NationStates Jolt Archive

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came
to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his office for a job He then took
twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless
person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and
gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the
Republican's pocket and took twenty dollars. He kept 15 for
administrative fees and gave the homeless person five.

Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Lol - this is why I'm libertarian

except the fact that a republican in real life would pray to god that the homeless guy gets a job, and leave satisfied without doing any real thing

the democrat... well, he might drop a quarter...

i'm a socialist, i would work so that the homeless guy won't have to be homeless

except the fact that a republican in real life would pray to god that the homeless guy gets a job, and leave satisfied without doing any real thing

the democrat... well, he might drop a quarter...

i'm a socialist, i would work so that the homeless guy won't have to be homeless

Good luck. We will always have poor and homeless people. Even the Bible says that and how old is that?

no you fool it works like this

republican and democrat walk up to a homless guy in the street

the democrat says "ill fix this" and wonders off to make social programs

the republican chastises him for an hour about being lazy and not working enough then says "ill fix this" and wonders off to make it illegal to be a bum

but you forgot the praying!

oh, and, as a socialist, I don't hope to free EVERY homeless person from homelessness... that would take a while, but the more I can free, the better...

LOL Chess, That was funny! :)

no you fool it works like this

republican and democrat walk up to a homless guy in the street

the democrat says "ill fix this" and wonders off to make social programs

the republican chastises him for an hour about being lazy and not working enough then says "ill fix this" and wonders off to make it illegal to be a bum

Which is why we should vote non-partisan and get Vlad the Impaler in office. Hey, he's got a great program to help fight homelessness :D

except the fact that a republican in real life would pray to god that the homeless guy gets a job, and leave satisfied without doing any real thing

the democrat... well, he might drop a quarter...

i'm a socialist, i would work so that the homeless guy won't have to be homeless

That's right, ALL republicans are religous fanatics and ALL democrats are atheists.

So you're a socialist, why aren't you doing that now?

Which is why we should vote non-partisan and get Vlad the Impaler in office. Hey, he's got a great program to help fight homelessness :D
Opposition to him just disappears(unless you trip over them).

Which is why we should vote non-partisan and get Vlad the Impaler in office. Hey, he's got a great program to help fight homelessness :D
http://img39.exs.cx/img39/6965/VladBumper2.jpg

Sorry for taking so long, the original image was compressed a bit too much.

The main difference between republicans and democrats is that one begins with an R and the other begins with a D.

and wonders off to make it illegal to be a bum
I give you exhibit A: Las Vegas.

The main difference between republicans and democrats is that one begins with an R and the other begins with a D.
It would've been funnier if you said "The main difference between republicans and democrats is spelling" (since the D and the R isn't quite the only difference, what's a Remocrat? What a Depublican?)

It would've been funnier if you said "The main difference between republicans and democrats is spelling" (since the D and the R isn't quite the only difference, what's a Remocrat? What a Depublican?)

Good point.

quite honestly neither is funny.
one is too smart, the other is too dumb
itd be better to say:

the difference between a democrat and republican is:
o shit!
thats right there isnt! !
their both greedy, self serving basterds!!

except the fact that a republican in real life would pray to god that the homeless guy gets a job, and leave satisfied without doing any real thing

the democrat... well, he might drop a quarter...

i'm a socialist, i would work so that the homeless guy won't have to be homeless


my impression:

"im a socialist, so i would work so the homeless guy doesn't have to be homeless but he can still sit on his lazy ass and not do a damn thing in life and still have just as much as the rest of us."

I stand by my belief that Vlad, and ONLY Vlad, has a real, and permanent solution to the homeless problem ;)

Socialists make me fucking sick. We need to get rid of them...

Anyways, as an Atheist Repbulican (Yes, we do exist :)), I would get that man a job. Never ever would I take other people's money to help him out.

Socialists make me fucking sick. We need to get rid of them...

Anyways, as an Atheist Repbulican (Yes, we do exist :)), I would get that man a job. Never ever would I take other people's money to help him out.


nice to see puerto ricans got good hearts!! reprezent!

Hehehe, pretty funny.

Socialists make me fucking sick. We need to get rid of them...


Conservative capitalist's make me fucking sick. We need to get rid of them too.

Conservative capitalist's make me fucking sick. We need to get rid of them too.

Yeah, good luck with that you socialist piece of shit. Go play in traffic.

Yeah, good luck with that you socialist piece of shit. Go play in traffic.


yeah i enjoy a system where i have the chance to be rich : )
where i can pay my own medicare and give to the poor through other means beyond the beaurocracy of a inflated government

The difference?

Republicans suck, democrats blow.

