voted for the British National Party (BNP) who are a racist party that are anti non-british

They don't know their politics but are fed up with current situations

Maybe putting an age is harsh, maybe it should be the unemployed (Not the sick, but those capable of work)

But then you have the issue, of who actually is incapable...........

Monique
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:59 AM
typical elitist rhetoric :rolleyes:... why stop at 1 or 2% of the population and not have just a special small electoral pool consisted of Donald Trump and the likes of him to pick the nation's future leaders? clearly, because those people pay so much taxes and contribute to the US general economic health in such astronomical scale, they have to be considered better abled citizens :rolleyes: ... and while at it, let's all consider a much stricter surveillance and tighter control of your civil liberties because the pledge of the not so economically blessed will probably hinder the nation's advance... I can see Corporate America dreaming of a similar scenario...

Bacardi
Jun 14th, 2004, 01:06 AM
erm, where have you been with the welfare to work program that has been enacted since 1996:confused: I don't know about where you live but in NY welfare rolls are down tremendously because of this, i believe they have 5 years to get off- and people are indeed working- sweeping streets etc for that money.

And I won't address Key Boi's assertion- like someone said, they have already dumbed them down enough that they don't have to worry about them voting.


I know about that welfare to work program, but thus far it's not working long term. You have just as many people if not more signing up on welfare at about the time someone finally gets off the system. I know for a fact that pile of garbage that has the 4 brats and never worked a day in her life has been on it at least since 1998! The worst part is, she keeps having kids, she's got 4, one's probably 3 months old, and she plans on having more. Her boyfriend's an even better piece of trash, he takes their food stamp credit card thingy and gets a grocery list, shops for someone and then sells them the food for a reduced price.... all so he can run out and buy some drugs, that money almost never goes to the kids or the mothers that actually are trying, it goes to trash like I'm talking about above.

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 01:10 AM
typical elitist rhetoric :rolleyes:
It is not a rhetoric, Monique. It is reality. Politicians elected by this "democracy" continuously make a lot of very irresponsible decisions, and the ultimate source of those irresponsible decisions is irresponsible electorate that deserves those politicians. What is an elitist rhetoric now is the best possible reality of tomorrow. With 1-2% voting we will have at least 1-2% of really responsibly voting people. Now it is probably less than that, because most of people are only programmed by well-paid mass-media to vote as current political elite wants. The current choice is in reality no choice. Which is a very bad choice.

Martian Willow
Jun 14th, 2004, 01:28 AM
Exactly, why not have a manditory 3 years max in a row on Welfare if within that time you cannot find a job the state gives you a job like cleaning up roadways or something. And pay them for doing that work, I'd have no problem with some of them working. This area I live in is bad for people staying in the system. I know a girl that graduated high school with me that got pregnant 4x's and is on the entire Welfare WIC system, and it disgusts me. Of course her family was on it back when she was in school too, I guess they can't break the trend of sitting on their asses and collecting our money. Don't tell me half of you aren't annoyed by the countless people that pop babies out just to get the $$$? I'm not saying they aren't human and don't deserve to vote, I'm just saying most of them don't vote cuz they could give a shit less.... I'm just saying I'd like to see them do something for the community, since the community pays their bills.

...I think perhaps you missed the point...if all that work is available...and the money to pay people...nobody would be on welfare in the first place... :)

Monique
Jun 14th, 2004, 01:43 AM
ys, I understand your point of view, but i still find it exclusivist and condescending nonetheless.. the premise that a few choicy educated individuals are bounded to make better political decisions to satisfy the excluded and "clueless" general population needs, is a flawed one because it does not take in consideration man's fundamentally corrupt and selfish nature nor would the excluded ones have any active voice on matters that will directly affect their lives... in a way, it reminds me of Karl Marx initial core ideas that the masses are basically ignorant and their way should be led by a strong Government of a few "illuminated" ones... having being educated on the scholar ways does not give one the right to despise and belittle the less fortunate accomplishments and ideas, nor makes it correct the assumption that the best way to deal with it is the scientific or material one... too many tangibles and incongruencies when you deal with peoples needs and feelings...

