Look, you kepp telling ME about WHO I AM!!! Now I have seen you on here and you curse and use foul language too. If there's one thing I hate more than lazies on welfare its hypocrites.If you know me so well, what is my school, adress, name, phone number, likes, dislikes?
-
A call to political action
-
In reply to: If you know me so well, what is my school, adress, name, phone number, likes, dislikes? School : school of a2aAddress : USAName: WorriedPhone: 1-800-worriedLikes: PoliticsDisklikes: Bad Music (if you do, then you suck )
-
WEIRD!!!!It should be WEIRDSEXINFO!!!!Even though the above is kinda weird too.
-
lol. Let's get back on topic...Not voting is good for you.
-
Why?You afraid I'll go postal??
-
why get back on topic? or why not voting is good for you?
-
not voting = good???
-
yeah, more time to stay home and finish watching an episode of american chopper. lol
-
ROTFLMAOOOO!!!
-
Wow, it looks like a missed the excitement. But let me ask: using a legal scheme, how can we separate those who try, and those who don't? In other words, I acknowledge that some people will be tempted to take advantage of the system (this is part of the 'bad incentive structure' to which I earlier referred), but there are also people that work extremely hard but are either stricken with unexpected misfortune, or simply haven't had the advantages in life that were necessary to equip them with high-demand job skills. How do we separate these two groups of people? (what about their dependants???) Is it better to allow all of them to suffer in order to avoid the injustice of allowing some to take advantage of the system. Let me remind everyone that there is not a single legal scheme that isn't taken advantage of in some fashion by some person. But this is a poor argument for removing these schemes altogether.Yes, some modification is warranted, but let's not imagine that all people on some form of welfare (and as I said, this include much more than what's typically labeled 'welfare'-SS, Disabilities, subsidies, etc.) are "welfare queens" (the typically derogative term used for women that allegedly have children just for the welfare benefits). This prototypical woman is more of a phantom than a reality… she’s a diversion from the issues at hand.As an aside: I’ve read enough posts of both No1 and Worried to know that you're both very cool people. It would be a shame if this conversation devolved into an emotional battle between two people who both have very positive and insightful input on this subject. (Oh, and Websex is the man: diffusing a tight situation with a brilliant- albeit offbeat- post)
-
In short of what you said Steppenwolf
In reply to:
Knowing which people go in what category is hard even if you were to ask
Oh, and thank you. That was my intention. :grin:
-
Yes, I presupposed an almost impossible categorization. I guess that's just another problem that makes dealing with this issue so difficult.
-
I hate politics... argue all you want, most of the time you won't get anywhere... just like religion
-
Ahhh, that is where I disagree (of course). Substantive changes have been made through political discourse (isn't this one of the major lessons of history?). True, we will never come up with a "right" answer (much like in religion), but we can approach a "better" answer than what we have now. Furthermore, politics do reach some sort of tangible resolution in the voting process. This is where political discourse touches the ground. Nothing of this sort inheres to the endless religion debate.If nothing else, getting people involved in the political process and political arguments is a much needed elixir for the "voting for the guy with the whitest teeth" problem.
-
well, try an issue like abortion, you won't get anywhere.
-
pro choice!!!!!MARRIAGE IS LOVE!damn fundamentalists....you're everywhere.-BBGF
-
marriage is love yet you're pro choice... by saying marriage is love, are you saying that you shouldn't have sex unitl you're married? and if that's so, then wouldn't that cause you to be pro choice?
-
Yes, the abortion argument is endless. But the point is that we can make ourselves heard through the political process.
If you're right that most people are pro-choice (I'm referring to an earlier post- I think it was yours, but correct me if I'm wrong), then why are we teetering on the edge of a legal system that could likely overrule Roe v. Wade within the next four years (depending, in part, on which president we vote for- and which Justice he might appoint)? Some people point to a power imbalance between a weak majority of pro-choicers and a strong, outspoken minority of pro-lifers. This power imbalance could be remedied if the pro-choicers took a more active political stance.
I'm therefore not arguing that the pro-choice crowd can actually convince the pro-life crowd that they're wrong, but that they can affect the legal structure of our society by politically mobilizing. At the end of the day, this is all that matters in the REAL world- the world of abortion hinges on laws (decided ultimately by votes), not on who wins web-forum arguments (and surely no one will win these).
-
The thing about it is we could regulate.BTW, I undestand SS, Disability, etc., my gripe is with "welfare" as in middle aged people WHO ARE CAPABLE of working yet don't.Here's what I propose. Add a "clause" or the like into the welfare system where if you are able to work you must search for and hold a job. If the IRS can find a friggin' $2 discrep. on my taxes surely the feds can do this. Social workers double their jobs in these areas to insure these people are working or at least attempting to find employment. (Freedom of Information Act declares that all records of who has applied for a job, etc. must be disclosed upon request to any federal or non-federal(private entity)). As long as they're trying they can stay on. We would be able through the FOIA to find out from employers whether or not interviews or positions have been offered. If aposition has been flat out rejected then you give them 1 strike out of three. Three strikes you're off of it and SOL, kinda maybe push you to find a job.This is not racist at all, but, if a Mexican can come across the border in Texas and find a job, why can't people who have been here for 18+ years.
-
Thats another thing. I think the American people should get to vote for the Justices not the Pres. and Congress