makeithappen40

"Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor"

>Too bad that's not the case here. "NUH UHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!" -lbdazel >they spend so much time trying to spin magic out of words without actually saying anything. Just like you encompass all liberals as cancerous. You've made a bold step, assuming that lazy people are liberals, and liberals are lazy. You've also assumed that the social programs in place allow people to sit luxuriously by in society while others work for their ability to do nothing. "You people" do this all the time. "You are that guy" >By the way, you are incorrect to label me religious I really do not care. You are conservative and proud enough of your own perception that there are plenty of ideas with which to terrorize you for an eternity. Ohhh yeaaaaaa.... MMMMMMMmmmm. Socialism... so hot... gotta love livin large when lbdazels paying for it! 'Cause welfare gives us all soo much money.. thats why we have these pieces of information here: Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line I'll take your "bottom line factor..." "Still trying to throw the blame elsewhere. I find it sad. You find it fascinating. Liberal cancer." What liberal cancer? What are the odds that you support a higher form of socialism than welfare? What are the odds that you worship the military? What are the odds that you don't know what the fuck your simple-minded views come from? http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html You answer the question: Why is the employee lazy? Because he chooses to be lazy. Why does he choose to be lazy? Because you think he chooses to be lazy. Circular. No value added.

Shiner isn't bad. You wouldn't believe some of the filth the youth out there were telling me. They all wanted to drink Beck's, Corona, and Heineken. German kids, drinking crap beer! The humanity!

Ugh. Bud isn't even good enough to tame the flames on a BBQ grill. Dark Guiness on tap, please. edit: And I lived in Germany. For those of you who are beer enthusiasts, that would mean I know what real beer tastes like. A real guinness is the best beer I have EVER had. The beer in Germany was really good, but I don't remember it so well. (My time there is very blurry to me now)

I was wondering if someone would say that. Examining the soundness of mnealtx's post is far more difficult, time consuming, and involved than I think any of us are interested in researching for the mere benefit of having enough information to negate each claim by county.

Phew, didn't want you to catch me on it. Glad i caught it first. (is this a dreamdancer parenthical postscript? Ill have to add that)

>There's a difference between hurting someone intentionally and having an accident. Accidents will happen, and they will hurt people--that's just the nature of life. If your accident hurts someone, then you are responsible for making it right. That doesn't mean that you should never do anything that might result in an accident. If you did that you'd never do anything at all Accident or not, it hurt someone else who didn't will it on themselves.

>You are making no sense This happens when an otherwise intelligent person is not willing to admit something. >Guys like you try to pull this crap all the time. I have studied a bit of political science, but it is only among several subjects I have studied. What would that have to do with "the crap I am pulling," anyways? There are more than enough copies of guys like you in poli sci classes who are poli sci majors. They pull the same kind of stunts that any other smartass in the class is willing to do. They are also some of the loudest because they take every chance of approaching something objectively and take offense at others making their points instead of providing counterexamples. Every day, there was crazy religious conservative guy screaming at the teacher and crazy coffee-shop liberal screaming back. No change of opinion was made as a result. Every once in a while there was a Tom Aiello telling everyone else they were crazy socialists, but he usually made interesting points. You aren't that guy. >Clearly you have issues with Mormons. Go see a therapist Nope. I have issues with your people who come to my door wearing white button-ups with ties and packpacks. Enough. Leave me the fuck alone about your religion. Thanks. >Nope. Lazy employee is lazy because he chooses to be. Very simple Great. So you justify "the employee is lazy because he chooses to be" with "the employee is lazy because he chooses to be." You're begging the question. Bad bad boy. >You go left, or you go right. You seem to be running in circles in the intersection. There is no other road dude. You can't end the road where it begins in logic without committing a fallacy. "Employee has two choices: 1. Be lazy. 2. Don't be lazy." Why are they lazy? Because they choose option one, and option one is Be Lazy. Fascinating. >Bottom line here: A chooses of his own free will to be lazy. You claim B is to blame for that laziness. That mentality, my friend (my dude), is American Liberal cancer. Oh. It looks alot like its your perception being set up to justify your perception. Hmmmmmmm

Well done. Of course, this is the Speaker's Corner, so I'm just going to use my "rock" card. Nope! Try again! edit: Sorry. My smartass response wouldn't be right without an emoticon. (dreamdancer parenthical postscript- thanks mnealtx)

"Nuh uhh!!!!" That would have been way, way shorter.

This one's just a friendly response to the other satyrical thread, Liberals and Conservatives. I didn't type this one up, but if you can laugh at the other, you can laugh at this. I thought they were both funny.

>I don't care who you vote for, that's good humored politics. I agree, it was pretty funny. I got another one for you guys. Posting in another thread.

>They choose to get stuck. Conservativism outlines that pretty well. Is it accurate? Are we able to answer that here? Stuck also implies that you wouldn't accept worse alternatives. For example, if someones car was stuck in three feet of mud, they wouldn't choose to spend the time to dig it out. They would spend their time looking for other options, like calling someone to pull them out, or using a wench (the tool, not the person) or avoiding the mud altogether. However, circumstances prevent that at times. (Like flash floods, driving at night in the countryside to get to your home, and so on) Thus, they don't always choose that responsibility, or they choose some of the circumstances that get them even more stuck. Do they choose all of them? I don't think so. Is their always another option? Probably. Are those options always preferable? No. If I was born to an outdoor family in India, would it be my choice that I lived in poverty? >Don't spend so much trying to find someone to blame. It doesn't matter. Fair enough. I'm far less interested in assigning blame than I am in the solutions. However, I think it is important to note which perspectives result in more destruction when suggesting solutions. Thus, we need to have at least an idea of who is to blame.

>Each person can contribute to the environment. It's not all up to the management. Employees can talk to management (i.e. by providing constructive criticism), and they can vote with their feet Right on. (Well, when constructive crticism actually is allowed in reciprocation) Also, people don't really have the freedom to "vote with their feet" once they are obligated in one job/area/set of bills/family establishment. People get "stuck." >A single employee can't make management "do it right" any more than a single manager can in a larger company Right on. I dislike giant corporations for the same reason that I, and so many of those crazy libertarians, dislike giant beurocratic governments. They are the same thing: Inefficient, wasteful, and out of control.

>Someone needs to take him to task for that. Uh oh. lbdazel might disagree, "because its that managers own damned fault for doing it, and that you can't do it for him" >If he's at a larger enterprise, the problem is that his manager is failing to take him to task--and in so doing the higher level manager is doing a bad job, too. Get enough of that, and your whole enterprise has issues And boy does that EVER happen. After all, there must be some reason that McDonald's has a high turnover rate. McD's used to have a great product, from what I hear. Apparently, it was long before I was born that they lost it, and their product suffered. >The major problem comes when the government tries to shield the company from having to face the consequences of it's poor management because it's "too big to fail" or whatever. The solution there is to get the government out of the way, and let the bad managers/owners/businesses actually fail. Amen. How long can this last for? How many lifetimes will it take for people to be running businesses so that they can both 1) make money and 2) employ happy workers? Will we ever have a situation where people "deserve" to have property and "deserve" to hold their jobs, by virtue of how the economy dictates it? >Bottom line: if you're a manager and everyone who works for you is unmotivated and unhappy, you're doing a piss poor job, and you probably need to be fired So cool. I needed to hear that.