D.T.W.A.

[PLAYER57832]

POST Deleted!

Apologies, Nightstrike was improperly quoted. We may have disagreements, but that one did shock me. Glad it was not a correct quote.

[Night Strike]

THIS needs repeating!:

So the logic is, if America survived without something for a long time, it's better we not have it at all.

I need to level with you? I've already posted that the federal government should not provide freedom to the slaves and should not provide equal rights to African-Americans in the 60s When were Civil Rights established? In the 1960s. Our country survived 180 years without it, yet now we're being oppressive when we say that the government should not be handing out free voting? It's sad how far our people have fallen to believe that we must rely on the government for everything we need.[/size]

Now we see your REAL intentions.

Go talk to your KKK buddies.

I didn't even write those comments.

EDIT: Indignation at Player removed.

[thegreekdog]

[moderation]

(1) Let's try to refrain from changing someone's quotes to make a point. I understand the point that was trying to be made, but we can also see the end result by Player's post.
(2) Just because someone does not respond to a post does not mean that person is ignoring the post.

In sum - enough of this piling on; let's try to keep it reasonable and treat each other with respect.

[/moderation]

[PLAYER57832]

WHAT THE HELL PLAYER?!?!?! I didn't even write those comments, yet you accuse me of saying them. Just shows you don't actually read threads.

Well, you were quoted as saying them. This is one of many reasons why I think directly mis-quoting someone should be against CC rules. I mean, if it were not enclosed in the "nightstrike says" CC bit, I would have definitely checked. But, you did not even say you were misquoted above, so I thought it was a valid quote.

And.. apologies again. I know the "racism" label has been thrown at you in the past, but I have to say I have not felt it really applies to you, at least not any more to you than it might to just about anyone (including myself in some contexts).

[Phatscotty]

We want to encourage Independence and liberty.

We don't want to bailout drug addicts with cash.

[notyou2]

Please explain how you equate independence and liberty with more legislation, more laws and more government employees to enforce said legislation/laws.

[Phatscotty]

Please explain how you equate independence and liberty with more legislation, more laws and more government employees to enforce said legislation/laws.

encourage financial independence. It builds character and spirit and pride and enriches life.

Economic liberty. when you earn your own money you value that money far more than if the money is given to you. You have more choices of how and what and where you spend it, hopefully on things like healthier foods, hopefully spend it locally too.

There are a lot of people on welfare who are abusing the system, there are a lot who just need a swift kick in the pants because they might not have even looked for a job in the last year. Not even ask any of their friends who have jobs. I swear if you have a friend who has a job, and you bug him enough, he will get you a job. Hopefully you are not hooked on drugs and you can last without your drug for 3 days before wednesday night comes around and you get high and are late on thursday morning on your first week.

Drug tests for welfare applicants, and proof they are at least trying to look for a job they can do. Is that really too much for the people footing the bill to ask?

[notyou2]

Please explain how you equate independence and liberty with more legislation, more laws and more government employees to enforce said legislation/laws.

encourage financial independence? It builds character and spirit and pride and enriches life.

Economic liberty. when you earn your own money you value that money far more than if the money is given to you. You have more choices of how and what and where you spend it, hopefully on things like healthier foods, hopefully spend it locally too.

There are a lot of people on welfare who are abusing the system, there are a lot who just need a swift kick in the pants because they might not have even looked for a job in the last year. Not even ask any of their friends who have jobs. I swear if you have a friend who has a job, and you bug him enough, he will get you a job. Hopefully you are not hooked on drugs and you can last without your drug for 3 days before wednesday night comes around and you get high and are late on thursday morning on your first week.

Drug tests for welfare applicants, and proof they are at least trying to look for a job they can do. Is that really too much for the people footing the bill to ask?

That does not appear to me to be a response to my question.

[Phatscotty]

Please explain how you equate independence and liberty with more legislation, more laws and more government employees to enforce said legislation/laws.

encourage financial independence? It builds character and spirit and pride and enriches life.

Economic liberty. when you earn your own money you value that money far more than if the money is given to you. You have more choices of how and what and where you spend it, hopefully on things like healthier foods, hopefully spend it locally too.

There are a lot of people on welfare who are abusing the system, there are a lot who just need a swift kick in the pants because they might not have even looked for a job in the last year. Not even ask any of their friends who have jobs. I swear if you have a friend who has a job, and you bug him enough, he will get you a job. Hopefully you are not hooked on drugs and you can last without your drug for 3 days before wednesday night comes around and you get high and are late on thursday morning on your first week.

Drug tests for welfare applicants, and proof they are at least trying to look for a job they can do. Is that really too much for the people footing the bill to ask?

