deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 27, 2011 22:48:26 GMT -5
The way I read dj's post, it wouldn't be about you, personally, unless you're on welfare. I'm fairly certain you're not on welfare, so the original use of the word "you" was a generic "you", and the last use referred to "you" (you, personally) liking to see welfare recipients' urine studied, marsha. I believe you did say you favored urine tests for those requiring welfare assistance. Several of us said we had no objection to that. Oh my mistake. Should I apologize to lungrot for not answering the nice question about my urine? I think you made a posting error here , a accident, it was "djlungrot" who you were referring to..am I correct? You wouldn't have been showing your claws a bit would you Marsha? No, I didn't think so, just a error in remembering the correct NIC.. good.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 27, 2011 22:54:12 GMT -5
Oh my mistake. Should I apologize to lungrot for not answering the nice question about my urine? I think you made a posting error here , a accident, it was "djlungrot" who you were referring to..am I correct? You wouldn't have been showing your claws a bit would you Marsha? No, I didn't think so, just a error in remembering the correct NIC.. good. ...hey dez, did you intend the pun, talking about an accident, about talking about urine? if so, good one...
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Jun 28, 2011 1:54:18 GMT -5
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
This is a great idea. I have favored this for years. And since they are in the barracks, there can be a cafeteria serving 3 squares a day. No more food stamps necessary.. This does not constitute a concentration camp. It is a reasonable compromise between cutting off aid completely and the insanity we have now.
The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
All good ideas.
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absol-utely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
Absolutely right. If you want respect, earn it.
AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
I had not thought of this one, but it is a great idea. Just as children don't decide on family purchases, so people accepting aid from their fellows should forfeit their say until they join the productive tax payers
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jun 28, 2011 4:10:40 GMT -5
I guess this is a great idea, too:
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Jun 28, 2011 4:53:48 GMT -5
Shirina- you are missing a fundamental point. These rights are not being denied. They are being voluntarily forfeited. If a person feels compelled to accept aid from others, there is a price to be paid.
TANSTAAFL
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 28, 2011 7:04:25 GMT -5
If you know this and you are here voluntarily , why are you clicking on threads to read what you supposedly don't want too? Seems kind of dumb to me. There are lots of threads i don't read. Hey I resemble that remark and I hate to brag but I think some of my "Threads" are pretty decent or thought provoking, Visit our Military Threads, & you might be impressed....of course I am biased.. P.I. (USMCret) Hate to pull rank again but sometimes it pays to be a little rank..
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 28, 2011 8:51:22 GMT -5
I guess this is a great idea, too: Since when is the constitution about giving people something for nothing, with no responsibility on their part? We have far too many social programs with far too few actual responsibilities put on by people that use them. You state a minority abuse the system - from what I and others have seen it is more at least a 50/50 split - and I used to work with someone who worked at a welfare office for 10 years and she quit because she got sick of watching people abuse the system and no one did anything to stop it. I have seen people use food stamps to buiy their food and then break out a wad of money to buy booze and cigarettes. But I guess that is okay by you... You complain about the usage of complaints concerning "all liberals" - yet your arguments match exactly: -No restrictions on people using social programs -No personal responsibility on anyone (I have yet to see ANYTHING mentioning someone should actually be responsible for themselves and their choices from the left on this board) -Just keep funneling money to the poor and that will somehow cure all their ills -Trying to inject responsibility is akin to forcing people into concentration camps or throwing them out into the street to die (purely emotional, illogical arguments that seem to be a last resort to fight any type of responsibility being thrust upon a person or group of people) -Everyone's money is community property and they should feel duty bound to give up as much of their earnings as possible to aid those that cannot work, do not like to work, or REFUSE to work And as far as all the attacks on liberals on this board - I see just as many anti-republican/anti-conserative posts on this board...I'm sure I could look at the board right now and point out several on the first page, which proves that you see what you want to see and apparently ignore what doesn't fit into your tunnel vision.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Jun 28, 2011 9:34:20 GMT -5
jkapp, well said.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jun 28, 2011 14:30:49 GMT -5
I haven't missed this so-called "fundamental point," in fact, I am well aware of it as the cheap excuse that it is.
