America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,741 comments
  • 1,663,060 views
Yikes? It's worse elsewhere in the world.

Why the **** would anybody go through the effort of getting an education and making good money when they can just be lazy asses, pop out some illegitimate kids, and get paid to suck the life out of society?

The American stereotype about poor people having welfare babies is not a joke. People do that, it's obvious as hell, and isn't uncommon in the slightest. Yeah, I'll bring up the issue of minorities - I'm not being racist when I talk about single black women and their welfare babies. In big urban areas like Chicago, oh god, or DC, Cincinnati, and even here in Dayton, there are entire communities basically forged from Affirmative Action welfare exploitation. In general this exploitation can be seen anywhere, by any group of people, but minorities are often catered to and actually taught how to maneuver through so-called anti-discrimination laws to get the money that's available to them. A friend from school and fellow student pilot shared with me how he and his mom reap the benefits that I'm ineligible for because I'm white and my parents are married. He doesn't have any trouble paying his flight training expenses which are ridiculously expensive.

While my parents struggle to pay their bills and help me pay for my schooling, there's a young woman just up the hill who lives in a decent apartment with two kids who drives a Lexus because all her bills are payed and her actual income is totally expendable.

I really don't like conspiracy theories but it's really hard to argue the system isn't rigged specifically to make the majority of the population poor and dependent while transferring all their wealth to a powerful, controlling few. That is what happens, it's happened time and time again throughout history, but is it done on purpose?
 
Keef
Yikes? It's worse elsewhere in the world.

Why the **** would anybody go through the effort of getting an education and making good money when they can just be lazy asses, pop out some illegitimate kids, and get paid to suck the life out of society?

The American stereotype about poor people having welfare babies is not a joke. People do that, it's obvious as hell, and isn't uncommon in the slightest. Yeah, I'll bring up the issue of minorities - I'm not being racist when I talk about single black women and their welfare babies. In big urban areas like Chicago, oh god, or DC, Cincinnati, and even here in Dayton, there are entire communities basically forged from Affirmative Action welfare exploitation. In general this exploitation can be seen anywhere, by any group of people, but minorities are often catered to and actually taught how to maneuver through so-called anti-discrimination laws to get the money that's available to them. A friend from school and fellow student pilot shared with me how he and his mom reap the benefits that I'm ineligible for because I'm white and my parents are married. He doesn't have any trouble paying his flight training expenses which are ridiculously expensive.

While my parents struggle to pay their bills and help me pay for my schooling, there's a young woman just up the hill who lives in a decent apartment with two kids who drives a Lexus because all her bills are payed and her actual income is totally expendable.

I really don't like conspiracy theories but it's really hard to argue the system isn't rigged specifically to make the majority of the population poor and dependent while transferring all their wealth to a powerful, controlling few. That is what happens, it's happened time and time again throughout history, but is it done on purpose?
Click to expand...

Yikes was my way of trying to say most of this.
 
I agree too, but I just hate it when people say everyone on welfare (not saying you said this) drives nice cars in nice houses. My dad, who lives in Tennessee, lives in a rotting mobile home with holes in the floor. About the only thing that works in it is the heater. And he drives an ancient S10, not that he bought, but inherited from my grandpa. He can't get a job, not because they're all taken, but because of the medicine their low rent doctor gives him. It causes him to sleep about 18-20hrs a day, and if he stops taking it, he will either a. Die, or b. Get extremely angry. Luckily, my half brother, who lives with him, works at the same place as his cousin, and he drives 30 miles everyday to get him. My dad can't take him because his tires are bald and cracked and one has a small hole in it. I don't really know where I'm going with this, but my point being: Some people can't get jobs, they have to be on some sort of financial help, and not everyone on a program like that buys iPads and new cars and new houses with it.

Sorry if some of this doesn't really make sense, but it's 7:00am and I'm tired.
 
Of course. Nobody is saying that every single person who used the government's welfare system is exploiting it. A system that is blatantly open to exploitation is always a flawed one.
 
xXKingJoshXx
And he drives an ancient S10,

<snip>

but because of the medicine their low rent doctor gives him. It causes him to sleep about 18-20hrs a day,
Click to expand...
Should he be driving at all? It sounds like with that kind of side effect that not driving/operating heavy machinery should be one of the stipulations of taking that drug. I know that if I have bad reactions or certain medical stuff arise with my conditions I can be prohibited from driving for six months. It hasn't happened yet, but it is always my first concern whenever something new creeps up.

And yes, we understand that some people are in situations where they need aid. But we all know people who's station in life is a result of their own actions or who have worked to abuse the system.