That does not appear to me to be a response to my question.

your gonna need to rephrase it then. fill in some of the blanks too and just spit it out

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, I find it INFINITELY funny that the person who is all about "getting the guvmint off our backs" on every other thread is saying Alcohol is "UNFORTUNATELY LEGAL". In other words, the person who's all about "the guvmint butting off and letting us do what we please" wants the government to MAKE ALCOHOL ILLEGAL.

Hypocrite much?

And I find it infinitely funny that someone who continually cries that women should have limitless access to abortions believes that everyone must also be forced into a government health care plan instead of making their own medical decisions. Yet that position isn't hypocritical?



And I believe it's unfortunate that alcohol is around because it destroys people and families. In many people, it contributes to violence, depression, early death, and violent murders via drunk driving. The government's roll is to protect innocent lives, and I believe alcohol contributes to harm to many innocent individuals. But I know it's not going away (unless society somehow becomes wiser), so I would never push for laws against its consumption. I just do my part by not being around people who are drunk and it will never be allowed in the place I live, and I will most likely never frequent a house where it is present. I despise the smell of it and what it does to people (making them stupider than they already are), so I choose to have no part of it in my life. I wish more people would choose to do the same, but I know they won't.

let me finish that for you:

"..., but I know they won't; however, if they consume illegal drugs, then I will contradict my earlier standpoints (e.g. "I know it's not going away..., so I would never push for laws against its consumption) by boldly declaring that those who do illegal drugs and receive welfare must be tested, in order to 1) curb their consumption of illegal drugs, which would somehow lift them from poverty--ignoring other significant factors other than drug consumption, and because 2) drugs are illegal. <folds harms>

_________________________________________________________________________________________

As you stated earlier, certain poor people should be tested for drugs because drugs are illegal. So, why not administer random drug tests for all American citizens? At some point, every citizen relies on state-provided services, and since you don't want people's money to be used on problems caused by drugs (like drug-related or drug-influenced crimes), then why let those who contribute to the drug problem go scot free? They should be tested! Because drugs are illegal! And because taxes shouldn't be spent on the off-chance of supporting the consumption of illegal drugs!!

In other words, why only drug test welfare recipients? Medicaid (which partly is welfare), unemployment insurance, and actual welfare accounted for about 16.8% of the 2007 US budget. Why not drug test recipients of Medicare and/or Social Security, which is 36.7% of the 2007 US budget? We can't have that tax money being spent on illegal drugs, now can we?

I enjoyed it when NS contradicts himself.

[Night Strike]

When did I contradict myself?

[Iliad]

We want to encourage Independence and liberty.

We don't want to bailout drug addicts with cash.

Hurrah for meaningless buzzwords!

[radiojake]

I have a serious question to ask. I said something similar earlier in the thread but it was missed -


Night strike seems to have a problem with people being 'reliant' on the government for welfare. Now I ask you this, what is the difference between that and people being reliant on corporations for their salary?

I'm sure answers similar to the lines of 'well atleast they work for their salary, rather than being bums'

Well - I contend that not every job is great - I contend that some jobs are more detrimental to society than if someone decided to stay home and smoke pot all day. Working at McDonalds is less productive than sitting at home - (McDonalds workers produce crap 'food' that makes people unhealthy, they contribute to a system that exploits cattle and chickens - there is plenty more I could ramble on about)

Working as tree feller who is logging native old growth forests in East Gippsland or Tasmania is less productive for our planet than sitting at home.

Working in a factory producing shitty plastic toys that will end up in landfill is not something that should be encouraged. Working in a factory producing a shit load of cars is not something that should be encouraged.

Now, going back to my point - How is relying on corporations and working for salary any different from relying on government for welfare? Neither system is 'self sufficient' - In each case the worker or welfare recipient is reliant on another entity.

[Phatscotty]

I have a serious question to ask. I said something similar earlier in the thread but it was missed -


Night strike seems to have a problem with people being 'reliant' on the government for welfare. Now I ask you this, what is the difference between that and people being reliant on corporations for their salary?

I think it is clear to most people relying on the government is more of a negative than a positive, overall, for society and for humanity. If you can't do something for yourself, how and the hell are you going to "share what ya got"?

The difference in relying on salaries from a corporation is that you earn a salary, it is not taken away from someone else out of their paychecks and given to them for nothing. People's work has value.

[radiojake]

I have a serious question to ask. I said something similar earlier in the thread but it was missed -


Night strike seems to have a problem with people being 'reliant' on the government for welfare. Now I ask you this, what is the difference between that and people being reliant on corporations for their salary?

I think it is clear to most people relying on the government is more of a negative than a positive, overall, for society and for humanity. If you can't do something for yourself, how and the hell are you going to "share what ya got"?

