WC's Extreme Views

[Wild Cobra]

OK people. You say I am extreme. Why. Have at it, but no ankle biters please. Just honest criticism.

---Edit add---

OK, I obviously misworded my intent here. Sorry for that.

What I would like is actual examples of my extreme views. Criticize the actual view.

[boutons_deux]

gfy

[greyforest]

Pretty much every time I read your posts I imagine them in Frank Burns' voice

[MaNuMaNiAc]

hmm I don't think people think you're extreme :lol I think they think you're full of shit

[Agloco]

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

Now, I realize that this is a fairly moderate view.......I mean, I look over my shoulder whenever I'm near a person of color, any color. It's normal, right?

[TeyshaBlue]

Pretty much every time I read your posts I imagine them in Frank Burns' voice

:lmao

[CuckingFunt]

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

[Winehole23]

to be fair, no anti ankle-biting defensiveness has yet been submitted by WC. if the observation is true generally, it is not yet true for this thread. just sayin.

[CuckingFunt]

to be fair, no anti ankle-biting defensiveness has yet been submitted by WC. if the observation is true generally, it is not yet true for this thread. just sayin.

Oh, I know. I think the OP was a fishing attempt that has thus far failed.

[Winehole23]

WC is curious what others think of him. Posters replied. How is that failure?

[baseline bum]

WC's views frankly seem to be very mainstream when it comes to right-rightwing Republicans; well, other than his view on stalking.

[CuckingFunt]

WC is curious what others think of him. Posters replied. How is that failure?

WC has been told in numerous threads what people think of him. And by reasonable posters making reasonable observations as often as by trolls. Most of the time, the discussion then devolves into Cobra either lashing out at the people critiquing him/his position/his posting style while stubbornly refusing to deal with whatever point is being made, or adopting wild, victimy delusions of persecution and accusing other posters of using him as a whipping boy while still stubbornly refusing to deal with whatever point is being made.

I am therefore suspicious of WC suddenly making a thread in which he appears to be asking to learn the lesson that he has previously ignored so often. As a result, my sense is that this thread was started specifically for trolling and/or attention whoring purposes.

[cheguevara]

WC rationalizes and does not resort to personal attack. Unlike other posters here. Yes, I disagree with most of his views but...

WC is a comrade and a gentleman.

[FromWayDowntown]

What I've always thought was so fascinating about Wild Cobra is his willingness to throw out an extreme thought and the immediate efforts to try to mitigate its extremity that follow when the objective extremity of the idea is pointed out to him.

[CuckingFunt]

WC rationalizes and does not resort to personal attack. Unlike other posters here. Yes, I disagree with most of his views but...

WC is a comrade and a gentleman.

'Cept for the times he's called me a cunt.

[Winehole23]

I'll go ahead and say it.

WC wants to embody conventional wisdom, but he is only familiar with its slogans ( much as we all are, sadly.) He also strains to stake out the most extreme position allowable by his allegedly reasonable and conventional premisses.

At base WC is an extremist of a conventionalism he doesn't understand very well, with hilarious (and sometimes very disturbing) results.

[Winehole23]

I am therefore suspicious of WC suddenly making a thread in which he appears to be asking to learn the lesson that he has previously ignored so often. As a result, my sense is that this thread was started specifically for trolling and/or attention whoring purposes.There's no doubt about it. I don't get why that bothers you tho.

[CuckingFunt]

There's no doubt about it. I don't get why that bothers you tho.

If it bothered me, I wouldn't have contributed. I appreciate the machinations of the message board attention whore, but I do feel somewhat compelled to call it out when I see it.

Competition, and all that.

[Winehole23]

one upmanship.

is one of the nameless deities around here. the chiefest. three others being: expedience, invention and laziness.

[Winehole23]

WC rationalizes and does not resort to personal attack. Unlike other posters here. Yes, I disagree with most of his views but...

WC is a comrade and a gentleman.Oh he'll attack you. WC ain't afraid of calling you a Nazi or Marxist.

I will say WC is a faithful correspondent. He'll answer back to whatever silly submisssion.

[Winehole23]

and he has maybe gotten a little better about being a meanie to everyone who fails immediately to agree

[Winehole23]

'Cept for the times he's called me a cunt.paternalistic archaisms like having vulgar pet names for women, apparently never went out of style. pity.

it's all part of WC's misconceived conventionality and crude rhetorical craft: a dog whistle for haters. where did DarkReign, jack and trainwreck go?

[ElNono]

What for? When he's finally cornered (by his own extreme views) he'll pull the "you don't understand" card or the "why are you so close minded?" card, even though it's patently obvious that:

A) His extreme view is clear as a day
B) By looking at the absurdity of the scenarios he presents to his defense, you can tell he's given barely any thought at all before posting such idea.

Makes for great comedy, but hardly a thread worthy topic, IMO.

[Winehole23]

thread worthiness? is that a real constraint?

[Winehole23]

do you make it a habit to remark in unthreadworthy threads, or do you just hate WC?

[ElNono]

I think the topic can be addressed when brought up as part of other threads, which happens relatively often.

[ElNono]

Is having an opinion on thread-worthiness a problem?

[ElNono]

BTW, I don't hate WC (or anybody really).

I think I'm not the only one here that suffers fools, that's all.

[Winehole23]

Is having an opinion on thread-worthiness a problem?not at all, but it lacks something for potency

[Wild Cobra]

Not much substance yet. I was hoping for better. I don't have time to respond today, leaving soon. Will be back though.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

:lol I'd love to talk to winehole in person. Do you talk like that in real life? Serious question here

[LnGrrrR]

not at all, but it lacks something for potency

I think that meta-commentary lacks some potency as well in this case, devils advocate and all.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, I think the fact that you make claims without knowing the facts, while simultaneously often sporting a wild, near-foolish skepticism about the veracity of others claims, is often what makes you appear extreme.

[ElNono]

WC, I think the fact that you make claims without knowing the facts, while simultaneously often sporting a wild, near-foolish skepticism about the veracity of others claims, is often what makes you appear extreme.

Actually, that makes him look like a hypocrite.

[LnGrrrR]

Actually, that makes him look like a hypocrite.

That as well :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, I know. I think the OP was a fishing attempt that has thus far failed.
You're right. It failed. I have a bunch of ankle biters like you rather than criticism of actual examples of my extreme views. I guess none of you really think I'm extreme after all, but once again, use it as an opportunity to throw shit.

[Wild Cobra]

I am therefore suspicious of WC suddenly making a thread in which he appears to be asking to learn the lesson that he has previously ignored so often. As a result, my sense is that this thread was started specifically for trolling and/or attention whoring purposes.
No. I wanted to take an opportunity to take an example and show why it wasn't extreme.

[Wild Cobra]

What I've always thought was so fascinating about Wild Cobra is his willingness to throw out an extreme thought and the immediate efforts to try to mitigate its extremity that follow when the objective extremity of the idea is pointed out to him.
I see it as your lack of trying to understand my position. I see it as you being so hard headed, you can't see past your own biased point of view.

[Wild Cobra]

'Cept for the times he's called me a Сunt.

LOL...

Luck of the Fakers... Fuck the Lakers...

Cucking Funt... Fucking Сunt...

Do you seriously not expect someone to use that?

[Wild Cobra]

What for? When he's finally cornered (by his own extreme views) he'll pull the "you don't understand" card or the "why are you so close minded?" card, even though it's patently obvious that:

A) His extreme view is clear as a day
B) By looking at the absurdity of the scenarios he presents to his defense, you can tell he's given barely any thought at all before posting such idea.

Makes for great comedy, but hardly a thread worthy topic, IMO.
LOL...

Really now. Cornered? Is that what you think when I get pissed because you fail to comprehend another viewpoint, than appear to purposely express it out of context, effectively making it slander?

Example please.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, I think the fact that you make claims without knowing the facts, while simultaneously often sporting a wild, near-foolish skepticism about the veracity of others claims, is often what makes you appear extreme.
Think as you wish. You think that way when I do have facts at hand, so why should I take you serious?

Example please.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, this appears as a total failure of my attempt.

Does anyone have a direct, linkable example of my extreme view(s)?

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I just added to my OP. Hopefully a clarification.

[Winehole23]

:lol I'd love to talk to winehole in person. Do you talk like that in real life? Serious question hereYou get what you see. I rough it out a little more in person, but yeah, I more or less talk like I talk here.

If you come to Texas, can we have a beer? Serious question here.

[Winehole23]

Well, this appears as a total failure of my attempt.

Does anyone have a direct, linkable example of my extreme view(s)?Linkable? You found none of the submissions persuasive?

[Winehole23]

I think that meta-commentary lacks some potency as well in this case, devils advocate and all.fair enough. I usually aim for prosaic.

[Wild Cobra]

Linkable? You found none of the submissions persuasive?
Not at all. All I see is people throwing around viewpoints with no direct examples.

[Winehole23]

I think the topic can be addressed when brought up as part of other threads, which happens relatively often.It does. This thread invited it.

Sorry I was short with you; I was lacking coffee.

[Winehole23]

Not at all. All I see is people throwing around viewpoints with no direct examples.Perhaps with these reports in hand, you could revisit favorite threads, or simply observe your own participation, bearing the various criticisms in mind.

You can get the benefit of the criticisms you asked for without a single link to substantiate any of it. Just reflect on them.



and if you need one linkable example I choose shooting illegal immigrants at the border. surely you remember that.

[Winehole23]

that counts as extreme, doesn't it?

[z0sa]

i don't find WC extreme. I thought everyone knew he was a Mouse troll?

[Winehole23]

I thought everyone knew he was a Mouse troll?what?

rly?

[Winehole23]

that's quite a mule pulled on me and a lot of other forum jackasses, if true

[Wild Cobra]

i don't find WC extreme. I thought everyone knew he was a Mouse troll?
Now that's one of the biggest insults ever.

[Wild Cobra]

and if you need one linkable example I choose shooting illegal immigrants at the border. surely you remember that.
Here's the deal with that one. When nothing else being done works, escalate until something works. That is far from an ideal solution, but at times I think it's the only one that will work. It is a foreign invasion, right?

Now you got me on this one. It is extreme. Still, why not advocate extreme until someone listen to act? Shouldn't we let our representatives know how pissed we are about the illegal alien problems?

[Wild Cobra]

what?

rly?
I doubt he believes that. I doubt anyone believes Mouse can maintain a persona like mine, especially for so long. I think he's just yanking my chain.

[Wild Cobra]

WH...

I'm thinking you're the only one here that will find extreme views of mine that I may agree are extreme. You seem to also have a far higher level of integrity and ethics than most people here. I say that even though you are one of my best antagonists at times. Others just throw the shit around.