Helen Lawson
Jun 14th, 2004, 01:20 PM
The Academy revokes your voting privileges if you fail to be active in the industry for too long. But doing even a dumb ad or dinner theatre counts, just ask Neely.

Andy T
Jun 14th, 2004, 01:41 PM
i'm not addressing those hard-working working-class tards who've been suddenly laid off or whatever and need a safety net until they can get back on their feet

i'm not even refering to student tards living on student loans and the like (even thou most of them will probably vote for the Dems)

at least with student tards, there's the INTENT of getting themselves a decent education, a career, paying taxes, blah

nope, i'm talking about the LAZY BUMS who have NO INTENTION EVER of

a) getting a job
b) doing something constructive with their lives
c) trying to grab whatever brass rung that's within their reach

why the fuck should people who bring nothing to the table, have a stake in the election process?

jailbirds are denied voting rights, and so should those fucks who don't contribute anything constructive to society, spending their waking hours watching Jerry Springer, jacking off to internet porn, posting shit on internet message boards, scoring drugs blah, all of which is paid for courtesy of the taxpayer

if yuo want to have a say, you should earn the right, and that means PAYING FUCKING TAXES AND NOT SPONGING OFF THE STATE LIKE A FUCKING PARASITE!!!

- CAR KEY BOI :fiery:


Does your proposal include parasite women and men who don't work but live off their spouse's salary or those parasites who inherit money and don't work either?

Helen Lawson
Jun 14th, 2004, 01:43 PM
I have paid millions of dollars in income taxes over the years. I should get hundreds of votes.

*JR*
Jun 14th, 2004, 01:56 PM
Why shouldn't convicted felons be able to vote, if they've completed their sentences? (Perhaps Treating Them as second Class Citizens even increases the rate of recidivism).

Helen Lawson
Jun 14th, 2004, 01:58 PM
Why shouldn't convicted felons be able to vote, if they've completed their sentences? (Perhaps Treating Them as second Class Citizens even increases the rate of recidivism).
Winona Ryder will continue to shoplift whether she can vote or not.

"Sluggy"
Jun 14th, 2004, 03:33 PM
I dont think many people should be denied the right to vote. I believe that felons should generally have the right to vote. I suppose if a person intentionally kills someone, or rapes or some crimes, they should lose their right to vote. But There are plenty of non-violent felons who should be allowed the right to vote IMO. And for living off the system and collecting welfare. LIke most of your posts, i disagree.

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 03:56 PM
I reiterate. The elections in conditions of so called democracy have very little to do with real freedom of choice as well as with true interests of the country. 99% of the people have very little understanding of what they are voting for and that creates a field for manipulation and results being programmed by media. We are choosing the person that is better capable of impressing your average voting moron rather than capable of making the right decisions.

Do you really think that majority of voters is enough equipped to make a thoughtful and responsible choice on very difficult issues of economy, ecology, financing sciences? Do you really think that they would make a choice in favor of better future if it comes at an expense of their current couple of dollars?

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 14th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Where do you draw the line between a "bum" and a unfortunate working class person who got laid off and stays on benefits longer than you'd like? Who do you recommend has the right to determine that?

Why should bums not have a say in the election process? Simply because they dont pay taxes? I have a solution: Perhaps we can give votes to people based on their wealth: if you're on benefits you get one vote, if you earn $100,000 per year, you get two, right up to ten votes for billionaires. Still broadly democratic (no one is denied their say), and best of all, it wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference, because whatever you think about American politics, the money and power are always concentrated in the hands of the same few anyway.
He probably doesnt. He also fails to mention the many people who were suddenly without employment when their job was shipped over seas. What are these people to do when they can't find another job and need retraining and the unemployment checks dont meet the bills of supporting a family? I guess these people should just be kicked out on the street, right?

