Reply With Quote
I don't think Winehole is becoming authoritarian.
Hardly. What makes you think so?
I don't think Winehole is becoming authoritarian.
Just fishing as to why you and NoNo want to change the subject.
I'm looking at your proposal in this thread. ing only about the poor sounds about right.
(And I'm still 'in subject' as far as I can tell)
I wasn't aware of any strict topical focus being observed. There was significant meandering.
(deleted)
We too often go off on tangents. I am guilty as well. This isn't the only time I have complained about the same thing I'm guilty of. If you notice, I created a new thread because of a tangent, to keep from derailing this one. Why can't others attempt the same if it's an offshoot of the topic they want to discuss?
Most people don't really want to be on government assistance, already, why would you want to prescribe a radical policy shift for a non-existant problem?
WC going all Habermas on ST? Chocolatey richness!
I wish others would do the same but then, maybe other people aren't as considerate as you, so it's understandable that they generally don't.
Thanks for attempting not to derail other threads. You should continue to avoid it and I endorse the encouragement you give others in this respect.
Your use of this phrase within the same post in which you deny being a fascist is, seriously, one of my favorite things ever.
Vee haf vays of inschtilling ze proper moral values upon people like you.
I would prefer a system of government that does not have any laws. However, the populous will take advantage of no laws and do harm to others. I believe it's wrong to allow people to live endlessly of the take from the government. I only want rules in place that require certain things in exchange for living off tax payers, else, they get nothing.
Why are you guys giving me the impression that libertarians want no laws and laws are fascist?
If you don't like my solution, then suggest one that gets people off the government teat.
No one said that libertarians are fascists.
We said you are a fascist.
Because you are a fascist.
Yes, I know. You make that abundantly clear by intentionally misrepresenting what I say.
Understanding of one's finances isn't too difficult. There are pay records you know. As for who determines? We have welfare workers always judging people. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Are you asking for perfection?
Yes. Abuse should be reported. Now riddle me this. Should a person on welfare be en led to cost the tax payers even more money because they want a child they cannot afford?
Wait, did you just respond with some rant to a post I made in another thread to your request for starting a different thread, and you're telling me I'm the one misrepresenting what I said?
That's rich.
Yes, but those determinations are done on the person requesting the welfare, or the actual kids. You're asking them to make determinations on future events. Obviously, that makes no sense no matter how you want to spin it.
There's already solutions readily available (like abortion) for people that believe they can't afford it. The question here is who are you or anybody else to decide who can or cannot afford it? How do you know with any degree of certainty?
Your contention is also ridiculous on many levels. You can accomplish the same by capping benefits if that's what you want. Arguably, you save even more since the state wouldn't need to do any surgeries.
You also still conveniently keep skipping my questions: All those CEOs of multi-billion dollars corps that use loopholes to avoid paying taxes (and thus costs taxpayer's money) are also in line to get neutered? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
No, I was always basing it on the ability to support the child when the child was conceived. Maybe you should read this thread.
If they can or cannot afford it depends on if they ask for government aid or not. Is that a simple enough concept?
LOL... Changing the subject again, as if, you don't know my position on loopholes.
Another thread my friend. Leave it out of this one.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-03-2011 at 02:36 AM.
But sewing up their tubes has an effect on the future, not the present.
Again, spin this all you want, it still makes no sense.
No it's not. People ask government for aid a lot of times and that doesn't mean it's not something temporary (i.e.: unemployment). Without knowing the future though, you just have no way to predict what's temporary and what isn't. Again, you need to explain how you're going to apply futurology in this turd.
And BTW, you can edit my posts all you want. Doesn't change the fact that you can do the same without requiring any kind of re ed mutilation.
It's not changing the subject at all. Your proposal's goal is to save taxpayer's dollars, due to people living off taxpayer's money. All those taxes those corps evaded are taxpayer's money, and somebody is obviously living off it. So it's a long line we're going to have at the re ed Wild Cobra neuter centers.
Disagree strongly. The persecution is real and probably sought after; in the long run it tends to have the effect of aggrandizing WC's visibility/significance. Going by the sheer number of personally directed responses/accusations, WC is far and away the most significant poster in this forum.
That's right. The cannot make the tax payers pay for another baby.
Stop that nomnsense.
I explained that the determination would be if a person was able to afford the costs at the time. If someone was just recently unemployed, but could afford a child prior, then this would not apply. It would only apply to those who are reckless with the social welfare system.
I suggest you buy a clue.
Huh?
Did I accidentally edit one of yours when I meant to correct something I said?
Where did I edit yours?
And how many times have I advocated closing the loopholes vs. advocating leaving the loopholes in place?
Once you figure that out, please stop changing the subject.
It is not delusional for Cobra to perceive that a number of people here think he's an idiot and have said as much directly.
It is delusional for Cobra to think those people are calling him an idiot because the forum has agreed in advance to intentionally twist/misread his words in order to make him appear idiotic.
What am I suppose to think when I repeatedly clarify my point, yet idiots continue to insist differently?
Perhaps.
It would not be delusional for WC to think that a dozen or so regular posters are waiting up on him at more or less all times, brimming with adversarial intent.
We get a few bandwagoners, too.
In the name of Martin Luther King, I am judging them by their character.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
