Been working some extra hours that last couple weeks, and fighting off some sort of illness that past few days.
Seriously, got a lot in my head, but trying to avoid getting deep into the latest political stuff. Too many are already addressing that, and I've got a headache from it. In a way, I'm apprehensive about the whole mess, and the whole economic mess as well. Not seeing much of a way out at all.
The future is looking bleak, and I may never find that happy place that I thought I was working toward.
But, I do have an idea to address the coming entitlement avalanche: breeding. We need to encourage, mandate even, the bearing of children.
The more the better.
It's the only way to have the next generations available to support those of us who are going to live to ripe old ages.
Yeah, you collectivist nimrods never thought of that shit, have ya?
Hey, lets just give shit away, and let people live a long time.
"Kids would ruin my career path", or "interfere with my school". "And they are so expensive." you say.
How can you have the cool house in Irvine, the vacations, and the soccer-mom Lexus if you breed more than twice, preferably only one of each.
News for you: Somebody needs to be left behind while you sit on your ass during a twenty-year retirement, never missing an election of course, cause you gotta protect your monthly stipend. Maybe even increase it, if you can.
The more I see, the more I see that I was right when I last said the age-old wisdom were ages old, and wise, for a reason.
Large, self-sustainable extended families, that provided for the elders, usually on property that was owned outright.
Back when they knew that twenty could provide for twenty twice as easy as ten could provide for ten.
It was an honest Ponzi. Where those who gave, got back what they gave when their turn came to receive.
What the hell made anybody think they could improve on that?
Now, we see five kids and say "Whoa, did you know there's a cure for that?"
Maybe we need to return to a time when we see a two child family, and wonder to ourselves "I wonder what their problem is?"
The welfare state depends on it.
Instead, we screw our children not yet born, with demands on their earnings not yet earned. Don't be surprised when the next generation is a batch of slackers.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Don't Drone Me, Bro!
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(201)
-
▼
March
(19)
- It's Happened
- The currently ongoing discussion of the previous t...
- Rant
- From an email:We passed a health care plan written...
- Cheer Up
- I trust no health plan passed by Congress that exe...
- King Of The Wild Frontier
- If It Ain't In Rockford...
- Just a Thought
- Ode to Gino
- I'm sure most of you remember this milestone proce...
- Beyonce Just Doesn't Look That Attractive Anymore
- This Blog is just Begging for an Abortion Debate!
- Too Many Reservations
- Bearing Down
- Newfangled Pringles?
- In Response: Part I
- A Quick Dump
- "Why Don't You Commit To Kissing My Ass?"
-
▼
March
(19)
The List
73 comments:
You seen this?
This might make you feel better. (read the comments)
And yet rising standard of living correlates with falling fertility rates across any culture or historical epoch you care to look at. I wouldn't preaume to ascribe causation, but as we say in my line of work, the data are what they are.
My mom's family is huge. I love huge families. But in the past I felt judgey of really, really huge families. Then I realized that we have the right to have as many babies as we want, in the US, including none, and that breeding a huge family is actually the *same* right as controlling when you are pregnant. So, no more judgey.
Also, I'm sorry you haven't felt as well lately, Gino.
Hope you feel better soon
kid
Meanwhile you apparently missed the point I have prattled on about over the years that we have crossed swords...
Individuality over community is a failed and failing proposition...for any society.
Community at its base is family.......and not this thread bare...bullsh*t about family values
but the economy of survival that you so eloquently ranted on about.
The notion of individuality is counterproductive without place or purpose when it functions without community.
What the last couple generations have been sold is an individuality as competition rather part of a family/community
And unfortunately the majority bought into lock stock and barrel.
The predators on the hunt first objective is to separate the individual from the pack to make it a less difficulty and more likely take down........
Capitalism especially unrestrained unregulated capitalism is the same.......it is easier to rob trick scam and or kill an individual ....not near as easy when
the pack is covering each others arses....
I probably didnt word that clearly enough....and may be coming across differently than intended......cause I am still half asleep.
Speaking of family....I am up early everyday....without fail... to take care of me ole mum...take her blood sugar level ...give her the insulin shot and help her dress and if need be change her diaper.
and wipe her arse..and make sure she eats..........
Tell me about family...
