akirby Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 As if Democrats weren't saying the exact same thing about Bush...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted September 17, 2014 Author Share Posted September 17, 2014 Are the poor the same as animals? Maybe at SOME level. You discount the cognitive differences, which are vast. Anatomically there are similarities, behaviorally, you don't see much in the way of similarities beyond the basics until you get into higher primates. You are still denigrating the poor in the comparison. If you want to spin it as non-derogatory, you would say all people (regardless of socioeconomic status) are like animals. You didn't do that. Your defense of your remark is really no defense at all, because we are specifically talking about a socioeconomic class, and not people. Rats, rabbits, pigs, puppies, cats, fish, and pond scum do not have a socioeconomic status (the whole point), so I don't really see where that is relevant. Please re-read my comment. Specifically the "at SOME level" part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) It has nothing to do with being wealthy. Actually, some of it does. Studies show that the wealthy are less compassionate, less empathetic and less generous. Studies have also shown (for a while now) that being poor negatively affects cognitive function. I'm all for personal responsibility but many of the poor have few opportunities to better their situation. Once again, do we have any idea what percentage of the poor are truly freeloading? Please cite some cold hard statistics on that "tiny fraction" of the population. I don't feel bad for people that simply squander (or balk at) the opportunity to work hard and achieve success (however that is measured), but I know I have seen many poor people all over this country that would prefer to be anything but. The large majority of the poor people I have encountered in my life want to work and want to better their situation, but are limited by location, job availability, etc. I have met a few moochers in my time, but from my experience they are few and far between. I've never been focused on financial success, but it became a by-product of working hard in a tech career. As I became older and wiser, I realized that hard work and smart decisions are important to success of any kind, but many people simply do not have the opportunities that others do. There is no level playing field. Edited September 18, 2014 by the_spaniard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) For once we agree. But so are a lot of liberal ideals, such as being able to tax your way to prosperity. Like the fantasy of Republican trickle-down economics. What we need is the right balance of regulations, government, laws and taxes. Right now nobody wants to compromise on anything. Bingo. Compromise is something we teach our children to do, and not compromising is a textbook sign of immaturity. A shame our elected officials didn't get the memo. I would love to see every single one of them go (of every political affiliation) and get some new blood in there. It's the number one reason I don't care for extremists on either side. It's much easier to resort to child-like bickering and using terms like demonrats and republicants. When people use anothers political affiliation as an insult, they are part of the problem. Edited September 18, 2014 by the_spaniard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) Please re-read my comment. Specifically the "at SOME level" part. And please re-read my post on context. Edited September 18, 2014 by the_spaniard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Trying to blame one party or the other does nothing to fix the problem. This. All we have now is the blame game and non-compromise from both sides, and where has it gotten us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 many people simply do not have the opportunities that others do. There is no level playing field. So what is different about you or me or most of us here who are successful? I went to a crappy public high school in a small rural town. My parents had no extra money. I bought my own car, paid my own way through college over 6 years while working 7 days a week. My brothers and sisters and nephews and cousins and aunts and uncles and all my friends are also successful - most of them without a college degree. What makes them so special? What do we/they have that other people don't? Everyone has access to a free high school education. If you couldn't find work locally would you sit there and wait or would you go somewhere else where there were jobs? I know several folks from high school who grew up on welfare living in subsidized housing. They left town after high school and became successful. Is it easy for everybody? Of course not. There are challenges but to say that some people cannot be successful because of their circumstances is simply giving them an excuse to stop trying. Show me someone who truly is incapable of helping themselves and I have no problem putting them on SSI. But it's going to be damned hard to prove that given all of the examples of people in similar circumstances who have made it through hard work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 How is the system we have so great? Now we have total crime, with the government and banks in cahoots. This is anarchy. Criminals operate under the protection of the law, while honest citizens are threatened with losing everything if they attempt to take matters into their own hands. They are threatened on both sides; the criminals and the government. Even so, life is bearable, as it would be without government with people fending for themselves. Only we would be much richer. People would be able to retire at age thirty or forty, and although technology would eliminate many jobs, most people would not need or want to work, so supply and demand would force wages higher. A society that needs to have minimum wage laws is really out of kilter. It means that something is seriously wrong. It is government. You cannot go back in history and see where libertarianism failed, because to-day it is a whole different ball game. We have technology that we have never had before. We have total information and total communication. We need to use that to gain our freedom, not to allow the government to have total control over us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 It doesn't really matter what the individual thinks prison is for. Anyone can justify anything in any discussiont. Lets look at what the BOP describes it as: What part of that is seen as a success in our society, particularly when we incarcerate more people than anyone else in the world? If you consider it as an effective deterrent of crime (reinforcement to alter behavior - within our context here) how can it be seen as anything other than a failure? That's just it. Prison doesn't rehabilitate cons into law-abiding citizens--just has the current social welfare system doesn't make people individually-responsible citizens. However the lament that "we incarcerate more people than anyone else in the world" doesn't seem to have a parallel when it comes to the social welfare system. If there are too many incarcerated, is it possible there are too many on the dole? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 That's just it. Prison doesn't rehabilitate cons into law-abiding citizens--just has the current social welfare system doesn't make people individually-responsible citizens. However the lament that "we incarcerate more people than anyone else in the world" doesn't seem to have a parallel when it comes to the social welfare system. If there are too many incarcerated, is it possible there are too many on the dole? Prison is a deterrent for some but not for hardened criminals. It's just an accepted risk. Prison is best served to take violent offenders off the street to protect the public. Stop putting drug users and other non violent offenders in jail would be a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Prison is a deterrent for some but not for hardened criminals. It's just an accepted risk. Prison is best served to take violent offenders off the street to protect the public. Stop putting drug users and other non violent offenders in jail would be a good start. A guy smoking a joint in his home (assuming there are no children present) isn't someone I'm worried about. However, I see no reason society should endure public intoxication or child neglect. (I'm not saying you did, btw) For legalization to become possible, I'd have to change the law to say any infraction while under the influence is a willful act. Not sure what you're thinking when you say "non-violent offenders". Bernie Madoff would qualify under that criteria, but nobody thinks he shouldn't be in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I think we should consider alternatives for some non-violent offenders. Unfortunately we don't have any good alternatives other than house arrest which is a joke especially for the rich. If we could come up with a halfway house where they were only allowed to leave for work and limited on what they could do when not working that might be better and much cheaper than prison. But we can't even keep convicted drunk drivers from driving without a license so those types of non-prison sanctions will be hard to enforce. Maybe we can just wall off a corner of Wyoming and drop them in to fend amongst themselves. Wouldn't help rehabilitate anyone but it would make a great reality TV show. I think we even have several movies that show how to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 It usually will cost much more to the taxpayers to pursue, apprehend, convict, and incarcerate a "criminal" than the losses directly associated with the actual crime. Therefore, the system is not working. Let people use all available technology to protect themselves from crime and leave the government out of it. You could have a weapon aimed by remote control by your cell phone to keep prowlers and car thieves from robbing you. If someone kills one of your friends or family, kill back. Soon, this behavior would cease. Very few people are inclined to harm others, anyway; and the few who are would think twice if they knew they were bringing retribution down on their heads instead of being protected by the law and the government. Poverty, brought on by too much government leads many people to crime, and our "justice" system makes it easy to get away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 If all crime were committed by individuals, your idea might work. However, not all crimes are individual, and not all criminals prey on those with friends/families willing to take revenge. No government (ie. anarchy) is just as bad as oppressive government because individual rights are the first thing lost by the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I am not offering a Utopia. There will always be danger in this world. I would prefer a system where a person can prosper without a "Mafia" government not just "wetting it's beak" but taking a bath. If there is opportunity and freedom to defend oneself, why would anyone need to take from others. Criminal operations like the Mafia flourish under "law and order". If a biker gang rides into a town seeking to do mayhem, and the street is lined with citizens holding automatic weapons, they will not even spit. It happened to the James gang in Northfield. No gang can stand up to the citizenry, unless they have been neutered by the government. Corrupt politicians want to ban guns so the citizens are at their mercy, and in need of their "protection". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 And instead of a "biker gang", what if it's a nice family of 5 in their station wagon out for a family vacation. Without something to check the citizenry, they can become a mob themselves, and simply kill the husband, rape the wife, and sell the children into slavery. That sort of tribal structure is what leads to Afghanistan and the likes of Al Queda and ISIS (or whatever the name is). Our system seems to be gradually eroding the "checks" and tipping the "balances", but I don't believe in no government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Cmon, man. Context: Food stamps are specifically referenced. Tell me, does everyone get food stamps or are we just talking about the poor? I understand the analogy completely...the context of the analogy is derogatory, and you really don't have to look far or read into it to get that. Sigh, still falling back on the "old PC" concept are we?! Why is it you want to change the subject from what is, to what you want it to be? Anyway, I have made point well enough that some people have to deflect the debate to something else. That automatically means......it hit a nerve. I am not about changing the subject, but there is a very informative program on PBS called "the Roosevelts." It is very liberal coming from PBS, but even they can not gloss over the change. It is up to us to decide if it was good, bad, and if they have pressed the issue to make it better or worse as we have progressed through the decades. It is full of information, and it is actually accurate. It might teach those on the left here, where their roots actually came from in this country. I am sure they will be surprised what actually happened, and not what they THINK happened, lol. A good historical discourse is always good to clear the air. You will see that FDR was the equivalent of Obama for sure. You will also see, that what you thought fixed our economy back then, is an absolute fairytale. The younger people especially need to watch this, and maybe they will learn something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 When I see a mob on the news on TV, there are police that the mob is mobbing against. Use your common sense. A family doesn't turn into a mob just because the government is not controlling them. It is control that drives people crazy. It is poverty, brought on by too much government that drives people to revolt. If