Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 21:36:54 GMT -5
All politics is local so of course it matters. POTUS....who cares really. I have a lengthy track record of voting third party for that one and this time around I will be voting for Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would be a change from the status quo. That's precisely why neither is going to win their parties' respective nominations. Neither of them could do anything to arrest America's decline anyway, so at least there's that.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,117
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jan 4, 2016 21:53:51 GMT -5
Voting matters. It's part of our free society. If I vote for one candidate and my wife votes for another, cancelling each other out, does that mean we shouldn't have voted? NO! It's the 2/3 of people who don't vote who complain about the results.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 23:05:17 GMT -5
So... two candidates are running: George W. Bush vs. Barack Obama.
George W. Bush pledges to reign in spending and bomb the snot out of the Middle East. Barack Obama pledges to run modest deficits and end all US involvement in the Middle East.
Mr. and Mrs. Ken both go to vote. Mr. Ken votes for Bush and Mrs. Ken votes for Obama, meaning no matter how the rest of America votes, their combined vote will have absolutely no influence on the outcome of the election. But "voting matters", so let's ignore this.
The results come in. Barack Obama wins by 600,000 votes. Thus even if the Kens had voted the same way in the election, they'd still have had absolutely no influence on outcome. This isn't altogether unusual, given the odds of two votes swaying an election is only slightly greater than the odds of the moon exploding and assembling a fully-functional 2012 Volkswagen Golf with parking assist. But "voting matters", so let's pretend that elections aren't decided by gerrymandering, superPACs, photo ID laws, armies of lobbyists, legions of campaign strategists, and $2 billion worth of quid pro quo campaign funding, and are decided by Mr. and Mrs. Ken deciding to go to the polls.
Contrary to his promises, Barack Obama spends like a drunken sailor, spies on Americans, and bombs the snot out of the Middle East.
In a parallel reality where George W. Bush is elected, he spends like a drunken sailor, spies on Americans, and bombs the snot out of the Middle East.
What a surprise! Not even Mr. and Mrs. Ken's miraculously overcoming the odds and swaying the election outcome has afforded them the opportunity to influence the governance of their country. They can elect Tweedle Dum instead of Tweedle Dee, or Tweedle Dee instead of Tweedle Dum, but be damned if anybody can tell the difference.
However, "voting matters", so let's ignore this reality too and forbid anyone who doesn't ignore the utter futility of the act from complaining. Why do this? Because doing pointless crap is the price we all have to pay to critique our overlords. So says the Law of the Conservation of Pointlessness.
I'm with Mr. Twain.
"If voting really changed anything, they wouldn't let us do it." - Mark Twain
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jan 4, 2016 23:21:20 GMT -5
The war on poverty had such promise. And it was the right thing to do.
But instead of giving folks a leg up, it basically paid people to make bad decisions, created an dependent class with a completely screwed up the culture, and contributed to racism and classism.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2016 23:23:56 GMT -5
ironically, this puts you in camp with the militia in Oregon AND this guy:
of course where both of you are wrong is that there ARE meaningful alternatives that you are simply too lazy to find out about and vote. and it is the laziness and apathy and hopelessness that you are broadcasting and living that makes our long, slow journey to defeat as societies inevitable.