I started this thread because of the numerous times I am called an extremist for viewpoints that I don't feel are classed that way. Trying once again to show most the time, I'm not as extreme as people imagine.

[Winehole23]

Here's the deal with that one. When nothing else being done works, escalate until something works. That is far from an ideal solution, but at times I think it's the only one that will work. It is a foreign invasion, right?Expedience demands it. Hilarious.

Still, why not advocate extreme until someone listen to act? Shouldn't we let our representatives know how pissed we are about the illegal alien problems?Any extreme view can be rationalized this way. If there were an olympics for excuses, I'd bet on you to medal.

[FromWayDowntown]

Expedience demands it. Hilarious.
Any extreme view can be rationalized this way. If there were an olympics for excuses, I'd bet on you to medal.

Sterilizing (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181218) some of those who receive state aid might qualify in this category.


I see it as your lack of trying to understand my position. I see it as you being so hard headed, you can't see past your own biased point of view.

I understand your position on these things. I don't have to agree with you to understand your position. I can understand your position and still believe it to be an extreme position. Understanding and agreement are not synonymous.


I started this thread because of the numerous times I am called an extremist for viewpoints that I don't feel are classed that way. Trying once again to show most the time, I'm not as extreme as people imagine.

I'm not sure that your view of your arguments is the barometer on whether or not they are extreme.

[Blake]

i don't find WC extreme. I thought everyone knew he was a Mouse troll?

Extremely doubtful

[mouse]

I would love to take credit for posting as a legend known as wild cobra but the truth is the man is an enigma the more i think i know him the more i find out how far off base i was. He is a combination of Whottt and Chump Dumper with a pinch of Blake.

If you research the original 9/11 topics you will see no one person could argue with themselves as well as WC and myself has in those topics.


As far as Extreme goes, WC is the P90X of the politics forum.

[ElNono]

What for? When he's finally cornered (by his own extreme views) he'll pull the "you don't understand" card or the "why are you so close minded?"



I see it as your lack of trying to understand my position. I see it as you being so hard headed, you can't see past your own biased point of view.


Is that what you think when I get pissed because you fail to comprehend another viewpoint

[Winehole23]

Sterilizing (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181218) some of those who receive state aid might qualify in this category.It's hard for to me believe that forced sterilization as a requirement for public relief and summary execution of immigrants at the border, are the only extant examples of LINKABLE extreme positions taken by WC.

And he just waved those off as hypertechnical complaints against rhetorical overexuberance in the good fight.

So, the allegation of WC having extreme views -- which WC lodged himself in the thread title -- remains, so far, beneath the dignity of his consideration.

[Winehole23]

Dear lazyweb: do you have a link to an extreme position taken by WC? Mine didn't work.

[Wild Cobra's Surgeon]

Sterilizing (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181218) some of those who receive state aid might qualify in this category.

Nothing says welfare reform quite like Eugenics.

[ElNono]

Dear lazyweb: do you have a link to an extreme position taken by WC? Mine didn't work.

He's also shown some reverse racism (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2720169&postcount=57) paranoia/bitterness. Frankly, when it comes to race, his assumptions (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2720179&postcount=59) really sell him short.

Then, there's the disconnect from reality. Somebody that allegedly stalks a person in an attempt to show his technical prowess and after the obvious downfall publicizes his exploit on the internet (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117205) still clueless of what he did wrong, probably needs a part changed.

[Winehole23]

The topic is the extreme.

Racist paranoia, bitterness and assumptions are hardly unusual. Indeed, they are normal.

Social conventionality now requires that people abstain from expressing it openly. Internet anonymity provides an outlet for a level of hate that would be completely unacceptable in meatspace. Take the internet away and where does it go? Remove racism, and where does awareness of racism go?

As for the stalking thing, I hope all parties will concede sometime soon that it's been done to death. It comes up with depressing, I would say also destructive, regularity. It's a thread killer.

[clambake]

its a character trait

[clambake]

mother hen role is a thankless job

[FromWayDowntown]

As for the stalking thing, I hope all parties will concede sometime soon that it's been done to death. It comes up with depressing, I would say also destructive, regularity. It's a thread killer.

As much as it will, I suspect, surprise Wild Cobra, I agree that discussion of his extreme positions too frequently becomes a matter of pointing to the low hanging fruit that his past foibles tend to be and not enough about engaging him in discussions about why his positions might actually be extreme.

This is true of both the stalking anecdote as well as the black surgeons statement.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Consider the act of calling his views extreme a decent trade-off. If we follow his logic, he would be worthy of being shot.




and if you need one linkable example I choose shooting illegal immigrants at the border. surely you remember that.


Here's the deal with that one. When nothing else being done works, escalate until something works. That is far from an ideal solution, but at times I think it's the only one that will work. It is a foreign invasion, right?

[z0sa]

Don't underestimate mouse's cleverness. If illegal aliens = foreign invaders of America the free, then they are clearly subhuman and must be eliminated. Any red blooded, capitalism and liberty lubbin American should agree. Or won't you defend your own household, if not your country, from invasion?

[Winehole23]

If we follow his logic, he would be worthy of being shot.why should we emulate WC?

[Cry Havoc]

As much as it will, I suspect, surprise Wild Cobra, I agree that discussion of his extreme positions too frequently becomes a matter of pointing to the low hanging fruit that his past foibles tend to be and not enough about engaging him in discussions about why his positions might actually be extreme.

This usually happens after he has attacked one of the individuals in a discussion with him, as you see has already happened in this thread. Disagree with WC and it's because, "you're too stupid to understand" or "you're biased", so he begins assailing your basic level of perception of reality. It's a perfectly valid retort all things considered, IMO.

[Winehole23]

are you guilty minded?

if not, why justify ripping WC?

[ElNono]

The topic is the extreme.

Racist paranoia, bitterness and assumptions are hardly unusual. Indeed, they are normal.

Social conventionality now requires that people abstain from expressing it openly. Internet anonymity provides an outlet for a level of hate that would be completely unacceptable in meatspace. Take the internet away and where does it go? Remove racism, and where does awareness of racism go?

As for the stalking thing, I hope all parties will concede sometime soon that it's been done to death. It comes up with depressing, I would say also destructive, regularity. It's a thread killer.


As much as it will, I suspect, surprise Wild Cobra, I agree that discussion of his extreme positions too frequently becomes a matter of pointing to the low hanging fruit that his past foibles tend to be and not enough about engaging him in discussions about why his positions might actually be extreme.

This is true of both the stalking anecdote as well as the black surgeons statement.

Well, that's why I didn't engulf it under the "extreme" premise, but as an addition to it.

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.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Well, that's why I didn't engulf it under the "extreme" premise, but as an addition to it.

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 the discussing about engaging him in honest conversation vs actually discussing with him the topic(s) at hand.


Yup. He views are comparable to religious views, unworthy of negotiation and discussion for the beholder

[Wild Cobra]

Wrong again ElNono. I can handle criticism. What I cant handle is repeatedly clarifying a point of view, and still having my intent twisted. That's why I so often accuse you of intentional slander, or stupidity. What else can it be, when your rewording of my viewpoint does not reflect my intent?

I do have a few extreme positions, and I feel WH is the only on who found one so far.

[Winehole23]

what about FWD?

[ElNono]

Wrong again ElNono. I can handle criticism. What I cant handle is repeatedly clarifying a point of view, and still having my intent twisted. That's why I so often accuse you of intentional slander, or stupidity. What else can it be, when your rewording of my viewpoint does not reflect my intent?

I do have a few extreme positions, and I feel WH is the only on who found one so far.

Sue me. You don't even know what slander is or means.

The first thing you need to understand is that there's a very thin line between "provocative" and "flat out stupid". It's not that difficult to know where that line lies if you actually take the time to think things through.

The problem is that you rarely, if ever, do. And by the time somebody points out that you crossed the line, you go into this defensive mode where "everyone else must be stupid". It's a tired schtick.

Did you open this thread to have an open conversation about the extreme views? Or just to tell people "they don't understand", "you don't have an open mind"?

[Wild Cobra]

what about FWD?
I'm guessing that you mean the sterilization part?

What's wrong with an exchange of sorts. You agree to having your tubes ties if a woman or vasectomy is a man, so you cannot produce any more children at the governments expense, if you put yourself in that position to require the assistance. Now if you recall, I have pointed out that this doesn't apply to all misfortunes. Just the ones where a couple didn't have the means to raise a child when they conceived. This would only apply to those asking for government assistance to raise the child, and those receiving government assistance already when they conceive.

If you can't afford a child, you shouldn't have one. Right?

Is it right for tax payers to be on the hook for other people's carelessness? Shouldn't there be come action against those who needlessly drain our social welfare system?

I can go on about the cycle of dependance, how those growing up in families receiving government assistance more often than others, become dependent on such things when they mature. It's the life they see and know. It shouldn't be accepted as a normal lifestyle.

Yes, there will be some sob stories over such a law, but over time, don't you believe it would become a deterrent?

Extreme is in the eye of the beholder. I can understand some seeing this as extreme. After all, most younger people see food stamps, earned income credit, and other handouts as a right. It shouldn't be, and I don't see this as extreme. Such programs are designed as a safety net. Not a lifestyle.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to the general welfare of our society if we had less tolerance to irresponsibility that cost our society?

[Winehole23]

What I cant handle is repeatedly clarifying a point of view, and still having my intent twisted. That's why I so often accuse you of intentional slander, or stupidity. What else can it be, when your rewording of my viewpoint does not reflect my intent?.Others are not obliged to reflect your intent. To understand the plain meaning of your words, perhaps.

To some extent your words speak for themselves. Your habit of continually revising "what you really meant" and dismissing all objections to what you say as crass misunderstanding (referred to notably by BaselineBum upstream) -- undermines you.

It's not very likely that all of your critics are wrong. Think about it.

[Wild Cobra]

The first thing you need to understand is that there's a very thin line between "provocative" and "flat out stupid". It's not that difficult to know where that line lies if you actually take the time to think things through.

Good.

I got you to admit you intentionally provoke people.

What good does that do in discussions?

[Winehole23]

If you can't afford a child, you shouldn't have one. Right?to me, this is breathtakingly extreme. suffice it to say I think the state should have no role in influencing who does and who does not reproduce. basing it all on income is another striking perversity.

[Winehole23]

Yes, there will be some sob stories over such a law, but over time, don't you believe it would become a deterrent?sure it would be. totally inconsonant with liberty, but it would almost certainly conduce to the chosen policy aim.

