Screw people that can't take care of themsevles. I do not care. If they do not have Family willing to help them out, friends willing to help them out, or the local community willing to help them out, then they deserve where they are. Because they have obviously F'ed up royally and driven away anyone that would be willing to help them out. Why should they get a hand out from the government?
Originally posted by Cabe2323 I have no problem at all with States providing statewide healthcare. AS long as they can do it while maintaining effective and quality healthcare. National healthcare is not only wrong in my opinion but robbery. It is the government stealing from our individuals to provide for others. That is wrong and against the spirit on which this country was founded.
Exactly. Americans need to be reminded that we're a Republic. States are given the responsibilities not directed to, or prohibited by, the Federal government.
Ico Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
Screw people that can't take care of themsevles. I do not care. If they do not have Family willing to help them out, friends willing to help them out, or the local community willing to help them out, then they deserve where they are. Because they have obviously F'ed up royally and driven away anyone that would be willing to help them out. Why should they get a hand out from the government?
Wow
Why a Wow? Everyone has a chance to make it in America just like everyone has a chance to F up royally. My Aunt is an Executive VP for JPMorgan Chase. She is doing very well but came from a family that had no money at all. One of her neighbors was a Stockbroker living the high life. Then he lost it all by making poor choices in his personal life. He didn't have any skills to fallback on and was too old to get another Stockbroker job. Should the government provide for him because he pissed all of his money away? What about the Woman who gets pregnant 6,7,8 even 9 times and has all of those kids while living on welfare, she could of easily chosen to not have sex but instead kept having kids. Why should we have to help her? What about the drug users, should we have to pay for their medical care when they hurt themselves trying to steal money to buy more drugs?
No I stand by my statement. If someone falls on bad times and it wasn't there fault there are going to be local resources to help them. Family, friends, church, community will help them get back on their feet. The only reason that won't happen is if you are a total F up and truely deserve where you are.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
I love listening to American arguments, a lot of the times people will throw around the word "Liberal" like its something negative. Where almost every other part of the world it has a good meaning in other Countries. Hilary Clinton socialist? Please. She would be a conservative in most other Countries.
Agree.
In UK when Blair was elected we thought we elected a Labour PM, instead Blair policies were more close to the Conservative party than the traditional Labour.
In fact his policies were so close to the Conservatories that the Tories didn't have any decent policy for 15 years since all of their traditional policies have been stolen by Blair and modified to suit Labour Manifesto.
I see Clinton a bit like Blair in UK (although with less charm).
Expect Clinton to be very Republican, you can hardly call her Socialist, if there is an American politician who is more close to corporations that's Hillary Clinton.
Screw people that can't take care of themsevles. I do not care. If they do not have Family willing to help them out, friends willing to help them out, or the local community willing to help them out, then they deserve where they are. Because they have obviously F'ed up royally and driven away anyone that would be willing to help them out. Why should they get a hand out from the government?
Wow
Why a Wow? Everyone has a chance to make it in America just like everyone has a chance to F up royally. My Aunt is an Executive VP for JPMorgan Chase. She is doing very well but came from a family that had no money at all. One of her neighbors was a Stockbroker living the high life. Then he lost it all by making poor choices in his personal life. He didn't have any skills to fallback on and was too old to get another Stockbroker job. Should the government provide for him because he pissed all of his money away? What about the Woman who gets pregnant 6,7,8 even 9 times and has all of those kids while living on welfare, she could of easily chosen to not have sex but instead kept having kids. Why should we have to help her? What about the drug users, should we have to pay for their medical care when they hurt themselves trying to steal money to buy more drugs?
No I stand by my statement. If someone falls on bad times and it wasn't there fault there are going to be local resources to help them. Family, friends, church, community will help them get back on their feet. The only reason that won't happen is if you are a total F up and truely deserve where you are.
Because sh#t happens man, and there aren't always a nice net when you fall. It isn't so black and white as you would make it. Friends/Family/Church/Community aren't always there, and when they are they can only help so far. People make wrong choices in life all the time, financially and otherwise. Whats next man, toss babies with any deformities/problems, soldiers who were maimed in the garbage because we shouldn't have to "Pay". It all seems to come down to if money is coming out of your pocket, theres more to life than keeping that extra ten cents.Theres a difference between having a fair chance, and a slim chance, or no second chances at all if your life isn't the norm. You are seriously one hateful person.
