rehmwa

All these entitlements have created a class by itself: people who refuse to work because they can make more on welfare My point is there, but you are restricing that to individuals and generations of individuals on entitlements. But I'm also talking about corporate bailouts, subsidizing industries, etc etc etc. It's not just the poor and dependent, it's also the rich and dependent, and the huge and dependent. your statement should be extended to all of it (creates a culture and dependency) - not just the welfare class only. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

she must be guilty of anything we could imagine crappy PC nationalistic and racial bias is really showing strong ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

exactly - so both we don't get much choice about how the money is spent. but at least in one, we get to choose who gets the money to start with..... who do you trust more with you money - the guy that realizes you can cut him off whenever he gets caught? or the series of guys that have authority to keep taking your money whether he gets caught or not? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Stop it. I'm trying to be absolutist here..... (just because I agree with much of those couple of posts doesn 't mean I'll acknowledge it or be nice. that's not how it's done in Speaker's Corner, darn it) that's really cute to think that In voting, we get to choose which shill will spend our money irresponsibly and not how we'd like. It's a start, I guess..... I trust market forces (i.e., my "choice" in how I participate) to be a better way to control how my money is spent than voting in reps to government frankly. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

this is the other thread - agreed - subsidies, bailouts, entitlements, etc etc etc is always at someone else's expense. That's what government spending is - government does not add value, only spending other people's money (i.e., someone else's expense) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Thanks for the consideration to my comments. We're on the same basic point. But to the above: It's contrary to my point - the giving method is critical to long term psychology and results. X and Y might have the same short term (surface) results, but Y will work out for society, X will utterly destroy it. (so X isn't great morally except for short term thinkers and they are fooling themselves - Y most certainly is) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

wow - that pretty much sums up the entire philosophy and the real impact ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

first, you fork out money for the solar panels. then you fork out the money for installation and the system. now, some of this you get paid for by your neighbors - they paid taxes and you get the subsidy also, you have maintenance I think it's a great deal once the neighbors don't have to pay for part of it (but it's not free, but it's likely a very smart investment for those that can use for a long enough period to get their money back on it) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Why do you hate the planet? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I find that to be an unfair characterization of what I was trying to say. Unless you seriously believe that if the government didn't force charity, then absolutely no other way exists. (my point wasn't to NOT have charity, my point was it is more effective for both the givers and the receivers when personal and voluntary, vs enforced through legislation) I like the rest of your post. It's not welfare that's morally good. It's charity that's good. Welfare is charity that's applied in a psychologically damaging way. Maybe better than nothing, but still, the alternatives are better. Leave it to the government to warp a concept that's good for all and change it to an 'entitlement' (just look at that word) for generations of receivers, and creates untrusting cynical givers. But hey, at least to pols can twist it into a political philosophy abused by both sides to garner support in just about every variation possible ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Morally - short term, or long term? in both cases, it hurts the recipient and the giver. welfare is a lot different than personal, face to face charity - the kind that makes both the giver and the receiver better people in the long run. Blind, impersonal, no-consequences, automatic charity doesn't help anyone. (ok, it makes the people that vote for it and not have to pay it feel a false sense of self satisfaction and superiority. so we got that going for it. which is nice) as for Remster's bumper sticker concept - it all goes into the economy either way. Not a lot of rich guys (or poor guys) just stuffing cash in mattresses.... the short of it, if everyone kept their money and just spent it as they thought they should, as individuals - it still gets into circulation too. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's an objective and politically unbiased observation that many here have made on multiple occasions,....... But not Kallend.....ever. Do you really think that's his intent/point? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

This is where we differ 100%. I do not believe the unborn have a right to life, or a right to be born. I 100% believe that a woman has the right to dictate birth, which essentially dictates life.. In order for the unborn to live, the woman has to ALLOW it with her body. She has to allow the fetus to carry to term, then she allows birth. I personally believe that a woman has the right to dictate whether or not she carries to term, and whether or not she gives birth. I believe the woman ultimately has the say on life. Nicely stated. But this then comes with responsibility. What is your stance on the scenario where the woman "decides" to carry and delivery and keep the child - all decisions 100% hers..... But the father doesn't want it? Would you then require him to support? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'm good with both of these guys in, at least, the content of the above. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

