Soback

Anyhow, http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/luxury Luxury: 1.Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort. 2.SOMETHING EXPENSIVE OR HARD TO OBTAIN. 3.Sumptuous living or surroundings Like I said, for someone in the dessert, water CAN be a luxury, is it needed for life, yes, is it hard to obtain in the desert, yes, would it be expensive to buy in the desert, yes. Is it a luxury, YES. My statement still stands. When you pack a billion people into a city, water can become a luxury there. Remember last week, Katrina, you know, big, dangerous, lots of destruction. Was water a luxury afterwards? I bet it was.

By the same token I can say fuel is NOT a luxury, doesn't make it any more affordable however. Without it, I would have no job, no income, could not drive to work, would not fly airplanes. Granted, I could survive as a bum on the street, fishing in the ocean, and build a bonfire on the beach for warmth and cooking. But seriously. Luxury, is whatever is scarce for YOU. You see, people who loot from you, want you to think that exluding air, water, food, shelter, and some rugs to cover yourself with, everything else, is a luxury that you can do without. The same ones that say you should not eat un till everyone has been fed, you should not have a house, till everyone has a roof over their head, you should not have a car, till everyone has one, because THEN, once you buy into that, you are their slave, who works for THEIR benefit, and not your OWN, to make THEM happy, not YOURSELF (when you make others happy, it should make you happy, sounds familiar?). Funny how those things were the foundation of communism, and are the pillars of socialism. When have you heard in capitalism said that you should give away what you make, I haven't, I HAVE however heard it said in communism, and performed in socialism, obtaining the sanction of the person being looted by guilt, that his neighbor is less fortunate. Ever heard people saying ".....is a luxury we can not afford right now" when refering to a common place object. That's exactly what they mean, they don't have the budget and can make DO without that object. Some people, CAN NOT make do without gasoline, some can. Some people can afford it, some can't. So if you can't afford it, at a certain point, it becomes a luxury, while for some other guy, he can buy 10 gallons, pour it down the drain without a care, and buy 10 more, is it a luxury for him? Does that mean that just because he is able to waste his money like that, we should punish him for it? I don't think so, I say it's great, because if he can get to that point where he has so much money that he doens't care SO CAN I, (after feeding all my neighbors, providing them with medical care, and a place to live of course, how could I forget).

How about the government, instead of stepping in and offering incentives. Instead gets the hell out of the way, drops it's bs, gets rid of the green wackos (who are anti-diesel by the way), and lets capitalism do it's thing. So instead of ending up with another layer of beaurocracy and government tinckering, you have the market decide. My friend went OUT OF STATE, to buy a diesel VW, golf I think, or some similar 4 door. Government incentive? No, just pure market forces, he saves on gas. As far as acceleration goes, sorry, I drove his car, it sucks on acceleration, and IS noisy. Would I buy it, yeah, why not, if I was looking to save on gas, and needed a new car, I would. So those who would want a fast car, would still buy the fastest they can afford, government incentive or not, meaning if there was a governemtn incentive in a form of a rebate for a slow $15,000 car, they would STILL buy a $15,000 different brand car that is FASTER, those who look for big, buy the biggest they can afford, if the government was offering $5,000 cash back (your taxes by the way) on a small hybrid, those who need a big trunk or a car that can carry a ton, would still buy big. It's capitalism man, HOW can you even rationalize government kick backs? Not only is it your money being thrown out instead of being put to good use, but it simply does not work, it hasn't worked, and will not work. The people who go for those incentives, were shopping for that or similar product in the first place, those incentives just made it more affordable to them, that's all. Meaning, if I was going to buy a honda civic, and the government says, we give out $1,000 cash back to civic buyers, it's "free" money for me, that came out of YOUR pocket. So I just basically looted $1,000 from people around me, of course it spreads out to less than a cent per person, but in the end, we could be talking hundreds of millions. Remember, every dollar the government spends, is YOURS. Capitalism, market forces, free economy, or socialism, no freedoms, government beaurocracey. Tough choice. [ 09-15-2005, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