Im done with this post, I feel like im drawing out more and more of this vomit coming out of your mouth.
Screw people that can't take care of themsevles. I do not care. If they do not have Family willing to help them out, friends willing to help them out, or the local community willing to help them out, then they deserve where they are. Because they have obviously F'ed up royally and driven away anyone that would be willing to help them out. Why should they get a hand out from the government?
Wow
Why a Wow? Everyone has a chance to make it in America just like everyone has a chance to F up royally. My Aunt is an Executive VP for JPMorgan Chase. She is doing very well but came from a family that had no money at all. One of her neighbors was a Stockbroker living the high life. Then he lost it all by making poor choices in his personal life. He didn't have any skills to fallback on and was too old to get another Stockbroker job. Should the government provide for him because he pissed all of his money away? What about the Woman who gets pregnant 6,7,8 even 9 times and has all of those kids while living on welfare, she could of easily chosen to not have sex but instead kept having kids. Why should we have to help her? What about the drug users, should we have to pay for their medical care when they hurt themselves trying to steal money to buy more drugs?
No I stand by my statement. If someone falls on bad times and it wasn't there fault there are going to be local resources to help them. Family, friends, church, community will help them get back on their feet. The only reason that won't happen is if you are a total F up and truely deserve where you are.
so who decides who gets help and when? the government? the administrator of services? a "community"? you? how about the thousands of people that got kicked out of mental institutions in California when reagan cut mental health funding in the seventies and eighties when he was governor and president. if you dont believe me you can just come to sf and look at the 12,000+ homeless people that are f#%king nuts. and the sad part is at most have been on the streets now for more than 20 years. at this point you cant tell if they are homeless cause they are crazy or they are crazy cause they are homeless. who knows what you would be willing to do after 5+ years of struggling to get out of the rain for a night and getting something, anything to eat. the neo-conservative philosophy addresses the ideal not the reality. ideally people are able to take care of themselves and if not then they would hopefully have some support system like family or a community; but we all know that that is not always the case. like for example your wife or husband is dead or you have been rejected by your family because your gay or something like that. it is also ironic, which i love to point out, is that people who dont believe in evolution, i.e. neo conservatives and the christian right, love to employ social darwinism on the general public. ive always thought that was curious. dont talk about shi1t you dont know about.
Screw people that can't take care of themsevles. I do not care. If they do not have Family willing to help them out, friends willing to help them out, or the local community willing to help them out, then they deserve where they are. Because they have obviously F'ed up royally and driven away anyone that would be willing to help them out. Why should they get a hand out from the government?
Wow
Why a Wow? Everyone has a chance to make it in America just like everyone has a chance to F up royally. My Aunt is an Executive VP for JPMorgan Chase. She is doing very well but came from a family that had no money at all. One of her neighbors was a Stockbroker living the high life. Then he lost it all by making poor choices in his personal life. He didn't have any skills to fallback on and was too old to get another Stockbroker job. Should the government provide for him because he pissed all of his money away? What about the Woman who gets pregnant 6,7,8 even 9 times and has all of those kids while living on welfare, she could of easily chosen to not have sex but instead kept having kids. Why should we have to help her? What about the drug users, should we have to pay for their medical care when they hurt themselves trying to steal money to buy more drugs?
No I stand by my statement. If someone falls on bad times and it wasn't there fault there are going to be local resources to help them. Family, friends, church, community will help them get back on their feet. The only reason that won't happen is if you are a total F up and truely deserve where you are.
so who decides who gets help and when? the government? the administrator of services? a "community"? you? how about the thousands of people that got kicked out of mental institutions in California when reagan cut mental health funding in the seventies and eighties when he was governor and president. if you dont believe me you can just come to sf and look at the 12,000+ homeless people that are f#%king nuts. and the sad part is at most have been on the streets now for more than 20 years. at this point you cant tell if they are homeless cause they are crazy or they are crazy cause they are homeless. who knows what you would be willing to do after 5+ years of struggling to get out of the rain for a night and getting something, anything to eat. the neo-conservative philosophy addresses the ideal not the reality. ideally people are able to take care of themselves and if not then they would hopefully have some support system like family or a community; but we all know that that is not always the case. like for example your wife or husband is dead or you have been rejected by your family because your gay or something like that. it is also ironic, which i love to point out, is that people who dont believe in evolution, i.e. neo conservatives and the christian right, love to employ social darwinism on the general public. ive always thought that was curious. dont talk about shi1t you dont know about.