Chills
PS sending mojo your way
Take care
Somebody needs a fuckin hug. :-)
Good thing you're not going to claim causation, Brian. Fertility rates fall *after* the standards of living rise. I believe the prevailing theory is that when kids become more of a hassle than a resource (how many folks have large farms that need work?) the number of kids folks have goes down. (I think there's some stuff on old Rome following the same pattern, too, and a bit of research into the middle ages.)
Foxfier--that's true, but I actually think it goes both ways (hence no claim of causation.) Women tend to have fewer children when they have better access to education and economic opportunity. So not only do they have fewer (or no) children, but they participate in generating wealth, and raise the standard of living for whatever children they may have.
But my main point is that there is no reason to believe that falling fertility rates portend a dire future, and that there's an awful lot of evidence to suggest the opposite.
If you don't count that we have to take care of folks too old to take care of themselves, and if you assume we're in a vacuum where no other groups will be meeting and exceeding replacement, and if you assume we'll advance quickly enough to fill the empty spots left when we're below replacement.
You're right, of course. And I hope you feel better.
I don't think I'm intellectual enough to engage here but my gut tells me Gino is right. It's a numbers game that is ever slanting the opposite direction of what is healthy in a growing healthy economy. Like France and some other European countries, we too will soon (even with immigration) be losing numbers. We're aborting the next generation justand for convenience. Like the movie 'Idiocracy', the large families are the poorest and least cohisive families. There are no easy answeres here and I agree with Gino that the future is Bleak for my 4 children.
But my main point is that there is no reason to believe that falling fertility rates portend a dire future, and that there's an awful lot of evidence to suggest the opposite.
We're about to test that hypothesis, Brian, whether we want to or not. I surely hope you are correct, but I doubt it.
You guys need to look beyond the borders of the United States. I'm not being snarky here: I really feel sorry for anyone who cannot see that by every objective measure, life on this planet is getting better, not worse.
Fewer people live in poverty than used to. Fewer people are killed in wars. Superpowers are decommissioning nuclear arsenals. The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century are being replaced with modern liberal ones at an astonishing rate. Even countries that remain nominally "communist" have embraced capitalism.
And you all are worried about what? That there won't be enough babies to support the generational Ponzi schemes foisted on us by the state? That there might be more people here from somewhere else?
Demographic collapse is the climate change of the right.
Let's look at the top twenty countries for population growth:
1 United Arab Emirates 3.69
2 Burundi 3.69
3 Niger 3.68
4 Kuwait 3.55
5 Gaza Strip 3.35
6 Mayotte 3.32
7 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 3.21
8 Ethiopia 3.21
9 Oman 3.14
10 Burkina Faso 3.10
11 Sao Tome and Principe 3.09
12 Madagascar 3.00
13 Benin 2.98
14 Rwanda 2.87
15 Western Sahara 2.83
16 Somalia 2.82
17 Yemen 2.79
18 Comoros 2.77
19 Congo, Republic of the 2.75
20 Togo 2.75
You talk like superpowers lowering their nuke count is good...but ignore utter psychopaths getting nukes.
Quality of life may be rising-- hard to tell, since the places where folks tend to be starving to death don't tend to have a great bureaucracy to say exactly how many are dying. Fewer are dying in wars?
Probably a function of the way that the current threat doesn't tend to declare war, they just attack.
Who said anything about gov't ponzi schemes? Unless you're going to kill off people as they're no longer able to care for themselves, you've still got to provide for them. Traditionally, one's children do that.
Even if you do plan to kill each person as they stop being useful, you still have to fill the spot that they filled somehow-- there's only so much reduction you can get from not having as many people to provide for.
For someone who bemoans folks not looking outside of the country's borders, you sure do take a lot of the base assumptions and apply them to the rest of the world.
"Quality of life may be rising-- hard to tell, since the places where folks tend to be starving to death don't tend to have a great bureaucracy to say exactly how many are dying."
What they need then, obviously, is a great bureaucracy.
"For someone who bemoans folks not looking outside of the country's borders, you sure do take a lot of the base assumptions and apply them to the rest of the world."
lolwut?
A quick list of assumptions:
1) that we have any reasonable way to know if greater or fewer folks are living in poverty (leaving aside that "poverty" tends to me measured relatively)
2) "people dying in wars" is a primary concern; there are all sorts of large, deadly conflicts where there has been no formal declaration of war. (Ask the Jews-- they've got over 2000 years of experience in various nastiness that can happen with war being declared)
3) Only superpowers are scary when they have nukes; disarming them is always a good thing
4) a preferred political formation is an "objective measure" of how the world is getting better
5) the only reason to worry about lower birthrates is because of gov't ponzi schemes.
