dude it's seriously like 2% of people who are on welfare that are lazy. The rest actually need that money.
To say that they're all lazy, you yourself are being lazy. Your ignoring the fact that poverty is not an inevitable problem of society and your placing the blame on those in poverty. It's asinine to say the reason we have welfare is because of the lazy people.
It is currently Thu May 08, 2025 12:27 pm
Hillary gave up (election+general politics thread as well)
Moderators: The Administrators, Moderators
by JesusFreak » Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:18 am
Piper wrote:dude it's seriously like 2% of people who are on welfare that are lazy. The rest actually need that money.
To say that they're all lazy, you yourself are being lazy. Your ignoring the fact that poverty is not an inevitable problem of society and your placing the blame on those in poverty. It's asinine to say the reason we have welfare is because of the lazy people.
Yes, and it's equally lazy to have the government do this all for you. I'd rather donate to a charity, than have to pay more taxes to a government in which I'm not even sure my money's going to charity, and not to some dude's Social Security fund because Congress saw a buncha monies lyin' around and used it for asinine things.
Oh, and remember when Clinton came to office? He promised a tax cut for the middle class too. Then, after 6 weeks in office, he said the problems were deeper than he thought, and no tax cut for us.
Avvy by Tangent, as well as the button
by SilverPrince » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:26 pm
About the welfare argument- I'm not going to say there aren't people who abuse the system. But people are going to abuse any system there is, and we can't just say "It's your fault you're poor, this is all my money, I'm not sharing". (I'm not saying anyone here said that, just to be clear.)
I think there should be welfare reform. For starters, people shouldn't be able to be on welfare indefinitely. Perhaps a year, or 18 months, for people to have a chance to get a reliable source of income.
As for people paying into the welfare system, I believe that if we leave welfare or Social Security to private charities, instead of a tax-funded government program, then chances are there will be less money for the people who need it. I'm not saying that it should be there for people to just mooch off of, but you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don't have boots.
And, to be off-topic real quick:
Am I to assume that's a coincidence?
I think there should be welfare reform. For starters, people shouldn't be able to be on welfare indefinitely. Perhaps a year, or 18 months, for people to have a chance to get a reliable source of income.
As for people paying into the welfare system, I believe that if we leave welfare or Social Security to private charities, instead of a tax-funded government program, then chances are there will be less money for the people who need it. I'm not saying that it should be there for people to just mooch off of, but you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don't have boots.
And, to be off-topic real quick:
JesusFreak's signature wrote:Patriotism may have no party, but some parties are more patriotic than others (I'm looking at you, Communist Party!)
Lyoko422's signature wrote:Patriotism has no party.
Am I to assume that's a coincidence?
Stonecreek wrote:I miss the boob bots. At least they were peddling something I have interest in...
by . » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:42 pm
JesusFreak wrote:Piper wrote:dude it's seriously like 2% of people who are on welfare that are lazy. The rest actually need that money.
To say that they're all lazy, you yourself are being lazy. Your ignoring the fact that poverty is not an inevitable problem of society and your placing the blame on those in poverty. It's asinine to say the reason we have welfare is because of the lazy people.
Yes, and it's equally lazy to have the government do this all for you. I'd rather donate to a charity, than have to pay more taxes to a government in which I'm not even sure my money's going to charity, and not to some dude's Social Security fund because Congress saw a buncha monies lyin' around and used it for asinine things.
Oh, and remember when Clinton came to office? He promised a tax cut for the middle class too. Then, after 6 weeks in office, he said the problems were deeper than he thought, and no tax cut for us.
So? Honestly I'm against Tax cuts for anyone. Were in a f*cking money pit, give us tax cuts when the country can you know actually aford to.
Dude, your social security tax goes to YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY not somebody elses.
by JesusFreak » Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:10 pm
Piper wrote:JesusFreak wrote:Piper wrote:dude it's seriously like 2% of people who are on welfare that are lazy. The rest actually need that money.
To say that they're all lazy, you yourself are being lazy. Your ignoring the fact that poverty is not an inevitable problem of society and your placing the blame on those in poverty. It's asinine to say the reason we have welfare is because of the lazy people.