I am all for public assitance as long as it goes hand in hand with JOB TRAINING.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 14th, 2004, 04:31 PM
I reiterate. The elections in conditions of so called democracy have very little to do with real freedom of choice as well as with true interests of the country. 99% of the people have very little understanding of what they are voting for and that creates a field for manipulation and results being programmed by media. We are choosing the person that is better capable of impressing your average voting moron rather than capable of making the right decisions.

Do you really think that majority of voters is enough equipped to make a thoughtful and responsible choice on very difficult issues of economy, ecology, financing sciences? Do you really think that they would make a choice in favor of better future if it comes at an expense of their current couple of dollars?
I agree. The problem in america is that the population lets the media dictate the topic of the day. Example: gay marriage. Sorry, but there are more pressing issues at stake than gay marriage. Lets worry about the fundamentals like education, jobs, and the economy instead of wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage.

I also find it funny that most people who are pro life are also pro death penalty. Talk about hypocrites.:tape:

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 04:34 PM
I am all for public assitance as long as it goes hand in hand with JOB TRAINING.
I know quite a few people who are getting a lot of free training, classes after classes. They still can't find the jobs. I think it does not make any sense. There are vacancies on the market. There are always vacancies in McDonalds. It's not a shameful job. If it doesn't pay your bills, change lifestyle, move to cheaper area. Nobody is obliged to sponsor anyone.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 14th, 2004, 04:41 PM
May I also note that we never seem to hear boi ranting over the billions that the s&l scandal cost the taxpayers. Much more than the people on welfare ever did. what about the millions and millions of free money given to the airline industry? Now thats truly welfare money.

what about the corporate welfare that gets paid out in subsidies? Why not end that?:rolleyes:

What about those high dollar items spent in the pentagon budget when they purchase 450dollar toilet seats??? Couldnt they just go to walmart like the rest of the country instead of lining the pockets of their fat cat cronies??

what about the recent news bit of public officials buying airline tickets they never even use????

what about the billions wasted on this war in Iraq? I bet that could have been a huge tax relief on the people of the US instead of instead being used to line the pockets of a lucky few corporations.

Helen Lawson
Jun 14th, 2004, 04:44 PM
The airline industry is a complete con/rip-off, Cybelle is right, I hate to admit it, lol. I cannot believe those rip-off carriers get a cent in federal money. The airlines must have big lobbyists, that is all I can say. That is the real scamming of America.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 14th, 2004, 04:45 PM
I know quite a few people who are getting a lot of free training, classes after classes. They still can't find the jobs. I think it does not make any sense. There are vacancies on the market. There are always vacancies in McDonalds. It's not a shameful job. If it doesn't pay your bills, change lifestyle, move to cheaper area. Nobody is obliged to sponsor anyone.
its easy to talk the way you do: change your lifestyle. How do you change your lifestyle if you cannot feed your family? Isnt food and water and housing the basics? How do you keep a job without a place to live???

Also there is more to be done than just training. You have to place these people in jobs. You have to make sure you are training them for jobs that will be there. Why train someone with skill set A for job B??? That does no good. I agree that mcdonalds offers no shame. Have you been in a Mcdonalds lately? Those jobs are taken more and more by seniors who have to come out of retirement because their pensions cannot support them.

This country needs to step up and offer the basics to every single citizen: housing, healthcare, education.

There is nothing wrong with providing those basic needs to every single person in this country.

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 04:55 PM
This country needs to step up and offer the basics to every single citizen: housing, healthcare, education.

Housing? You gotta be kidding..

The basic rule of capitalism - saving the drowning ones is the business of those drowning. Another rule is that nothing is more expensive for an economy then soemthing that is free. Look at Europe, their socialist economies are quite useless. US economy is getting very socialist too though..


There is nothing wrong with providing those basic needs to every single person in this country.
There is.

