Reproductive rights

[Wild Cobra]

What if...

What if we changed the laws so that anyone getting pregnant that didn't have a proper financial future could be subject to legal recourse?

I'm thinking something along two basic ideas. First of all, those who depend on the state to raise their children, that they were irresponsible to have to begin with. Would it be too much to mandate both the man and women have their tubes snipped if they cannot attempt and make their own finances work? If they cannot support one child, why should society bear the cost of a second? Wouldn't two operations be cheaper than another child?

The second idea has to do with abortions. Same basic idea though. If the government is to pay for an abortion, why not tie the woman's tubes too? We can make the normal rape and incest exceptions, but legal papers must be signed, and if later proven wrong... Well perjury is a crime too!

Let the flames begin!

[baseline bum]

Does that mean you would have never been born in your rightwing dystopia?

[ElNono]

I thought you wanted less government and more personal freedom...

[ElNono]

I also have a few other questions while I was entertaining this clusterfuck for the last 3 mins....

If a middle class family has kids then has a reversal of fortune and end up poor, do they forfeit the kids?

Who decides who's qualified to have kids?

If, during the tube tying operation, the tube or ovaries become damaged, though luck for the rest of their lives? Even if they end up being rich?

Isn't this thing of limiting reproduction something out of authoritarian countries like China?
Ain't we better than them?

[CuckingFunt]

Let the flames begin!

I have no interest in such obvious attempts to pick a fight.

[Spurminator]

lol libertarian

[Trainwreck2100]

I also have a few other questions while I was entertaining this clusterfuck for the last 3 mins....

If a middle class family has kids then has a reversal of fortune and end up poor, do they forfeit the kids?

Who decides who's qualified to have kids?

If, during the tube tying operation, the tube or ovaries become damaged, though luck for the rest of their lives? Even if they end up being rich?

Isn't this thing of limiting reproduction something out of authoritarian countries like China?
Ain't we better than them?
:lol

I'm not going to post in this thread except for this post which says i will not post in this thread.

ok good to know

[Wild Cobra]

I thought you wanted less government and more personal freedom...
As I explained in another thread, I am liberation short of anarchy. I believe in personal responsibility. When the lack of personal responsibility affects others in a negative way, I agree with making laws to reduce it from continuing.

[Wild Cobra]

I also have a few other questions while I was entertaining this clusterfuck for the last 3 mins....

I think it took you that long to be derail my thread.


If a middle class family has kids then has a reversal of fortune and end up poor, do they forfeit the kids?

Of course not. At the time, they had the means. Shit happens. My idea is primarily to deter those who cannot finance the start of a family from starting one.


Who decides who's qualified to have kids?

If you need government assistance or not. Isn't that simple enough?


If, during the tube tying operation, the tube or ovaries become damaged, though luck for the rest of their lives? Even if they end up being rich?

Shit happens.


Isn't this thing of limiting reproduction something out of authoritarian countries like China?
Ain't we better than them?

As a tax payer,I should have say over who makes use of my finds, at least to some extent. Refer to my two previous posts in other threads about believing libertarianism needs to be tempered with responsibility. Without forcing responsibility on some, we have anarchy.

[Trainwreck2100]

how bout dat nowitzky dawg? Doin blonded haireded people proud

[CuckingFunt]

ok good to know

Not quite. I posted that I wouldn't be taking the obvious bait dangled in Wild Cobra's opening post, but I'd never be so shortsighted as to prematurely announce my departure from a thread with such a high win potential.

[ElNono]

I think it took you that long to be derail my thread.

If by derailing you mean actually entertaining your deranged proposition, then yes.


Of course not. At the time, they had the means. Shit happens. My idea is primarily to deter those who cannot finance the start of a family from starting one.

Well, you never mentioned what that 'legal recourse' would be. I mean, they're poor so you can't extract money from them, and you won't be able to stop them from fucky fucky either. So, what recourse do you have in mind that would be legal?


If you need government assistance or not. Isn't that simple enough?

Not really...
If you skip a month of aid while delivering the baby, then go back to them, are you in the clear?
2 months?
3 months?

If one of the parents is receiving aid but the other isn't, how would it work then?
Wouldn't it be unfair to the one that's not receiving help?
How do you harmonize this scenario with the current legal framework?

Does people with disabilities are SOL?
What happens to somebody that doesn't need aid when they begin the pregnancy, but because of an act of god, they do when they're supposed to deliver?

Who gets to decide how this all work?

Please, be specific.


Shit happens.

Except that the government, and by extension, the taxpayer (you) are liable. After all, if you didn't force your Nazi mandate, they wouldn't have had to go through surgery.


As a tax payer,I should have say over who makes use of my finds, at least to some extent.

Not really, no. Maybe at the State or sub-state level, where there still some vestiges of direct democracy from the colonial days. Even then, you're subject to the will of the majority.

In general, the US is a constitutional republic, meaning, as a taxpayer you get to choose who is going to represent you, who, in turn, will have a vote on where your tax money goes.

If you want a direct hand at deciding you should run for office. Otherwise, you're SOL.


Refer to my two previous posts in other threads about believing libertarianism needs to be tempered with responsibility. Without forcing responsibility on some, we have anarchy.

Goebbels would be proud of you.
You can obtain the same results by getting rid of certain aid and/or being more stringent in the qualification process for it. And you wouldn't need to force anything into anybody.

Attempting to mutilate people under the guise that's for their own good is truly a staple of authoritarians.

[ElNono]

Not quite. I posted that I wouldn't be taking the obvious bait dangled in Wild Cobra's opening post, but I'd never be so shortsighted as to prematurely announce my departure from a thread with such a high win potential.

I smelled blood first :lol
But, please proceed... :lol

[CuckingFunt]

I think it took you that long to be derail my thread.

I fail to see how a thread that you started with the specific intention of positing a batshit ridiculous approach to reproductive "rights" and inviting people to flame you could possibly be derailed by another poster disagreeing with you.

[Winehole23]

As I explained in another thread, I am liberation short of anarchy. I believe in personal responsibility. When the lack of personal responsibility affects others in a negative way, I agree with making laws to reduce it from continuing.So deep, it isn't even shallow. Miracle of non-depth.

[Winehole23]

Bravo, maestro!

[ChumpDumper]

You are no libertarian. Quit using that word.

[George Gervin's Afro]

As I explained in another thread, I am liberation short of anarchy. I believe in personal responsibility. When the lack of personal responsibility affects others in a negative way, I agree with making laws to reduce it from continuing.

Define personal responsibility when dealing with this law.


Darrins: Well..... if your a drunk chick at HH who hooks up for the night and gets knocked up I will pass legislation to have your tubes tide. You see your lack of personal responsibility harms me.

[ElNono]

^^^
Or you can put up a billboard...

[boutons_deux]

If you don't have "proper finances" and personal responsibility, then the WC's Big Bad Libertarian Eugenic Govt is gonna tie you down and give you some "free" responsibility. It'll be For Your Own Good.

[greyforest]

Of course not. At the time, they had the means. Shit happens. My idea is primarily to deter those who cannot finance the start of a family from starting one.

How about these ideas:

-Educate adolescents about pregnancy instead of abstinence-only education

-Pass out condoms at schools

-Remove welfare provided per child as to prevent popping out babies for profit

-Abortions

[elbamba]

Thank you Glen Beck for repeating the nonsense and brainwashing conservatives into believing that they are really libertarians because they say they believe in personal liberties.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Libertarianism apparently means "Freedom for some."

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think what WC really wants is an official class system.

[clambake]

being raised on welfare has taken its toll. wc's self hate.

[CuckingFunt]

Libertarianism apparently means "Freedom for some."

More accurately, I think Libertarianism means "freedom for me."

[Blake]

As a tax payer,I should have say over who makes use of my funds, at least to some extent.

how much money do you think you yourself have spent on government paid abortions?

[LnGrrrR]

Also, if you get arrested for a crime, I don't think we need to waste taxpayer money on a trial, am I right? If you don't have the personal responsibility not to get arrested, then you deserve whatever hole the government is going to throw you into!

[TeyshaBlue]

Predicating parenthood upon a fiscal threshold is breathlessly vapid. Thread delivers.

[Blake]

Predicating parenthood upon a fiscal threshold is breathlessly vapid. Thread delivers.

Surely the best way to save welfare tax dollars is to spend even more tax dollars by sticking mommy and daddy in jail.

Surely that's also what's best for baby.

WC for President.

[Cane]

WC's an idiot.

[coyotes_geek]

As I explained in another thread, I am liberation short of anarchy. I believe in personal responsibility. When the lack of personal responsibility affects others in a negative way, I agree with making laws to reduce it from continuing.