Yes, and it's equally lazy to have the government do this all for you. I'd rather donate to a charity, than have to pay more taxes to a government in which I'm not even sure my money's going to charity, and not to some dude's Social Security fund because Congress saw a buncha monies lyin' around and used it for asinine things.
Oh, and remember when Clinton came to office? He promised a tax cut for the middle class too. Then, after 6 weeks in office, he said the problems were deeper than he thought, and no tax cut for us.
So? Honestly I'm against Tax cuts for anyone. Were in a f*cking money pit, give us tax cuts when the country can you know actually aford to.
Dude, your social security tax goes to YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY not somebody elses.
All countries are. And, there's this theory called supply-side economics...yeah.
That's the SOCIAL SECRUITY TAX, not the other ones. You think your money goes to where it's said it goes?
Avvy by Tangent, as well as the button
by Tangent128 » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:34 pm
Actually, Social Security taxes go to pay the current recipients. The idea is, when we retire, then our children's SS taxes go to fund ours.
Hence the whole concern over Baby Boomer retirement several months back.
Hence the whole concern over Baby Boomer retirement several months back.
(yeah, the cool links in my old sig died. 
A few nerdy newish projects are here. )
A few nerdy newish projects are here. )
by Tangent128 » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:40 pm
Suddenly reminded of Fall Fest a few weeks back... you had the different brother and sister floors campaigning for their nominated Kings and Queens (each with their own themes; Nile princesses, mad scientists, etc.). Meanwhile, the unpaired boys floors would do their own campaigning... "VOTE NO!"
I voted for Pedro.
I voted for Pedro.
(yeah, the cool links in my old sig died. A few nerdy newish projects are here. )
A few nerdy newish projects are here. )by . » Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:40 am
JesusFreak wrote:Piper wrote:JesusFreak wrote:Piper wrote:dude it's seriously like 2% of people who are on welfare that are lazy. The rest actually need that money.
To say that they're all lazy, you yourself are being lazy. Your ignoring the fact that poverty is not an inevitable problem of society and your placing the blame on those in poverty. It's asinine to say the reason we have welfare is because of the lazy people.
Yes, and it's equally lazy to have the government do this all for you. I'd rather donate to a charity, than have to pay more taxes to a government in which I'm not even sure my money's going to charity, and not to some dude's Social Security fund because Congress saw a buncha monies lyin' around and used it for asinine things.
Oh, and remember when Clinton came to office? He promised a tax cut for the middle class too. Then, after 6 weeks in office, he said the problems were deeper than he thought, and no tax cut for us.
So? Honestly I'm against Tax cuts for anyone. Were in a f*cking money pit, give us tax cuts when the country can you know actually aford to.
Dude, your social security tax goes to YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY not somebody elses.
All countries are. And, there's this theory called supply-side economics...yeah.
That's the SOCIAL SECRUITY TAX, not the other ones. You think your money goes to where it's said it goes?
Irony. The Republican is telling me the government is lying to me.
by Lyoko Wario » Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:23 pm
Taelia wrote:♥♥♥♥ VOTE McCAIN / PALIN 08 ♥♥♥♥
Ah! Perfect example for a lecture to the young'uns. ♥
Remember, kids, sometimes an older kid will try to get you to do things that are bad, because they are "cool" and "everybody's doing it." It's at these times when you have to assert yourself and just say no. While it may feel good at first, things like smoking, unprotected sex, drugs and voting Republican will have devastating consequences after the fact, such as lung cancer, unwatned pregnancy, our troops staying in hostile territory for a century without half a good reason, and accurate scientific information being replaced by superstition and myth in our public schools. So remember, kids, don't vote Republican. America will thank you for it. After all... remember what happened last time?
[/lecture]
SRLSY Taelia, I love you everywhere else on the site except in this thread.
by JesusFreak » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:30 pm
Planet Cool wrote:Taelia wrote:♥♥♥♥ VOTE McCAIN / PALIN 08 ♥♥♥♥
Ah! Perfect example for a lecture to the young'uns. ♥
Remember, kids, sometimes an older kid will try to get you to do things that are bad, because they are "cool" and "everybody's doing it." It's at these times when you have to assert yourself and just say no. While it may feel good at first, things like smoking, unprotected sex, drugs and voting Democrat will have devastating consequences after the fact, such as lung cancer, unwatned pregnancy, wondering where the heck all your money went in the beauracracy, and accurate information about anatomy of the opposite gender.. So remember, kids, don't vote Democrat. America will thank you for it. After all... remember <s>Obama</s> Jimmy Carter?