Old joke, but it fits here.

Yeah, good luck with that you socialist piece of shit. Go play in traffic.


Umm when did i say i was socialist? I only said that conservative capitalist's are not good for the world. However in scandinavian type "socialism" you can be rich. But just if your not rich you still have acces to medical care and social security.

Umm when did i say i was socialist? I only said that conservative capitalist's are not good for the world. However in scandinavian type "socialism" you can be rich. But just if your not rich you still have acces to medical care and social security.

In America we don't have access to Medical Care and Social Security? Wow, that means me and my family are rich! Never mind the fact we are middle class...

Umm when did i say i was socialist? I only said that conservative capitalist's are not good for the world. However in scandinavian type "socialism" you can be rich. But just if your not rich you still have acces to medical care and social security.

Also, tell me, what is your income tax rate?

Umm when did i say i was socialist? I only said that conservative capitalist's are not good for the world. However in scandinavian type "socialism" you can be rich. But just if your not rich you still have acces to medical care and social security.

i believe hte people in scandinavia are good with that, because they are accustomed to it.
Just how americans are accostumed to earning more money for doing better, while paying 20% less taxes.
High tax rates do not encourage people to get rich.
I agree medical care is important for children and everyone, but i believe that the employer is the one who should facilitate this, not the government.

Oh sry. I meint "poor" with the "not rich". An to income tax rate, it's progressive in Finland. But 12%-35% for individuals.

I agree medical care is important for children and everyone, but i believe that the employer is the one who should facilitate this, not the government.

Well actually i agree with you. However usually employer's are too interested in getting themselves as much money as possible, that they dont think about workers. That's why we need socialist goverment.

the rep would make it illegal to be a bum..the dem would make it illegal to infringe on his rights by trying to stop him from pissing in your mailbox...san francisco

for real tho there is very little difference between the two..vote libertarian

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came
to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his office for a job He then took
twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless
person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and
gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the
Republican's pocket and took twenty dollars. He kept 15 for
administrative fees and gave the homeless person five.

Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Actually the homeless guy would have pulled out a gun, greased them both and stole all their money under the current Republican policies on gun control.

The republican would defend himself with the current gun laws, and the democrat would be dead. The bum would be killed. Then the Republican is attacked by socialists for being a classist criminal. Yeah.

The republican would defend himself with the current gun laws, and the democrat would be dead. The bum would be killed. Then the Republican is attacked by socialists for being a classist criminal. Yeah.

Nah, the bum would have had the draw on him you see, besides the Republican was a 70 year old grandmother, she didn't have a chance.

The republican would defend himself with the current gun laws, and the democrat would be dead. The bum would be killed. Then the Republican is attacked by socialists for being a classist criminal. Yeah.

Or, under Vermont style gun laws: The bum doesnt pull his gun because he thinks there is a good chance that the republican or the democrat are also armed and will shoot back. He then decides that crime involving people is too dangerous relative to the returns involved so he either switches to property crime or goes legit.

I would much rather have someone steal my car from a parking lot than carjack it while Im driving.

Or, under Vermont style gun laws: The bum doesnt pull his gun because he thinks there is a good chance that the republican or the democrat are also armed and will shoot back. He then decides that crime involving people is too dangerous relative to the returns involved so he either switches to property crime or goes legit.

I would much rather have someone steal my car from a parking lot than carjack it while Im driving.

Or in almost any other country the bum doesn't pull out a gun because he doesn't have one.

Democrats cannot see guns as a crime deterrent.

Or in almost any other country the bum doesn't pull out a gun because he doesn't have one.

Why is this? Because the poor sod is
1. too poor to buy a gun
2. his country has buried gun ownership under 20 metric tons of red tape because they are collectivist and irrational

Lol - this is why I'm libertarian

*high five*!

Or, under Vermont style gun laws: The bum doesnt pull his gun because he thinks there is a good chance that the republican or the democrat are also armed and will shoot back. He then decides that crime involving people is too dangerous relative to the returns involved so he either switches to property crime or goes legit.

I would much rather have someone steal my car from a parking lot than carjack it while Im driving.

..Or just shoots the republican when he turns his back? That works too.

Not under VLAD though. He'd make sure this kinda crap would never happen to begin with!

If the bum didn't have a gun, he'd use a baseball bat or his fists.

Or maybe blow himself up.

Democrats cannot see guns as a crime deterrent.
well you please tell me how a concealed weapon is crime deterrent

well you please tell me how a concealed weapon is crime deterrent

Not sure if you'll trust the source, but . . . .