Helen Lawson
Jun 14th, 2004, 05:02 PM
It is not that easy to get a job at McDonald's anymore. People think that is the last resort, but those jobs are not easy to get. Why does health insurance cost well over $500 per month for bad coverage per person? Bush decides to build a new prison in Iraq to the tune of millions out of the kindness of his heart and I am still paying over $500 for health insurance? I am glad he is so generous with my money. I was not thrilled with all the money going to Iraq, but rebuilding a prison the U.S. did not even build was the final straw for me. I could get better healthcare in Iraq from the U.S. than I do here!

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 14th, 2004, 05:06 PM
Housing? You gotta be kidding..

The basic rule of capitalism - saving the drowning ones is the business of those drowning. Another rule is that nothing is more expensive for an economy then soemthing that is free. Look at Europe, their socialist economies are quite useless. US economy is getting very socialist too though..


There is.
whatever. What dream are u living in? Why not get rid of child labor laws and let capitalism reign free? Why not get rid of anti discrimination laws? Why not get rid of enviromental protection laws? In fact lets get rid of all labor laws and the minimum wage.

Have you considered with an educated population that housing needs would be minimal? Probably only used for the eldery or infirm who cannot take care of themselves. I guess we should put those people on the streets with the mentally ill that got thrown out there before them?

If we provided a college level education for everyone who qualified then our society would be much better off.

also healthcare is the number one issue facing our country. We need to get these costs under control and make healthcare a right not a luxury that costs millions. medical liability is a crisis but what do we do? What would you do if you were the victim of malpractice or incompetence? would you sue the hospital or just let bygones be bygones?

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 14th, 2004, 05:13 PM
It is not that easy to get a job at McDonald's anymore. People think that is the last resort, but those jobs are not easy to get. Why does health insurance cost well over $500 per month for bad coverage per person? Bush decides to build a new prison in Iraq to the tune of millions out of the kindness of his heart and I am still paying over $500 for health insurance? I am glad he is so generous with my money. I was not thrilled with all the money going to Iraq, but rebuilding a prison the U.S. did not even build was the final straw for me. I could get better healthcare in Iraq from the U.S. than I do here!
The people in this country, I mean the real hard working american people who actually work for a living and dont live off some trustfund or the interest of their portfolio, should take one day and just sit home in protest. No work just for one day.

The middle class and poor are the backbone of this country which so many seem to overlook.

Its funny how we throw money at Israel and all these other welfare countries when our own people at home have exorbitant healthcare costs while some are living in the streets while others are languishing in poorly developed public schools systems. Its pathetic.

where is the righteous indignation???

This country should be about two groups the haves and the have nots instead the haves pit the have nots against each other with issues of abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, and many other issues that the poor need to ignore and instead band together. Its not about white and black or jew and christian or pro life and pro choice or democrat and republican.

Its about MONEY and POWER. You either have it or you dont and if you dont you are nobody unless you actively work to change that.

*JR*
Jun 14th, 2004, 05:15 PM
The basic rule of capitalism - saving the drowning ones is the business of those drowning.
And what if they're drowning because those already in power (and in control of both parties here, and the Big 3 in Britain) are the ones in control of the flotation vests, etc? (Sure they let SOME children rise from poverty to privilege, but always make sure enough don't so as to clean their bathrooms, etc. for less than a living wage).

lizchris
Jun 14th, 2004, 05:39 PM
I kinda agree.. I think that a person should not have a right to vote until
(s)he pays certain amount of taxes. Having voter's votes having weights proportional to the taxes they pay is even better. Those who don't contribute to the budget should not have a say about what to do with those money.
That's what the law used to be, but thankfuly the laws have changed.

Again, unless you are a convited feon or not a citizen, you must have the right to vote unless you want to rewrite the Constitution and violate it at the same time.:rolleyes:

Hulet
Jun 14th, 2004, 05:42 PM
I wrote such a big essay on the ridculesness of the title of this thread but, finally decided against posting it. I rather quote this scene from the Matrix, which summerizes my thoughts regarding this thread:

Smith: I want to share something of a revelation with you, Morpheus. It came to me when I attempted to classify your species, and I realised that you are not actually mammals. You see, every mammal establishes a natural equilibrium with its natural habitat. But you humans do not...you habitate one area and consume all the natural resources before spreading to another area..