congratulations.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jan 4, 2016 23:39:51 GMT -5
So... two candidates are running: George W. Bush vs. Barack Obama. George W. Bush pledges to reign in spending and bomb the snot out of the Middle East. Barack Obama pledges to run modest deficits and end all US involvement in the Middle East. Mr. and Mrs. Ken both go to vote. Mr. Ken votes for Bush and Mrs. Ken votes for Obama, meaning no matter how the rest of America votes, their combined vote will have absolutely no influence on the outcome of the election. But "voting matters", so let's ignore this. The results come in. Barack Obama wins by 600,000 votes. Thus even if the Kens had voted the same way in the election, they'd still have had absolutely no influence on outcome. This isn't altogether unusual, given the odds of two votes swaying an election is only slightly greater than the odds of the moon exploding and assembling a fully-functional 2012 Volkswagen Golf with parking assist. But "voting matters", so let's pretend that elections aren't decided by gerrymandering, superPACs, photo ID laws, armies of lobbyists, legions of campaign strategists, and $2 billion worth of quid pro quo campaign funding, and are decided by Mr. and Mrs. Ken deciding to go to the polls. Contrary to his promises, Barack Obama spends like a drunken sailor, spies on Americans, and bombs the snot out of the Middle East. In a parallel reality where George W. Bush is elected, he spends like a drunken sailor, spies on Americans, and bombs the snot out of the Middle East. What a surprise! Not even Mr. and Mrs. Ken's miraculously overcoming the odds and swaying the election outcome has afforded them the opportunity to influence the governance of their country. They can elect Tweedle Dum instead of Tweedle Dee, or Tweedle Dee instead of Tweedle Dum, but be damned if anybody can tell the difference. However, "voting matters", so let's ignore this reality too and forbid anyone who doesn't ignore the utter futility of the act from complaining. Why do this? Because doing pointless crap is the price we all have to pay to critique our overlords. So says the Law of the Conservation of Pointlessness. I'm with Mr. Twain. "If voting really changed anything, they wouldn't let us do it." - Mark Twain The thing is, both of these guys ended up on the ballot because folks VOTED for them in the primaries. And they ended up in the primaries because folks VOTED for them in local and state elections. Had better candidates gotten the support, we wouldn't even know who these guys are.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 23:55:03 GMT -5
The thing actually is this: They both got elected because too many people voted for the wrong reason. Too many people voted based on things that had absolutely nothing to do with the candidate's proven ability to do the job.
Too many people used one (or more) of the following flawed criteria as their sole reason for voting: 1> gender 2> race 3> religion 4> political party affiliation 5> Best of two bad choices (when there were actually more than two choices available... completely ignoring choices 3, 4, 5, and on, and on)
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jan 4, 2016 23:58:29 GMT -5
Wow! This thread went from hostile to depressing awfully fast. I think I'll elevate my mood by re-reading "The Trial".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2016 0:06:55 GMT -5
Wow! This thread went from hostile to depressing awfully fast. I think I'll elevate my mood by re-reading "The Trial". just watch the uniquely bizarre film adaptation instead, starring none other than Malcom McDowell.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 5, 2016 0:44:44 GMT -5
I'll use the small town my IL's live in, to make one small point. (Remember, I said small town. VERY small town.) Here in the Midwest, we need heat to survive the Winter (it beats freezing to death). Although there is assistance available closer to the large cities to help those who cannot afford heat (and even THAT isn't enough to cover everyone who needs the help), in the IL's community there is next to no help to pay for heat. And, it is the forgotten seniors who suffer the most. If you live "out in the sticks", you are basically forgotten. One particularly cold Winter, my IL's and their friends, who can barely afford their own bills, pooled together money to fill the tank of an old widow who didn't have enough money for oil. She made that last tank of heating oil last her through the Winter, but I heard when folks went to visit her, that house was miserably cold inside. In this case, both the government AND the local charities have failed her.
