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.
People of your belief are forced by others to pay. Your approval comes from continuing to participate in the U.S. or whichever collective.
you fail to understand that I am not being given a choice to not participate, unless I want to go to jail for not paying my taxes. I shouldn't have to leave my Country to get out of having to pay for the scammers of the system set up for the truly desperate in need on a temporary basis until they get back on track with providing for themselves. Since these people will never be able to they should be taken off the assistance.
I see you don't want it going to anyone at all regardless of if they truly need the help or not. So that's your answer either everyone or no one. Take the good with the bad or have nothing. Remember that if you someday need food and can't afford to eat or become homeless and need some help to get back on your feet and become self sufficient again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Homogenizer
The system is always broken; that's the reality of compromise. If you want some needy people to get paid, it's silly to get angry because scamming people will get paid. That's your compromise. When you say that it's okay for needy people to get paid, it is implied that you agree to scammers getting paid.
The system is broken because of people like you who have the attitude that it's ok to allow the bad to go along with the good. It's not. There is no implying of agreeing to pay the scammers just because it's agreed to help the needy when they truly need it. The system was set up to temporarily help people who need it not set up people for a lifetime of living and being fed.
These scammers are taking advantage of both the people who truly need help the people who work to pay into the system. Your attitude of assuming it's automatically agreed by myself and anyone else who agrees to use our taxdollars to help those in need, and I should add temporarily, just adds to another reason why nothing is getting done and why the system will go broke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Homogenizer
What we do is a reflection of who we are; therefore, if you hate what one does, you must hate that person. That line is one of the many attacks on intelligence to come out of the church so that people who hate can pretend they still love their brother.
Again you don't make any sense. This is not a discussion about the church teaching on hate sin but love the sinner. Who are you to assume I have to love people or hate people based on what they do? I don't pretend to love these scammers so quit the church teaching comparison it doesn't belong here.
But I do see your point that you too think you are being forced to pay into it but not by the legislature/gov't. You would be correct. You seem to think it's because of people like me who do agree to put taxdollars towards a system set up for temporary help for the needy until they can get back on their own again. Huh, everyone or no one. I just don't agree to that. Maybe if we dropped all assistance for everyone and rely on donations then everyone who pays into the system would be satisfied. The problem with that is then the truly needy won't get the help they need after paying into the system. It's like giving unemployment to someone who never worked.
Last edited by Lolipopbubbles; 05-19-2012 at 10:17 AM..
Look, obviously the problem here isnt the choices of this man and the women, its the fault of not being able to afford contraception (we all know how expensive it is).
Until men stay out of trying to legislate a woman's rights, they have nothing to say.
This guy couldn't say no?
Really, if men have no self-control, they all need to be sterilized.
If a man doesn't want the possibility of having kids, either don't have sex, get a vasectomy or ensure birth control is used (by yourself).
It's so easy to blame women for everything.
I don't understand your point since it's some men and some women who interfere with sex related issues. However, all people are the product of evolution. I think your "just say no" portion is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction as well as the blame whining.
I think you've mistaken an academic question for a political question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Oh, look. Another liberal who throws the word "bigot" around like candy at a Christmas parade! Ask me if i'm surprised.
Are you surprised? I'm not a liberal; I'm a libertarian.
Quote:
Your entire argument is based on me be being a racist......which I am not. I laugh at people like you.....and there are many....whose narrow mind is consistent with that of the liberal ideology that you embrace.
The bottom line is.....I was right. The person in question is not a white person. How is it that i'm a "bigot" when in fact I was right?
I don't follow you on this one. Why would the fact that you're correct affect whether you're a bigot?
Quote:
That's too much for you to handle isn't it?
No. Why would I have a hard time handling it?
Quote:
It matters not to me that the truth is inconvenient to you, and I can assure you that your hurt feelings are of no concern of mine.
But don't let that get in the way of your "bigot rant." I wouldn't want you to have to face reality and concede that what I put forth was dead-on accurate.
I think your post was a rant. It appeared very emotional. Mine, on the other hand, was relatively free of emotion and simply stated my opinion.
I don't have an issue with agreeing that your prediction was accurate; it was. But it means very little to me because you seem to mistake a correlation for a causal relation. The consequence of this mistake is that you're going to hit the mark frequently, but you'll miss the mark to whatever degree white people do stupid things, which is something that does bother me: by adhering to probability inappropriately, you burden good African Americans with the actions of bad people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lolipopbubbles
you fail to understand that I am not being given a choice to not participate...
I see you don't want it going to anyone at all regardless of if they truly need the help or not. So that's your answer either everyone or no one. Take the good with the bad or have nothing.
I think that's common sense. You can't have May flowers without April showers. Without Winter gloom where would we get Spring bloom? And a penny can't be saved if it isn't first earned.
Quote:
The system is broken because of people like you who have the attitude that it's ok to allow the bad to go along with the good.
I disagree: the system is broke because the theory upon which it rests assumes too high a level of righteousness on the part of participating people, which includes recipients and employees of the system.
Quote:
Who are you to assume I have to love people or hate people based on what they do?
Beelzebub.
Last edited by The Homogenizer; 05-19-2012 at 10:48 AM..
Homoginizer, I just realized I have to make a correction.
Yes there are some circumstances where I would hate a person based on what they do or did. I don't have that feeling of hate towards those people but I do toward the people who commit horrendous crimes against another human being, especially children. Then your analogy does apply to my hating the person not just what they do/did. I don't feel that with the scammers though and I think it's because I see they are only doing what they system, which would be the government, allows them to get away with it.
I didn't mean to be so sarcastic or come across as sarcastic towards you. I wasn't sure if the (/s) at the bottom of your post meant (sarcasm) or not.
If the /s wasn't meant to mean your post was a sarcastic joke then I have to say that anyone who has sired that many children didn't do it because he couldn't afford any kind of contraception. That is deliberate what he did and there's no way I'm going to believe this man couldn't do anything to avoid having so many children.
Ok sorry I misunderstood. LOL what goofball I can be sometimes.
I didn't mean to be so sarcastic or come across as sarcastic towards you. I wasn't sure if the (/s) at the bottom of your post meant (sarcasm) or not.
If the /s wasn't meant to mean your post was a sarcastic joke then I have to say that anyone who has sired that many children didn't do it because he couldn't afford any kind of contraception. That is deliberate what he did and there's no way I'm going to believe this man couldn't do anything to avoid having so many children.
Ok sorry I misunderstood. LOL what goofball I can be sometimes.
I'm sorry you misunderstood. I was only trying to be helpful and answer your question, thinking you didn't know what /s meant. Nothing more than that. OK?
This is an embarrassment. Why should taxpayers pay to house this loser as well as feeding his kids.
In theory, the taxpayers shouldn't pay for his kids; but if taxpayers don't pay, then it's possible that kids suffer. However idiotic this 'father' might be, the kids had nothing to do with it.
But seriously, how does it even get to this point? Sometimes a part of me thinks that forced sterilization (tube tying and what not) should be considered. We've traditionally thought of procreation as a natural right and generally abhor the idea of having government control our bodies, but I don't know...maybe sometimes a body needs controlling.
05-19-2012, 12:09 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
And to think there are 30 children running around with half this man's genes Probably voted for Obama
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 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.
Probably voted for Obama 
