Using the F word... fair warning

Status
Not open for further replies.

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I did say that the world would be better off with no religion, and I am right.

I guess since you now believe (based on your statement) that one "knowing" something means they are absolutely correct you will now also acquiesce to what I say since I know I am correct in whatever I say on a given topic, especially when it's an intangible that can't be proven or disproven by us.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
That is a "right" only if you are a citizen. Gitmo "guests" are not citizens. They do not have such rights nor do they automatically deserve them. Nothing we'd do to them will match what they'll do to us given the chance. I have no sympathy for those "guests" since they desire only one thing, absolute annihilation of all of us.

As long as we are sure they are guilty of something, I agree. On the other hand with no checks or balances in place, It becomes very similar to the kind of thing America is supposed to be opposed to. Citizen or not the government should not be allowed to detain people without filing charges, within a reasonable amount of time.
 

Steady Eddie

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
I have found peace, I am not the angry one. As far as mocking people of faith and God.

I do not believe in the invisable man in the sky, how is that mocking you?

Most of the world's problems/wars have derived from people believing in their gods but not others. Israel/Palestine is a prime example.

I firmly believe that the world would be a much better/safer place without any religion at all!

Well, Doug....There is no man in the sky, he is God

I agree with you on we would be better off without religion. That's why I have a relationship with God and not religion.

Oh, and stop with the Howard Stern view on religion. {:)
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
What a twisted reality, the first part of course just a line by line repetition of Bill and Rush, but the last part is certainly yours (which is remarkable). When you give money to the rich you get what?, cars, clothes, trucks, etc?. You don't get crap!, you have to buy, at an outrageous price, those things with the poverty wages they throw at you for manufacturing them in the first place. Please Turtle, we were having a reasonable discussion in another thread but I leave you alone and you loose your bearings again! ;)

When you invest in the disadvantaged you get nothing?, how about a healthier society; both physical and mentally, a reduction of crime, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, a reduced school dropout rate, etc. That seems a lot more than nothing to me.

I think you have a twisted sense of economics. The "rich" as you call them, are the ones that create the wealth and jobs. Those "outrageous prices" are the result of a high tax system on business that supports the "reduction in crime, teen pregnancy, drug programs ect".

Hate to be harsh, but the reduction in crime, the pregnant teens, the drug addict, the school drop out, rarely produce employment for someone else.
You need the "rich" to support any of those programs as the ones you listed pay little or no tax in the first place.
That isn't a republican or democrat issue, just a plain reality.
 

Slo-Ride

Veteran Expediter
When you invest in the disadvantaged you get nothing?, how about a healthier society; both physical and mentally, a reduction of crime, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, a reduced school dropout rate, etc. That seems a lot more than nothing to me.

I am not a politician nor do I even enjoy the subjects anymore,
But I gotta ask and please don't take me wrong as I am all for helping my neighbor where I can.
Haven't we been investing in these since I was a toddler?
I kinda got a feeling all these things have gotta worst over the years as we keep investing in them.@ what point do we call it a bad investment??:(
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
What a twisted reality, the first part of course just a line by line repetition of Bill and Rush, but the last part is certainly yours (which is remarkable).
I don't listen to Rush or Bill (Oreilly I assume you mean). In either case, as to the sophomoric comment, if you have a personal problem with me, send me a PM, otherwise grow up and see if you have the intelligence to stick to the issues rather than making it personal.

When you give money to the rich you get what?, cars, clothes, trucks, etc?. You don't get crap!, you have to buy, at an outrageous price, those things with the poverty wages they throw at you for manufacturing them in the first place.
Come up with your own idea, start your own company, and then share everything equally with the workers you hire, even though they have nothing invested in the idea or the company.

[/quote]When you invest in the disadvantaged you get nothing?, how about a healthier society; both physical and mentally, a reduction of crime, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, a reduced school dropout rate, etc. That seems a lot more than nothing to me.[/QUOTE]
Mental illness is at an all-time high, crime rates are high (especially in locations where Welfare payments are highest), teenage pregnancy is at epidemic levels in Welfare Zip Codes, drug abuse runs rampant, and the school dropout rate is the highest where Welfare recipients are common. Yeah, let's throw more money at those problems, since, you know, it's shown to be so effective so far.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Well, Doug....There is no man in the sky, he is God

I agree with you on we would be better off without religion. That's why I have a relationship with God and not religion.

Oh, and stop with the Howard Stern view on religion. {:)

If we have freedom of religion we also freedom to have any view we please on religion...Howard's, Ernest Angley's, Jimmy Swaggart's, Robert Schuler's, Joel Osteen's, Reverend Ike's, Judaism, B'hai, Islam, Buddhism, etc., or even nothing...
 