To your First point, if you don't support the idea, why even explain why someone would want it? Why rationalize something that CAN NOT be rationalized. On your second point. If it was that easy to make a fuel effiecient SUV or a Hummer, then why don't you go ahead and DO it, seriously, open up your own car manufacturing plant, and build fuel efficient SUV's, you think I would pass up a good SUV that gets 50mpg, for the one that gets 15? No rational man would make a bad choice for himself, when he knows it's bad, it's evolution, and self preservation, it's as simple as common sense, if he passes up the 50mpg one, there would be a REASON for it, that outweights losing those 35 miles in gas savings. If you have the most basic rudementary comprehension of physics, you know that to move something requires force, the heavier it is, the more force is needed to move it. The simplest thing IS, the MORE force you need out of an engine the MORE fuel you burn. And the fact is, the fuel efficient or hybrid engines, just DO NOT put out the power needed to MOVE a 4 ton truck or SUV. Here's an example, you can have a car with 100hp engine, and total weight of 1500 lbs, and a car with 500hp engine, total weight 6000 pounds, the car with 100 hp engine will OUTPERFORM the car with a 500 hp one. Just because it's lighter, and it requires LESS horsepower to propell it, therefore LESS fuel. Every 6 pounds cost you about 1 hp, that's the rule of thumb. Why do you think even the crappiest motorcycle will still out accelerate a Ford Mustang. Because power to weight ratio is in motorcycles favor. That's why they can't simply go ahead and build a "fuel efficient" SUV or truck. What they have on the market right now, IS efficient for an SUV or a truck. Third point. A guy who makes his millions, is the one who signs his OWN paycheck. Meaning he OWNS that bussiness which nets him that pay, or is at the head of it. Bussinesses profit margins go down, his pay goes down, therefore follows a restructuring to increase profit margins. Fourth point. Public transportation is just that, public. Private transportation is PRIVATE. Which efficiency does public transportation tramp exactly? If you are talking about gas efficiency, sure, you can pack 100 people into a bus and move them from point A to point B while burning less fuel. Time saving efficieny, um, no, that would go on private transportations side, comfort efficiency, nope, that's private too, safety (not only do 100 people die if that bus goes down "London anyone", but what about the germs, airborn deseases and such), nope safety goes to private also. We can go on, but you get the point, your own car, beats a bus anytime, it's all about what you are willing to spend, and someone coming out and saying, you can use your own car, but on top of that you PAY us a fee, it's just BS. Who are you to decide which mode I should use, or who are you to decide to impose some kind of tax/fee on whichever mode you disagree with. As for the idea of that ratio of 1 to 3. Here's an explanation: Lets say you have a factory manufacturing, um, vacuums. Lets say, to keep math simple, you are selling those vacuums at $100 a piece. After all your taxes, lets say you walk away with $50. That's a 50% margin for you. So you get your pay from that, your employees pay, equipment, research, development, property, and some money to expand your bussiness, (bussiness taxes are close to 50% in real life by the way). Now lets say the government comes in and says, hey we will be increasing your taxes, so now you have to pay us $51 dollars on every $100 you make (meaning 51%). You go ok, fine. So now you walk away with only $49, or now your profit margin is 49%, (remember, in bussiness terms, we can be talking about millions if not billions of dollars a year, in a change as little as .10c, not one buck). You however, want that profit margin to where it used to be, because you want your bussiness to expand, you want the lifestyle you had before, you want to develop better vacuums, so you NEED that $50 you were getting before. If you increase the price of a vacuum to $101, you walk away with $49.49, that's still .51c short of $50, you increase it to $102, walk away with $49.98, ALMOST there, you will need around $102.20, JUST to get back to your OLD $50 profits, and that's $, not %. So even though you are still walking away with $50, your % margin has still decreased. So WHO ends up payin the price for government taxes? The bussinesses, or YOU the consumer, and mind you, per 1 buck more that the government collected, you ended up paying $2.20 And your LAST point. Luxury is not defined as expensive. It's whatever is not easily come by. Water is luxury in a desert, coal is luxury in some poor country in the winter, fuel is luxury where none is found, lumber is luxury where no forests grow. So, when you cram a billion people into one city, water BECOMES a luxury. When you have high demand, low supply for fuel, at a certain point fuel becomes a luxury that not everyone can affod. So, why should you decide, that if I am able to afford something you can not, that I should then pay a dis-insentive tax on that item. Just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean someone else can't. And artificially imposing a fee on that, is not only wrong for ethical reasons, but is bad for economic reasons too. [ 09-15-2005, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

