WC's Extreme Views [Archive] - Page 2

Pages : 1 [2] 3

Wild Cobra

01-23-2012, 03:32 AM

i never said i have a nice mercedes.
WTF...

You said you had a 2006 S65 AMG. That car in 2006 had an MSRP of $169,000. You say that's not nice?

Wild Cobra

01-23-2012, 03:36 AM

I just think you've given no thought to how this system is supposed to work at all. To compound the problem, you don't know what the current system provides and under which circumstances. Programs like WIC only apply on a temporary basis and start when the women gets pregnant. Are you seriously advocating the mother undergo a tied tube surgery with the kid in the womb?

Tell me.

Should I waste my time with you if you are going to jump to such asinine assumptions? I didn't read past your first paragraph of your long response, because the first was so asinine.

I'll come back and look over you post when I have time. Please stop wasting what time i have. How about some reasonable questions, without the stupid assumptions.

Let me know when your ready to stop being a Glob fly (http://tng.trekcore.com/audiocaps/2x04/2x04-globfly-e.mp3).

LnGrrrR

01-23-2012, 06:21 AM

Please show me where I advocate forced sterilization.

Well, forced sterilization for government aid... (assuming that said couple was "irresponsible".)

LnGrrrR

01-23-2012, 06:38 AM

I get hangovers easy, so when I find something that doesn't give me one... I will endorse it.

:toast Same here WC.

Wild Cobra

01-23-2012, 08:40 AM

Well, forced sterilization for government aid... (assuming that said couple was "irresponsible".)
It's an exchange. If they want the services, they must agree to actions that prevents it from happening again. Why is that wrong?

Winehole23

01-23-2012, 01:59 PM

FromWayDowntown

01-23-2012, 03:28 PM

That people will voluntarily swap their fertility for a little bit of money is in itself a satanic bargain, but the most shocking thing to me is the power such a scheme would give the state over human reproduction.

Why not just order that women in this situation must have abortions if they want governmental aid? [/extremism]

Heat Miser

01-23-2012, 05:34 PM

forced sterilization

If only in your case...

ElNono

01-24-2012, 12:26 AM

Tell me.

Should I waste my time with you if you are going to jump to such asinine assumptions? I didn't read past your first paragraph of your long response, because the first was so asinine.

I'll come back and look over you post when I have time. Please stop wasting what time i have. How about some reasonable questions, without the stupid assumptions.

Let me know when your ready to stop being a Glob fly (http://tng.trekcore.com/audiocaps/2x04/2x04-globfly-e.mp3).

I'm still waiting for the statistics you cite and never provide. Are we at least going to see those?

LnGrrrR

01-24-2012, 02:31 AM

If only in your case...

lol mouse with the troll bads

Tbh, you don't have to worry, one more kid and I'll be doing it voluntarily

Wild Cobra

01-24-2012, 04:55 AM

Well, forced sterilization for government aid... (assuming that said couple was "irresponsible".)
Why do you have a problem with that? If people engage in protected sex, and the protection fails, why shouldn't they be responsible for their actions? Why should society subsidize their needs over their gambling? It is irresponsible and often abusive to bring a child into the world that you cannot take care of. Why shouldn't society take the measures necessary to help the innocent, and keep such an immoral act from occurring again?

What is for a rush, I play Russian Roulette with a revolver that somehow had 100 chambers. Only one had a bullet. Now in the 1 in 100 chance, I kill someone. Should I be coddled for my irresponsibility of thinking a 1:100 chance would never occur, or should I be tried for murder?

The consequences is the deterrent to help bring about responsibility that is sorely lacing in our society today.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-24-2012, 05:12 AM

Why do you have a problem with that? If people engage in protected sex, and the protection fails, why shouldn't they be responsible for their actions? Why should society subsidize their needs over their gambling? It is irresponsible and often abusive to bring a child into the world that you cannot take care of. Why shouldn't society take the measures necessary to help the innocent, and keep such an immoral act from occurring again?

What is for a rush, I play Russian Roulette with a revolver that somehow had 100 chambers. Only one had a bullet. Now in the 1 in 100 chance, I kill someone. Should I be coddled for my irresponsibility of thinking a 1:100 chance would never occur, or should I be tried for murder?

The consequences is the deterrent to help bring about responsibility that is sorely lacing in our society today.

Well if you are going to recommend eugenics then I say we start with you. Then again, we do need epsilons, partschanger.

Quite frankly, you are not fit for espousing that type of elitist trash. You get swept under with the tide.

BHFUH_frhBw

Wild Cobra

01-24-2012, 06:03 AM

Warning...

Because this got so long, I didn't proof read it. I don't very often anyway, but there are bound to be errors...

I just think you've given no thought to how this system is supposed to work at all.
Is the system suppose to bet bigger and bigger, and not do anything to reduce poverty?

The war on poverty will soon be 50 years old. When will we do something that matters?

To compound the problem, you don't know what the current system provides and under which circumstances. Programs like WIC only apply on a temporary basis and start when the women gets pregnant.
No shit Sherlock. Is it right for us to provide subsidies as a right, or should it be more like an insurance??

Are you seriously advocating the mother undergo a tied tube surgery with the kid in the womb?
Absolutely not. this is why you piss me off. You go out of your way, to twist what I say. It is your MO as a regular thing. i find it very unethical.

BTW, assistance isn't requested only by "couples". Plenty of single mothers out there.
Do women have spontaneous pregnancies without the help of a male sperm donor?

If the between the two that it took to make a baby, if they cannot support that baby on their own, then they are irresponsible.

It takes two to tango.

And plenty of people that do have jobs but still don't make enough not to require assistance.

Then they shouldn't plant to have another mouth to feed, or risk having another mouth to feed.

Why do you coddle those who are irresponsible? Are you one of them?

Are you advocating that people should stop having sex while unemployed?
You say that like every kid conceived is planned for. Until there's a 100% foolproof method to prevent conception, your claim is simply not true.

Abstinence works.

But I didn't claim that. I said only those that fit *your* criteria (still far from clear) for having the surgery, which according to you are being "irresponsible". Why do you want to reward them with aid instead of teaching them to be "responsible"?

I don't understand why this needs explaining.

The child is innocent, and should be helped. At the same time, the parents shouldn't get a free ride. The surgery gives pretty good assurance that this will not be a repeated action with this couple.

But you don't know it's a one time event. The surgery is reversible, right?
I'll take it one step further. What if the person gets out of welfare, decides to have another kid (seemingly "responsibly" this time), but the reversal doesn't work? Tough luck? You don't think the government would have any sort of liability to requiring her to have such surgery in the first place (something the person wouldn't have done unless required to do so)?

Already discussed.

Tangentially, how is this different from requiring people to have health insurance (or pay a penalty)? Didn't you think that was a draconian, authoritarian government requirement?

You want to require people pay money because they are alive?

How dictatorial of you.

It's a great deal different. A choice is maintained. It is not mandatory. It is the cost to receive benefits.

Well, tell me what a "responsible" person like you do when you can't make ends meet. Do you continue with your same lifestyle?

Being the Glob Fly again i see.

Of course I change my lifestyle. Our government is at a point it cannot maintain all this social spending. Something has to be done.

Well, I certainly don't agree that people choose to do that all the time. It's obviously quite difficult to prove otherwise. Perhaps we should require them to bring the broken, used condom or the used intro-uterine device to the interview?

Anytime a person has sex, unless they are unable to produce a child, the risk is there. If a couple is not capable of supporting a newe life in their midst, then they are irresponsible for their actions.

I suppose as gambling goes, you could stretch this to include that we should subsidize gamblers who blow their paycheck, certain that at some time they will win big.

Gambling is gambling. How can you sanitize it into something innocent?

Clearly it isn't. So start explaining how having the surgery "dramatically downsize the social spending".

How can it not?

Would you agree that most people receiving social subsidies have two or more children, and that most were conceived needing social benefits?

What happens when this is reduced to only one child, and others seeing this as a deterrent, take extra care not to have a child?

I see less applications for social benefits, hence, the spending goes down.

Well, we need to talk about long term changes, because we're talking about human life here, which is nothing but long-term. Frankly, your proposal reeks of short-sighted, something I pointed out numerous times now.

Bullshit.

Again, you are twisting what I say to the worse possible outcome. Aren't you the one that challenges the cost of the surgery vs. the cost of social benefits? I say the cost of surgery is cheaper than a second event, and you disagree...

These social benefits are likely going to last the life of the child. Of course the long term is expensive, and why we should do all we can to stop this drain of our treasury. Statistics show a vicious circle of poverty, that most of those born in poverty, remain in poverty.

We already have programs that address that, like WIC, CPS, we do not?

You mean "do we not," right?

Yes we have these. Shouldn't we strive to become a better nation and reduce the needs of these programs?

How is the surgery requirement going to make bad parents into good parents?
Right, it won't.

There you go again... you Glob Fly...

I never said it would make them better parents.

What kind of authority do you think the government has to dictate what these "responsibility standards" should be?
You ever read the constitution?

What happens when they dictate some "standard" you don't agree with?

That happens all the time already.

And you didn't answer any of my questions, so I'm going to ask them again: How does a surgery requirement holds people accountable?
It doesn't hold them accountable. It takes that responsibility away from them so they don't have to be accountable.

How does it incentive people to get a job, out of welfare and being productive members of society? Doesn't it actually works the other way around? It would deny society of potentially productive members.

That's probable another thread in itself, but in short, if the hammock or easy chair is no longer available, people will stand up.

How do you know they intended to conceive in the first place?

Like I said earlier. They shouldn't be gambling.

Maybe I should put it this way. Don't gamble if you can't afford to lose.

Why do you act as if people have the right to be irresponsible, then expect the tax payer to make up for their mistakes?

I would add there's some age-related instances where I definitely understand why they would try to conceive.

It doesn't matter. Irresponsibility should be treated as a stigma. Not something to be coddled.

So how is the surgery putting them back to work?

I don't know that it will. It just keeps then from needing the assistance for more children.

Where are these statistics? I've been asking you to back all this asinine sentences, but all you've been able to say so far is "look around you". I'm not taking your word for it. I posted actual statistics.

Glob fly mode again.

if you want to see them, you find them.

Your perception means shit. You should start getting informed, so you can make informed comments. A good start would be Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act)

And... what do we have to show for it, but more and more social spending yet.

You seem to be aware enough of to comment on it (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5392379&postcount=30)

I see...

You think the term and the story are the same thing.

I don't recall why I used that term. Was it in a related thread, or link of that thread?

It doesn't matter. Once again, you are taking me out of context. No surprise though. It's you M.O.

Did I mention illegal immigration *at all*????
Just applying it to things you have said in the past.

Lest we forget that the economy is in the shitter because some rich folk decided to gamble money they didn't have, and then proceeded to ask the government for the same welfare you're bitching about?

Really?

That's not why we had a housing bubble burst.

That's not why jobs are going overseas.

That's a separate issue.

My point stands though. We're not going back to the 50's because neither this nation or the world are what they used to be back then.
I'm not advocating we go back to that lifestyle. Just promote that level of personal responsibly.

A surgery requirement won't change that.

You don't believe in deterrents?

How many thing do you not do, that you might otherwise do, because to be caught, has unpleasant actions?

You still have to actually back up the contention that those children are going to be perennially living under welfare and won't become productive members of society.

Not all will, but there is a recognized cycle in poverty.

Why should I prove things that everyone already knows?

Want me to prove 2+2=4... That the world is round... Want me to prove that oil and water don't mix without an emulsifier?

Ooops...

That last one is probably over your head, and I might have to prove it to you.

scott

01-26-2012, 12:46 PM

I didn't need to read 11 pages of Ankle Biting to say this:

Poster of the Year.

Scoreboard bitches.

mouse

01-26-2012, 04:00 PM

WC came back strong!

ElNono

01-26-2012, 07:39 PM

Warning...

Because this got so long, I didn't proof read it. I don't very often anyway, but there are bound to be errors...

Fair enough.

Is the system suppose to bet bigger and bigger, and not do anything to reduce poverty? The war on poverty will soon be 50 years old. When will we do something that matters?

So your solution to poverty is deny reproduction to poor families?
The war on poverty entails providing means so such people can get out of poverty, by productive means and a string economy, not using eugenics.

No shit Sherlock. Is it right for us to provide subsidies as a right, or should it be more like an insurance??

We don't provide subsidies as a right. As a matter of fact, people under welfare have a requirement to obtain a job within 2 years or they lose the benefit.

Further proof you have no idea what the current services provides and what are their requirements.

Absolutely not. this is why you piss me off. You go out of your way, to twist what I say. It is your MO as a regular thing. i find it very unethical.

What pisses you off is the fact that you didn't think these things through or you don't know much of anything you're talking about. When somebody (in this case, me) actually points out the stupidity or lack of thought and research of your contentions, they're just the messengers.

Do women have spontaneous pregnancies without the help of a male sperm donor?

If the between the two that it took to make a baby, if they cannot support that baby on their own, then they are irresponsible.

It takes two to tango.

Sure, but your suggestion that a vasectomy would prevent further reproduction doesn't jive. As a matter of fact, it doesn't work at all. Tied tubes would be closer to what you're looking for, but then you fall in my caveat pointed above.

Then they shouldn't plant to have another mouth to feed, or risk having another mouth to feed.

Why do you coddle those who are irresponsible? Are you one of them?

You contention that people (poor or not) plan conceiving a kid in every instance is a complete disconnect from reality. I don't coddle anybody, I merely point out what the real world looks like.

Abstinence works.

No it doesn't. Not in the real world anyways. Unless you're advocating that government should enforce it...

I don't understand why this needs explaining.

The child is innocent, and should be helped. At the same time, the parents shouldn't get a free ride. The surgery gives pretty good assurance that this will not be a repeated action with this couple.

But it doesn't give an assurance. The surgery is reversible, right?
And how is this surgery teaching them to be "responsible"? Right, it doesn't.

Already discussed.

So tough luck it is. Extreme.

You want to require people pay money because they are alive?

How dictatorial of you.

It's a great deal different. A choice is maintained. It is not mandatory. It is the cost to receive benefits.

I didn't write the healthcare law nor agree with it. Not sure when *I* walked into this picture.

That said, this is no different than the government demanding you to purchase health insurance, and if you do not, they'll charge you a fee as a punitive measure.

Here, the government would be demanding you to have a surgery, and if you do not, they'll deny the aid you need as a punitive measure.

I don't see where the difference lies, tbh

Being the Glob Fly again i see.

Of course I change my lifestyle. Our government is at a point it cannot maintain all this social spending. Something has to be done.

So if you're capable of getting by with less, why not these people?

Anytime a person has sex, unless they are unable to produce a child, the risk is there. If a couple is not capable of supporting a newe life in their midst, then they are irresponsible for their actions.

Wait, you're saying that only those that can afford to raise a child should have sex? :lol

I suppose as gambling goes, you could stretch this to include that we should subsidize gamblers who blow their paycheck, certain that at some time they will win big.

Gambling is gambling. How can you sanitize it into something innocent?

Not quite sure where gambling entered this discussion, but it's a terrible analogy.

How can it not?

Would you agree that most people receiving social subsidies have two or more children, and that most were conceived needing social benefits?

No, I wouldn't agree with that. Would you care to back that up?

What happens when this is reduced to only one child, and others seeing this as a deterrent, take extra care not to have a child?

I see less applications for social benefits, hence, the spending goes down.

What's the deterrent? They're still getting the aid.

Bullshit.

Again, you are twisting what I say to the worse possible outcome. Aren't you the one that challenges the cost of the surgery vs. the cost of social benefits? I say the cost of surgery is cheaper than a second event, and you disagree...

These social benefits are likely going to last the life of the child. Of course the long term is expensive, and why we should do all we can to stop this drain of our treasury. Statistics show a vicious circle of poverty, that most of those born in poverty, remain in poverty.

The bolded part is bullshit, I've asked you to back that up, and you still come back empty handed.

As far as the red part, I've been asking you for these statistics. Where are they?

You mean "do we not," right?

Yes we have these. Shouldn't we strive to become a better nation and reduce the needs of these programs?

Sure we do. Your surgery does absolutely nothing towards that though. If you were advancing an idea of better or more efficient job programs, or a way to get out of this overall shitty economy, I would completely agree with you that those are things that help reduce the need for these programs.

I already official statistics from the department of agriculture that show that usage of these programs match the overall state of the economy.

There you go again... you Glob Fly...
I never said it would make them better parents.

Sure you did: "some people would say raising a child in poverty is child abuse". How is this surgery removing these children from this alleged parental abuse? Right, it doesn't.

You ever read the constitution?

Please quote where the constitution dictates these "responsibility standards".

That happens all the time already.

Like what?

It doesn't hold them accountable. It takes that responsibility away from them so they don't have to be accountable.

:lol you were just telling me how it makes them accountable... I'm glad we finally agree.

That's probable another thread in itself, but in short, if the hammock or easy chair is no longer available, people will stand up.

But the hammock is there. You're not denying the aid.

Like I said earlier. They shouldn't be gambling.

Maybe I should put it this way. Don't gamble if you can't afford to lose.

Why do you act as if people have the right to be irresponsible, then expect the tax payer to make up for their mistakes?

The byproduct of losing at gambling isn't a human life. Terrible analogy.

And the claim that people have a "right" to be "irresponsible" is entirely yours, and one that I don't particularly share.

It doesn't matter. Irresponsibility should be treated as a stigma. Not something to be coddled.

Responsibility is something you learn and teach. It has little to do with stigmas or coddling. A better education is something else that would help address this concern, not surgery requirements.

I don't know that it will. It just keeps then from needing the assistance for more children.

So the surgery doesn't address your concern at all. Expected.

Glob fly mode again.
if you want to see them, you find them.

So we just have to take your word for it? :lmao

And... what do we have to show for it, but more and more social spending yet.

Actually, recipients of welfare were on the decline (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/apa.shtml) until the economy went into recession.

Social spending comes in a lot of different flavors, but it obviously increases when the economy is in the shitter.

What's inexcusable is how you keep talking and talking about these programs when you know absolutely nothing about them.

I see...

You think the term and the story are the same thing.

I don't recall why I used that term. Was it in a related thread, or link of that thread?

It doesn't matter. Once again, you are taking me out of context. No surprise though. It's you M.O.

So you never heard the tale but you you had an opinion on it... par the course, I guess.

Just applying it to things you have said in the past.

Like what? :lol

Really?
That's not why we had a housing bubble burst.
That's not why jobs are going overseas.
That's a separate issue.

Yeah, really. And the problem wasn't that the bubble burst, the problem was that there was a bubble to begin with. Bursting is going to happen sooner or later. And the bubble was entirely on rich folk gambling other people's money. Jobs were going overseas before the recession. They've been going overseas for many years.

I'm not advocating we go back to that lifestyle. Just promote that level of personal responsibly.

But your argument is silly. Welfare existed back then too, it was just paid by the states. They actually were a substantial part of each state's spendings. This idea that welfare didn't exist back then is ridiculous. It's only gotten bigger and bigger simply because we have a whole lot more of people, because instead of each individual state taking care of it, it all went to the federal government, and because the economy is undergoing a rather critical moment.

You don't believe in deterrents?

How many thing do you not do, that you might otherwise do, because to be caught, has unpleasant actions?

Oh, I believe in deterrents. I just don't see how this surgery deters anybody from stop being "irresponsible". I actually contend that it doesn't at all. Considering you've just agreed that it doesn't hold people accountable, then I have to suppose you agree with this too.

Not all will, but there is a recognized cycle in poverty.

Why should I prove things that everyone already knows?

But there isn't. There's the cycle of poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty) as an economic theory, which basically destroys your idea that this castration surgery helps break that cycle at all. As a matter of fact, it backs up my contention that help in the form of jobs and education is what breaks that cycle.

Want me to prove 2+2=4... That the world is round... Want me to prove that oil and water don't mix without an emulsifier?

Ooops...

That last one is probably over your head, and I might have to prove it to you.

:lol you still don't know what you're talking about. This entire topic is way over your head.

LnGrrrR

01-26-2012, 08:37 PM

LnGrrrR

01-26-2012, 08:44 PM

That said, this is no different than the government demanding you to purchase health insurance, and if you do not, they'll charge you a fee as a punitive measure.

Here, the government would be demanding you to have a surgery, and if you do not, they'll deny the aid you need as a punitive measure.

I don't see where the difference lies, tbh

I'd say one difference is that you can't choose to stop being alive (and don't get all smart on me about this, you know what I mean :) ), but you could choose not to have children.

mouse

01-27-2012, 02:43 AM

Holy shit! ELNono comes back with a Right hook!

Wild Cobra

01-27-2012, 03:55 AM

Holy shit! ELNono comes back with a Right hook!
With your commentary, are you in the Peanut Gallery?

Wild Cobra

01-27-2012, 04:01 AM

Wild Cobra

01-27-2012, 05:21 AM

So your solution to poverty is deny reproduction to poor families?
The war on poverty entails providing means so such people can get out of poverty, by productive means and a string economy, not using eugenics.

You say that as if that is all I think will reduce poverty. If we could deny poor people to reproduce, it would help reduce poverty. Not because they are poor, but because of the general culture being poor causes.

There you go being extreme again... Eugenics... Why doesn't it surprise me?

We don't provide subsidies as a right. As a matter of fact, people under welfare have a requirement to obtain a job within 2 years or they lose the benefit.

There are several types of programs that fall under welfare, and they don't all require that. What about food stamps? Section 8 housing? Other too.

Further proof you have no idea what the current services provides and what are their requirements.

Bullshit.

Proof you don't know.

What pisses you off is the fact that you didn't think these things through or you don't know much of anything you're talking about. When somebody (in this case, me) actually points out the stupidity or lack of thought and research of your contentions, they're just the messengers.

Contrary to your belief, you are exposing your own ignorance.

Sure, but your suggestion that a vasectomy would prevent further reproduction doesn't jive. As a matter of fact, it doesn't work at all. Tied tubes would be closer to what you're looking for, but then you fall in my caveat pointed above.

I'm advocating bot the man and woman of the child have surgery so they cannot repeat the sin of bringing a child into the world they can't support. Their either both have the procedure, or neither. I'm sure we can find mitigating circumstances, but in general, both will need to have the procedure done for the government aide. If one refused, I'm sure some legal option like forfeiture of assets, garnishments, etc. can make be punishment enough. If not, maybe even jail time. i will assume there will be a problem with these guys who go around impregnating women, then play no fatherly roles. I'm not advocating this yet, but maybe they do deserve castration, like LnGrrrR rewords my point.

You contention that people (poor or not) plan conceiving a kid in every instance is a complete disconnect from reality. I don't coddle anybody, I merely point out what the real world looks like.

I would appreciate it if you stopped being an unethical ass, and stop misstating my points.

I know that not all children are planned. Still, if people have greater cause to be sexually responsible, it will make a change in statistics.

I don't think you know what the real world looks like. You keep suggesting I advocate things that I don't. I think your viewpoint is very biased.

No it doesn't. Not in the real world anyways. Unless you're advocating that government should enforce it...

WTF...

Are you suggesting that if you practice abstinence, you can have a child?

But it doesn't give an assurance. The surgery is reversible, right?
And how is this surgery teaching them to be "responsible"? Right, it doesn't.

My God.

Why would they do that, under what reasonable stipulations would be? This would be an automatic disqualifier if they had another child and found it had been reversed. I will suggest the right thing to do would be to make it an offense that could lead to jail time also.

That said, this is no different than the government demanding you to purchase health insurance, and if you do not, they'll charge you a fee as a punitive measure.

There is a world of difference, and I can't believe you don't see the difference.

We have a choice to put ourselves in a situation that can lead to having a child, or not. Are you suggesting we should commit suicide if we don't want to pay for health insurance? after all, how else would a choice to be born or not, as ex-post-facto, be addressed?

Here, the government would be demanding you to have a surgery, and if you do not, they'll deny the aid you need as a punitive measure.

Better than not having aide available, isn't it?

I don't see where the difference lies, tbh

I know. It's above your head.

So if you're capable of getting by with less, why not these people?

I have a pretty good cushion of money. people who need government aide do not. I can afford new car payment. Can they? I can afford another child, can they? Before you try to say it isn't right to compare a car to a baby, I suggest you remember it isn't right to expect other people's money.

Wait, you're saying that only those that can afford to raise a child should have sex? :lol

Yes, it effectively comes to that.

Not quite sure where gambling entered this discussion, but it's a terrible analogy.

If you don't understand how having protected sex isn't like gambling, then I don't know what to say.

What is terrible, if tax payer dollars being used in social programs that we shouldn't have. We can no longer afford such a drain on society.

No, I wouldn't agree with that. Would you care to back that up?

Not going to take the time. Maybe you should consider food stamp statistics though.

What's the deterrent? They're still getting the aid.

OMG...

Really...

Are you that daft?

Other people see what happens, and there will be a drop in people who recklessly have children. Are you suggesting that irresponsibility is so rampant, it can't be tempered?

The bolded part is bullshit, I've asked you to back that up, and you still come back empty handed.

I already realize that even if I back it up, you will still find fault. I've known that about you for some time already. That's why I don't go out of my way to respond to you.

As far as the red part, I've been asking you for these statistics. Where are they?

Have you looked? Read stories about the poverty cycle?

Wow... This is getting long. Going to start snipping...

Sure we do. Your surgery does absolutely nothing towards that though. If you were advancing an idea of better or more efficient job programs, or a way to get out of this overall shitty economy, I would completely agree with you that those are things that help reduce the need for these programs.

WTF do you liberals think job programs are the answer? They are very costly for the numbers that do get help, and it does nothing to address the general attitudes people develop growing up in poverty. Work ethics and education are a different topic. Do you realize you are agreeing with me on the idea this aide is lasting a lifetime? You are advocating more government aide. Aren't you tired of more and more programs sucking up tax payer dollars? I am.

I already official statistics from the department of agriculture that show that usage of these programs match the overall state of the economy.

Does that mean they don't make a difference?

Sure you did: "some people would say raising a child in poverty is child abuse". How is this surgery removing these children from this alleged parental abuse? Right, it doesn't.

Being the Glob flu again and again.

How do you make that to read I said it makes them better parents?

Again... After the first innocent child losing in this lottery of birth, the parents will not easily be able to do it to a second innocent life.

Please quote where the constitution dictates these "responsibility standards".

It doesn't, and I didn't say there is a responsibility clause.

One of my poor statement due to not proof reading. Congress has the right to allocate money for the general welfare. I will argue that what has been happening is in violation of "promoting the general welfare."

"General Welfare" has a specific meaning, and it isn't welfare.

:lol you were just telling me how it makes them accountable... I'm glad we finally agree.

It makes some people more responsible, as not to put themselves in such a position. Others, will never be more responsible, no matter what you do.

But the hammock is there. You're not denying the aid.

Only with a catch.

The byproduct of losing at gambling isn't a human life. Terrible analogy.

Sorry you don't see the point.

Responsibility is something you learn and teach. It has little to do with stigmas or coddling. A better education is something else that would help address this concern, not surgery requirements.

Yes, but how do you make that happen? If I knew how to address the root problem of lack of teaching responsibility, I would. What is your solution?

So the surgery doesn't address your concern at all. Expected.

The surgery does what I want to do. Sorry you refuse to understand.

Actually, recipients of welfare were on the decline (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/apa.shtml) until the economy went into recession.

One welfare statistic, of how many? Also, correlation does not equal causation. We had other things going on too, like a recovering economy.

Again. Look at the Food Stamp statistics.

What's inexcusable is how you keep talking and talking about these programs when you know absolutely nothing about them.

Sorry that I believe the programs should be used as an insurance. Not a way of life. Yes, I do understand them. I also understand that some require people to sell off all their assets and become poor before they help. That isn't right either.

So you never heard the tale but you you had an opinion on it... par the course, I guess.

Yep, you are spinning again. Your MO.

Again, I don't recall the Reagan story. However, the term I have a pretty good understanding of.

Why are you making them out to be the same?

Why?