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18

Guns certainly do help fight crime but so does fighting poverty. So the republicans would allow people to have guns but they still create the economic conditions that promote crime in the first place--kinda contradictory of you ask me

Not sure if you'll trust the source, but . . . .

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18
because of course the nra is an unbiased site and couldnt care less if you are allowed to carry guns


and how are CONCEALED weapons a DETERRENT

those 2 words dont go together, its like you dont go into a dark place because there might be a ninja in there to kill you. they are concealed, but are a deterrent!

because of course the nra is an unbiased site and couldnt care less if you are allowed to carry guns


and how are CONCEALED weapons a DETERRENT

those 2 words dont go together, its like you dont go into a dark place because there might be a ninja in there to kill you. they are concealed, but are a deterrent!

Google it then. Find the source that suits you.

Google it then. Find the source that suits you.
the point is something can't be a deterrent if its not seen or perceived to be there, once you whip it out it is neither concealed nor a deterrent any longer

the point is something can't be a deterrent if its not seen or perceived to be there, once you whip it out it is neither concealed nor a deterrent any longer

The idea is that criminals will be more afraid to attack/rob, ect if the victim may be armed.

The idea is that criminals will be more afraid to attack/rob, ect if the victim may be armed.

But they'll be reassured by the fact that they KNOW that they ARE armed.

But they'll be reassured by the fact that they KNOW that they ARE armed.

A criminal has absolutely no incentive to get into a shootout with a law abiding citizen

1) he doesnt want to take the risk of dying when he can find another crime to do that is less risky

2) If shots were fired or if someone is wounded the police are going to take much more interest in a case vs if it was a simple robbery.

3) if he gets shot and needs medical attention then he is probably going to be caught at the hospital.

4) He is less likely to get the goal of the crime(money jewels) if he gets into a shootout.

A criminal has absolutely no incentive to get into a shootout with a law abiding citizen

1) he doesnt want to take the risk of dying when he can find another crime to do that is less risky

2) If shots were fired or if someone is wounded the police are going to take much more interest in a case vs if it was a simple robbery.

3) if he gets shot and needs medical attention then he is probably going to be caught at the hospital.

4) He is less likely to get the goal of the crime(money jewels) if he gets into a shootout.

Maybe you want to do a tour of L.A and explain that logic to all the kids knocking over 7/11's with guns.

Maybe you want to do a tour of L.A and explain that logic to all the kids knocking over 7/11's with guns.

Robbing at gunpoint doesn't necessarily require a shot to be fired.

of course then the republican hires another homeless person cheaper and fires the guy and he is back on square one.

With the gun stuff, if I am a criminal and I want to rob someone let me think. Well you could rob a young person, maybe they have a gun or you could rob a 70 year old.

It wont stop crime. If you are robbing someone most likely you need money. However, with more people having guns you would just go about it differently.

except the fact that a republican in real life would pray to god that the homeless guy gets a job, and leave satisfied without doing any real thing

the democrat... well, he might drop a quarter...

i'm a socialist, i would work so that the homeless guy won't have to be homeless
I think socialism is a great Idea.
I have four kids and I really want to instill socialist values in them.
My problem is I have to go to work a minimum of ten hours a day to support my family.
Now you being a fellow socialist and all, you could supplement my income so I wouldnt have work so hard, that way I could stay home and watch tv....teach my kids.
Yeah, Let me know when you are ready to socialising your pay check, mmmmkay. Great.

I think socialism is a great Idea.
I have four kids and I really want to instill socialist values in them.
My problem is I have to go to work a minimum of ten hours a day to support my family.
Now you being a fellow socialist and all, you could supplement my income so I wouldnt have work so hard, that way I could stay home and watch tv....teach my kids.
Yeah, Let me know when you are ready to socialising your pay check, mmmmkay. Great.

That's becouse you live in a capitalist ass country. In Nordic countries
we have these nice lil things like higher minimum wage, progressive taxing and social security if you don't earn enough to live.

EDIT* I think that there's something wrong with the way americans think about theyr gun laws. How the hell does giving criminal's gun's fight against crime?

And before you start crying that theyre too scared to shoot an armed person, compare americas number's of people killed with gun's, to any other nation in the world.

The idea is that criminals will be more afraid to attack/rob, ect if the victim may be armed.
and people will be more likely to shoot if they think they are being threatened or that the other person has a fire arm

I think socialism is a great Idea.
I have four kids and I really want to instill socialist values in them.
My problem is I have to go to work a minimum of ten hours a day to support my family.
Now you being a fellow socialist and all, you could supplement my income so I wouldnt have work so hard, that way I could stay home and watch tv....teach my kids.
Yeah, Let me know when you are ready to socialising your pay check, mmmmkay. Great.
excellent knowledge of the republican imaginary socialist system

come back after doing research on what a real socialist system entails

Robbing at gunpoint doesn't necessarily require a shot to be fired.