By claiming that accepting government assistance is voluntary, people in support of this fascist nonsense have convinced themselves they have an escape hatch through which they can avoid any constitutionality issues regarding the OP's ideas. Maybe you can convince yourselves that this horrifically transparent tactic is legitimate, but it's not.
For the majority of people, being poor is not voluntary, and giving them the choice between living on the streets and out of dumpsters or submit oneself to concentration camp authority is hardly a choice. The only time unemployment can even be construed as voluntary is when there is a general labor shortage - and that has only happened three times in the Western world: Immediately following the Black Death in the 1300's, immediately after WWI, and during the height of WWII.
Otherwise, believing that such terms are voluntary is, in short, merely lying to oneself. And ... given that SOME posters even believe that the mentally and physically disabled should also be subjected to these thoroughly un-American rules completely and irrefutably destroys the "it's voluntary" argument.
Your idea is to make the price so high, no one would ever wish to accept that aid. Ireland pulled the same stunt in the 1800's, and their little "camps" quickly became overcrowded with children, the elderly, the sick and disabled, and the mentally incompetent who had a choice to either subject themselves to the harsh, even cruel authority of camp taskmasters (they really were called "taskmasters") or literally starve to death.
The problem of epidemic disease, crime, and filth within these camps became so bad that Ireland began inventing jobs just to put people to work, thus you will find in Ireland "roads to nowhere" that have no practicable purpose. In short, the OP is based on a premise that is patently untrue. People will not just suddenly run out and find a job no matter how poorly you treat them because a) there are not enough jobs for every last person and b) because some people are unemployable no matter how much they wish to work.
Even assuming that welfare programs are somehow "wrong" (which they are not), two such "wrongs" do not make a "right." In fact, the ideas listed in the OP sound more like revenge than help. I find those ideas to be the raving meanderings of a demented mind that wishes to punish the poor for having the audacity to be poor.
So what? Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree here, but the ideas in the OP is NOT the way to go about solving the issue. The current system does need to be reformed to make it a true welfare-to-work program, but the way it is now, welfare becomes a trap.
If you want to play the anecdote game, here's one for you. I had a friend in college who was exceptionally bright but also suffered from bi-polar disorder. She was unemployable without her medications, but she couldn't afford the medication without employment. She also couldn't keep her welfare if she was employed on any meaningful level. So she resorted to living on welfare. Since most employer insurance policies do not kick in for at least 6 months, that period with neither welfare nor insurance would literally put her life at risk. So she found herself trapped on welfare.
However, one day, her pride got the best of her, so she decided to take a job and hope she could muddle through the 6 month waiting period without any medications. On the 4th month, her fiance found her in the bathroom dead from a suicide. Now, fortunately the paramedics were able to revive her, but then she was tossed into an institution and I never saw her again.
How's that? I think my example is a far more poignant case for genuine welfare reform than the standard "cigarettes and booze" example trotted out by every anti-welfare advocate in the program's history.
Did I say it would be okay with me? Have I even approached the topic of people misusing food stamp money? Your vain effort in trying to get "the drop" on me by leaping ahead and making predictions will only ensure you'll be feasting on your own foot before this is all over.
-No restrictions on people using social programs
Not only is this a strawman argument since never once did I say there should be NO restrictions, it is also a false dilemma fallacy since you are offering only two choices: the draconian fascism of the OP or absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. Now, if you would like to discuss this issue within the boundaries of reality, I'm more than willing, but hyperbole is annoying.
-No personal responsibility on anyone
This assertion carries the same fundamental flaws and fallacies as the first assertion.
-Just keep funneling money to the poor and that will somehow cure all their ills
Another assertion I have never made. Are you actually addressing my posts? Or did someone else just walk into the room?
Trying to inject responsibility is akin to forcing people into concentration camps or throwing them out into the street to die
These are precisely the two choices the OP gives. How you can even begin to deny this reality is beyond any rational level of comprehension, but there it is.