[/lecture]
SRLSY PC, I generally agree with you everywhere else on the site except in this thread.
Fixed.
Avvy by Tangent, as well as the button
by JesusFreak » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:32 pm
Taelia wrote:What's so bad about John and Sarah? :'(
Here we go again...
Avvy by Tangent, as well as the button
by Taelia » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:36 pm
Seriously, what is so WRONG about freedom and prosperity?! Sarah is not an airheaded c-*-n-t, and John's not a withering old man. Both are good people. Obama is a sick, lying monster. He supported infanticide in his home state, won't give his two daughtters presents on Christmas nor their birthdays, and is currently being investigated for not being a natural-born citizen of this country. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!! Obama is nothing but a monster. He will kill this very nation Anyone who votes for him should seriously move out of the US if you can't stand America's freedoms! 
by JesusFreak » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:59 pm
Taelia wrote:Seriously, what is so WRONG about freedom and prosperity?! Sarah is not an airheaded c-*-n-t, and John's not a withering old man. Both are good people. Obama is a sick, lying monster. He supported infanticide in his home state, won't give his two daughtters presents on Christmas nor their birthdays, and is currently being investigated for not being a natural-born citizen of this country. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!! Obama is nothing but a monster. He will kill this very nation Anyone who votes for him should seriously move out of the US if you can't stand America's freedoms!
Okay Taelia, I'm sorry but this goes too far into the hyperbole range. First of all, spelling out that word is just as offensive as saying it. Second of all, have you actually seen the video of the whole infanticide thing or are you just saying he supports abortion? Third, can you back up that christmas present thing with a link?
Avvy by Tangent, as well as the button
by Lyoko Wario » Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:00 pm
JesusFreak wrote:accurate information about anatomy of the opposite gender
I'm soundly confused. Are you saying you don't want people to learn about the opposite gender? ...why? Isn't the purpose of education for the masses to, you know, learn things? I certainly don't want kids walking around having no clue about what girls / boys are like or worse, being fed myths. And I'm pretty sure word from the old folks has very little to do with whether or not teens decide to engage in... activities before they are legal.
Honestly, though, I think you misworded that. You probably meant to say that the information would not be accurate, amirite? Well, here he have a whole in reasoning. "The opposite sex" is a subjective concept. If for some reason (exaggerated example, here) girls were being taught that boys had a three-headed squid on their crotches / boys were being taught that girls have an interdimensional portal that feeds on human souls on theirs, any boy / girl in class could raise their hand and say, "actually, no, we haven't got that."
...man, that was fun to type.
Either way, this thing about "accurate information about sex" is something I haven't heard.
Taelia wrote:Obama supported infanticide, doesn't give presents to his kids, etc.
Regarding abortion, that will never sway me. It's not infanticide. No matter what some people say, a fetus is not a human being until a certain point in its development. It's just a mish-mash of cells with no thought process for quite some time. The scab on your knee isn't alive. It's a collection of cells. Plucking it and tossing it away doesn't make you a murderer. Abortion should be legal up until a certain point in the pregnancy, after which it should not be allowed, but saying that it should not be done under any circumstances, even if it's the kid of a rapist we're getting rid or if it could kill the woman is pretty close-minded. The candidate that wants to broaden our rights rather than restrict them is the one who's getting my vote.
There's no way Obama would have gotten this far if he actually wasn't an American citizen. That's jut plain unthinkable. It could never have happened. Besides, I'm pretty darn sure that the subject has come up before and was roundly rebunked. Secondly, I don't see how his not buying Christmas presents for his daughters make him a lying monster. For all we know, his daughters are horrible brats who had it coming.
Again, not hatin' on anyone here. Except McCain and Palin.