Your idea is pretty much the polar opposite of libertarianism. The libertarian response to your plan would be that the government has absolutely no authority to force you into an unwanted medical procedure and has no business deciding on your behalf whether or not you are financially capable of supporting your children.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

I leave for about 12 hours and this is really funny.

No thought about my words, just the flames I expected.

Think about what is being said and why.

It seems you guys idea of libertarianism allows no responsibility. This anarchy would turn into a system of lawlessness if you do not apply laws for the good of society. may as well take your attitudes to have the freedom to murder someone. If libertarianism means you are free to do what you want, where do you draw that line of when it affects others?

[ChumpDumper]

This was all about your words.

Your words are wildly authoritarian.

Don't ever accuse anyone of being so.

[FromWayDowntown]

Hmmm. I've never thought of Nazi-ish, totalitarian principles as libertarian.

[Wild Cobra]

This was all about your words.

Your words are wildly authoritarian.

Don't ever accuse anyone of being so.
Are you saying a libertarian would want a country with no laws?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you saying a libertarian would want a country with no laws?I'm saying your eugenics plan is not libertarian.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm saying your eugenics plan is not libertarian.
It's not eugenics. It has nothing to do with DNA, unless you are saying responsibility is in the DNA.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not eugenics. It has nothing to do with DNA, unless you are saying responsibility is in the DNA.Reproductive rights have nothing to do with DNA?

I could fill a page with these: :rollin

You are a stupidly disingenuous authoritarian.

[coyotes_geek]

It seems you guys idea of libertarianism allows no responsibility. This anarchy would turn into a system of lawlessness if you do not apply laws for the good of society.

This is an authoritarian point of view, not a libertarian one. Libertarians are interested in maximizing liberty for the individual, not restricting individual liberty allegedly in the interests of doing what's good for society. The government forcing people into unwanted medical procedures is clearly an infringement on personal liberty.


may as well take your attitudes to have the freedom to murder someone.

Now you're just being stupid.


If libertarianism means you are free to do what you want, where do you draw that line of when it affects others?

If you wanted to make a libertarian arguement with this topic, the arguement should be something along the lines of the government not having the right to force individuals into financially supporting others via welfare programs.

[ElNono]

I leave for about 12 hours and this is really funny.

It really is, unless it's you, Herr Cobra.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Tough room, but I expected as much from you liberals.

I ask you all to consider something.

If the libertarian viewpoint is maximized freedom, then how much freedom is someone allowed to have a negative impact on others before it's OK to stop them?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

This is better than ether! The libertarian who wants to limit reproductive rights.

:lmao

If WC is a troll, the person doing it is DAMN good.

[coyotes_geek]

If the libertarian viewpoint is maximized freedom, then how much freedom is someone allowed to have a negative impact on others before it's OK to stop them?

Already answered. In the libertarian viewpoint, if you're not financially supporting anyone via welfare, then you're not negatively impacted when someone has a kid they can't afford.

[ElNono]

Already answered.

Him listening is another story...

[CuckingFunt]

Wow...

I leave for about 12 hours and this is really funny.

No thought about my words, just the flames I expected.

Think about what is being said and why.

It seems you guys idea of libertarianism allows no responsibility. This anarchy would turn into a system of lawlessness if you do not apply laws for the good of society. may as well take your attitudes to have the freedom to murder someone. If libertarianism means you are free to do what you want, where do you draw that line of when it affects others?

Your words advocated a system of class based eugenics. I think the response has been appropriate.

[Agloco]

What if...

What if we changed the laws so that anyone getting pregnant that didn't have a proper financial future could be subject to legal recourse?

I stopped here. Good luck defining "proper financial future".


Tough room, but I expected as much from you liberals.

I ask you all to consider something.

If the libertarian viewpoint is maximized freedom, then how much freedom is someone allowed to have a negative impact on others before it's OK to stop them?

There's a few problems with quantifying that. For instance if you're on welfare and have a terrible smoking habit, your addiction impacts negatively on society at large, and whoever might be in your immediate vicinity when you light up.

I on the other hand, might just encourage you to keep on keeping on. :hat

[TeyshaBlue]

Tough room, but I expected as much from you liberals.

I ask you all to consider something.

If the libertarian viewpoint is maximized freedom, then how much freedom is someone allowed to have a negative impact on others before it's OK to stop them?

lol @ Liberals.:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

It seems you guys idea of libertarianism allows no responsibility.

And it seems your idea of libertarianism includes forced sterilization by the government.

I'm pretty sure that my definition is more acceptable.

[LnGrrrR]

What's great is that this is coming from the guy who doesn't have health care, but assures us that he won't go to the emergency room if he can't pay for it out of pocket.

[Wild Cobra]

Your words advocated a system of class based eugenics. I think the response has been appropriate.
I knew this would be a tough thread, but please stay accurate. It is not eugenics because it is not based on genetics.

[Wild Cobra]

I stopped here. Good luck defining "proper financial future".

My thought here would be those who do not rely on the social welfare systems offered. It's one thing to have periodic necessity to use the safety nets, but those using them as a hammock are a burden to society, and should not add to societies burden by using tax payer dollars to start a family.


There's a few problems with quantifying that. For instance if you're on welfare and have a terrible smoking habit, your addiction impacts negatively on society at large, and whoever might be in your immediate vicinity when you light up.

States are already making no smoking laws across this nation.

[Wild Cobra]

And it seems your idea of libertarianism includes forced sterilization by the government.

I'm pretty sure that my definition is more acceptable.
There are penalties for breaking laws that include the death sentence.

What are laws, but legal bounds placed on society as to protect others. Now I am completely against victimless crime laws. Why isn't it against the law for someone who clearly cannot afford to take on more household costs, to do so, but we have laws to redistribute more and more tax dollars to them?

[Wild Cobra]

What's great is that this is coming from the guy who doesn't have health care, but assures us that he won't go to the emergency room if he can't pay for it out of pocket.
But i do have health care. It times in my life, I have paid out off pocket.

[FromWayDowntown]

I knew this would be a tough thread, but please stay accurate. It is not eugenics because it is not based on genetics.

No doubt -- social engineering is such a more palatable euphemism for your brand of selective breeding.

[CuckingFunt]

I knew this would be a tough thread, but please stay accurate. It is not eugenics because it is not based on genetics.

Enforcing sterilization amongst a particular community necessarily reduces their numbers in the general population. The result, in theory, is a richer* gene pool.

Not sure if it's stupidity or obstinance that's preventing you making this obvious connection, but it's downright egregious in either case.




*edited to point out that I'm speaking in terms of monetary richness, not diversity

[Wild Cobra]

No doubt -- social engineering is such a more palatable euphemism for your brand of selective breeding.
Yes, I would agree it's social engineering.

I am normally against such ideas, but I have had it with what I see where I live. Maybe you guys don't see it to the degree I do. I live in what I call the "Capital of the North-Left Coast."

[Wild Cobra]

Enforcing sterilization amongst a particular community necessarily reduces their numbers in the general population. The result, in theory, is a richer gene pool.

Not sure if it's stupidity or obstinance that's preventing you making this obvious connection, but it's downright egregious in either case.
The tool of sterilization is used for a different purpose. Since when does the tool define motive?

[CuckingFunt]

The tool of sterilization is used for a different purpose. Since when does the tool define motive?

Oh, if I'd wanted to attack your motive I would have called it class based preventive genocide.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, if I'd wanted to attack your motive I would have called it class based preventive genocide.
LOL...

OK, whatever.

Even though its wrong, I can see how that's seen. If anything, you would agree I am not politically correct.

[CuckingFunt]

LOL...

OK, whatever.

Even though its wrong, I can see how that's seen. If anything, you would agree I am not politically correct.

Neither am I.

I, however, am not a bigot.

[LnGrrrR]

Why isn't it against the law for someone who clearly cannot afford to take on more household costs, to do so, but we have laws to redistribute more and more tax dollars to them?

Wouldn't it make more sense to just deny those people tax dollars, rather than institute a neutering program? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Wouldn't it make more sense to just deny those people tax dollars, rather than institute a neutering program? :lol
I would go for that. Sure are allot of laws to change, and then there is the "child abuse" factor we would start tying up our systems with. After all, most of these people who cannot take care of their children would eventually be turned in as abusing their children, since it would be a form of abuse.

[LnGrrrR]

I would go for that.

Far less draconian, and more sensible.

Not to mention, you have a problem with funding something you don't believe in with taxpayer money, and this program would ostensibly use taxpayer funds to neuter members of the population. I'm pretty sure some people would object to their taxes being used in such a purpose.

