|
|
Post by Mahnarch on Mar 26, 2010 21:36:07 GMT -5
After a year of political wrangling, citizen outrage and backroom deals, the government's takeover of our health care system has passed. Speaker Pelosi found (or bought) the votes to pass the monstrosity that emerged from the Christmas Eve Senate vote. Concerned citizens proclaimed their opposition to the government mandates, special deals, and higher taxes; but 219 House Democrats and all 59 Senate Democrats in Washington didn’t listen. Pelosi, Reid and Obama think they know what's right for the country. But they won't be able to ignore us in November. We're sending a clear message by pledging to vote NO on the re-election of all the Members of Congress that voted yes on this health care takeover. Please join us in pledging to vote no and forward this to your friends and family now!novemberiscoming.com/
|
|
|
|
Post by Jersey on Mar 27, 2010 1:24:31 GMT -5
They are going to PAY this November. The TEA Party has acquired nearly 100,000 signatures in a Repeal The Bill petition already, with other petitions receiving just as many if not more. The passage of this Bill has enraged me to the point that my political activism has increased ten fold. I refuse to put up with liberal bullsh*t anymore. They want to force their agenda on me and the way I live my life? They better learn to expect the members of the conservative resistance to tear them away from hugging those trees and Karl Marx books while simultaneously having realism shouted in their faces!
This is only the beginning of my fight! I will never back down from playing my part in retaking this country back from those that would see me live my life in government run slavery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason O'Lewa on Mar 28, 2010 14:28:27 GMT -5
i hope some new people get in in november but that doesnt happen that much
they usualy reelect the same people
the president has term limitations or we wouldnt get a new president that often either
in pa the governor has a 2 term maximum so sometimes they run for senate after
we have ed rendel and in his 2nd election he ran against a x football player lyn swan I hoped swan would win but he didnt
our senators are arleon speckter and bob casey
|
|
|
|
Post by Jersey on Mar 28, 2010 17:16:33 GMT -5
Jason, those are very smart observations from someone your age. Of course, your dad could be telling you about it too, but I wouldn't know. I'll break it down for you. i hope some new people get in in november but that doesnt happen that much they usualy reelect the same people Yes, it doesn't happen that much for a reason. Too many Americans don't care about what's happening in their country, while too many others are focused on changing it for what they think is the best. Most people care more about working their 9-5, providing for the wife and kids, and getting by as best they can. Believe me, these are all good things to do, and the right ones at that. But it has led to the majority of Americans putting the future of the country aside, and any political activism is commonly coming from the young people. Younger people very often embrace a socialistic or left-leaning ideology as the result of two things, indoctrination through the schools and their big hearts. They want to see all forms of suffering and oppression end. That's the message of socialism, and as a result determine that the only way for the supposed suffering to end is total government control over everything. Most people grow up, enter their twenties, start working, and start paying taxes. Most grow brains at that point and realize it sucks working your butt off to support those that refuse to work for themselves. But then, some don't. the president has term limitations or we wouldnt get a new president that often either That's the system the founding fathers put in place after the first several years of our country existing, with it finally being perfected and set in stone after the death of FDR. This was there in order to prevent the rise of an American tyrant like King George, Hitler, or Stalin. Americans knew and understood that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Add to that the impeachment process, and you have a process designed to make sure it doesn't happen here. in pa the governor has a 2 term maximum so sometimes they run for senate after we have ed rendel and in his 2nd election he ran against a x football player lyn swan I hoped swan would win but he didnt our senators are arleon speckter and bob casey senatoeres dont have term limits though This is the exact reason there needs to be a law creating term limits for members of the House and Senate. You create political stagnancy with constant repeats, i.e. members of Congress who have been there for years. Term limits introduces fresh blood into Congress, and keeps things moving along. It also provides more opportunities for the American people to voice their stance on legislation and bills, and despondent or members of Congress can be removed in short order should they fail to represent the people properly. Basically, it helps put Congress more under the control of the people. Without term limits, members of Congress eventually start feeling safe and able to do whatever they please with pieces of legislation, regardless of what the citizenry tells them. Of course, the greatest example of that happened a week ago today. |
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Mar 28, 2010 23:49:03 GMT -5
I kind of quote you guys I would like to see some new blood. I am rather tired of regardless of the will of the people the incumbents do what they want anyway and figure you'll forget by the time the next election comes around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slayzie on Mar 29, 2010 2:01:39 GMT -5
Call it growing brains, Jersey, I call it being cynical.
