EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 6, 2014 11:30:04 GMT -5
I don't know who these imaginary pro-fraud liberals are I keep hearing about. I don't think anyone wants abusers of the system to remain on it-but you don't go after everyone, guilty until proven innocent either.
I thought it was the GOP folks that liked to walk around with their pocket Constitutions- apparently theirs is missing an amendment.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2014 11:39:00 GMT -5
really? so you are against federally funded treatment centers for the poor? what do you suggest for them? school of hard knocks? prison? Actually, I am against it. Why should the taxpayer be responsible for all the poor choices that people make? there are two meanings of the word "responsible". one is found in this sentence: i am personally responsible for my actions. i presume that this is how you are asking this question, and the answer is, "we are not. they are still responsible for their poor choices. however, because of their poor choices, they are now a detriment to society. therefore, we, as a society, have decided that it is better to take care of that problem than have it fester and grow into a greater problem". the other sense of the word responsible is "taking charge", and the answer to THAT question is that the whole reason government exists is to take charge of problems that are of a scale that individuals or small institutions can't handle.Maybe we should have federally funded treatment centers for people who are addicted to drinking, shopping, or eating, or shoplifting, or for people who refuse to quit smoking and end up with lung cancer, getting treated on the taxpayers dime, or people who sexually molest their children or beat their spouses? we should first agree to what should be treated, and then we should treat those things. if you are asking me PERSONALLY what things we should treat, it would be those that have a "physical addiction". there is a clinical definition for that.Do you realize that there are women out there who are seriously addicted to being pregnant? that would explain OctoMom.They their kids off on society once the child is no longer a baby. Shouldn't we have treatment centers for them too? All of these people are taking a toll on society, no different than the drug addicts. What do I suggest? Yes, school of hard knocks and prison or maybe a deserted island, where they can have at it. I'm sorry..But I am sick of this crap, where those of us who make good choices are being FORCED to provide for those who make bad choices. I say let the chips fall where they may. no need to apologize. but realize that prison is far more costly, in every sense, than treatment. therefore, YOU are the one throwing money at the problem, not me- as mtman stated earlier. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2014 11:40:31 GMT -5
your solution costs more than mine. who is throwing money around? No. The answer is to stop enabling those who are making bad choices. again, you are taking a moral position. that moral position costs MORE than mine. this is the opposite of mtman's claim. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,893
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 6, 2014 11:42:21 GMT -5
Who, exactly, are the "weak and ambition challenged of our species", mtman, and how are they being "artificially maintained"? How do you make that determination in advance, before "breeding" takes place?  He said cross-breeding...... Approaching Godwin's law here. Right out of Stormfront's playbook: Inter-Racial Dating, Inter-Racial Marriage, Judgement Day |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2014 11:46:41 GMT -5
Lone....This is a concept that is absolutely foreign to the libs.....Their answer to everything is to throw money at it, with no accountability. You're right! no, he is NOT right. he is totally wrong. the cheaper solution is to NOT do testing. therefore, it is you and mtman who are throwing money around, with no accountability- not "the libs".It is foreign to them and it frustrates the hell out of me. it is not foreign to me. i am in favor of all kinds of reforms that save money. for example, anyone arrested for possession should be eligible for treatment and monitoring (accountability). this method is far LESS expensive than prison, and far more effective at actually fixing the problem.They remind me of parents who raise their children to believe that they should never suffer the consequences of their actions. And when their child ends up in prison, they demand other peoples money to fix the problem. I honestly have tried to understand the Libs side and for the life of me I can't. it is really quite simple. a person should be allowed to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. the government should be there to ensure justice in non-consensual situations, as well as providing some other basic functions which cannot or will not be met by individuals. and the goal of a society is to maximize freedom for all individuals in that society. those three principles are the cornerstones of liberalism, and if you understand them, you understand liberals. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 6, 2014 11:53:59 GMT -5
... It is only us supposedly intelligent humans, who have decided that cross-breeding ... Who have humans cross-bred with? |
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Jan 6, 2014 11:57:49 GMT -5
He said cross-breeding...... Approaching Godwin's law here. Yes, he did, didn't he? I'm wondering what, exactly, is meant by that statement. I don't know of any cases where humans have cross-bred with sloths, or mice, or something I would identify immediately as "weak and ambition challenged". Mtman must have something else in mind, eh? Somehow, though, I doubt an answer will be forthcoming and my point has been made.  MMh, Either that, or M. Man is advocating that we adopt the "survival of the fittest" lifestlye and live like animals. This is, in fact, how your average teenaged gang member in the inner city lives, already. I guess that works for him. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2014 12:43:29 GMT -5