Mostly Palin. McCain is marginally OK.
by JesusFreak » Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:34 pm
Planet Cool wrote:JesusFreak wrote:accurate information about anatomy of the opposite gender
I'm soundly confused. Are you saying you don't want people to learn about the opposite gender? ...why? Isn't the purpose of education for the masses to, you know, learn things? I certainly don't want kids walking around having no clue about what girls / boys are like or worse, being fed myths. And I'm pretty sure word from the old folks has very little to do with whether or not teens decide to engage in... activities before they are legal.
Honestly, though, I think you misworded that. You probably meant to say that the information would not be accurate, amirite? Well, here he have a whole in reasoning. "The opposite sex" is a subjective concept. If for some reason (exaggerated example, here) girls were being taught that boys had a three-headed squid on their crotches / boys were being taught that girls have an interdimensional portal that feeds on human souls on theirs, any boy / girl in class could raise their hand and say, "actually, no, we haven't got that."
...man, that was fun to type.
...That sort of thing isn't something that the schools should teach, just because they're not sure parents will, m'kay?
Taelia wrote:Obama supported infanticide, doesn't give presents to his kids, etc.
Regarding abortion, that will never sway me. It's not infanticide. No matter what some people say, a fetus is not a human being until a certain point in its development. It's just a mish-mash of cells with no thought process for quite some time. The scab on your knee isn't alive. It's a collection of cells. Plucking it and tossing it away doesn't make you a murderer. Abortion should be legal up until a certain point in the pregnancy, after which it should not be allowed, but saying that it should not be done under any circumstances, even if it's the kid of a rapist we're getting rid or if it could kill the woman is pretty close-minded. The candidate that wants to broaden our rights rather than restrict them is the one who's getting my vote.
There's no way Obama would have gotten this far if he actually wasn't an American citizen. That's jut plain unthinkable. It could never have happened. Besides, I'm pretty darn sure that the subject has come up before and was roundly rebunked. Secondly, I don't see how his not buying Christmas presents for his daughters make him a lying monster. For all we know, his daughters are horrible brats who had it coming.
Again, not hatin' on anyone here. Except McCain and Palin.
Mostly Palin. McCain is marginally OK.
Ahem, she's refering to failed abortions that have the kids locked in a storage room until they die. Yes, it happens, and Yes, OBAMA KNOWS. I'd post the video, but some of it can qualify as BKO material.
And McCain supports Abortions for rape and incest, so don't start the hysterical Ultra-Feminist party line kthx. And the difference between a scab and embryo is that, if you give a scab enough tie, it will NOT turn into a baby.
The Obama-citizenship thing needs to GO AWAY.
And to respond to Lyoko422, no it's not a coincidence. I just was bored one day.
Avvy by Tangent, as well as the button
by . » Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:42 pm
While McCain is for abortion in cases of rape and incest, Sarah is against all abortion. But McCain even flat out said Row vs Wade was wrong in the debate.
OH GEE Taelia, did you here about that McCain supporter that was viciously attacked by an Obama supporter?
To hell with being afraid of getting Mew on my case, anyone of any party thats even remotely intelligent knows what you said is so damn stupid... you should be hit with a fish.
Taelia wrote:Seriously, what is so WRONG about freedom and prosperity?! Sarah is not an airheaded c-u-n-t, and John's not a withering old man. Both are good people. Obama is a sick, lying monster. He supported infanticide in his home state, won't give his two daughtters presents on Christmas nor their birthdays, and is currently being investigated for not being a natural-born citizen of this country. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!! Obama is nothing but a monster. He will kill this very nation Anyone who votes for him should seriously move out of the US if you can't stand America's freedoms!
OH GEE Taelia, did you here about that McCain supporter that was viciously attacked by an Obama supporter?
To hell with being afraid of getting Mew on my case, anyone of any party thats even remotely intelligent knows what you said is so damn stupid... you should be hit with a fish.
by JesusFreak » Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm
While McCain is for abortion in cases of rape and incest, Sarah is against all abortion. But McCain even flat out said Row vs Wade was wrong in the debate
He said he'd rather have the states choose themselves.
And to make a baby, you need a fertilized egg...do I really have to finish this sentence?
Avvy by Tangent, as well as the button
by . » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:28 pm
JesusFreak wrote:While McCain is for abortion in cases of rape and incest, Sarah is against all abortion. But McCain even flat out said Row vs Wade was wrong in the debate
He said he'd rather have the states choose themselves.