So, you expect me to believe if we completely stop all help from the government, that the wealthy are going to magically step in to help? The question isn't whether or not the wealthy would help an old widow- the question is do we need to be supporting 98 million mostly able-bodied people who are currently of working age and not in the workforce- the lowest workforce participation rate in 37 years? Few people oppose all aid to the truly indigent- I do, because "need" is not an objective value. It's nearly impossible to determine "need", and in any case "need" does not justify theft. However, most people- including many who identify as conservatives- are not as consistent in their value system as I am, and they'd tolerate a certain amount of theft absent the corruption, inefficiency, greed, and laziness of the government-- let alone the recipients.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 1:03:21 GMT -5
Aren't you one of the ones who supports a parent at home with kids Paul?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2016 2:57:14 GMT -5
So... two candidates are running: George W. Bush vs. Barack Obama. George W. Bush pledges to reign in spending and bomb the snot out of the Middle East. Barack Obama pledges to run modest deficits and end all US involvement in the Middle East. Mr. and Mrs. Ken both go to vote. Mr. Ken votes for Bush and Mrs. Ken votes for Obama, meaning no matter how the rest of America votes, their combined vote will have absolutely no influence on the outcome of the election. But "voting matters", so let's ignore this. The results come in. Barack Obama wins by 600,000 votes. Thus even if the Kens had voted the same way in the election, they'd still have had absolutely no influence on outcome. This isn't altogether unusual, given the odds of two votes swaying an election is only slightly greater than the odds of the moon exploding and assembling a fully-functional 2012 Volkswagen Golf with parking assist. But "voting matters", so let's pretend that elections aren't decided by gerrymandering, superPACs, photo ID laws, armies of lobbyists, legions of campaign strategists, and $2 billion worth of quid pro quo campaign funding, and are decided by Mr. and Mrs. Ken deciding to go to the polls. Contrary to his promises, Barack Obama spends like a drunken sailor, spies on Americans, and bombs the snot out of the Middle East. In a parallel reality where George W. Bush is elected, he spends like a drunken sailor, spies on Americans, and bombs the snot out of the Middle East. What a surprise! Not even Mr. and Mrs. Ken's miraculously overcoming the odds and swaying the election outcome has afforded them the opportunity to influence the governance of their country. They can elect Tweedle Dum instead of Tweedle Dee, or Tweedle Dee instead of Tweedle Dum, but be damned if anybody can tell the difference. However, "voting matters", so let's ignore this reality too and forbid anyone who doesn't ignore the utter futility of the act from complaining. Why do this? Because doing pointless crap is the price we all have to pay to critique our overlords. So says the Law of the Conservation of Pointlessness. I'm with Mr. Twain. "If voting really changed anything, they wouldn't let us do it." - Mark Twain The thing is, both of these guys ended up on the ballot because folks VOTED for them in the primaries. And they ended up in the primaries because folks VOTED for them in local and state elections. Had better candidates gotten the support, we wouldn't even know who these guys are. This is true, but there's a reason better candidates didn't get the support. Election outcomes are dictated by macro factors: boundaries of electoral districts, media coverage, search engine rankings, financial backing. Minor changes in these factors have phenomenal impact on voting patterns--hundreds of thousands or millions of votes predictably swayed from column A to column B. Even measures as seemingly benign as requiring photo ID to vote have ramifications that dwarf "conventional" tactics to win votes. There have always been and will always be interests desiring to control the system. The fundamental premise on which representative democracy rests is that the electorate is more or less rational, either immune to or not subject to being manipulated in aggregate. Perhaps this condition existed at one time in America, when the population was only a fraction of what it is now, when the science of persuasion and manipulation was in its infancy, when the degree to which a nation could be influenced was hampered by technological limitations, but this time is long past. We live in an era where reasoning with voters no longer comprises a viable election strategy. Elections are won scientifically--by knowing what to promise to whom, which emotions to pique, which catch phrases poll well, which political blocs to court, which ads to run. It requires a fundraising mentality and a complete repudiation of one's personal values--honesty, integrity, gentility, admitting fault, etc. It requires the backing of powerful interests who do not offer their patronage freely. It requires a proverbial deal with the devil; a willingness to embrace