-Everyone's money is community property and they should feel duty bound to give up as much of their earnings as possible to aid those that cannot work, do not like to work, or REFUSE to work
As much of their earnings as possible? Huh? Do you even have the ability to discuss this in real terms and not resort to ridiculous hyperbole? If you have to fall back on this kind of "fact inflation" to shore up your arguments, perhaps you should re-think your arguments.
Would you care to bet on that? How about, for the next week, we both monitor the front page of this board and list the number of anti-X threads and we'll see who tops the list. Are you interested in attempting to prove your assertion?
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jun 28, 2011 14:38:11 GMT -5
I see, so it's not the responsibility of those engaging in bad behavior to modify their behavior. It's up to everyone else to modify theirs. I bet you were the type who felt you had every right to have loud parties at 3am.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 28, 2011 14:56:32 GMT -5
I see, so it's not the responsibility of those engaging in bad behavior to modify their behavior. It's up to everyone else to modify theirs. Correct, think of any Democrat policy to help you envision it. Let's see, illegal immigration. Prosecute the illegals? No, make everyone else pay for their medical care and education. How about another one? Bailouts. Let companies suffer the consequences of their bad decisions? No, make taxpayers bail them out and line the pockets of Obama's buddies, like Jeff Immelt, who don't have to pay taxes anymore. How about one more? Airline security. Profile people most likely to commit a terrorist attack? No, make grandma take off her diaper at the security checkpoint. Etc...
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Jun 28, 2011 15:00:20 GMT -5
I see, so it's not the responsibility of those engaging in bad behavior to modify their behavior. It's up to everyone else to modify theirs. Correct, think of any Democrat policy to help you envision it. Let's see, illegal immigration. Prosecute the illegals? No, make everyone else pay for their medical care and education. How about another one? Bailouts. Let companies suffer the consequences of their bad decisions? No, make taxpayers bail them out and line the pockets of Obama's buddies, like Jeff Immelt, who don't have to pay taxes anymore. How about one more? Airline security. Profile people most likely to commit a terrorist attack? No, make grandma take off her diaper at the security checkpoint. Etc... Good point Ed!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 17:08:42 GMT -5
Marsha, I'm not talking about discussions involving political figures. I'm talking about the discussions disintegrating into insults flung at other posters, and whole groups of people who are NOT politicians. Discussing politicians is one thing. Labeling "all liberals" or "all conservatives" is entirely different. One is political discussion. The other is flinging dirt. I guess you didn't notice djlungrot make a personal comment about who I like examining my urine? Yeah, I agree personal comments about other posters, or as you put it flinging dirt, is not very nice and I didn't really like it very much. That comment in response to the entire OP. Nobody ever seems to notice when except if it comes from a conservative though. Marsha- you seem to be serially misconstruing what i am saying, so i will try explaining it, again. if these misunderstandings keep happening, then i will have to try something else. what i said was that..... IF you think that random urine testing is perfectly ok for people on welfare THEN nothing is wrong with your proposal. when i said "apparently you do", i said so because you posted the proposal, and indicated that you thought it was a good idea. the second "you" was the indefinite "you" = "people on welfare", not YOU personally. i have misgivings about taking urine samples under almost any circumstances, so i would have a harder time doing so under "general" circumstances. but that is obviously just my own personal thing. again, for the second time in three days, i meant nothing personal by it. it was just a casual remark, done in haste. please try to cut me a little more slack, if you possibly can. as Ed will tell you, i am not such a bad fellow.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 17:12:57 GMT -5
nothing is wrong, if you like the nanny state inspecting your urine if you happen to be on welfare. apparently you do. The whole idea is to become self sufficient and stay off the public dole. If you need welfare - there should be guidelines and they should be a bit restrictive (after all you are living off other people's money) - and when you can, you get yourself off welfare[/quote] i understand the principle. how does forbidding tobacco use get people off the public dole, exactly?
