U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2015, 02:10 PM
 
809 posts, read 687,076 times
Reputation: 1333

Advertisements

Food Stamps criteria, like the WIC program, are established at the federal level-- and we all know how much heft campaign finance donors have-- a dollar invested in a campaign yields on average a 1,200% return...

In order to get legislators to be able to give judicious consideration to the nutritional needs of impoverished citizens, we have to stop thinking for the present about pressuring them to do so, but rather to concentrate on getting them out from under the thumb of their major contributors (e.g., the Florida Cuban refugee sugar industry). When a Senator or Representative realizes he doesn't have to worry about how his/her major contributors will react to his/her vote, THEN we can address what food stamps ought to do for families rather than for the junk food industry.

You might want to look into the chokepoint of campaign finance-- the place where real change can take effect, a race at a time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2015, 04:42 PM
 
221 posts, read 268,423 times
Reputation: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by sovertennis View Post
Ultimately, the solution to the problem regarding an individual's right to live how and where he chooses v the state's obligation to help those in need (whether permanently or for a short time) is, at best, murky and based on shaky boundaries. Why, for example, should we not tax soda and other sugary soft drinks (as is now proposed in the VT legislature) if we know that such drinks, if taken regularly and in excess, lead to poor health, and use that tax to fund, in part, the health care thus required? Makes sense to me, but I drink soda very rarely. But how can such a tax be proposed when tax payers are already funding the distribution--for free, no less--of such drinks to those in need of assistance in obtaining food. That's right, VTers on 3Squares (aka food stamps) can get all the Mt Dew, Pepsi and Coke (none of which have the properties most people would associate with "food") they want. To add to this bit of irony, my gym membership is taxed. We can, and should, look to our elected officials to promote the health and well being of the entire community, via, in part, by levying taxes on products that lead to unhealthy, thus costly, behaviors and outcomes, but only in part. Some part of that, we need to do ourselves, individually. How to balance this?
Personally, I don't have a problem with taxing soda because, well, if you can't afford to pay that, then drink something healthier, like water. And I'm saying that as someone who does drink soda occassionally although I do like my water most of the time. I also don't think 3Squares should cover such beverages. They should only cover what is necessary in order for people to be able to survive till they get their life back together. You want to drink soda? Pay for it yourself. It is not a necessity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 04:55 PM
 
30 posts, read 34,453 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriz View Post
You have obviously never had the experiences some people have, and I hope you never do, although it might make you see things a little more realistically and less idealistically.
You have no idea about my life experiences, I've been through a LOT in my life and I've worked very hard to get what I have. It wasn't handed to me. Please don't be so arrogant as to assume you know anything about me or about how idealistic I am or am not. I've lived in the REAL world with REAL problems. In one sentence you used both the words idealistic and realistic. Indeed, I live in reality. As JFK once said I'm an idealist, without illusions. Yes, people move each and every day to better their lives. And then many of them move back to where they want to be, after they have bettered their life with new skills, new job experience or new education. You should try reality. The world is not Vermont where people expect to remain in place, in the state most of you have made a choice to keep UNDEVELOPED where business cannot thrive and where people can't get jobs. If anyone needs a dose of reality, it's you, friend. It's not the rest of the world's responsibility to provide you with the trappings of a successful life. Get off your rear end and do what you have to do. Government assistance should be reserved for those who CAN"T not for those who think they shouldn't have to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriz View Post
People born in a certain place should just uproot their family cause they can't find a job that will pay for their health care? Really?
Is this some kind of joke? People are doing it every day, all over the world. They move within their states, intrastate, and internationally to better themselves. What planet are you living on?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriz View Post
What about people with pre conditions? What about jobs that will provide health care but are borderline abusive to you? You should stick around just for that?

