tapstaks2000 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 the most abused people (Conservative, White, Men) are the people Can you explain how white conservative men are abused. The last time i checked they are the ones on top with all the power. Unless you mean white conservative men abuse other white conservative men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 You're very, very close. So close you've just gotta reach out and grasp the last little bit that you've missed to this point....Namely that it isn't a matter of whether I like the program or not (which I don't). Nor is it an issue of whether I would participate if it was voluntary (which I would not). It's a matter that the program is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The 18 prescribed powers of the Federal Government are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and neither unemployment insurance, nor any of these other social welfare programs can be found there. THAT'S my biggest issue with it. Unemployment insurance is not specifically mentioned, that's true. Do you think all governmental powers are specifically mentioned in the Constitution? Yes, auto insurance is mandatory in MA where I live and CT, where I grew up. Unemployment insurance is a source of money for an UNCONSTITUTIONAL program that has no mandate under our founding documents. I don't have the option to opt out of the program or I would. I consider it sticking to my morals to not take stolen money or property. Only a true fool believes that government policy is set by anything other than political expediency and dealings. Obviously the minority viewpoint is unlikely to get it's way. That's common sense. The reason for not taking part in the program is simple: MORALS & VALUES. I think you're missing a couple of key points here. You're not doing anything to change the system by feeding into it and then not participating. I guess you're saying that there's some kind of ideal you feel like you're respecting, but it seems that what's actually happening is that you're being forced into feeding into the system because your opinion is a minority opinion (and your assignment of government policy to "political expediency and dealings" seems kind of paranoid to me), and rather than making use of the program when its use will benefit you in the way it was intended, you instead chose to not use it even though you paid into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewdogmike Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 How did we get to the point where we have people who aren't even in this country legally, walking around in broad daylight, waving Mexican flags, and demanding that our government cater to them? Doesn't this tell you a lot about how lax enforcement of immigration laws in this country have gotten? Certainly, you don't see burglars or arsonists turning up by the tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands to rally against tougher sentences, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the programs being discussed in this thread fall under "provid[ing] for the...general Welfare of the United States." You can disagree with that, but it's not fair to say there's absolutely no basis for it in the Constitution. That's exactly the opinion that I hear most on this topic. What you quoted is called the "General Welfare" clause and it's been used thousands of times over the last 145 years to vastly expand the scope and power of the Federal Government well beyond what the founders of this country ever anticipated. Especially in terms of the exact sorts of social programs that we're discussing here. I do not believe that these programs are truly for the good of the country as a whole. In fact, I believe that they are to the severe detriment of this country as a whole; and I believe the Founding Fathers would agree with me on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 the most abused people (Conservative, White, Men) . I know you are serious, but ioh good lord you are a funny dude. I'm laughing so hard here that I'm crying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 In addition to the maddox page (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=walmart) this thread is also reminding me of that South Park episode where the immigrants of the future come back and work (and speak in their unintelligible language of the future) and the South Park residents take on the cry of "They took our jobs!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Unemployment insurance is not specifically mentioned, that's true. Do you think all governmental powers are specifically mentioned in the Constitution? I think all the LEGITIMATE governmental powers are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Unfortunately in 1860 our government decided to start seriously overstepping those bounds and we ended up fighting a Second American Revolution (The Civil War) over it. Even more unfortunately the side fighting for State's Right's lost that conflict. (BTW - I AM opposed to slavery. The war was not fought over just that issue) Which ushered in our current era of ever expanding Federal power and loss of that power by the individual states. I think you're missing a couple of key points here. You're not doing anything to change the system by feeding into it and then not participating. I guess you're saying that there's some kind of ideal you feel like you're respecting, but it seems that what's actually happening is that you're being forced into feeding into the system because your opinion is a minority opinion (and your vagaries of assigning government policy to "political expediency and dealings" seem kind of paranoid to me), and rather than making use of the program when its use will benefit you in the way it was intended, you instead chose to not use it even though you paid into it. I don't have the option to NOT feed into the system. If I did, I most definitely would take it. Unfortunately, my employer takes those funds out of my paycheck before I ever even see it. Yes, I am standing up for an ideal and I know that most Americans can't understand that concept anymore. I would rather die a pauper in the street than take any money from the federal or state government in the way of unemployment, welfare, social security, medicare, etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Can you explain how white conservative men are abused. The last time i checked they are the ones on top with all the power. Unless you mean white conservative men abuse other white conservative men. Sure, and it's exceptionally easy.... As you yourself point out, it's the Conservative, White, Males who make most of the money in this country. It's us who are having the most money stolen from us to support these programs that have no Constitutional mandate. It's us who are being told that we have to give up job opportunities to less qualified minority candidates so they have an "equal opportunity". It us who are told, any time we bring the topic up (as shown here) that we're being