edited to complete a thought
You guys have no friggen clue. NEO Conservative? What the hell are you talking about? Constitutionaly we should not be providing these assasine programs. The Federal government has no right to do so. A Community includes a WHOLE STATE. It is their responsibility to provide for their residents. NOT the responsibility of the Federal Government. IF a State wants universal healthcare fine. Increase sales taxes and pay for it. If a State wants to give every person a house, a Plasma TV, and a car. I do not care. That is the right of each state to decide. What I hate is federal interference which turns our government from one of a Republic to a Socialistic one. Why should people in New York be forced to provide for people in California or vice versa?
How is it so difficult to understand that?
Once again I stand by my belief that the programs that FDR started and the dependence on the Federal government that is in this country today is wrong. Our federal government should not have this type of power and should not be involved this much in our lives. Yet Liberals want to empower the government more and make them more involved in our lives. Telling us what we can and can't do. What we can and can't spend our money on. ETc ETc. They want to take our freedoms away in a much worse manner then any Patriot Act can do. They want to take away our fundalmental freedoms of choice on what type of people each of us want to be.
So once again.
States providing help to their communities = good
Federal Government doing it = Bad.
EAsy enough for ya?
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
oh so your a liberatarian, i see. states rights is totally awesome i would love for california to be that autonomous. would that mean that the federal government cant prosecute me for growing weed?
ulitmately i believe that the government should only provide education, universal medical coverage and protection from foreign invaders be that thru a universal draft or volunteer army (universal draft would be better and more fair tho)
as long as people get to live healthy and get an education and get a job is all that really matters.
Hillary Clinton is a very liberal democrat. If you vote for her, you're not a republican, period. She's only conservative compared to European politicians because on the whole the USA is more conservative than Europe.
You all forget that if you go to an emergency room in the US you WILL get treated whether you can pay for it or not. It's the law. That's why illegal immigrants are bankrupting certain hospitals in the southwest.
Hillary Clinton is a very liberal democrat. If you vote for her, you're not a republican, period. She's only conservative compared to European politicians because on the whole the USA is more conservative than Europe. You all forget that if you go to an emergency room in the US you WILL get treated whether you can pay for it or not. It's the law. That's why illegal immigrants are bankrupting certain hospitals in the southwest.
Calling Hillary Clinton a liberal is an insult to the rest of us liberals. And damn, I miss the days when there were liberals in both parties.
Since when do liberals want to control what you spend your money on? That's just retarded, I don't know where in the world you made that up. And again, I'm going to remind you that there's no "constitutional" reason to have a national bank in the U.S. either.
oh so your a liberatarian, i see. states rights is totally awesome i would love for california to be that autonomous. would that mean that the federal government cant prosecute me for growing weed?
ulitmately i believe that the government should only provide education, universal medical coverage and protection from foreign invaders be that thru a universal draft or volunteer army (universal draft would be better and more fair tho) as long as people get to live healthy and get an education and get a job is all that really matters.
If you are a libertarian then you really shouldn't be wanting universal medical care...as all it would serve to do is expand the federal government and cause them to be more intrusive into your daily lives.