Morpheus: --irritated grunting sounds--

Smith: There is another creature that does this: Do you know what it is? A virus. You humans are a cancer of this planet, you are...plague.

Yup, almost all humans are parasitic, even viral, by nature, and, hence, don't deserve to vote. Bring on the machines.

lizchris
Jun 14th, 2004, 05:43 PM
Why shouldn't convicted felons be able to vote, if they've completed their sentences? (Perhaps Treating Them as second Class Citizens even increases the rate of recidivism).
In some states, they have the right to reapply for voting rights, depending on the crime committed, but in others (including Florida), they lose the right to vote for life.

I think the reason is that if a person is serving life for murder, why should that person have the right to vote? However, when person has already served their time and the feolny committed isn't murder or attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to vote again.

Helen Lawson
Jun 14th, 2004, 05:45 PM
If you shoplift $100 purple socks from Saks, you lose your right to vote also.

Rosie was right, if Winona's last few films had done well, the studio would have covered it up for her. You would be amazed at the things my studio covered up for me when I was on top. Amazed!

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 05:51 PM
And what if they're drowning because those already in power (and in control of both parties here, and the Big 3 in Britain) are the ones in control of the flotation vests, etc? (Sure they let SOME children rise from poverty to privilege, but always make sure enough don't so as to clean their bathrooms, etc. for less than a living wage).
Everyone in power is evil. Paranoya.

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 06:09 PM
whatever. What dream are u living in? Why not get rid of child labor laws and let capitalism reign free? Why not get rid of anti discrimination laws? Why not get rid of enviromental protection laws? In fact lets get rid of all labor laws and the minimum wage.

Cybelle, dear, my heart is with what you say. My mind is not. Of course, it would be so good to provide everyone on US with free housing,education, etc. Oh, forget about US. Everyone in the world. The problem is - it is unrealistic. There are not enough resources for that. As simple as that. One thing that is good about liberal capitalism is that if you don't work you have nothing to eat, nowhere to live and so do your family. If anything, it makes people think, it makes people search, it makes people move, it makes them sleep less and work more, lie on coach watching stupid basketballs or nfls less and looking for something to do more. It is a great motivator. And it is the only way to make life better. Giving something for free provides zero motivation for working for it and earning it.

Child labors. I've been working part time since I was 12 and I have always loved working and considered it being fun. I still remember that after school me and my friends would go to a neighbouring farm to help them pick vegetables, even if we would have been paid complete peanuts for that. As long as it is voluntary work and doesn't conflict with education, I am for young people working in any age. That's way better than playing stupid shooting computer games.

Minimum wage. Remove the source of those who are ready to work for that kind of money and you don't need a minimum wage law at all. Stop illegal immigration - the only big source of those people. be as ruthless to illegal immigrants as ruthless you are to your own citizens when they become a subject of terrorist blackmail.

If we provided a college level education for everyone who qualified then our society would be much better off.
We have already had it in Soviet Union. That was of very little use. Those who really wanted it, would have gotten it anyway. Those who didn't want it but were forced to do that by parents and environment ( because it was free ) just wasted the state's money. Those latter were a great majority/ And because of that those former didn't receive a quality of education they could have received.


also healthcare is the number one issue facing our country. We need to get these costs under control and make healthcare a right not a luxury that costs millions. medical liability is a crisis but what do we do? What would you do if you were the victim of malpractice or incompetence? would you sue the hospital or just let bygones be bygones?
That's the most diifficult issue, which I don't think I am qualified to discuss, really. But, I think, neither are you.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 14th, 2004, 06:21 PM
I am not talking about a paper route or going to pick vegetables. Im talking about 18 hour days in a factory being payed next to nothing or worse being payed a "living wage" which deducts the companies cost of housing and feeding you... read slave.