Speaking of which, nihilism really is the way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartleby, the Scrivener on Mar 29, 2010 2:19:10 GMT -5
Call it growing brains, Jersey, I call it being cynical. Speaking of which, nihilism really is the way to go. Depends on who you're talking about. The disabled, war vets, and the mentally handicapped yes. Lazy people who just refuse to do anything with their lives can screw off. And nihilism is crap. |
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Mar 29, 2010 22:19:11 GMT -5
Lazy people who just refuse to do anything with their lives can screw off. . I think most of the site members would agree with that line. |
|
|
|
Post by Slayzie on Mar 29, 2010 23:52:50 GMT -5
Bull. Lazy people who refuse, by your standards, to do anything with their lives have a good thing going.
They get their free rent, ramen, and Warcraft subscription from the government, they're happy. The system is in place for them to do that, they know how it works, and they exploit it for their own ends. And honestly, I can see where they're coming from. What is the point of working, in the traditional sense? Money? They can get that from the government. Respect? Who needs it, when they live by themselves and keep to themselves? Friends? That's what the internet's for. A "life"? Whether you can accept it or not, they are in fact content with what they have.
However, if you can't accept this, then bring back the nihilist movement. Let's abolish the government, and design a social system where everybody pulls their own weight in order to keep things running. Let's create an environment of mutual respect, where people actually care about others.
Sounds unachievable and utopian, right? And it is. But only because people are too self obsessed, and too content to play politics rather than do something worthwhile, to actually achieve such a goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on Mar 30, 2010 2:33:30 GMT -5
It is unachievable. There has to be some workers to serve the lazy people if nothing else.
How would the money to operate this system be raised if nobody worked? Or maybe you're saying not everybody would ride on the hog but for those who did there's a Utopian life possible for them.
I find it hard to be fulfilling and what amounts of Government money would be available for each person to vary upon things?
I know some welfare standards have a an allotment for amounts of kids foodstamps accordingly.
If that becomes encouraged there would be a greater number of people on funded assistance. For that to happen there would have to be a lesser amount of people working to pay the taxes to make this possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slayzie on Mar 30, 2010 4:15:21 GMT -5
No, no, you're missing my point. In an anarchistic society, everyone has to pitch in, because there is not government to organise things.
What I said about dole bludgers was that I have no problem with them exploiting the system for as long as they can.
If the government is ever overthrown, there will be no system for them to exploit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Demona on Mar 30, 2010 7:00:36 GMT -5
No, no, you're missing my point. In an anarchistic society, everyone has to pitch in, because there is no government to organise things. What I said about dole bludgers was that I have no problem with them exploiting the system for as long as there is a system for them to exploit. If the government is ever overthrown, there will be no system for them to exploit, though, and they'll have to get off their asses and be productive people, because otherwise they won't survive. That's such a stupid idea and can 't work because yes, I know it's a tough thing to understand, but sometimes you have to care about people. There are lazies who leech from the system yes, but there are also people who can't do for themselves or haven't been given a chance. It's wrong to let that sh*t go just because you aren't the one who's fallen on hard times.  |
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Mar 30, 2010 14:44:05 GMT -5
I get where you're coming from Slayzie. I hope you don't take this as an older guy condescending upon a kid situation but what you are describing is just about the life of a kid.
Ok there's a school responsibility but after that what. My kids are 12, 6 and 2. 2 April births are soon to be 13 and 3.
So they don't have to buy clothes, groceries or food of any kind, toothpaste, towels, silverware, even toys. My wife or I provides them with everything they can possibly not just need but want too within reason.
Not to spoil but to provide.