Does that matter to this argument?

Does that matter to this argument?

Yes.

Yes.

Perhaps then, you'd indulge us all and explain why.

Perhaps then, you'd indulge us all and explain why.

The poster was explaining how it would be in someone's worst interest to be involved in a shoot-out with a "law-abiding citizen". You argued that people ("kids") hold up 7/11's all the time with guns. A robbery with a gun doesn't necessarily require a shot to be fired. If a shot isn't fired, it's not a "shoot-out".

Perhaps, I've missed out on the greater context of your comment because I haven't read the thread.

Or in almost any other country the bum doesn't pull out a gun because he doesn't have one.

*thwacks you for this grand display of western ignorance and deports you to South Africa to see the damage bums with guns can do.*

Some guns arent all that expensive, especially when obtained illegally.

That's becouse you live in a capitalist ass country. In Nordic countries
we have these nice lil things like higher minimum wage, progressive taxing and social security if you don't earn enough to live.

EDIT* I think that there's something wrong with the way americans think about theyr gun laws. How the hell does giving criminal's gun's fight against crime?

And before you start crying that theyre too scared to shoot an armed person, compare americas number's of people killed with gun's, to any other nation in the world.

*thwacks you for grand display of European ignorance in regards to Americans and for that matter, the lack of simple common sense*

Minimum wage is a sham. You drive up the wages of the poorest and them raise prices for everyone. Even syndication is better than high minimum wage to control poverty, since when prices go up you lose employers to other nations. Just looks whats going on right here due to high US cost of living: the entire unskilled labor and manufacturing sectors are fleeing the US.

The proper way to resolve this would be to advocate formation of worker-run industries to heal gaps left by fleeing corporations and crack down on price-whoring by greedy companies by enacting measures to crack down on regional pricing, its not fair to charge the US more simply because it's richer, as with much of the first world.

As for gun control, its been shown not to work. Gun crime has risen to record levels in England and Wales recently after the enactment of new gun laws. By comparision, Switzerland, which has compulsory gun ownership laws, has less than half the homocide rate.

Also, considering the US population is a magnitude or two larger than that of european nations, you could end up comparing 10,000 gun homocides in the US with 1,500 in Germany and finding Germany has more gun homocides per capita than the US. Find the statistics for me and do them per capita, please.

While Ralph Nader, the Greens, the Libertarians, and others outside the two party system make excellent points about the similarities between the Democrats and Republicans, this year’s election does offer a contrast between two competing philosophies.

On one hand you have a traditional left-of-center Democrat in John Kerry. Kerry supports many of the ideas touted by American progressives for the past 30 years, including protection of the environment, entitlements for the middle class, and tolerance for diversity, as well as the more fiscally conservative ideas of the New Democrats, as represented by the Clintonian promise to balance the budget. Kerry’s foreign policy is fairly traditional – using the threat of a clear and present danger as the measure for committing U.S troops in foreign adventures, as well as a traditional reliance on building a strong coalition of allies.

On the other hand, however, the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, has broken from what have been traditional Republican conservative values. While Bush has voiced support for the traditional social/religious values of the right – opposition to abortion and homosexuals, government support of religious charities and schools, censorship of “immoral” material over the airwaves – he has not adhered to the traditional GOP position of smaller government and balanced budget.

During the Bush administration the Clinton surplus has become a deficit approaching $500 billion. The current government debt is over $7 trillion. His tax cuts, aimed mainly at the wealthiest 1%, are straight from the traditional GOP playbook but, combined with the out-of-control spending of the GOP Congress, are bankrupting the U.S. treasury. George W. Bush’s growing government is also a more intrusive government. The woefully misnamed “Patriot Act” interjects an unchecked government into the lives of Americans in ways no true conservative would have accepted in the past.

The president’s biggest break with traditional Republican values, however, has been in the area of foreign policy, adopting what has been called a “Neo-Conservative” philosophy. The Neo-Con foreign policy supports preemptive strikes and unilateral action. The overarching goal is to promote the development of an American Empire, which the neo-cons say is the greatest hope for world peace – a Pax-Americana. The result has been an unnecessary war costing $200 billion, 1000+ American lives, and no end in sight.

While I have problems with the Democratic candidate, especially his early support for the war on Iraq and his vote for the Patriot Act, those concerns are outweighed by the dangers presented by the current administration. The combination of an all-powerful, ever expanding government at home and a near messianic belief in American Empire abroad makes this administration the most dangerous in American history and this election the most important in our lifetime.

On the other hand, however, the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, has broken from what have been traditional Republican conservative values. While Bush has voiced support for the traditional social/religious values of the right – opposition to abortion and homosexuals, government support of religious charities and schools, censorship of “immoral” material over the airwaves – he has not adhered to the traditional GOP position of smaller government and balanced budget.

Which is exactly why I cannot vote for Bush. He is the worst thing to happen to American conservatism (and the GOP) in recent memory. He abandons the fiscal conservatives and libertarians in the GOP coalition and conservatism defined broadly. This should be a no-brainer...but it isn't...and that's the fault of Bush.

*thwacks you for grand display of European ignorance in regards to Americans and for that matter, the lack of simple common sense*

Minimum wage is a sham. You drive up the wages of the poorest and them raise prices for everyone. Even syndication is better than high minimum wage to control poverty, since when prices go up you lose employers to other nations. Just looks whats going on right here due to high US cost of living: the entire unskilled labor and manufacturing sectors are fleeing the US.

As for gun control, its been shown not to work. Gun crime has risen to record levels in England and Wales recently after the enactment of new gun laws. By comparision, Switzerland, which has compulsory gun ownership laws, has less than half the homocide rate.

Also, considering the US population is a magnitude or two larger than that of european nations, you could end up comparing 10,000 gun homocides in the US with 1,500 in Germany and finding Germany has more gun homocides per capita than the US. Find the statistics for me and do them per capita, please.

Well yes i agree with this that money doesn't like socialism. Therefore it flees to countries with lower level of life, but cheaper workforce. And that's not fun. Pretty much the ssame is happening in my country (finland). That is exactly why capitalism sucks, since money isn't a thing you can cooperate with.

As for gun control, http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap41.htm

Theres a site with some number's just scroll the page down a bit and youll find the numbers. Im too lazy to copy them here :P
However im sorry that that rather old info, but didn't have time to find any more fresh. As i considered if i linked you to "Bowling for Columbine", you wouldn't have liked it.

Still that shows that USA has absolutely highest number of gun homicides per capita. As i don't believe that has changed so dramatically over time.

and people will be more likely to shoot if they think they are being threatened or that the other person has a fire arm

It hasn't happened lately, at least in America.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats:

Republicans like movies about brave heroes blowing the stuffing out of everything that gets in their way.

Democrats like movies about brave reporters investigating the atrocities committed by hero types who blow the stuffing out of anything that gets in their way.

Let me put this in a slightly less partisan (read: full-of-crap) way:

The Conservative/Liberal Razor
I forget who originally created this, my apologies to them.

A conservative sees a man drowning 50 feet from shore, throws him a 25 foot rope, and tells him to swim to it.

A liberal sees a man drowning 50 feet from shore, throws him a 50 foot rope, then drops his end and goes off to perform another good deed.

Republicans like movies about brave heroes blowing the hell out of everything that gets in their way.

:eek:

Oh my. Please, folks, this is a family forum.

Let me put this in a slightly less partisan (read: full-of-crap) way:

The Conservative/Liberal Razor
I forget who originally created this, my apologies to them.

A conservative sees a man drowning 50 feet from shore, throws him a 25 foot rope, and tells him to swim to it.

A liberal sees a man drowning 50 feet from shore, throws him a 50 foot rope, then drops his end and goes off to perform another good deed.
thats alot truer

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came
to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his office for a job He then took
twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless
person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and
gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the
Republican's pocket and took twenty dollars. He kept 15 for
administrative fees and gave the homeless person five.

Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Welfare... The way the Democrat keeps people voting for him. Employment... The way the Republican keeps people voting for him.

too bad bush isnt doing too hot on employment, i guess thats where blind party loyalty comes in eh?

too bad bush isnt doing too hot on employment, i guess thats where blind party loyalty comes in eh?

Ehem. Its not like either opposition party could have done better, and Bush's tax relief will at least help negate the worst losses by adressing the problem causing them (high cost.) Also, his policies are in fact generally less vulnerable to abuse and sabotage, despite what has been said b the opposition. Kerry's healthcare plan, for example, will pretty much allow you to get state coverage for any medical procedure as long as its really wexpensive (and you dont even have to be poor to get the coverage! hows that for helping the working classes?) Bush's pown is oriented towards making private health coverage more affordable, and his own plan has its own series of flaws but no blatant gaps that i know of.