< robT> Name ONE thing that your windows comp can do that my MAC cant < bawss> Right click. LOL

-DaZE> at my school.. the cop from DARE passed around 3 joints to show everyone... and he said "if i dont get all three of these back this schools getting locked down and everyones getting searched till i find it.." and like 30 minutes later when everyone got to see 'em and they got passed back the cop had 4

<_kr4m3r> so many criminals, its bullshit -foniks> heh, if we sent all the criminals to some empty continent and just left them there to die -foniks> and showed up like 50yrs later like, "sup?" -foniks> whatd u think they'd say? -FoSZoR[bg]> something along the lines of, "G`Day mate"

When you have an ARTIFICIAL penalty on buying a big car, that penalty is based on YOUR opinion, and others like you. The person is buying a car that costs him MORE than a smaller one, he is paying MORE to fuel it up, he is paying MORE because he fuels it up more often, he is paying MORE for maintenance, he is paying MORE for insurance because those cars are costlier to fix after an accident, so he pays TONS MORE period, just based on PURE MARKET FORCES. YOU, on the other hand, want to stick your hatred opinion and PENALIZE them EVEN MORE on top of everything else. Are you familiar with PRIVATE JET CHARTER? I'll tell you a little bit about it. It's when people can charter a plane, to take them from place to place. NOT an airliner, but a plane for their own, private use. It can be ONE person, in a jet, going from NY (east coast), to CA (west coast). You have ANY idea how many gallons of fuel that burns? THOUSANDS, you have any idea how much POLUTION that creates? Why don't you start ranting in that case, that there shouldn't be luxiries for people who can afford them. Why don't you stick that person, who is supporting and maintaining HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of jobs when he charters that jet, that's right, he gives ME a job, he gives dispatchers a job, he gives fuelers a job, he gives caterers a job, he gives mechanics a job, and HUNDREDS of other professions that surround that industry, why don't you stick him in a commercial public Jet, and say that it's conservation of resources and reduces pollution. Or why don't you impose $10,000 dollars dis-insentive on every charter flight a plane flies. What then, will you be doing with all the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who will lose their jobs because an industry is gone (where do you think the socialists get their money to support those who are out of jobs, FROM THOSE WHO HAVE JOBS), just because a private jet is NOT economical. That person, CAN AFFORD to spend that kind of money though. Just like someone buying an SUV, they can AFFORD to. So your extra DI-INSENTIVE, is the ugliest, nastiest, horrible, socialistic way of imposing an aritificial TAX, on people who can afford things, and who GIVE YOU a job. Where do you think that "dis-insentive" is going to go? Let me give you a hint, towards more government programs. And WHO do you think will be picking up the cost of that dis-insentive. You think a guy who finally says, screw that SUV, and buys a hyndai loses and you win? Or do you think that the company making that SUV, goes out bussiness, thousand of people lose their jobs, and will now be supported by YOUR socialist system by the way. And don't try telling me that those people will just switch over to building more efficient cars, because they will NOT. Have you checked the car surplus? Well there's TONS of them UNSOLD, each year. So no, NO NEW workers will be needed at the plants that are already producing smaller cars. (Hmmm... wonder why GM is going out of bussiness) Who do you think would be picking up that $10,000 imposed on private charter, by the same token of thinking that it's wastefull. You think a guy who spends $70,000 a trip, easily, is going to say "hey, it's only $10,000 more, no big deal), or do you think that that the guy who spends that kind of money, probably has some kind of bussiness, whos final product YOU use in your daily life, and now that it costs him MORE for his lifestyle, he will be INCREASING the price of his product to compensate, with YOU as the final guy PICKING UP the tab of your own dis-insentive solution. ROFL Well, it always cracked me up when a democrat would say (Kerry in this case) that they will lower the taxes for the poor and have higher taxes on the rich. Who own the factories, bussinesses, mines, refineries, petroleum wells, ect... and all the poor applaud, and yell HURRAY. Being too stupid to realize that when that politician increases the taxes on those rich guys, bitting into their profit margins, those same rich guys will increase the prices on their products, and those same poor sobs will ultimatly be the ones who end up paying the increase in tax that they applauded for, out of their own venomous hatred of the rich, who provide them with those same jobs that put bread on their tables and roofs over their heads. The ratio of that however, when you go through the chain reaction, IS: For every dollar increase in taxes, the consumer ends up paying 3 dollars more to maintain the same profit margin for the company. ROFL. Yeah, your dis-insentive is a "great" idea. Now, however, that you should see the whole chain reaction a little more clearly than just big gas guzzlers bad, smaller cars good, I certainly hope you can make an educated decission about what it would REALLY mean, when you say that. Really, FREEDOM, has no comparison, be it personal or economical. US was born a free country, now it's being chained down, and reminds me of a captured wild beast in a zoo, it's sad to see them there sometimes (you can ALWAYS tell which ones were captured and which ones were bred in captivity) just wallowing away.