They don't have to have bikes but they do. They don't have to have toys but they do. They need shoes for sure and they have them.
Slayzie as you have described your life enough for me to know you're 17, you live with your parents, you're almost done with high school. You're old enough to drive, probably have a vehicle of your own or at least 1 you can use, but right now you don't have to worry yet about where your next meal is coming from or where you're going to be sleeping tonight.
I don't want to come over as an old man but life will start getting more difficult slowly within the next 3 to 5 years.
Demands get harder and you get less time to enjoy the boatride and more time is spent with your oar in the water and you pulling on that oar.
The situation you described makes more sense and seems more do able at 17 than it does at 38. Just a fact of life and time.
I sincerely mean this enjoy these years while they're here because they are kind of shortlived.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slayzie on Mar 30, 2010 15:08:11 GMT -5
D=
But that's... that's SOCIALISM! You commie, you.
[/sarcasm]
In countries with no welfare, the people who can't look after themselves are generally looked after well by their families and/or friends. If we lived in an anarchy, I'm fairly sure the attitude towards these people would be the same. It would have to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Mar 31, 2010 0:45:12 GMT -5
I can't imagine how a system of slackers could really work.
What happens then when there's an attack of some kind? Where do they get the military from? I couldn't imagine turning couch potatoes into a militia.
What do you do with garbage? Throw it out the window and leave it there? (I've been to cities where I'm sure people do that.)
I don't see the concept really working Slayzie but I will say you have provided food for thought here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slayzie on Mar 31, 2010 7:59:30 GMT -5
Why does everyone seem to think I am advocating a system of slackers? You are confusing my two points.
My first point is that with the political system running as it currently is, I have no problem with people exploiting welfare in order to get out of doing what others consider being a valuable member of society. If it's there, use it.
My second point is that if you have an issue with this, anarchy is the way to go. If there's no government, there's no welfare, and suddenly all those slackers need to get up and do something, otherwise they'll wind up dead.
On an unrelated note, though, why do you believe a military is so necessary?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jersey on Mar 31, 2010 16:03:58 GMT -5
I think I'll step in now and discuss why I oppose anarchy and nihilism as methods in running a nation. While they are polar opposites in theory and method, anarchy and socialism share one very large commonality with each other. They both only look good on paper and in theory. Yet anarchists often fail to take into account the major monkey wrench in the machinery of their idea of total freedom. Human nature.
Humans are a race of organisms that consistently seek out methods and processes in order to make things easier on themselves. Examples can be found in cavemen usage of stone tools, then metal tools, up to modern day ages of invention, where machines and devices like automobiles and computers make our everyday lives easier. This is a major component of our nature; make things easier.
Under socialist welfare programs, it exploits and magnifies this component. Hell, if the government is just going to give me everything I need while I sit around and waste oxygen, then so be it. Why not? I may have no pride or sense of self worth, but I won't have to do anything I don't feel like. This is the main problem with a welfare state like the United States. It allows lazy and worthless people, or parasites, to feed off the system that is supposed to be providing for those that actually need it, and in the process ride on the backs of those actually making something of themselves.
I agree with Slayzie to this point. People like this are one of our biggest problems. But that's where my agreement pretty much ends. Anarchy is a system of government where there is no government. It essentially means total and complete freedom for humans to do whatever they darn well please. There are no laws, no regulation, in essence, no systems in place at all to keep order.
As a result, you have chaos. Anarchists fail to recognize the one deep flaw of human nature. The flaw of always looking to make things easier on ourselves. If a system of anarchy was to break out, there would be no laws, no police, and no military to protect the formerly law abiding citizens. As a result, crime would run absolutely rampant. Those looking to protect their families and their own hides would quickly arm themselves in order to stave off the crime wave. Criminals are the laziest people of all. They are so unwilling to work for what they want that they choose to commit acts of evil in order to have them. They never favor actually working and earning the things they want. Instead, they go out and TAKE.
In some ways, Slayzie is right. Anarchy would force the lazy folks to come out of the woodwork and look for a way in which to survive. Unfortunately, due to our nature, many would look for the easiest way to do so. Crime. Need stuff to eat? Steal it. Feeling frisky and need some action? Pluck an unsuspecting lady (or man, whatever the case) and rape them. Need guns? Kill those that have them and take them for yourself. It would very quickly become a society of takers, not earners.
Anarchy is essentially another word for "every man for himself". In this state of forced survival, humans would turn to self interested crime in order to supplement their needs. And since there would be no crime or military to put a stop to it, they would have free reign to do whatever they felt like with no repercussions at all. No repercussions means no regrets. Criminals would have no remorse if their actions were to go unpunished, like in a anarchistic system. Why bother feeling bad about the things you do? Who cares about hurting others if its to save your own skin or feed your own mouth? This is human nature.
As far as needing a military, if a state or nation went anarchistic, there would be nothing to stop a foreign power or dictatorship from marching right in with their military and seizing control. They would then proceed to set up any system of government they would like. Any takers that an invading power would set up a democracy? I didn't think so. Unless you were invaded by America. Even then, Obama would probably be glad to install the same socialist agenda there that he is here. Anyway, you would more than likely see the birth of a new totalitarian state. Best case scenario? You get to live but under total control. An invading power never usually has your best interests at heart; only the interests of its leaders.
The prevention of chaos is the reason we have religion. It was an early form of providing people with consequences for the bad things they did. In the here and now, you go to jail and sit in a cell for what you did. With three squares a day and TV paid for by the taxpayer, but I digress. My solution to the parasite problem is an automatic and mandatory drug testing of those on welfare. That would eliminate well over half the problem. The other part would be to install time limits to those who are simply out of work. Those willing to work absolutely bust their butts trying to find new work if they recognize their lifeline might be cut off one day. Harsh? Yeah. Does it need to be harsh to get people moving? Definitely. There cannot be any rewards for staying on welfare. Otherwise, why bother getting off? Welfare was designed to give people who really needed it a means of staying afloat until they went back to work. It was never designed to feed your face for the rest of your life. As for job availability, pulling the government back from intertwining itself in business would certainly let them get back to hiring Americans instead of outsourcing elsewhere. But thats another story for another debate.
Pull the government back and make it small, but don't eliminate it entirely. People need government, but they are oppressed under total government. Government is a guide and series of laws to help keep order, not a system of rule. People need and want rules, structure, and laws in order to be good. Under anarchy or nihilism, why bother being good? The good people would be seen by the bad as weak. Bad news would reign supreme, and all would live in fear every day.
Some government is good, but only in small amounts to keep many freedoms intact. Total or no government is bad, since the people would either have no freedom or far too much. There really is a fine line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Mar 31, 2010 21:34:33 GMT -5
Why does everyone seem to think I am advocating a system of slackers? You are confusing my two points. My first point is that with the political system running as it currently is, I have no problem with people exploiting welfare in order to get out of doing what others consider being a valuable member of society. If it's there, use it. My second point is that if you have an issue with this, anarchy is the way to go. If there's no government, there's no welfare, and suddenly all those slackers need to get up and do something, otherwise they'll wind up dead. On an unrelated note, though, why do you believe a military is so necessary? Those are good questions. Obviously in a printed discussion message board the discussion is less clear than it is spoken because if somebody gets the wrong impression its easier in person to correct the point before too many people get off track. Then someone else follows on those lines when it was the wrong course. But your earlier posts does suggest that a little bit that maybe you're not encouraging a slacker society you're not entirely discouraging it especially in the next post with the point of exploiting welfare is ok. And you're entitled to that belief. Anarchy? I don't think I need to express how out of control that would get. That would lead to major looting, even an intensified days of the prairie situation. The old west had that system in a way. Sure they were on United States soil and therefore the law stood within the United States Constitution, but phone calls internet and e mail wasn't there for them. That was basically anarchy. And eventually that got replaced. Whoever had the fastest gun became the sheriff. And that was law for the time being. The need for military is to me about the same as the need for police. To protect the people. |
|