6) people from "somewhere else" will be able, willing and acceptable to fill the role of those who never were born here.
"unrestrained unregulated capitalism"
Hey chills, do you know of anyone promoting that?
When you place community over individual freedom, are you talking communism or hippy communalism?
I reject you idea of forced servitude to community. There is no such thin as forced charity.
....
It would be interesting to see the birth rate trend among those on welfare. Especially if their parents were on welfare...
On assumptions:
1) Thousands of scholars and dozens (if not hundreds) of NGOs and think tanks spend entire careers studying nothing but global poverty. Of course there are ways to measure it!
Here's a great talk about global trends in poverty (and fertility, and child mortality, and a bunch of other stuff, with some really cool animations):
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html
2) Here's a scholarly paper on methodology in recording deaths from armed conflicts:
http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/53/6/934
There are many others, if you care to look. This, like any area of study, is not without controversy. But the ongoing argument seems to be between whether deaths related to armed conflict are falling or merely flat.
3) Never said anything about rouge states or terrorists getting nukes not being scary. Of course that would be. But do you seriously think that, say, reducing our (and Russia's) nuclear arsenals from thousands to hundreds would make them any more of a threat?
4) Actually, I'm going to stand by my assertion that the various forms of liberal democracy/constitutional republics/etc. in the world are all objectively better than totalitarianism.
5) My points about Ponzi schemes were directed at Gino's point that the welfare state is unsustainable in the face of falling fertility. I agree! But that seems to me an argument against the welfare state, rather than a reason to fret about fertility rates.
What worries you about falling birth rates? You mentioned a bunch of countries that are growing much faster. Why should I worry about that?
6) The notion that people have "roles" that need to be filled is an assumption itself, and not one that really makes any sense in a dynamic world, particularly since we are talking about change over the course of generations.
Brian, is Liberal Fascism better than totalitarianism?
1) Not watching a video. Feel free to link to information.
2)"Estimating War Deaths"-- not responding to the objection.
3) You're the one who needs to justify the relatively sane folks NOT having nukes as a good thing.
...
And I'm tired of slamming my head against the stone wall. You'll either wake up, or you won't; most likely, you'll just keep assuming that those who disagree with you are ignorant or evil, as you desire. *shrug* Nothing I can do about it.
Brian, look around and inform yourself.
Or as Foxfier said, "You'll either wake up, or you won't;..."
.... ....
"when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley."
I didn't agree with Gino's theory, but I didn't feel passionate enough about the topic to argue. That said, now that the comments have gotten interesting, well, here I am again. ;)
This is not an argument, though. Just additional thoughts.
First of all, I love this: "You talk like superpowers lowering their nuke count is good...but ignore utter psychopaths getting nukes."
Here's my quick list of assumptions! Well, one assumption:
1) That "utter psychopathery" is a quantifiable measurement.
On whether a nation's wealth correlates to a lower birth rate:
GDP - a standard that can be applied to every country - doesn't reliably indicate wealth inequality within countries (rich upperclass vs. poor lowerclass majority). But this isn't necessary when it's been extensively documented that as ANY nation's GDP rises, the overall birth rate will decrease. It's called the Demographic-economic paradox.
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demtran.htm
I get that no one here disagrees with that. But it seems like some people are unwilling to take to the next level.
As standards of living continue to improve for individuals, those who choose to not have children, or have less children, usually make enough money to care for themselves in their old age.
Things happen in life, of course. People get sick and die young, sometimes the main breadwinner, leaving their family scrambling to avoid poverty, etc. But not the vast majority of people, especially people in industrial countries with modern technological healthcare.
Regarding K-Rod's question about welfare and birth rate - I would assume that welfare, as it indicates poverty, would further indicate that women on welfare have more children than mid-upperclass women, but only because they are poor, not because they are on welfare. There have been studies done to link birth rate with welfare (to see whether it would decrease if the state withheld benefits for women who had additional children - some states have actually done this) but the results so far have been inconclusive. The tragedy is that many poor women cannot control whether they have a baby. Either they are being abused (read: raped) by their partners, or they can't afford reliable birth control, don't have access to it, or they can't afford an abortion (or live in areas where the state makes getting an abortion difficult).
