aramike

This has to do with Misc Race/Caste. Gonna move it down there.

quote: I actually thought I had answered that question when I said I take it by your attitude you feel that most people abuse the system and I don't.That wasn't the question, so here it is again: W2 isn't just saying "go get a job". W2 is HELPING people find a job. What, exactly, is WRONG with that? And the other one: Will someone PLEASE tell me the problem with FORCING people to get jobs that ARE OUT THERE? It seems as though you are dodging them. quote: Aramike, I'm really curious about your age. I'm not being snooty, it's just a cultural reference thing, how old were you in 92 kinda thing.I'll be 35 on Tuesday. Was 26 in '92. quote: Now I want you to answer a question for me, is it true about people not being able to get medical care cause they can't afford it? I've always wondered how true that really was.That is not true. The current "Patient Bill of Rights" does not allow ANY patient to be turned away.

quote: IMO, As insurgents you should be outgunned and outnumbered vs Galcom, that's the thrill of being a tar.. err Insurgent.Not really. Read the manual. It says that the Insurgents are growing. BCM takes place at a later time than BC3K, so it makes sense that the Insurgents would be a larger force. Also, considering that we were given 4 fleets rather than 1 (as before), it seems as though Derek has decided upon making the Insurgency stronger. But, we still need more members. Steve, take a look at www.3000ad.com/fleets/db/ . It will show you the disparity. However, do NOT join the Insurgents simply because of that. We only WANT you if you join because of our cause and fight - we don't just need people to "balance things out". That would make you a merc of sorts. We need REAL Insurgents. ------------------ Vice Admiral Michael Kristophers ICV-Intrepid, Spectre (Antis) Fleet Leader Spectre Fleet "You can only love or hate something you truly understand." Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series Leader, Team 1

Accepted. Welcome back.

quote: And the impression that I get is that you feel the majority of people on welfare are abusing the system. I tend to disagree.That is irrelevent. You still have not answered the following questions that I asked you: quote: W2 isn't just saying "go get a job". W2 is HELPING people find a job. What, exactly, is WRONG with that? quote: Will someone PLEASE tell me the problem with FORCING people to get jobs that ARE OUT THERE?That is the WHOLE point to the discussion. You seem to be defending welfare. I am NOT attacking welfare. I am simply stating that people should go out and get a job. So, answer those questions, please.

Yeah, Charles, I'll make it until Monday. But still, telling someone that they have an "attitude like a ... prick" is UNACCEPTABLE on this board. Prefixing an insult with "you have an attitude" hardly takes away from the insult. If everyone went around doing that in this board (which they don't) we wouldn't have a very peaceful board. This debate was heated but EXTREMELY civil until Sorrow posted. And, it RETURNED to civility now that Sorrow is no longer posting. [This message has been edited by aramike (edited 03-17-2001).]

I dunno, Kush, I think you are stretching it with "one of the world's best". Not more than a MONTH ago I saw a report on FOX News about how Canadians come down to America for their health care (doctor visits). We're not talking about cancer either - this is coughs and colds stuff. There IS a reason for that, don't you think? quote: I have less of a problem with the system. I have more of a problem with certain individuals who abuse the system. There's a difference.As Gallion pointed out, the people that abuse the system is where my problem lies. Furthermore, I have a problem with the system that ALLOWS such easy abuse. First of all, welfare is not supposed to be a total income. It's DESIGNED to be a SUPPLEMENTARY income. So, why not totally ELIMINATE the methods that allow people to abuse the system? W2 isn't just saying "go get a job". W2 is HELPING people find a job. What, exactly, is WRONG with that? Now, if people simply REFUSE to work, then there's a problem. Those are your ABUSERS. Under W2, they cannot do that. Will someone PLEASE tell me the problem with FORCING people to get jobs that ARE OUT THERE? Gallion: For some reason I'm seeing me a hammer and a sickle.

quote: I hate to break it to you Aramike, but you've been suckered in by propoganda.Hardly. Do not confuse "propaganda" for an honest "mistake". In fact, if I was sure that I was correct, I would not have said "correct me if I'm wrong". quote: In America, your government actually spends more per capita on health care, and you have a private system. I'd actually love to ramble on, but I gotta head out. I'll give you a small ramble on Canadian health care when I get back.We sure do. However, look at my error above and do not mistake it for the FACT that many Canadians go south of the border for their health care. I wonder why that is? Because, I wasn't totally incorrect. While you can choose your doctors, you seem to be unable to find PRIVATE health care. Private systems (because they can regulate themselves) tend to have better results because they work on the simple, old, but tried and true "rewards system".