[Wild Cobra]

Others are not obliged to reflect your intent. To understand the plain meaning of your words, perhaps.

When making an argument against me by rewording my words to argue against something I didn't say... I disagree.


To some extent your words speak for themselves. Your habit of continually revising "what you really meant" and dismissing all objections to what you say as crass misunderstanding (referred to notably by BaselineBum upstream) -- undermines you.

I dismiss the objections when the objections have no place. They aren't in context with anything I say, buy a figment of someone creatively or ignorantly revising what I mean.


It's not very likely that all of your critics are wrong. Think about it.
I never said everyone was always wrong. Think about that.

[Winehole23]

expedience isn't everything, you know

[Wild Cobra]

to me, this is breathtakingly extreme. suffice it to say I think the state should have no role in influencing who does and who does not reproduce. basing it all on income is another striking perversity.
I agree to the extent that they still should not have a child, then expect the state to help. If they can do this with the help of family and friends, then there would be no need to prevent a second occurrence from happening.

[ElNono]

Good.

I got you to admit you intentionally provoke people.

What good does that do in discussions?

Uh? I was talking about your ideas.

[Wild Cobra]

Uh? I was talking about your ideas.
Then why do you make it a habit of rewording my intent incorrectly? If not slander, stupidity, or to provoke...

Why?

[Borat Sagyidev]

I'm guessing that you mean the sterilization part?

If you can't afford a child, you shouldn't have one. Right?


I doub't he says the same thing about someone who continually bankrupts businesses, which a significant amount of GOP politicians have done.

They should have all the kids they can handle, at the taxpayer expense of course.

[Winehole23]

making an argument against me by rewording my words to argue against something I didn't say... Mindreading that discloses what posters really think. You do it all the time.

[ElNono]

Then why do you make it a habit of rewording my intent incorrectly? If not slander, stupidity, or to provoke...

Why?

Rewording what intent? Give me an example

[Wild Cobra]

Rewording what intent? Give me an example
Oh My.

I have repeatedly pointed things out when they happen. how about something else. A fictional example of what you do, that maybe you can wrap your head around.

Fictional situation: I'm at home with my girlfriend, hear a noise, grab my gun, and find a thief holding my girlfriend with a knife. I say "I'll kill you if you don't let her go and drop your knife."

After the story gets to you, you only say something like "he said he was going to kill him!" Such a statement is technically true, but puts the situation out of context, and without the proper context, lets people assume things with their own bias. It usually looks pretty bad.

You repeatedly do such things, repeating commentary out of context.

[Wild Cobra]

Mindreading that discloses what posters really think. You do it all the time.
I only use such a tactic when the intent wasn't made, and I do so to expose possibilities of what their words mean. I don't misrepresent someone's words when they had proper context.

[ElNono]

I'm guessing that you mean the sterilization part?

What's wrong with an exchange of sorts. You agree to having your tubes ties if a woman or vasectomy is a man, so you cannot produce any more children at the governments expense, if you put yourself in that position to require the assistance. Now if you recall, I have pointed out that this doesn't apply to all misfortunes. Just the ones where a couple didn't have the means to raise a child when they conceived. This would only apply to those asking for government assistance to raise the child, and those receiving government assistance already when they conceive.

If you can't afford a child, you shouldn't have one. Right?

Is it right for tax payers to be on the hook for other people's carelessness? Shouldn't there be come action against those who needlessly drain our social welfare system?

I can go on about the cycle of dependance, how those growing up in families receiving government assistance more often than others, become dependent on such things when they mature. It's the life they see and know. It shouldn't be accepted as a normal lifestyle.

Yes, there will be some sob stories over such a law, but over time, don't you believe it would become a deterrent?

Extreme is in the eye of the beholder. I can understand some seeing this as extreme. After all, most younger people see food stamps, earned income credit, and other handouts as a right. It shouldn't be, and I don't see this as extreme. Such programs are designed as a safety net. Not a lifestyle.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to the general welfare of our society if we had less tolerance to irresponsibility that cost our society?

See, this is a prime example of somebody that didn't think this through.

And when you brought this up originally, I gave you specific examples of why this would be a terrible, short-sighted idea.

Furthermore, the post includes numerous assumptions and generalizations that you don't really care to back up, but you draw conclusions from.

Example: After all, most younger people see food stamps, earned income credit, and other handouts as a right.

You're also assuming that society would benefit more from the temporary economic savings from the couple not having a child, which is hardly a fact.

[ElNono]

Oh My.

I have repeatedly pointed things out when they happen. how about something else. A fictional example of what you do, that maybe you can wrap your head around.

Fictional situation: I'm at home with my girlfriend, hear a noise, grab my gun, and find a thief holding my girlfriend with a knife. I say "I'll kill you if you don't let her go and drop your knife."

After the story gets to you, you only say something like "he said he was going to kill him!" Such a statement is technically true, but puts the situation out of context, and without the proper context, lets people assume things with their own bias. It usually looks pretty bad.

You repeatedly do such things, repeating commentary out of context.

How about you give me a real example? I mean, if you accuse me of such things, I'm sure it won't be that difficult to find it.

[Winehole23]

I don't misrepresent someone's words when they had proper context.tbh, you do. all the time.

[Borat Sagyidev]

to me, this is breathtakingly extreme. suffice it to say I think the state should have no role in influencing who does and who does not reproduce. basing it all on income is another striking perversity.


I agree to the extent that they still should not have a child, then expect the state to help. If they can do this with the help of family and friends, then there would be no need to prevent a second occurrence from happening.

Under WC guidelines, pieces of trash like Paris Hilton or Britney Spears who can be factually proven as bad parents should carry on, since they can afford to be bad parents.

His social insight is Nazi like. Why argue with someone so hateful and destructive like this, when all they deserve is a bullet in the head?

Oops, that was an extreme comment. Maybe some of you don't understand.




Wouldn't it be advantageous to the general welfare of our society if we had less tolerance to irresponsibility that cost our society?


Wouldn't it be advantageous to society if we educated them properly on birth control and sexually transmitted diseases?
(of course this rational solution is unacceptable to many conservatives)

[mouse]

pssssst!................WC I responded.......

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/kisss.gif

[Wild Cobra]

See, this is a prime example of somebody that didn't think this through.

And when you brought this up originally, I gave you specific examples of why this would be a terrible, short-sighted idea.

I don't recall you having any example that I didn't give what i consider valid counter argument to.


Furthermore, the post includes numerous assumptions and generalizations that you don't really care to back up, but you draw conclusions from.

Example: After all, most younger people see food stamps, earned income credit, and other handouts as a right.

Have you seen what the schools teach these days? They don't come right out and teach that it's a right, but kids do learn of the availability of so many programs, and they aren't treated as the stigma they should be.


You're also assuming that society would benefit more from the temporary economic savings from the couple not having a child, which is hardly a fact.

Really...

I don't think you can make the argument that increasing babies among people who take government assistance as any kind of a positive thing.

[Wild Cobra]

tbh, you do. all the time.
Not my intent. If you have an example in mind you can quickly find, I'd like to see it.

[Winehole23]

I'll point it out next time I see it happen.

[ElNono]

I don't recall you having any example that I didn't give what i consider valid counter argument to.

I'm pretty sure I brought up liability as an argument, and I don't think you ever had a valid counter argument to that. I'm sure I brought other examples too.


Have you seen what the schools teach these days? They don't come right out and teach that it's a right, but kids do learn of the availability of so many programs, and they aren't treated as the stigma they should be.

So, we just have to take your word for it? I've seen what the schools teach these days. I disagree that it supports your broad assumption and generalization. The least I expect is that you back it up.


Really...

I don't think you can make the argument that increasing babies among people who take government assistance as any kind of a positive thing.

If anything, the burden of proof is on you, who's making the claim.

And it's not that difficult to see how more people would be a plus in this country. I think it was WH or RG that pointed out that the US is actually heading towards a population reduction going forward.
For one, they're very likely to be another taxpayer. And you just don't know what they'll become. They could turn out to be a genius. They could be the soldiers that killed OBL. They could turn out to be job-creators.

There's more to "benefiting society" than economics.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll point it out next time I see it happen.
Please do. I'm thinking it's more likely one of the several times I rushed through a thread, and missed some important points someone said. It's not something I do with the intent, when the context is in place.

Time for me to get ready for work.

[mouse]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/30001_1217580214663_1683611204_4150.jpg

[FromWayDowntown]

It seems like the only way that Wild Cobra's views should be seen as extreme is if Wild Cobra himself believes a particular view is extreme. I think forced sterilization -- by way of example -- is an extreme idea (and it appears that I'm not alone in that), but Wild Cobra discounts that as proof of an extreme view because, to him, it's not at all extreme.

So, the litmus test for whether an idea is extreme is whether Wild Cobra will agree that it is extreme? (he asks rhetorically).

I'm not quite sure when I lost the right to keep on own counsel about what is or isn't extreme and to express such opinions to speakers who say things that I find extreme, but I'll make note of Wild Cobra's claimed hegemony when it comes to objectively assessing the relative acceptance of his ideas.


To some extent your words speak for themselves. Your habit of continually revising "what you really meant" and dismissing all objections to what you say as crass misunderstanding (referred to notably by BaselineBum upstream) -- undermines you.

Ultimately, this was my point a few pages ago. Wild Cobra says "X;" someone responds to that by quoting Wild Cobra and saying "'X' is extreme." Having been called on that, Wild Cobra then claims that he didn't really say "X," that he really meant "X-1," claims that his statement was misconstrued, and blasts his critic for being a biased, unthinking ideologue.

It would seem that Wild Cobra frequently either doesn't mean what he writes or doesn't write what he means.

[clambake]

if wc's ideas were reality, he wouldn't exist.

[ElNono]

It would seem that Wild Cobra frequently either doesn't mean what he writes or doesn't write what he means.

Perhaps he's a poor communicator of his own thoughts, and this is all one big misunderstanding.

[FromWayDowntown]

Ultimately, Wild Cobra can think and say whatever he wishes, no matter the frustrations that his choices might create in others.

Far be it from me or anyone else to say or even suggest that he must change his approach to engaging people in this forum.

[ElNono]

I don't think he's ever been censored, so I don't think that's necessarily a concern.

[Agloco]

I see this as another successful troll job on the part of WC.

How many other posters have started a thread to discuss themselves and succeeded in building up 5+ pages of fairly insightful analyses?

Methinks your methods are becoming dangerously refined tbh.

[CuckingFunt]

Rewording what intent? Give me an example


Oh My.

I have repeatedly pointed things out when they happen. how about something else. A fictional example of what you do, that maybe you can wrap your head around.