A quote I found someplace " The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?"

Who are you to decide, to impose, and enforce on me your thinking of what kind of car I should drive? If you don't like the big gas guzzlers, don't buy one. If I do, and can afford one, I should be able to, without anyone imposing their personal likes or dislikes on my way of life. What if I tell you I don't like the tiny hybrid cars. What if I think they are unsafe and whoever buys one should pay an extra $5,000 at the time of purchase and higher insurance premiums because if they get into an accident, there's a higher likelyhood of them getting seriously hurt and therefore it will drive up EVERYONE's insurance rate. Whould you like that? Hm.... P.S. The way socialism blends with capitalism, is since that system CAN NOT systain itself, it leaches off of the wealth capitalism produces, and therefore cripples it. So NO, the combination of two systems is not better.

Why would you want to "penalize" someone TWICE. They already pay throught the nose at the pump because their car burns more, the capitalistic market forces NATURALLY dictate which car you drive, so if $60 a fill up, and TWICE as often is not a dis-insentive, what is. If you can AFFORD a big gas guzzler and want one, great. Artificially penalizing them on top of market forces is just smacks of a socialist system. As you know, that system has been tried time and time again, and each time it has failed, with drastic consequences for the people living under it. Rome has failed because of it. That's why I am so serious.

quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: quote:Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik: Who is really to blame for high gas prices? Not to mention those huge gas guzzling SUV's that place even more stress on the supply. Perhaps if gas prices were tied to the MPG of your vehicle people might reconsider. Getting 4 MPG will cost you 6 bucks per gallon, get 30 MPG costs you 1 buck per gallon. Ha, I'm dreaming and I know it. Gas prices ARE tied to MPG. The less you get, the more you buy. Why should one pay lets say $5 a gallon if his car gets 15mi, and other pay $2 a gallon if his car gets 30. It makes no sense. What does make sense is them paying for the ammount they buy, with the guy using more, needing to buy more, therefore PAYING more, obviously. A year (or two) ago, in Oregon, the government gave HUGE tax breaks for people who bought cars getting high mileage per gallon. What they realized when tax time rolled around is that their TAX REVENUE from gasoline sales dropped through the floor. The rats panicked, how would they pay for their social programs? And so the idea was born. Instead of charging state tax by the gallon of gas purchased, they started taxing people by the mile DRIVEN. So it doesn't matter if you drive a gas guzzling 10 mpg car, or a 50 mpg one, you drive up, punch in your licence plate, and your current miles on odometer. The tax is calculated based on your last and current odometer reading. Welcome to the looting socialism system, where they take from you, any way they can. The ODASITY to tax someone based on the DISTANCE THEY TRAVELLED of their own accord. By the same token of thought, next on agenda, taxing the distance travelled by bicycle, and then taxing the distance travelled by foot, that of course involves attaching tracking devices to each individual, but that's just a minor detail.