The difference in relying on salaries from a corporation is that you earn a salary, it is not taken away from someone else out of their paychecks and given to them for nothing. People's work has value.

People's work has value - But what kind of value? Is monetary value the be all and end all? How can you compare the monetary value of timber compared to destroying an old growth forest?

Also, you didn't answer my question about how is being 'reliant' on working for a company for a salary any different that relying on the government?


You seem to have a problem with my signature, you bring it up quite often.

[Phatscotty]

I have a serious question to ask. I said something similar earlier in the thread but it was missed -


Night strike seems to have a problem with people being 'reliant' on the government for welfare. Now I ask you this, what is the difference between that and people being reliant on corporations for their salary?

I think it is clear to most people relying on the government is more of a negative than a positive, overall, for society and for humanity. If you can't do something for yourself, how and the hell are you going to "share what ya got"?

The difference in relying on salaries from a corporation is that you earn a salary, it is not taken away from someone else out of their paychecks and given to them for nothing. People's work has value.

People's work has value - But what kind of value? Is monetary value the be all and end all? How can you compare the monetary value of timber compared to destroying an old growth forest?

Also, you didn't answer my question about how is being 'reliant' on working for a company for a salary any different that relying on the government?


You seem to have a problem with my signature, you bring it up quite often.

I did answer your question. Do you know what earn means?

[radiojake]

I did answer your question. Do you know what earn means?

People are still reliant on other entities to be able to 'earn' a salary

[Phatscotty]

I did answer your question. Do you know what earn means?

People are still reliant on other entities to be able to 'earn' a salary

Work for what ya got

[Woodruff]

Please explain how you equate independence and liberty with more legislation, more laws and more government employees to enforce said legislation/laws.

encourage financial independence? It builds character and spirit and pride and enriches life.

Economic liberty. when you earn your own money you value that money far more than if the money is given to you. You have more choices of how and what and where you spend it, hopefully on things like healthier foods, hopefully spend it locally too.

There are a lot of people on welfare who are abusing the system, there are a lot who just need a swift kick in the pants because they might not have even looked for a job in the last year. Not even ask any of their friends who have jobs. I swear if you have a friend who has a job, and you bug him enough, he will get you a job. Hopefully you are not hooked on drugs and you can last without your drug for 3 days before wednesday night comes around and you get high and are late on thursday morning on your first week.

Drug tests for welfare applicants, and proof they are at least trying to look for a job they can do. Is that really too much for the people footing the bill to ask?

That does not appear to me to be a response to my question.

your gonna need to rephrase it then. fill in some of the blanks too and just spit it out

I see The Dodge King is still the king of dodging.

[radiojake]

I did answer your question. Do you know what earn means?

People are still reliant on other entities to be able to 'earn' a salary

Work for what ya got

Ha - You really do love my signature, nice to know.

My point earlier is that not all work is beneficial for society or our environment - Most jobs consist of producing or selling crap (that will end up in landfill within a few years) - So you don't care what work people do, as long as they are working?

I'm saying that people doing nothing is sometimes infinantly better than some jobs that are around

[natty dread]

If Phatscotty were a car, he would be a Dodge.

[BigBallinStalin]

When did I contradict myself?

The first paragraph compares two of your beliefs. Your original post is about your attitude towards alcohol, in that 'alcohol is not going away, so I don't push for laws against its consumption' yet when that belief is applied to "illegal drugs" (which are not going away), you call for laws in the form of drug tests against welfare recipients to make sure that they are not doing illegal drugs because they're illegal. I guess a better description for your judgment would be "arbitrary." You differ in beliefs merely because of your preference of only a good's legal status, and such a preference is a poor justification for demanding further state intervention. Imagine you during the Prohibition Era; you would have been satisfied for the state intervention. (lol @ alochol is "unfortunately legal.")

You're a hypocrite when you cry for freedom or liberty in other threads and on other issues, yet you'll jump immediately for state intervention if some small amount of poor people are simply committing the act of consuming illegal drugs while receiving welfare.

Your view is idiotic because you continue to ignore the actual effects of the drugs on welfare recipients, you ignore the complications of removing expected steady funds to addicts, you ignore the actual amount of people who take drugs and who do not escape from poverty, and you ignore other significant factors which contribute to poverty.

You are being a hypocrite because you call for legal action against a certain class of people while ignoring that richer groups of people receiving tax money won't be drug tested for similar justifications for this proposal, and you ignore other programs which provide money/services directly to people who should be drug tested for similar justifications for your proposal (i.e. Social Security and Medicare).


tl;dr: In conclusion,

(1) your stance is idiotic,
(2) you are being a hypocrite,
(3) you are a great example of the 21st Century Ideological Crusader, and
(4) considering from your history of posting here and your overall attitude towards minorities, you type like a racist.