Truth be told, I'm more of a libertarian than most libertarians than I've met, and I'm a registered republican.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Hillary Clinton is a very liberal democrat. If you vote for her, you're not a republican, period. She's only conservative compared to European politicians because on the whole the USA is more conservative than Europe. You all forget that if you go to an emergency room in the US you WILL get treated whether you can pay for it or not. It's the law. That's why illegal immigrants are bankrupting certain hospitals in the southwest.
ah hilary, even a hard core social democrat like myself, would never vote for hilary, and my reasoning is just as lame as all the old repubs that hate her, i think she has a huge ego. its like you can see in her eyes how much she wants power. kinda scary ...
in the grand scheme of things doctors should be treating every patient that walks in the door. they (the doctors) might want to uphold that whole hipocratic oath thingy.
i think the banqrupting hospitals might be a symptom of a broken system here and in mexico as well as a reflection on our foriegn policies
Hillary Clinton is a very liberal democrat. If you vote for her, you're not a republican, period. She's only conservative compared to European politicians because on the whole the USA is more conservative than Europe. You all forget that if you go to an emergency room in the US you WILL get treated whether you can pay for it or not. It's the law. That's why illegal immigrants are bankrupting certain hospitals in the southwest.
Calling Hillary Clinton a liberal is an insult to the rest of us liberals. And damn, I miss the days when there were liberals in both parties.
Since when do liberals want to control what you spend your money on? That's just retarded, I don't know where in the world you made that up. And again, I'm going to remind you that there's no "constitutional" reason to have a national bank in the U.S. either.
It depends on how you use the word liberal. Liberal in a classical sense actually makes modern republicans more liberal than any modern "liberal" could ever hope to be...but we've pretty much lost that defenition with the advent of the "conservatives vs liberals" schtick.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Hillary Clinton is a very liberal democrat. If you vote for her, you're not a republican, period. She's only conservative compared to European politicians because on the whole the USA is more conservative than Europe. You all forget that if you go to an emergency room in the US you WILL get treated whether you can pay for it or not. It's the law. That's why illegal immigrants are bankrupting certain hospitals in the southwest.
Calling Hillary Clinton a liberal is an insult to the rest of us liberals. And damn, I miss the days when there were liberals in both parties.
Since when do liberals want to control what you spend your money on? That's just retarded, I don't know where in the world you made that up. And again, I'm going to remind you that there's no "constitutional" reason to have a national bank in the U.S. either.
It depends on how you use the word liberal. Liberal in a classical sense actually makes modern republicans more liberal than any modern "liberal" could ever hope to be...but we've pretty much lost that defenition with the advent of the "conservatives vs liberals" schtick.
As a guy from the UK i've always thought the republicans were frigging useless and seem to be more of a dictatorship than anything. You have to agree with all their views or they will not accept you kinda thing which is stupid. Also republicans seem more religious and you can't have religion and law mix cause that straight away chucks alot of cultures and people away who don't have the same views. If people like George Bush are Republican why would you vote that anyways? He's a useless stupid leader lol.... I hear alot of Americans go on about socalist ways and sorry but i see nothing bad about what Hillary wants and it aint a communism.
I was watching that film called "sicko" about how bad the American health care is and how Americans are scared to conve3rt to what countries like France and Canada and the UK has. Why be scared of what we have? We have all our health care for free and it's still upto a very high standard and doesn't mean you'll have to die if you can't afford a operation like in America because you can't afford it.
Tbh anyone who supports a free healthcare system like most of the world wins really.
Trouble is too many Americans are stupid and mind warped.
Hmmm maybe because I get top notch care at a very reasonable rate compared to the taxes you have to pay for your system. Let me think about this one. I could pay for my health insurance for myself and get top notch care, or I could pay more so every worthless bumb with a pulse between the Canadian border and the Mexican border can get healthcare.( including roughly 20% of the Mexicans in the world) Incidentally the higher priced universal health care will be much crappier than what I have now because I have to share it with millions of lazy free loaders.
It depends on how you use the word liberal. Liberal in a classical sense actually makes modern republicans more liberal than any modern "liberal" could ever hope to be...but we've pretty much lost that defenition with the advent of the "conservatives vs liberals" schtick.
Equating modern Republicans with classical liberals (or Bourbon Democrats, for that matter) is a joke. Besides that, Hillary Clinton is not a liberal in either sense, don't insult me.
O how this is going to be soooo sweet ,Clinton runs. republicans come out and in droves,and we get 3 more supreme court Judges on the supreme court appointed by a republican prez .. Monica Lewinsky thank u sweet meat, go baby go...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
O how this is going to be soooo sweet ,Clinton runs. republicans come out and in droves,and we get 3 more supreme court Judges on the supreme court appointed by a republican prez .. Monica Lewinsky thank u sweet meat, go baby go...
im so proud that i live in a society where getting a blowjob and trying to cover it up is seen as worse than antagonizing almost a whole religion into striking at us at home(or hiring it out or we did it) and then creating a situation where thousands are killed all for the profit of a couple of corporations.