Ehem. Its not like either opposition party could have done better, and Bush's tax relief will at least help negate the worst losses by adressing the problem causing them (high cost.) Also, his policies are in fact generally less vulnerable to abuse and sabotage, despite what has been said b the opposition. Kerry's healthcare plan, for example, will pretty much allow you to get state coverage for any medical procedure as long as its really wexpensive (and you dont even have to be poor to get the coverage! hows that for helping the working classes?) Bush's pown is oriented towards making private health coverage more affordable, and his own plan has its own series of flaws but no blatant gaps that i know of.
Plus, he, like most republicans, doesn't push unemployed people into the arms of never ending welfare.

Ehem. Its not like either opposition party could have done better, and Bush's tax relief will at least help negate the worst losses by adressing the problem causing them (high cost.) Also, his policies are in fact generally less vulnerable to abuse and sabotage, despite what has been said b the opposition. Kerry's healthcare plan, for example, will pretty much allow you to get state coverage for any medical procedure as long as its really wexpensive (and you dont even have to be poor to get the coverage! hows that for helping the working classes?) Bush's pown is oriented towards making private health coverage more affordable, and his own plan has its own series of flaws but no blatant gaps that i know of.
oh yeah bush's plans really help employment, thats why there are more people in the work force than there are jobs available and he has a net loss of jobs

rofl making private health coverage more affordable how? by refusing to regulate anything in the medical industry?

oh yeah bush's plans really help employment, thats why there are more people in the work force than there are jobs available and he has a net loss of jobs
The bolded part is really a pretty stupid thing to say if you think about it.

yeha munke, because unemployed people without the ability to support themselves, their family and, your favorite, the economy is much better than giving them welfare money.

The bolded part is really a pretty stupid thing to say if you think about it.
well there are more people able to be employed than there are jobs to employ them in

yeha munke, because unemployed people without the ability to support themselves, their family and, your favorite, the economy is much better than giving them welfare money.
What the hell does that mean? :gundge:

well there are more people able to be employed than there are jobs to employ them in
Yeah, but that isn't a sign of bad job policies, bad economic policy, or a bad job market at all.

Yeah, but that isn't a sign of bad job policies, bad economic policy, or a bad job market at all.
they said bush's tax policies were helping employment, thus i can say what i want regarding crappy employment

they said bush's tax policies were helping employment, thus i can say what i want regarding crappy employment
You can. Just make sure it makes sense. Because going by that standard (there are more people wanting jobs than there are jobs), every President - practically ever ruler in the history of mankind, for that matter - has had "crappy employment".

From what I've seen of socialists, they'd pay the biggest, strongest, most violent 10% of the bums they met to get the other 90% to a gulag, wherein they could sell their forced labour to a Republican. The Democrat would then complain until he was cut in for a slice of the profits.

You can. Just make sure it makes sense. Because going by that standard (there are more people wanting jobs than there are jobs), every President - practically ever ruler in the history of mankind, for that matter - has had "crappy employment".
the point is it may create jobs but it creates a fraction of many as needed, i also mentioned he has a net job loss

Al Gore and Ralph Nader would have had net job losses too. Inflated COL and market crashes dont tend to keep positions open. Bush at least addressed the COL problem. Please read what I write more carefully Chess.

Also, limited welfare is important but theres no need to allow people to rely on welfare unless they are no longer of working age.

Al Gore and Ralph Nader would have had net job losses too. Inflated COL and market crashes dont tend to keep positions open. Bush at least addressed the COL problem. Please read what I write more carefully Chess.

Also, limited welfare is important but theres no need to allow people to rely on welfare unless they are no longer of working age.
so the very large number of people of working age who cant obtain a job shouldnt be allowed welfare? and the poor people with 2 full time jobs who still can barely make a living shouldnt be allowed welfare?

From what I've seen of socialists, they'd pay the biggest, strongest, most violent 10% of the bums they met to get the other 90% to a gulag, wherein they could sell their forced labour to a Republican. The Democrat would then complain until he was cut in for a slice of the profits.

"Why do you have to have a head?"

so the very large number of people of working age who cant obtain a job shouldnt be allowed welfare? and the poor people with 2 full time jobs who still can barely make a living shouldnt be allowed welfare?

Generally unemployment or very low pay is required to gain welfare, unless the reciever has a disability or has impressed a private welfare group with a demonstration of skills.

Anyway, welfare is good but it's not the job of the government, except for the most basic elements welfare should be handled privately. This is the logic behind the faith-based-initiatives, as religious groups so often dominate the private welfare sector.

Generally unemployment or very low pay is required to gain welfare, unless the reciever has a disability or has impressed a private welfare group with a demonstration of skills.