the reality that elections are won by the candidates who best control the macro factors, not by the candidates most reasonably qualified. This is the reality in which we live. I daresay any candidate worth voting for is one who doesn't succumb to this "dark side", which is why such candidates are categorically unelectable. They don't play the game, but the game needs to be played to win. We're a generation witnessing the failure of democracy. Not just some hiccup that will be sorted out with a few amendments, but a threshold crossed that cannot be uncrossed. The technology cannot be uninvented. The science cannot be undiscovered. New checks and balances to "remedy" the problem only serve as new vectors for control. In this era of democracy's twilight, we're also witnessing the convulsions of a 20th Century oligarchy (which I sometimes lovingly refer to as TPTB). It is a deeply entrenched cohort of lawless, ruthless manipulators desperately clinging to power, struggling to move the world in a particular direction amid growing chaos and disillusionment. They succeed now only by perpetrating ever-greater lies and by breeding greater dependency through unsustainable spending, but their resources, extensive though they are, are finite. Western nations are drowning in debt. European nations and economies are collapsing in real time as the failure of the experiment becomes increasingly manifest. The fall of the US and the British Commonwealth is delayed somewhat, but it will be even more spectacular than that of Europe. We're only witnessing the beginning in Europe now. What emerges from the other side you don't want to know. Some believe the collapse is planned, but I don't subscribe to this theory. To be sure, TPTB believe they'll retain their power on the other side and add to it, but I don't believe any of this was planned or intended. At least not by men. I think they're more worried than they've been in a long time. The Fed raising rates this past month was a monumental tell. It's importance can't be overstated. It was a statement. "We've lost control. We're fed up. We've created a monster. We need to reign it in." But they're not going to reign it in. One watches them on the seashore, all the people, and there is something pathetic, almost wistful in them, as if they wished their lives did not add up to this scaly nullity of possession, but as if they could not escape. It is a dragon that has devoured us all: these obscene, scaly houses, this insatiable struggle and desire to possess, to possess always and in spite of everything, this need to be an owner, lest one be owned. It is too hideous and nauseating. Owners and owned, they are like the two sides of a ghastly disease. One feels a sort of madness come over one, as if the world had become hell. But it is only superimposed: it is only a temporary disease. It can be cleaned away.
- D. H. Lawrence
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2016 9:39:45 GMT -5
Virgil keep saying that. Someday it will be true, though not necessarily in your lifetime. When I was your age I used to think us and the Russians would blow ourselves to kingdom come. I used to smoke a lot of pot. Sha, na, na, na, na ,na Live for Today...... It was a mindset that did me little good.
In the meantime this North American continent that we all share is still incredibly rich in natural resources and very lightly populated compared to the rest of the world. We have so many things going for us it makes the knees go weak to think about it.
I don't have time to respond to all of the dour prognoses above, but I dispute much of them. There is just enough truth there to make them scary- truly scary in some ways. But you arrive at your conclusions by only accepting the most dire of information and outcome, and ignoring the rest.
Of course the future won't be all unicorns and roses, and may well include some really dark times. But it also can- and will if we want it- include times more miraculous than even our own.
And we do live in amazing times. Truly, amazing. I respect your optimism, but yeah, we disagree.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2016 10:30:45 GMT -5
Virgil keep saying that. Someday it will be true, though not necessarily in your lifetime. When I was your age I used to think us and the Russians would blow ourselves to kingdom come. I used to smoke a lot of pot. Sha, na, na, na, na ,na Live for Today...... It was a mindset that did me little good.
In the meantime this North American continent that we all share is still incredibly rich in natural resources and very lightly populated compared to the rest of the world. We have so many things going for us it makes the knees go weak to think about it.
I don't have time to respond to all of the dour prognoses above, but I dispute much of them. There is just enough truth there to make them scary- truly scary in some ways. But you arrive at your conclusions by only accepting the most dire of information and outcome, and ignoring the rest.
Of course the future won't be all unicorns and roses, and may well include some really dark times. But it also can- and will if we want it- include times more miraculous than even our own.