quote: Originally posted by Kush: Aramike, Here in Canada we have a more generous welfare system (and BC probably has the most generous system in the country) and some of us Canadians really value it. Some see social programs that help the less fortunate as a part of our national identity. And some don't. I'm sure you'd find more than a few Canadians, (some Albertans perhaps ) who'd agree with you whole heartedly. But you're gonna find some Canadians who are going to get just as worked up as you get, just on the other side. Sure, doesn't matter to me, so long as it is kept clean. However, there are some inherent problems with the Canadian social programs. Health care is crap. Sure, prescription drugs are easy to come by there (Americans get a lot of their drugs from Canada) but the actual doctor's aren't all that good due to people not being able to choose (correct me if I'm wrong). A lot of Canadians seem to migrate south to see AMERICAN doctors, because they can have choice here. That's why I don't think social programs work (Cananda is pretty much a socialist government). When you eliminate choice, you partly take away people's desire to earn choice. And that is treading upon freedom.

I just approved the recruit Pugwash into the Insurgency and Balor Fleet. Welcome aboard! ------------------ Vice Admiral Michael Kristophers ICV-Intrepid, Spectre (Antis) Fleet Leader Spectre Fleet "You can only love or hate something you truly understand." Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series Leader, Team 1

quote: I'll say. Only took me about 12 minutes to grab the HC version. Lovely little site its on there. This insurgent can't wait to start checking it out!!!Avinus Insurgent-at-Large Hey, Insurgent. Sign in to the Fleet Database, head over to the Insurgent Forum, and update your signature, or quit calling yourself an Insurgent. Welcome aboard. Welcome to our nightmare. ------------------ Vice Admiral Michael Kristophers ICV-Intrepid, Spectre (Antis) Fleet Leader Spectre Fleet "You can only love or hate something you truly understand." Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series Leader, Team 1

...it think this is settled...

Shingen, that's logical. But then again, if you were to join an Insurgent fleet, you'd be amongst the most EXPERIENCED BC players there are. In fact, our fleets have more experience than ALL the GALCOM, EarthCOM, and registered mercs COMBINED. My point is, you'd have competent people giving you orders, but by the same token, you'd have competent people watching your back.

quote: The fleets live by their rules while we make our own.Not totally true. Remember, the BC universe is a LIVING universe. If you break the laws, you'll find the law on your tail launching missiles in your direction. If you keep breaking the law, you lose any trust you may have, meaning, you won't be able to get a job anywhere. If you don't gain cash (assuming you survive, anyway), how do you plan on purchasing the radine that makes your ship go? Think, man. You've already seemed to have alienated yourself from 3 separate fleets (Spectre, Orion, Wraith), covering both of the major alliances (GALCOM, Insurgent). Now, I don't know how far the GALCOMMIE fleets go when it comes to maintaining the same enemies, but if you make an enemy of ANY Insurgent fleet, you've got the entirety of the Insurgency on your back. So, at the bare minimum, you've already hurt your ties to 7 fleets. Good luck, merc. You'll be needing it. ------------------ Vice Admiral Michael Kristophers ICV-Intrepid, Spectre (Antis) Fleet Leader Spectre Fleet "You can only love or hate something you truly understand." Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series Leader, Team 1

ROFLMAO!!!

$100? Is that shipping? Epsilon, if you want, buy the game, have it delivered to my office, and I'll mail it to you free of charge. That will save you on shipping. But, only if you trust me.

Welcome aboard! Mosey on down to www.3000ad.com/fleets and sign up for the fight! ------------------ Vice Admiral Michael Kristophers ICV-Intrepid, Spectre (Antis) Fleet Leader Spectre Fleet "You can only love or hate something you truly understand." Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series Leader, Team 1

Welcome to our nightmare! ------------------ Vice Admiral Michael Kristophers ICV-Intrepid, Spectre (Antis) Fleet Leader Spectre Fleet "You can only love or hate something you truly understand." Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series Leader, Team 1

Papi's right, Jamont.