there was no government, and universal prosperity, there would be no unrest. Satellites would monitor your property, and film anyone trespassing. Your cell phone would ring, and you could warn the trespasser and even shoot him by remote control. Don't get all ruffled now. There is nothing preventing someone from going around killing people now. It is not human nature. We have natural inhibition against killing our own species; just like every other animal. If we didn't, we would soon kill each other to extinction. We can be programmed or indoctrinated to kill, but it is not natural. We are programmed to believe that unlike other animals, who are below us on the evolutionary scale, we are incapable of surviving on our own. We have tools at our disposal that were not even dreamed of a generation ago. Why do we need a government postal service when we have e-mail? In Canada, we have the CBC, which sucks over a billion dollars a year out of the taxpayers instead of making money and surviving on it's own. It's main purpose is to turn us into communists. We have layer after layer of government and law enforcement. Local, state/provincial, federal, and international (CIA/CSIS). We don't need this. It has gotten way out of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 "Out of control" I can agree with. I never said that the family becomes the mob, I referred to the armed citizenry of this fictional town and replaced your biker gang with a wandering family of 5 where the town would subdue the explorers. People are warlike by nature, because they are capable of it. True, they can be peaceful within their own social structure. But like the Native Americans tribes before Columbus, they were just as likely to kill members of other tribes for their possessions/trespass as Europeans did foreigners--especially in dire times (drought, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil1336 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 As if Democrats weren't saying the exact same thing about Bush...... Did the Democrats utter the (same) Statement that Mitch McConnell did while George W was taking his Oath of Office? Yes or No? Who exactly can you quote? The "fact" that the Supreme Court order the botched up Florida Vote Recount to be halted in Palm Beach County (heavily Democratic) where most of the "hanging chads" issues were located on behalf of the request of Florida`s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris. Bush "stole" the Election from Gore, period. I`m not going to even go there where Bush lost the Popular National Vote but was given the win by adding in Florida`s Electoral Votes. Its over, I accept it, its history except for those that still serve in Iraq and Afghanistan as "advisors". It takes (2) to compromise, weepy John Boehner is no "Tip" O`Neil! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil1336 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 When I see a mob on the news on TV, there are police that the mob is mobbing against. Use your common sense. A family doesn't turn into a mob just because the government is not controlling them. It is control that drives people crazy. It is poverty, brought on by too much government that drives people to revolt. If there was no government, and universal prosperity, there would be no unrest. Satellites would monitor your property, and film anyone trespassing. Your cell phone would ring, and you could warn the trespasser and even shoot him by remote control. Don't get all ruffled now. There is nothing preventing someone from going around killing people now. It is not human nature. We have natural inhibition against killing our own species; just like every other animal. If we didn't, we would soon kill each other to extinction. We can be programmed or indoctrinated to kill, but it is not natural. We are programmed to believe that unlike other animals, who are below us on the evolutionary scale, we are incapable of surviving on our own. We have tools at our disposal that were not even dreamed of a generation ago. Why do we need a government postal service when we have e-mail? In Canada, we have the CBC, which sucks over a billion dollars a year out of the taxpayers instead of making money and surviving on it's own. It's main purpose is to turn us into communists. We have layer after layer of government and law enforcement. Local, state/provincial, federal, and international (CIA/CSIS). We don't need this. It has gotten way out of control. Stop crying in your "Biere" eh? Do something constructive instead of bitching. Start a Canadian Tea Party Group like the old Rino Party and maybe a Canadian NRA too while your at it! Good thing you don`t live in Quebec! Qui? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil1336 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I think we should consider alternatives for some non-violent offenders. Unfortunately we don't have any good alternatives other than house arrest which is a joke especially for the rich. If we could come up with a halfway house where they were only allowed to leave for work and limited on what they could do when not working that might be better and much cheaper than prison. But we can't even keep convicted drunk drivers from driving without a license so those types of non-prison sanctions will be hard to enforce. Maybe we can just wall off a corner of Wyoming and drop them in to fend amongst themselves. Wouldn't help rehabilitate anyone but it would make a great reality TV show. I think we even have several movies that show how to do it. OMG, akirby and I for the second or third time actually agree on something. I too second the motion to make Wyoming the drop off point for these social outcasts much like Britain did with theirs when they sent them years ago to Australia. Ahh, I`m sure the Cheney`s would greet the new arrivals with "open arms", the kind you lock and load! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 You still don't get it Phil. The problem is not the Democrats or the Republicans - the problem is the Democrats are trying to defeat the Republicans and vice versa, meanwhile they're both ignoring what's really wrong with this country. What do you think will happen if we keep spending ourselves deeper into debt? How is it going to get better? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 The problem is not the Democrats or the Republicans - the problem is we keep spending ourselves deeper into debt? How is it going to get better? And both or all sides seem to be the same, only difference seems to be what they want to spend it on. Kirby is dead on, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 The scary & sad part is some people actually believe that the debt does not matter, period. More than a few states are teetering on implosion from being upside down in their spending and look to the federal government for "more" money. ANY politician that spends money the US does not have should be removed from office regardless of party, gender or color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.