LOL: "What the hell is Liberal Fascism?"
K-Rod - Fascism is against pluralism, which is a core Liberal belief. I don't think Brian is a Liberal, though. (Or a Fascist.)
Chills - I rather think the answer is more like "community values and individual rights."
(Whoops) Which isn't to say that he is "against Pluralism."
It is a dismal crowd indeed where I find myself the voice of optimism.
Foxfier--If I've left you with the impression that I think you are ignorant and/or evil, that's unfortunate. I don't, and I honestly don't know what I've said here to convey that.
Your loss on the video. It really is cool.
K-Rod--I doubt George Carlin would agree with your particular interpretation of his words. Too bad he's not around anymore to ask.
So did you read Jonah Goldberg's book, or just look at the picture on the cover and piece it together?
Amanda--welcome back! I find I oscillate between calling myself a "bleeding heart libertarian", a "liberal who likes markets", and a "contrarian pain in the ass."
amanda ...I like that
community values and individual rights.....
---------
regarding birth rates and poverty etc
I personally suspect that high birth rates where the odds of survival are the most minimal
is probably genetically pre-disposed response to the conditions.
Numbers raise the odds of at least some of the gene pool surviving.
Conversely in more developed countries where the odds of survival
for any one individual is greater
the need for large number of progeny
is less critical.
Just a thought.
jesus, all i did was poke something out 'fore goin to bed...
Amanda, are you blind to the fact that farming families had large families for the economic incentives, similar to how welfare incentives work today?
....
Folks, let's call it what it is, Liberal Fascism.
General Motors is now Government Motors. Pluralism you say?
The government fires CEOs. Pluralism you say?
The government is forcing citizens to buy health insurance. Pluralism you say?
"We even include weird minorities like Tea Party Baggers"
We?
Include in what?
Weird?
Minorities?
Hey RW, nice talking points, spoken like a true sheeple!
lol Philbon.
My points about Ponzi schemes were directed at Gino's point that the welfare state is unsustainable in the face of falling fertility. I agree! But that seems to me an argument against the welfare state, rather than a reason to fret about fertility rates.
Well, yeah Brian. Of course. But we already have a welfare state and Obama and his friends have just doubled down on it. Someone has to pay for it. We'd better have a large, productive workforce to pay the freight or it would collapse.
On the other hand, if we can convince people to substantially modify or otherwise eliminate the welfare state, we won't need as many people to work. But that's not the way the wind is blowing right now.
Good point, Mr. D.
We need more people pulling the cart than are riding in the cart.
Yes, folks, it is that simple, get out of the cart, get your snout out of the largess trough...
I have often wondered if the evil of the "welfare state", when it is brought up, is liberally defined enough as to include corporate welfare in the mix. The amount of subsidies we give some industries and farmers far outpaces the social "welfare state" if I remember correctly. Plus it's been my experience that folks stop talking about the evils of a "welfare state" the minute they start collecting social security or their unemployment check, or their disability $ when they qualify and can't work because of an illness or condition.
And it has never been explained to me how it has been alright, somehow, to have spent the mammoth amounts of money rebuilding the social network in Iraq but the thought of adding a single dime to the aid and welfare of our own people seems somehow anathema.
As an ex-libertarian I find myself more and more looking at collective funds sponsoring the health and benefit to our own people as not only a reasonable idea but also one protecting against the social Darwinism which is a place that strict libertarianism always seems to end up in.
I'm beginning to more fully reject the complete "hands off" approach to the thinking of the more reactionary elements of our society until they agree to individually pull out of the benefits the group has sponsored for them and quit forgetting to mention the billions spent on corporate welfare as well.
RW--- well stated.
Chills
RW, you don't have to turn in your libertarian decoder ring just because you think letting people languish in poverty is a bad idea. Social safety nets were supported by noted socialists Milton Friedman and FA Hayek.
Chills, why can't you answer a few simple questions?
Need more time finding your talking points, eh chills.
Again:
"unrestrained unregulated capitalism"
Hey chills, do you know of anyone promoting that?
When you place community over individual freedom, are you talking communism or hippy communalism?
I reject you idea of forced servitude to community. There is no such thin as forced charity.
