U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 10-16-2008, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,362 times
Reputation: 173

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
LEANGK...

so don't buy a house. Owning a home is unnecessary.
that was a damn example. ok you want to nit pick? oh k a car.

the family cant decide to buy a newer car (more expensive but will last longer and in the end will end up being cheaper based on gas mileage) or an older car (used, less efficient and will probably die sooner, but definetly less expensive in the short term)

so in the end the family decides to buy the new car, because the father has a steady job (or so he thinks) and the mom who is stay at home is doing piano classes on the side. they are also caught up with all thier other bills and have even decided to be more careful on their grocery spending. They also live in an apartment if it makes you happy Tkramar

1 year later, the father loses his job. he was an excellent, hard worker, but the company simply "didnt need as many people as it used to". unfortunately for him the job hes been doing for the last 20 years insn't really looking for people. so now he has to go back to college or university to earn a new skill. if he wants to work his only option is macdonalds, although he cant pay for the car (nessecary to get to work) as well as the 3 bedroom apartment for him, his wife and two children. what does he do?

social secuirty isnt an option because that was only for "lazy bums" and it was therefore ended thanks to Tkramar. Mcdonalds cant pay to maintain even 1/7th of his past living standards

its clear Tkramar you had no real argument, so instead you chose to pick out a specific detail that really had no relevance to to the larger arguement. how about a real attack which might actually be worth my time if i choose to respond?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2008, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,362 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Work is a PHYSICAL thing...you perform best when your BODY is capable of performing.

What do the people do when they don't have the PHYSICAL ability to do work?

Another example: "home maker" is a job, but WHO pays for it? Who pays to take care of the children and/or home? It's an important job, and someone other than the government needs to do it, but how do we ensure that these people are ABLE to do it?
i dunno you tell me? if your in an accident tommorow and paralyzed from the limbs down, what should we do? lets you jsut die because you cant work at most jobs? or help you?

i dont really understand your homemaker thing. when people get married they decide if one will stay home or not. sometimes one can, because the other is earning enough and they'd prefer to "be with and raise their children" at a young age instead of just sending them off to some daycare.

other times they cant, because for whatever reason one income isnt enough to pay for all the bills. it depends really. ive seen both work so. i dunno whatever floats your boat
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,266,772 times
Reputation: 10915
Yes, if I couldn't work, I SHOULD die.

What I was saying with the homemaker thing...it IS a job. Women who don't have a partner, that continue to do the job--e.g. taking care of their kids--should be subsidized...or forced to give up their kids for adoption by a TWO-parent home.

Women should not work outside the home. They should be supported by a male relative. Father, husband, brother, etc.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,362 times
Reputation: 173
its glad to see all sides on this site. left wing, right wing. feminists (not really) and chauvanists, but you basically lost all the respect i had for you

you seem like the very embodiement of stereotypical corporate america. the weak slow us down and should die and the strong rise up and become rich.

but you arent rich are you? your one of the people who support that dream, but will always be a victim of it? am i right? if not you wouldnt be here responding to my posts
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:07 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,938,535 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Women should not work outside the home. They should be supported by a male relative. Father, husband, brother, etc.
... like in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Gee, should women be allowed to go to college, read books, own property, go outside unaccompanied, get medical treatment without a male relative's permission? And how does being someone else's beast of burden fit into that whole philosophy of self-reliance and personal responsibility? How does being forced to completely depend on someone else, actually barred from relying on oneself, serve this noble end? Or are women not "persons" according to you? Even Iran and Yemen are feminist cesspools by that standard.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,266,772 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by leangk View Post
that was a damn example. ok you want to nit pick? oh k a car.

the family cant decide to buy a newer car (more expensive but will last longer and in the end will end up being cheaper based on gas mileage) or an older car (used, less efficient and will probably die sooner, but definetly less expensive in the short term)

so in the end the family decides to buy the new car, because the father has a steady job (or so he thinks) and the mom who is stay at home is doing piano classes on the side. they are also caught up with all thier other bills and have even decided to be more careful on their grocery spending. They also live in an apartment if it makes you happy Tkramar

1 year later, the father loses his job. he was an excellent, hard worker, but the company simply "didnt need as many people as it used to". unfortunately for him the job hes been doing for the last 20 years insn't really looking for people. so now he has to go back to college or university to earn a new skill. if he wants to work his only option is macdonalds, although he cant pay for the car (nessecary to get to work) as well as the 3 bedroom apartment for him, his wife and two children. what does he do?

social secuirty isnt an option because that was only for "lazy bums" and it was therefore ended thanks to Tkramar. Mcdonalds cant pay to maintain even 1/7th of his past living standards

its clear Tkramar you had no real argument, so instead you chose to pick out a specific detail that really had no relevance to to the larger arguement. how about a real attack which might actually be worth my time if i choose to respond?
Okay, the car.

He should have bought something he could pay CASH for. Don't rely on credit--because you DON'T KNOW that you'll still have a job tomorrow, much less when the bill becomes due! I have NO credit cards, I do ALL my transactions on a cash only basis. If I don't have the money, I obviously don't spend it. I don't have a lot of "extras" that people seem to need. New widescreen TV, videogame system, vacations...

The problem is people living BEYOND their means!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,266,772 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by leangk View Post
its glad to see all sides on this site. left wing, right wing. feminists (not really) and chauvanists, but you basically lost all the respect i had for you

you seem like the very embodiement of stereotypical corporate america. the weak slow us down and should die and the strong rise up and become rich.

but you arent rich are you? your one of the people who support that dream, but will always be a victim of it? am i right? if not you wouldnt be here responding to my posts
Actually, I don't support the "dream" of being rich. I'm not materialistic, and I don't really "own" anything. This computer belongs to my girlfriend...although I paid for all the components inside. Her car was bought with MY income, cash, but it's not registered in my name.

I have no use for material possessions. I WORK because it is the RIGHT thing to do! The quality of a man is in the quality of his work.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,266,772 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
... like in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Gee, should women be allowed to go to college, read books, own property, go outside unaccompanied, get medical treatment without a male relative's permission? And how does being someone else's beast of burden fit into that whole philosophy of self-reliance and personal responsibility? How does being forced to completely depend on someone else, actually barred from relying on oneself, serve this noble end? Or are women not "persons" according to you? Even Iran and Yemen are feminist cesspools by that standard.
Yes. They should. You are the one implying that they are slaves. I'm suggesting they display a certain amount of gratitude in compensation to having their needs met. RURAL folks are a lot better in this regard. Women who KNOW how to sew, KNOW how to cook. And men who know how to take care of their women! If you can't support your family on your income, you're not much of a man--or you're setting your sights WAY too high!

Just because you rely on someone else financially does not mean you cannot be the gateway to something that they NEED from you.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,362 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
... like in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Gee, should women be allowed to go to college, read books, own property, go outside unaccompanied, get medical treatment without a male relative's permission? And how does being someone else's beast of burden fit into that whole philosophy of self-reliance and personal responsibility? How does being forced to completely depend on someone else, actually barred from relying on oneself, serve this noble end? Or are women not "persons" according to you? Even Iran and Yemen are feminist cesspools by that standard.
redisca give up on this dirtbag. hes worse than the terrorists we fight
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,266,772 times
Reputation: 10915
Obviously your head's been filled with feminist tripe.

I'll bet you've never lived in a RURAL setting, or had a man that treated you decently. I'm sorry for that.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top