And we do live in amazing times. Truly, amazing. I respect your optimism, but yeah, we disagree. really? respect?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2016 10:51:46 GMT -5
I respect your optimism, but yeah, we disagree. really? respect? Indeed. How to put it? You don't see the world as I do in this regard, and I believe your viewpoint to be in error, but the nature of that error--being overly optimistic, being positive, maintaining enthusiasm--sheds a positive light on your character. It's a reflection of your desire for peace and happiness for all men. There's no shortage of cynics, nihilists, anarchists, and "let it all burn" types out there, as well as borderline-insane Kurzweili types prophesying how singularities, posthumanism and technology will inexplicably fix everything, and I respect your desire to eschew all of that madness.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 5, 2016 11:06:18 GMT -5
Indeed. How to put it? You don't see the world as I do in this regard, and I believe your viewpoint to be in error, but the nature of that error--being overly optimistic, being positive, maintaining enthusiasm--sheds a positive light on your character. It's a reflection of your desire for peace and happiness for all men. There's no shortage of cynics, nihilists, anarchists, and "let it all burn" types out there, as well as borderline-insane Kurzweili types prophesying how singularities, posthumanism and technology will inexplicably fix everything, and I respect your desire to eschew all of that madness. As one who is cynical about his own cynicism, I have to agree with Virgil on this.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jan 5, 2016 11:34:09 GMT -5
Conspiracy theorists. Like Pogo, they have found the enemy and it is them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2016 11:36:40 GMT -5
Indeed. How to put it? You don't see the world as I do in this regard, and I believe your viewpoint to be in error, but the nature of that error--being overly optimistic, being positive, maintaining enthusiasm--sheds a positive light on your character. It's a reflection of your desire for peace and happiness for all men. There's no shortage of cynics, nihilists, anarchists, and "let it all burn" types out there, as well as borderline-insane Kurzweili types prophesying how singularities, posthumanism and technology will inexplicably fix everything, and I respect your desire to eschew all of that madness. you probably don't need an explanation for my incredulity, but i will offer it anyway. often, optimism is seen by a cynic as hopelessly naiive. what you have done here is to assume that the optimism is not bourne from some inability to see things clearly, but rather that the optimist sees the evidence and does not find it compelling. i find that position both reasonable and humble. well done.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 15:33:14 GMT -5
Virgil keep saying that. Someday it will be true, though not necessarily in your lifetime. When I was your age I used to think us and the Russians would blow ourselves to kingdom come. I used to smoke a lot of pot. Sha, na, na, na, na ,na Live for Today...... It was a mindset that did me little good.
In the meantime this North American continent that we all share is still incredibly rich in natural resources and very lightly populated compared to the rest of the world. We have so many things going for us it makes the knees go weak to think about it.
I don't have time to respond to all of the dour prognoses above, but I dispute much of them. There is just enough truth there to make them scary- truly scary in some ways. But you arrive at your conclusions by only accepting the most dire of information and outcome, and ignoring the rest.
Of course the future won't be all unicorns and roses, and may well include some really dark times. But it also can- and will if we want it- include times more miraculous than even our own.
And we do live in amazing times. Truly, amazing. Love
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 5, 2016 18:13:20 GMT -5
Do Canadians have a special sauce they put on their Chicken Little?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2016 19:58:39 GMT -5
Do Canadians have a special sauce they put on their Chicken Little? Sure. We get it from our friends the ostriches with their heads in the sand.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Jan 6, 2016 0:19:14 GMT -5
Conspiracy theorists. Like Pogo, they have found the enemy and it is them. It truly is all about balance, isn't it?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jan 7, 2016 13:48:39 GMT -5
I read the article. Just another extremist. I think he needs a "chill pill". Apparently, in his mind, the sick need not be taken care of, nor the elderly in their old age, just to give a couple of examples. And trusting local charity has the means to do it all is just crazy! (Our church operates a small food shelf, & it is used on an "emergency" basis. It doesn't take much to wipe the shelves clean. Private charity is a benefit in the communities who have it, but it cannot begin to cover all of the needs out there.) Yes, but people are also paying taxes to support the indignant. In many people's mind, they've already done their part, and taking care of the indigent is someone else's job. Don't you think that it's possible that if people weren't paying so much in taxes to support the welfare state, they'd be more inclined to support local charities? In addition, let me ask you what you think is more efficient and better able to meet the needs of the indigent, massive nationally managed programs run by the government, or local charities run by local people?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 7, 2016 13:52:23 GMT -5
Perhaps you should review what % of funds that are donated to charities actually get utilized in the correct fashion before you make them sound so superior.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 7, 2016 16:06:46 GMT -5
Also, I suspect a lot of people would refrain from donating to local charities that provide for indigent people in the hopes of running those people out of town and down the line, so they are someone else's problem. Then they can spend their charity bucks on art museums and beautiful public parks instead of those crazy people who live under bridges and talk to themselves - and really, wouldn't our community be safer and nicer with out those nasty street people?