RW, you failed when you lumped in short/long term disability insurance and unemployment compensation insurance with welfare.
....
"collective funds sponsoring..."
Welcome to the collective; resistance is futile; you will be assimilated.
....
"the complete "hands off" approach"
RW, do you know of anyone promoting that?
Sorry, just because a person is against the unconstitutional government mandate that people must buy a private product does not mean they are an anarchist.
That is a tactic of the Liberal Fascists and I can spot that a mile away.
K-rod....which questions would you like me to address?
sorry if I missed them I was laughing so hard at your
attempt at intelligent discourse
I must have missed any remotely salient questions you may have asked.
Chills :o)
K-rod....only question I find you asked me was in regards to unrestrained and or unregulated capitalism
did I say anyone was promoting
unrestrained and or unregulated
capitalism?
Chills :o)
When you place community over individual freedom, are you talking communism or hippy communalism?
Note to self, disregard the trolling non sequiturs of chills.
You can go back to your dish now, chills.
K Rod...........
You are an amusing fellah.
What you seem to be suggesting
is that anyone who submits their
life for the cause of improvement of and or protection of etc their community or country
is a hippy commie.
Not that there is anything wrong
with being a hippy commie
mind you
Apparently by your lights a conservative libertarian is in fact
nothing more than an heddonist
whose only interest and purpose in life is to fulfill their own
desires...
with no sense of community responsibility or gratitude for those in the community who made that possible in the first place.
Tea-party on dude. :o)
Chills
BTW
Gino ....wheres the tongue in cheek emoticon in this place ???
LOL
chills, I am not suggesting that whatsoever.
The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as forced charity.
Self-preservation is a fact of life.
Blood is indeed thicker than water.
In your heart you know I am right.
>click<
Well Brian the thing is, I mean what I've learned and apparently keep having to learn, I do better off with myself if I stay away from spouting platitudes, backing dogma, making strawmen and all that. lol when I was a teenager I was all Bakunin and Proudhon with my damn self. That led to anarcho-syndicalism which moved me to liberatarianism which - when we started up the LP - was a bubble that took a while to burst. But burst it did on the prongs of some of the "if you can't make it for yourself it's your fault, so die". Later Friedman confesses everything he knew was wrong and I start thinking Proudhon wasn't all that far off and the next thing you know Bob's yer uncle.
Point being that dogma doesn't allow evolution. The minute, I think, a person feels they've got it all figured out is the very minute it's over. No one gives themselves the luxury of self-criticism because everything has to fit inside the platitudes and if we can't make it a slogan or pound it on a particular tocsin it must be wrong.
And I'm as guilty as anyone. I don't want to be that boring, and I don't want to stop growing.
K-Rod
Like I said you're an amusing fellah.
Self preservation is indeed a fact of life.
My view is that my sorry ass is more likely to be preserved by working co-operatively....
with my fellows
than not.
You probably have the same view
but you word it differently.
Any apparent difference is really semantic dissonance.
IMO
That dissonance is the thing that is most often used as a leverage
to divide one against the other.
Anyway.........its been slice
Have a good one
Chills :o)
So you agree there is no such thing as forced charity.
RW: acceptance of a limited, sustainable welfare state is a primary neocon thing. congratulations.
next you might argue that faith based charities are more effective in their mission than govt run ones are, and without the teaching of personal responsibilty within a moral code personal liberty is pointless and self defeating.
That's gonna leave a mark.
Gino that particular logical fallacy is what is known as a "false cause", sometimes described as "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."
But I'm not ruling out returning to totalitarianism, just so long as I get to be in charge.
Wow, sounds like RW doesn't think faith based charities can be more effective in their mission than govt run ones, and that without personal responsibility within a moral code personal liberty is pointless and self defeating.
Thanks for sharing. ;^)
"But I'm not ruling out returning to totalitarianism,..."
Not ruling out Liberal Fascism either, eh RW.
I have often wondered if the evil of the "welfare state", when it is brought up, is liberally defined enough as to include corporate welfare in the mix.
RW, I suspect that I disagree with you about a whole lot of things, but I agree with you entirely about this. Corporate welfare is a load of crap. It's not the government's job to be choosing winners or giving a helping hand to companies. They can duke it out themselves. Frankly I'm disgusted by the very idea.
Spot on, WB!!!
K-Rod - Both my parents come from large farming families, so I think I have a clue about how they work.