Housing should be availiable for the elderly infirm and mentally ill. There is no reason not to provided shelter for those people.

Remove illegal immigrants? well who would the republicans exploit? just kidding more than republicans use and abuse the illegals. This issue like the drug issue will never go away because it benefits the wealthy.

I admit I am not well versed in the health care isssue but I know enough that medical liability is one of THE biggiest problems facing this country.

Helen Lawson
Jun 14th, 2004, 06:32 PM
I'm well-versed in health care! I lied about my age for so long in Hollywood, the damn Federal government only thinks I am 62, so no Medicare for me yet, even though I am far older than 66. As an "independent contractor" actress, I have to pay $676 per month for individual health insurance. That is my own policy I had to get, and it is the only one I could get. It is that or do Medicaid. It is $5,000 deductible, $1000 deductible for pharmacy item (like my yellow ones). In other words, it is lousy and expensive and a lot of good doctors are not even on my plan. Ok, I guess I do not have a "right" to health insurance, but I have been paying taxes, a lot of taxes, since I was 16 or so, I think I deserve better than this to pay every month. If the U.S. government were levying this sort of premium on Iraqi people in need of health care they are getting from the U.S., it would be a bigger scandal than the prisoners getting abused. No, Bush can spend gazillions doing shit like re-building and re-furbishing a new prison in Iraq that we did not even build in the first place but to hell with me and my healthcare. Guess those prisoners deserve the best! What about me and other Americans?

*JR*
Jun 14th, 2004, 09:14 PM
Everyone in power is evil. Paranoya.
I didn't say evil, I said that major parties (in the US and Britain) "take care of those who take care of them". In other words, the Clinton and Blair records on economic policy favor(ed) those already wealthy. Just a little "kinder and gentler" in the way the policies are/were administered than Maggie and Ronnie.

Helen Lawson
Jun 14th, 2004, 09:25 PM
My insurance was not as bad under Clinton, but it was close. He did not do me any favors either, but I had more acting jobs then. At least Hillary tried to do something with health care.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 14th, 2004, 11:07 PM
Do you really need that ballot? Do you really want it?
Yes. I have voted in every election since I became eligible and will continue to do so.

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 11:09 PM
Yes. I have voted in every election since I became eligible and will continue to do so.
Good for you.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 14th, 2004, 11:17 PM
I reiterate. The elections in conditions of so called democracy have very little to do with real freedom of choice as well as with true interests of the country. 99% of the people have very little understanding of what they are voting for and that creates a field for manipulation and results being programmed by media. We are choosing the person that is better capable of impressing your average voting moron rather than capable of making the right decisions.

Do you really think that majority of voters is enough equipped to make a thoughtful and responsible choice on very difficult issues of economy, ecology, financing sciences? Do you really think that they would make a choice in favor of better future if it comes at an expense of their current couple of dollars?
I agree that your average voter is ill informed. I don't, however, think that allowing a select wealthy few make decisions that will ultimately just benefit themselves and fuck everybody else, is the solution.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 14th, 2004, 11:20 PM
Their are exceptions.............sports clubs is not a valid reason, caring for someone is valid...........by under the table you mean............off the record.......thus cheating the system anyway? Or maybe you mean something else............

In Britain i know a few people who have voted......under 25.........they voted for the British National Party (BNP) who are a racist party that are anti non-british

They don't know their politics but are fed up with current situations

Maybe putting an age is harsh, maybe it should be the unemployed (Not the sick, but those capable of work)

But then you have the issue, of who actually is incapable...........
Why are sports clubs not a valid reason? Some students get full scholarships simply for participating in various sports, which happen to take up the majority of their free time.

ys
Jun 14th, 2004, 11:29 PM
I agree that your average voter is ill informed. I don't, however, think that allowed a select wealthy few make decisions that will ultimately just benefit themselves and fuck everybody else, is the solution.
I am not saying about few wealthy or like that. Invent something. Anything. Create a test, based on knowledge of current politics, understanding of economy, etc, that would grant or deny the right to vote. Block brainwashed ignoramuses from ensuring media-programmed results of elections. The problem is not that those ignoramuses will decide whether it is Bush or Kerry. The problem is that it is a choice between Bush and Kerry because of them.