"When oxygen levels drop, the body's natural stores of nitrite convert to nitric oxide, in turn dilating vessels so that more blood ÔÇö and more oxygen ÔÇö gets through." Nitric Oxide has been used FOR YEARS by body builders to help build muscle, quicker recoveries, and bigger "pump". MRI (Medical research institute) has pattents pending on that supplement. As do about a dozen other companies with their "unique" formulas. As for Sodium Nitrate, it has been ALSO used for years as a cure for bacterial infections. There's nothing new here, it's just a company blowing smoke about a "new" invention. Pumping the public up for future sales, and hoping to steal the spot light so that FDA, government body, and whoever else they are lobbying will grant them exclusive rights to tramp smaller companies. Whoever starts yelling first, and whoever is the loudest wins. Ephedra for example was used in China for HUNDREDS of years. It was introduced into US in the late 70's. Again for bodybuilding. It frees up blood flow, builds muscle, increases alertness levels, makes breathing easier (asthma anyone?, lung congestion), and is SAFE for weight loss. How many people did it "kill" since the 70's. Less than a 100. Also, they died because of drug interaction with other things they put into their bodies, or they NEGLECTED to follow the instructions, and were excercising heavily after taking the drug, raising their blood pressure and heart rate even farther, inducing a heart attack. Would you drink 10 esspressos and go on a tread mill? Would be pretty stupid, and would give you the same effect by the way. So anyhow, seems like a major lawsuit migh be brewing over that A-AKG.

quote:Originally posted by Race Bannon IV: Jag that is simply an oversimplication of a complex problem. You dont think that some poverty exists because of environmental factors? Lets look at predatory lending, placing payroll advance stores in areas where underemployed people reside, etc. Corporate America preys upon these folks in many ways. Also this insistence on labling people as welfare mothers does a great disservice to people who use it as a way to get ahead. I actually have three of these welfare mothers on my payroll. Two of them graduated yesterday with Associate Degrees in Criminal Justice and the third is still in school. Have any of you folks who make these generalizations actually ever met any of the people you discuss and dismiss so easily? Yes poor people have always been around. Yes SOME of them are lazy and shiftless (its been my experience in working with these folks for the las 20 years that very few of them want to stay on the government tit), but most just want something better for thier children. We will always have poor people as long as wehave everyone else dehumanizing them and marginalizing them and in the case of good ole American consumerism, bamboozling them You don't believe in FREE WILL, Race? You can place 100 payroll advance stores around where I live, I will NOT go into one, I would rather BALANCE my budget instead, because I KNOW what credit is. However, you can have 1 payroll advance 50 miles away, and those who DO use them will all flock to that one. Free choice Race, it's a wonder isn't it. Same goes for predatory lending by the way, you KNOW what a loan is, and you don't need to be a genious to figure out how much interest you are paying and how much money you are earning, it's addition and subtraction Race. BY YOU saying that those people are prayed on, YOU are the one doing them a disservice by dismissing their free will and saying they are going into those pay advance stores just because there's A LOT of them around, and YOU dissmissing their intellingence and confusint it with their WANTS when they blindly apply for that predatory loan, closing their minds to the fact that they can't AFFORD it. It's like when those fat kids sued Burgerking for being fat, claiming they were DRAWN to their food and had NO CHOICE. THEY LOST the case, Race. Now, what's wrong with the wellfare mother statement? PC BULL. That's all it is. Wellfare mother, is a mother who had a child she CAN NOT AFFORD TO RAISE, just like those pay advance stores and predatory loans, people who use them majority of the time, can't AFFORD them. Now let me tell you how Jaguar is right when he says that the wellfare state CREATES MORE of those wellfare mothers. So the mother has a child, and goes on wellfare to support that child (meaning WE pay for her living). It's a disgrace, because it's a safety net for her, and she KNOWS she can relly on it even BEFORE that child is concieved (says a lot about what people want and closing their minds to choices that they KNOW they SHOULD be making, like protection for example, or adoption when the first choice they made gave them the results they didn't want). THAT is why you have MORE and MORE mothers on wellfare, because they close their minds to other options. They think that they can keep that child, because WE will take care of it. Would she STILL make the same choice knowing that we WOULD NOT? I think you know the answer to that one, Race.