...Says the person with the most deleted posts of any poster due to their racist and bigotted content. The argument is long over. It is illegal and unconstitutional right now to pee test Florida welfare recipients. Complain all you want, but it is unconstitutional. Then, we had better come up with another way to put a stop to this insanity. i would suggest drug courts and treatment centers. they are vastly more effective and less costly than the current system, or the one you propose. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2014 12:48:11 GMT -5
Actually, I am against it. Why should the taxpayer be responsible for all the poor choices that people make? Maybe we should have federally funded treatment centers for people who are addicted to drinking, shopping, or eating, or shoplifting, or for people who refuse to quit smoking and end up with lung cancer, getting treated on the taxpayers dime, or people who sexually molest their children or beat their spouses? Do you realize that there are women out there who are seriously addicted to being pregnant? They their kids off on society once the child is no longer a baby. Shouldn't we have treatment centers for them too? All of these people are taking a toll on society, no different than the drug addicts. What do I suggest? Yes, school of hard knocks and prison or maybe a deserted island, where they can have at it. I'm sorry..But I am sick of this crap, where those of us who make good choices are being FORCED to provide for those who make bad choices. I say let the chips fall where they may.In every other species on this planet, the strong survive, the weak do not..... in every other mammal species, they eat their young, and their own poop. forgive me for not finding much to envy in other species.It is what makes the species stronger......It is only us supposedly intelligent humans, who have decided that cross-breeding and artificially maintaining the viability of the weak and ambition challenged of our species, is the course of action to take.....I suspect as history unfolds itself, we will find it was a very tragic mistake. no, actually. cross breeding is crucial to survival of a species. genetic diversity increases the chances of surviving diseases. eugenics is so deeply flawed and discredited that is is shocking to see it touted in the 21st century as a panacea. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2014 12:49:44 GMT -5
this brings us full circle. if conservatives were suggesting that we should take the 2.6% and put them in a funded treatment program, i would feel somewhat differently about this whole discussion. after all, such programs are VASTLY more expensive than welfare. but again, clearly, this is not about drugs. this is about moralizing about casual drug use. Where does it state those 2.6% of failed tests were only casual usage? you're right. it is ALL use. which actually bolsters my claim. thanks for bringing that up. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2014 12:59:14 GMT -5
you know what i find strange about it? conservatives are always talking about how they want the guvmint out of their lives. but they want everyone peeing in a jar to show that THEIR money is not being wasted, creating the most invasive bureaucracy i can think of. utterly bizarre. COnservatives also say how they want tax money to be spent efficiently and without fraud/abuse. Apparently, they believe spending money on drug testing is an efficient use of money to prevent fraud (obviously, liberals disagree). efficient is a funny word to use, here. i would prefer "cost effective", if you don't mind. it is clearly NOT cost effective to test for drugs.Liberals always say how they are also against abuse and fraud of public funds but always argue AGAINST any means of checking for it. false. liberals argue that a person should be able to do what he wishes with his person or property, so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. in the case of drug testing, the latter case would be a case of public harm, such as DUI, or operating machinery which could potentially harm others. in those cases, drug testing is completely justified, and liberals have no objection.Their argument being that fraud and abuse will happen, and there's not much that can be done about it. conflation. "fraud" is misuse of funds. i don't believe that UE benefits specify what the money can be used on. correct me if i am wrong. i realize that this is "parsing" on my part, but i don't think it meets the strict definition of fraud. i would, however, agree that "abuse" applies here, in that the funds are not intended for that purpose, even if that is not specified, and that the use of funds on illegal drugs is certainly something that most Americans, including liberals, would not approve of. however, i would also not approve of the funds being used for a wide array of things, like watching cable news, for example. Well, if you argue against every means of doing something about it, then, yes, not much can be done.  i think your absolute statements lose some accuracy for sake of clarity. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2014 13:04:04 GMT -5
Yes, he did, didn't he? I'm wondering what, exactly, is meant by that statement. I don't know of any cases where humans have cross-bred with sloths, or mice, or something I would identify immediately as "weak and ambition challenged". Mtman must have something else in mind, eh? Somehow, though, I doubt an answer will be forthcoming and my point has been made. MMh, Either that, or M. Man is advocating that we adopt the "survival of the fittest" lifestlye and live like animals. This is, in fact, how your average teenaged gang member in the inner city lives, already. I guess that works for him. drug dealers are actually a good illustration of free market economics. they are far more pure in their capitalism than most people on this board. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 17:48:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 8:56:30 GMT -5