Fictional situation: I'm at home with my girlfriend, hear a noise, grab my gun, and find a thief holding my girlfriend with a knife. I say "I'll kill you if you don't let her go and drop your knife."

After the story gets to you, you only say something like "he said he was going to kill him!" Such a statement is technically true, but puts the situation out of context, and without the proper context, lets people assume things with their own bias. It usually looks pretty bad.

You repeatedly do such things, repeating commentary out of context.

I'm guessing ElNono wanted something linkable.

[CuckingFunt]

I only use such a tactic when the intent wasn't made, and I do so to expose possibilities of what their words mean. I don't misrepresent someone's words when they had proper context.

One could argue the more effective thing to do in that situation would be to ask that person to clarify their intent.

[CuckingFunt]

I see this as another successful troll job on the part of WC.

How many other posters have started a thread to discuss themselves and succeeded in building up 5+ pages of fairly insightful analyses?

Methinks your methods are becoming dangerously refined tbh.

Not sure if I can agree with the refined bit. It proved an effective strategy, to be sure, but this thread started as one of Cobra's most painfully obvious troll jobs thus far.

[LnGrrrR]

I see it as your lack of trying to understand my position. I see it as you being so hard headed, you can't see past your own biased point of view.

:lol Classic WC.

"It's obviously YOU being wrong, by not bothering to look at my positions or put yourself in my shoes!"

[LnGrrrR]

Wrong again ElNono. I can handle criticism. What I cant handle is repeatedly clarifying a point of view, and still having my intent twisted. That's why I so often accuse you of intentional slander, or stupidity. What else can it be, when your rewording of my viewpoint does not reflect my intent?

When everyone on the board is "unclear" about your position, I find it humorous that instead of re-examining your own position to see if it's as clear as you think it is, you assume that the whole board is purposely trying to goad you into an argument.

[LnGrrrR]

Claiming yourself as a libertarian, and then suggesting state-based sterilization, would probably be considered "extreme" as well.

Supporting warrantless wiretapping, enhanced interrogation, and other avenues of that nature would also be considered "extreme" for a self-professed libertarian.

[spursncowboys]

I see this as another successful troll job on the part of WC.

How many other posters have started a thread to discuss themselves and succeeded in building up 5+ pages of fairly insightful analyses?

Methinks your methods are becoming dangerously refined tbh.

I like it.count me in.

[Winehole23]

If they can do this with the help of family and friends, then there would be no need to prevent a second occurrence from happening.if you allow for that possibility, why do you seek to prevent poor people from having children to begin with?

[Marcus Bryant]

Poor folk ruin the view between the microbrew and the apartment.

[Winehole23]

Yeah they do. Damn paupers.

[Winehole23]

(JM Rhum Agricole Blanc)

[Winehole23]

its a character traitwe heard you the first 150 times

[MaNuMaNiAc]

You get what you see. I rough it out a little more in person, but yeah, I more or less talk like I talk here.

If you come to Texas, can we have a beer? Serious question here.

No problem :toast

[Wild Cobra]

I'm guessing ElNono wanted something linkable.
ElNono wanted me to link a past example. I would be pleased to do so if I thought he would understand my attempt to explain things any better than he did in the past. Some people say the definition of insanity is to expect different results when doing the same thing again. therefore, I chose a different approach.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol Classic WC.

"It's obviously YOU being wrong, by not bothering to look at my positions or put yourself in my shoes!"
OK, tell me. What do you think of people when you repeat something, reword it, try your best to explain it to them, and they still get it wrong?

[JoeChalupa]

I hadn't really noticed or paid much attention to really make a comment but from what I remember I don't find them real extreme or unusual.

[Wild Cobra]

Claiming yourself as a libertarian, and then suggesting state-based sterilization, would probably be considered "extreme" as well.
That sterilization is only in exchange for the government services. As a libertarian, i believe in personal responsibility. I hate the idea of forcing responsibility, but when the actions affect others... Don't those it affects g=have the right to do their best to see the action isn't repeated?

True libertarian policies only work when personal freedoms don't infringe on others. I have pointed out before in the Libertarian party platform that they recognize rules and laws are necessary at times. When someone sees my policy idea as extreme, when all I intend to do is stop the the responsible from having to pay for the irresponsible, I have to wonder if their idea of libertarianism is the extreme position of anarchy.

Supporting warrantless wiretapping, enhanced interrogation, and other avenues of that nature would also be considered "extreme" for a self-professed libertarian.
I see it acceptable in some cases. Too bad the world situations force us to take such action.

I suppose baking terrorists cakes, and trying to be nice to get critical information is as effective.

[Wild Cobra]

if you allow for that possibility, why do you seek to prevent poor people from having children to begin with?
I see you didn't read the originating thread, or misunderstood it.

I advocated having both the father and mother of a child, that they conceived without being able to support the child, to be made such that they couldn't repeat the burden upon tax payers. Only in cases where in exchange for government aide, they be sterilized. This was never about sterilizing poor people like (probably ElNono) masterfully spun it in to.

[Wild Cobra]

He's also shown some reverse racism (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2720169&postcount=57) paranoia/bitterness. Frankly, when it comes to race, his assumptions (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2720179&postcount=59) really sell him short.

Then, there's the disconnect from reality. Somebody that allegedly stalks a person in an attempt to show his technical prowess and after the obvious downfall publicizes his exploit on the internet (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117205) still clueless of what he did wrong, probably needs a part changed.
LOL...

Finally followed those links. It doesn't surprise me that you went to that much effort to find them.

The famous "surgeon quote." So accidental in how much attention it received, but it will be timeless now. Won't it?

I think you forgot the one where I claim supporters of quota based affirmative action are racists, because they believe minorities aren't good enough to compete on a level playing field.

Isn't the proper definition of racism believing that one race is better than another?

[Blake]

LOL...

The famous "surgeon quote." So accidental in how much attention it received, but it will be timeless now. Won't it?


Have you ever retracted it or apologized for it?

[Agloco]

The famous "surgeon quote." So accidental in how much attention it received, but it will be timeless now. Won't it?

Isn't the proper definition of racism believing that one race is better than another?

It certainly is.......


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

[boutons_deux]

Republican Racism is an Air Raid Siren, Not a Dog Whistle

In 2012, Republican candidates are using overt signals, what are for all intents and purposes blaring air raid sirens and signal flares that race, whiteness, and American identity are deeply intertwined. The appeals to white racism by the Tea Party GOP during the primaries are not background rhythms or subdued choruses. They are the driving guitars of Blue Oyster Cult's "Godzilla," the chorus of Jay-Z's "99 Problems," the opening moments of the Notorious B.I.G's "Kick in the Door," or the flipped samples of Justice's "Stress". You feel it. You know it. To deny the obvious is to close one's ears to a driving drum line and cadence that travels up through your shoes...and to your bones.

How else can a fair observer excuse away Republican arguments that blacks are lazy parasites, whose children should live in work houses and pick up mops and brooms to learn a work ethic, that "illegal" immigrants should be killed by electric fences, or Muslim Americans should be subject to racial profiling, marked like the "Juden" of Nazi Germany?

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153819/republican_racism_is_an_air_raid_siren,_not_a_dog_ whistle?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

[ElNono]

Finally followed those links. It doesn't surprise me that you went to that much effort to find them.

There's a search function on the board. All I had to search for was "black surgeon" and "stalking".


The famous "surgeon quote." So accidental in how much attention it received, but it will be timeless now. Won't it?

I dont' think "accidental" is the word I would use to describe it. "inflammatory" and "racist" would probably define it better.


I think you forgot the one where I claim supporters of quota based affirmative action are racists, because they believe minorities aren't good enough to compete on a level playing field.

Isn't the proper definition of racism believing that one race is better than another?

I think you're free to have and voice any opinion you want to have, even if I don't agree with it.

That doesn't mean I think you're right, and will probably point that out too.

[ElNono]

I see you didn't read the originating thread, or misunderstood it.

I advocated having both the father and mother of a child, that they conceived without being able to support the child, to be made such that they couldn't repeat the burden upon tax payers. Only in cases where in exchange for government aide, they be sterilized. This was never about sterilizing poor people like (probably ElNono) masterfully spun it in to.

To qualify for government aid you need to meet certain income criteria, which vastly points to poor people.

So you're either trolling or terribly dumb. Looking at your post history I would guess the latter.

[JoeChalupa]

Still haven't read much extreme views yet.

[Winehole23]

Still haven't read much extreme views yet. going by this thread, the record appears to be thin. maybe the extreme thing is a red herring.

[mouse]

How did ElNono not make my top 10 politics poster list?

[JoeChalupa]

How did ElNono not make my top 10 politics poster list?

Now that is extreme.

[LnGrrrR]

Finally followed those links. It doesn't surprise me that you went to that much effort to find them.


Didn't you specifically request links? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

OK, tell me. What do you think of people when you repeat something, reword it, try your best to explain it to them, and they still get it wrong?

I usually tend to think I'm not explaining it correctly, and then try a different tactic to explain it. I don't think that they are secretly trying to misunderstand it in order to aggravate or annoy me.

[LnGrrrR]

That sterilization is only in exchange for the government services. As a libertarian, i believe in personal responsibility. I hate the idea of forcing responsibility, but when the actions affect others... Don't those it affects g=have the right to do their best to see the action isn't repeated?

Not really. A lot of actions affect others. Hey, the bankers stole a bunch of money from us and bailed themselves out. I guess that means we should shoot all CEOs who need money from the US gov't, as that will prevent CEOs from borrowing money from the US gov't in the future.


True libertarian policies only work when personal freedoms don't infringe on others. I have pointed out before in the Libertarian party platform that they recognize rules and laws are necessary at times. When someone sees my policy idea as extreme, when all I intend to do is stop the the responsible from having to pay for the irresponsible, I have to wonder if their idea of libertarianism is the extreme position of anarchy.

It's extreme because, instead of just advocating for the abolishment of said program, or even some countermeasures put into law, you advocate government sterilization. I don't see how much more extreme you could be. Why not just, I don't know, deny more than one or two claims?


I suppose baking terrorists cakes, and trying to be nice to get critical information is as effective.

Many former interrogators have said that being nice is as effective at getting critical information. It's been posted multiple times in this forum, actually. I think other posters would be willing to back me up on that.

[mouse]

Now that is extreme.

I left you 40 dollars of high grade smoke in the mailbox and all you can leave is a 20 dollar bill? no beer? Dam Joe your one tight vato I shall call you

JoeChajewpa from now on.

[MannyIsGod]

I see this as another successful troll job on the part of WC.