BTW do any of you know how much money the leaseholder on WTC property made when the twin towers came down? its an important question to ask. you should find out how he profited
O how this is going to be soooo sweet ,Clinton runs. republicans come out and in droves,and we get 3 more supreme court Judges on the supreme court appointed by a republican prez .. Monica Lewinsky thank u sweet meat, go baby go...
im so proud that i live in a society where getting a blowjob and trying to cover it up is seen as worse than antagonizing almost a whole religion into striking at us at home(or hiring it out or we did it) and then creating a situation where thousands are killed all for the profit of a couple of corporations.
Hmm yeah I guess all that Antagonizing that Clinton did was bad. Sorry but you guys can't blame Bush for 9/11 happening something like that takes years of planning and Clinton was in Office when all the planning started and was going on.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Originally posted by Cabe2323 Hmm yeah I guess all that Antagonizing that Clinton did was bad. Sorry but you guys can't blame Bush for 9/11 happening something like that takes years of planning and Clinton was in Office when all the planning started and was going on.
Yeah, I think it's a great idea to blame politicians first for 9/11!!!!! It's not like terrorists had anything to do with it.
It depends on how you use the word liberal. Liberal in a classical sense actually makes modern republicans more liberal than any modern "liberal" could ever hope to be...but we've pretty much lost that defenition with the advent of the "conservatives vs liberals" schtick.
Equating modern Republicans with classical liberals (or Bourbon Democrats, for that matter) is a joke. Besides that, Hillary Clinton is not a liberal in either sense, don't insult me.
Who the hell was insulting you? And what, or who, is a Bourbon democrat in America? Such a thing does not exist in Washington DC today.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Who the hell was insulting you? And what, or who, is a Bourbon democrat in America? Such a thing does not exist in Washington DC today.
That wasn't an overly serious comment. The 'insulting' thing was the idea of Hillary Clinton being a liberal (in either sense), because that insults the rest of us liberals (/raises hand). Forget it, that wasn't supposed to evoke any kind of reaction except maybe a mild snort.
Bourbon Democrats existed in the Gilded Age (1877-1901 approx), and their platform could be compared to classicial liberals, but really, that was a tangent, and had nothing to do with the point of the post however many posts ago.
1. I've never waiting more than 40 mins to get seen to and if theres a eemrgancy then you get seen to straight away. Don't know anyone whose had to wait months for anything.
2. Everyone pays Tax towards all this anyways, it's nothing compared to having to pay the prices you do just to get a simple operation : I like knowing my taxes are going towards saving lives anyways.
3. I can call anyone stupid if i wish to and thats why we have freedom of speech.
Okay, I've sworn off religous and political debates on the forums, but I have to comment on this.
No, you cannot call anyone you want HERE stupid. You DO NOT have freedom of speech here on MMORPG.COM if it violates their Code of Conduct. Simply put, you are in someone elses home right now when you post here. You abide by the rules of someone elses home or you get out. If I come to your house and call you names, you can ask me to leave. I have to leave. I do not get to spout off my freedoms and stay in your house. Perhaps you are unaware, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. that Enigma is a one-time, former MOD on these forums. Therefore, I would take his warnings to heart as he is just telling you that calling people names on these forums can and, in the current Draconian state of things, will get you banned here.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Comments
Wow
Exactly. Americans need to be reminded that we're a Republic. States are given the responsibilities not directed to, or prohibited by, the Federal government.
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
Wow
Why a Wow? Everyone has a chance to make it in America just like everyone has a chance to F up royally. My Aunt is an Executive VP for JPMorgan Chase. She is doing very well but came from a family that had no money at all. One of her neighbors was a Stockbroker living the high life. Then he lost it all by making poor choices in his personal life. He didn't have any skills to fallback on and was too old to get another Stockbroker job. Should the government provide for him because he pissed all of his money away? What about the Woman who gets pregnant 6,7,8 even 9 times and has all of those kids while living on welfare, she could of easily chosen to not have sex but instead kept having kids. Why should we have to help her? What about the drug users, should we have to pay for their medical care when they hurt themselves trying to steal money to buy more drugs?No I stand by my statement. If someone falls on bad times and it wasn't there fault there are going to be local resources to help them. Family, friends, church, community will help them get back on their feet. The only reason that won't happen is if you are a total F up and truely deserve where you are.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Agree.
In UK when Blair was elected we thought we elected a Labour PM, instead Blair policies were more close to the Conservative party than the traditional Labour.
In fact his policies were so close to the Conservatories that the Tories didn't have any decent policy for 15 years since all of their traditional policies have been stolen by Blair and modified to suit Labour Manifesto.
I see Clinton a bit like Blair in UK (although with less charm).
Expect Clinton to be very Republican, you can hardly call her Socialist, if there is an American politician who is more close to corporations that's Hillary Clinton.
Wow
Why a Wow? Everyone has a chance to make it in America just like everyone has a chance to F up royally. My Aunt is an Executive VP for JPMorgan Chase. She is doing very well but came from a family that had no money at all. One of her neighbors was a Stockbroker living the high life. Then he lost it all by making poor choices in his personal life. He didn't have any skills to fallback on and was too old to get another Stockbroker job. Should the government provide for him because he pissed all of his money away? What about the Woman who gets pregnant 6,7,8 even 9 times and has all of those kids while living on welfare, she could of easily chosen to not have sex but instead kept having kids. Why should we have to help her? What about the drug users, should we have to pay for their medical care when they hurt themselves trying to steal money to buy more drugs?No I stand by my statement. If someone falls on bad times and it wasn't there fault there are going to be local resources to help them. Family, friends, church, community will help them get back on their feet. The only reason that won't happen is if you are a total F up and truely deserve where you are.
Because sh#t happens man, and there aren't always a nice net when you fall. It isn't so black and white as you would make it. Friends/Family/Church/Community aren't always there, and when they are they can only help so far. People make wrong choices in life all the time, financially and otherwise. Whats next man, toss babies with any deformities/problems, soldiers who were maimed in the garbage because we shouldn't have to "Pay". It all seems to come down to if money is coming out of your pocket, theres more to life than keeping that extra ten cents.Theres a difference between having a fair chance, and a slim chance, or no second chances at all if your life isn't the norm. You are seriously one hateful person.
Im done with this post, I feel like im drawing out more and more of this vomit coming out of your mouth.
Wow
Why a Wow? Everyone has a chance to make it in America just like everyone has a chance to F up royally. My Aunt is an Executive VP for JPMorgan Chase. She is doing very well but came from a family that had no money at all. One of her neighbors was a Stockbroker living the high life. Then he lost it all by making poor choices in his personal life. He didn't have any skills to fallback on and was too old to get another Stockbroker job. Should the government provide for him because he pissed all of his money away? What about the Woman who gets pregnant 6,7,8 even 9 times and has all of those kids while living on welfare, she could of easily chosen to not have sex but instead kept having kids. Why should we have to help her? What about the drug users, should we have to pay for their medical care when they hurt themselves trying to steal money to buy more drugs?No I stand by my statement. If someone falls on bad times and it wasn't there fault there are going to be local resources to help them. Family, friends, church, community will help them get back on their feet. The only reason that won't happen is if you are a total F up and truely deserve where you are.
so who decides who gets help and when? the government? the administrator of services? a "community"? you? how about the thousands of people that got kicked out of mental institutions in California when reagan cut mental health funding in the seventies and eighties when he was governor and president. if you dont believe me you can just come to sf and look at the 12,000+ homeless people that are f#%king nuts. and the sad part is at most have been on the streets now for more than 20 years. at this point you cant tell if they are homeless cause they are crazy or they are crazy cause they are homeless. who knows what you would be willing to do after 5+ years of struggling to get out of the rain for a night and getting something, anything to eat. the neo-conservative philosophy addresses the ideal not the reality. ideally people are able to take care of themselves and if not then they would hopefully have some support system like family or a community; but we all know that that is not always the case. like for example your wife or husband is dead or you have been rejected by your family because your gay or something like that. it is also ironic, which i love to point out, is that people who dont believe in evolution, i.e. neo conservatives and the christian right, love to employ social darwinism on the general public. ive always thought that was curious. dont talk about shi1t you dont know about.
edited to complete a thought
Wow
Why a Wow? Everyone has a chance to make it in America just like everyone has a chance to F up royally. My Aunt is an Executive VP for JPMorgan Chase. She is doing very well but came from a family that had no money at all. One of her neighbors was a Stockbroker living the high life. Then he lost it all by making poor choices in his personal life. He didn't have any skills to fallback on and was too old to get another Stockbroker job. Should the government provide for him because he pissed all of his money away? What about the Woman who gets pregnant 6,7,8 even 9 times and has all of those kids while living on welfare, she could of easily chosen to not have sex but instead kept having kids. Why should we have to help her? What about the drug users, should we have to pay for their medical care when they hurt themselves trying to steal money to buy more drugs?No I stand by my statement. If someone falls on bad times and it wasn't there fault there are going to be local resources to help them. Family, friends, church, community will help them get back on their feet. The only reason that won't happen is if you are a total F up and truely deserve where you are.
so who decides who gets help and when? the government? the administrator of services? a "community"? you? how about the thousands of people that got kicked out of mental institutions in California when reagan cut mental health funding in the seventies and eighties when he was governor and president. if you dont believe me you can just come to sf and look at the 12,000+ homeless people that are f#%king nuts. and the sad part is at most have been on the streets now for more than 20 years. at this point you cant tell if they are homeless cause they are crazy or they are crazy cause they are homeless. who knows what you would be willing to do after 5+ years of struggling to get out of the rain for a night and getting something, anything to eat. the neo-conservative philosophy addresses the ideal not the reality. ideally people are able to take care of themselves and if not then they would hopefully have some support system like family or a community; but we all know that that is not always the case. like for example your wife or husband is dead or you have been rejected by your family because your gay or something like that. it is also ironic, which i love to point out, is that people who dont believe in evolution, i.e. neo conservatives and the christian right, love to employ social darwinism on the general public. ive always thought that was curious. dont talk about shi1t you dont know about.
edited to complete a thought
You guys have no friggen clue. NEO Conservative? What the hell are you talking about? Constitutionaly we should not be providing these assasine programs. The Federal government has no right to do so. A Community includes a WHOLE STATE. It is their responsibility to provide for their residents. NOT the responsibility of the Federal Government. IF a State wants universal healthcare fine. Increase sales taxes and pay for it. If a State wants to give every person a house, a Plasma TV, and a car. I do not care. That is the right of each state to decide. What I hate is federal interference which turns our government from one of a Republic to a Socialistic one. Why should people in New York be forced to provide for people in California or vice versa?How is it so difficult to understand that?
Once again I stand by my belief that the programs that FDR started and the dependence on the Federal government that is in this country today is wrong. Our federal government should not have this type of power and should not be involved this much in our lives. Yet Liberals want to empower the government more and make them more involved in our lives. Telling us what we can and can't do. What we can and can't spend our money on. ETc ETc. They want to take our freedoms away in a much worse manner then any Patriot Act can do. They want to take away our fundalmental freedoms of choice on what type of people each of us want to be.
So once again.
States providing help to their communities = good
Federal Government doing it = Bad.
EAsy enough for ya?
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
oh so your a liberatarian, i see. states rights is totally awesome i would love for california to be that autonomous. would that mean that the federal government cant prosecute me for growing weed?
ulitmately i believe that the government should only provide education, universal medical coverage and protection from foreign invaders be that thru a universal draft or volunteer army (universal draft would be better and more fair tho)
as long as people get to live healthy and get an education and get a job is all that really matters.
Hillary Clinton is a very liberal democrat. If you vote for her, you're not a republican, period. She's only conservative compared to European politicians because on the whole the USA is more conservative than Europe.
You all forget that if you go to an emergency room in the US you WILL get treated whether you can pay for it or not. It's the law. That's why illegal immigrants are bankrupting certain hospitals in the southwest.
Since when do liberals want to control what you spend your money on? That's just retarded, I don't know where in the world you made that up. And again, I'm going to remind you that there's no "constitutional" reason to have a national bank in the U.S. either.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
If you are a libertarian then you really shouldn't be wanting universal medical care...as all it would serve to do is expand the federal government and cause them to be more intrusive into your daily lives.
Truth be told, I'm more of a libertarian than most libertarians than I've met, and I'm a registered republican.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
ah hilary, even a hard core social democrat like myself, would never vote for hilary, and my reasoning is just as lame as all the old repubs that hate her, i think she has a huge ego. its like you can see in her eyes how much she wants power. kinda scary ...
in the grand scheme of things doctors should be treating every patient that walks in the door. they (the doctors) might want to uphold that whole hipocratic oath thingy.
i think the banqrupting hospitals might be a symptom of a broken system here and in mexico as well as a reflection on our foriegn policies
(i cant spell very well)
Since when do liberals want to control what you spend your money on? That's just retarded, I don't know where in the world you made that up. And again, I'm going to remind you that there's no "constitutional" reason to have a national bank in the U.S. either.
It depends on how you use the word liberal. Liberal in a classical sense actually makes modern republicans more liberal than any modern "liberal" could ever hope to be...but we've pretty much lost that defenition with the advent of the "conservatives vs liberals" schtick.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Since when do liberals want to control what you spend your money on? That's just retarded, I don't know where in the world you made that up. And again, I'm going to remind you that there's no "constitutional" reason to have a national bank in the U.S. either.
It depends on how you use the word liberal. Liberal in a classical sense actually makes modern republicans more liberal than any modern "liberal" could ever hope to be...but we've pretty much lost that defenition with the advent of the "conservatives vs liberals" schtick.
too true, too true
Hmmmm ummmm NOOO!
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
Equating modern Republicans with classical liberals (or Bourbon Democrats, for that matter) is a joke. Besides that, Hillary Clinton is not a liberal in either sense, don't insult me.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
O how this is going to be soooo sweet ,Clinton runs. republicans come out and in droves,and we get 3 more supreme court Judges on the supreme court appointed by a republican prez .. Monica Lewinsky thank u sweet meat, go baby go...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
im so proud that i live in a society where getting a blowjob and trying to cover it up is seen as worse than antagonizing almost a whole religion into striking at us at home(or hiring it out or we did it) and then creating a situation where thousands are killed all for the profit of a couple of corporations.
BTW do any of you know how much money the leaseholder on WTC property made when the twin towers came down? its an important question to ask. you should find out how he profited
im so proud that i live in a society where getting a blowjob and trying to cover it up is seen as worse than antagonizing almost a whole religion into striking at us at home(or hiring it out or we did it) and then creating a situation where thousands are killed all for the profit of a couple of corporations.
Hmm yeah I guess all that Antagonizing that Clinton did was bad. Sorry but you guys can't blame Bush for 9/11 happening something like that takes years of planning and Clinton was in Office when all the planning started and was going on.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Yeah, I think it's a great idea to blame politicians first for 9/11!!!!! It's not like terrorists had anything to do with it.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
Equating modern Republicans with classical liberals (or Bourbon Democrats, for that matter) is a joke. Besides that, Hillary Clinton is not a liberal in either sense, don't insult me.
Who the hell was insulting you? And what, or who, is a Bourbon democrat in America? Such a thing does not exist in Washington DC today.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Bourbon Democrats existed in the Gilded Age (1877-1901 approx), and their platform could be compared to classicial liberals, but really, that was a tangent, and had nothing to do with the point of the post however many posts ago.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
Okay, I've sworn off religous and political debates on the forums, but I have to comment on this.
No, you cannot call anyone you want HERE stupid. You DO NOT have freedom of speech here on MMORPG.COM if it violates their Code of Conduct. Simply put, you are in someone elses home right now when you post here. You abide by the rules of someone elses home or you get out. If I come to your house and call you names, you can ask me to leave. I have to leave. I do not get to spout off my freedoms and stay in your house. Perhaps you are unaware, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. that Enigma is a one-time, former MOD on these forums. Therefore, I would take his warnings to heart as he is just telling you that calling people names on these forums can and, in the current Draconian state of things, will get you banned here.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
I agree with Malachi
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08