Are they handcuffing you and forcing you to stay? Move and get the job you want. Of course, if you choose not to educate yourself, acquire skills, gain experience then that certainly doesn't help but it's nobody's fault but your own. Where on earth did you acquire this sense of entitlement? Why on earth would you expect things to be brought TO you and provided for bother others? Are you kidding me? [/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriz View Post
No, it is our duty as human beings to help our fellow human beings out until they can get back up on their feet. I am not talking about people abusing the system - those should be caught and prosecuted. I'm talking about genuine hard working people that can fall on hard times for a couple of years and need our help. We should give it to them.
Helping people "get back on their feet" is not the topic. The topic is your expectation that you should be able to remain wherever you feel like and be carried by others for as long as you feel like. Safety nets are not the topic, nor have you seen me argue against safety nets. I'm all for limited, short term relief for people while they regroup and seek options. Not so they can sit on their rear end and remain where they were BORN because they don't FEEL like looking for a job in another state.

I've got a long and storied history in my life of helping people who can't help themselves and I will continue to do that. But what I and many other people are growing tired of are self-entitled people like you. I've made a lot of sacrifices in my life to survive and I've made some difficult choices. "Ask not what you country can do for YOU, ask what YOU can do for your country." It's not your country's responsibility to provide for you because you don't feel like you should have to go out and do what you need to do to make your life better. I'm still dumbfounded that you are shocked, utterly SHOCKED, at my proposal that people might just have to move from places where they were BORN to seek a better life. Have you ever heard of the great migrations throughout the world? Welcome to reality. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you the right to remain where you were born and be provided for by people who have gone out and worked hard for what we have.

Last edited by BS Walks; 01-22-2015 at 05:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 05:11 PM
 
30 posts, read 34,453 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sovertennis View Post
Ultimately, the solution to the problem regarding an individual's right to live how and where he chooses v the state's obligation to help those in need (whether permanently or for a short time) is, at best, murky and based on shaky boundaries. Why, for example, should we not tax soda and other sugary soft drinks (as is now proposed in the VT legislature) if we know that such drinks, if taken regularly and in excess, lead to poor health, and use that tax to fund, in part, the health care thus required? Makes sense to me, but I drink soda very rarely. But how can such a tax be proposed when tax payers are already funding the distribution--for free, no less--of such drinks to those in need of assistance in obtaining food. That's right, VTers on 3Squares (aka food stamps) can get all the Mt Dew, Pepsi and Coke (none of which have the properties most people would associate with "food") they want. To add to this bit of irony, my gym membership is taxed. We can, and should, look to our elected officials to promote the health and well being of the entire community, via, in part, by levying taxes on products that lead to unhealthy, thus costly, behaviors and outcomes, but only in part. Some part of that, we need to do ourselves, individually. How to balance this?

You raise excellent points. Another thing to ask is why shouldn't people on public assistance be required to take drug tests? If it's good enough for public employees it should be good enough for people on public assistance. And yes, it's absolutely obscene that we have to pay taxes on our fitness activities but in many states people on public programs can buy junk food, cigarettes and, in some cases, liquor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 06:08 PM
 
221 posts, read 268,423 times
Reputation: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by BS Walks View Post
You have no idea about my life experiences, I've been through a LOT in my life and I've worked very hard to get what I have. It wasn't handed to me. Please don't be so arrogant as to assume you know anything about me or about how idealistic I am or am not. I've lived in the REAL world with REAL problems. In one sentence you used both the words idealistic and realistic. Indeed, I live in reality. As JFK once said I'm an idealist, without illusions. Yes, people move each and every day to better their lives. And then many of them move back to where they want to be, after they have bettered their life with new skills, new job experience or new education. You should try reality. The world is not Vermont where people expect to remain in place, in the state most of you have made a choice to keep UNDEVELOPED where business cannot thrive and where people can't get jobs. If anyone needs a dose of reality, it's you, friend. It's not the rest of the world's responsibility to provide you with the trappings of a successful life. Get off your rear end and do what you have to do. Government assistance should be reserved for those who CAN"T not for those who think they shouldn't have to.