How many other posters have started a thread to discuss themselves and succeeded in building up 5+ pages of fairly insightful analyses?

Methinks your methods are becoming dangerously refined tbh.

I don't know how anyone could look at this thread and not further brlive WC is just a troll.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I don't know how anyone could look at this thread and not further brlive WC is just a troll.

Wouldn't that make him one of the greatest trolls in the history of these here internets??

there's your angle WC... go with it. Beats the alternative tbh

[MannyIsGod]

He's without a doubt the best. I hope to learn who it is one day.

[mouse]

I don't know how anyone could look at this thread and not further brlive WC is just a troll.

Every TRoll has a name.

[mouse]

He's without a doubt the best. I hope to learn who it is one day.

ST has private messaging.

[Wild Cobra]

Have you ever retracted it or apologized for it?
Why should I?

The intent was to make people ask themselves if quota systems were OK. When schools have limited enrollment opportunities and take the best of people applying, then are forced to refuse some of those best candidates to the next qualified black, female, Hispanic, or whatever to meet a quota...

Is that right?

Just how far down the list did they have to go?

The best response back from that threat was they were still qualified, because they passed. How many of you make fun of president Bush's grades, even though he passed from a top notch school?

Is just passing always good enough?

[Wild Cobra]

He's without a doubt the best. I hope to learn who it is one day.
If I'm ever in the area, I'll stop by Scott's place for some brew.

[mouse]

WC poster of 2012

[Wild Cobra]

To qualify for government aid you need to meet certain income criteria, which vastly points to poor people.

So you're either trolling or terribly dumb. Looking at your post history I would guess the latter.

Yes I know. A square is a rectangle. What you forget, it a rectangle is seldom a square.

Is that your excuse? Poor people are entitled to lack responsibility?

[Wild Cobra]

I usually tend to think I'm not explaining it correctly, and then try a different tactic to explain it. I don't think that they are secretly trying to misunderstand it in order to aggravate or annoy me.
Hence, this thread.

[Wild Cobra]

It's extreme because, instead of just advocating for the abolishment of said program, or even some countermeasures put into law, you advocate government sterilization. I don't see how much more extreme you could be. Why not just, I don't know, deny more than one or two claims?

But I do advocate elimination long term. I'm OK with the safety net, just not the hammock. Problem is, not enough people agree with me, so I will compromise.

[Winehole23]

I see you didn't read the originating thread, or misunderstood it.Of course not. My bad.


I advocated having both the father and mother of a child, that they conceived without being able to support the child, to be made such that they couldn't repeat the burden upon tax payers. Only in cases where in exchange for government aide, they be sterilized. This was never about sterilizing poor people like (probably ElNono) masterfully spun it ok. providing an incentive to exchange one's fertility for a handout is completely and diabolically extreme.

You're advocating sterilizing both parents, right?

[Winehole23]

How do you suppose everybody should be should be sterilized?

[Wild Cobra]

going by this thread, the record appears to be thin. maybe the extreme thing is a red herring.
Another reason I started this thread. Every one has an extreme view or two. Anyone who claims they are strictly moderate, I think, is too yellow to maintain a position.

I don't think of myself as extreme. Not in general.

[Wild Cobra]

ok. providing an incentive to exchange one's fertility for a handout is completely and diabolically extreme.

You're advocating sterilizing both parents, right?
Yes. Are you advocating unlimited unaccountability? Shouldn't we do what we can to prevent repeating such actions?

If they, as a team in conceiving a child, must rely on tax dollars to raise a child when they decide to have a child, or decide to take the risk of having a child, then shouldn't we, as looking out for the general welfare of our nation, do all we can to reduce the social burden on tax dollars?

Do you have a better solution?

[Wild Cobra]

How do you suppose everybody should be should be sterilized?
A vasectomy is a simple procedure. A woman having her tubes tied is a little more complex, but still simple a surgeries go.

[Winehole23]

Vasectomies are reversible sometimes. I have not heard that about tubal ligations. Is there a doctor in the house?

[Winehole23]

Do you have a better solution?Not undertaking yours is a gr8 one, imho.

[Winehole23]

and no. I'm not a policy wonk. I don't do white papers on big government solutions for social ills. that's more your style.

[Wild Cobra]

Vasectomies are reversible sometimes. I have not heard that about tubal ligations. Is there a doctor in the house?
They are both reversible, but not a guarantee. Plus the longer they go tied, the less likelihood the reversal will work. Once a couple can afford to have these procedures done, they probably aren't relying on the social system.

I had a vasectomy more than a decade ago. By choice. Pretty simple shit.

[Winehole23]

I have no solution, and yours is terrible. If there were a scoreboard for this subforum, how would it reflect that?

[Wild Cobra]

and no. I'm not a policy wonk. I don't do white papers on big government solutions for social ills. that's more your style.
Then let's just try to put a stop to the welfare system.

[Winehole23]

zero to -1?

[Wild Cobra]

I have no solution, and yours is terrible. If there were a scoreboard for this subforum, how would it reflect that?
So you're OK with spending countless billions for other people's irresponsibility?

[ElNono]

Vasectomies are reversible sometimes. I have not heard that about tubal ligations. Is there a doctor in the house?

They're reversible in about 98% of the cases. But like just any other kind of surgery in that area, there are always severe risks associated with it (including that not always both tubes can be reopened, and obviously permanent infertility being another possibility).

I wondered back when the thread was made, how much is going to cost the government when one of these mandated surgeries go wrong. I would think that since it's a mandate, they would be liable for the consequences of such mishaps.

I don't think I ever received a reasonable answer to this. (I don't think "tough luck" is a reasonable answer either).

[ElNono]

Then let's just try to put a stop to the welfare system.


So you're OK with spending countless billions for other people's irresponsibility?

How about we cut funding for some of these programs, and we avoid getting in the surgery business entirely? Too much common sense?

[Wild Cobra]

They're reversible in about 98% of the cases. But like just any other kind of surgery in that area, there are always severe risks associated with it (including that not always both tubes can be reopened, and obviously permanent infertility being another possibility).

I wondered back when the thread was made, how much is going to cost the government when one of these mandated surgeries go wrong. I would think that since it's a mandate, they would be liable for the consequences of such mishaps.

I don't think I ever received a reasonable answer to this. (I don't think "tough luck" is a reasonable answer either).
It's not a mandated procedure. It's a requirement to get government aide over ones irresponsibility. Such litigation options would be closed as part of the deal.

[ElNono]

Yes I know. A square is a rectangle. What you forget, it a rectangle is seldom a square.

Is that your excuse? Poor people are entitled to lack responsibility?

So you agree you're talking about poor people after denying you were talking about poor people? :lol

This is why it's very difficult to have a serious conversation with you, and you can't say I didn't give you another shot here.

[Winehole23]

Then let's just try to put a stop to the welfare system.see, that's extreme too. shitcan Medicare/Medcaid plus Social Security, plus AFDC and all that hazarai?

it can be done, but not without significant, probably extreme, social pain. are you sure you've thought this through?

[Wild Cobra]

How about we cut funding for some of these programs, and we avoid getting in the surgery business entirely? Too much common sense?
I'll bet you are one who calls a cut what our representatives so. Not increasing the next annual budget by 10%.

Do you think we should pay money to people to have children?

[Winehole23]

So you're OK with spending countless billions for other people's irresponsibility?I don't see that I've given you cause to believe that. Do you remember the little talk we had about the mindreading remark?

[Wild Cobra]

So you agree you're talking about poor people after denying you were talking about poor people? :lol

This is why it's very difficult to have a serious conversation with you, and you can't say I didn't give you another shot here.
Of course it affects poor people, because those who can afford the expenses, as you point out, don't qualify. Is that any reason not to?

Your reaction obviously means you think the poor are entitled to other people's money.

[ElNono]

It's not a mandated procedure. It's a requirement to get government aide over ones irresponsibility. Such litigation options would be closed as part of the deal.

You still have to backup the contention that people have children "irresponsibly", whatever that means, and how that determination is made.

And if that determination is made, why not just deny the aid, period?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see that I've given you cause to believe that. Do you remember the little talk we had about the mindreading remark?
Sometimes refusal to try to address a problem is because you agree with the status quo. Since you seem to have no better solution than I offer, why is it extreme?

[Winehole23]

Your reaction obviously means you think the poor are entitled to other people's money.mindreading!

[ElNono]

I'll bet you are one who calls a cut what our representatives so. Not increasing the next annual budget by 10%.

Do you think we should pay money to people to have children?

I think some people have legitimate needs for aid that charity alone can't take care of. The problem here is that you're accusing certain people of systematically abusing the system (without really showing how much of a pervasive problem this is and thus if your policy makes sense implementing at all).

If it's so easy to recognize who these people are (you're going to be asking them to go through a surgical procedure, so you know how they are), why not just attack the actual problem (abusing the system) and deny aid instead?

[Winehole23]

Sometimes refusal to try to address a problem is because you agree with the status quo. Since you seem to have no better solution than I offer, why is it extreme?it offers people an incentive to sterilize themselves and it gives the state power where it ought to have none.

it is a diabolically manipulative and totally extreme policy in my opinion.

[ElNono]

Of course it affects poor people, because those who can afford the expenses, as you point out, don't qualify. Is that any reason not to?

Your reaction obviously means you think the poor are entitled to other people's money.

How did you reach that conclusion?. :lol

I pointed out how you first deny that this is only about the poor, then tacitly admit this is about the poor. Did I misconstrue anything you said?

[ElNono]

mindreading!

First line of defense

[ElNono]

BTW, I offered an alternative, that's probably cheaper and substantially less extreme too.
It makes sense and attacks the crux of the problem. Why wouldn't that work?

[Wild Cobra]

You still have to backup the contention that people have children "irresponsibly", whatever that means, and how that determination is made.
What is so difficult about it? I answered your questions before, in the original thread. I can't help but see you as some hard headed pundit that won't listen to others point of view. There will be a gray area that can be debated. Will you at least acknowledge that there are cases where people shouldn't be having children?

And if that determination is made, why not just deny the aid, period?
I would be all for solidly denying aide to those who cannot afford it, if unforeseen circumstances wasn't a normal thing in life. As I have repeatedly said in so many threads, I have no problem with safety nets. Just when they become a hammock.

[ElNono]

What prevents people from sterilizing, then using the money to do the reversal, have another kid, and sterilize again?

[Winehole23]

Sometimes refusal to try to address a problem is because you agree with the status quo.if you're not part of the solution, you're a gas or a solid.