You're right! no, he is NOT right. he is totally wrong. the cheaper solution is to NOT do testing. therefore, it is you and mtman who are throwing money around, with no accountability- not "the libs".It is foreign to them and it frustrates the hell out of me. it is not foreign to me. i am in favor of all kinds of reforms that save money. for example, anyone arrested for possession should be eligible for treatment and monitoring (accountability). this method is far LESS expensive than prison, and far more effective at actually fixing the problem.They remind me of parents who raise their children to believe that they should never suffer the consequences of their actions. And when their child ends up in prison, they demand other peoples money to fix the problem. I honestly have tried to understand the Libs side and for the life of me I can't. it is really quite simple. a person should be allowed to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. the government should be there to ensure justice in non-consensual situations, as well as providing some other basic functions which cannot or will not be met by individuals. and the goal of a society is to maximize freedom for all individuals in that society. those three principles are the cornerstones of liberalism, and if you understand them, you understand liberals. Here's the problem (bold) we conservatives have with this....we feel OUR freedom is being minimized, as we are being FORCED to take the money (our property) that WE have worked hard for and give it to those who use it in ways we highly object to. We have never objected to helping those in need. However, if we are being force to hand our charity money over to the government, at least give us the FREEDOM to choose who we want to give it to. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 7, 2014 12:47:47 GMT -5
it is really quite simple. a person should be allowed to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. the government should be there to ensure justice in non-consensual situations, as well as providing some other basic functions which cannot or will not be met by individuals. and the goal of a society is to maximize freedom for all individuals in that society. those three principles are the cornerstones of liberalism, and if you understand them, you understand liberals. Here's the problem (bold) we conservatives have with this....we feel OUR freedom is being minimized, as we are being FORCED to take the money (our property) that WE have worked hard for and give it to those who use it in ways we highly object to. no, you are not forced. though you sure love to say that. you consent to it. and in exchange, you have the courts to protect you when OTHERS try to extort money from you, among other protections. if you don't like the trade-off, there are approximately 200 nations that you can compare them to, and decide what is best for you.
the alternative is that you convince 50% of the voting public to elect people who agree with you, and change it. that is what we call a democratic replublic, which, although flawed, is far better than an autocratic system or anarchism.
We have never objected to helping those in need. However, if we are being force to hand our charity money over to the government, at least give us the FREEDOM to choose who we want to give it to. you have that, within the limits of our democracy. if you don't like this republic, find another one you like better. edit: for those of you that think i use this tactic too much, or consider it unfair, i would like to add the following. it gives me no pleasure to suggest that people get lost. i was told the same thing during the runup to the Iraq War, and i hated it. but the fact is that you are not always going to get your way here. it is like a really huge family. for any of you that have ever been part of one, you know, you almost never get to do things precisely your way. sometimes you catch a break, and sometimes you lose one. i hated federal DOMA. it is gone. i hated stupid sodomy laws. they are gone. i hate indefinite detention, drone strikes, the spy state, and the war in Afghanistan. hopefully they will be gone some day. some of you hate welfare, gangbangers, and druggies. the future will tell which of us gets our way. but the alternative is authoritarianism, where one person always gets their way, and nobody else ever gets theirs, unless it magically overlaps with the dictator's. i think i will stick with what we have. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 7, 2014 13:56:57 GMT -5
Who isn't 'forced' to give their money to people who use it in ways they highly object to? That's taxes. I could have done without my money going into the pockets of war profiteers- no one asked me for permission though.  |
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Jan 7, 2014 13:59:43 GMT -5
and that's a major problem in a representative republic. and the problem lies within the governed, not the governors.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 7, 2014 14:08:11 GMT -5
and that's a major problem in a representative republic. and the problem lies within the governed, not the governors. bingo. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 7, 2014 14:09:51 GMT -5
Who isn't 'forced' to give their money to people who use it in ways they highly object to? That's taxes. I could have done without my money going into the pockets of war profiteers- no one asked me for permission though. right. a republic is messy in this way. it is not Burger King. you really can't have it your way. it is collective decision making. people take stuff they want, and give up stuff they want. and hopefully, you end up with something tolerable. the alternative is truly untenable. |
|