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jun 28, 2011 17:13:42 GMT -5
Ed, you made my case for me. Under your logic, these policies would be absolutely fair and correct.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 17:16:58 GMT -5
The way I read dj's post, it wouldn't be about you, personally, unless you're on welfare. I'm fairly certain you're not on welfare, so the original use of the word "you" was a generic "you", and the last use referred to "you" (you, personally) liking to see welfare recipients' urine studied, marsha. I believe you did say you favored urine tests for those requiring welfare assistance. Several of us said we had no objection to that. this is precisely what i meant. and i didn't phrase it as a question, but as a conditional syllogism: If "A", Then "B". there is really nothing to argue. i was just making an observation.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 17:20:16 GMT -5
If he had been talking about your urine, as opposed to welfare recipients' urine, you wouldn't owe him an apology. He was speaking of welfare recipients' urine, however. mm- just a quick question- and marsha, this has nothing to do with you, ok? i am new to this board, and i am used to playing quick and dirty with language and posting. is that sort of thing going to generate three posts of explaining and apologies for every post made? or can i generally post, in good conscience, and walk away from it without getting my posts deleted or my person banned?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 28, 2011 17:21:57 GMT -5
As a liberal, I make the claim I am insulted more or less constantly on this forum ... and right on cue ... look what happens.Ok here's the deal I will match some of your insults with a few of mine...I have some dozies that I can give you Shirina...i.e "Troll", "repressed homophobic", "dense" " stupid" , "posting lies" "worth about a bag of chips"....that is just a small sample..to get the want to trade insults game going.. Btw I have no idea what a "repressed homophobic" is however it sounds weird..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:55:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2011 17:27:58 GMT -5
Time to remove the ignore button, or just leave this highly non-challenging whatever board. Let's see what happens, just for the hell of it.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 28, 2011 17:31:13 GMT -5
i am new to this board, and i am used to playing quick and dirty with language and posting. is that sort of thing going to generate three posts of explaining and apologies for every post made? or can i generally post, in good conscience, and walk away from it without getting my posts deleted or my person banned?
You are doing OK ...nothing to worry about...I think your comment or comments were misunderstood...so carry on and have fun with this board which is acting crazy lately with duplicates or being very slow...of maybe it is my Comcast Connection again acting up on me
I wrote a response, then edited it and hit Modify Post and it disappeared on me...
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 28, 2011 17:34:09 GMT -5
Time to remove the ignore button, or just leave this highly non-challenging whatever board. Let's see what happens, just for the hell of it. ...fwiw, I've always had an internal IGNORE button... works fine... I suspect I'm not the only one, hence why we now see a link for it... lol...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:55:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2011 17:36:06 GMT -5
Nope. Back on ignore. Not worth the ban, since I am still hoping this board comes to its senses and allows people to post freely, AND the stupid angry bear issue gets resolved. I've always had an issue with staying places way after I should go. The angry bear wiping out every other post I write SHOULD be enough.. but no.. anyone else having issues, or is it just me today?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 28, 2011 17:36:30 GMT -5
If he had been talking about your urine, as opposed to welfare recipients' urine, you wouldn't owe him an apology. He was speaking of welfare recipients' urine, however. mm- just a quick question- and marsha, this has nothing to do with you, ok? i am new to this board, and i am used to playing quick and dirty with language and posting. is that sort of thing going to generate three posts of explaining and apologies for every post made? or can i generally post, in good conscience, and walk away from it without getting my posts deleted or my person banned? It depends on just how quick and dirty you play, dj. The quick part doesn't sound like it would generate problems. The dirty part could if it involves gross vulgarisms, personal attacks, or continued and unrelenting blanket insults (all <insert group here> are <insert insult here>). We're not really all that tough, and we will let you know if a line is crossed to give you an opportunity to remove the offense and learn from it. Some people imagine insult where no insult is intended, and some people feel they can't have a discussion involving politics without insulting someone, or some entire group. That's not the case for most adults with reasonable vocabularies.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 28, 2011 17:37:48 GMT -5
I haven't been around that much today, krickitt, but haven't had a problem with disappearing posts ... although, the boards have been very slow at times.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 17:42:18 GMT -5