Poorboy

Expert Expediter
Saying that one doesn't have imaginary friends is a valid statement regarding religion. In a society that prides itself in having freedom of speech making public mockery of god is perfectly acceptable (and fun). :D

Oh God, Not Another One of those Kinds of People!!:D
 

Steady Eddie

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
If we have freedom of religion we also freedom to have any view we please on religion...Howard's, Ernest Angley's, Jimmy Swaggart's, Robert Schuler's, Joel Osteen's, Reverend Ike's, Judaism, B'hai, Islam, Buddhism, etc., or even nothing...

I'm sorry Doug, didn't know you had two screen names...
 

MrGautama

Not a Member
OK, lets analyze your statements:

The "rich" as you call them, are the ones that create the wealth and jobs.


According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 65% of the new jobs added between 2002 and 2005 (the length of the study) were created by small business, moreover data from the U.S. Census Bureau confirms that 60% to 80% of new jobs in the past decade come again from small business.

Now "the rich" is just a simplified term for the folks that own the means of production, this are not the ones that create the jobs and wealth but are responsible for something different; namely the opposition (via lobbying, etc.) of social progress that might be detrimental to their elite status, are the ones that massively ship our jobs oversees to increase profit, degrade the environment not only by their own production abroad (with the blessing that those governments that have been bribed with "foreign aid" paid by you and me) but also by the limited choices we are offered e.g., we drive trucks that are environmental disasters but the market system gives us no other choice; we could perfectly be driving hydrogen fuel-cell powered trucks but due to interests of the owners of the means of production the research has been stalled, and consequently we don't have any other choice but to drive these diesel powered dinosaurs.
So Daveck, I would suggest you step a bit outside the dogma of the neoclassical economic theory to get a fresh look at the world that's around you, in other words, question everything!.

All that takes us to a new and different aspect of contemporary economic forces: the recent conflict in the power centers; right now there is a "little war" going on and the visible symptoms for us regular Joes are the sudden inclusion of green energy and universal health care in the political discourse. Maybe for you and certainly for many in this forum those two topics are just a push by the Liberals for Socialism (the indoctrinated concept of it anyway).

But that is not the case, remember that TV spot that GM put on the air directed to the big oil: "We've had this great relationship for many years. We think we will both be a lot happier and healthier if we see less of each other".

That is just the most visible example of what's going on. Certain part of the power center have been affected by the greed of some other side of it, in this case auto manufacturers by the market manipulation by big oil. The result: The car manufacturers are pushing to get big oil out of the equation... in other words change the energy source for their product.

Similarly these same auto-makers and others have come to the conclusion that part of the reason they can no longer compete with the foreign product is because they carry the burden of the health care costs of their unions; now with universal heath care they could dump all of that burden onto the national system and lighten their costs.

Now Obama might be a pawn in this game or he just sees an opportunity in this rift to push for health care reform but don't be confuse as who the real players are here and why we are hearing about it now.


Hate to be harsh, but the reduction in crime, the pregnant teens, the drug addict, the school drop out, rarely produce employment for someone else.


Certainly, but that's not the point


You need the "rich" to support any of those programs as the ones you listed pay little or no tax in the first place.
That isn't a republican or democrat issue, just a plain reality.


Plain reality, backed by numbers, seems to show the opposite but let's get to something more constructive.

Would you, and this is an open question for everybody here or better said for the ones that made it this far in my post, be in favor of a "full employment program" instead of welfare as we know it?.

Without getting in to the mechanics of it what it boils down to is: To use the current money spent on unemployment to instead create jobs to fill the gap that the private sector leaves, in other words eliminate unemployment. So no more sitting at home waiting for that unemployment check every month, if you want the money you have to work for it; the excuse of not being able to find work disappears. That welfare budget plus the taxes collected from these new jobs would finance the program and according to a study conducted by Philip L. Harvey in the 80's we could save about 13b from what we spend in the current system alone.

Any takers?
 
Last edited:

MrGautama

Not a Member
I am not a politician nor do I even enjoy the subjects anymore,
But I gotta ask and please don't take me wrong as I am all for helping my neighbor where I can.
Haven't we been investing in these since I was a toddler?
I kinda got a feeling all these things have gotta worst over the years as we keep investing in them.@ what point do we call it a bad investment??:(


For sure many social programs are not working and to this point have been a bad investment. But, is the concept of helping the needy in our society what's wrong?, or the way we have these programs set up?
 
Last edited:

MrGautama

Not a Member
Maybe five bucks worth per year, not because I believe I'll win but just for the novelty of it. It's just another tax disguised in a way that it fools the less intelligent into not knowing they are paying taxes.