Anyway, welfare is good but it's not the job of the government, except for the most basic elements welfare should be handled privately. This is the logic behind the faith-based-initiatives, as religious groups so often dominate the private welfare sector.
government shouldnt control everything, thats your philosphy, mine is the opposite: private sector cant be trusted to control everything. the only logical ground is in between. what would happen if we turn everything over to private sector? vigilantes and unregulated business screwing everyone over. and faith based initiatives are not the job of the government, the government should not be making laws based on the religion of the persons controlling it.

government shouldnt control everything, thats your philosphy, mine is the opposite: private sector cant be trusted to control everything. the only logical ground is in between. what would happen if we turn everything over to private sector? vigilantes and unregulated business screwing everyone over. and faith based initiatives are not the job of the government, the government should not be making laws based on the religion of the persons controlling it.

Hurr, well, lets look over US privatized systems.

Postal System: Complete success. No loss of efficiency and a competitive and dynamic market forming for postal and shipping services.

Telephone System: Mostly sucessful. Some scams have been uncovered by now-disreputable companies like Sprint but for the most part it has provided a large variety of plans available for people to choose from. Public phone systems have proven to be a collosal failure in other countries anyway, succumbing to corruption and bad service.

Healthcare: The US has the best survival rates in the world for serious diseases but abuse of civil court systems and high tuitions have inflated costs. Some reforms are needed but socialized healthcare has been shown to fail in nations like Canada where large amounts of hospitals had to close down.

Education: Tritary education is supported by merit-based welfare and financial aid groups, and free options exist in the form of charitable colleges and military academies. This system is expensive but it works very well, and fully private institutions like MIT tend to get the best performance. Some get supplanted by the government.

Water, Wastewater, & Energy: These are not really privatized, usually run by state-endorsed monopolies that trade with each other and monitor the region they are responsible for. The difficulty and expense of building this infrastructure, and the large amount of environmental scientists occupied in this field will probably prevent competition anyway, so attempting to privatize this properly is not a good idea.

Waste Disposal: No real problems here, some healthy competition.

Ports & Airlines: Too much government aid to failing giants are preventing newer, more efficient systems from rising. The government needs to pull its nose out of this system except in the security respect, of course.

well there are more people able to be employed than there are jobs to employ them in
Funny how that works, huh?

What did the world do before there were employers?

Form unions and bitch! Right?


No, they got off their sorry arse and got to work. They took responsibility for themselves rather than wait for someone to come along and rescue them. Farming, hunting, fishing, sewing, building, etc. Today they are called entrepreneurs.

and it is worth nothing that laboreres who move up to entrepreneurs do not show up as 'employed' on many unemployment reports.

Soialists are fools for they claim to not trust monopolies yet they want to create the largest monopoly of all.

Postal System: Complete success. No loss of efficiency and a competitive and dynamic market forming for postal and shipping services.
no loss of efficiency? do you use the same postal system as i do? the fucknig pony express was more efficient than our postal system.

Telephone System: Mostly sucessful. Some scams have been uncovered by now-disreputable companies like Sprint but for the most part it has provided a large variety of plans available for people to choose from. Public phone systems have proven to be a collosal failure in other countries anyway, succumbing to corruption and bad service.
your just cherry picking bullshit, i said there shouldbe a mix of private and public systems, your just being a jackass to advocate all private

Healthcare: The US has the best survival rates in the world for serious diseases but abuse of civil court systems and high tuitions have inflated costs. Some reforms are needed but socialized healthcare has been shown to fail in nations like Canada where large amounts of hospitals had to close down.
ROFL, what fucknig bullshit. 20 bucks says you dont have one god damn example or statistic to back up any of this shit. we suffer from a HORRIBLE life expectancy rate and other shit for a first world nation. lets put that in context. CUBA being a third world country and socialized health care system has only 2 years less average life expectancy than the US, and it is increasing much faster than that of the US. health care in the us is ludicrously bloated charging whatever amount of money they want because there is no regulation and we have to pay it. health care is just a third party making a mint off the bloasted industry by only paying fractions of what the care costs. and the ONLY person who has proposed an intelligent system to fix frivolous law suits is john kerry, bush only proposes to ban all regulations on the industry.

Education: Tritary education is supported by merit-based welfare and financial aid groups, and free options exist in the form of charitable colleges and military academies. This system is expensive but it works very well, and fully private institutions like MIT tend to get the best performance. Some get supplanted by the government.
public education is horrible because of how it is being worked on. no one has tried to fix it, peopel have tried ot apply bandaids and idiotic band aids like the no child left behind act. the only way to fix it is to ensure that all schools have equal funding. THAT is how you fix education, which acnt be done by privatised education because everyone cant afford private education and private education isnt free because its PRIVATE.