mm- just a quick question- and marsha, this has nothing to do with you, ok? i am new to this board, and i am used to playing quick and dirty with language and posting. is that sort of thing going to generate three posts of explaining and apologies for every post made? or can i generally post, in good conscience, and walk away from it without getting my posts deleted or my person banned? It depends on just how quick and dirty you play, dj. The quick part doesn't sound like it would generate problems. The dirty part could if it involves gross vulgarisms, personal attacks, or continued and unrelenting blanket insults (all <insert group here> are <insert insult here>). We're not really all that tough, and we will let you know if a line is crossed to give you an opportunity to remove the offense and learn from it. Some people imagine insult where no insult is intended, and some people feel they can't have a discussion involving politics without insulting someone, or some entire group. That's not the case for most adults with reasonable vocabularies. i meant "quick and dirty" in the vernacular sense. i will lay down an occasional well placed cuss word. but i really don't care for ad hominem, and avoid it so long as i am not attacked first. from this i would assume that my best chance of getting banned is if someone else takes that chance first?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 28, 2011 17:57:29 GMT -5
It depends on just how quick and dirty you play, dj. The quick part doesn't sound like it would generate problems. The dirty part could if it involves gross vulgarisms, personal attacks, or continued and unrelenting blanket insults (all <insert group here> are <insert insult here>). We're not really all that tough, and we will let you know if a line is crossed to give you an opportunity to remove the offense and learn from it. Some people imagine insult where no insult is intended, and some people feel they can't have a discussion involving politics without insulting someone, or some entire group. That's not the case for most adults with reasonable vocabularies. i meant "quick and dirty" in the vernacular sense. i will lay down an occasional well placed cuss word. but i really don't care for ad hominem, and avoid it so long as i am not attacked first. from this i would assume that my best chance of getting banned is if someone else takes that chance first? djlungrot I have not read all of your posts but the ones I have read and responded to seem to me to be just fine...as I said you have nothing to worry about since you are new here and your ideas are very good and well thought out...and not just someone shooting from the hip or posting a lot of nonsense.. I guess one of the advantages of having been around as I long as I have you then become immune to all of this stuff..and most of it I can't understand to say the least..especially the innuendos, ad hominens and veiled insults..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:55:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2011 18:08:03 GMT -5
dj-- you are safe. I do hope the misunderstanding between us the other day was cleared up? I NEVER asked moon to delete your post. I do not believe in perma-banning, except under EXTREME circumstances, and I have never seen anything I consider extreme on this board. Punishable, yes, FOREVER, no. But I am very liberal when it comes to freedom of speech. I was actually enjoying the daily banter with the troll they banned that came back every day for days and days. Guess he got bored..or they figured out how to permaban an iPad, or no new posters are allowed. You seem to have made the cut, though. Since you do not seem to be real conservative (good game) I would say you are....safe..
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 18:15:40 GMT -5
dj-- you are safe. I do hope the misunderstanding between us the other day was cleared up? I NEVER asked moon to delete your post. I do not believe in perma-banning, except under EXTREME circumstances, and I have never seen anything I consider extreme on this board. Punishable, yes, FOREVER, no. But I am very liberal when it comes to freedom of speech. I was actually enjoying the daily banter with the troll they banned that came back every day for days and days. Guess he got bored..or they figured out how to permaban an iPad, or no new posters are allowed. You seem to have made the cut, though. Since you do not seem to be real conservative (good game) I would say you are....safe.. yeah, we are good from the other day. but you seem to be concerned that i am going after you personally, and i can assure you, i am not. moreover, i really hate to be gone after personally. i invite posters to attack my ideas all they want. that is what they are posted for. but i have no patience with people going after my person. i argue IDEAS so long as the argument remains civil. and you are right. i actually consider myself a libertarian. i am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. that is a real balancing act, because i DO believe in the idea of a social contract and a social safety net- though not as deep a net as a socialist would- more of a Smith/Locke/Jefferson/Rousseau conception.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 18:17:07 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 28, 2011 18:20:53 GMT -5
Got this email. I like these ideas. How about you? What's right with them? What's wrong with them? It's fascism and it sucks.
|
|