And that's is why I said "Am I going to complain to them? ROFL, we will see if we there's the need to complain...all has it's proper time." UnderLord. So you saying that I am the guy who will be killing innocent people, is a bit of a jump, or rather a huge leap. Posted by UnderLord: "Don't need to its all there buddie im done with this convo PEACE!" So you should be done, BUDDIE, or rather BUDDY(ahem..., talk about bettering one self, starts with learning to express one self, but I gues for some, why write a paragraph when an incoherent, misspelled sentence with no foundation for back up will do as long as you get to call another, the crazy guy shooting up the supermarket, and keep on. Here's an advice, put your hands over your ears and continue on saying that. Behave like a child = get treated like a child) [ 09-10-2005, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Great depression happened because of a lack of a social safety net? Really, so this country was BORN with a social safety net and that's why it became got built up? You think the settlers were compensated when the Indians attacked and ruined their settlements? You think the cities were collecting wellfare and aid when the floods hit? Or was everyone left to their own doings, enterprising, inventing, working, creating, building. And you were FREE to start a bussiness, to build a factory, to explore and settle the land, or to prospect new mine and hire workers, or to become a worker for lowly wage at someone elses mine. Social wellfare net NEVER existed in this country un till the 1900's and when it was institutionalized, the economy, the interpenuership, businesses and the lives of productive people, all started heading down hill (well, not for those who benefited from that wellfare, but we know who they are, and they are not listed in that sentence) Here's how you can learn about the great depression, how it happened and why. Read up on abolishment of THE GOLD STANDARD. Ever heard a saying "Your money is not worth the paper it's printed on". That's where that saying comes from. To give you the briefest glimpse of it. Before the gold standard was abolished, the money the country circulated HAD to be backed up by the gold the country HAD. When the budget got tight for the government because of overspending, pork barelling, wellfare and the such, they couldn't back the funds with gold anymore, and abolishing it was the only way to go so that they could keep printing an unlimited ammount of money without backing it up. That gave them control to tax peolpe even more, to influence the economy and that's why we are in National debt up to the ears, paying almost 50% in taxes, and will never see the end till the whole system collapses, and people going back to the gold and silver monetary system, be it in hard currency or paper backed up by gold and silver. [ 09-10-2005, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Go read my first 5 posts in this thread, and then try to back up your statement above.

Actually, in that example, if the government just printed money without collecting taxes, that would be $30,000 new bills deluting your $100,000. If they collect $30,000 from you, and print $10,000. That's 10,000 new bills on the market delutig your $100,000 (as opposed to 30), and on top of that $40,000 as opposed to $30,000 for them to spend. So still the same point. Just the math was a little off.