[ElNono]

What is so difficult about it? I answered your questions before, in the original thread. I can't help but see you as some hard headed pundit that won't listen to others point of view. There will be a gray area that can be debated. Will you at least acknowledge that there are cases where people shouldn't be having children?

I'm asking for details on your idea, and I've engaged you in respectful conversation. It's your idea. You said those requesting aid qualify, except for those in temporary dire straits. At which point does having a children goes from "responsible" to "irresponsible". I'm sure you have that line drawn in your head if you think that can be determined.

I think having a baby is a big responsibility. I also think some people plan for it, and some people don't, but rather not abort (due to many reasons that are well known). Going through pregnancy and delivery takes time, and I don't think anybody knows with exact certainty what life is going to look like months, even years from now. Some people might hit a rough patch and take no time to recover, some other might take a long time, some might never recover. I think what you're trying to define as far as "responsible" vs "irresponsible" is a lot more difficult that you make it out to be.


I would be all for solidly denying aide to those who cannot afford it, if unforeseen circumstances wasn't a normal thing in life. As I have repeatedly said in so many threads, I have no problem with safety nets. Just when they become a hammock.

So why not just do that? No surgeries, no verification that surgeries were done. Makes too much sense?

[Wild Cobra]

I think some people have legitimate needs for aid that charity alone can't take care of. The problem here is that you're accusing certain people of systematically abusing the system (without really showing how much of a pervasive problem this is and thus if your policy makes sense implementing at all).
You are flat out wrong. We discussed the differences in the original thread. This is one reason why you are so irritating. You appear to refuse to accept things I say that don't fit in your attack against me. Legitimate needs fall under the "safety net" concept.

If it's so easy to recognize who these people are (you're going to be asking them to go through a surgical procedure, so you know how they are), why not just attack the actual problem (abusing the system) and deny aid instead?
That's my point. Deny aide, unless they are willing to show it will not happen again. However, should we give no option for them to take care of an innocent life, or do you advocate we take an authoritarian approach, and take the baby away for adoption?

Would a responsible person risk having a child they couldn't afford to have if they had no aid option available?

Let me ask you this. Can a person buy a car without being able to finance it? Now we can't treat a baby like a product we license and sell, but why can any reasonable person advocate a person has the moral right to have a child they can't afford? Shouldn't there be some effective drawback, as a deterrent?

What is your solution, or do you not have a problem with the millions of people who live on tax payer subsidies from their own irresponsibility?

[Wild Cobra]

What prevents people from sterilizing, then using the money to do the reversal, have another kid, and sterilize again?
If they are able to save enough money to do that, then they either are now financially able to support themselves and a child, or they are effectively abusing the child or system and deserve jail time. I have no problem to have the procedure reversed, once they are financially independent.

[Wild Cobra]

if you're not part of the solution, you're a gas or a solid.
LOL...

A gas or a solid can be part of the solution though.

[Winehole23]

sure.

all I meant was, just because you have an inference in your mind, does not mean it is the only one, or the most obvious, or the most reasonable. it does not even mean it even applies to the person you think it applies to. do you follow?

[Wild Cobra]

sure.

all I meant was, just because you have an inference in your mind, does not mean it is the only one, or the most obvious, or the most reasonable. it does not even mean it even applies to the person you think it applies to. do you follow?
So doesn't the question or accusation help find the truth?

[Winehole23]

KutXyPEEbQs

[Winehole23]

So doesn't the question or accusation help find the truth?as an example of what not to do it's great

[Winehole23]

They are both reversible, but not a guarantee. Nicely hedged. Thank you, Dr. Wild Cobra.

[Wild Cobra]

Nicely hedged. Thank you, Dr. Wild Cobra.
Maybe you should double check with that quack who claims to be my surgeon.

[Winehole23]

do petty online tormentors induce aggrieved parties to cry out in the agony of truth? sometimes, yes, but that's a piss poor goal to set for yourself.

[Winehole23]

Maybe you should double check with that quack who claims to be my surgeon.you know that's a joke, right?

[Wild Cobra]

do petty online tormentors induce aggrieved parties to cry out in the agony of truth? sometimes, yes, but that's a piss poor goal to set for yourself.
Can you elaborate on how you think that applies to me?

[Wild Cobra]

you know he's a joke, right?
Fixed.

Yes he is, isn't he.

Of course I know you were making light of my remarks, after all, I replied after you asked of there was a doctor in the house. No harm, no foul, hence my joke about the troll.

[Winehole23]

Can you elaborate on how you think that applies to me?it don't necessarily. you asked if posing questions leads us to truth. I pointed out it can certainly lead us away, with fingers pointing to this thread.

I apologize for the petulant capper. It relates more to me, maybe.

[Winehole23]

mother hen role is a thankless jobhow's the pay?

[Wild Cobra]

how's the pay?
Well, he claims to have a nice Mercedes.

Clambake...

How much did you say your oil changes cost?

[Winehole23]

Well, he claims to have a nice Mercedes.Mother hen pay? I disbelieve it.

[Wild Cobra]

Mother hen pay? I disbelieve it.
I have a hard time believing he makes that type of money too. But...

my car has been rushed to the OR..... (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131784)

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/carrushedtoOR.jpg

[Winehole23]

lights the burner with $100 bills?

[Wild Cobra]

lights the burner with $100 bills?
I think CC was being sarcastic. Clambake however...

I can't see someone who doesn't know how to use a cap key, and has the demeanor here that he has, as being someone who can succeed that well.

I wonder if he's the oil lube guy who services those cars, and fantasizes about having one.

[Winehole23]

I can't see someone who doesn't know how to use a cap keyoverrated

[Wild Cobra]

overrated
True.

Probably my bias and dislike for the asshole.

[Winehole23]

Well, this appears as a total failure of my attempt.

Does anyone have a direct, linkable example of my extreme view(s)?playing the FuckingCunt card.

since it's in the thread, no need to link, righty-o?

[Winehole23]

don't think for a minute that because you waved off the previous no one remembers

[Wild Cobra]

I don't follow what you are trying to get at.

[Winehole23]

you have extreme views. they're here in the thread for everyone to read.

[Wild Cobra]

you have extreme views. they're here in the thread for everyone to read.
I guess we disagree on what is extreme and what isn't.

[Winehole23]

wird

[ElNono]

You are flat out wrong. We discussed the differences in the original thread. This is one reason why you are so irritating. You appear to refuse to accept things I say that don't fit in your attack against me. Legitimate needs fall under the "safety net" concept.

So I asked you where the line is between "responsible" and "irresponsible", but you never answered. Where is this imaginary line? You must know what it is, seeing you're proposing the threat this people differently. You didn't specify that in the original thread, thus the reason I'm asking.


That's my point. Deny aide, unless they are willing to show it will not happen again.

Why not just deny the aid, period?


However, should we give no option for them to take care of an innocent life, or do you advocate we take an authoritarian approach, and take the baby away for adoption?

Why would anybody do that? You would just tell them that they don't qualify for the aid, and then they would need to find a different source of money (charity, a job or what have you)


Would a responsible person risk having a child they couldn't afford to have if they had no aid option available?

It seems that's very clear cut to you when somebody can or cannot afford it. It's not as clear cut to me. That's why I was asking you for more details above.


Let me ask you this. Can a person buy a car without being able to finance it? Now we can't treat a baby like a product we license and sell, but why can any reasonable person advocate a person has the moral right to have a child they can't afford? Shouldn't there be some effective drawback, as a deterrent?

Advocating and requiring a crippling surgery are two very different things. Plus I'm certainly against government regulating morality. It's a slippery slope that seemingly has no end. Once you're on that train, what other moral choices does the government gets to dictate? Where does it end?



What is your solution, or do you not have a problem with the millions of people who live on tax payer subsidies from their own irresponsibility?

Well, first of all, you would need to back up the contention that there's "millions of people who live on tax payer subsidies from their own irresponsibility". Do you have any figures that back up that claim?

Second of all, you have to show me that the savings from those cases outweigh the long term benefits for society from having that extra person.

After all, you're not after temporary economic gain, but a more overall "beneficial to society".

[Wild Cobra]

So I asked you where the line is between "responsible" and "irresponsible", but you never answered. Where is this imaginary line? You must know what it is, seeing you're proposing the threat this people differently. You didn't specify that in the original thread, thus the reason I'm asking.

I don't see where that is so difficult, except there will be some shades of gray. Few things are black and white. Would you agree a couple, where neither is working, maybe both living with their parents, would be irresponsible to conceive a child? How about a couple that works, but has very little money after paying rent, utilities, etc. It comes down to finances. It comes down to if government assistance is asked for or not. If it's asked for, then what has changed since the conception would be used to show if they qualify or not for the aid without the strings attached.

Don't ask me to try to come up with the thousands of possible qualifiers.


Why not just deny the aid, period?

Why are you pushing to the extreme? Isn't my answer good enough that I believe in the safety net system? Is someone being irresponsible if they were an anaquate provider, then suddenly gets laid off of work?


Why would anybody do that? You would just tell them that they don't qualify for the aid, and then they would need to find a different source of money (charity, a job or what have you)

And if they can't find a job, or charity resources are running low? If you are advocating cutting them off 100% without an option, I could call you the extreme one, you know. I want to promote using charitable resources first. However, if there is nothing else to be found, why do you advocate no help at all from the government? My intent is to dramatically downsize the social spending. Not eliminate it. When we find better solutions in the future, maybe that can become a worthy goal.


It seems that's very clear cut to you when somebody can or cannot afford it. It's not as clear cut to me. That's why I was asking you for more details above.

Why isn't it clear? Can't you do basic financial math, projecting future costs of a lifestyle change?


Advocating and requiring a crippling surgery are two very different things. Plus I'm certainly against government regulating morality. It's a slippery slope that seemingly has no end. Once you're on that train, what other moral choices does the government gets to dictate? Where does it end?

So you support pedophiles, polygamy, incest, etc?

Most people will disagree with where a law should start and end. However, I'm not talking about regulating morality. I'm talking about holding people accountable for their level of responsibility. I am only advocating this because of the tax burden it places on tax payers. This is the only time a libertarian has the right to desire some kind of government intervention. When it affects the responsible people. Libertarianism only works when you maintain a society where people are accountable for their actions.


Well, first of all, you would need to back up the contention that there's "millions of people who live on tax payer subsidies from their own irresponsibility". Do you have any figures that back up that claim?

How many people live in poverty, as a cycle? I think it's crazy to ask for such a thing. You can look up food stamp statistics, WIC program statistics, Earned Income Credit statistics, etc. as easily as anyone. We probably have between 40% to 48% of our population being subsidized by the rest. I make that claim because it is 48% if income tax filers that either pay no federal income tax, or get money from others in tax credits.