Unfortunately, for those who truly need aid through no fault of their own, they get grouped in with the abusers. In a healthy society we should not need government programs, but we have become so reliant on government aid that they have a near-monopoly on aid. It would take a generation to move everything to private charity, and the transition would need heavy oversight to be sure government cronyism isn't involved, allowing money to be misused or stolen.
 
He drives into Lafayette, which is the closest "major" town, to buy groceries. Other than that he stays home.
 
I hope this actually passes. I'd love to hear the White House's explanation.

http://kucinich.house.gov/news/documentprint.aspx?DocumentID=312882

Kucinich, Paul and Holt Introduce Bipartisan Resolution to Compel White House to Release Legal Justification for Drone Strikes



Washington, Nov 28, 2012 -


Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Rush Holt Jr. (D-NJ) today introduced H. Res. 819, a resolution of inquiry to compel the Administration to release documents which it reportedly uses as the legal justification for the use of drones to assassinate people abroad, including United States citizens, without trial. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, our drone strikes have killed more than 3,000 people including as many as 1,105 innocent civilians since 2002.

“We must reject the notion that protecting our national security requires revoking the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. No President can act as judge, jury and executioner, and any attempt to do so is in direct violation of our Constitution which gives our citizens a right to life and a fair trial.

“According to a memorandum prepared by the White House Office of Legal Counsel, when the United States conducts such an attack it is legal. The Congress and the American people have a right to know this legal framework. Congress has an obligation as the sole authority under the Constitution to declare war to know how the use of force abroad is being used, especially against U.S. citizens,” said Kucinich.

Congressman Kucinich today introduced a Resolution of Inquiry, a resolution used to compel information from the White House, which, if passed, would require the White House to make the Office of Legal Counsel memo available to Congress.

“Our strikes are creating a legal precedent that the world will emulate. From Iran to China, other nations are very close to developing comparable technology. If Congress doesn’t act to ensure proper oversight and legal authority for the use of this technology, the consequences could be dire for the American people,” said Kucinich.
Click to expand...
 
FoolKiller
I hope this actually passes. I'd love to hear the White House's explanation.
Click to expand...

I would too lol.

From Obama's budget proposal for 2013, section labeled Department of Defense on this page.
Reprioritizes investments in weapons programs to reflect the new strategy, provide service members with state of the art equipment, and maintain the industrial base. This includes making investments in high-priority programs, such as unmanned surveillance aircraft and upgraded tactical vehicles, while terminating unnecessary and lower-priority programs such as the C-27 airlift aircraft and a new weather satellite and maintaining programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter at a reduced level.
Click to expand...

I think he's really liking his drones. He also continues this theme(quoted below) throughout, so I don't think he cares much for the constitution unless it suits him. It's usually something like, it's a living breathing document, or antiquated.

Investing in our critical partnerships and alliances, including NATO, which has demonstrated time and again—most recently in Libya—that it is a force multiplier.
Click to expand...

Globalist notions. I had to chuckle when I saw he could not resist bringing up Libya, his war claim to fame. Was that action constitutional?
 
Friend sent me this.

FZpbb.gif
 
It's usually something like, it's a living breathing document, or antiquated.
Click to expand...

If it isn't a living, breathing document, then it should either not apply to anything that is more technologically advanced than the stuff in 1787, or we should have frozen our tech in 1787.

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't predict ICBMs or the internet or space stations & so on...
 
Right, so because of those technologies it's now perfectly ok to kill u.s. citizens with a drone strike? No trial or charges etc., citizens of other countries? Oh, just terrorists right? And of course there is no longer a need to follow the proper procedures to declare war under the constitution?

Sounds great.
 
Gazumagi
If it isn't a living, breathing document, then it should either not apply to anything that is more technologically advanced than the stuff in 1787, or we should have frozen our tech in 1787.

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't predict ICBMs or the internet or space stations & so on...
Click to expand...

If its a "living & breathing" document, the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. Living and breathing is a slogan for the justification of anything the 3 branches of government wish to do that the constitution does not give them powers for. Expediency
 
Obviously you haven't read any of it or you'd understand that the document was written with broad language, not only to eliminate loop holes (the more specific the rules, the more gaps there are between them), but to keep the document relevant in changing times.

Let's take the First Amendment, freedom of speech, for example. Some people don't understand how that can apply to the Internet because the Internet wasn't around back then.

Speech is expression through language. Am I expressing myself through language right now? Yes. And the Constitution protects my right to do so, despite the fact that the Internet didn't exist 230 years ago.

When people consider the Constitution, or better yet morality in specific terms, things get messy and they get confused. They think too hard. My suggestion is to just read it and not think too hard about what it says. It's very clear and basic.

When people think too hard about it you might end up with an entire field of law called Constitutional law. I read a little bit of a graduate-level Constitutional law textbook recently as I was appalled. It appears to me that Constitutional law is basically the art of manipulating the Constitution's plain language to suit one's unconstitutional desires. You're sounding an awful lot like a lawyer right now - remember, don't over think it. It's really simple.
 
Liquid
Source for this claim?
Click to expand...
And are those dollars adjusted for inflation? Period numbers? 1970 dollars? 2010 dollars? This could be a really interesting thing if there were any information in it at all.
 
Keef
And are those dollars adjusted for inflation? Period numbers? 1970 dollars? 2010 dollars? This could be a really interesting thing if there were any information in it at all.
Click to expand...

Well the biggest jump is in the Reagan/Bush era, which was when the major anti-drug campaigning began, do the rate of growth is at the proper timeframe and it is no secret that the amount spent on the drug war is growing. While the numbers might not be accurate, the point is there.

Of course, a few seconds on Google could tell us all we need to know.


In other news, and somewhat eerie to those who've been in the Homosexuality thread recently, is this story:

Teacher Cyberbullying as a Crime

CHARLOTTE, NC - Anti-bullying provisions often focus on protecting students.

But a state law warns kids to watch what they say about school officials on the Internet. Free speech advocates worry the law goes too far.

"We have to pull society back into a realization that what you say and what you do, you are held accountable for them," said Judy Kidd, president of the Classroom Teachers Association of North Carolina.

As a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools teacher, Kidd says children aren't the only ones bullied at school. So are educators.

"When someone goes over and beyond what is free speech," said Kidd, "then you get held accountable."

Kidd helped pass a new state law that criminalizes students cyberbullying teachers. If a kid uses a computer with "intent to intimidate or torment" school employees, they face jail time or a $1000 fine.
Click to expand...

This law even applies to truthful statements. This means a student could not report poor teacher behavior online. You can't complain about your teacher, even if justified.

I will agree that more often than not the issue is parents need to get involved in their student's education and work to find out why their child didn't get an A rather than accusing the teacher. But threatening minors with $1,000 fines and jail time? That is irresponsible and ridiculous.
 
The guy who did
Where is the constitution? Where are the Biblical principles that this nation was founded on?
Click to expand...

In The Rotunda of the National Archives Building in downtown Washington, DC.

Those biblical principles may be in the hearts of the living but I prefer the thoughts and writings of Thomas Jefferson regarding those maters, hell, he even edited his own bible to preclude what he considered jibber jabber.
 
I don't understand the need for a new law to combat the same crime through a different medium. Harassment is harassment, no matter where or how you do it. That seems pretty logical to me. A brand new law that applies to concept of harassment to a very specific medium of communication seems pretty illogical. A waste of time.

I tend not to follow laws that I think are illogical or inefficient, etc. Does that make me a bad person?
 
6999_509867452379863_2003297060_n.jpg


No source for that.

But I did find an article from Smithsonian that might have some insight.

There are no mandated standardized tests in Finland, apart from one exam at the end of students&#8217; senior year in high school. There are no rankings, no comparisons or competition between students, schools or regions.
Click to expand...

When it comes to teaching, as far as I can tell there is no established definition of "good enough" as there is in the US. It seems as though teachers are left free to teach their students as they please. Of course, more of their teachers are more highly educated than ours, with their mandatory Masters degrees, and also payed more. There also seems to be much more emphasis on the psychology of young students. They don't simply demand that students pass tests occasionally, but they've used science to help teach students when their brains actually want to. Yada yada yada...

But of course there's the whole socialist economy/extremely high taxes thing.

Instead of a state-run school system I'd much rather see a school system designed by the people who care about education the most - the employers. Wouldn't it just be dandy if charter schools around the country were sponsored by companies like Walmart, McDonald's, Microsoft, Adobe, General Motors, Delta, etc? Walmart has a keen interest in young people with decent high school educations, wouldn't you say? They probably also need some college graduates from time to time to help run the place. Same thing with every other company out there. There are already numerous post-secondary programs sponsored by automotive manufacturers from which they recruit. Why isn't this type of system more widespread and more generalized? Would it be too expensive? Charter school beings rare, the return on investment would be too small? Free-market subsidization of private education seems plausible to me. Maybe it would help alleviate fears of private education being too expensive for poorer people.
 
Last edited:
Standardized tests, meaning getting passed to the next 'grade', no.
But ofcourse there are tests in the end of every course.
Also the high schools have an aveage grade "limit", which is taken into consideration when applying after junior high.

All else in that (pic) is a bunch of bull.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
436 437 438
Replies
13K
Views
572K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
432 433 434
Replies
13K
Views
673K
S-car-Go
S-car-Go
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
640
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back