[CuckingFunt]

I would go for that. Sure are allot of laws to change, and then there is the "child abuse" factor we would start tying up our systems with. After all, most of these people who cannot take care of their children would eventually be turned in as abusing their children, since it would be a form of abuse.

Ah. So now rather than forced sterilization, you'd be on board with a solution that apparently requires children be neglected and/or abused.

That'll show 'em.

[LnGrrrR]

After all, most of these people who cannot take care of their children would eventually be turned in as abusing their children, since it would be a form of abuse.

Which is one factor why the current laws/allotments still exist. That said, you don't trust government to responsibly use your taxmoney, but you'd trust them to neuter members of the population?

Heck, who would be the ones performing the operation? Would the gov't outsource to the lowest bidding hospital?

[Wild Cobra]

Neither am I.

I, however, am not a bigot.
When's the last time you looked up that definition?

I don't hate or despise these people like you may think, any more than I hate and despise someone who would break into my house. I am not grouping them by the color of their skin, by religion, or anything normally associated with bigotry. In the name of Martin Luther King, I am judging them by their character.

I see it as criminal activity to take from others. I see this as a theft. Laws disagree with me, but that's the angle I see this as.

What would you say if 90% of the population started living off the government instead of providing for themselves? What would happen?

[LnGrrrR]

I see it as criminal activity to take from others. I see this as a theft. Laws disagree with me, but that's the angle I see this as.

If your theory was correct then, all taxation would be illegal, unless specifically agreed to by all parties concerned. Agree or disagree?


What would you say if 90% of the population started living off the government instead of providing for themselves? What would happen?

The same thing I'd say if dinosaurs were brought back to life through genetic engineering, and then stepped on my car. Which is, what an unlikely event!

[Wild Cobra]

Which is one factor why the current laws/allotments still exist. That said, you don't trust government to responsibly use your taxmoney, but you'd trust them to neuter members of the population?
Oh... I trust whole heavyhearted that politicians will continue to buy votes by dangling tax dollars out to people.

You're right. I don't trust government much. The bureaucracy has become a tool just to support it's own self, and the people who are in Social Services positions should be working to put themselves out of work. they should be working to make citizens self sufficient in society instead of getting as many in programs as they can.

Heck, who would be the ones performing the operation? Would the gov't outsource to the lowest bidding hospital?

I am only painting the broad strokes. The finer details? Who knows. Not worried about making this plan 100% by my self.

[Wild Cobra]

If your theory was correct then, all taxation would be illegal, unless specifically agreed to by all parties concerned. Agree or disagree?
Disagree. taxation is constitutional, and in the constitution is the bill of rights.

Ever hear of the 10th amendment? Why is the federal government taking responsibility over things clearly left to the stats and lower levels, by our highest law?

[CuckingFunt]

When's the last time you looked up that definition?

I don't hate or despise these people like you may think, any more than I hate and despise someone who would break into my house. I am not grouping them by the color of their skin, by religion, or anything normally associated with bigotry. In the name of Martin Luther King, I am judging them by their character.

I don't think you're a bigot just because of this thread.


I see it as criminal activity to take from others. I see this as a theft. Laws disagree with me, but that's the angle I see this as.

What would you say if 90% of the population started living off the government instead of providing for themselves? What would happen?

For one thing, I don't see that ever happening. For another, I never suggested that we allow or encourage people of any standing become completely dependent upon taxpayer dollars. However, I see a solution not in assuming the worst of impoverished/marginalized communities and putting our efforts into either reducing their numbers or punishing them for breeding, but rather in investing in the social welfare (welfare, not Welfare) of our poorer communities so that hopefully within a few generations the problems you have identified are on the decline. Reducing the options available to already disadvantaged communities is seldom a useful endeavor.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think you're a bigot just because of this thread.
I know. I am misunderstood, like my statement that those who support quota systems as a part of affirmative action are politically correct racists.

For one thing, I don't see that ever happening. For another, I never suggested that we allow or encourage people of any standing become completely dependent upon taxpayer dollars. However, I see a solution not in assuming the worst of impoverished/marginalized communities and putting our efforts into either reducing their numbers or punishing them for breeding, but rather in investing in the social welfare (welfare, not Welfare) of our poorer communities so that hopefully within a few generations the problems you have identified are on the decline. Reducing the options available to already disadvantaged communities is seldom a useful endeavor.

We have been in the "war on poverty" for about 50 years now. We are no better off than we were then. I say we go back to the level of social spending prior to the start of this way. 50 years and no payback over the expenses? When is enough enough?

[CuckingFunt]

I know. I am misunderstood, like my statement that those who support quota systems as a part of affirmative action are politically correct racists.

When pretty much everyone misunderstands you, it might be time to look at how you're communicating.

[Wild Cobra]

When pretty much everyone misunderstands you, it might be time to look at how you're communicating.
I agree my communications skills are lacking. You eventually understand my intent though, right?

[CuckingFunt]

I agree my communications skills are lacking. You eventually understand my intent though, right?

Crystal clear.

[LnGrrrR]

Disagree. taxation is constitutional, and in the constitution is the bill of rights.

Then if taxation is legal, then what Congress votes on to spend taxes, including supporting those who have children they can't support, is also legal.

Agree or disagree?


Ever hear of the 10th amendment? Why is the federal government taking responsibility over things clearly left to the stats and lower levels, by our highest law?

So you'd be ok with it if the state gov't supported parents with children they couldn't afford, just not the federal gov't?

[LnGrrrR]

I am only painting the broad strokes. The finer details? Who knows. Not worried about making this plan 100% by my self.

I would say that if you're suggesting a program whereby the gov't forces sterilization on the population, determining who would perform the sterilization is kinda a "broad stroke". :lol

[ElNono]

I'm just wondering since you're such a maverick why don't you just stop paying a percentage of your taxes, and when the IRS drags your 'libertarian' ass in front of a judge, you tell him what you really think... you know, the bit about not getting your money's worth, black surgeons, and the Nazi-style social class cleansing...

Now that I think about, I would even pay to watch such an encounter :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

See, I think Cobra is missing a beautiful opportunity to further self-sustenance and the libertarian spirit by urging social cleansing instead of modestly proposing that those who depend on upon the government for their sustenance take advantage of the ready-made food source that their copious reproduction affords. Swiftly, I think, the drain on public resources could be eradicated.

[MannyIsGod]

He entertains so consistently that you really do have to wonder at times if WC is a troll. Its too god damn good sometimes but the fact that its so good also works against him being a troll. Who the hell could dream this up on a regular basis?

I would actually be relieved if we ever found out he was a troll. :lol

[Winehole23]

http://i.ehow.com/images/a07/c0/ho/open-old-dictaphone-microcassette-recorder-800X800.jpg


Its too god damn good sometimes...

[Blake]

I agree my communications skills are lacking. You eventually understand my intent though, right?

Communication is not plural.

Hope that helps. :tu

[greyforest]

:lmao

This is better than ether! The libertarian who wants to limit reproductive rights.

:lmao

If WC is a troll, the person doing it is DAMN good.

i think it has to be a troll account. he doesn't quote many of the logical arguments or questions (like mine) and instead just says everyone is flaming him while asserting superiority

[Wild Cobra]

So you'd be ok with it if the state gov't supported parents with children they couldn't afford, just not the federal gov't?
It's one of the best unused tools we have. 50 states able to attempt things in different ways. Eventually, states would adopt the methods that work best. When you have one program mandated by the government, you have far less possibility of finding a good solution to things.

If the state is doing enough things I disagree with, I can move to a sate that does things the way I agree with. We also all lose diversity when the federal government picks the one-size-fits-all solution.

Wouldn't states rights be better? Some states would be more generous than others, in the process have higher tax rates. You liberals can move to these higher tax states since you like higher taxes. Sound good?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm just wondering since you're such a maverick why don't you just stop paying a percentage of your taxes, and when the IRS drags your 'libertarian' ass in front of a judge, you tell him what you really think... you know, the bit about not getting your money's worth, black surgeons, and the Nazi-style social class cleansing...

Now that I think about, I would even pay to watch such an encounter :lol
Because I'm not an anarchist, which you seem to think a libertarian should be.

I don't disagree with the governments right to tax. I just disagree with the amount on my money they tax. I hate paying in excess of $10/hr in taxes.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think you're a bigot just because of this thread.

I know, and you are wrong about applying that word to me. Hatred or intolerance of a group? I guess I am a bigot when it comes to gang members, or Islamic extremists. I hate certain individuals for the character, but not because of any group they belong to. Saying I hate people because of their financial situation is flat out wrong. Saying I hate blacks because I rail against quota systems is wrong. I pity some people of some groups, but what I feel is mostly "tough love."

Boutons is a good example of a bigot, the way he is against republicans.


For one thing, I don't see that ever happening.
Maybe not 90%, but we ore right now, in a economic slide that is taking us that direction. In my opinion, we need everyone

For another, I never suggested that we allow or encourage people of any standing become completely dependent upon taxpayer dollars. However, I see a solution not in assuming the worst of impoverished/marginalized communities and putting our efforts into either reducing their numbers or punishing them for breeding, but rather in investing in the social welfare (welfare, not Welfare) of our poorer communities so that hopefully within a few generations the problems you have identified are on the decline. Reducing the options available to already disadvantaged communities is seldom a useful endeavor.

I agree with a hand up approach. However, that's not what we are doing.

[Wild Cobra]

Communication is not plural.

Hope that helps. :tu

LOL...

I'll still screw it up.

[Wild Cobra]

i think it has to be a troll account. he doesn't quote many of the logical arguments or questions (like mine) and instead just says everyone is flaming him while asserting superiority
Yes, yes, yes.

I can be an arrogant ass.

[clambake]

you forgot leech and liar.

[LnGrrrR]

It's one of the best unused tools we have. 50 states able to attempt things in different ways. Eventually, states would adopt the methods that work best. When you have one program mandated by the government, you have far less possibility of finding a good solution to things.

If the state is doing enough things I disagree with, I can move to a sate that does things the way I agree with. We also all lose diversity when the federal government picks the one-size-fits-all solution.

Wouldn't states rights be better? Some states would be more generous than others, in the process have higher tax rates. You liberals can move to these higher tax states since you like higher taxes. Sound good?

Ok, that's consistent. :tu

[CuckingFunt]

I know, and you are wrong about applying that word to me. Hatred or intolerance of a group? I guess I am a bigot when it comes to gang members, or Islamic extremists. I hate certain individuals for the character, but not because of any group they belong to. Saying I hate people because of their financial situation is flat out wrong. Saying I hate blacks because I rail against quota systems is wrong. I pity some people of some groups, but what I feel is mostly "tough love."

Though I know it has been pointed out countless times before, let me attempt to make it clear once more.

No one here thinks you are a bigot for, as you put it, railing against quota systems. For that, you are merely ignorant of how affirmative action programs actually work.

The reason that the whole black surgeon thing has gotten you the label of bigot 'round these parts is that it highlights the fact you assume, based on nothing other than skin color, that black surgeons are more likely to have gotten where they are based on affirmative action, and therefore less likely to have done so based on academic merit, than anyone else who wasn't black. Your suspicion, based upon your own words, does not apply to Asian surgeons, female surgeons, or any other variety of med student who may have gotten a leg up thanks to quotas. Nor does it apply to rich white male surgeons who may have gotten through med school thanks to Daddy's money.

Again, unfounded suspicion alone does not make you a bigot. It makes you paranoid. However, when your unfounded suspicion applies only to members of a certain race, based solely on the color of their skin, well... welcome to bigot-town.

[Wild Cobra]

Though I know it has been pointed out countless times before, let me attempt to make it clear once more.

No one here thinks you are a bigot for, as you put it, railing against quota systems. For that, you are merely ignorant of how affirmative action programs actually work.

Wrong.

I am aware of how affirmative action was originally intended, and how it later became a quota system. It is only the quota system aspect I am against.


The reason that the whole black surgeon thing has gotten you the label of bigot 'round these parts is that it highlights the fact you assume, based on nothing other than skin color, that black surgeons are more likely to have gotten where they are based on affirmative action, and therefore less likely to have done so based on academic merit, than anyone else who wasn't black. Your suspicion, based upon your own words, does not apply to Asian surgeons, female surgeons, or any other variety of med student who may have gotten a leg up thanks to quotas. Nor does it apply to rich white male surgeons who may have gotten through med school thanks to Daddy's money.

Please...

I know you aren't that stupid. Why are you applying reason that isn't true against me? Are you bigoted against me?

I simply used an example with the word "if." You can assign all the incorrect meaning to my words you want. I'm sorry you have such a closed mind and are incapable of thinking outside the box. My example was to show the harm affirmative action does. It does not mean I think blacks are inferior. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, but to assign such meaning to my words.

Go fuck yourself cunt.

I wonder.

What type of evil bitch are you?

I have explained that several times, yet you are unwilling to give me the benefit of doubt. How is it you can be so fucking positive that I am as you assume. Do you have such a pathetic life, you have to try to make others look worse?

[clambake]

lol

[ChumpDumper]

Care to show us the statistics showing what harm black surgeons have done, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

Care to show us the statistics showing what harm black surgeons have done, WC?
I never said they did.

[ChumpDumper]

I never said they did.So you're not saying affirmative action does any harm then.


OK.

[Wild Cobra]

So you're not saying affirmative action does any harm then.


OK.
I'm saying that the quota system within affirmative action makes too many people wonder if blacks, and yes, any group who is included in quota systems, are the best choice when choosing a professional.

I'm saying it's these people who are part of the chosen in the quota system, as a group, who are harmed because some people wonder if they made it by merit, or because lesser qualified were needed to make the targeted numbers.

Like it or not, this sentiment is out there.

I said it before, and I will say it again. Today, quota systems for blacks are endorsed by politically correct racists. We don't have the same degree of problems as the past. By definition, a racists is someone who believes one race is superior to another. Endorsing quota systems for blacks is saying they are not capable of competing on a level playing field.

Even if you don't agree with me, there are many who do. If I were black, I would be offended by the notion I needed an unfair advantage over my white peers. I don't see how any self respecting black agree with quota systems.

[CuckingFunt]

Wrong.

I am aware of how affirmative action was originally intended, and how it later became a quota system. It is only the quota system aspect I am against.

Okay, then, how did it later become a quota system? Specifically.


Please...

I know you aren't that stupid. Why are you applying reason that isn't true against me? Are you bigoted against me?

I simply used an example with the word "if." You can assign all the incorrect meaning to my words you want. I'm sorry you have such a closed mind and are incapable of thinking outside the box. My example was to show the harm affirmative action does. It does not mean I think blacks are inferior. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, but to assign such meaning to my words.

Go fuck yourself cunt.

I wonder.

What type of evil bitch are you?

I have explained that several times, yet you are unwilling to give me the benefit of doubt. How is it you can be so fucking positive that I am as you assume. Do you have such a pathetic life, you have to try to make others look worse?

The benefit of the doubt? You realize this is a discussion forum, right, and that all I have to go by is the words you've said? You mentioned once, without provocation, that you don't trust black surgeons because of your concerns about the quotas supposedly encouraged by affirmative action programs. Upon your position's immediate ridicule, you made several attempts to justify your comments. And every time this issue has been subsequently raised, you have again tried to clarify your initial remarks in such a way to make yourself come across as anything other than blatantly, and specifically, prejudiced against black people. Let me be clear, I have nothing against you personally. If ANY of these attempts to justify your position had been successful, I would gladly concede that you are not a bigot. Fact is, they haven't been. You say that your fear of black surgeons is rooted in something other than an assumption that black people are less likely to make it as surgeons based on academic merit and, that's great, but I so far don't believe you. Sorry.

Now, of course, you're right in suggesting I could give you the benefit of the doubt. I could read the words/comments that I feel are bigoted and I could tell myself that, hey, surely that Wild Cobra guy didn't mean that the way I thought he meant it. But, why on earth would I? In this format especially? Not my problem you are apparently completely inept in clearly communicating your own thoughts and beliefs.






Also, :lmao. Seriously, your personal attack required a late edit after you worked up the balls to call me a cunt?

[ChumpDumper]

So, affirmative action inflames prejudice in fearful, weak-minded people like Wild Cobra.

OK.

[FromWayDowntown]

How is it you can be so fucking positive that I am as you assume.

How is her conclusion about you -- based on facts that you've unabashedly provided to those who read this forum -- any different than the assumptions that inform your opinions of black surgeons?

[Wild Cobra]

So, affirmative action inflames prejudice in fearful, weak-minded people like Wild Cobra.

OK.
You know. For a moment, I thought you stopped being a Chump. I see you are still just that.

I would think the the first time I explain something, it should be good enough. If not, questions are in order. But to constantly be attacked over a misunderstood viewpoint gets old. I simply have to wonder how stupid people are to not understand that I often bring up "what ifs." Why can't you guys accept it as that?

Maybe I should take it as a complement. A complement meaning that I have owned you in debates so many times, that you do anything you can to find fault in me. Even when you have to fabricate it.

[Wild Cobra]

How is her conclusion about you -- based on facts that you've unabashedly provided to those who read this forum -- any different than the assumptions that inform your opinions of black surgeons?
Are you guys of the same younger age as to be indoctrinated of what certain things mean?

Really... can't you think outside the box, or is it so instilled in you that not being PC about race is being racist?

[CuckingFunt]

Delusions of persecution.

[ChumpDumper]

You know. For a moment, I thought you stopped being a Chump. I see you are still just that.

I would think the the first time I explain something, it should be good enough. If not, questions are in order. But to constantly be attacked over a misunderstood viewpoint gets old. I simply have to wonder how stupid people are to not understand that I often bring up "what ifs." Why can't you guys accept it as that?

Maybe I should take it as a complement. A complement meaning that I have owned you in debates so many times, that you do anything you can to find fault in me. Even when you have to fabricate it.Your perception of affirmative action inflamed your prejudice against black surgeons.

You admitted it. No fabrication necessary.

I don't see why you get so angry about what you post yourself.

[mingus]

Though I know it has been pointed out countless times before, let me attempt to make it clear once more.

No one here thinks you are a bigot for, as you put it, railing against quota systems. For that, you are merely ignorant of how affirmative action programs actually work.

The reason that the whole black surgeon thing has gotten you the label of bigot 'round these parts is that it highlights the fact you assume, based on nothing other than skin color, that black surgeons are more likely to have gotten where they are based on affirmative action, and therefore less likely to have done so based on academic merit, than anyone else who wasn't black. Your suspicion, based upon your own words, does not apply to Asian surgeons, female surgeons, or any other variety of med student who may have gotten a leg up thanks to quotas. Nor does it apply to rich white male surgeons who may have gotten through med school thanks to Daddy's money.

Again, unfounded suspicion alone does not make you a bigot. It makes you paranoid. However, when your unfounded suspicion applies only to members of a certain race, based solely on the color of their skin, well... welcome to bigot-town.

rich white male surgeons still have to get a 30 mcat score and at least have a GPA of 3.6. there are rare, and I MEAN rare exceptions where other things arre taken into consideration like shitloads of community service or if you worked long hours or something. as far as i know they don't give a shit about how rich applicants are. i know many people rich dudes who couldn't cut it.

that said, being race selective and paranoid about a black surgeon is stupid even knowing this because your family doctor or general practicioner, whose decisions and credentials you trust, usually recommends a particular surgeon. and you as a patient would be stupid and underqualified to argue against another doctor's recommendation, if you trust his credentials. if a surgeon has built a good reputation on what he does and other doctor's recommend him, nothing else should matter. you'd be a dumbass and a BIGOT in that case to argue it.

using a skin test to judge a doctor in the first place is bigorty though. there are more reliable and non-bigoted ways to pick a doctor.

[FromWayDowntown]

Are you guys of the same younger age as to be indoctrinated of what certain things mean?

Really... can't you think outside the box, or is it so instilled in you that not being PC about race is being racist?

Is mindless blabbering about being misunderstood your only retort to being shown your own hypocrisy?

You tell us you make assumptions about black surgeons without any facts pertaining to any particular black surgeon. In your mind -- whether racist or not -- this is somehow okay.

Funt, among others, discerns from those sorts of assumptions that you are a bigot insofar as you make assumptions about people based, apparently, primarily upon the color of their skin and your own assumptions about their achievements, and you go batshit about being the subject of a negative assumption.

(Threads like this certainly do little to undermine the facts giving rise to that assumption).

You can finesse it all you want, but she's doing to you precisely what you do to others (albeit with far more proof to support her choice).

[Wild Cobra]

Is mindless blabbering about being misunderstood your only retort to being shown your own hypocrisy?

Hypocricy?

if someone clarifies their position from an incorrect assumption I had, I don't tell them my initial incorrect belief is still right.


You tell us you make assumptions about black surgeons without any facts pertaining to any particular black surgeon. In your mind -- whether racist or not -- this is somehow okay.

Why are examples of perception a bad thing? Why is pointing out the harm that quota systems do for the black community wrong? Now if i was only told this train of though was wrong, I would say we have differing beliefs. But to be called a bigot, racist, etc. over this. I get tired of people playing the race card. Really now, if that's all they have left for an argument, they may as well admit defeat.


Funt, among others, discerns from those sorts of assumptions that you are a bigot insofar as you make assumptions about people based, apparently, primarily upon the color of their skin and your own assumptions about their achievements, and you go batshit about being the subject of a negative assumption.

I would love to see a colorblind society. However, ever time quota systems are endorsed, it is saying we cannot be colorblind. For blacks who make it by merit, they are perceived as in the same boat as products of quota systems by people who don't know better. Now what do you think could happen if an employer, of any type of job opening, would do if he finds two equally qualified candidates by all he can discern. If that question ever enters his mind "was this guy selected by a quota system," who do you think has a better chance of getting picked?

Sure, it's not universal, and you still have a few racists out there making hiring decision. I see it as one more stumbling block for a colorblind society.


You can finesse it all you want, but she's doing to you precisely what you do to others (albeit with far more proof to support her choice).

Bullshit. If I haven't explained it as many times as I did before, I might agree this is not the same. I perceive it as just being evil. I only have a real short fuse with a few here, and have been short with you at time. I don't recall you ever maintaining you know what I mean more than I do though.

[mingus]

I'm saying that the quota system within affirmative action makes too many people wonder if blacks, and yes, any group who is included in quota systems, are the best choice when choosing a professional.

you should make the choice based on that doctor's medical career/record, not his race. most times people don't even make the decision and should go by what their family doctor tells them. but if you're are going to make the decision on your own and if the deciding factor is race, that's racist. there are other, better, nonbigoted, ways of finding out the best-credentialed doctor near you. if race is the end all be all to your decision...that's pretty muc teh definition of prejudice.

[ChumpDumper]

It's alright, he doesn't like most black people anyway. I'm sure some government program is to blame.

[FromWayDowntown]

you should make the choice based on that doctor's medical career/record, not his race.

This is the most delicious irony of Wild Cobra's assumptions. Nobody becomes a surgeon by virtue of affirmative action. While affirmative action may allow some who might not otherwise be considered to get into medical school, one must do a considerable amount more than obtaining admission to become a surgeon. Residencies, fellowships, and the like -- particularly for surgeons -- are doled out by qualification demonstrated by achievement. Progressing successfully through those programs to obtain surgical credentialing takes still another level of achievement. Thus, the system almost absolutely ensures that those who become surgeons are abundantly qualified to be in those positions.

To graft horseshit excuses like admissions quotas upon a choice to view surgeons of a particular skin color in a negative light is the epitome of ignorance.

[Wild Cobra]

This is the most delicious irony of Wild Cobra's assumptions. Nobody becomes a surgeon by virtue of affirmative action. While affirmative action may allow some who might not otherwise be considered to get into medical school, one must do a considerable amount more than obtaining admission to become a surgeon. Residencies, fellowships, and the like -- particularly for surgeons -- are doled out by qualification demonstrated by achievement. Progressing successfully through those programs to obtain surgical credentialing takes still another level of achievement. Thus, the system almost absolutely ensures that those who become surgeons are abundantly qualified to be in those positions.

To graft horseshit excuses like admissions quotas upon a choice to view surgeons of a particular skin color in a negative light is the epitome of ignorance.
Maybe surgeons was a bad example. Are you saying such situations I speak of are not happening in other fields?

[Wild Cobra]

It's alright, he doesn't like most black people anyway.
Yep, I said that.

I'm sure some government program is to blame.
You would be wrong.

I don't like most black people. There are very few who I have met that grew up in a cultural setting I have any respect for. Most I have met are out right thugs, and lack integrity. I could say I don't like black people, but there are some exceptions. If I based all my decisions on statistics, I would stay clear of blacks.
Now take your time and carefully remember the context of my words.

Thank-You Oh Gee for maintaining my quote in your signature.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, I said that.

You would be wrong.

Now take your time and carefully remember the context of my words.

Thank-You Oh Gee for maintaining my quote in your signature.Well, you blame your perception of affirmative action for inflaming your existing prejudice.

The context is crystal clear.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, you blame your perception of affirmative action for inflaming your existing prejudice.

The context is crystal clear.
LOL...
Whatever.

Do you remember why I even said my initial remarks? It was a response:


I agree. Whenever I see Blacks in positions of authority, I am concerned that they were chosen because they were Black rather than qualified.

I think we all do. Affirmative action has done more harm to the black community than racism in some ways. Because of quotas, we cannot know if a person made certain position or jobs by merit, or by quotas.

Would you go to a black surgeon for an operation if he was a product of affirmative action? Of course this information isn't readily available, so most smart people avoid black surgeons. I wonder what type of impact this has on jobs for black. It is a form of prejudice, but it isn't racism.

[TeyshaBlue]

Maybe surgeons was a bad example. Are you saying such situations I speak of are not happening in other fields?

Maybe surgeons was an asinine example. Maybe your judgement, such as it is, should be called into question. As you backpeddle, obfuscate, and move the goal posts, I have to ask. What the fuck point are you trying to make?

[TeyshaBlue]

This is your harpoon, Moby . "......so most smart people avoid black surgeons."

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe surgeons was an asinine example. Maybe your judgement, such as it is, should be called into question. As you backpeddle, obfuscate, and move the goal posts, I have to ask. What the fuck point are you trying to make?
Like I said initially. Quota systems are a bad thing.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's hard to disown what's plainly sticking out of your chest.

[TeyshaBlue]

Like I said initially. Quota systems are a bad thing.
You haven't made a case for that.

[Winehole23]

It was in the other thread.

[TeyshaBlue]

most smart people can make a case for their opinions.

[Winehole23]

please catch up!

[CuckingFunt]

LOL...
Whatever.

Do you remember why I even said my initial remarks? It was a response:

Yes. A response.

A response in which you suggested that avoiding black surgeons was the smart choice.

[TeyshaBlue]

please catch up!

shup! I can't even find the other thread anymore.:ihit

[Wild Cobra]

You haven't made a case for that.
Whatever. I know I could find information, but I'm not going to bother. Would you even accept it? Seems to me that any clear thinking person should naturally understand you don't give one group of people a different starting point than others. What good is any evidence I can find if you are already of the mindset that blacks are inferior, and need an advantage over others to compete?

Isn't that what a quota system does? End up making selections to satisfy numbers, even when the standard has to be lowered to achieve such numbers?

[Winehole23]

most smart people can make a case for their opinions.

http://britney-pears-pictures.co.cc/images/dv/britney_spears_bald_jpg_x_q.jpg
Why are you being so mean? You're a mean mean man, TeyshaBlue. Please leave WC alone!

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...
Whatever.

Do you remember why I even said my initial remarks? It was a response:Right.

You admitted you are already prejudiced against black people, and your perception of affirmative action inflames that existing prejudice.

[CuckingFunt]

Whatever. I know I could find information, but I'm not going to bother. Would you even accept it? Seems to me that any clear thinking person should naturally understand you don't give one group of people a different starting point than others. What good is any evidence I can find if you are already of the mindset that blacks are inferior, and need an advantage over others to compete?

Isn't that what a quota system does? End up making selections to satisfy numbers, even when the standard has to be lowered to achieve such numbers?

Affirmative Action does not make the assumption that blacks, or any other oppressed groups, are inferior. Just FYI.

[Wild Cobra]

You going to have fun with this too WH?

[Agloco]

Someone's got their head in the grinder again.

[TeyshaBlue]

Whatever. I know I could find information, but I'm not going to bother. lol. This is confirmation bias in spades. I don't need info! I'm right!
Would you even accept it? Seems to me that any clear thinking person should naturally understand you don't give one group of people a different starting point than others. Pardon me if I reject the notion that you have any idea whatsoever of what a clear thinking person would naturally understand.
What good is any evidence I can find if you are already of the mindset that blacks are inferior, and need an advantage over others to compete? Rational debate depends upon the use of facts and cites to support a position. Your strawman defense, hiding behind the coward's skirts of innuendo (ie the completely bogus "you are already of the mindset that black are inferior"), teeters on the thin line between the tantrumatic rantings of a spoiled 9 year old girl, or an attempt at debate by my chihuahua.


Isn't that what a quota system does? End up making selections to satisfy numbers, even when the standard has to be lowered to achieve such numbers?

No.

[Winehole23]

I know I could find information, but I'm not going to bother.If you stressed this a little less, maybe people would go a little easier on you.

[TeyshaBlue]

Why are you being so mean? You're a mean mean man, TeyshaBlue. Please leave WC alone!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/whbja8-1.gif

[Winehole23]

wOULDN'T COST YOU A THING, O WILD ONE.

[Wild Cobra]

Affirmative Action does not make the assumption that blacks, or any other oppressed groups, are inferior. Just FYI.
I know that. I would say that those saying that a quota system is necessary to get the desired numbers on minorities are saying minorities aren't good enough to compete on a level playing field. Therefor, they are calling the minorities inferior, and are the racist.

The origins of Affirmative Action was a great idea:

Executive Order 10925 (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html)

[mingus]

Whatever. I know I could find information, but I'm not going to bother. Would you even accept it? Seems to me that any clear thinking person should naturally understand you don't give one group of people a different starting point than others. What good is any evidence I can find if you are already of the mindset that blacks are inferior, and need an advantage over others to compete?

Isn't that what a quota system does? End up making selections to satisfy numbers, even when the standard has to be lowered to achieve such numbers?

inferior? it doesn't treat them as inferior. they come from inferior circumstances, thereby lowering thier chances of having success. that's where affirmative actions comes in. affirmative action doesn't imply racial inferiority.

[Winehole23]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/whbja8-1.giftHERE'S NO HAIRBRUSHI9NG IN TACKLE FOOTBALL. tROOF.

[Winehole23]

(double post)

[Wild Cobra]

wOULDN'T COST YOU A THING, O WILD ONE.
With all the preconceived notion of me, I doubt taking that time would pay off. People still wish to insist they know my intent more than I do, so what good would it do?

[Wild Cobra]

inferior? it doesn't treat them as inferior. they come from inferior circumstances, thereby lowering thier chances of having success. that's where affirmative actions comes in. affirmative action doesn't imply racial inferiority.
Affirmative action, yes. Quota's no.

[clambake]

anybody see the goalpost?

[Winehole23]

People still wish to insist they know my intent more than I do,You might have expressed it accidentally once or twice.

[mingus]

Affirmative action, yes. Quota's no.

i think that's what you're trying to make the underlying message when i don't think there's enough evidence for it. they don't state anything about racial inferiority, only underrepresentation. underrepresentation doesn't mean that the group that is underrepresented is inferior.

[MannyIsGod]

You going to have fun with this too WH?

Don't you ever wonder why everyone seems to tell you the same things? At what point do you stop thinking everyone else is wrong and actually realize the cause of the situation?

[MannyIsGod]

With all the preconceived notion of me, I doubt taking that time would pay off. People still wish to insist they know my intent more than I do, so what good would it do?

:lol

You've been here for years spewing off your BS so I don't think you're allowed to use this word to describe how people feel about you.

[ElNono]

Well, this thread backfired rather quickly :lol

[Agloco]

Well, this thread backfired rather quickly :lol

Yeppers.......he screwed the op, couldn't adjust. It all went sideways.

[LnGrrrR]

For blacks who make it by merit, they are perceived as in the same boat as products of quota systems by people who don't know better.

Yes, you perceive them that way. Not everyone does.


Now what do you think could happen if an employer, of any type of job opening, would do if he finds two equally qualified candidates by all he can discern. If that question ever enters his mind "was this guy selected by a quota system," who do you think has a better chance of getting picked?

Why would that enter his mind, if both people show equal amts of aptitude? Does it matter how one got there if they can both do the job equally well?


Sure, it's not universal, and you still have a few racists out there making hiring decision. I see it as one more stumbling block for a colorblind society.

Surely, there's only a select few racists out there. We're probably down to the double digits by now.


I perceive it as just being evil.

Again, your perceptions are not universal. I don't know why you think they are.

[LnGrrrR]

I know that. I would say that those saying that a quota system is necessary to get the desired numbers on minorities are saying minorities aren't good enough to compete on a level playing field. Therefor, they are calling the minorities inferior, and are the racist.

So you think the playing field is level BEFORE affirmative action?

[scott]

One day, when they find Wild Cobra in the backwoods of Oregon wearing a skinsuit, playing Kansas songs on a xylophone made of human bones and teeth with a hundred rotting moose carcases in the background... we're all going to look back on this thread and think "Wow, he was right. We really didn't understand him."

[Wild Cobra]

So you think the playing field is level BEFORE affirmative action?
When the program started a half century ago, no. Today yes. As level as it can be for anyone.

[Wild Cobra]

One day, when they find Wild Cobra in the backwoods of Oregon wearing a skinsuit, playing Kansas songs on a xylophone made of human bones and teeth with a hundred rotting moose carcases in the background... we're all going to look back on this thread and think "Wow, he was right. We really didn't understand him."
I feel sorry for you fantasizing about me in a skinsuit.