I'm personally not on any kind of assistance so not sure what kind of rear end you think I should get off of. I couldn't be on any assistance even if I wanted to, being a legal resident you cannot get any benefits for the first 5 years or till you're a citizen which at the very least is 3.5 years(funny how that works being illegal aliens do get assistance). So having only been a resident for just over a year and a half, it would not be an option for me. Thankfully, I don't need it. I do, however, pay plenty IN to the system. And that has not always been the case. Together and seperate both my wife and I have had times when we needed assistance. We received it, and now we pay in way more than we ever got. See how that works? You help hard working people, get them back up, and they help you back. If you neglect to do that then you will be part of the reason they never get back up and then YOU will lose the revenue THEY could have provided. Ever considered that?

Not everyone on assistance is a lazy bum. I can guarantee you - without actually knowing any of the people you know - my wife and I are probably some of the hardest working people you WOULD have ever known had you known us. We work extremely hard, day in and day out. And yet, we were there at one point. There are many out there like us and every time I pay my taxes I know they help a few of those.

Also, I'm more than well aware the world is not VT. VT has only been my home for the last year and a half. I've lived in two different countries, in 3 different states, and visited a couple dozen other countries. I know what the world looks like.


Is this some kind of joke? People are doing it every day, all over the world. They move within their states, intrastate, and internationally to better themselves. What planet are you living on?


They do it out of choice, or at most for a job. Not for a job because they need a health care plan. That is stupid. There's a huge difference between moving for a job and moving cause you need access to health insurance. Here's another true story. My wife, since before I even met her, used to work for Pick N' Save in Wisconsin. To those midwesterners in here all I can say is do not shop there, they are horrible to their employees. Even after she had to have neck surgery and had her neck fuzed, once she got back to work which had to be only several weeks later, they did not even let her keep her neck brace on. But hey! At least they provided excellent health plan. She felt stuck in that place due to having pre existing conditions. Leaving would mean she would have to find not only a new place, but one with health insurance that woul cover her problems, and so long as she doesn't work which could be many months, she is not insured cause well nobody insures you if you have pre existing conditions such as she did. By that point I was living with her, but we were not married yet. Or even engaged. I kept telling her, just tell them to F off, I will pay your bills. After a few months she finally had enough, and walked out on them, not even a 2 week notice. But how many people are not in a position to do that? Do you even think about those people when you suggest people should just up and move and uproot their whole life to find another job so that they can take care of themselves cause they are sick, do you think this is like a video game or something? And after that we're supposed to believe you actually care about your fellow human beings.


Are they handcuffing you and forcing you to stay? Move and get the job you want. Of course, if you choose not to educate yourself, acquire skills, gain experience then that certainly doesn't help but it's nobody's fault but your own. Where on earth did you acquire this sense of entitlement? Why on earth would you expect things to be brought TO you and provided for bother others? Are you kidding me?

Like I said, while in the past for a short period of time we each needed some help, we now pay a whole lot more into the system and we are good with it, I am happy to help others now who need my help who might be just as much of a hard worker as I am and one day will be in the position to help others, due in part to my contributions. It makes me nothing but proud.

Helping people "get back on their feet" is not the topic. The topic is your expectation that you should be able to remain wherever you feel like and be carried by others for as long as you feel like. Safety nets are not the topic, nor have you seen me argue against safety nets. I'm all for limited, short term relief for people while they regroup and seek options. Not so they can sit on their rear end and remain where they were BORN because they don't FEEL like looking for a job in another state.

They have the right to remain where they were born. And see above - it is in the state's best interest to help those people. Not the bums I agree, but those people who in the end will pay in even more. Instead of chasing them away it is the smart thing to do to help them, and keep them, and have them contribute back in the future.

I've got a long and storied history in my life of helping people who can't help themselves and I will continue to do that. But what I and many other people are growing tired of are self-entitled people like you. I've made a lot of sacrifices in my life to survive and I've made some difficult choices. "Ask not what you country can do for YOU, ask what YOU can do for your country." It's not your country's responsibility to provide for you because you don't feel like you should have to go out and do what you need to do to make your life better. I'm still dumbfounded that you are shocked, utterly SHOCKED, at my proposal that people might just have to move from places where they were BORN to seek a better life. Have you ever heard of the great migrations throughout the world? Welcome to reality. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you the right to remain where you were born and be provided for by people who have gone out and worked hard for what we have.[/quote]