No doubt about it, it's just extra taxes for people bad at math!.
 

MrGautama

Not a Member
Mental illness is at an all-time high, crime rates are high (especially in locations where Welfare payments are highest), teenage pregnancy is at epidemic levels in Welfare Zip Codes, drug abuse runs rampant, and the school dropout rate is the highest where Welfare recipients are common. Yeah, let's throw more money at those problems, since, you know, it's shown to be so effective so far.


That just tells you that many of our current programs aren't working and for sure just "throwing more money at them" is not going to fix the problem. Can we morally afford to give up just because we haven't been able to figure it out yet?, for crying out loud we sent 12 men to walk on the moon and we can't fix this?, where is all that American ingenuity?

Animosity aside I would really appreciate your input on the full employment program I wrote about in another post in this same thread.
 

MrGautama

Not a Member
Obviously you don't get it...No ones rights matter only the USA's applies...If you accept the rights by USA standards then everything is ok....

62 other countries are wrong...the USA is the only right one....

Can't you see just how right things are here and smoothly the country runs?:eek:


oh... oh..., I get it now, how silly I've been!!! ;)
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
You're right, none of the current programs are working. But none of the previous programs worked, either, and in every single case, the proposed and implemented remedy was to throw more money at the problem.

Comparing social problems with the technical problems of putting men on the moon is a fallacy. Putting men on the moon was mostly a matter of science and mathematics, i.e., if you do this, then that will happen, and it will always happen. Those kinds of technological certainties do not work with people, unless you start removing liberties wholesale and start controlling thoughts and behaviors to the point where they become more of a scientific and mathematical certainty.

You want to get someone off drugs, lock them in a room and don't give them any. That'll work, but it's unconscionable. You can't force someone from falling through cracks when they don't care, or especially if they want to fall through the cracks. We can educate, but there are very few people who start using drugs who have never heard that drugs are bad.

We have all kinds of problems, both here and around the world, and the one thing that is consistent around the world, and through out history, is that more money for social programs has not cured the problems of society, that the opposite has, in fact occurred, where societies become dependent on the social programs. Welfare is a prime example, where it started off with a small number of people for a short period of time, and it's now a large number of people for increasingly longer periods of time. It's the same ol', "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life," kind of deal. Nearly all of the high dollar social programs in existence, and those proposed, involve little or no teaching, only the handing out of fish. If I knew I was going to be given fish every day, I'd have little incentive to get a fishing pole and learn how to use it.

As for the Full Employment Program, I'm all for it. Not sure that I like the name "Full", becuase it's a little too idealistic, too Utopian, to work with people. A line would have to be drawn where you work, or you get zero. I've said something similar here before, a few times. I think the last time was right after the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, where people were lamenting the sad state of bridges and other infrastructure here in the country. My solution was to take those on Welfare and take the same exact money and put them to work inspecting, repairing and building bridges. If the government is going to spend that money anyway, might as well get something to show for it in the end.

That's also why I am livid with Obama's "stimulus" package, since a very, very small percentage of it deals with public works and infrastructure issues that would directly stimulate the economy and create new jobs. The majority of it doesn't address anything even remotely close to anything that would stimulate the economy. Any idea how many brand new jobs were created during the period between Sputnik and Apollo 11? A snotload.

Incidentally, I'm also one who advocates a mandatory 2 year stint in the military or some other type of local, state or federal community service. If you can't physically handle the military, that's fine, you can answer phones at the DMV, or put books on shelves at a library, mow the lawn at an air force base, push a broom at the capitol. Something, anything, to get people hands-on involved with their government, to take back control of the government, to take back ownership of the government, to take responsibility for their government and their own lives. It will get people out of the ghettos and show them there really is something else out there for them, and it will let them grow up a little and have the time to figure out what they really want to do, what they are good at, instead just giving up and never even trying in the first place.

But with mandatory service, and with a full employment program, you're still gonna have those that say, "I don't wanna." And at that point, you're just gonna have to give up and let them fall right down through those cracks.


Now, who you do suppose I stole all of the above from?
 

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
That just tells you that many of our current programs aren't working and for sure just "throwing more money at them" is not going to fix the problem. Can we morally afford to give up just because we haven't been able to figure it out yet?

From a totally Darwinian stance it's simple yes there is no moral question about it. It might take a few decades for the weak to die off or getstronger might have to build a few more jails but it actually would work.
 

Steady Eddie

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Strange, the longest war in US history was declared by LBJ, the war on proverty. When did we hoist the white flag? Are the social programs that we have today our victory?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top