Ports & Airlines: Too much government aid to failing giants are preventing newer, more efficient systems from rising. The government needs to pull its nose out of this system except in the security respect, of course.oh please, the government needs to get in there and do its damn job regulating them and making sure safety regulations are met and kept up with. and the main reason major airlines are going broke is the smaller airlines comopeting with them are doing it cheaper and the major airlines are trying to drop prices to compete, which is causing their profit to fall in the negative lines, thus not profit at all. wow, look at all that good competition!

Funny how that works, huh?

What did the world do before there were employers?

Form unions and bitch! Right?


No, they got off their sorry arse and got to work. They took responsibility for themselves rather than wait for someone to come along and rescue them. Farming, hunting, fishing, sewing, building, etc. Today they are called entrepreneurs.

and it is worth nothing that laboreres who move up to entrepreneurs do not show up as 'employed' on many unemployment reports.

Soialists are fools for they claim to not trust monopolies yet they want to create the largest monopoly of all.
"Join a Union, we drive up salaries, drive up prices, drive jobs out of the country! :) Then we blame 'Outsourcing' on others,when it is our fault. "

ROFL, what fucknig bullshit. 20 bucks says you dont have one god damn example or statistic to back up any of this shit. we suffer from a HORRIBLE life expectancy rate and other shit for a first world nation. lets put that in context. CUBA being a third world country and socialized health care system has only 2 years less average life expectancy than the US, and it is increasing much faster than that of the US. health care in the us is ludicrously bloated charging whatever amount of money they want because there is no regulation and we have to pay it. health care is just a third party making a mint off the bloasted industry by only paying fractions of what the care costs. and the ONLY person who has proposed an intelligent system to fix frivolous law suits is john kerry, bush only proposes to ban all regulations on the industry.

The problem as I have seen it summed up is this- the US has the world's finest critical care, bar none. Socialized systems have better access to GPs, and hence better preventative medicine. My uncle, who was Canadian, lived an hour outside Toronto, but received cancer treatment at Beaumont Hospital north of Detroit. Why? The wait for treatment would have been a death sentance. In addition, the cost of health care has gone up due to insurance rates and entry barriers for doctors. There hasn't been 1 new private med school built in the US in 30 years, not because of quality, but because of doctors trying to limit their own number in order to keep the supply of health care providers low.


public education is horrible because of how it is being worked on. no one has tried to fix it, peopel have tried ot apply bandaids and idiotic band aids like the no child left behind act. the only way to fix it is to ensure that all schools have equal funding. THAT is how you fix education, which acnt be done by privatised education because everyone cant afford private education and private education isnt free because its PRIVATE.

Then why the failure of some pretty highly funded school systems such as DC? And why the success of, say Lutheran schools, that charge $150\month per pupil?



oh please, the government needs to get in there and do its damn job regulating them and making sure safety regulations are met and kept up with. and the main reason major airlines are going broke is the smaller airlines comopeting with them are doing it cheaper and the major airlines are trying to drop prices to compete, which is causing their profit to fall in the negative lines, thus not profit at all. wow, look at all that good competition!

Ummm...that is competition. Airline who cannot keep up with market trends will not win the race, so to speak. But the government bails them out. That's like giving aspirin to someone with bone cancer. These major airlines who do not change their business model, or who do not find a niche, are doomed to failure. That's the same with ANY business. Increasing regulation will only increase prices. Instead of flying to see mom in Chicago, some will choose to drive- a far more dangerous mode of transportation.

Generally unemployment or very low pay is required to gain welfare, unless the reciever has a disability or has impressed a private welfare group with a demonstration of skills.

Anyway, welfare is good but it's not the job of the government, except for the most basic elements welfare should be handled privately. This is the logic behind the faith-based-initiatives, as religious groups so often dominate the private welfare sector.

Yes, so long as you're willing to drink the religious kool-aid they'll help...why should someone be forced to listen to some "man of god" in order to recieve the nesscesities?

Show them both an 8 oz. glass with 4 oz. of water.

Democrat: "The glass is half empty."

Republican: "Who the Hell took half of my water???"

"Join a Union, we drive up salaries, drive up prices, drive jobs out of the country! :) Then we blame 'Outsourcing' on others,when it is our fault. "

Become an executive! Take advantage of your work force, fiddle the books, avoid paying tax through loop holes, have no real corporate checks and balances (thanks to the "Old boys network"), raid the work forces pension scheme, award yourselves massive pay increases, blame unproductivity on people trying to get a livable wage.

Outsourcing is a consequence of Free Tade, which the Unions are normally complaining about.