Again, you call me the arrogant one saying I assume I know you yet you keep assuming I expect things to be handed to me. I don't expect it and don't need it. I'm proud however of having the ability to help others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 07:26 PM
 
809 posts, read 687,076 times
Reputation: 1333
"Be charitable toward those who are less than capable, who are sick or who are without, because at some point in your life, you will be one of them."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 07:40 PM
 
30 posts, read 34,453 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriz View Post
Like I said, while in the past for a short period of time we each needed some help, we now pay a whole lot more into the system and we are good with it, I am happy to help others now who need my help who might be just as much of a hard worker as I am and one day will be in the position to help others, due in part to my contributions. It makes me nothing but proud.

Helping people "get back on their feet" is not the topic. The topic is your expectation that you should be able to remain wherever you feel like and be carried by others for as long as you feel like. Safety nets are not the topic, nor have you seen me argue against safety nets. I'm all for limited, short term relief for people while they regroup and seek options. Not so they can sit on their rear end and remain where they were BORN because they don't FEEL like looking for a job in another state. Even the, there is no "right."

They have the right to remain where they were born. And see above - it is in the state's best interest to help those people. Not the bums I agree, but those people who in the end will pay in even more. Instead of chasing them away it is the smart thing to do to help them, and keep them, and have them contribute back in the future.

I've got a long and storied history in my life of helping people who can't help themselves and I will continue to do that. But what I and many other people are growing tired of are self-entitled people like you. I've made a lot of sacrifices in my life to survive and I've made some difficult choices. "Ask not what you country can do for YOU, ask what YOU can do for your country." It's not your country's responsibility to provide for you because you don't feel like you should have to go out and do what you need to do to make your life better. I'm still dumbfounded that you are shocked, utterly SHOCKED, at my proposal that people might just have to move from places where they were BORN to seek a better life. Have you ever heard of the great migrations throughout the world? Welcome to reality. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you the right to remain where you were born and be provided for by people who have gone out and worked hard for what we have.

Again, you call me the arrogant one saying I assume I know you yet you keep assuming I expect things to be handed to me. I don't expect it and don't need it. I'm proud however of having the ability to help others.
1) I've made no argument of the sort that safety nets should not be available for short term use by people who need them or for long term use by those who are disabled. That responds to about 90 percent of the straw man drivel above. I know it's much easier to create a bogeyman argument that you can tear down easily, but try to stay on point and avoid changing the subject.

2) To say that people migrate out of "choice" rather than to better their lives is one of the most naive and uninformed comments I've ever seen. It's laughable, and astounding. It ignores centuries of world history and decades of American history.

3) There is no "right" anywhere to stay where you are born and expect jobs and healthcare to come to you. There are more than 6 billion people in the world and to think that 6 billion people have a right to stay put and have a wonderful life precisely where they are BORN is insane and a ludicrous proposition. And it ignores the notion that people have a responsibility to educate themselves, acquire job skills, experience, training etc. In this day and age you don't do that by hanging out where you were born all your life, unless you happen to have been born in a thriving metropolitan city.

4) If what you say about yourself is true I'm glad you were able to use the system properly, the way it was designed to work. However, what you've been advocating for and the use of a "safety net" that you claim to have used temporarily to get yourselves on your feet, are two completely different animals. See point #1. Again (for the third time) the argument isn't about temporary safety nets that get people back on their feet.

5) You don't pay anymore than anyone else in your tax bracket, so get off this "we're paying back much more" pack of nonsense. And if you have deductions in the form of children you're paying a lot less than those of us without children-- and reaping more in services.


Last edited by vter; 01-23-2015 at 05:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 08:03 PM
 
221 posts, read 268,423 times
Reputation: 375
1. + 2.That IS the subject. I said I disagree with you saying people should just "get off their rear and move to wherever they will find a job that will give them access to health care", and you decided that that makes me naive and uninformed. lol. I said people do it mostly either by choice, or because of a job. Of course people do it to better their life. That's why I moved, too. 7,000 miles at that. But what does better their life mean? It means something different to each person. My point was no one should have to move because of health care. And I stand by that. And I think it's ridiculous of you to think somebody, especially if they are sick, or poor(which is about 90% of the people that can't afford or access health care are either sick or poor or both) should just pick up their stuff and move.