Current democracy is the biggest trap civilization ever got into. It is untouchable. It is a sacred cow. While, in reality, there is no democracy. Money and media make sure that the choice is in reality no choice. And the only way to get out of it is to scrap the current democratic system and replace it with something else. It really can't be any worse than it is right now. Well, in fact it will be getting only worse, I think..

Sam L
Jun 15th, 2004, 06:08 AM
I agree. The problem in america is that the population lets the media dictate the topic of the day. Example: gay marriage. Sorry, but there are more pressing issues at stake than gay marriage. Lets worry about the fundamentals like education, jobs, and the economy instead of wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage.

I also find it funny that most people who are pro life are also pro death penalty. Talk about hypocrites.:tape:
Ms. Darkholme you hit the nail RIGHT in the head.

Actually they have it wrong anyway. Pro-life = pro the rights of those who are ALREADY alive, meaning the mother, the unborn baby is NOT alive yet. I'm pro-life and I support abortion.

Sam L
Jun 15th, 2004, 06:09 AM
Oh it's also interesting that boi has no responses to Ms. Darkholme's excellent arguments in this thread. :confused: Boi?

Sam L
Jun 16th, 2004, 02:04 AM
Bump for boi.

*JR*
Jun 16th, 2004, 12:27 PM
Ms. Darkholme you hit the nail RIGHT in the head.

Actually they have it wrong anyway. Pro-life = pro the rights of those who are ALREADY alive, meaning the mother, the unborn baby is NOT alive yet. I'm pro-life and I support abortion.
Including In late pregnancy, where the fetus is viable? (Rare, but it happens. And sometimes for non-medical reasons, such as the woman finding that her guy was cheating, and not wanting his kid).

lakeway11
Jun 16th, 2004, 01:31 PM
Current democracy is the biggest trap civilization ever got into. It is untouchable. It is a sacred cow.


yes, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe would agree :D

"More importantly, it must be made clear again that the idea of democracy is immoral as well as uneconomical. As for the moral status of majority rule, it must be pointed out that it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C, C and A in turn joining to rip off B, and then B and C conspiring against A, etc..This is not justice but a moral outrage, and rather than treating democracy and democrats with respect, they should be treated with open contempt and ridiculed as moral frauds. On the other hand, as for the economic quality of democracy, it must be stressed relentlessly that it is not democracy but private property, production, and voluntary exchange that are the ultimate sources of human civilization and prosperity. In particular, contrary to widespread myths, it needs to be emphasized that the lack of democracy had essentially nothing to do with the bankruptcy of Russian-style socialism. It was not the selection principle for politicians that constituted socialism's problem. It was politics and political decision-making as such. Instead of each private producer deciding independently what to do with particular resources, as under a regime of private property and contractualism, with fully or partially socialized factors of production each decision requires someone else's permission. It is irrelevant to the producer how those giving permission are chosen. What matters to him is that permission must be sought at all. As long as this is the case, the incentive of producers to produce is reduced and impoverishment will result. Private property is as incompatible with democracy, then, as with any other form of political rule. Rather than democracy, justice as well as economic efficiency require a pure and unrestricted private property society – an 'anarchy of production' – in which no one rules anybody, and all producers' relations are voluntary, and thus mutually beneficial."

rand
Jun 16th, 2004, 01:43 PM
Including In late pregnancy, where the fetus is viable? (Rare, but it happens. And sometimes for non-medical reasons, such as the woman finding that her guy was cheating, and not wanting his kid).
of course not, then it's murder....

*JR*
Jun 16th, 2004, 03:05 PM
of course not, then it's murder....
Tell some of my PC friends that. Along with other absolutist dogmas, the kind of rigid the "absolutist" pro-choice stance this reflects has caused me to question my own liberal views. Other examples being ppl like Griffin ignoring the fact that bathouses caused far more spread of AIDS than education done @ them prevented.