Taxes is looting. Where do you think wellfare comes from? FROM MY TAXES. SO, the more wellfare they give out, THE MORE THEY LOOT FROM ME. The government DOES NOT have any money. They DO NOT produce it, they do not create value. All they do is PRINT the paper. The REAL VALUE of the dollar comes from YOU, the individual. You are the one who creates the wealth, you are the one who produces. Each dollar the government prints, delutes the value of the one you have in your hand. What that means is, with each dollar printed, you can buy LESS with the one you have. That's why the government taxes you, because if they just print new money without collecting the ones you have, the INFLATION would go through the roof. Here's an example, if there was no taxes, it would mean that you would walk away with $100,000 dollars at the end of the year (to make math simple). Now the government needs to spend, so they print $30,000 dollars (to replace what they would have otherwise collected from you). The net result is 30,000 that would have been collected from you, PLUS 30,000 printed, that's 60,000 new bills on the market. Instead, they collect 30,000 from you and print print 10,000 of theirs to have the net result of $40,000 for them to spend (which is more than the original 30) with ONLY 10,000 new bills out. See, the inflation is the total ammount was deluted by 10,000 instead of 30,000, AND they got more to spend at the same time. THE COST, That 30,000 they took from you. YOURS, and given NOT for maintenace, infrastructure, military, and only basic government spending, but SPREAD ALL OVER, and given to those that have NOTHING to do with government. Why do you think you are getting taxed THAT MUCH. Because of all the spending that SHOULDN'T BE there at the first place. Wellfare state, social projects, freeways going nowhere, bridges leading to islands with 3 houses on them, pork barell spending, and in the pockets of the politicians. Am I going to complain to them? ROFL, we will see if we there's the need to complain...all has it's proper time. [ 09-09-2005, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Really? It's wrong that I don't want to have my money taken away from me and given to someone else? You are going to dictate that if I make "enough" by your standards, I HAVE to help someone? And if I make more each year, the ammount looted from me increases. And me protesting that is wrong? By what RIGHT do you take what is MINE? By your claim of social wellfare? You do realize what private property is? You do realize that whatever you TAKE from someone without their consent is called LOOTING.

Total wellfare. Show me a "person" who is for total wellfare. He would fit perfectly on my balcony, in a cage. Well taken care of, fed, given his shots. He will be getting the same total wellfare that my turtle has. Of course, the above sounds like one would take care of a pet, an animal, and I will treat him as such. Show my new pet to my friends, and be poking him with a stick for entertainment, when I get tired of him just laying there, in total, peacefull, wellfare.

I'll tell ya. If a person wants to come up in the world, I will help him out based exactly on how much he is willing to put into it. If he is just ranting how it's hard, and impossible, and bad, I will tell him to go rot. If however he asks me, "Hey, could you please help me with this." and he wants it SO BAD that I can taste it. I will help him, at the very least I will get in return the satisfaction of dealing with a competent human being. I DO NOT, want my money to go towards the leaches. I DO NOT want to be looted of what I earn. The people who are recieving those benefits from my money, I would rather have them starve then give them a cent. I have NO compassion for those who keep getting medical, food stamps and payments, month after month, YEAR AFTER YEAR. Basically, this is what I am saying: "Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. "

quote:Originally posted by UnderLord:

Darkling, there are no contradictions in my posts. If you see any, check your premises. When I say it's BS, I mean it literally. Those who don't get out of poverty are poor because of: lazziness, lack of intelligence, lack of drive to succeed, social system that permits them to remain poor, many other reasons, and any combination of them. See the BS? I am not going to cut anyone any slack, if someone tries to say that they are poor, and are entitled to help, BS. So when you say: "By the way you seem to contradict yourself here. In One breath, you're saying that "It's BS that a lot never get out of Poverty" and in the next breath you're saying that "even if given choices they would still sit on their behinds". I say, check your premises. I am not contradicting myself, because I mean what I say literally. I mean NOT that it's untrue (BS) that a lot never get out of poverty, but that it's true and it's BS as in BAD. And that even when people are given choices, they still chose to sit on their behinds, because those choices involve WORK, and HARD WORK at that. When I say that, I don't generalize, I have had PERSONAL experiences with people like that. I despise them, and chose not to deal with them altogether. ----Darkling posted: "So which is it, the poor are a bunch of listless lazy asses sucking you dry, or they're a group of industrious people that eventually get out of poverty? " It is a bunch of poor, listless, lazy, sucking me dry. Those who have the drive, the work ethic to better themselfs, who build on what they have rather then sit in their own cesspool, and who don't live off of the money the government took away from me, I have no problem with.