Second of all, you have to show me that the savings from those cases outweigh the long term benefits for society from having that extra person.

Isn't it logical that a simple operation is cheaper than the statistical amount paid?


After all, you're not after temporary economic gain, but a more overall "beneficial to society".

This is more about economics. Since the welfare system started in the 60's it has become larger than military spending. A cycle of dependency has developed. Children growing up under these systems don't see parents working as role models, so yes, it is about society too. With single unwed mothers, children see their mothers collecting food stamps, sometimes receiving child support, often the mother isn't working, and it's what they see as a lifestyle.

We need to turn the wheels back to the 50's way of thinking when it comes to responsibility. Our society as a whole has so little responsibility, it's ridiculous. If we want to see a better future for our kids, we need to try to change what is wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

wird
I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess by your last three posts, you had a wee bit too much to drink?

[ElNono]

I don't see where that is so difficult, except there will be some shades of gray. Few things are black and white. Would you agree a couple, where neither is working, maybe both living with their parents, would be irresponsible to conceive a child? How about a couple that works, but has very little money after paying rent, utilities, etc. It comes down to finances. It comes down to if government assistance is asked for or not. If it's asked for, then what has changed since the conception would be used to show if they qualify or not for the aid without the strings attached.

Don't ask me to try to come up with the thousands of possible qualifiers.

If it's not so difficult, then why there's "thousands of possible qualifiers"?
Just tell me what the criteria is. I doubt government will institute a program where there's "thousands of possible qualifiers". There's probably some guidelines, unless you're saying it should be entirely arbitrary.

I definitely do not agree with the examples you provided as examples of "irresponsible". If anything, I want to hear why they don't have jobs, and I much rather the government aids them getting a job than requiring them to undergo surgery, which won't make them any more productive to society.


Why are you pushing to the extreme? Isn't my answer good enough that I believe in the safety net system? Is someone being irresponsible if they were an anaquate provider, then suddenly gets laid off of work?

But wouldn't that person fit in your exception criteria? The temporary dire straits part? So that person doesn't have a problem. We're obviously talking about those that would qualify within your "irresponsible" definition.
If you feel they're just abusing the system, why do you think they should be rewarded with aid?

Heck, let's do a middle-ground solution and only give them half. When there's not enough money in your house, you adjust to the reality of the situation, right? Why don't just do the same in this case? If there's so many irresponsible out there, this would be huge savings, right?


And if they can't find a job, or charity resources are running low? If you are advocating cutting them off 100% without an option, I could call you the extreme one, you know. I want to promote using charitable resources first. However, if there is nothing else to be found, why do you advocate no help at all from the government? My intent is to dramatically downsize the social spending. Not eliminate it. When we find better solutions in the future, maybe that can become a worthy goal.

If they can't find anything, you provide the aid while you help them find something so they can be productive again. You still haven't explained how requiring them to have a surgery "dramatically downsize the social spending". It doesn't force them to go out there and get a job.


Why isn't it clear? Can't you do basic financial math, projecting future costs of a lifestyle change?

If everybody could predict their financial future, then nobody would have financial problems, thus this whole retarded idea wouldn't exist in the first place. There's no certainties when it comes to the future. And going through a pregnancy and raising a child is a matter of years, not weeks or just months.


So you support pedophiles, polygamy, incest, etc?

:lol do you think the only reason those things are outlawed are just moral?
There's both medical and contractual reasons why those things are outlawed.


Most people will disagree with where a law should start and end. However, I'm not talking about regulating morality. I'm talking about holding people accountable for their level of responsibility. I am only advocating this because of the tax burden it places on tax payers. This is the only time a libertarian has the right to desire some kind of government intervention. When it affects the responsible people. Libertarianism only works when you maintain a society where people are accountable for their actions.

How does a surgery requirement holds people 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.


How many people live in poverty, as a cycle? I think it's crazy to ask for such a thing. You can look up food stamp statistics, WIC program statistics, Earned Income Credit statistics, etc. as easily as anyone. We probably have between 40% to 48% of our population being subsidized by the rest. I make that claim because it is 48% if income tax filers that either pay no federal income tax, or get money from others in tax credits.

Sounds like that's a problem with the tax code. Or you're seriously advocating that 40% to 48% people undergo crippling surgery?
Isn't that going to hurt the country more in the long term?

BTW, about 40 million people received foodstamps assistance (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/26/most-food-stamp-recipients-have-no-earned-income/) in 2010, and that's largely due to the recession. That's about 13% of the population, and includes everyone, those that require temporarily and those that might not. Perhaps the problem isn't as bad or widespread as you think it is.

Ultimately what's going to to reduce social spending is when the people that can work get back to work and off welfare. Surgery is not making them work.


Isn't it logical that a simple operation is cheaper than the statistical amount paid?

No it's not. Because it isn't just a simple operation. You're also not adding the potential contributions from one or more future workers and taxpayers. Those unborn kids are definitely not going to be working, paying their taxes, and benefiting society.


This is more about economics. Since the welfare system started in the 60's it has become larger than military spending. A cycle of dependency has developed. Children growing up under these systems don't see parents working as role models, so yes, it is about society too. With single unwed mothers, children see their mothers collecting food stamps, sometimes receiving child support, often the mother isn't working, and it's what they see as a lifestyle.

Can you back that up? Programs like WIC only last as long as the kids are 5 years old and only as long as your income is below a certain level. There's been laws since at least 1996 that prevent women from staying indefinitely on welfare.

Do you realize that Reagan's "Welfare Queen" tale was fictional, right?


We need to turn the wheels back to the 50's way of thinking when it comes to responsibility. Our society as a whole has so little responsibility, it's ridiculous. If we want to see a better future for our kids, we need to try to change what is wrong.

It's a completely different world. Back then we had a manufacturing nation. After the war the economy was fairly stable and growing. The federal government was not in charge of welfare at all, it was the states that took care of that. The US population was half of what it is today.

I'm not against reducing some costs, trimming bureaucracy and going after those that abuse the system. I don't think mass vasectomies will solve that problem. As a matter of fact, mass vasectomies will likely ensure that the better future will only see less kids.

[Stringer_Bell]

I guess we disagree on what is extreme and what isn't.

But that's exactly what makes you extreme...everyone else agrees on it except for you. And and and, if you weren't so extreme - you'd see it! See?

[LnGrrrR]

But I do advocate elimination long term. I'm OK with the safety net, just not the hammock. Problem is, not enough people agree with me, so I will compromise.

Forced sterilization is your compromise? :)

[Winehole23]

I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess by your last three posts, you had a wee bit too much to drink?If you understood the posts it is just possible I was not drunk enough yet.

[Wild Cobra]

But that's exactly what makes you extreme...everyone else agrees on it except for you. And and and, if you weren't so extreme - you'd see it! See?

I see...

Because 90% of the population says the world is flat, but I say it's round... I am wrong.

OK... Got it.

[Wild Cobra]

Forced sterilization is your compromise? :)
Please show me where I advocate forced sterilization.

[Winehole23]

say they take the money and fail to report for surgery. what happens then?

[Wild Cobra]

If you understood the posts it is just possible I was not drunk enough yet.
LOL...

Maybe I didn't have enough. By the time I read them, I only had two tall Three Olives Grape mixed with V-8 Fusion Cranberry/Blackberry.

http://www.liquormart.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/600x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/0/4/04577_7.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

say they take the money and fail to report for surgery. what happens then?
I'm not going to try to work out all the details. I'm only focusing on the broader picture. I think the best thing would be to schedule the surgery as quick as possible, then if they miss the appointment, suspend government aide until they follow through.

On my first Vodka/Fusion mix now.

[Winehole23]

that's for people who don't like booze imho. however, pick yer poison.

[Winehole23]

I'm not going to try to work out all the details.not interested in your own idea anymore? what a shame.

[Winehole23]

Good.

I got you to admit you intentionally provoke people.

What good does that do in discussions?leads to truth, you suggested elsewhere. change your tune much?

[Winehole23]

when you are provocative, consciousness is being raised. when we do it, it is petty partisan sniping.

(retires in sackcloth and ashes)

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see where that is so difficult, except there will be some shades of gray. Few things are black and white. Would you agree a couple, where neither is working, maybe both living with their parents, would be irresponsible to conceive a child? How about a couple that works, but has very little money after paying rent, utilities, etc. It comes down to finances. It comes down to if government assistance is asked for or not. If it's asked for, then what has changed since the conception would be used to show if they qualify or not for the aid without the strings attached.

Don't ask me to try to come up with the thousands of possible qualifiers.

If it's not so difficult, then why there's "thousands of possible qualifiers"?
Just tell me what the criteria is. I doubt government will institute a program where there's "thousands of possible qualifiers". There's probably some guidelines, unless you're saying it should be entirely arbitrary.

The trigger to see if a couple should be required to have surgery would be the request for government aide. If nothing changed from when they conceived, to when they asked for assistance, then I see that as an automatic denial of assistance unless they opt to have the surgery. I only say thousands because I an not trying to look at all possible mitigating circumstances. however, if one or both had jobs and their income could have provided the necessary income, then a layoff occurred, this would be reason to treat the handout as a safety net, and not require surgery for the handout. i don't see much need to work out all the reasons unless there is ever serious talk about such a system.


I definitely do not agree with the examples you provided as examples of "irresponsible". If anything, I want to hear why they don't have jobs, and I much rather the government aids them getting a job than requiring them to undergo surgery, which won't make them any more productive to society.

If they didn't have jobs when they conceived, then they are irresponsible. I see no way to argue otherwise on that. Please enlighten me.




Why are you pushing to the extreme? Isn't my answer good enough that I believe in the safety net system? Is someone being irresponsible if they were an adequate provider, then suddenly gets laid off of work?

But wouldn't that person fit in your exception criteria?
Yes. That is why you are extreme if you advocate to cut everyone off.

The temporary dire straits part? So that person doesn't have a problem. We're obviously talking about those that would qualify within your "irresponsible" definition.
If you feel they're just abusing the system, why do you think they should be rewarded with aid?

The aide comes with the sterilization, to help make certain it's a one time event. If they can't have children again, it can't happen again. Right?


Heck, let's do a middle-ground solution and only give them half. When there's not enough money in your house, you adjust to the reality of the situation, right? Why don't just do the same in this case? If there's so many irresponsible out there, this would be huge savings, right?

You mean like making the family have only half servings for an innocent child they shouldn't of had?