I'm in agreement with Steve, although you can really play it any way you'd like. However, I just like to stock up on the dough and be done with it, for good. Not exactly my favorite part of the game, in all honesty.

quote: Yes of course I think it's better that someone get a job, if there are jobs to be had. I get the feeling that some of you aren't old enough to remember trying to find work in the late eighties early nineties.Heh, even then you could *always* get a job. Just maybe not what you wanted. But hey - if you need a job, you take it. quote: I understand the argument you're trying to make. I'm just trying to point out that nothing is as simple as a letter to the editor would have you believe.What, per se, is NOT simple about it? People receive welfare benefits. If they don't get job, they don't receive benefits. Seems simple to me. Especially since under W2, there are offices set up to *help* people find jobs. In fact, those offices seem to do more work than the applicants. I mean, even in the eigties, someone could land a job in fast food, no problem. If that someone can't find anything else, so what? Do we then just let them mooch off of the system because they can't find the work that THEY WANT??? So please, explain to me how this issue is *so* complicated. quote: I understand the argument you're trying to make. I'm just trying to point out that nothing is as simple as a letter to the editor would have you believe.Where's the letter to the editor? A columnist wrote that quote, and I wrote the response. Regardless, I still don't see how this issue is VERY complicated. You won't EVER be able to share exactly when there were NO jobs available at all. Second, that's not the case today so your argument seems to be about history, which really doesn't matter considering that we're all talking about the here and now. Tac: Great post! I'm 100% with you on that. Steve: LOL!

quote: Well it looks like you have your mind made up, and that's fine. But if you seriously would like to know more about social welfare programs, their history, their impact on society there are many books you should read.Yep. And my mind isn't made up from books or (even less applied) history, rather, it comes from actually DEALING with the program as a labor manager. I don't need to read the books. Tell me something, are you saying that it is WRONG to MAKE people get a job rather than just cash a check? I really want to know if you think that's wrong, because that's what this discussion is about anyway. Second (to echo Jaguar, in a sense), there is NO such thing as FREE. Someone has to pay for EVERYTHING. Why should it be the taxpayers-at-large and not the people receiving the benefits?

Well, we haven't had a good political thread in here for awhile now, so here goes... Liberals: Time to Wake Up Alright, maybe that's unfair. This is more directed to extreme liberals. When G.W. Bush took office, he named the governor of Wisconsin (my home state), Tommy Thompson, as the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). At a cafe recently, I browsed through one of the Milwaukee area's most liberal newspapers. Inside, I found a column panning Bush's pick for secretary of HHS. One of the author's points was targeting the former governor's welfare reform plan (Welfare to Work, or W2). This plan has not only been successful, but it has been adopted by states across the nation. Essentially, the idea is that if a welfare participant does not work, he or she will be cut-off from any welfare benefits. To support this plan, the state has set-up offices throughout each municipality to help current recipients find work. Sounds fair, right? Why let anyone mooch off the the system when they are obviously unwilling to try and do things for themselves? Well, here's what the author of that article had to say: "I remember, at one time, we judged the success of our welfare programs by how many people we helped, not how many we throw out of the system." What an idiot. I mean, is it better to give people taxpayers dollars for their entire lives, or is it better to help them find a job; help them gain the ability to be productive members of society? I'd like to think that our welfare programs should be judged by how many people we get off of welfare and into the work force. Liberal America, wake up! Do you truly believe that giving out a $200 check each month with another $200 in food stamps is actually helping anyone? Hardly. It's hurting the taxpayers and, more importantly, the welfare recipients themselves. Focusing on the latter, let's take a look at some startling statistics: 93% of welfare recipients over the age of 27 have had more than 13 jobs, the average duration of which is 4 months.That seems to indicate a problem with keeping work. Don't blame it on the employers. 67% of female welfare recipients have given birth to children while they were receiving welfare benefits.That would seem to indicate serious irresponsibility. It also is quite unfair to the children, don't you think? 61% of welfare recipients are high school drop-outs.Here's an idea: let's send our children the message that, if they want to drop out of school, it's OK because the government (taxpayers) will take care of them. In Wisconsin (before W2), only 6% of welfare recipients only received up to a year in benefits, before they were "back on their feet", as it were.Liberals, what do you see welfare as? Total income for under priviledged people? I'd prefer to see it as a tool to help people get back on their feet after poor choices or just plain-old tough luck. It shouldn't be a system that simply keeps people in its grip (read: free money). It should be a system that provides an incentive to actually get people working for themselves. Granted, adults shouldn't need an incentive to do these things, but hey - that's the world we live in. We shouldn't cater to their wallets. We should cater to their employment. [This message has been edited by aramike (edited 03-11-2001).]