Why are you being so asinine?

Like what? :lol

Writing enough already. I have seen a Welfare Queen, and heard of others through people I know. Surely, you read before where I mention the girl I was having sex with until she found out I had a vasectomy? She was really a welfare queen. Wish I had a house as nice as Section 8 provided her with. She already had 4 kids three years apart, and needed another to stay on her benefits.

Yeah, really. And the problem wasn't that the bubble burst, the problem was that there was a bubble to begin with. Bursting is going to happen sooner or later. And the bubble was entirely on rich folk gambling other people's money. Jobs were going overseas before the recession. They've been going overseas for many years.

Really...

You mean consumers didn't drive the market?

But your argument is silly. Welfare existed back then too, it was just paid by the states. They actually were a substantial part of each state's spendings. This idea that welfare didn't exist back then is ridiculous. It's only gotten bigger and bigger simply because we have a whole lot more of people, because instead of each individual state taking care of it, it all went to the federal government, and because the economy is undergoing a rather critical moment.

It was different. And no, it didn't get bigger and bigger because of population. If that was it, the per capita spending would have remained relatively level. I'm complaining that it was taking such a dramatic increase as a percentage of taxes.

But there isn't. There's the cycle of poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty) as an economic theory, which basically destroys your idea that this castration surgery helps break that cycle at all. As a matter of fact, it backs up my contention that help in the form of jobs and education is what breaks that cycle.

Less children to maintain the cycle.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-27-2012, 05:45 AM

You do not understand how tying reproductive rights to government aid is not eugenics? I guess I am not surprised considering that you think that Hitler was a good leader.

You say

If we could deny poor people to reproduce, it would help reduce poverty. Not because they are poor, but because of the general culture being poor causes.

and you still cannot figure it out?

You disgust me intellectually, ethically and morally.

ElNono

01-27-2012, 11:39 AM

I KINDA get where WC is coming from. WC, correct me if I'm wrong.

WC thinks that outright DENYING aid to families is somewhat wrong, as that means the child, an innocent, would suffer. So, instead, he offers a one-time out: to families that are willing to neuter themselves, they can receive government aid to help out this last child.

Assuming they get out of debt and no longer need government payments, they are free to reverse the procedure.

While I don't agree with the plan, I can somewhat see where WC might think it "better" than just cutting off payments after a certain amount of children. The big problem I see is that if these couples are as irresponsible as he claims them to be, then would they voluntarily submit to being neutered in order to support their children?

It's actually much more macabre than that. He contends that children born in poverty will remain in poverty and require aid (something he claims to have statistics on, but never presented when requested to). From this asinine idea, he then concludes that by denying poor people to have children, one would fight poverty (through what boils down to eugenics).

There's a special case in economics known as the 'cycle of poverty' (you can google it if interested), which is fairly well understood, including the factors that keep people in such cycle. Those factors are primarily lack of resources (jobs) and lack of access to education. It's patently clear that fighting poverty in general has everything to do with aiding in attacking those factors, and none with government eugenics.

The problem Cobra has is that he doesn't even know that current welfare programs already mandate obtaining a job or losing the welfare. He just sees the social spending increasing and completely overlooks the reasons for such growth. Reality dictates that when the economy goes to the shitter, more people end up signing up for aid, and that when the economy was doing well, the amount of aid requested was on the decline. For example, Congress has been extending unemployment benefits for a long time now.
I have no problem if you take the position that government must stop extending those benefits now. Debatable. But arguing that such people are required to undergo surgery if they happen to conceive an unplanned kid? Retarded and it doesn't attack the problem itself. Then there are the complete disconnects from reality, like thinking people will suddenly stop having sex.

ElNono

01-27-2012, 12:13 PM

BTW, related:

Eugenics: America's Past Genocide of Poor Minorities (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2012/January/Eugenics-Americas-Past-Genocide-of-Poor-Minorities/)

FuzzyLumpkins

01-27-2012, 03:00 PM

Hes tying reproductive rights to government programs and targeting a particular subset. Giving alms is not analogous to tying off someones fallopian tubes. its not hard to figure out if you are not an idiot.

i think the better discussion is whether or not its fair to call him a Nazi now --and I mean quite literally-- given his support of Hitler in conjunction with this current gem.

Winehole23

01-27-2012, 04:04 PM

there's maybe a little bit of overlap, but suggesting any straight up equivalence b/w WC and National Socialism is grotesquely overblown.

and boorish. and probably objectively wrong.

Winehole23

01-27-2012, 04:07 PM

http://www.rafamorata.com/images/biberkopf.jpg

Winehole23

01-27-2012, 04:07 PM

http://www.actingoutpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ALEANDERPLATZ-BEER.jpg

Winehole23

01-27-2012, 04:08 PM

http://thedroidyourelookingfor.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ba_stills_1_2_28-3.jpg

Agloco

01-27-2012, 04:37 PM

EUGENICS SUCKS!!!!
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/4/4c/Khan!!!.jpg

Wild Cobra

01-27-2012, 08:48 PM

there's maybe a little bit of overlap, but suggesting any straight up equivalence b/w WC and National Socialism is grotesquely overblown.

and boorish. and probably objectively wrong.
That's why ElNono is becoming more and more irritating to try to get my idea across to. At every attempt, he purposely twists the meaning of my words. I explain, and he continues on. When I generalize, and everyone knows their are exceptions to any generality, he takes it as meaning everyone.

There is always a way to twist someone out of context. ElNono has become a Master-Baiter in that regard.

ElNono...

You deserve to be ignored.

ElNono

01-28-2012, 02:16 AM

That's why ElNono is becoming more and more irritating to try to get my idea across to. At every attempt, he purposely twists the meaning of my words. I explain, and he continues on. When I generalize, and everyone knows their are exceptions to any generality, he takes it as meaning everyone.

There is always a way to twist someone out of context. ElNono has become a Master-Baiter in that regard.

ElNono...

You deserve to be ignored.

You don't have to discuss anything with me, and you have full control of the ignore function.

What you're missing, however, is that I'm actually one of the few posters that decided to engage you, and gave you the opportunity to debate your idea, as retarded I might think it is.

I'm far from the only poster that has disagreed with you in this thread (frankly, the next one that agrees with you will be the first). I'm also not the only one you've accused of 'twisting your words', even though I don't think one single poster asked you for clarification, seeing what you think, as absurd as it is, it's plain as day.

One has to wonder why you even started this thread, seeing you had no intentions of discussing this topic or dealing with criticism. I guess my early prognosis in this thread was spot on.

BTW, Whinehole was talking about equating you with a Nazi. I don't believe I ever made that claim.

Congratulations, you wasted my time. Now fuck off.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-28-2012, 04:19 AM

there's maybe a little bit of overlap, but suggesting any straight up equivalence b/w WC and National Socialism is grotesquely overblown.

and boorish. and probably objectively wrong.

Boorish? He compliments Hitler's leadership and advocates eugenics. moreso, he absolutely is a sycophant to his corporate overlords. He has repeatedly sympathized with their plights and struggles on a personal level. i am talking about the corporation he works for.

At what point can you start to define someone as a fascist? Do they have to wear swastikas and have Hitler mustaches?

I believe that he would be more than happy with a single party totalitarian state if it was his boys that were at the head. Hes a minion of others or strives to be that much is clear.

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then its a fucking duck. Regardless, an objective discussion of 'what is facism' or whether or not it is a fair description is infinitely more enlightening than the shit he vomits upon us.

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 05:08 AM

a post like that is worthy of WC, tbh. both of you guys are so great at reading minds and I must say your reliance on cliche is striking.

quack quack

FuzzyLumpkins

01-29-2012, 07:53 AM

a post like that is worthy of WC, tbh. both of you guys are so great at reading minds and I must say your reliance on cliche is striking.

quack quack

I used a cliche to describe the degree of comparison. The argument in no way depends on that. You even agree on the tenant of the argument admitting 'overlaps' but try to dismiss it as insignificant.

A guy supports Hitler's leadership, eugenics and has consistent demonstrated support for totalitarian politics but thats no grounds for questioning if they are a Nazi. I guess that leaves getting swastika tattoos on your forehead as the only grounds for that type of question.

The only cliches are the policies he has as you admit with his 'overlaps.' Its facist bullshit. Thats not cliche. Thats quite fucking literal. When you look up the shit that they did. Thats what they did.

Now, he most certainly is trolling it up but it merits calling what kind of policies and thus what type of ideology it is.

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 10:57 AM

I used a cliche to describe the degree of comparison. The argument in no way depends on that. You even agree on the tenant of the argument admitting 'overlaps' but try to dismiss it as insignificant. it is insignificant. you maybe got too excited about a discussion board loudmouth. trying to go from overlap to equals underscores that.

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 10:58 AM

you guys have the same penchant for exaggeration and demonizing the target, btw.

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 11:01 AM

so there's a little bit of overlap there, too

Wild Cobra

01-29-2012, 12:11 PM

BTW, Whinehole was talking about equating you with a Nazi. I don't believe I ever made that claim.

I never saw it that way. Only those of you who wish to twist words do. He even came out and said overlap isn't the same as equal. If I thought he was equating me with Nazi's, I would have called him on it. I had no reason to. Glad I didn't say anything also, because you and Fuzzy both stepped in it.

ElNono

01-29-2012, 01:49 PM

a post like that is worthy of WC, tbh. both of you guys are so great at reading minds and I must say your reliance on cliche is striking.

That 'both' includes me? If it does, what mind reading did I do on my post?

ElNono

01-29-2012, 01:51 PM

Oh, I see where the misconception might be.

"talking about equating you with a Nazi" is not equal to "equating you with a Nazi"...

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 01:58 PM

That 'both' includes me? If it does, what mind reading did I do on my post?does not include you.

does include Fuzzy, to whom my remark was addressed, and WC, with whom I compared him.

ElNono

01-29-2012, 02:20 PM

does not include you.

does include Fuzzy, to whom my remark was addressed, and WC, with whom I compared him.

Had me thinking the for a sec. :toast

FuzzyLumpkins

01-29-2012, 02:34 PM

it is insignificant. you maybe got too excited about a discussion board loudmouth. trying to go from overlap to equals underscores that.

Bitch away as you retreat from position to position. Fact is that those overlaps that you agree with include: sympathizes with Hitler, supports a eugenics programs and supports totalitarian limitations of civil liberties. Do you deny that?

I said the question was fair to be asked at this point: 'is he a nazi." I did not call him a Nazi. You don't find that someone holds those types of views to be significant. I agree that he as an individual is not significant but I simply ask if its fair to call someone with those views a nazi.

Apparently not so much for you but at what point is it fair to call someone a Nazi? Do they have to actually wear the memorabilia? After all we are trying to put his 'views' into context.

To that point you have agreed that he thinks like a Nazi but do not think he is a Nazi. Thats just an argument of degree. Hes scum either way.

I am going after him again. He is fucking annoying and if you tell him hes being stupid enough in forthright and factually consistent terms he does stop. If you think its boorish, you go ahead and continue going Richard Gere to his Julia Roberts. I think that as well as the allowance of his 'views' to not only go unrefuted but instead supported by yourself to be boorish.

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 02:41 PM

Bitch away. Fact is that those overlaps that you agree with include: sympathizes with Hitler, supports a eugenics programs and supports totalitarian limitations of civil liberties. Do you deny that?nope

I said the question was fair to be asked at this point: 'are you a nazi." hysterical nonsense, tbh

I think that as well as the allowance of his 'views' to not only go unrefuted but instead supported by yourself to be boorish.He's boorish and ill-tempered too. That's another resemblance.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-29-2012, 02:48 PM

nope
hysterical nonsense, tbh
He's boorish and ill-tempered too. That's another resemblance.

You just going to go with emotional appeal? You know what hysterics means. None of that is going on. Quit being a mealy mouthed little bitch: if you are going to support his arguments or right to do so or what you think that you are doing then at least do it right.

If you do not like my approach then don't do this passive aggressive garbage trying to appeal to my emotional side to get me to stop. I know you do not like my mean spirited approach but it does work. I actually did feel bad for him the last time you tried this tact but he started his diatribes again.

If you continue with this attempt to curb my approach because you do not approve of my methodology i am just going to ignore you and continue going after him and you can stew on it for all i care. I have weighed the two and feel my way is better. Argue the points I am actually making or this discussion between you and i is over.

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 02:51 PM

:lol

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 02:58 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

01-29-2012, 02:58 PM

So does anyone think that tying government services to the reproductive rights of women of a particular segment of the population is NOT eugenics?

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 03:02 PM

No.

Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell and Margaret Sanger all supported eugenics. Does that make them Nazis too?

FuzzyLumpkins

01-29-2012, 03:12 PM

I'm just giving my opinion about your approach, dude. It looks silly. What you do with that opinion is your business. I don't particularly care to modify or curb anything you might do, still lest to have some petty dispute about it: you're a horrible conversationalist.

I talk to different people in different ways. I troll him and Darrin hard. All I ask is that as you judge me that you note the difference in my conversational tone between them and others.

And for fucks sake man, quit hedging. You very much so want me to stop thats why you pull this tactic. it worked before as you are savvy enough to have seen. I actually do care that you don't like it as i do respect you I just choose to do it anyway. If that makes me a horrible conversationalist then I guess i will just have to live with that.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-29-2012, 03:13 PM

No.

Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell and Margaret Sanger all supported eugenics. Does that make them Nazis too?

You do agree that its eugenics though?

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 03:15 PM

or something very like it, sure.

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 03:16 PM

All I ask is that as you judge me that you note the difference in my conversational tone between them and others.not seeing the difference, tbh

FuzzyLumpkins

01-29-2012, 03:20 PM

not seeing the difference, tbh

You think me talking to you as I am talking to you now is no different than how I talk to say Darrin?

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 04:20 PM

you've been consistently hostile and brusque with me. modulating your tone to suit your target must be a very recent development.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-29-2012, 05:28 PM

you've been consistently hostile and brusque with me. modulating your tone to suit your target must be a very recent development.

I recall our conversation about the integration of states rights and a proportional representation system and I was not hostile. I have termed you a self appointed arbiter and i think the majority of your interaction with me has stemmed from your interventions in my arguments with others. I think that colors our interactions to say the least.

I dunno but I deliberately treat Darrin, boutons, and WC differently than everyone else. They've earned it thorough their efforts. Sorry if i have swept you up in that.

ElNono

01-29-2012, 06:03 PM

You guys are just twisting eachother's words...

Wild Cobra

01-29-2012, 09:19 PM

or something very like it, sure.

Definition of EUGENICS

: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
Hard to disagree with you at times. My idea has nothing to do with race or genetic qualities. It has to do with economics. I won't disagree it isn't similar, but I will say it is not eugenics.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-29-2012, 10:00 PM

Hard to disagree with you at times. My idea has nothing to do with race or genetic qualities. It has to do with economics. I won't disagree it isn't similar, but I will say it is not eugenics.

The two are not mutually exclusive, dumbass. It has to do with tying government services with reproductive rights. It would serve to limit the breeding capability of that class. That is true regardless of the economics.

And you need to shut the fuck up about class warfare. you stink of facism.

if you would like i can explain further because you are about the only person that doesn't get it so far and I hate having to dumb shit down more than you already do.

DMX7

01-30-2012, 12:00 AM

WC has no problem equating Obama with Hitler.

Wild Cobra

01-30-2012, 12:42 PM

WC has no problem equating Obama with Hitler.

There is so much more overlap between Hitler and Obama than there is between my idea and eugenics.

Winehole23

01-30-2012, 01:52 PM

how do they overlap?

FuzzyLumpkins

01-30-2012, 03:06 PM

Its little surprise that the dumbfuck does not realize that his proposal is the exact same type of thing that Galton who coined the term 'eugenics' proposed to the British parliament in the latter half of the 19th century.

His stratification of desirables and undesirables is as below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Galton_class_eugenics.svg/800px-Galton_class_eugenics.svg.png

9 out of 10 Nazi's approve!

He better keep scrapping and clawing into that middle group lest he get neutered by his own programs. After all he is just slumming it in a 'union job' just because its easier.

greyforest

01-30-2012, 03:24 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Galton_class_eugenics.svg/800px-Galton_class_eugenics.svg.png

Whenever someone throws the "MORE MONEY = BETTER THAN" argument at you, remind them that Paris Hilton is a much, much better person than them

FuzzyLumpkins

01-30-2012, 03:43 PM

Whenever someone throws the "MORE MONEY = BETTER THAN" argument at you, remind them that Paris Hilton is a much, much better person than them

Large employers = job creators in the current political lexicon. All of these middle class GOP stooges that bitch about 'class warfare' because they are being spoonfed it by the RNC and Fox News just make me sick. They have zero idea of historical context.

Gingrich does but that just makes him that much more despicable.

Wild Cobra

01-30-2012, 09:28 PM

Fuzzy, I think I may be done with you since you constantly have shit coming out of your mouth...

definition: Lumpkin (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lumpkin)

Wild Cobra

01-30-2012, 09:49 PM

how do they overlap?
How about this simple example:

7N3BW9dKEf0

Wild Cobra

01-30-2012, 09:53 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Galton_class_eugenics.svg/800px-Galton_class_eugenics.svg.png

Notices this says "and" genetic worth.

How many people know what "and" means?

ElNono

01-30-2012, 09:54 PM

:lmao

FuzzyLumpkins

01-30-2012, 10:13 PM

Fuzzy, I think I may be done with you since you constantly have shit coming out of your mouth...

definition: Lumpkin (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lumpkin)

You think my posts are intended for you? When I post its specifically to demonstrate your stupidity with specific examples. In this case I have demonstrated how your 'views' specifically coincide with the policies of Galton, the man who coined 'eugenics.'

You put me on ignore before but then came back off because i continued to hammer you and shortly after you started whining how people were mean to you. My intended audience is everyone reading your bullshit.

We have had this conversation before. i imagine your too lackwitted to remember.

As for my name I have always heard getting head while taking a dump to be called a blumpkin but whatevs. If it makes you feel better to imagine that then go ahead; it will not deter me in the least.

Wild Cobra

01-30-2012, 10:18 PM

That's OK...

This applies too:

Lumpkin (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lumpkin)

a clumsy often stupid person : a blundering fool

Winehole23

01-30-2012, 10:25 PM

Notices this says "and" genetic worth.

How many people know what "and" means?what does it mean, maestro?

Wild Cobra

01-30-2012, 10:48 PM

what does it mean, maestro?
LOL...

I was being attempting to be humorous with the stupidity as I see in of others.

ElNono

01-30-2012, 11:02 PM

So Hitler and Obama clearly overlap because of a 2008 "RockTheFacts" YouTube. But the fact that the idea presented here matches to a T the idea of the person that coined the "eugenics" term it's a mere coincidence.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-30-2012, 11:21 PM

Notices this says "and" genetic worth.

How many people know what "and" means?

So what? You obviously have no idea of the history of eugenics from the 18th century but instead rely on a simple definition of it and hope that sticks. When it comes down to it, 'race' as we consider it does not have a genetic justification so under your interpretation neutering hispanics would not be considered eugenics.

Furthermore, dimwit, the word and means both not one or the other. Apparently you do not understand what the word means. If anyone deserves to have their reproductive rights removed, its you.

Wild Cobra

01-30-2012, 11:42 PM

So what? You obviously have no idea of the history of eugenics from the 18th century but instead rely on a simple definition of it and hope that sticks.
I don't give a rats ass about what others write about their concept or history of eugenics. The technical definition makes it genetic. Period. I am not using genetics as a qualifier.

Please pick up a dictionary. Have someone hit you over the head a few times. Maybe you'll learn something.

Furthermore, dimwit, the word and means both not one or the other.
No Shit Sherlock!

You're learning!

FuzzyLumpkins

01-31-2012, 12:12 AM

I don't give a rats ass about what others write about their concept or history of eugenics. The technical definition makes it genetic. Period. I am not using genetics as a qualifier.

Please pick up a dictionary. Have someone hit you over the head a few times. Maybe you'll learn something.

No Shit Sherlock!

You're learning!

The technical definition versus the interpretation of the guy that made up the term in the first place. Hmm.. Inventor of the term or the ST village idiot......

Lets go Emmerson and allow the reader be the judge.

And what technical definition? Make some more shit up please so i can make fun of your dumb ass some more.

Wild Cobra

01-31-2012, 12:17 AM

The technical definition versus the interpretation of the guy that made up the term in the first place. Hmm.. Inventor of the term or the ST village idiot......

Lets go Emmerson and allow the reader be the judge.

And what technical definition? Make some more shit up please so i can make fun of your dumb ass some more.
Eugenics is to stop procreation of inherited traits, or to continue a line of good traits that are inherited. Inherited means genetic. That chart you provided says "and genetic worth." It doesn't say "or genetic worth."

I will no longer respond to you until you say something at least somewhat intelligent. The fun of exposing your stupidity is running thin.

ElNono

01-31-2012, 12:23 AM

ElNono

01-31-2012, 12:25 AM

Wild Cobra

01-31-2012, 12:29 AM

The guy that coined the term had no idea what he was talking about. Stop twisting his words.
From what I read of Emerson, he specifies "heredity."

Wild Cobra

01-31-2012, 12:34 AM

Being poor and staying poor is an inherited trait, apparently... one has to wonder why not just go straight with an abortion and kill that genetic anomaly.

I'm sure that after the mass abortions, and the cleansing of the gene pool, we can all be millionaires!
Financial inheritance is not the same as biological inheritance. Heredity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity) is different than inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance). We are talking about biology when we talk about sterilization. Not wealth.

Please tell me you aren't as easily confused as Fuzzy is.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-31-2012, 12:41 AM

From what I read of Emerson, he specifies "heredity."

It wasnt Emmerson you godawful dipshit. Try again.

Wild Cobra

01-31-2012, 12:54 AM

Wild Cobra

01-31-2012, 12:59 AM

It wasnt Emmerson you godawful dipshit. Try again.
Finding a mistake of mine qualifies for a response.

When I looked back, I thought you were referring to him. Still, eugenics always means genetic.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-31-2012, 01:06 AM

It wasnt Emmerson you godawful dipshit. Try again.

And this bears more discussion. My Emmerson comment was on his notion of reliance on self to come to decisions and determine truth. Its at the core of what Americans value.

Now what is obvious is that WC has no idea what he is talking about and is just making shit up. I just wonder if hes trolling or if he really is as dumb as he acts.

A guy named Galton made up the term 'eugenics' and at that time genetics was just in its infancy. They were trying to breed out undesirable traits and amongst other things they targeted the poor.

At that time they did not understand the specifics of how genetics work and that concepts like work ethic and race were not genetic traits.

Tying reproductive rights to government services is right up the alley of those that would eliminate the ability to reproduce those with traits they wanted eliminated. That the majority of this counties poor are minorities is besides the point.

WC is one of the most despicable people I have ever had to encounter.

ElNono

01-31-2012, 01:08 AM

I'm not confused.

The Reckoning

01-31-2012, 01:10 AM

lol fuzzy blumpkins

CuckingFunt

01-31-2012, 01:19 AM

LOL...

I was being attempting to be humorous with the stupidity as I see in of others.

It worked.

Not in the way you wanted, necessarily... but it worked.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-31-2012, 01:37 AM

EUGENICS: ITS DEFINITION, SCOPE, AND AIMS
Francis Galton

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1 (http://web.archive.org/web/20071103082723/galton.org/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-journ-soc-eugenics-scope-aims.htm)

first paragraph:

definition: genic (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/genic)

You do realize that you have proved my point with the first definition of eugenics as it not once contains the term genetics genes or anything else.

In fact it mentions race which biologically has no basis in genetics as it was coined before genes and DNA were even isolated and understood.

All of this is besides the point. You want to limit the breeding rights of the poor. If you think that its not deplorable because its not on the basis of race that just goes to show how despicable you are.

As for the second definition: does the term 'contraband' have anything to do with music or groups of people? Or how about the word Eugene?

You suck at linguistics too.

Wild Cobra

01-31-2012, 11:36 AM

You do realize that you have proved my point with the first definition of eugenics as it not once contains the term genetics genes or anything else.

In fact it mentions race which biologically has no basis in genetics as it was coined before genes and DNA were even isolated and understood.

All of this is besides the point. You want to limit the breeding rights of the poor. If you think that its not deplorable because its not on the basis of race that just goes to show how despicable you are.

As for the second definition: does the term 'contraband' have anything to do with music or groups of people? Or how about the word Eugene?

You suck at linguistics too.
You are wrong. Even though the origins didn't understand genes at the time, genetics was somewhat understood.

I have proven my points, and you points go outside this discussion. My idea is not like eugenics, Just that simple. Pretend all you want you have the upper hand here. You are only fooling yourself.

Now saying I want to limit the breeding rights of the poor is at least close. Still not my intent. My intent is to dramatically reduce social spending. If the poor want children outside of requiring government aide, then what I have proposed doesn't occur.

You should be ashamed of yourself for acting as if government aide is a right.

clambake

01-31-2012, 12:35 PM

why didn't you propose this when you were slingin food stamps?

FuzzyLumpkins

01-31-2012, 01:21 PM

You are wrong. Even though the origins didn't understand genes at the time, genetics was somewhat understood.

I have proven my points, and you points go outside this discussion. My idea is not like eugenics, Just that simple. Pretend all you want you have the upper hand here. You are only fooling yourself.

Now saying I want to limit the breeding rights of the poor is at least close. Still not my intent. My intent is to dramatically reduce social spending. If the poor want children outside of requiring government aide, then what I have proposed doesn't occur.

You should be ashamed of yourself for acting as if government aide is a right.

Repeating yourself changes nothing. Your method for reducing cost is to reduce their birth rate. IOW, you are reducing the cost by using eugenics that you think that the ends justify the means just furthers my points.

As for Galton and what he did or did not know that is just once again you making shit up. You did not even know who Galton was until i told you and even then you had trouble keeping up because you attributed Ralph Waldo Emerson because when it comes right down to it you are dumb.

Galton wanted to neuter poor people as part of his eugenics programs that he proposed to Parliament. He founded eugenics. You want to neuter poor people that get government services.

Anyone reading this now understand this and we have further cemented your status as one of the dumbest individuals on this board. Capacitors, optics, flywheels, semantics, British history, or government and you just cannot keep up.

You can lie and posture all you want. You are too dumb to have come up with some of this shit on your own and you have no idea who Galton is so what I want to know is who you do get this shit from. You clearly are not your own man, minion.

Wild Cobra

01-31-2012, 03:26 PM

Repeating yourself changes nothing. Your method for reducing cost is to reduce their birth rate. IOW, you are reducing the cost by using eugenics that you think that the ends justify the means just furthers my points.

As for Galton and what he did or did not know that is just once again you making shit up. You did not even know who Galton was until i told you and even then you had trouble keeping up because you attributed Ralph Waldo Emerson because when it comes right down to it you are dumb.

Galton wanted to neuter poor people as part of his eugenics programs that he proposed to Parliament. He founded eugenics. You want to neuter poor people that get government services.

Anyone reading this now understand this and we have further cemented your status as one of the dumbest individuals on this board. Capacitors, optics, flywheels, semantics, British history, or government and you just cannot keep up.

You can lie and posture all you want. You are too dumb to have come up with some of this shit on your own and you have no idea who Galton is so what I want to know is who you do get this shit from. You clearly are not your own man, minion.
Bye Fuzzy.

It isn't eugenics. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you, so bye.

FuzzyLumpkins

01-31-2012, 09:38 PM

Bye Fuzzy.

It isn't eugenics. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you, so bye.

Bye, he who sympathizes with Adolph Hitler.

xrayzebra

01-31-2012, 10:13 PM

Now saying I want to limit the breeding rights of the poor is at least close. Still not my intent. My intent is to dramatically reduce social spending. If the poor want children outside of requiring government aide, then what I have proposed doesn't occur.

You should be ashamed of yourself for acting as if government aide is a right.

Why would you want to promote the Democratic parties and liberal policy.
Except they just call it women's rights. The rest of us call it abortion.
Which they promote mostly among minorities.

Wild Cobra

02-01-2012, 12:03 AM

Why would you want to promote the Democratic parties and liberal policy.
Except they just call it women's rights. The rest of us call it abortion.
Which they promote mostly among minorities.
Have you read my previous remarks ob the topic?

I know there is evidence to show they push for minority abortions. I'm not convinced of that however. Regardless, more whites live with government assistance than minorities.

In the original thread, I did mention abortion as well. This thread didn't go there until now.

LnGrrrR

02-01-2012, 03:52 AM

WC, if the understated goal of reducing government social spending had the unintended side effect of reducing further the ability of a certain class of person to reproduce, would you call that a form of eugenics? Or would you only define eugenics as an active attempt to limit births to a certain subset of the population?

Wild Cobra

02-01-2012, 11:09 AM

Winehole23

02-01-2012, 11:20 AM

for the expediency of the public purse and the general good, the fertility of the indigent ought to be discouraged, and voluntary options for sterilization presented as a precondition for public relief of expecting parents

Winehole23

02-01-2012, 11:21 AM

something like that?

Wild Cobra

02-01-2012, 11:31 AM

something like that?
Not quite. I'm not encouraging the sterilization unless there is financial irresponsibility.

I know this looks bad from a point of compassion. Still, it isn't an attempt to control birth based of biology, race, etc. This has nothing to do with breeding people with better genetic inheritance. Only to discourage having children when people cannot support them.

The pro choice movement is more involved with eugenics than anyone I bet. Wanting to abort babies with genetic deficiencies.

Winehole23

02-01-2012, 11:40 AM

Not quite. I'm not encouraging the sterilization unless there is financial irresponsibility.hmm...which would be determined how?

Winehole23

02-01-2012, 11:41 AM

anybody with a bad credit rating and a low income?

Wild Cobra

02-01-2012, 11:49 AM

hmm...which would be determined how?
That has been covered. If the need to apply for government assistance to raise the child when they didn't have financial changes from since they conceived. If they do, a process would start that may require them to be sterilized in exchange for the assistance.

LnGrrrR

02-01-2012, 12:27 PM

My God...

You too?

Eugenics is an attempt to control genetics. Not a class of people. Not finances.

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

Wild Cobra

02-01-2012, 12:34 PM

A simple "no" would have sufficed.
Sorry for being so rash on that. You know I get tired of people framing things wrong, and I'm tired of telling people and proving with evidence that it is not eugenics.

I consider you one of the few, more intelligence posters. We disagree with each other a great deal, and that's fine. I just ask that you but please keep it honest.

clambake

02-01-2012, 12:46 PM

That has been covered. If the need to apply for government assistance to raise the child when they didn't have financial changes from since they conceived. If they do, a process would start that may require them to be sterilized in exchange for the assistance.

should this idea be a part of romney's platform?

clambake

02-01-2012, 01:21 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

02-01-2012, 01:35 PM

Despite having listed his own definition, WC cannot manage to deviate from what his preconceived notion of what eugenics is. He doesn't understand the concept of mutually exclusivity or that 'stated intentions' are indpendent of what something is.

I think we all know what it is and that his proposal belongs in early twentieth century Central Europe and has no place in the country that stopped such evil.

I think since this is a thread about WC, lets talk about him. We have seen him fumble around on the topics of climate, law, economics, sociology, history, electronics, mechanics, dating and even the very parts that he changes for the machines he works on --thanks for the caps in series comment, dumbass-- and it has made me come to a question or two.

First is WC hardheaded, dumb or what I believe to be the correct answer: both? I find obtuse fits him to a 't.'

The second question comes from that most of his shit does not come from his own brain. I think its safe to say after reading his shit and ability to process and understand information --as exemplified here once again by his posting and not understanding his own eugenics definition-- that he gets this shit from someone else. Who or what do you guys think that is and i do not mean type of media.

As an aside, the WCs of the world are dangerous. Not in the sense that he could lead even a horse to water but rather that he is easily led. Given this conversation I think its also safe to say that while he would not been a leader in the party, he most certainly would have been swept up in the tide of National Socialism had he been in 1930s Germany. He would have put on the Brown uniform. There is no doubt in mind.

By himself he is harmless unless you are a woman which is a different topic but as the tool of others he is so dumb as to be unscrupulous.

boutons_deux

02-01-2012, 01:41 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

02-01-2012, 01:51 PM

"his proposal belongs in early twentieth century Central Europe"

South Carolina, tea baggers/Real Americans paradise, was forcibly sterlizing blacks and others until the 1970s, the last of about 40 states that did the same up to mid-20th-century USA.

It wasn't 'tea baggers.' You turn people off to your message with your mindless spin. It makes you look like a quack. The group that did/does that type of thing are the old southern landownders. There are several social groups where they and their wives are easy to find.

That just means we need to guard against the WC's and those that lead him even more. its no coincidence that Gingrich is from Georgia.

Winehole23

02-01-2012, 01:51 PM

As an aside, the WCs of the world are dangerous.gathered together in one big mass, if they could understand one another somehow. that's a big if. WCs are very idiosyncratic.

(hence my Berlin Alexanderplatz/Franz Bieberkopf references in a similar vein upstream)

Winehole23

02-01-2012, 01:53 PM

I'm gonna go with "the danger is real, but tragically overhyped"

Winehole23

02-01-2012, 01:57 PM

basically, only as dangerous as one guy, or a handful. I don't see a lot of WCs out there, tbh.

LnGrrrR

02-01-2012, 03:39 PM

Sorry for being so rash on that. You know I get tired of people framing things wrong, and I'm tired of telling people and proving with evidence that it is not eugenics.

I consider you one of the few, more intelligence posters. We disagree with each other a great deal, and that's fine. I just ask that you but please keep it honest.

Understood. And for what it's worth, when I said "neuter" above, I just meant that as shorthand for tube-tying. As you pointed out, technically they aren't the same thing.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-01-2012, 04:21 PM

basically, only as dangerous as one guy, or a handful. I don't see a lot of WCs out there, tbh.

I agree with you. Isolated and without nefarious leadership hes just a dumbass trolling a message board. My point is that its his type that allows the Pol Potts and Adolph Hitlers of the world to do what they do.

Such behavior is rare and needs to be kept that way.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-01-2012, 04:23 PM

hmm...which would be determined how?

Aren't the indigent financially irresponsible anyway? Hes pointless to argue with directly because he has such difficulty keeping up.

mingus

02-01-2012, 04:58 PM

i would be for criminalizing long term child neglect, but sterilization? too nazi-ish for my tastes.

Wild Cobra

02-01-2012, 10:29 PM

i would be for criminalizing long term child neglect, but sterilization? too nazi-ish for my tastes.

Do you think we should continue to supply money for those continuing to have kids at tax payer dollars?

Do you have a solution to roll back what we spend on social spending that will have results?

FuzzyLumpkins

02-01-2012, 11:21 PM

Do you think we should continue to supply money for those continuing to have kids at tax payer dollars?

Do you have a solution to roll back what we spend on social spending that will have results?

This is great. Now you are insinuating that there are no other means to 'roll back on social spending.' You just make yourself look more and more like a jackass. i don't really even have to ttry.

Well we cannot get them off the welfare rolls so we should just open the WC Human Spay and Neuter Club. Your motto can be: 'Its not eugenics if they're poor.'

ElNono

02-01-2012, 11:49 PM

First is WC hardheaded, dumb or what I believe to be the correct answer: both? I find obtuse fits him to a 't.'

I think ignorant is the shoe that fits best.

ElNono

02-01-2012, 11:51 PM

Your motto can be: 'Its not eugenics if they're poor.'

:lmao

Wild Cobra

02-01-2012, 11:53 PM

I think ignorant is the shoe that fits best.

:lmao

You call me ignorant, yet you also imply it as Eugenics?

How long do you plan on remaining in the peanut gallery?

ElNono

02-01-2012, 11:55 PM

^as long as the clown is performing...

FuzzyLumpkins

02-01-2012, 11:57 PM

I think ignorant is the shoe that fits best.

No, when he links Galton's definition --he coined the term-- which does not mention genetics at all and then continues to demand that it must have a real genetic basis, that means hes dumb. Ignorant means he doesn't know better but really when you look at his reading comprehension skills, critical thinking , and 'logic' its quite obvious he is dimwitted.

Wild Cobra

02-01-2012, 11:57 PM

^as long as the clown is performing...
Yes, yes, yes...

You prefer to trade insults because you are incapable of addressing this factually. Well, I'm walking away from your peanut gallery for now. When you have something relevant to say, I'm here.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-01-2012, 11:59 PM

Yes, yes, yes...

You prefer to trade insults because you are incapable of addressing this factually. Well, I'm walking away from your peanut gallery for now. When you have something relevant to say, I'm here.

Shut the fuck up dumbass. Go back to your Galton definition and factually point out where he says genes or genetics. He mentions the poor and race neither of which are genetically based.

I am not going to allow you to just ignore the argument and repeat yourself. I will taunt you a second time.

ElNono

02-02-2012, 12:02 AM

No, when he links Galton's definition --he coined the term-- which does not mention genetics at all and then continues to demand that it must have a real genetic basis, that means hes dumb. Ignorant means he doesn't know better but really when you look at his reading comprehension skills, critical thinking , and 'logic' its quite obvious he is dimwitted.

But it stems from his ignorance, IMO. He obviously doesn't put the work before forming an opinion or expressing it (which, to me, is the epitome of ignorance), then he insists in not putting the work when confronted with reality. You could call it intellectually lazy, but I'll just go with ignorant.

ElNono

02-02-2012, 12:05 AM

What's ironic is that I actually presented facts here first, and the insults started from the now offended party. He probably simply forgot about the timeline of events... intellectually lazy.

ElNono

02-02-2012, 12:08 AM

The reality as I see it is that he's not really willing to have an open and honest debate on his extreme views or any of the other stuff. His replies towards criticism in this thread is basically more of the same and a palpable example of what I'm saying.

Which is in part why this thread has turned into a discussion about engaging him in honest conversation vs actually discussing with him the topic(s) at hand.

Page 3 in this thread... You can call me Nonostradamous now

Winehole23

02-02-2012, 12:10 AM

well, CF was right

Wild Cobra

02-02-2012, 12:11 AM

EUGENICS: ITS DEFINITION, SCOPE, AND AIMS.
Francis Galton

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1

Read before the Sociological Society at a meeting in the School of Economies (London University), on May 16, 1904. Professor Karl Pearson, F.R.S., in the chair.

EUGENICS is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage. The improvement of the inborn qualities, or stock, of some one human population will alone be discussed here.

What is meant by improvement ? What by the syllable eu in "eugenics," whose English equivalent is "good"? There is considerable difference between goodness in the several qualities and in that of the character as a whole.
definition: genic (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/genic)

gen·ic (jnk, jnk)
adj.
Of, relating to, produced by, or being genes or a gene.

definition inborn (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inborn):

inborn /in·born/ (in´born″)
1. genetically determined, and present at birth.
2. congenital.

inborn
[in′bôrn]
Etymology: L, in, within; AS, beran, to bear
innate; acquired or occurring during intrauterine life, with reference to both normally inherited traits and developmental or genetically transmitted anomalies. See also congenital, hereditary, inborn error of metabolism.

inborn [in´born]
1. genetically determined, and present at birth; see also inborn error of metabolism.
2. congenital.

I'm tired of these stupid trolls.

Anyone have some troll disinfectant?

Winehole23

02-02-2012, 12:11 AM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5585293&postcount=7

ElNono

02-02-2012, 12:11 AM

well, CF was right

Bears repeating...

Why do we need an entire thread dedicated to your eventual obstinance and defensiveness?

Winehole23

02-02-2012, 12:36 AM

apparently we needed it, never mind why

Winehole23

02-02-2012, 12:36 AM

:lol

Winehole23

02-02-2012, 12:37 AM

lol double tap@11:11

ElNono

02-02-2012, 12:57 AM

:lol

CuckingFunt

02-02-2012, 03:03 AM

well, CF was right

'Twas bound to happen one of these days.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-02-2012, 04:11 AM

definition: genic (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/genic)

definition inborn (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inborn):

I'm tired of these stupid trolls.

Anyone have some troll disinfectant?

Dear lord you are like talking to a four year old. Are you even going to try and address historical context or are you just going to try and repeat your quote of something from over a century ago and repeat a cherry picked modern definition and call it a day?

1883, coined (along with adj. eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Gk. eugenes "well-born, of good stock, of noble race," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + genos "birth" (see genus).

The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced. [Galton, "Human Faculty," 1883]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=eugenics

That last one is from a quote from Galton itself where he explicitly states that it is "the conditions under which men of a high type are produced." Now while you may want to force genetics into that, it did not even exist in the 19th century. Genetics derives from the same word 'genos' but has a vastly different meaning.

If you actually read some of Galton's stuff he talks extensively on class and race and how if you segregate classes and inhibit the ability of one to reproduce then natural selection will take over and eradicate the lower class.

Now does your policy inhibit the ability of a class to reproduce?

Wild Cobra

02-02-2012, 11:09 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

02-02-2012, 01:14 PM

They are still talking about biology inherited. I'm not speaking of anything genetic. You can take the ignorance of past subjects and then find any comparative example if you stoop to those low standards.

Point to me to the word biology in any of those definitions, dimwit. Again, Galton theorized as part of his eugenics 'research' that if you isolate two classes and limit the breeding capabilities of the 'lower' class that you in essence 'speed up' nature's natural selection and eliminate the lower class.

Does your proposal limit the breeding capability of the lower class?

Wild Cobra

02-02-2012, 01:36 PM

Does your proposal limit the breeding capability of the lower class?
No. I don't see people who need government assistance as lower beings.

Do you?

FuzzyLumpkins

02-02-2012, 01:51 PM

No. I don't see people who need government assistance as lower beings.

Do you?

So rather than admit you were wrong on the definition you try and build a strawman.

Do we need to roll out the definitions for lower class now? Are you going to drop trou and show your ass some more?

Wild Cobra

02-02-2012, 02:10 PM

So rather than admit you were wrong on the definition you try and build a strawman.

Do we need to roll out the definitions for lower class now? Are you going to drop trou and show your ass some more?
You have the strawman.

Nobody today see eugenics as you are implying. the people who claim such things are hiding racism, or some other loathing. Now I could understand if you accused me of that, but you are so far off the wall, it's ridiculous. You are taking lack of understanding and bias of a past century, and applying it to modern day. What poor form. I look at what was understood correctly on the issue.

Wow... Just wow... Don't you have any integrity to make a valid point? Must you always twist facts?

FuzzyLumpkins

02-02-2012, 02:17 PM

You have the strawman.

Nobody today see eugenics as you are implying. the people who claim such things are hiding racism, or some other loathing. Now I could understand if you accused me of that, but you are so far off the wall, it's ridiculous. you are taking lacvk of understanding and bias of a past century, and applying it to modern day?

Wow... Just wow... Don't you have any integrity to make a valid point?

How do you know what 'nobody' thinks about eugenics? You and your NW backwoods yokels? We won WW2 and outside of the KKK people stopped supporting Galton's theories but that does not mitigate what they were.

As for integrity, you have no leg to stand on. You are intellectually dishonest as a matter of course. You can spin it any way you want but specifically your policy is something that Galton supported as part of his eugenics: limiting the reproductive rights of the poor.

Wild Cobra

02-02-2012, 02:18 PM

How do you know what 'nobody' thinks about eugenics? You and your NW backwoods yokels? We won WW2 and outside of the KKK people stopped supporting Galton's theories but that does not mitigate what they were.

As for integrity, you have no leg to stand on. You are intellectually dishonest as a matter of course. You can spin it any way you want but specifically your policy is something that Galton supported as part of his eugenics: limiting the reproductive rights of the poor.
Bye fuzzy. No matter what is said, you keep trolling.

Keep up the good work, but with someone else.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-02-2012, 02:42 PM

Bye fuzzy. No matter what is said, you keep trolling.

Keep up the good work, but with someone else.

You said this same thing two days ago. Like i said I don't need your responses as youa re not my intended audience.

I still want to know how you know what people think of eugenics as a whole. You run a poll of some group or something?

LnGrrrR

02-02-2012, 02:55 PM

I think the whole "eugenics or not" discussion is a bit off topic. WC would agree that it likely leads to less births in the poor population; the semantics seem extraneous.

My big issue is that, if people were to have babies when they weren't financially ready, they would be labeled irresponsible per WC. Now, WC said they could possibly be tried due to child negligence/abuse, but that would seemingly severely increase the scope of child protective services greatly.

mingus

02-02-2012, 03:05 PM

Do you think we should continue to supply money for those continuing to have kids at tax payer dollars?

Do you have a solution to roll back what we spend on social spending that will have results?

It's inhumane. Sterilization is an extreme measure to take. I think Newts idea of putting these kids to work manditorily through some school function would be better. Incentivizing business to build nearer to inner cities is another route. A lot of them are ignorant of their ignorance. It is an ugly cycle. I say fix the cause rather than the effect in this particular case.

xrayzebra

02-02-2012, 04:35 PM

Hey WC, Fuzzy is kinda descriptive as a first name don't you think? I notice he
doesn't do much of the later (think) and when he tries it is "fuzzy".

Agloco

02-02-2012, 07:56 PM

No. I don't see people who need government assistance as lower beings.

This is implicit as part of your argument as Fuzzy deftly points out. Throwing lipstick on a pig changes nothing.

Do you?

I'll be glad to answer that if and when I decide to start my very own "Agloco's Extreme Views" thread.

JoeChalupa

02-02-2012, 07:58 PM

I still don't see any extreme.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-02-2012, 09:06 PM

Hey WC, Fuzzy is kinda descriptive as a first name don't you think? I notice he
doesn't do much of the later (think) and when he tries it is "fuzzy".

Can you make an specific examples of this? One thing that is very clear is when ones rebuttals come down to a gross characterization and subsequent dismissal after refusing to address specific arguments throughout the course of the argument is that either:

a) you do not understand what i am saying or
b) that you refuse to admit that you are wrong.

I will leave the answer to that for the individual to judge.

Here you try and characterize the entirety of my argument without any specifics and you deign to call what I say fuzzy? Hypocrite much.

Francis Galton SPECIFICALLY created the eugenics movement. The etymology of the word specifically has a latin derivative of the words 'eu' and 'genos.' Francis Galton specifically endorsed the curbing of reproductive rights of the lower classes via sterilization. WC's proposal specifically curbs the reproductive rights of the poor via sterilization.

What do i get for refutations? Drivel like your bullshit. So you and WC can go ahead and have your circle jerk over a proposal that only deserves being aired at a Klan meeting and i will continue to respond to you with all of the contempt and scorn you deserve.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-02-2012, 09:19 PM

Wild Cobra

02-02-2012, 11:28 PM

It's inhumane. Sterilization is an extreme measure to take. I think Newts idea of putting these kids to work manditorily through some school function would be better. Incentivizing business to build nearer to inner cities is another route. A lot of them are ignorant of their ignorance. It is an ugly cycle. I say fix the cause rather than the effect in this particular case.
Yes, the cycle needs to be fixed. Have any good ideas? You can't just put them to work. You can create opportunity and incentive, but that;'s about it.

Wild Cobra

02-02-2012, 11:29 PM

Hey WC, Fuzzy is kinda descriptive as a first name don't you think? I notice he
doesn't do much of the later (think) and when he tries it is "fuzzy".
You mean fuzzy logic, that seams soaked?

Wild Cobra

02-02-2012, 11:34 PM

This is implicit as part of your argument as Fuzzy deftly points out. Throwing lipstick on a pig changes nothing.

No, he is trying to use the ignorance of the past and apply it to today. Those who advocated it on poor people then did so for different reasons. The talk sounded similar, but it isn't at all. They advocated all poor. Now that I consider extreme.

At least I am not for aborting babies with genetic anomalies. Now that is eugenics.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-03-2012, 01:20 AM

No, he is trying to use the ignorance of the past and apply it to today. Those who advocated it on poor people then did so for different reasons. The talk sounded similar, but it isn't at all. They advocated all poor. Now that I consider extreme.

At least I am not for aborting babies with genetic anomalies. Now that is eugenics.

Once again dumbing it down to a singular. If you don't want to shoot someone in the head but you want to stab them in the heart that still makes you want to kill someone even if not in every way.

If you want to limit the breeding capabilities of a certain class of people but do not want to kill conceived babies still makes you support eugenics even if in not every way.

And what ignorance of the past am i culpable of?

LnGrrrR

02-03-2012, 02:04 AM

Did you miss the part where he advocates sterilization as a condition of receiving aid?

Of course, and I disagree. But to WC, it's a more "fair" option than just denying aid outright.

Most people would just say, "Why not stop aid outright after X amount of children?" But to WC, that's not a good answer because of two reasons:

1) the couples can still have children, which one can assume is a negative outcome if they can't afford them now

2) by denying aid outright, you are affecting the innocent child as much as the couple. By volunteering to be "responsible" by eliminating one's right to reproduce, the couple realizes they are beyond their means, and so the government is willing to support this "last" child.

Now, I think there are some huge glaring problems with such a plan. But WC is going by a more current working definition of eugenics, which involves genetics and not genus. The reduction of a class' ability to reproduce is a side effect, not a goal. And one could play Devil's Advocate and argue that the lower class are already at a disadvantage when it comes to a maximum amount of children they could afford.

The argument I've been making against it is that I would never want my government mandating any form of sterilization in exchange for aid, because it's draconian and would most likely lead to an abuse of power. As well, I don't think WC is thinking about all the resources needed to enact and police such a policy.

Ultimately though I don't think WC is coming from a bad place. I think he's just trying to think way too far out of the box in order to solve a problem that is t as widespread as he thinks it is.

ElNono

02-03-2012, 02:24 AM

The argument I've been making against it is that I would never want my government mandating any form of sterilization in exchange for aid, because it's draconian and would most likely lead to an abuse of power. As well, I don't think WC is thinking about all the resources needed to enact and police such a policy.

There's apparently a lot of things he didn't think through. I've wasted enough of my time pointing them out though.

Ultimately though I don't think WC is coming from a bad place. I think he's just trying to think way too far out of the box in order to solve a problem that is t as widespread as he thinks it is.

A problem that isn't new, been studied for a long time, has well established causes, and plenty of well specified attack vectors, none of which include eugenics/sterilization. And I know you agree with this, since you've said as much.

Wild Cobra

02-03-2012, 02:25 AM

Of course, and I disagree. But to WC, it's a more "fair" option than just denying aid outright.

Most people would just say, "Why not stop aid outright after X amount of children?" But to WC, that's not a good answer because of two reasons:

1) the couples can still have children, which one can assume is a negative outcome if they can't afford them now

2) by denying aid outright, you are affecting the innocent child as much as the couple. By volunteering to be "responsible" by eliminating one's right to reproduce, the couple realizes they are beyond their means, and so the government is willing to support this "last" child.

I'm glad to see you understand my points.

Now, I think there are some huge glaring problems with such a plan. But WC is going by a more current working definition of eugenics, which involves genetics and not genus.
No matter how you scice it, eugenics comes down to genetics. Not sure what you are going by for your definition of genus, but it is still a genetic variation. There is absolutely no consideration of anything biologically inherited with my idea.

The reduction of a class' ability to reproduce is a side effect, not a goal. And one could play Devil's Advocate and argue that the lower class are already at a disadvantage when it comes to a maximum amount of children they could afford.

Like anything, should you commit to something you cannot care for?

The argument I've been making against it is that I would never want my government mandating any form of sterilization in exchange for aid, because it's draconian and would most likely lead to an abuse of power. As well, I don't think WC is thinking about all the resources needed to enact and police such a policy.

Then I say cut it off completely. Let the charities, or state resources care for people instead of uncle Sam and his Nanny of a sister.

Ultimately though I don't think WC is coming from a bad place. I think he's just trying to think way too far out of the box in order to solve a problem that is t as widespread as he thinks it is.

It is a huge amount of spending. We need to reduce federal spending any way we can.

Borat Sagyidev

02-03-2012, 02:38 AM

http://rlv.zcache.com/do_not_argue_with_an_idiot_bumper_sticker-p128986800420917623z74sk_400.jpg

ElNono

02-03-2012, 02:39 AM

Is it a huge amount of spending?

According to a 2010 report from the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, in 2009 less than 10 percent of federal budget outlays were devoted to children. To put this another way, in 2007 total public spending (federal/state/local) on children was $10,642 per child while public spending on older adults was $24,300 per adult. More shockingly, perhaps, is the finding that children's share of domestic federal spending shrank by 6 percentage points between 1960 and 2009 while spending on the nonchild portions of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid doubled. Is this the result of societal attitudes that devalue children or the fact that senior citizens are a strong and mobilized voting bloc?

As pointed out repeatedly, the OP has no idea where the welfare money is going and why his proposal does very little, if anything, to solve the problem he's trying to address...

Wild Cobra

02-03-2012, 03:37 AM

ElNono

02-03-2012, 11:58 AM

Is it a huge amount of spending? You shot the messenger and never answered, proving CF right once again.

Where are your numbers? Shouldn't I be calling you a Glob Fly, slanderous liar with stupid assumptions?

Let's see them.

Wild Cobra

02-03-2012, 12:01 PM

Is it a huge amount of spending? You shot the messenger and never answered, proving CF right once again.

Where are your numbers? Shouldn't I be calling you a slanderous liar?
You start with a false premise and ask me to answer a question.

Go away.

ElNono

02-03-2012, 12:03 PM

Your "solution" has everything to do with how much the government spends on children. Perhaps you need to re-think what your premise is.

With that said, is it a huge amount of spending?

ElNono

02-03-2012, 12:05 PM

OP back scrambling and on the defensive... who would've thought...

Wild Cobra

02-03-2012, 12:08 PM

ElNono

I've been up all night, and I'm not taking the time right now. If you think you can contain yourself and make serious attempts of dialog, I will attempt a debate with you again another time.

clambake

02-03-2012, 12:09 PM

what? you been helping her pack?

Wild Cobra

02-04-2012, 10:23 AM

Your "solution" has everything to do with how much the government spends on children. Perhaps you need to re-think what your premise is.

With that said, is it a huge amount of spending?
It gets a little tiresome to have replete do what you did here, and others do rather frequently. I blame it for the reason we never get anywhere in reducing the deficit and debt. Sure, it's a small percentage of the deficit, fut it is a huge amount of money we can fint. Sure, it isn't "the solution," but to get back to not over spending, we need to put most or all programs on the chopping block and cut out what we can.

With your complaint, which I see effectively as, "it doesn't do enough to matter, so don't do it," is why we never trim anywhere. It will take several little budget cuts to get us where we need to be. There is no single magic bullet.

Is it a huge amount of spending?

According to a 2010 report from the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, in 2009 less than 10 percent of federal budget outlays were devoted to children. To put this another way, in 2007 total public spending (federal/state/local) on children was $10,642 per child while public spending on older adults was $24,300 per adult. More shockingly, perhaps, is the finding that children's share of domestic federal spending shrank by 6 percentage points between 1960 and 2009 while spending on the nonchild portions of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid doubled. Is this the result of societal attitudes that devalue children or the fact that senior citizens are a strong and mobilized voting bloc?

To start with, this doesn't matter for the discussion at hand. I however wonder how they came up with those numbers. I'll bet it's the added programs like earned income credit in a way that didn't consider the child's portion for example.

As pointed out repeatedly, the OP has no idea where the welfare money is going and why his proposal does very little, if anything, to solve the problem he's trying to address...

You're right in the aspect that I don't have an intimate understanding of these programs. That doesn't mean I don't see there is a great deal of spending that can easily be reduced here. Again, we need to shave money off the federal expenditure, where we can.

Wild Cobra

02-04-2012, 11:08 AM

I started looking into "domestic spending" a little. From 1960 to 2009, the federal budget went from $92.2 billion to $3,517.7 billion. In 2005 adjusted dollars, that is $628.9 B to $3,172.2 B. During this time, the population went from 179,323,175 to 308,745,538 (1960 & 2010 census.) Extrapolation of the 2009 population would be 292,418,108. Federal spending has increased by 5.044 times over that 50 years, 209% over dollars and population, to 309%.