OK, I agree with Normiss here. Rush's pissing around with the phrase is just painful and non-constructive. One can be anti-abortion and pro choice at the same time. (that means for their own personal choice would be to not abort their own fetus yet pro choice in that they would not interfere legally in another's decision to decide for themselves.) I do agree that the choice is still whether to end a potential life vs not (though the current status of that being is part of the discussion and just admitting that doesn't derail the debate in any way - there still should be the choice). I guess that makes me even more cold hearted from people on both sides. I think it's killing a being, but I'm not against people making their own decision about it since the being isn't viable on it's own. And that the debate would be easier if people just owned up to that. (pull on that string and see what comes out, very messy indeed) (FFCari really stated this much better just now) Rush - forget the semantics of the phrase then. Do you think that the government should put laws in place that restrict the availability of abortions for those that would choose to? Or do you think it's just a matter of who pays for it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

the procedure is a health care procedure don't mix up the abortion debate with the health care debate what we are seeing here is just one more reason why government control of health care is again just a stupid invasion of privacy ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

What part is in minority? 1 - pro choice 2 - 'personal' position would not be to abort (does not conflict with #1) 3 - doesn't want to pay for someone else's personal decision on the topic these 3 items pretty much matches about 99% of the people I know. Some outliers are off on #2 (and it is their decision, and most of them admit they'd be lousy parents or it's a bad time in their life for kids, and that's why they'd abort), and only the rabid leftists want someone else to pay for, well, everything. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

In Britain, if you like your squirrel, you can keep it. Absolutely. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

The predator Charles Manson was removed from society in 1969, and we haven't killed him. Yes, the cost of his ............already heard it before. non-sequitor, I was in the context of Kelp's excellent post. that the preference of the criminal in the penalty phase should absolutely be a non-factor You've made your point many times just fine already. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Something will get done: We can always use it as an excuse to raise spending for lots of unrelated things while pushing the real issue down the road a couple years..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I have no objection to the death penalty when we absolutely know the guilt of the defendant. That, however, is problematic, short of a freely provided confession. And when those people do so in order to get the DP (McVeigh), maybe we shouldn't be giving them what they want. And if we're going to administer the DP, it needs to accord with our Constitution. It doesn't matter how cruel their acts were, we are supposed to remain rational and true to our beliefs. So no death by dog attack, or gas chamber choke fests. Put him down the way we might the family pet. Humanely, pain free. excellent except for one thing: I don't care if the criminal wants the DP or not. the criminal's 'preference' should have absolutely no bearing on the punishment. That would be consistent with the spirit of your 2nd paragraph 'rational and true'. Great 2nd paragraph. justice revenge (purposely conflicting with the preference of the criminal has a revenge element to it - calmly and rationally administering the correct punishment aligns justice - we are removing a predator, we are not trying to get even) Here's a discussion item: I'm conflicted in one area - Let's say the DP were warranted in a particular case (hypothetical) - but doing it would create a martyr and civil unrest........justice is then counter to the public peace and safety....what do you do? IMHO - you still carry out the verdict. Later cases of illegal acts as a result are still independent and need to be addressed on an individual case as always. No excuse for them being fired up due to some external thing. Justice can't be held hostage to unreasonable and potentially illegal sentiment. But it's a tough one ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

clarification needed - they are just mad because the Dems are getting a lot more of their illegal votes counted than the Reps illegal votes ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

PERIOD! Mission Accomplished! Depending what you mean the definition of 'privacy' and 'keep' is Well, we already know what the definition of "mission accomplished" is. well you have to pass it before you can read it, read my lips, I am not a crook - even then, I was for it before I was against it. Before that I was pretty much up against that intern But, I cannot tell a lie - it'll take four score and seven years to read it, if you can even log on. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

PERIOD! Mission Accomplished! Depending what you mean the definition of 'privacy' and 'keep' is ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's amazing - I ran the numbers and came up with 82.7% also ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants