America - The Official Thread

[a6m5]

yeah, pretty much... You want the truth try Supersize Me

I am notorious for eating too much junk food. With only an hour lunch, I consistently eat at McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, Jack In A Box, Carls Jr. and today at KFC. And while working, I raid the vending machine for all sorts of garbage. I eat at Teriyaki restaurants and Chinese restaurants whenever I can, but those are pretty greasy, too. I think my boss should give me two hour lunches(paid), so I can eat better.......

I'm going to watch the "Supersize Me" DVD. Who knows?, it might change my life!

 

[VIPFREAK]

I'm going to watch the "Supersize Me" DVD. Who knows?, it might change my life!

Umm... it will.

 

[ledhed]

Michael Moore is propaganda from the other camp. Exaggarating, the same way many American channels broadcast pro-government propaganda, especially during elections.



But that's America, to get attention you have to yell louder than everyone else.... which often means exaggarating of yelling controversial things of which you can expect it will piss of certain groups of people.

hmmm I may need to get my head examined ( again ? ) .

You are almost spot on . Sad to say it is often true . The time of the sound bite and 24 hour network news . The short attention span etc.

 

[Danoff]

Michael Moore is propaganda from the other camp. Exaggarating, the same way many American channels broadcast pro-government propaganda, especially during elections.

The American media is very pro-government when it comes to social programs like welfare or redistribution (theft) of wealth. On the otherhand they're very anti-republican (except for a few channels), so there's lots of Bush-bashing and attempts to make the Iraq war look like a mistake.

So its a mixed bag in terms of their pro-governmentness. They like the wrong stuff and dislike the right stuff. A legitimate function of government (national defense) is attacked while illigitimate functions of government (eg: redistribution (theft) of wealth) is supported.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The American media is very pro-government when it comes to social programs like welfare or redistribution (theft) of wealth.

Agreed; because it's the right thing.

On the otherhand they're very anti-republican (except for a few channels), so there's lots of Bush-bashing and attempts to make the Iraq war look like a mistake.

Agreed; because it's the right thing.

So its a mixed bag in terms of their pro-governmentness. They like the wrong stuff and dislike the right stuff.

Strongly disagree, here. Charity may not be the most economically-efficient way to distribute wealth but it is the most moral.

A legitimate function of government (national defense) is attacked

How is the War in Iraq an example of national defense? We went on the offensive last time I checked...

while illigitimate functions of government (eg: redistribution (theft) of wealth) is supported.

Theft is such a strong word. Mandatory charity?

 

[Danoff]

Strongly disagree, here. Charity may not be the most economically-efficient way to distribute wealth but it is the most moral.

Sure charity is quite moral. But the American media barely covers charity. They focus on redistribution (theft) of wealth (RTOW) programs and new ways the government can waste money.

How is the War in Iraq an example of national defense? We went on the offensive last time I checked...

Have you ever listened to the president speak? Are you familiar with the first gulf war or the violation of the cease fire terms in that war?

Theft is such a strong word. Mandatory charity?

Mandatory charity is an oxymoron. It isn't charity if its manadatory so I don't see any reason to call it that. I'll stick with theft... or RTOW.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Sure charity is quite moral. But the American media barely covers charity. They focus on redistribution (theft) of wealth RTOW programs and new ways the government can waste money.

Interesting.

Have you ever listened to the president speak?

Of course not. I always fall asleep during his speeches.

Are you familiar with the first gulf war or the violation of the cease fire terms in that war?

Yes.

Mandatory charity is an oxymoron. It isn't charity if its manadatory so I don't see any reason to call it that. I'll stick with theft... or RTOW.

I know it's an oxymoron -- I did that to be humorous. Without going too far off topic, I used to list a ton of oxymorons in the conversation thread whenever I was bored -- as a joke.

 

[Danoff]

I know it's an oxymoron -- I did that to be humorous. Without going too far off topic, I used to list a ton of oxymorons in the conversation thread whenever I was bored -- as a joke.

Some people don't use it jokingly and don't realize it's an oxymoron.

 

[Swift]

I've got to say that I'm pretty much with Danoff on this one.

Though I do believe that people need and deserve help, it would be much better if they were able to get the from the community rather then the government. This way, it would be voluntary from the people instead of forced on them.

I recently saw the movie "Million Dollar Baby" in one scene, Hilary Swank buys her Mother and Sister in law a house. Her mother then yells at her and says that she messed up because she needs to get her welfare checks. She can't get welfare with a nice house.

I almost punched the TV, I couldn't believe it. And that is based on a true story. You KNOW there are times when that kind of crap happens in real life. America is one of the few countries in the world stupid enough to support continual laziness so that we don't look like a "mean" country. It reminds me of parents of young children that want to be their child's "friend" They don't need a friend at 5 years old. They need a parent. People that are lazy don't need a handout, they need a reason to get off their butt and work.

 

[Danoff]

I've got to say that I'm pretty much with Danoff on this one.

Though I do believe that people need and deserve help, it would be much better if they were able to get the from the community rather then the government. This way, it would be voluntary from the people instead of forced on them.

👍 That's the moral way to do it.

 

[De Bolle]

I am notorious for eating too much junk food. With only an hour lunch, I consistently eat at McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, Jack In A Box, Carls Jr. and today at KFC. And while working, I raid the vending machine for all sorts of garbage. I eat at Teriyaki restaurants and Chinese restaurants whenever I can, but those are pretty greasy, too. I think my boss should give me two hour lunches(paid), so I can eat better.......

I'm going to watch the "Supersize Me" DVD. Who knows?, it might change my life!

You can buy and eat a couple of healthy sandwich in 30 minutes, so what's your problem? Ever tried cooking something healthy yourself?

 

[De Bolle]

Though I do believe that people need and deserve help, it would be much better if they were able to get the from the community rather then the government. This way, it would be voluntary from the people instead of forced on them.

I recently saw the movie "Million Dollar Baby" in one scene, Hilary Swank buys her Mother and Sister in law a house. Her mother then yells at her and says that she messed up because she needs to get her welfare checks. She can't get welfare with a nice house.

I almost punched the TV, I couldn't believe it. And that is based on a true story. You KNOW there are times when that kind of crap happens in real life. America is one of the few countries in the world stupid enough to support continual laziness so that we don't look like a "mean" country. It reminds me of parents of young children that want to be their child's "friend" They don't need a friend at 5 years old. They need a parent. People that are lazy don't need a handout, they need a reason to get off their butt and work.

Unfortunately, this is not only a problem in the USA. It becomes more and more apparent in Europe as well. People expect too much from their government, and taking government-sponsored wellfare for granted. It's the beginning of the end, I think.

 

[FoolKiller]

I recently saw the movie "Million Dollar Baby" in one scene, Hilary Swank buys her Mother and Sister in law a house. Her mother then yells at her and says that she messed up because she needs to get her welfare checks. She can't get welfare with a nice house.

I almost punched the TV, I couldn't believe it. And that is based on a true story. You KNOW there are times when that kind of crap happens in real life. America is one of the few countries in the world stupid enough to support continual laziness so that we don't look like a "mean" country. It reminds me of parents of young children that want to be their child's "friend" They don't need a friend at 5 years old. They need a parent. People that are lazy don't need a handout, they need a reason to get off their butt and work.

That reminds me of my second cousin. She is a single mother of three, has no job, has her mother babysit while she goes on dates, she never looks for a job, and she pulls in her welfare check but never has enough money for food and bills because welfare check day is bingo night.

My wife works with a woman who has been working for about three months now and is still pulling a welfare check because she never reported having a job. I can't wait until tax time next year. I can only hope they take her kids and give them to good foster parents who will teach them proper work ethic and values instead of her ideals of stealing from her friends and family via welfare.

 

[De Bolle]

Sjjjeeeeszzzz.... Here's another one:\

Earlier this year it was in the news that a single English woman had three daughters of 12, 14 and 15. All three kids had a baby, of which the father was not known... The woman blamed the kids' school for not giving them sexual education... Talking about avoiding your own responsability.
btw, the woman lived on social security, and decided not to get a job because her income would go down.. These stories pi55 me off!!!

 

[Danoff]

Sjjjeeeeszzzz.... Here's another one:\

Earlier this year it was in the news that a single English woman had three daughters of 12, 14 and 15. All three kids had a baby, of which the father was not known... The woman blamed the kids' school for not giving them sexual education... Talking about avoiding your own responsability.
btw, the woman lived on social security, and decided not to get a job because her income would go down.. These stories pi55 me off!!!

Because you know its happening to some degree on your money and you never had a chance to do anything about it. She gets a vote too! She gets to go out and vote to keep your money.

Wouldn't it be better if you could decide who to give your charity to rather than having the incompetent government decide for you (and skim off the top while they're at it)?

 

[FoolKiller]

Because you know its happening to some degree on your money and you never had a chance to do anything about it. She gets a vote too! She gets to go out and vote to keep your money.

Wouldn't it be better if you could decide who to give your charity to rather than having the incompetent government decide for you (and skim off the top while they're at it)?

Yes! Unfortunately greed and politicians go hand in hand and so they will do everything they can to benefit themselves while painting it with a charitable brush. I would much rather vote with my dollars on which programs are worthwhile and which ones aren't.

Of course then my phone would never stop ringing from all the charity telemarketers. That might not be so bad because I could then explain to them why I think they are drag on our society and what I think they should do to get their help.

I would even support a law saying that I had to give so much of my income to charity or pay it in taxes over our current system. At least then I could only support the things I want. I bet you would see anyone who is physically able to work actually getting jobs because they would know no one would give them money for no reason.

 

[Danoff]

Yes! Unfortunately greed and politicians go hand in hand

Greed and PEOPLE go hand in hand (politicians being no exception). It's part of humanity on an instinctual level... the greedy made the best survivors. That's why you have people who don't want to work but want to get money from others. That's why politicians take more and more from your paycheck every year - and that's why a reward-for-production system like captialism works so well. It takes into account the greedy and uses them by offering money for work.

If only our bill of rights took into account man's greed.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Greed and PEOPLE go hand in hand (politicians being no exception). It's part of humanity on an instinctual level... the greedy made the best survivors.

Which is precisely why private charity will not work.


The past few posts have been about all the negative aspects of government welfare programs. I can think of plenty people who use (or used) welfare only as a temporary solution to a severe (but again, temporary) financial issue.

Go ahead then, eliminate welfare to spite the few while spoiling the many. Let's see what happens...

 

[Danoff]

Which is precisely why private charity will not work.

It doesn't matter whether it will "work" (which you haven't defined). It's the only moral thing to do.

The past few posts have been about all the negative aspects of government welfare programs. I can think of plenty people who use (or used) welfare only as a temporary solution to a severe (but again, temporary) financial issue.

Go ahead then, eliminate welfare to spite the few while spoiling the many. Let's see what happens...

I wouldn't be eliminating welfare to spite the few while spoiling the many. I would be eliminating welfare to stop spiting the few (rich) to spoil the many (poor).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It doesn't matter whether it will "work" (which you haven't defined). It's the only moral thing to do.

Moral or not, few (if any) people would give to charity anyway. As such, few (if any) people would benefit from the assistance leaving many people without the basic necessities.

I wouldn't be eliminating welfare to spite the few while spoiling the many. I would be eliminating welfare to stop spiting the few (rich) to spoil the many (poor).

So according to your view, a destitute person with no public support is more "free" than one who gets some kind of welfare, despite the fact that the latter can do more things than the former?

 

[Danoff]

So according to your view, a destitute person with no public support is more "free" than one who gets some kind of welfare, despite the fact that the latter can do more things than the former?

No. A person who has more of his money stolen from him is less free than a person who keeps what he has earned.

Moral or not, few (if any) people would give to charity anyway. As such, few (if any) people would benefit from the assistance leaving many people without the basic necessities.

I'm not willing to commit a crime to provide people with basic necessities.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

No. A person who has more of his money stolen from him is less free than a person who keeps what he has earned.

Let's be realistic, here. $60,000 out of a $1 million is negligable... $60 out of $1,000 is much more noticable.

I'm not willing to commit a crime to provide people with basic necessities.

You're not willing to commit a victimless crime to provide people with basic necessities? Why?

 

[Danoff]

You're not willing to commit a victimless crime to provide people with basic necessities? Why?

Victimless crime is an oxymoron. It's not a crime if there is no victim.

Let's be realistic, here. $60,000 out of a $1 million is negligable... $60 out of $1,000 is much more noticable.

...and your point is?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Victimless crime is an oxymoron. It's not a crime if there is no victim.

Two reasons why I said that:

1. That's what it says here.
2. There is no "victim" if the individual can still maintain their lifestyle despite having a few thousand dollars less. I would see your point if the income tax rate was 65-75%... but it's not.

...and your point is?

See point 2.

 

[Danoff]

2. There is no "victim" if the individual can still maintain their lifestyle despite having a few thousand dollars less. I would see your point if the income tax rate was 65-75%... but it's not.

I see. So if break into someone's house and steal stuff - but they can still maintain their lifestyle - then you haven't committed a crime...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I see. So if break into someone's house and steal stuff - but they can still maintain their lifestyle - then you haven't committed a crime...

Depends on the motive.

Taxation is constitutional according to the 16th amendment... or do you want to change that too?

Taxes are NOT theft. They are, in fact, payments for the good/services provided by the government that YOU use.

Yes, YOU. It's virtually impossible to avoid it, so why fight? Comparatively-speaking we pay very little taxes.

As far as welfare is concerned, it is nothing more than a form of social insurance. If you're so willing to accept insurance for your car, your house, and (if you've reached that point) your own life, why are you so against welfare? Are you aware that welfare payments amount to less than one percent of the COMBINED federal and state budgets.

To conclude this, I think this whole "taxation is theft" argument is arrogant and, quite frankly, silly. Not everything you use is the result of your effort alone.

 

[Swift]

Depends on the motive.

Taxation is constitutional according to the 16th amendment... or do you want to change that too?

Taxes are NOT theft. They are, in fact, payments for the good/services provided by the government that YOU use.

Yes, YOU. It's virtually impossible to avoid it, so why fight? Comparatively-speaking we pay very little taxes.

As far as welfare is concerned, it is nothing more than a form of social insurance. If you're so willing to accept insurance for your car, your house, and (if you've reached that point) your own life, why are you so against welfare? Are you aware that welfare payments amount to less than one percent of the COMBINED federal and state budgets.

To conclude this, I think this whole "taxation is theft" argument is arrogant and, quite frankly, silly. Not everything you use is the result of your effort alone.

Ok, Now. I usually don't side with Danoff and I'm not totally doing it here. However, I believe that giving away tax money from one person to help another WITHOUT meeting the needs of the person that you took the money from is wrong. Why is it that I pay taxes, do not get welfare, but can't get a pothole in the road fixed? Better yet, why are schools budets based on property taxes? This automatically sets up an imbalance and almost reinstates "Seperate but equal, economically"

Taxes are NOT theft and are needed in our society. I have no problem with taxes. I have problems as to were my tax money goes!

 

[sumbodycool]

danoff, you can keep going with your argument, but you can't call tax theft. You're prepared for it and it is expected, which isnt likely when something gets stolen. I think the word your looking for is hustle. You feel America is hustling you with taxes, but dont call it theft.

 

[Danoff]

danoff, you can keep going with your argument, but you can't call tax theft.

I'm not calling taxes theft. I'm calling taxes aimed at the redistribution of wealth theft.

You're prepared for it and it is expected, which isnt likely when something gets stolen.

Nice argument. So if a theif gives you written notice that you are to give him $5000 NEXT YEAR in April or he will shoot you, is that theft?

Depends on the motive.

What? So if someone breaks into your house to steal money it isn't theft if they had a certain motive??? What motives make it OK?

Taxation is constitutional according to the 16th amendment... or do you want to change that too?

Taxation is not necessary, especially not income tax - but I don't really want to drag this thread down that road. Suffice it to say that I'm ok with taxes being constitutional. My beef is with the redistribution of wealth.

axes are NOT theft. They are, in fact, payments for the good/services provided by the government that YOU use.

You mean like the military? I'm surprised you don't know that I know this.

To conclude this, I think this whole "taxation is theft" argument is arrogant and, quite frankly, silly. Not everything you use is the result of your effort alone.

Redistribution of wealth is theft. Welfare and other "social insurance" programs are theft because they are collected at the point of a gun. If it's such a great idea a private organization will offer "unemployment insurnace" that you can buy.

 

[sumbodycool]

Nice argument. So if a theif gives you written notice that you are to give him $5000 NEXT YEAR in April or he will shoot you, is that theft?

I knew I was going to get bashed, but thats why I wrote "which isnt likely". Obviously it could happen. I still don't think theft is a proper word to use though, that's all. Your situation sounds like ransom. Now that I think about it, ransom and hustling are both pretty much sub-categories of theft... okay, I see where you're coming from now (, but I'm not taking any sides)