Something I'll bet your figure doesn't include are Social; Security and Medicare receipts, offsetting costs for the elderly.

If we take your 9.5% (found the 2009 number, but not your reference) of the federal spending on children for 2009, and reduce it by 6, to 3.5%, then it is a factor of 2.7, yet the spending factor was 3.1%, so spending on children, per capita, has increased by 14%. Not decreased.

Be careful how the wordings of articles tricks people.

I used table 1.3 and census data.

OMB Historical Tables (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)

I didn't double check my math, so feel free to.

Keep in mind, the 6 percentage point decrease rounded to one significant digit could be 5.5% to 6.499%. I wonder if the spending only went down to 4% rather than the 3.5% I calculated. That would make the program 30% more rather than 14%.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-04-2012, 12:38 PM

Agloco

02-04-2012, 12:38 PM

I didn't double check my math, so feel free to.

A virtual guarantee that your argument will fail tbh.

ElNono

02-04-2012, 01:00 PM

With your complaint, which I see effectively as, "it doesn't do enough to matter, so don't do it," is why we never trim anywhere. It will take several little budget cuts to get us where we need to be. There is no single magic bullet.

Who's twisting words and reading minds now?

To start with, this doesn't matter for the discussion at hand. I however wonder how they came up with those numbers. I'll bet it's the added programs like earned income credit in a way that didn't consider the child's portion for example.

http://www.urban.org/projects/kids_share.cfm
Follow the Kid's Share 2011 link for the full latest report in PDF format.

You're right in the aspect that I don't have an intimate understanding of these programs.

No surprises there.

Wild Cobra

02-04-2012, 04:52 PM

Who's twisting words and reading minds now?

Is it a twist?

Time and time again, when a proposal is made here in the politics section, you and other liberals blow off the idea because it is a small amount of positive increase. You will not find any single solution.

http://www.urban.org/projects/kids_share.cfm
Follow the Kid's Share 2011 link for the full latest report in PDF format.

Oh this is grand. You earlier quote something that says costs are under 10% in 1960 and 6% less in 2009, to an executive summary of what you ask me to follow saying it's 11% of the budget in 2010.

No surprises there.

I said I'm not intimately familiar with the programs. I have not raised my children under such programs.

How much do you consume of these programs?

Wild Cobra

02-04-2012, 04:53 PM

A virtual guarantee that your argument will fail tbh.
Or is it an attempt to make someone double check my work to find fault, and see it's correct?

FuzzyLumpkins

02-04-2012, 05:13 PM

Another page and simply more sophistry from the village idiot. Thanks WC for your jr high attempt at accounting. I needed the laugh.

Wild Cobra

02-04-2012, 06:21 PM

Fuzzy doesn't deserve a response, but I would like to point out that the 9.5% number for 1960 times the approximate 14% increase I calculated comes to 10.83%, and the last material ElNono linked says 11%. ElNono previously linked material suggesting the number went down by 6 percentage points.

I would say that a class of programs that consume 11% of the budget does deserve some attention to find ways to cut.

ElNono

02-04-2012, 06:51 PM

Is it a twist?

Did I ever say that? What do you think?

Time and time again, when a proposal is made here in the politics section, you and other liberals blow off the idea because it is a small amount of positive increase. You will not find any single solution.

The idea sucks on it's own merits, but your claim that the government spends "huge amounts of money" is misguided too and this is a fact.

BTW, your idea was "blown off" by at least one conservative poster here too.

Oh this is grand. You earlier quote something that says costs are under 10% in 1960 and 6% less in 2009, to an executive summary of what you ask me to follow saying it's 11% of the budget in 2010.

Figure 8. Government overall spent 20% in 1960. It's 11% nowadays. As I said before, the difference between 1960 and now is that back then States carried the burden more heavily, where now it's mostly the federal government. They're all government though.

So, is it a huge amount of spending?

I said I'm not intimately familiar with the programs. I have not raised my children under such programs.

How much do you consume of these programs?

Nothing. I get no government assistance. The difference between you and me is that when I suggest solutions to problems, I make attempts not to talk out of my ass.

ElNono

02-04-2012, 06:53 PM

I would say that a class of programs that consume 11% of the budget does deserve some attention to find ways to cut.

Government spent 20% of the entire budget in 1960... apparently, kids were much more of a problem then.

And sure, every expense in the budget deserves some attention. What's far from clear is that it deserves sterilization/eugenics.

Wild Cobra

02-04-2012, 06:57 PM

Figure 8. Government overall spent 20% in 1960. It's 11% nowadays.
If we use those numbers it's 55% of the 1960 level... Except that would only be true if the budget maintained no growth except of population and inflation. The government is 309% of the 1960 levels adjusting for population and inflation. That makes that 55% around 170%. So it has increased by 70%, right?

So, is it a huge amount of spending?

Absolutely. That is way too much.

ElNono

02-04-2012, 07:29 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

02-04-2012, 07:30 PM

(1+1/n)^n

Exponential versus linear. Can anyone chime in on the significance of something like this that is measured say as is in this case, annually.

Borat Sagyidev

02-04-2012, 09:00 PM

If we use those numbers it's 55% of the 1960 level... Except that would only be true if the budget maintained no growth except of population and inflation. The government is 309% of the 1960 levels adjusting for population and inflation. That makes that 55% around 170%. So it has increased by 70%, right?

Absolutely. That is way too much.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GAwrDQLZYXU/TXSywwL3dbI/AAAAAAAAHRY/chAl3IyIMps/s1600/tunnel-vision.jpg

From 1950-1960 and a little further out, you didn't even have to graduate high school to find a job with enough pay to support a family of 4

Of course we pay more for kids now...they need more to get by and just maybe... do well?

We could throw out the increased govt spending, like teaching and buying kids PC's, electronics and go back to 1960's standards.
Did I mention today's kids are lazy? They should obtain well paying jobs and experience for having a pulse, just like baby boomers had.
Oh yea, that's complicating the issue. Nevermind.
:deadhorse

Wild Cobra

02-04-2012, 09:24 PM

Why would you need to adjust the percentages of a whole for "inflation and population growth"? This is where your ignorance shows it's true colors.
See now you asshole. You don't understand how I am deriving at these numbers, and instead of asking for clarification, you call me ignorant. Well guess what. You are the ignorant one here.

Not as a percentage of total federal spending, it isn't. But now again you're arguing with the report, not me.
OK, how about we all have 20 different programs that want 10% of the budget each...

Why do I even try to have a rational discussion with you?

Did you look at table 1.3 from the OMB historical page? I don't think you did. If you did, you will note that they adjusted each years budget to 2005 dollars. I used those numbers when getting the five fold increase from 1960 to 2009. This is what I am calling inflation adjusted. The real numbers have the 2009 outlays of about 38 times the 1960 outlays. Now by adjusting for population as well, I decrease the differences that I could have presented. However, i am trying to find realistic numbers here. The population in 2009 was about 72% more than in 1960, therefore we can expect a 72% increase in the 2009 budget over the 1960 budget when using the fixed 2005 dollars. It didn't go up 72% though, it went up 404%!

When your ignorant ass figures this out, and stops being the first to do the name calling, we can continue. Let me know when you comprehend things better. Until, Good-Bye moron.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-04-2012, 11:32 PM

See now you asshole. You don't understand how I am deriving at these numbers, and instead of asking for clarification, you call me ignorant. Well guess what. You are the ignorant one here.

OK, how about we all have 20 different programs that want 10% of the budget each...

Why do I even try to have a rational discussion with you?

Did you look at table 1.3 from the OMB historical page? I don't think you did. If you did, you will note that they adjusted each years budget to 2005 dollars. I used those numbers when getting the five fold increase from 1960 to 2009. This is what I am calling inflation adjusted. The real numbers have the 2009 outlays of about 38 times the 1960 outlays. Now by adjusting for population as well, I decrease the differences that I could have presented. However, i am trying to find realistic numbers here. The population in 2009 was about 72% more than in 1960, therefore we can expect a 72% increase in the 2009 budget over the 1960 budget when using the fixed 2005 dollars. It didn't go up 72% though, it went up 404%!

When your ignorant ass figures this out, and stops being the first to do the name calling, we can continue. Let me know when you comprehend things better. Until, Good-Bye moron.

Why 2005 dollars? Oh because you are trying to cherry pick. You still suck at statistics. Why normalize to a completely different economic climate that was 2005? Either you are stupid or you did it to fudge data.

Thats even before we take your 'benchmark of 1960 or anything else. Its obvious what you did. You picked poles and went with them.

Why not 1995 dollars or 2008 or even better the most recent data? Thats the problem we have taken stats and know how to do things like this. You don't so we make fun of you.

ElNono

02-04-2012, 11:48 PM

See now you asshole.

When you start with the insults I know two things:
1) You can refute what I posted
2) You're getting your ass kicked and exposed

Why do I even try to have a rational discussion with you?

We've yet to have a rational discussion, considering every time I disagree with you and post the data to back it up, you come back with insults.

As far of the rest of "your numbers", who cares? You're arguing with a report, not me. When I need information I go to the sources that report that, not to somebody that just wrote 10 posts ago that had no clue what the programs look like.

I'm done here. Feel free to keep talking out your ass.

ElNono

02-04-2012, 11:51 PM

LnGrrrR

02-05-2012, 12:45 AM

WC, how much bigger is our GDP relative to 1960, as a percentage?

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 02:58 AM

WC, how much bigger is our GDP relative to 1960, as a percentage?
I didn't look that up. You can find the table in the link I provided as easily as I can.

Isn't it laughable that Fuzzy doesn't know why I use 2005 dollars?

My God, he's an ignorant shit.

ElNono

02-05-2012, 03:00 AM

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 03:11 AM

Let's try to make this dumb-proof:
- In 1960 the US government used 20% of their expenses on children (in 1960 dollars, with 1960 population)
- In 2011 the US government used 11% of their expenses on children (in 2011 dollars, with 2011 population)

lol adjusting percentages for population
lol adjusting percentages for inflation
And 20% of 1960 spending is less than 11% of 2009 spending, by a huge factor. Without population adjustments for comparison, that 11% is equivalent to about 55% of the 1960 number because the government grew by about a factor of 5 over that time.

You entirely miss why the two adjustments are needed. Don't be patting yourself on the back yet. Think about it first.

If I were sober, I would try to show you again. Right now, laughing my ass off over you.

ElNono

02-05-2012, 03:23 AM

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Wow, just wow. This is basic math.

At any given time T, the budget total is X and spending on children is a percentage of X.

Of course the amounts differ. That's exactly why you use percentages.

smh

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 03:24 AM

ElNono

02-05-2012, 03:25 AM

A smaller percentage is a smaller percentage than a larger percentage...

I mean, do I really have to dumb it down this much?

LnGrrrR

02-05-2012, 03:26 AM

I didn't look that up. You can find the table in the link I provided as easily as I can.

Isn't it laughable that Fuzzy doesn't know why I use 2005 dollars?

My God, he's an ignorant shit.

From a quick look at this link

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1960_2014&view=1&expand=&units=k&fy=fy09&chart=&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Real%20GDP%20Chart&state=US&color=c&local=s

It looks like our GDP increased 400% from 1960 to 2005. Perhaps that's why we spent more.

ElNono

02-05-2012, 03:29 AM

When measuring the same thing is 11% smaller than 20%? :lol

LnGrrrR

02-05-2012, 03:53 AM

WC, of course if we make more money, it's getting distributed accordingly. Our politicians would never actually use it to surplus or anything when they can garner votes due to fiscal promises.

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 04:11 AM

A smaller percentage is a smaller percentage than a larger percentage...

I mean, do I really have to dumb it down this much?
My God... I know what you are saying. It is ridiculous. Why can't you wrap your head around what I'm saying?

20% of $628.9 B is $125.8B

11% of $3,172.2 B is 348.94B

Now this is almost a factor of three, in 2005 dollars. Why don't you understand this? The population only increased by about 72%. This means, in 2005 constant dollars, your 11% is is 61% larger, per capita, than the 20%.

Is that why liberals constantly want a larger budget, so their same slice of the pie gets bigger and bigger?

According to LnGrrrR, the GDP in 2005 is about 500% of 1960. Back to table 1.3, the federal government spent 17.8% of the GDP. 25% of GDP in 2009, 23.8% in 2010, and an estimated 25.3% for 2011. Now this must also be in constant dollars because the GNP for 2005 was 24 times larger than for 1960.

As the wealth of our nation increases from 1960 standards to modern day, does the government need that much more of our wealth to spend as well?

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 04:14 AM

When measuring the same thing is 11% smaller than 20%? :lol
But that's not the case. You are taking 11% from something 5 times larger than the 20% came from.

Please... why don't you understand that?

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 04:22 AM

From a quick look at this link

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1960_2014&view=1&expand=&units=k&fy=fy09&chart=&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Real%20GDP%20Chart&state=US&color=c&local=s

It looks like our GDP increased 400% from 1960 to 2005. Perhaps that's why we spent more.
That's my point. We are already spending 5 times what we spent back then, in fixed dollars. It's because of more and more programs. Because of that, other programs should get smaller percentages.

If we adjust for population, that five times is about 3 times as much per capita than we spent back then.

Do you think that's necessary?

Agloco

02-05-2012, 11:25 AM

Man o man...

lol not understanding normalized values

WC is really deep into the well of fail here.

Agloco

02-05-2012, 11:26 AM

Let's try to make this dumb-proof:

:lmao

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 12:21 PM

Man o man...

lol not understanding normalized values

WC is really deep into the well of fail here.
You don't consider the 2005 dollars normalized?

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 01:07 PM

Man o man...

lol not understanding normalized values

WC is really deep into the well of fail here.
Tell me. If what the OMB doesn't call "constant (FY 2005) dollars" in numerous tables, reports, etc. isn't a normalized value, then what is?

I think you stepped on it here. Now if I'm wrong, please explain how. If you haven't scoured numerous OMB and CBO documents like I have, I suggest you see how they use that term before stepping on it again.