States don't give "incentives" for having more babies. The cost of a child is HUGE, much more than can be provided for with welfare assistance. Don't be absurd.
Further, I am regretting introducing the word "pluralism" into the thread. You are not making sense when you use it. It's usually applied to ethnicity and culture, but I was using it to describe "tolerance of multiple ideas at the same time." Your little soliloquy made just as much sense as if you would have used the word "Clowns" instead. Let me show you:
General Motors is now Government Motors. Clowns you say?
The government fires CEOs. Clowns you say?
The government is forcing citizens to buy health insurance. Clowns you say?
If you want to be ridiculous and say that pluralism is evil because Obama used it to turn everything into government blah blah blah, I think the phrase you are actually looking for is "democratic process." So whine all you want about what the majority is undertaking in Washington, but don't be foolish and blame some misty, evil FASCIST take over. It was American voters who put these people into office, and despite what you might think we're not 350 million people being held hostage. The people who VOTED for them, actually WANT these reforms. Be angry, but don't pretend this country or the government is something it's not, because that won't fix your problems.
Keep using the phrase "Liberal Fascist," however. I love it. The Liberals are FORCING people to be respectful all races, ethnicities, sexual preferences, and overall supporting the peace and preserving the planet! Those Bastards!
"States don't give "incentives" for having more babies."
Well folks, obviously Amanda has no clue about child tax deductions and the fact that welfare will increase depending on how many kids you have.
....
"It's usually applied to ethnicity and culture, but I was using it to describe "tolerance of multiple ideas at the same time."
Are you about to play the racism card or the homophobe card?
Please tell us how that applies to our republican form of government.
Liberal Fascism is more about a command and control government limiting everyones' individual freedoms, not about society and individuals embracing pluralism.
.
"It was American voters who put these people into office..."
Yes, let's not repeat the errors like some countries have done in the past.
....
"we're not 350 million people being held hostage."
I didn't say that, but, speaking of "FORCING", chew on this quote:
"...it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." - Rep Dingell
....
General Motors is now Government Motors. What do you say?
The government fires CEOs. What do you say?
The government is forcing citizens to buy health insurance. What do you say?
Well folks, obviously Amanda has no clue about child tax deductions and the fact that welfare will increase depending on how many kids you have.
What I said wasn't at all indicative of that. I said that welfare wouldn't be an incentive. (And why? Because the extra money doesn't sufficiently cover the entire cost of raising a child.)
As far as child tax deductions, I doubt you have a problem claiming independents on your tax form.
Are you about to play the racism card or the homophobe card?
Um, no. I was explaining the definition.
Please tell us how that applies to our republican form of government.
I didn't say it was a form a government. I said that it's impossible for Liberals to be fascists because fascism doesn't welcome a pluralist society, and pluralism is a mainstay of Liberalism. It's not a "form" of government, because it's about tolerance, which is a state of mind.
Liberal Fascism is more about a command and control government limiting everyones' individual freedoms, not about society and individuals embracing pluralism.
No, dear K-Rod, that's just plain ol' unsexy Fascism.
And finally, I don't say anything about GM and CEOs because I don't agree that they are government institutions/employees, and I really don't think many people you care about will actually be forced to buy health insurance.
Amanda.... don't. :-)
Amanda, Amanda, Amanda. I admire your spirit; if only you could see the error of your ideology.
I seriously do appreciate your contribution to the discussion even if it is as wrong as wrong can be.
....
"I said that welfare wouldn't be an incentive."
Hello? Since when ISN'T more money and incentive? Utopia?
Amanda, have you seen the Obama Depression unemployment numbers?
....
"I doubt you have a problem claiming independents on your tax form."
Right, I wouldn't do that, since claiming "independents" as dependents would be a serious problem with the IRS.
....
"I was explaining the definition."
Of how pluralism is a form of government? Seriously?
....
"fascism doesn't welcome a pluralist society,"
Oh please, tell that to the Liberal Fascists and they will laugh you out of the room.
Amanda, do you really think only Italians can be fascists?
....
"No, dear K-Rod, that's just plain ol' unsexy Fascism."
How dare you call Obama "unsexy"!
Don't you at least think the smiley face instead of jackboots/brown-shirts is cute?
....
"I don't say anything about GM and CEOs because I don't agree that they are government institutions/employees,"
That didn't stop Obama from taking control of GM and removing CEOs.