3. So everybody that educated themselves(btw I think college edu is way overrated but that's a whole diff discussion) and acquired job skills has a job and access to affordable health care in your utopian world. Think again.

4. What I say is true. My wife and I own our own business. On top of that I make part of my living as an active trader. Yes, I'm a "capitalist pig" who trades options for a living who somehow happens to also believe people in need of help should receive help. How is what I am advocating for any different? I said people should be able to have access to affordable health care. Every. Person. In every. state. Without being forced to move. I also said those who abuse the system should be caught and prosecuted. So how am I advocating for anything besides the system helping those who actually need help? Obviously, if you make enough, and are able to get insurance on your own, without it costing you an arm and a leg, then the government should not pay for your health coverage. However, if you don't make enough or don't make anything or have other circumstances that are preventing you from either being able to even have access to health coverage to start with, or preventing you from being able to pay for it, it's our duty - each and every one of us - to help out.

Anything wrong with that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 08:17 PM
 
46 posts, read 46,348 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by BS Walks View Post
You can't imagine where I get this "punish" notion? Well, let's see. If you have working people paying for the lives of people who don't work, I'd say that constitutes penalizing people who live responsibly by driving the costs up on everything. I don't know about you, but I've been working full time since the 80's and I've never had a job that didn't have healthcare options available for me to purchase. Of course, some jobs have never offered health insurance because they aren't considered jobs that people would use to establish either a career path or jobs that are meant to be held over the long run. At some point, people need to develop skills or education to work themselves into better jobs that come with better pay and better benefits. Flipping burgers isn't a job that was ever intended to offer a living wage or a benefits package. It's for people in transition into something better.

Is your position that people shouldn't have to pay any portion of their own healthcare? And what makes you think insurance companies are entitled to no benefit? Do you think goods and services should be free? I'm not opposed to state laws aimed at requiring certain employers to offer healthcare options for their employees to purchase. I am opposed to discouraging people from bettering their own positions in life by handing things over without strings, or at substantial costs to the people who are working. All one has to do is look at our federal and state budgets and debts to see how entitlement costs are killing us. Who do you think is paying for all that? You demonize insurance companies and I'm certainly no apologist for them, but you act as if they are not entitled to reap any profits from their business and that medical practitioners should not be compensated. Do you think we should continue to encourage people to not work and have kid after kid that they cannot afford? Does common sense come into play in any of your positions? Personal responsibility? Yes, those who don't act responsibly, time after time, penalize those of us who do. If you can't understand that, I don't know how to help you.
If you read my prior posts, I don't think you'll find any "demonizing" of insurance companies. I think health insurance companies are unnecessary middlemen and paying their profits is a waste of money. I think if you ask doctors, they'd acknowledge that their overhead increases when they have to hire additional staff to code, bill and collect from four, five, six different insurance companies all with different rules and reimbursement policies. We could eliminate that whole layer of expense by simply expanding one system, i. e., Medicare, which everybody already knows how to use and tax instead of billing for policies that have to include a surcharge to build in a profit and where all the economic incentives are slanted toward making that profit against the consumer who is sick, disabled and maybe at risk of literally dying, a lousy time to have to take on a big corporation to try to litigate the benefit of the bargain. All those monetary and sad human costs would disappear under single payor. So, then, the insurance folks and bookkeepers are out of work and might have to take what you call "transition" jobs. There are a lot of people who have been working two or three of those jobs trying to keep body and soul together. And some people can't acquire the skills you suggest. They don't have the capacity. And some, in search of those skills, go deeply into undischaregable debt and end up back home holding a diploma and bill they can't afford without any work in sight -- even with graduate degrees. My major point about your post was that it seemed to be highly emotional and relied on your personal anecdote. I suggested you disclose some authoritative data such as I offered you. Instead, you escalated to questioning who I am, what's my personal anecdote and now you claim not just that you're penalized but that "entitlement costs are killing" you. Arguing "common sense" is usually a tipoff to the absence of evidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 05:51 AM
 