LnGrrrR

02-05-2012, 02:00 PM

WC, I meant increased 300%, my bad. It seemed 2005 GDP was roughly 4X the GDP of 1960. That's what I get for posting late at night.

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 02:16 PM

WC, I meant increased 300%, my bad. It seemed 2005 GDP was roughly 4X the GDP of 1960. That's what I get for posting late at night.
That was also in FY2005 dollars, right?

Now should our government need to expand more and more? After you factor in the 72(?)% increase in population, that's an increase of about 74% still per capita.

Is that necessary? How much longer can government expand before it completely chocks off the economy?

Agloco

02-05-2012, 02:47 PM

Tell me. If what the OMB doesn't call "constant (FY 2005) dollars" in numerous tables, reports, etc. isn't a normalized value, then what is?

I think you stepped on it here. Now if I'm wrong, please explain how. If you haven't scoured numerous OMB and CBO documents like I have, I suggest you see how they use that term before stepping on it again.

Meh......ok. I'll give you a break here since I failed to elaborate. My point was that they are normalized values, however you are using them out of context.

When I posted my comment, I didn't realize that Fuzzy had already pointed this out:

Why 2005 dollars? Oh because you are trying to cherry pick. You still suck at statistics. Why normalize to a completely different economic climate that was 2005? Either you are stupid or you did it to fudge data.

Thats even before we take your 'benchmark of 1960 or anything else. Its obvious what you did. You picked poles and went with them.

Why not 1995 dollars or 2008 or even better the most recent data? Thats the problem we have taken stats and know how to do things like this. You don't so we make fun of you.

So my question to you is essentially the same as Fuzzys:

Why 2005? Why any specific year for that matter?

FuzzyLumpkins

02-05-2012, 03:00 PM

A smaller percentage is a smaller percentage than a larger percentage...

I mean, do I really have to dumb it down this much?

Scoring totals this year in the NBA will be down. It must be because the players suck.

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 03:13 PM

Why 2005? Why any specific year for that matter?
Because that's what the published OMB data is.

I see you didn't follow the links. Is that your MO, to reply without looking at the links?

I specifically said table 1.3 of the link I provided. As for the 1960 benchmark, that was ElNono's. Not mine.

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 03:20 PM

Here's a PDF of all those historical tables, rather than excel format. Please look at various tables and see how many of them adjust to constant FY 2005 dollars.

Historical Tables Budget of the U. S. Government (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf)

Table 1.3 is on page 26 (30 PDF). However, it is last years and 2010 is estimated. 2010 is actual in the latest excel file.

Table 1.3—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2005) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940–2016 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z3.xls)

FuzzyLumpkins

02-05-2012, 03:23 PM

You don't consider the 2005 dollars normalized?

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

What do cherry pick mean? I mean when comparing two arbitrary constants why not just compare them to a third completely different value; that wouldn't make the outcome entirely arbitrary too now would it? Oh thats right it does.

Might as well completely ignore other values that effect the set say like the total set of a particular sample(RE:GDP) while you're at it. I mean you have never seen graphs that list years as percentages of GDP have you? Oh wait thats what you always see.

Just stop; you are dumb and don't know what the fuck you are doing. Your thought exercise has failed.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-05-2012, 03:26 PM

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 03:42 PM

Here's a graph I put together some time back:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/CBOtable04z1complete50pct.jpg

Note how SS has less than doubles while Health and Human Services is 9 times larger, the treasury is doubled, and the DoD is only about 40% of what it was at the beginning of the graph.

ElNono

02-05-2012, 03:57 PM

But that's not the case.

Sure it's the case. Are you this dumb?

ElNono

02-05-2012, 03:58 PM

My God...

He ain't teaching you basic math :lmao

Wild Cobra

02-05-2012, 04:00 PM

Sure it's the case. Are you this dumb?
Do you disagree that 20% of 100 is smaller than 11% of 500?

greyforest

02-05-2012, 04:28 PM

http://i.imgur.com/dkMbn.gif

ElNono

02-05-2012, 05:37 PM

Do you disagree that 20% of 100 is smaller than 11% of 500?

I disagree we're comparing amounts. We're comparing a percentage of a whole at any given time.

I also agree that you don't understand this basic concept.

In order for government to spend at the same rate as 1960 on children, they would need to be spending 20% of the whole today. They only spend 11% of the whole. So the rate at which they spend on children effectively declined from 1960 to today.

I'm sorry I can't dumb it down any more. You should consider enrolling in 5th grade class if you fail to grasp this kind of basic math.

FuzzyLumpkins

02-05-2012, 07:44 PM

Do you disagree that 20% of 100 is smaller than 11% of 500?

You claim these numbers after you stole someone else's cooked numbers that you obviously have no idea what factors they used and then added your own numbers to it.

Whats WC's solution? Cook the numbers even more relative to another dataset. This isn't lincoln logs or legos. You cannot just add the pieces together and they fit.

Wild Cobra

02-06-2012, 04:44 AM

I disagree we're comparing amounts. We're comparing a percentage of a whole at any given time.

I also agree that you don't understand this basic concept.

In order for government to spend at the same rate as 1960 on children, they would need to be spending 20% of the whole today. They only spend 11% of the whole. So the rate at which they spend on children effectively declined from 1960 to today.

I'm sorry I can't dumb it down any more. You should consider enrolling in 5th grade class if you fail to grasp this kind of basic math.
I see.

So... when the government adds programs over the years, each requiring more revenue, they never get it... Because every existing program is entitled to it's existing percentage?

Do you realize what you are advocating?

The government spends far more money per capita than in 1960. If it is double, in constant dollars, then existing programs should expect to get half as much. The government now gets about 500% of what it did in 1960, adjusted to fixed dollars. Population is 172% of what it was then. Per capita, government 500% / 1.72 is 291%. Therefore, equal spending of a program today adjusting for population from 1960, to today, would be only 34% of what it was then. Your 20% from 1960 should only be 6.9% today. Not 11%.

If you still fail to understand, I give up.

ElNono

02-06-2012, 01:49 PM

20% of X >>>>>>>>>>>> 11% of X

Whether the government adds or removes programs it's completely irrelevant to that.

You gave up when you stopped paying attention in math class, tbh.

Wild Cobra

02-06-2012, 01:54 PM

20% of X >>>>>>>>>>>> 11% of X

Whether the government adds or removes programs it's completely irrelevant to that.

You gave up when you stopped paying attention in math class, tbh.
You are a total fool.

As the variable x changes in value, so do the results. Variable x is 3 times larger in recent years vs. 1960. Your example only holds true if variable x isn't a variable, but a constant.

20% of 11 = 11% of 20 for example. Added government programs since the 60's increased government spending by a factor of three, per capita. therefore...

if 1960 spending per capita is $1k, 20% is $200. Three time that is $3k and 11% if that is $330.

$330 > $200.

Winehole23

02-06-2012, 02:00 PM

you seem to prefer to emphasize the change in cost in constant dollars without quantifying the growth relative to overall government spending.

do you know what cherry-picking is?

Wild Cobra

02-06-2012, 02:02 PM

you seem to prefer to emphasize the change in cost in constant dollars without quantifying the growth relative to overall government spending.

do you know what cherry-picking is?
If I used real dollars, the value would be so much more different.

Realize that I am using the OMB 2005 fixed dollars, which are adjusted to make comparisons between years realistic.

Winehole23

02-06-2012, 02:05 PM

do you know what cherry-picking is?

Wild Cobra

02-06-2012, 02:11 PM

Yes, but how does that apply? Please elaborate on the "cherry picking."

Do you disagree that government spending, per capita, in normalized dollars, has increased by around a factor of three since 1960? Look at all the countless programs added over the last 50 years.

Winehole23

02-06-2012, 02:14 PM

moving the goal posts

Wild Cobra

02-06-2012, 02:16 PM

I'm not moving the goalpost. I have used the normalized 2005 numbers from the start of this tangent. ElNono is trying to move the goalpost. I am considering dollar value change and population. ElNono thinks 20% of X is always greater than 11% of Y.

Look at the OMB tables. Table 1.3 and others reference "constant FY 2005 dollars"

Winehole23

02-06-2012, 02:17 PM

ElNono thinks 20% of X is always greater than 11% of Yare you sure? where?

ElNono

02-06-2012, 02:18 PM

You are a total fool.

As the variable x changes in value, so do the results.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

20% of X today >>>>>>>>>>> 11% of X today

That's why it's an ANNUAL comparison.

just wow

ElNono

02-06-2012, 02:19 PM

20% of X >>>>>>>>>>>> 11% of X

ElNono thinks 20% of X is always greater than 11% of Y.

Who's twisting words now?

greyforest

02-06-2012, 02:29 PM

PROPORTIONALLY we are spending LESS

IN TOTAL we are spending MORE

do I win the semantics battle?

Agloco

02-06-2012, 02:31 PM

20% of X >>>>>>>>>>>> 11% of X

You are a total fool.

As the variable x changes in value, so do the results. Variable x is 3 times larger in recent years vs. 1960. Your example only holds true if variable x isn't a variable, but a constant.

:lmao

Tell me something WC, if X = 100, what would X equal?

Now if we assign X = 1000, what would X equal?

We can assign any value for X and NoNo's statement would remain true.

I'll help you out. By your post, what you're arguing about is whether 20% of X is greater than or less than 11% of 3X. Now lets see if you can begin to build a cogent argument (cherry picking aside).

ElNono

02-06-2012, 02:53 PM

PROPORTIONALLY we are spending LESS

IN TOTAL we are spending MORE

do I win the semantics battle?

You paid attention in class!! Bravo! :lol

ElNono

02-06-2012, 02:56 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

02-06-2012, 03:00 PM

You are a total fool.

As the variable x changes in value, so do the results. Variable x is 3 times larger in recent years vs. 1960. Your example only holds true if variable x isn't a variable, but a constant.

20% of 11 = 11% of 20 for example. Added government programs since the 60's increased government spending by a factor of three, per capita. therefore...

if 1960 spending per capita is $1k, 20% is $200. Three time that is $3k and 11% if that is $330.

$330 > $200.

They aren't variables. They are rational functions of variables and that is a huge difference that you are too stupid and ignorant to understand. You cannot just label them a single term to dumb it down as you are wont to do and move the figures around willy nilly.

No one on this board agrees with your methodology here and you are just being obstinate. That is fine by me because it further outlines to anyone else who may stumble upon you just how stupid that you are.

You are wasting your time with you napkin math and discrediting yourself in the processas all we have to do now is again point out what you are doing wrong. That you blithely continue doing it anyway underscores how exactly you operate and that you are never to be taken seriously in pretty much any context.

Numerical analysis, stats, circuits, history, linguistics, thermodynamics, economics, government or anything else. I should make a thread with the quotes on things like flywheels, optics, capacitors, rational functions, dating and title it 'WC's Stupid Views.' Have people petition to modify the OP with some of your gems and we can have the real shrine to your stupidity.

LnGrrrR

02-06-2012, 03:02 PM

BTW, it isn't semantics... The government used to spend at a higher rate on children in the 1960's than it does today. It might be a larger amount today, but as a percentage of the overall pie, it's a smaller piece.

I think that's WC's issue. Just to make the math, going to simplify the number. If we spent 20% of a $1000 budget on 5 kids in 1960, then we were spending roughly 40 dollars per kid.

Now fast forward to 2005, where our budget is now $5000, and we have instead 10 kids. If we spend 10% of our budget on 10 kids in 2005, it equals out to 50 dollars per child.

What WC seems to be asking is why we are spending an extra amount of money per child today than we were in the 1960's. It seems his preference would be to cut the rate of spending until it matched this "dollars per kid" amount that was used in the 1960's.

LnGrrrR

02-06-2012, 03:04 PM

Winehole23

02-06-2012, 03:22 PM

it's smaller. add one or two generic small government bromides and -- DING! -- fries are done

Wild Cobra

02-06-2012, 03:45 PM

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

20% of X today >>>>>>>>>>> 11% of X today

That's why it's an ANNUAL comparison.

just wow
Why can't you wrap your head around the fact the the budget is 5 times larger than then back then, factoring for population change it's about 3 times larger per capita.

We aren't talking about "today" vs. "today." we are talking about a half a century vs. today.

Wild Cobra

02-06-2012, 03:47 PM

PROPORTIONALLY we are spending LESS

IN TOTAL we are spending MORE

do I win the semantics battle?
Yes. that's my point. 11% of today's piece of pie is larger than 20% of the smaller pie 50 years ago.

greyforest

02-06-2012, 03:51 PM

Of course, the above would lead us to ask the question: Was the amount spend per child on education and services in 1960s the "proper" amount? What validates the 1960 number as correct instead of the 2005 number?

The real question is whether or not the current school funding is being used efficiently or wastefully.

I'm of the opinion that a huge proportion is spent wastefully on construction, exorbitant sports team costs, libraries, and administrative costs. Money in my opinion would be better spent on teachers wages (give smart people an incentive to teach), laptops for every child and internet access.

The education system was designed in the industrial era, and it functions sort of like a factory for children. Since the dawn of the internet and the information age it's faults are becoming quite apparent.

Teaching students history dates and other rote memorization isn't very useful when everyone can do a google search on their phones. I noticed in high school that I could learn more on howstuffworks.com in an hour than a week of class.

Wild Cobra

02-06-2012, 03:52 PM

:lmao

Tell me something WC, if X = 100, what would X equal?

Now if we assign X = 1000, what would X equal?

We can assign any value for X and NoNo's statement would remain true.

Until you apply it to two different years where the X value is different, and still try to say 20% of X1 is larger than 11% of X2.

I'll help you out. By your post, what you're arguing about is whether 20% of X is greater than or less than 11% of 3X. Now lets see if you can begin to build a cogent argument (cherry picking aside).

That's exactly what I'm saying. X is three times larger now, than 50 years ago, so 11% of today's X is larger than 20% of X back then.

Why doesn't ElNono get it?

Winehole23

02-06-2012, 03:53 PM

in absolute terms the slice is bigger, relative to the overall cost of government it's smaller. agree?