[LnGrrrR]

When the program started a half century ago, no. Today yes. As level as it can be for anyone.

If the playing field is level, why do minorities fare so poorly in some instances? For instance, why are they represented in jails, in poorer neighborhoods, etc etc much more than their numbers would suggest?

[ChumpDumper]

If the playing field is level, why do minorities fare so poorly in some instances? For instance, why are they represented in jails, in poorer neighborhoods, etc etc much more than their numbers would suggest?Obviously not enough have had their tubes tied yet.

[Wild Cobra]

If the playing field is level, why do minorities fare so poorly in some instances? For instance, why are they represented in jails, in poorer neighborhoods, etc etc much more than their numbers would suggest?
Please now.

A level playing field for the same qualifications. Do you want a quota systems for jails too, where we find ways of incarcerating more whites, or less blacks?

What you ask has to do with factors outside of equal opportunity for equal merit.

[CuckingFunt]

Please now.

A level playing field for the same qualifications. Do you want a quota systems for jails too, where we find ways of incarcerating more whites, or less blacks?

What you ask has to do with factors outside of equal opportunity for equal merit.

That did not, in any way, answer the questions asked.

[Wild Cobra]

That did not, in any way, answer the questions asked.
It deserves it's own thread. So does this other tangent we went off on.

[ChumpDumper]

Jesus, you're authoritarian when it comes to thread topics, too.

[TE]

Wrong.

I am aware of how affirmative action was originally intended, and how it later became a quota system. It is only the quota system aspect I am against.

Please...

I know you aren't that stupid. Why are you applying reason that isn't true against me? Are you bigoted against me?

I simply used an example with the word "if." You can assign all the incorrect meaning to my words you want. I'm sorry you have such a closed mind and are incapable of thinking outside the box. My example was to show the harm affirmative action does. It does not mean I think blacks are inferior. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, but to assign such meaning to my words.

Go fuck yourself cunt.

I wonder.

What type of evil bitch are you?

I have explained that several times, yet you are unwilling to give me the benefit of doubt. How is it you can be so fucking positive that I am as you assume. Do you have such a pathetic life, you have to try to make others look worse?

:lmao

[TE]

Oh god. What did I just read?

[CuckingFunt]

:lmao

Right?

[ElNono]

:rollin

[LnGrrrR]

Double post

[LnGrrrR]

A level playing field for the same qualifications. Do you want a quota systems for jails too, where we find ways of incarcerating more whites, or less blacks?

I think you missed my point. Do you think that all job candidates come from the same backgrounds, have the same resources available to them?

As I have mentioned before, let's look at real life example. When the NFL instituted a rule mandating interviews with minorities, the number of black coaches increased significantly in just a few years. Why would this be the case?

Remember, this rule didn't even implement a quota hiring system, just an interview. Why do you think there were more black head coaches after the rule was implemented? Do you think it was just a coincidence that the rule was implemented right when a few quality minority coaching candidates popped up?

[John Basedow]

Holy shit what a classic thread :lmao

R.I.P. Wild Cobra

[ElNono]

See, I think Cobra is missing a beautiful opportunity to further self-sustenance and the libertarian spirit by urging social cleansing instead of modestly proposing that those who depend on upon the government for their sustenance take advantage of the ready-made food source that their copious reproduction affords. Swiftly, I think, the drain on public resources could be eradicated.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I think you missed my point. Do you think that all job candidates come from the same backgrounds, have the same resources available to them?

Absolutely not. Still, the best candidate should get the position.


As I have mentioned before, let's look at real life example. When the NFL instituted a rule mandating interviews with minorities, the number of black coaches increased significantly in just a few years. Why would this be the case?

Great. This was what affirmative action started as. See, it works without using quota systems.

Damn, I wee thread topic are screwed up again.

What does this have to do with instilling responsibility for ones own actions?


Remember, this rule didn't even implement a quota hiring system, just an interview. Why do you think there were more black head coaches after the rule was implemented? Do you think it was just a coincidence that the rule was implemented right when a few quality minority coaching candidates popped up?

I will say again. Great. This was what affirmative action started as. See, it works without using quota systems.

I have no problems with affirmative action as long as quota systems are not used.

[Wild Cobra]

holy shit what a classic thread :lmao

r.i.p. Wild cobra
rip?

[RandomGuy]

What if...

What if we changed the laws so that anyone getting pregnant that didn't have a proper financial future could be subject to legal recourse?

I'm thinking something along two basic ideas. First of all, those who depend on the state to raise their children, that they were irresponsible to have to begin with. Would it be too much to mandate both the man and women have their tubes snipped if they cannot attempt and make their own finances work? If they cannot support one child, why should society bear the cost of a second? Wouldn't two operations be cheaper than another child?

The second idea has to do with abortions. Same basic idea though. If the government is to pay for an abortion, why not tie the woman's tubes too? We can make the normal rape and incest exceptions, but legal papers must be signed, and if later proven wrong... Well perjury is a crime too!

Let the flames begin!

So... you would punish people who can't "afford" to have kids by taking their kids away?

Who gets to decide what "afford" means?

What happens if you have a child, then lose a job and can't "afford" the kid then?

For a libertarian, you certainly seem to want to give a rather large amount of authority and power to the Federal Government. Maybe we should just rebrand you as a fascist? Not trying to be glib or add to the flamage, but I am not sure how one would describe a "libertarian" who wants to vastly scope up the power of the central government. Let me know what you prefer.

[Wild Cobra]

So... you would punish people who can't "afford" to have kids by taking their kids away?

I never said that. I think we need to discourage people from having kids who cannot afford them. If they are incapable of exercising responsibility, and place a burden on society, then shouldn't society be able to say enough? No more?


Who gets to decide what "afford" means?

If they can provide by their own means or not.


What happens if you have a child, then lose a job and can't "afford" the kid then?

That's what safety nets are for. If a couple had children and were responsible going in to it, then they shouldn't be punished for circumstances beyond their control. Now I would expect they didn't have more kids in the meantime, until they can support their own family again without assistance.


For a libertarian, you certainly seem to want to give a rather large amount of authority and power to the Federal Government.
Actually, I want the opposite. I am simply of the belief that all recipients of tax dollars need to be responsible for wise spending. I wish we could have utopia, but I know that will never be. Anyone who chooses to use other peoples money need to be held accountable some how. I believe it shouldn't be an easy way of life, to live on other peoples money. It needs to be discouraged hard enough that people decide to do all they can to work rather than take.

Maybe we should just rebrand you as a fascist?

Why? I only think those irresponsible need it instilled upon them. If they do not agree to the terms of using other people's money, let them go without.


Not trying to be glib or add to the flamage, but I am not sure how one would describe a "libertarian" who wants to vastly scope up the power of the central government. Let me know what you prefer.

My intent is to make it such that people don't want to be on the take from the government.

[ElNono]

If they are incapable of exercising responsibility, and place a burden on society, then shouldn't society be able to say enough? No more?

'incapable of exercising responsibility' applies to equally to politicians, wall street bankers, subsidized Industries, etc etc etc.

Yet, I only see you bitching about the poor...

[Wild Cobra]

'incapable of exercising responsibility' applies to equally to politicians, wall street bankers, subsidized Industries, etc etc etc.

Yet, I only see you bitching about the poor...
You're wrong. Look again in the related threads.

[Winehole23]

Or you could just speak for yourself in this one.

[Wild Cobra]

Or you could just speak for yourself in this one.
Why do you want to change the subject? Starting to agree with me, but don't want to admit it by chance?

[Winehole23]

Starting to agree with me, but don't want to admit it by chance?Hardly. What makes you think so?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think Winehole is becoming authoritarian.

[Wild Cobra]

Hardly. What makes you think so?
Just fishing as to why you and NoNo want to change the subject.

[ElNono]

You're wrong. Look again in the related threads.

I'm looking at your proposal in this thread. Bitching only about the poor sounds about right.

(And I'm still 'in subject' as far as I can tell)

[Winehole23]

Just fishing as to why you and NoNo want to change the subject.I wasn't aware of any strict topical focus being observed. There was significant meandering.

(deleted)

[Wild Cobra]

I wasn't aware of any strict topical focus being observed. There was significant meandering.

(deleted)
We too often go off on tangents. I am guilty as well. This isn't the only time I have complained about the same thing I'm guilty of. If you notice, I created a new thread because of a tangent, to keep from derailing this one. Why can't others attempt the same if it's an offshoot of the topic they want to discuss?

[RandomGuy]

My intent is to make it such that people don't want to be on the take from the government.

Most people don't really want to be on government assistance, already, why would you want to prescribe a radical policy shift for a non-existant problem?