quote:Originally posted by Psirat: quote:Originally posted by Soback: quote:Originally posted by Chavis: And I don't think you conservative jerk offs qualify. WHAT HAVE YOUR LIBERAL MIND PRODUCED? Karl Marx, Lenin? ROFL Oh no, here we go. You know, as humans we're not limited to binary, black/white, on/off thinking. "My team is better than yours." Yeah, see you at homecoming... Wealth, while related to hard work, is not a direct result of it. Luck and initial circumstances have a lot of power. I don't believe in equal opportunity, or in Santa (but if you see him, don't tell him I said that). Please note I've not expressed my opinion on welfare or anyone's Mom. What exactly have you expressed then? Team, lol. Your "team" is a failure. Your "team" needs cash cows, slaves, to support your players. For a little over a hundred years (in US, when taxes got introduced), we the producers have been paying off the thugs to keep thier hands off us, to keep us out of their prisons. We have been paying them off, and they have been taking our money, a little more each decade, and giving it to your "teams" leaches. The incompetents (great name for a team by the way). It's called the WELLFARE STATE. It's called SOCIALISM. Here's why your team is enherently a losing team. It requires: first the producing element like the competent workers, the industrialist to build factories, farms, mines, and the inventors to introduce better way of doing things; second, it needs their consent to take the product of their labor from the workers, the product of their profits from the industrialist and the product of their minds from the inventors. Then your "team" redestributes those LOOTED products to those WHO DID NOT EARN them. Since no SANE human being would FREELY give up what he has earned, they introduced a law, that YOUR PROPERTY will be confiscated for non compliance, and you will go to prison. Therefore FREE CHOICE has been taken out from the equasion (like when people say, you are free to NOT pay taxes, that's BS). You are FORCED to pay, it's a literal PAY OFF to be left alone, to not have thugs barging through your doors. The government NEEDS people like me, because without US they would have millions of leachers on their hands with NOTHING to provide for them. Your form of goverment, NEEDS our consent, because without our consent, how would they provide for the leaches, again. Your government FEARS, the FREE WILL of a rational human, that's why they have instituted laws to take away guns from the law abiding citizens, because they know that ONE DAY when the numbers of leaches grows and it will be necessary to loot even more, we will start to rebell, and if we don't have guns, then they can use force on us without reprecussions. That's why Thomas Jefferson said that WE, THE PEOPLE, NEED GUNS TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT POWERS IN CHECK, TO KEEP THEM FROM ABUSING THEIR POWER AND FOCING US INTO LITERALL SLAVERY. However, what they fear above all, and they KNOW it, but A LOT of US don't. Is that their social system WILL fall apart without a shot, when we finally withdraw. When we withdraw our labor and our minds. They will have looted everything in sight, and without the fresh inflow, their system of looting will collapse. That's why they make examples of the few who elect to go away, like looting (eminent domain) the property of another for "development", like putting a regular joe in prison every so often for tax fraud, like the tax brakets to make sure that the more you earn, the more they forcefully take away from you, the less you have. That day is coming. The day when the ones who want to trully live will withdraw themselfs. We will do what your "team" is terrified of. We will rally, and cut your "team" off. We will not shoot you, or harm you, or maim you. We just will not GIVE you the products of our minds and labor. Then YOUR "TEAM" can go be a good liberal and go on feeding the leaches. Where you will be getting the food? It's up to you, but you will not be looting us anymore for it. Where will you be getting the money, that's up to your "team" too. It will not be our money. However, your team WILL try the use of physical force when their threats of imprisonment and confiscation will not work anymore. Think however, whos force is more potent, the physical force of a brute with a club, or the physical force of a thinker who taugh the brute to use that club. Poor, you can be poor all you want. Don't demand your wealth from those who posses it, make your own. Don't demand your food from those who produce it, earn it. I do not want your leaches to live off of me, just like I don't want to live off of another. I make my money, and I buy what I can with that money. I don't force my mind or my hand on another to take what I do not earn, and I don't want others to force their minds or their hand on me to take what I have earned. So like I said, I have no kind words for those who yell in my face that they are poor and demand that I clothe them, feed them and provide a roof over their heads. I don't OWN THEM ANYTHING. "Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle." Your "team" needs peolpe like me or it will DIE, my "team" will live just fine, without yours. And Chavis, stay out.