And to make a baby, you need a fertilized egg...do I really have to finish this sentence?
Hows it any different? Seeing as how the sperm is literally in the trillions, theres a multitudes of different people that could of been created before the one sperm containing you reached the flippin' egg. Masturbating your basically doing the same thing.
If it's on the state level, then it's not really protected because all it would take is another vote from the supreme court to ban it once again.
by Lyoko Wario » Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:17 pm
JesusFreak wrote:...That sort of thing isn't something that the schools should teach, just because they're not sure parents will, m'kay?
Oh, I was wrong. You are arguing against proper education.
Listen, Jeff, (you mind if I call you Jeff? JF / Jeff) your argument is totally moot. I'm going to get this out of the way first: parents do not have the right to keep information away from the children. Here is a new human being that deserves to know such small, fundamental truths about life. In order for the educational system to be worth anything at all, it has to spread knowledge to the masses, even if the people involved are young and especially if parents are going to lengths to keep them from educating themselves at home. Secondly, if the will of the parents is going to be fair game in this subject, then it has to be fair game in every subject, and I'm sure you'll agree that we can't have that. If I have a kid I'm not teaching mathematics to, should I be backing a candidate who wants to make darned sure no one mentiones a-squared-plus-b-squared-equals-c-squared? It's nonsense.
Oh, and the abortion problem would be solved if only someone figured out a way to keep the aborted children alive after the fact, like test tube babies. Put them in a big tank full of glowing green goo that replicates the conditions inside a mother's womb. Legalize abortion in all cases and allow these people to have the technology to live after the fact and everybody's happy. Then again, that just propagates overpopulation.
...politics are hard.
In conclusion, I'm voting for Obama. Back me up, Piper!
by JesusFreak » Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:20 pm
Planet Cool wrote:JesusFreak wrote:...That sort of thing isn't something that the schools should teach, just because they're not sure parents will, m'kay?
Oh, I was wrong. You are arguing against proper education.
Listen, Jeff, (you mind if I call you Jeff? JF / Jeff) your argument is totally moot. I'm going to get this out of the way first: parents do not have the right to keep information away from the children. Here is a new human being that deserves to know such small, fundamental truths about life. In order for the educational system to be worth anything at all, it has to spread knowledge to the masses, even if the people involved are young and especially if parents are going to lengths to keep them from educating themselves at home. Secondly, if the will of the parents is going to be fair game in this subject, then it has to be fair game in every subject, and I'm sure you'll agree that we can't have that. If I have a kid I'm not teaching mathematics to, should I be backing a candidate who wants to make darned sure no one mentiones a-squared-plus-b-squared-equals-c-squared? It's nonsense.
Oh, and the abortion problem would be solved if only someone figured out a way to keep the aborted children alive after the fact, like test tube babies. Put them in a big tank full of glowing green goo that replicates the conditions inside a mother's womb. Legalize abortion in all cases and allow these people to have the technology to live after the fact and everybody's happy. Then again, that just propagates overpopulation.
...politics are hard.
In conclusion, I'm voting for Obama. Back me up, Piper!
Oy vey, if you're going to start tag teaming me, I need a debate partner...
Kay, I'm not talking about keeping the info away indefinitely. I think sex-ed should be outside of public school because, let's face it, this is one of the many things the one size fits all mold of our nationalized faliure known as the school system is absolutely terrible at. There are kids who go through, and should know about this stuff, earlier then others. Now, who's more knowledgable about this point an a child's growth: A parent, or a kid's teacher? I DID go to public school for elementary education, and this stuff just made the immature kids more immature, not more "knowledgable".
We have something like that, without the baby-killing. It's called adoption.
And Piper, it's different because there is no risk of a baby being born, whereas with touching yourself innappropriately, babies cannot happen, unless you're a hermaphrodite, and that's just complicated. Can we stop talking about this now?
AHAHA! Jeff! Aha! AHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAno.
And, as for Roe v. Wade, it should be a state thing-or at least VOTED ON-because putting things up to the judicial system instead of being voted on is not cool.
And keep your Bush election crap to yourself. they ruled that he was voted on because the votes DID go to him in the first place.
Last edited by JesusFreak on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Avvy by Tangent, as well as the button
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests
