Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

ObamacareFollow

#77REDACTED, Posted: Dec 16 2009 at 6:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Anna,
#78 Dec 16 2009 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Anna,

Quote:
Also, I don't think you get the whole three branches of government thing. You can't give up your legal rights when you receive something granted by the legislative branches without a court order.


The court can order parents unfit can't they? And that 5% number you pulled out of your *** is insane. It's obvious you don't have a clue what's going on so let me tell you. Anyone who stays on food stamps and public housing more than a year is a f*cking leech and waste of space. That these morons have the power to elect officials that can legally strip their neighbor of their property to finance themselves is what liberalism is all about.



No, the 5% is pretty well established in social science research. If I've studied anything this semester, it's been about social service programs.

As far as the court order parents unfit, yes, they need due process. You really want to spend the money to have due process to find someone legally incompetent if they need social services, well you try to figure that out. As for me, it seems like a ******* insane use of resources, whereas there are other types of programs shown to increase the likelihood of people becoming and remaining employed--ones that are much cheaper and more effective.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#79 Dec 16 2009 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
INSURANCE SALESMAN KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE WELFARE SYSTEM THAN AN EX-SOCIAL WORKER

MORE NEWS AT 11
#80 Dec 16 2009 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,395 posts
Quote:
The court can order parents unfit can't they? And that 5% number you pulled out of your *** is insane. It's obvious you don't have a clue what's going on so let me tell you. Anyone who stays on food stamps and public housing more than a year is a f*cking leech and waste of space. That these morons have the power to elect officials that can legally strip their neighbor of their property to finance themselves is what liberalism is all about.


Umm...Even with enough money to live on, my family was in something close to public housing until I was 16. We were hardly leeches.

You took a decent point, and turned it into ****...

/facepalm
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#81 Dec 16 2009 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Grandfather Driftwood wrote:
Up here, seems to pay enough to lease a decent car easily enough.
I don't imagine Ontario is too much different than NS, but if someone's leasing a car while on welfare, odds are they're lying to the government about their living arrangements. Welfare pays fuck all and looks for any reason imaginable to reduce it even more.

Personally, I'd like to see more moeny put into social services to hire more workers, so that maybe instead of just giving people money, they can actually spend time with them and help them get off of the system. Hopefully, by being able to spend more time with each welfare recipient they can find the ones who are milking the system and cut them off.


Fuck you Anna. You've turned me into a god damned fucking Liberal.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#82 Dec 16 2009 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
Sweetums wrote:
MORE NEWS AT 11
     ^^^^ BLAM


That is not how you spell "lies".
#83 Dec 16 2009 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,395 posts
Quote:
I don't imagine Ontario is too much different than NS, but if someone's leasing a car while on welfare, odds are they're lying to the government about their living arrangements. Welfare pays @#%^ all and looks for any reason imaginable to reduce it even more.


My parents used to get about $400-600 per month from welfare, and that was with one of them having a job. With payments of say...90 dollars per two weeks on...lets go with a 2005 Chevy Cobalt, it's easily done, even without one parent having a job.

Edited, Dec 16th 2009 8:14pm by Driftwood
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#84 Dec 16 2009 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I stand corrected, welfare in Ontario is far more giving than in NS. And we're the welfare culture?


My girl friend was on welfare with 2 kids. She was getting $800/month and that was with the bonus she was getting with having 2 kids. Once child support kicked in, they deducted it all from what she was getting and reduced her to $200/month. I have no idea how your parents had a job and still got $400-600/month.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#85 Dec 16 2009 at 7:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I never said anything about partisanship in any part of the thread. I was calling varus crazy (par for the course), and for some reason, you feel like defending him in some sort of bizarre kinship ritual.

Really, please do point out where I was tarring the political right anywhere in this thread. I'll be waiting.


I never said *you* did this. There are other people posting in the thread you know...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Dec 16 2009 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
I never said anything about partisanship in any part of the thread. I was calling varus crazy (par for the course), and for some reason, you feel like defending him in some sort of bizarre kinship ritual.

Really, please do point out where I was tarring the political right anywhere in this thread. I'll be waiting.


I never said *you* did this. There are other people posting in the thread you know...
The most I can find is Ari's comment that he's a right-wing whackjob. Do you want to call him a left-wing whackjob or something?
#87 Dec 16 2009 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Would you be making the same argument if the person in question was an appointee of a Republican and not a Democrat? Be honest...

Is that supposed to be a defense for you being wrong? Unless you have evidence that Holdren supports sterilization beyond that textbook, I'd say the selected passages from that book fail to make a case that Holdren "supports" those things.

Edited, Dec 16th 2009 8:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Dec 16 2009 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:

I never said *you* did this. There are other people posting in the thread you know...
The most I can find is Ari's comment that he's a right-wing whackjob.


Which is precisely what I was referring to. :)

Quote:
Do you want to call him a left-wing whackjob or something?


No. My point was that the "nutjobs" on both sides of the political spectrum tend to support this idea. The difference is that you're all obsessing on the "right wing" nutjob who's an okra farmer of no particular influence, while apparently completely unaware and/or unconcerned about the "left wing" nutjob with similar opinions who was appointed by the current US President to be one of his advisers.


Don't read more into it then me musing on how people's perception of significance changes based on whether the target is associated positively or negatively for other completely unrelated reasons.


And Joph? Would you be dismissing the significance of the contents of that book with regard to sterilization if the person in question was a GOP appointee? That's the point I'm making here. I'm quite certain given your history that you'd be all over condemning him if say Bush had appointed him instead of Obama. Can you honestly say you wouldn't?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Dec 16 2009 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And Joph? Would you be dismissing the significance of the contents of that book with regard to sterilization if the person in question was a GOP appointee?

Does it matter? I mean, I can say "No, I honestly wouldn't consider that book significant in its full context" but who cares? You'll say I'm lying, I'll say I'm not, etc.

More to the point, are you saying that, in full context, the book that actually exists is significant in proving that the Obama administration member who actually exists is advocating for forced sterilization?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Dec 16 2009 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
More to the point, are you saying that, in full context, the book that actually exists is significant in proving that the Obama administration member who actually exists is advocating for forced sterilization?


To be perfectly honest Joph? My assumption is that he was listing really scary options to resolve population problems as a means to encourage other policy decisions. Not having read the book, I can't say what those are, but it's not like this would be the first time Liberals would present an horrific future outcome in order to convince people to adopt some other more near term "solution" which would not otherwise be adopted.


Here's the thing though. It really doesn't matter what he personally meant when he wrote it (co-wrote really, but whatever). At the end of the day, a text book he wrote includes that as a listed solution to the problem of overpopulation. It's reasonable to assume that some people are going to be influenced by this and may ultimately make decisions based on it if we find ourselves in that situation.


If someone wrote a survival book and in the section about what to do if you find yourself trapped with no food, states that cannibalism is acceptable, including detailed instructions on how best to go about doing this, and specifically stating that laws against cannibalism are suspended in that case, no amount of insisting that you wrote that section purely to convince people of the need to ensure that they bring proper supplies in order to avoid having to make that decision will really make much difference. Someone who read the book *will* end up in that situation, and perhaps as a direct consequence of reading it may decide to engage in cannibalism where maybe he wouldn't have otherwise. Merely stating it as a viable alternative will increase the likelihood of it happening...


There are many factors which influence policy. I can't say how much this one specific thing matters, but it's more about the mindset. The kind of guy who'll write about secretly dumping sterilizing agents into drinking water to decrease excess population is not the kind of person you really want advising the President of the US. Even if we assume it was a hypothetical, what if the President asks him for advice? Does he provide some ridiculous idea as a hypothetical and *hope* it doesn't become policy? Really? Do we roll those dice?


Fair or not, public figures have been pushed out of prominent positions for far far less.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Dec 16 2009 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
So having never read the book and knowing nothing about it, you're going to make stuff up, say well what if it were true, and then pretend outrage to score political points. Carry on.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#92 Dec 16 2009 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
gbaji wrote:
Here's the thing though. It really doesn't matter what he personally meant when he wrote it (co-wrote really, but whatever). At the end of the day, a text book he wrote includes that as a listed solution to the problem of overpopulation. It's reasonable to assume that some people are going to be influenced by this and may ultimately make decisions based on it if we find ourselves in that situation.


Taking this at face value for a moment, can you set aside your assumptions for a moment and appreciate the fact that when those conditions (forced abortion and sterilization as a means of population control, among others) were described, China was on the verge of implementing some of them? So in an academic analysis of just how bad population can get, and how draconian the measures may need to become in order to bring it down, would you not expect a discussion of a topical and relevant event elsewhere in the world? Remember that this was a text book, not a policy paper.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#93 Dec 16 2009 at 10:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What Samira said.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Dec 16 2009 at 11:12 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
There are many factors which influence policy. I can't say how much this one specific thing matters, but it's more about the mindset. The kind of guy who'll write about secretly dumping sterilizing agents into drinking water to decrease excess population is not the kind of person you really want advising the President of the US. Even if we assume it was a hypothetical, what if the President asks him for advice? Does he provide some ridiculous idea as a hypothetical and *hope* it doesn't become policy? Really? Do we roll those dice?

Seriously? Your argument for why this is significant boils down to "hey, he might pose a hypothetical to the President, and if both he and the President suddenly develop severe mental retardation, it might be a problem"?
#95 Dec 16 2009 at 11:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Varus wrote:
Oh and it costs so much more to continue to support generations of dead beatspoor black people than it would to sterilize one generation. In fact I'd like to look at the statistics on exactly how many welfarepoor black children grow up to receive welfare themselves.

What's radical is thinking that the current welfare state is working.


Varrus, we know you hate both black people & facts, but let me present a little history lesson.

In pictures, of course.

Screenshot


Know what else could help generations of black people get off welfare?

Slavery Reparations.

And it too would be cheaper than continuing to support generations of poor black people!
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#96REDACTED, Posted: Dec 17 2009 at 11:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sweet,
#97 Dec 17 2009 at 2:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Taking this at face value for a moment, can you set aside your assumptions for a moment and appreciate the fact that when those conditions (forced abortion and sterilization as a means of population control, among others) were described, China was on the verge of implementing some of them? So in an academic analysis of just how bad population can get, and how draconian the measures may need to become in order to bring it down, would you not expect a discussion of a topical and relevant event elsewhere in the world?


Sure. But my understanding is that this was not presented as a "here's how some evil authoritarian government might handle overpopulation", but "this is how we should handle overpopulation", with "we" being the good ole USA. The book specifically cited sources to show that there was a constitutional argument for allowing these sorts of actions (specifically spiking the drinking water with sterilizing agents).


I suppose you could dismiss it as an academic examination, but that's an awfully "cold" examination then. I'll suggest again that if a GOP appointee had been involved in that sort of thing, we'd never have heard the end of it and I'm sure you'd all be right at the front of the bandwagon...


Quote:
Remember that this was a text book, not a policy paper.


I'm really not sure how that's supposed to make anyone feel better. So instead of writing a paper to be used as policy, he's writing it into a text book presumably to teach people how to use it at policy? That's better how exactly? So as part of your political science degree you get to learn that secretly sterilizing the population is probably a constitutionally acceptable way of dealing with overpopulation?


Um... That's kinda worse...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Dec 17 2009 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, really Samira. If you think something is bad the thing to do is never ever talk about it because someone might, one day, make a policy!

Well, I suppose you can talk about it if you're saying how terrible it is. All textbooks should come laden with moral judgments provided by the authors so that way the students will know exactly how they're supposed to think.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Dec 17 2009 at 2:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But my understanding...

...is, as usual, wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Dec 17 2009 at 2:34 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Quote:
But my understanding is that this was not presented as a "here's how some evil authoritarian government might handle overpopulation", but "this is how we should handle overpopulation", with "we" being the good ole USA.


You actually think the author was saying "this is how we should handle overpopulation"? I feel like you did not bother to look at the link at all. Why would an academic book EVER use the word evil? You seriously think that adds to the discussion?

gbaji wrote:

I suppose you could dismiss it as an academic examination, but that's an awfully "cold" examination then.


I'm sorry that you feel all opinions should be purposefully colored instead of looked at in a "cold" academic manner.

Gosh, your lunacy is about to reach the moon itself. I understand you have a tough time saying "Jeez, I guess I shouldn't have used a snippet of misinformation I heard from conservative talk radio," but to try and defend it after requires some truly staggering leaps of logic I thought impossible for those besides Varus and ThiefX up to this point.
#101 Dec 17 2009 at 2:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, really Samira. If you think something is bad the thing to do is never ever talk about it because someone might, one day, make a policy!


You could write "this is a bad thing to do". He didn't. He not only didn't say that, he included information showing a constitutional basis for taking the very actions you claim he was "warning" us about...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 167 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (167)