30 posts, read 34,453 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriz View Post
1. + 2.That IS the subject. I said I disagree with you saying people should just "get off their rear and move to wherever they will find a job that will give them access to health care", and you decided that that makes me naive and uninformed. lol. I said people do it mostly either by choice, or because of a job. Of course people do it to better their life. That's why I moved, too. 7,000 miles at that. But what does better their life mean? It means something different to each person. My point was no one should have to move because of health care. And I stand by that. And I think it's ridiculous of you to think somebody, especially if they are sick, or poor(which is about 90% of the people that can't afford or access health care are either sick or poor or both) should just pick up their stuff and move.

3. So everybody that educated themselves(btw I think college edu is way overrated but that's a whole diff discussion) and acquired job skills has a job and access to affordable health care in your utopian world. Think again.

4. What I say is true. My wife and I own our own business. On top of that I make part of my living as an active trader. Yes, I'm a "capitalist pig" who trades options for a living who somehow happens to also believe people in need of help should receive help. How is what I am advocating for any different? I said people should be able to have access to affordable health care. Every. Person. In every. state. Without being forced to move. I also said those who abuse the system should be caught and prosecuted. So how am I advocating for anything besides the system helping those who actually need help? Obviously, if you make enough, and are able to get insurance on your own, without it costing you an arm and a leg, then the government should not pay for your health coverage. However, if you don't make enough or don't make anything or have other circumstances that are preventing you from either being able to even have access to health coverage to start with, or preventing you from being able to pay for it, it's our duty - each and every one of us - to help out.

Anything wrong with that?

1) Where does your 90 percent of the people who "can't afford" healthcare come from? And as I've said all along, I support short term safety nets for people to get BACK ON THEIR FEET and longer term help for those who CAN'T. I do not support long term government paid healthcare for people who are able to go out and get it themselves. And I don't support the notion that the government should be providing health insurance because people don't want to move around and better their lot in life. That' the fundamental difference between you and I. I support encouraging people to improve their lives, you support having the taxpayers enable people for a variety of undefined reasons. And yes, a better life means something different for each person, yet here you are deciding that it's the DUTY of an undefined population of people to provide healthcare to a another yet undefined pool of people who may, or may not, have decided that healthcare is enough of a priority in their own life to go out and do what they need to get a health care plan. And if people shouldn't have to move from where they were BORN to get a health plan then why should they have to move to get a job, or better wages, or lower real estate costs? Maye the rest of us should pay for people in a state where there are no jobs for the person to remain IN PLACE so they don't have to move to where there are jobs? Maybe we should pay for ANYONE who doesn't FEEL like getting education or vocational skills to stay IN PLACE so they can live where they were BORN and not have to get a job. Yeah that would work. LMAO.

3) The utopian world is you thinking that the taxpayers should provide healthcare to anyone and that the US Government could effectively manage it. That's utopia. I live in the real world. You live in the Utopian one. And yes, job skills and education are directly related to people's ability to obtain jobs that will provide them with health care options to purchase. And do I need to repeat, AGAIN, that I support help for those who CAN'T? Apparently so, because you will probably go there......AGAIN.

4. Every person in every state is the business of the states not the business of the US Government. And while your proposal that everyone you see fit as having a DUTY to provide healthcare, your plan does not take into account the fact that people have a responsibility to earn their way in life. If more people you claim "have a duty" decide they are going to sit back and be takers, instead of producers, then your pie-in-the-sky theory goes down the drain because there is nobody to pay for it and nobody should have to pay for capable people that don't want to better themselves. Your personal situation you described is SHORT TERM, yet you are advocating LONG term assistance. That's not a credible proposal. And again our Constitution provides no such "rights" that you are proclaiming so I'm still befuddled as to what makes you a so-called libertarian. And someone who works in the financial industry and is acting in good faith and ethically would never refer to themselves as a "capitalist pig" so take that nonsense to someone who doesn't know any better. I suppose that fits right in there with a libertarian who isn't really libertarian.

Last edited by BS Walks; 01-23-2015 at 06:03 AM..
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Vermont
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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