Congratulations, Night Strike. Have a Blue Ribbon of Achievement:

Image


You think it's so simple, and when you're posed with difficult questions or shown that your belief's are discriminatory or ridiculous, you simply close your eyes and yell louder.


It's so interesting to see people like you behave. Whenever I see your posts, one of the following thoughts usually pops to mind: "Is this guy for real?" "Does he ever think before he types?" "Good lord..."

Also, I find it INFINITELY funny that the person who is all about "getting the guvmint off our backs" on every other thread is saying Alcohol is "UNFORTUNATELY LEGAL". In other words, the person who's all about "the guvmint butting off and letting us do what we please" wants the government to MAKE ALCOHOL ILLEGAL.

Hypocrite much?

And I find it infinitely funny that someone who continually cries that women should have limitless access to abortions believes that everyone must also be forced into a government health care plan instead of making their own medical decisions. Yet that position isn't hypocritical?



And I believe it's unfortunate that alcohol is around because it destroys people and families. In many people, it contributes to violence, depression, early death, and violent murders via drunk driving. The government's roll is to protect innocent lives, and I believe alcohol contributes to harm to many innocent individuals. But I know it's not going away (unless society somehow becomes wiser), so I would never push for laws against its consumption. I just do my part by not being around people who are drunk and it will never be allowed in the place I live, and I will most likely never frequent a house where it is present. I despise the smell of it and what it does to people (making them stupider than they already are), so I choose to have no part of it in my life. I wish more people would choose to do the same, but I know they won't.

let me finish that for you:

"..., but I know they won't; however, if they consume illegal drugs, then I will contradict my earlier standpoints (e.g. "I know it's not going away..., so I would never push for laws against its consumption) by boldly declaring that those who do illegal drugs and receive welfare must be tested, in order to 1) curb their consumption of illegal drugs, which would somehow lift them from poverty--ignoring other significant factors other than drug consumption, and because 2) drugs are illegal. <folds harms>

_________________________________________________________________________________________

As you stated earlier, certain poor people should be tested for drugs because drugs are illegal. So, why not administer random drug tests for all American citizens? At some point, every citizen relies on state-provided services, and since you don't want people's money to be used on problems caused by drugs (like drug-related or drug-influenced crimes), then why let those who contribute to the drug problem go scot free? They should be tested! Because drugs are illegal! And because taxes shouldn't be spent on the off-chance of supporting the consumption of illegal drugs!!

In other words, why only drug test welfare recipients? Medicaid (which partly is welfare), unemployment insurance, and actual welfare accounted for about 16.8% of the 2007 US budget. Why not drug test recipients of Medicare and/or Social Security, which is 36.7% of the 2007 US budget? We can't have that tax money being spent on illegal drugs, now can we?

[Night Strike]

Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I automatically don't think.

If doing a certain substance is illegal and certain people who are directly receiving free money from the government yet are doing this illegal substance, why should we continue giving them money? How much does marijuana cost? Or harder drugs such as heroine, lsd, etc.? If the person is poor enough to be on welfare, why aren't they using that money on food, clothing, and shelter? If they have enough money to buy illegal drugs, then they don't need to be getting money from the government. And if the only way to keep that money from doing toward drug dealers is to drug test the welfare recipients, then so be it. Welfare is NOT a right, so it's not a Constitutional violation to require a drug test to receive the money.

And I'm a hypocrite for believing that welfare recipients who are breaking the law should not receive benefits yet those who are not breaking the law can still receive benefits?? That makes no sense.

So in your mind, because a person is addicted to the drugs, we're stuck giving them the money indefinitely. That's ridiculous!

The reason I don't support drug testing for Social Security and Medicare recipients is that A) They have already paid into the system and B) How many 65+ year olds are actually going out and buying illegal drugs on the street? I'd venture to guess that number is WAY below the number of welfare recipients who do illegal drugs.

By the way, it's really funny that you randomly throw in racism in your 4th point of the tl;dr. Especially since nothing else in your post nor in any of my posts said anything about race. It's sad how every conservative position on cutting entitlements is seen as either pushing grandma off the cliff or as being racist. Actually, it's pretty sad that it's the only thing you can fall back on in a debate.

[GreecePwns]

You attempted to answer BBS' other points, then said the only point he had was about racism and pushing grandma off a cliff.

You're a living contradiction.

[Phatscotty]

The deal is that people who are addicted to drugs and have had their lives destroyed by drugs are being enabled to continue the reckless behavior, in this instance.