And that Reagan's poor choice of words re. "the voluntarily homeless" ignores that many of these ppl went back to living in the streets due to mental illness, not merely a lack of cheap housing in the cities. And B4 one says that medication wasn't available, it usually was, but many "street people" wouldn't stay on their meds.

"Sluggy"
Jun 16th, 2004, 03:17 PM
I dont want to deflect from the subject that why should we let people vote if they just sit on their asses and collect welfare. but i just wanted to say that people leach of the government much worse here in France. For starters we just arrived 2 years ago and got tons of money every month for family assistance. Most people apply and get money when they have babies....but we just arrived here an i never worked here and she hadnt worked here for along time. also theres something called aide logement...housing assistance, so really we had like an extra salary...of course it only lasts a couple of years but still. also, a big complaint especially against the large number of ARabs living here ( i dont know if they do it more than other people though ) is that as pologomy is legal in many arab countries they do the same thing in france that they do at home. Such as having several unmarried wives who get tons of state money....and the theory is that these guys sit in cafés all day and dont work and just hang out. One could also argue that they dont have sufficient job opportunities. Point is, many more socialist type governements have much more widespread abuse. another example is my brother. he got while a student in france about 500 dollars a month for being a student to pay for his housing. Its like Christmas every day over here.

"Sluggy"
Jun 16th, 2004, 03:21 PM
Why shouldn't convicted felons be able to vote, if they've completed their sentences? (Perhaps Treating Them as second Class Citizens even increases the rate of recidivism).

I absolutely agree with JollyRoger here. It makes me angry that they cant vote. And for the stupidest types of crimes too. Whats the point of punishing them, correcting their behavior, and hopefully getting them back into society if you are going to treat them like second class citizens for the rest of their lives. I have other 'liberal' ideas about the responsibility society has for helping 'convicts' get their lives back together. Getting them jobs, housing etc.

"Sluggy"
Jun 16th, 2004, 03:43 PM
The people in this country, I mean the real hard working american people who actually work for a living and dont live off some trustfund or the interest of their portfolio, should take one day and just sit home in protest. No work just for one day.

The middle class and poor are the backbone of this country which so many seem to overlook.

Its funny how we throw money at Israel and all these other welfare countries when our own people at home have exorbitant healthcare costs while some are living in the streets while others are languishing in poorly developed public schools systems. Its pathetic.

where is the righteous indignation???

This country should be about two groups the haves and the have nots instead the haves pit the have nots against each other with issues of abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, and many other issues that the poor need to ignore and instead band together. Its not about white and black or jew and christian or pro life and pro choice or democrat and republican.

Its about MONEY and POWER. You either have it or you dont and if you dont you are nobody unless you actively work to change that.


Cybelle - why did you choose Israel as a welfare country? do you mean they get aid from the United States? Is there any reason you single out Israel. I personally dont appreciate it? Nobody else seemed to notice, perhaps i am being oversensitive. By why single out Israel? the US Provides aid to tons of countries.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 16th, 2004, 09:18 PM
Cybelle - why did you choose Israel as a welfare country? do you mean they get aid from the United States? Is there any reason you single out Israel. I personally dont appreciate it? Nobody else seemed to notice, perhaps i am being oversensitive. By why single out Israel? the US Provides aid to tons of countries.Does Israel receive "aid"? Yes. Did I not also say that other countries also receive aid? yes. To receive aid for free not in the form of loans is to be a welfare country. If you cannot handle the truth then tough.

ys
Jun 20th, 2004, 07:32 AM
Does Israel receive "aid"? Yes. Did I not also say that other countries also receive aid? yes. To receive aid for free not in the form of loans is to be a welfare country.
If you can call a welfare helping to provide a basic ability to defend against possible physical extermination. Israel would not need that aid if it was not threatened by surrounding countries. Not helping Israel would be an equivalent of surrendering Western Berlin.