unfair, unkind, and that we have nothing to complain about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashburnskinsfan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Sure, and it's exceptionally easy....As you yourself point out, it's the Conservative, White, Males who make most of the money in this country. It's us who are having the most money stolen from us to support these programs that have no Constitutional mandate. It's us who are being told that we have to give up job opportunities to less qualified minority candidates so they have an "equal opportunity". It us who are told, any time we bring the topic up (as shown here) that we're being unfair, unkind, and that we have nothing to complain about. Not only are the conservative white males making most of the money, but they are the same people (conservative white men) who are making the rules about how much money is stolen from them to support these programs, in your own words. :laugh: They're making rules to abuse themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapstaks2000 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Sure, and it's exceptionally easy....As you yourself point out, it's the Conservative, White, Males who make most of the money in this country. It's us who are having the most money stolen from us to support these programs that have no Constitutional mandate. It's us who are being told that we have to give up job opportunities to less qualified minority candidates so they have an "equal opportunity". It us who are told, any time we bring the topic up (as shown here) that we're being unfair, unkind, and that we have nothing to complain about. Who invented "equal opportunity"( it doesnt even work anyway ) . And are you telling me that if I looked up employment rates for white men that there will be low because they dont have jobs and are all unemployed and stop acting like its only white men who pay taxes . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I think all the LEGITIMATE governmental powers are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Unfortunately in 1860 our government decided to start seriously overstepping those bounds and we ended up fighting a Second American Revolution (The Civil War) over it. Even more unfortunately the side fighting for State's Right's lost that conflict. (BTW - I AM opposed to slavery. The war was not fought over just that issue) Which ushered in our current era of ever expanding Federal power and loss of that power by the individual states. This kind of thinking opens up a can of worms. You and I both know that the words (written 200+ years ago, no less) are open to interpretation. In a response to someone else, you used the phrasing "I believe" which indicates to me that you do understand that the words are open to interpretation. I don't have the option to NOT feed into the system. If I did, I most definitely would take it. Unfortunately, my employer takes those funds out of my paycheck before I ever even see it. Yes, I am standing up for an ideal and I know that most Americans can't understand that concept anymore. I would rather die a pauper in the street than take any money from the federal or state government in the way of unemployment, welfare, social security, medicare, etc.... See, I get the concept of standing up for an ideal that you believe in, but in this case the ideal isn't really "I shouldn't take unemployment benefits from the government" is it? I think the ideal is, at least in the beginning, "I shouldn't be forced to pay for unemployment insurance," isn't it? If that's the case, you're not really standing up for your ideal by not accepting unemployment insurance when its use could benefit you. You're not even affecting the system in anyway by not using the unemployment insurance; you're only making life difficult for you unnecessarily. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the ideal though. My point is, you're only able to stand up for half of what you believe, because currently you are required by the government to pay unemployment insurance. The part you're able to stand up for is the part that can only benefit you. I'd understand the "standing up for your ideal" if you were able to refuse to pay into the system and refuse to take part in the system as a whole, but just not taking some of what you are currently forced to put in anyway just doesn't seem smart to me. Within the bounds of the system, the defending of your belief would mean that you have to start some type of political activity to change policy, but from your words it sounds like you don't really believe our system of government is capable of change from such actions. Also, though, it's important to note that as long as your opinion/belief is in the minority (and here I can refer to both your interpretation of the Constitution and the general belief on unemployment insurance) you're kind of out of luck on the issue at large. You might as well (again) take what you are already forced to give in to the system when the opportunity arises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Not only are the conservative white males making most of the money, but they are the same people (conservative white men) who are making the rules about how much money is stolen from them to support these programs, in your own words. :laugh: They're making rules to abuse themselves? Unfortunately, in many cases these people who call themselves Conservative and claim to adhere to Conservative values are anything but conservative. Most of them are panty-waisted moderates who wouldn't know true Conservatism if it jumped up and bit 'em where the Good Lord split 'em. Even worse, some of them are truly Liberals who simply try to put on a conservative face around the cameras. There are VERY, VERY few truly Conservative members of the national political parties and even fewer in positions of power inside the hightest levels of government. I haven't seen one in the Executive Branch since Ronald Reagan. So, in effect it's actually mostly moderates and liberals running the government and it has been for at least the last 40 years. Yes, the white males who dominate the legislature and executive branch of our government are slitting the throats of their fellow caucasian males to feed the vampiric hungers of their female and minority constituents in an effort to appear compasionate and accepting. One of these day's they'll be seen as the reverse Uncle Tom's that they are and will have to pay for their choices. Some day soon, I would bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I have to agree with the argument that conservative white males really can't be painted as victims in this society when it is in fact they that are running the show. They control congress and the white house and they control the majority of major businesses as well. It just doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapstaks2000 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 So, in effect it's actually mostly moderates and liberals running the government and it has been for at least the last 40 years. Yup we all know that "40 years ago" the conservatives had everything they could dream of . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Mass Skin fan posts is a big reason why I oppose affirmative action. It creates resentment, sadly he is not alone. Identity politics is dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This kind of thinking opens up a can of worms. You and I both know that the words (written 200+ years ago, no less) are open to interpretation. In a response to someone else, you used the phrasing "I believe" which indicates to me that you do understand that the words are open to interpretation. If I used the phrase "I believe" in reference to the Constitution then I seriously misspoke/mistyped. So far as I am concerned the US Constitution is as relevant in the STRICTEST EXACT READING possible today as it was the day it was ratified. No interpretation is necessary. If it says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed." THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. If it indicates that these are the specific powers of the Federal Government and all other powers are reserved to the states, that's what it means. No interpretation necessary. A fourth or fifth grader should be able to read and comprehend the document. It's that simple and straight-forward. See, I get the concept of standing up for an ideal that you believe in, but in this case the ideal isn't really "I shouldn't take unemployment benefits from the government" is it? I think the ideal is, at least in the beginning, "I shouldn't be forced to pay for unemployment insurance," isn't it? If that's the case, you're not really standing up for your ideal by not accepting unemployment insurance when its use could benefit you. You're not even affecting the system in anyway by not using the unemployment insurance; you're only making life difficult for you unnecessarily. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the ideal though. That's not the ideal at all. The ideal is more complex than that. It's more like: "The government is stealing money for improper/unconstitutional uses. I can't avoid having the money stolen from me, however, I will never allow myself to be involved in the crime of taking that stolen money for myself." It's not a matter of changing or effecting the system. It's a matter of doing what's RIGHT, no matter what the system wants me to do. Within the bounds of the system, the defending of your belief would mean that you have to start some type of political activity to change policy, but from your words it sounds like you don't really believe our system of government is capable of change from such actions. Also, though, it's important to note that as long as your opinion/belief is in the minority (and here I can refer to both your interpretation of the Constitution and the general belief on unemployment insurance) you're kind of out of luck on the issue at large. You might as well (again) take what you are already forced to give in to the system when the opportunity arises. All I will say is this.... "GOD made Man. SAM COLT made all Men EQUAL." and "The Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of Patriots." Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapstaks2000 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 All I will say is this.... "GOD made Man. SAM COLT made all Men EQUAL." and "The Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of Patriots." Enough said. What does this have to do with equality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Yup we all know that "40 years ago" the conservatives had everything they could dream of . No, we didn't; but we certainly had a society in the 1950's that was a lot closer to Utopia than we have today. The last 40-50 years have seen a level of decay and destruction to the social and moral fabric of this country that would send the Roman Emporer Nero into a fit of jealousy. It's that decay which will eventually bring the end of this American Civilization as it did to the Romans and many others before us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 If I used the phrase "I believe" in reference to the Constitution then I seriously misspoke/mistyped. So far as I am concerned the US Constitution is as relevant in the STRICTEST EXACT READING possible today as it was the day it was ratified. No interpretation is necessary. If it says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed." THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. If it indicates that these are the specific powers of the Federal Government and all other powers are reserved to the states, that's what it means. No interpretation necessary. A fourth or fifth grader should be able to read and comprehend the document. It's that simple and straight-forward. Why do 'pro-gun' people like to paraphrase the second amendment? If you're going to quote it, either quoted in its entirety or at least use "...the right to bear arms..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 What does this have to do with equality It doesn't. It has to do with the only truly effective way to change the system on a large scale basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Eh, screw the constitution. We should have listened to the anti-federalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Why do 'pro-gun' people like to paraphrase the second amendment? If you're going to quote it, either quoted in its entirety or at least use "...the right to bear arms..." Probably because most of you people have no concept of what the first portion of the amendment actually says in its proper historical context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapstaks2000 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 No, we didn't; but we certainly had a society in the 1950's that was a lot closer to Utopia than we have today. The last 40-50 years have seen a level of decay and destruction to the social and moral fabric of this country that would send the Roman Emporer Nero into a fit of jealousy. It's that decay which will eventually bring the end of this American Civilization as it did to the Romans and many others before us. So are you saying that in the 1950s america was a better country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 So are you saying that in the 1950s america was a better country From a socio-politicalstandpoint, I would say yes. It wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a lot better than what we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapstaks2000 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 From a socio-politicalstandpoint, I would say yes. It wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a lot better than what we have now. I thought you said everyone should be equal . In the 1950s people werent equal but i can see how a you would have loved those times . Back then you wouldnt have to compete with women and minorities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.