This is already happening in a lot of places - cities that give the homeless a bus ticket to anyplace else in order to clear their own streets.
The zoos and sports centers are the sexy charities that can raise a lot of money. Providing food and housing for poor people - not something most people want to spend their charity money on, but something that still has to be done, if we don't want people starving in the ditches like a third world country. Unless you some how try to force people to donate to the charities that most need it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 7, 2016 17:34:55 GMT -5
I have to admit: if somebody put up a crowdfunding appeal because "our lion hurt his paw", she'd temporarily jump to the #6 spot on Forbes' richest people on Earth. I don't categorically oppose social welfare. I ran into a homeless man the other day for whom the argument "he should get a job" plainly wasn't reasonable. My concerns are with i) sustainability (can you pay for it without going into debt?), ii) engineered dependence (is revoking the service life or morally threatening, or is the service just a "really nice thing to have"?), and iii) efficiency (is there solid evidence to support the claim that government provides the service more efficiently than private individuals and the private sector?). A typical conservative doesn't want to abolish all social welfare, but the west has gone so far beyond what is sustainable and just as far beyond what is absolutely necessary that it is time to put the foot down. Progressives meanwhile want more. More spending. Free education. Free medication. Free housing. Free childcare. A free chicken in every pot. It never stops. Wall Street and big business are corrupt, so we deserve it. The fat cats are buying off our politicians, so we deserve it. We live in the 21st Century, so we deserve it. And that's just finances. Then we have to move on to all the "rights" people deserve, and the "rights" minorities deserve, and the "rights" students, children, trees, whales, and fluffy white snow leopards deserve. It's no wonder the two sides can't agree on anything.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 7, 2016 18:30:31 GMT -5
I'm quite sure the rights minorities deserve are the same as those of the white majority and any attempts to conjoin those with snow leopards, trees, whales etc. is a bit out of line.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 7, 2016 20:18:43 GMT -5
I'm quite sure the rights minorities deserve are the same as those of the white majority and any attempts to conjoin those with snow leopards, trees, whales etc. is a bit out of line. You've obviously never heard of Agenda 21. “When we’re finished, you’ll wish you had the rights of a tree.” - Maurice Strong, Undersecretary General of the United Nations
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Jan 7, 2016 21:47:38 GMT -5
I have to admit: if somebody put up a crowdfunding appeal because "our lion hurt his paw", she'd temporarily jump to the #6 spot on Forbes' richest people on Earth. I don't categorically oppose social welfare. I ran into a homeless man the other day for whom the argument "he should get a job" plainly wasn't reasonable. My concerns are with i) sustainability (can you pay for it without going into debt?), ii) engineered dependence (is revoking the service life or morally threatening, or is the service just a "really nice thing to have"?), and iii) efficiency (is there solid evidence to support the claim that government provides the service more efficiently than private individuals and the private sector?). A typical conservative doesn't want to abolish all social welfare, but the west has gone so far beyond what is sustainable and just as far beyond what is absolutely necessary that it is time to put the foot down. Progressives meanwhile want more. More spending. Free education. Free medication. Free housing. Free childcare. A free chicken in every pot. It never stops. Wall Street and big business are corrupt, so we deserve it. The fat cats are buying off our politicians, so we deserve it. We live in the 21st Century, so we deserve it. And that's just finances. Then we have to move on to all the "rights" people deserve, and the "rights" minorities deserve, and the "rights" students, children, trees, whales, and fluffy white snow leopards deserve. It's no wonder the two sides can't agree on anything. An aside: I was literally LOL at your sandwich story. As soon as you said you shook his hand I was like, oh boy... On topic now as I don't want to contribute to the growing problem of "thread drift".. First, ten bucks says we could get that lion to #1! Second; I think you are 100% correct that conservatives aren't against helping out the less fortunate. In fact, VAT has a solution for that: details later. Pleasantly surprised.
|
|