....
"I really don't think many people you care about will actually be forced to buy health insurance."
Obama just signed it into law; it actually does force people to buy a private product regardless of whether or not I know them. But I actually do care. :^)
....
"Amanda.... don't."
Good advice, RW, good advice.
K-rod
You ask do I think 'charity' can be forced.
I can only reply with a question because I am not sure what it is you mean by 'forced' and by 'charity'.
So what do you mean exactly by forced charity.
TIA
Chills
If you don't know the meaning of 'forced' and if you don't know the meaning of 'charity', chills, all I can do is to suggest you inform yourself. Start with a dictionary or ask Gino for help with your remedial education. Maybe Mr. D will help as well.
Well K rod.....
I understand the definition of both words.....
but the way you juxtaposed them
seemed to imply to me
that you were suggesting
that charity is not charity
when forced.
But since I am not sure what you intent was I asked.
Now if on the other hand you are suggesting that being taxed to
pay for welfare be it corporate or
for the less fortunate feeble and or incapable.....
I do not believe one is being forced....unless of course you
are also being forced to stay in the particular jurisdiction state or country etc that is taxing you toward that end.
If you stay it is a choice..and there fore not forced.
Or sumpin along em lines eh :o)
Chills.
If people are going to be nihilists I wish they would just be honest about it. None of this "I love life enough to go to film festivals and eat exotic cheeses from Whole Foods but not enough to bring a life into the world, which is after all an awful place," If it's that good, try sharing it! If you really think it stinks, then forsake life's pleasures! Eat locusts in the desert! For better or worse, in our less reflective wine-sniffing moments, we love life. That is the curse or blessing of our innocence. The philosophical moment of life-denial is all-too momentary.
Tully--is it so hard to believe that people might chose not to have kids because they just don't like kids?
K-Rod... I am glad you clarified that cause I was beginning think you
were an i....err ..well never mind :o)
BTW
I noticed you are quite the poet..
when reading your blog...:o)
have a good one eh
Chills
Tully........... I had to look up Nihilists...in a dictionary. :o(
I have never met anyone who actually decided against having children because they didnt want to bring them into this world.
I have heard of such folks but never personally met any.
I know some who have not had children because they knew full well they
were incapable of parenting and or providing for children etc.
just sayin eh
Chills
chills, the IRS does indeed force you to pay taxes and some of those taxes end up "helping" a crack whore get he next fix.
Are you proud of that "forced charity" you provided to that crack whore?
Bwwwwwwahahahahahahahaaaa!
"Tully........... I had to look up Nihilists...in a dictionary. :o(
b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination.
K-rod....
How can I be forced to pay taxes unless I chose to stay where the taxes are being imposed?
It seems to me when you say one is forced you are suggesting that one has no choice at all...
I guess I disagree...with using the word forced in that context.
Mind you it does piss me off somewhat to pay taxes that go to things I find questionable etc.....apparently not so much so that I have pulled up stakes yet...
Regarding Nihilists...you are correct...anyway I really didnt know what the heck that meant.
I found the psychiatric definition most interesting..........
Psychiatry-- A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.
Tha particular disorders description
Reminds me of discussions we would have when we were 11-12-13 yrs old..when me and me chums would camp out in the wilds ..back where I used to live etc....philosopher kings were we.....cooking spam over open fires...and pondering things like that ..twas the good days
Chills
chills, "forced charity" is a bit different than forced taxes.
The point is there is no such thing as "forced charity", only an idiot would argue otherwise.
So, chills, if you don't want to pay any taxes there really is only one place you can go.
chills, do you know where?
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
"BTW
I noticed you are quite the poet..
when reading your blog...:o)"
Thanks.
Check this post out:
http://stark-raving-sane-dont-go-in.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-law-mandates-walmart-purchases.html
This is a bit punny:
In other news, drunken sailors call Obama's democrat spending "unfathomable".
http://grumpyoldmen3.blogspot.com/2010/03/obamas-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp.html
K-rod....
like I said 'semantic dissonance'
Will check out the links you
provided... thanks...:o)
Chills
THAT'S ENOUGH.
THE HORSE IS DEAD.
True, Gino, you know it; I am such a marksmen! 8^)
At a certain point, beating a dead horse becomes tenderizing, and tender horse is yummy.
Post a Comment