[admiralsnackbar]

We too often go off on tangents. I am guilty as well. This isn't the only time I have complained about the same thing I'm guilty of. If you notice, I created a new thread because of a tangent, to keep from derailing this one. Why can't others attempt the same if it's an offshoot of the topic they want to discuss?

WC going all Habermas on ST? Chocolatey richness!:lol

[Winehole23]

We too often go off on tangents. I am guilty as well. This isn't the only time I have complained about the same thing I'm guilty of. If you notice, I created a new thread because of a tangent, to keep from derailing this one. Why can't others attempt the same if it's an offshoot of the topic they want to discuss?I wish others would do the same but then, maybe other people aren't as considerate as you, so it's understandable that they generally don't.

Thanks for attempting not to derail other threads. You should continue to avoid it and I endorse the encouragement you give others in this respect.

[CuckingFunt]

need it instilled upon them.

Your use of this phrase within the same post in which you deny being a fascist is, seriously, one of my favorite things ever.

[RandomGuy]

Your use of this phrase within the same post in which you deny being a fascist is, seriously, one of my favorite things ever.

Vee haf vays of inschtilling ze proper moral values upon people like you.

[Wild Cobra]

Your use of this phrase within the same post in which you deny being a fascist is, seriously, one of my favorite things ever.


Vee haf vays of inschtilling ze proper moral values upon people like you.
I would prefer a system of government that does not have any laws. However, the populous will take advantage of no laws and do harm to others. I believe it's wrong to allow people to live endlessly of the take from the government. I only want rules in place that require certain things in exchange for living off tax payers, else, they get nothing.

Why are you guys giving me the impression that libertarians want no laws and laws are fascist?

If you don't like my solution, then suggest one that gets people off the government teat.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you guys giving me the impression that libertarians want no laws and laws are fascist?No one said that libertarians are fascists.

We said you are a fascist.

Because you are a fascist.

[Wild Cobra]

I couldn't care less with what you want.

Yes, I know. You make that abundantly clear by intentionally misrepresenting what I say.


How do you know that 'they were never in the financial position to support a child'? Who makes that decision? How do you know that their fortunes are going or not going to turn around when their potential next kid comes around? Are you a psychic? Your futile attempt at futurology is really retarded.

Understanding of one's finances isn't too difficult. There are pay records you know. As for who determines? We have welfare workers always judging people. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Are you asking for perfection?


I think some people are legitimately in need. If you know somebody is abusing the welfare system, you should report them. Those are the tools, use them. Forcefully neutering people isn't here or there. To be quite honest, your 'idea' borders on the Palin-esque.

Yes. Abuse should be reported. Now riddle me this. Should a person on welfare be entitled to cost the tax payers even more money because they want a child they cannot afford?

[ElNono]

Yes, I know. You make that abundantly clear by intentionally misrepresenting what I say.

Wait, did you just respond with some rant to a post I made in another thread to your request for starting a different thread, and you're telling me I'm the one misrepresenting what I said? :lol

That's rich.


Understanding of one's finances isn't too difficult. There are pay records you know. As for who determines? We have welfare workers always judging people. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Are you asking for perfection?

Yes, but those determinations are done on the person requesting the welfare, or the actual kids. You're asking them to make determinations on future events. Obviously, that makes no sense no matter how you want to spin it.


Yes. Abuse should be reported. Now riddle me this. Should a person on welfare be entitled to cost the tax payers even more money because they want a child they cannot afford?

There's already solutions readily available (like abortion) for people that believe they can't afford it. The question here is who are you or anybody else to decide who can or cannot afford it? How do you know with any degree of certainty?

Your contention is also ridiculous on many levels. You can accomplish the same by capping benefits if that's what you want. Arguably, you save even more since the state wouldn't need to do any surgeries.

You also still conveniently keep skipping my questions: All those CEOs of multi-billion dollars corps that use loopholes to avoid paying taxes (and thus costs taxpayer's money) are also in line to get neutered? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, but those determinations are done on the person requesting the welfare, or the actual kids. You're asking them to make determinations on future events. Obviously, that makes no sense no matter how you want to spin it.

No, I was always basing it on the ability to support the child when the child was conceived. Maybe you should read this thread.


There's already solutions readily available (like abortion) for people that believe they can't afford it. The question here is who are you or anybody else to decide who can or cannot afford it? How do you know with any degree of certainty?

If they can or cannot afford it depends on if they ask for government aid or not. Is that a simple enough concept?


You also still conveniently keep skipping my questions: All those CEOs of multi-billion dollars corps that use loopholes to avoid paying taxes (and thus costs taxpayer's money) are also in line to get neutered? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

LOL... Changing the subject again, as if, you don't know my position on loopholes.

Another thread my friend. Leave it out of this one.

[ChumpDumper]

:cop

[ElNono]

No, I was always basing it on the ability to support the child when the child was conceived. Maybe you should read this thread.

But sewing up their tubes has an effect on the future, not the present.
Again, spin this shit all you want, it still makes no sense.


If they can or cannot afford it depends on if they ask for government aid or not. Is that a simple enough concept?

No it's not. People ask government for aid a lot of times and that doesn't mean it's not something temporary (i.e.: unemployment). Without knowing the future though, you just have no way to predict what's temporary and what isn't. Again, you need to explain how you're going to apply futurology in this turd.

And BTW, you can edit my posts all you want. Doesn't change the fact that you can do the same without requiring any kind of retarded mutilation.


LOL... Changing the subject again, as if, you don't know my position on loopholes. Another thread my friend. Leave it out of this one.

It's not changing the subject at all. Your proposal's goal is to save taxpayer's dollars, due to people living off taxpayer's money. All those taxes those corps evaded are taxpayer's money, and somebody is obviously living off it. So it's a long line we're going to have at the retarded Wild Cobra neuter centers.

[Winehole23]

Delusions of persecution.Disagree strongly. The persecution is real and probably sought after; in the long run it tends to have the effect of aggrandizing WC's visibility/significance. Going by the sheer number of personally directed responses/accusations, WC is far and away the most significant poster in this forum.

[Wild Cobra]

But sewing up their tubes has an effect on the future, not the present.
Again, spin this shit all you want, it still makes no sense.

That's right. The cannot make the tax payers pay for another baby.


No it's not. People ask government for aid a lot of times and that doesn't mean it's not something temporary (i.e.: unemployment).

Stop that nomnsense.

I explained that the determination would be if a person was able to afford the costs at the time. If someone was just recently unemployed, but could afford a child prior, then this would not apply. It would only apply to those who are reckless with the social welfare system.


Without knowing the future though, you just have no way to predict what's temporary and what isn't. Again, you need to explain how you're going to apply futurology in this turd.

I suggest you buy a clue.


And BTW, you can edit my posts all you want. Doesn't change the fact that you can do the same without requiring any kind of retarded mutilation.

Huh?

Did I accidentally edit one of yours when I meant to correct something I said?

Where did I edit yours?


It's not changing the subject at all. Your proposal's goal is to save taxpayer's dollars, due to people living off taxpayer's money. All those taxes those corps evaded are taxpayer's money, and somebody is obviously living off it. So it's a long line we're going to have at the retarded Wild Cobra neuter centers.

And how many times have I advocated closing the loopholes vs. advocating leaving the loopholes in place?

Once you figure that out, please stop changing the subject.

[CuckingFunt]

Disagree strongly. The persecution is real and probably sought after; in the long run it tends to have the effect of aggrandizing WC's visibility/significance. Going by the sheer number of personally directed responses/accusations, WC is far and away the most significant poster in this forum.

It is not delusional for Cobra to perceive that a number of people here think he's an idiot and have said as much directly.

It is delusional for Cobra to think those people are calling him an idiot because the forum has agreed in advance to intentionally twist/misread his words in order to make him appear idiotic.

[Wild Cobra]

It is delusional for Cobra to think those people are calling him an idiot because the forum has agreed in advance to intentionally twist/misread his words in order to make him appear idiotic.
What am I suppose to think when I repeatedly clarify my point, yet idiots continue to insist differently?

[Winehole23]

It is delusional for Cobra to think those people are calling him an idiot because the forum has agreed in advance to intentionally twist/misread his words in order to make him appear idiotic.Perhaps.

It would not be delusional for WC to think that a dozen or so regular posters are waiting up on him at more or less all times, brimming with adversarial intent.

[Winehole23]

We get a few bandwagoners, too.

[Winehole23]

In the name of Martin Luther King, I am judging them by their character. :rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[Winehole23]

:lmao...as reflected by their level of income

[Phenomanul]

The OP is about the most patently absurd idea ever proposed in this forum... (can't believe I didn't see it the first time around)...