And if they can't find a job, or charity resources are running low? If you are advocating cutting them off 100% without an option, I could call you the extreme one, you know. I want to promote using charitable resources first. However, if there is nothing else to be found, why do you advocate no help at all from the government? My intent is to dramatically downsize the social spending. Not eliminate it. When we find better solutions in the future, maybe that can become a worthy goal.

If they can't find anything, you provide the aid while you help them find something so they can be productive again.
That's fine. i don't have a problem with job assistance programs. Still, they are being irresponsible if the conceive a child before they can afford to have one. This should be a step they take before having a child Not after.

You still haven't explained how requiring them to have a surgery "dramatically downsize the social spending". It doesn't force them to go out there and get a job.

I would think that's obvious.




Why isn't it clear? Can't you do basic financial math, projecting future costs of a lifestyle change?

If everybody could predict their financial future, then nobody would have financial problems, thus this whole retarded idea wouldn't exist in the first place. There's no certainties when it comes to the future. And going through a pregnancy and raising a child is a matter of years, not weeks or just months.

I'm not talking about long term changes. I'm talking about if their current income is enough to support a new baby in the equation.




So you support pedophiles, polygamy, incest, etc?

:lol do you think the only reason those things are outlawed are just moral?
There's both medical and contractual reasons why those things are outlawed.

And some people would say raising a child in poverty is child abuse. Why is my idea so different then?




Most people will disagree with where a law should start and end. However, I'm not talking about regulating morality. I'm talking about holding people accountable for their level of responsibility. I am only advocating this because of the tax burden it places on tax payers. This is the only time a libertarian has the right to desire some kind of government intervention. When it affects the responsible people. Libertarianism only works when you maintain a society where people are accountable for their actions.

How does a surgery requirement holds people 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.

I can't believe you are asking such a thing. People would know that it will not be an easy path should they deviate from some expected responsibility standards. It will be a deterrent to some, or many. Now I'm not going to attempt to quantify how many, but I say it would be foolish to say it would make no change in peoples actions.




How many people live in poverty, as a cycle? I think it's crazy to ask for such a thing. You can look up food stamp statistics, WIC program statistics, Earned Income Credit statistics, etc. as easily as anyone. We probably have between 40% to 48% of our population being subsidized by the rest. I make that claim because it is 48% if income tax filers that either pay no federal income tax, or get money from others in tax credits.

Sounds like that's a problem with the tax code. Or you're seriously advocating that 40% to 48% people undergo crippling surgery?
Isn't that going to hurt the country more in the long term?

I'm not presenting this as an ex-post... whatever law. Please don't try to frame it as such. I want to see those statistics change.


BTW, about 40 million people received foodstamps assistance (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/26/most-food-stamp-recipients-have-no-earned-income/) in 2010, and that's largely due to the recession. That's about 13% of the population, and includes everyone, those that require temporarily and those that might not. Perhaps the problem isn't as bad or widespread as you think it is.

And do you think it's a responsible action for any of them to conceive while in such an income status to receive food stamps?


Ultimately what's going to to reduce social spending is when the people that can work get back to work and off welfare. Surgery is not making them work.

I agree we need to put people back to work, but i disagree with your assessment that surgery won't matter.




Isn't it logical that a simple operation is cheaper than the statistical amount paid?

No it's not. Because it isn't just a simple operation. You're also not adding the potential contributions from one or more future workers and taxpayers. Those unborn kids are definitely not going to be working, paying their taxes, and benefiting society.

Statistically, those kids will be more collecting welfare rather than being net tax payers.




This is more about economics. Since the welfare system started in the 60's it has become larger than military spending. A cycle of dependency has developed. Children growing up under these systems don't see parents working as role models, so yes, it is about society too. With single unwed mothers, children see their mothers collecting food stamps, sometimes receiving child support, often the mother isn't working, and it's what they see as a lifestyle.

Can you back that up? Programs like WIC only last as long as the kids are 5 years old and only as long as your income is below a certain level. There's been laws since at least 1996 that prevent women from staying indefinitely on welfare.

Start looking at your surroundings more carefully. How many single women do you see these days with several children about 3 years apart in age?


Do you realize that Reagan's "Welfare Queen" tale was fictional, right?

I don't even know that story.




We need to turn the wheels back to the 50's way of thinking when it comes to responsibility. Our society as a whole has so little responsibility, it's ridiculous. If we want to see a better future for our kids, we need to try to change what is wrong.

It's a completely different world. Back then we had a manufacturing nation. After the war the economy was fairly stable and growing. The federal government was not in charge of welfare at all, it was the states that took care of that. The US population was half of what it is today.

So your answer is allow more illegal immigration driving wages down farther, as an excuse that people don't have jobs?


I'm not against reducing some costs, trimming bureaucracy and going after those that abuse the system. I don't think mass vasectomies will solve that problem. As a matter of fact, mass vasectomies will likely ensure that the better future will only see less kids.

Is less children growing up under welfare a bad thing?

[Wild Cobra]

that's for people who don't like booze imho. however, pick yer poison.
That's me. I prefer beer, but my girlfriend likes the stuff so I keep some around. It makes a very smooth drink with no hangover, so I will drink it now and then.

[Winehole23]

srsly, whatever works for you. don't listen to some other jackass. only you know how adventurous you are.

[Wild Cobra]

srsly, whatever works for you. don't listen to some other jackass. only you know how adventurous you are.
I get hangovers easy, so when I find something that doesn't give me one... I will endorse it.

[ElNono]

say they take the money and fail to report for surgery. what happens then?

Wait, people that don't make enough to make ends meet have to come up with money for the surgery? I thought government paid for that as part of the aid.

If that's the case, how is this different from denying the aid from the get go?

[Winehole23]

crossed wire, maybe.

What I imagined is this: the government pays for the surgery. I presumed also that the consultation might take a little time, and taking this time, along with whatever upfront money is provided, persons of low station and dubious worth to society might make good their escape.

My question was: in such state of affairs, what measures to force compliance lie at hand for the government?

[Winehole23]

even if no upfront money is given, people will seek to avoid the surgery.

[clambake]

Well, he claims to have a nice Mercedes.

Clambake...

How much did you say your oil changes cost?

i never said i have a nice mercedes.

[clambake]

by the way, it cost around $115.00 just for the appointment.

[EVAY]

How is it possible that people who self-identify as 'small government' conservatives have no problem suggesting something (like sterilization in exchange for assistance) that has to be the MOST intrusive governmental action imaginable?

Seems to me that Obamacare's requirement for purchasing insurance is NOTHING compared to this suggestion.

[Winehole23]

How is it possible that people who self-identify as 'small government' conservatives have no problem suggesting something (like sterilization in exchange for assistance) that has to be the MOST intrusive governmental action imaginable?agree 100%.

this appears to be a blind spot. my quip about writing white papers on big government solutions for pressing social ills, was aimed in this general direction.


Seems to me that Obamacare's requirement for purchasing insurance is NOTHING compared to this suggestion.agree, sort of. if the health insurance mandate is not extreme, it is still radical in the ordinary sense of the word.

[Winehole23]

the ACA creates the burden of individual participation in the healthcare insurance market. for the USA, this is a fairly radical step.

/derail

[Winehole23]

What prevents people from sterilizing, then using the money to do the reversal, have another kid, and sterilize again?(shivers)

since you pointed it out, there's a good chance WC will stipulate that can't happen.

[ElNono]

The trigger to see if a couple should be required to have surgery would be the request for government aide. If nothing changed from when they conceived, to when they asked for assistance, then I see that as an automatic denial of assistance unless they opt to have the surgery. I only say thousands because I an not trying to look at all possible mitigating circumstances. however, if one or both had jobs and their income could have provided the necessary income, then a layoff occurred, this would be reason to treat the handout as a safety net, and not require surgery for the handout. i don't see much need to work out all the reasons unless there is ever serious talk about such a system.

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?
BTW, assistance isn't requested only by "couples". Plenty of single mothers out there. And plenty of people that do have jobs but still don't make enough not to require assistance.


If they didn't have jobs when they conceived, then they are irresponsible. I see no way to argue otherwise on that. Please enlighten me.

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.


Yes. That is why you are extreme if you advocate to cut everyone off.

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"?


The aide comes with the sterilization, to help make certain it's a one time event. If they can't have children again, it can't happen again. Right?

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)?

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 mean like making the family have only half servings for an innocent child they shouldn't of had?

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


That's fine. i don't have a problem with job assistance programs. Still, they are being irresponsible if the conceive a child before they can afford to have one. This should be a step they take before having a child Not after.

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?


I would think that's obvious.

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


I'm not talking about long term changes. I'm talking about if their current income is enough to support a new baby in the equation.

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.


And some people would say raising a child in poverty is child abuse. Why is my idea so different then?

We already have programs that address that, like WIC, CPS, we do not?
How is the surgery requirement going to make bad parents into good parents?
Right, it won't.


I can't believe you are asking such a thing. People would know that it will not be an easy path should they deviate from some expected responsibility standards. It will be a deterrent to some, or many. Now I'm not going to attempt to quantify how many, but I say it would be foolish to say it would make no change in peoples actions.

What kind of authority do you think the government has to dictate what these "responsibility standards" should be? What happens when they dictate some "standard" you don't agree with?

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? 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.


I'm not presenting this as an ex-post... whatever law. Please don't try to frame it as such. I want to see those statistics change.

I think what's wrong with the tax code is material for another thread, so I'll leave it there.


And do you think it's a responsible action for any of them to conceive while in such an income status to receive food stamps?

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

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


I agree we need to put people back to work, but i disagree with your assessment that surgery won't matter.

So how is the surgery putting them back to work?


Statistically, those kids will be more collecting welfare rather than being net tax payers.

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.


Start looking at your surroundings more carefully. How many single women do you see these days with several children about 3 years apart in age?

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)


I don't even know that story.

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


So your answer is allow more illegal immigration driving wages down farther, as an excuse that people don't have jobs?

Did I mention illegal immigration *at all*???? 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?

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. A surgery requirement won't change that.


Is less children growing up under welfare a bad thing?

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.

[Winehole23]

persons of low station and dubious worth to societyand we all know worthy people are never born to such

[FromWayDowntown]

The sterilization thing would seem to have proven its extremist bona fides (again).

[ElNono]

It's bad enough that women in general are only fertile for a little over 1/4 of their life. One would think that looking through that fact alone, the conclusion that such women live indefinitely on welfare through chain childbirth is nothing but a big canard.

[Wild Cobra]

Wait, people that don't make enough to make ends meet have to come up with money for the surgery? I thought government paid for that as part of the aid.

If that's the case, how is this different from denying the aid from the get go?
I know I included somewhere that it's cheaper for the government to pay for the tube tying than paying for round 2 of child expenses.