NationStates Jolt Archive

Gather around boys and girls, it's time to talk about responsibility and what it should mean. See, when you were a kid, your parents could just control everything couldn't they? Your mom would kiss your boo boo, your dad would fix your bike, and everything was great. Nothing but sunshine and kitten farts. However, when you turned into an adult, everything changes, the rule changes. Your parents let you loose because they hoped that they raised you well enough so that you can be responsible for yourself. Back in the old days, people had no problem with being responsible for themselves and their actions. If you didn't wear a seatbelt, and you went flying through the windshield, well, that was your own damn fault. If you smoked and got lung cancer, even when there's a warning on the package stating that it may happen, once again, your own damn fault. However, it seems like times are changing. Less and less people want to be responsible for their actions, people don't want to be as self reliant as they once were. Nowanddays it seems like people want Gov. Co. to take care of them, be there for them from craddle to grave. Neverminding the fact that such a system would lead to overtaxation and possible police state. It seems like people aren't as willing to claim personal responsibility for their own action as they once were. Instead they would rather blame someone else for them. Oh, it's the government fault for not making me wear my seatbelt, they should've told me it would hurt being turned into a human projectile! Ohhh someone should've told me to sit my ass down in class and learn, so that I won't fail at life. Ugh, someone should told me the Superman Cape doesn't really make me fly! See, it's just silly, if you do somehting stupid, then, dee dee dee, it's your own fault. But I guess in a time where people are demanding that their government take care of them from craddle to grave, there's no need or self reliance, there's no need for personal responsibility, and there's no need for common sense. Beside, we all remember how great our childhood was, let us return that with Gov. Co. being our mom and dad.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of what you're saying, it's a bit too condescending for my tastes, but that's just the way I operate.

I find that post to be simplistic, yet difficult to read. Oh the paradox!

I cannot stand how many people will not accept responsibility for their own actions. It didn't seem to condescending to me, but maybe I'm just in an over-cynical mood today.

BTW, Wilgrove, I read some of your posts in another topic and I agree with most of the things you said. I also like the term "Gov. Co." I think I'm going to adopt that and start using it myself.

Yeah, be careful. We let unca government do this welfare-system-thingy here in Norway, and now the tax rate is 110% and police will come to your door and shoot you if you say bad things about the Chairman. They know when you do, because they implant microphones in our skulls at birth.

All hail the Chairman!

i think its good to have massive WARNING signs on everything because people are so stupid they need telling. no point in being condesending, or patronise the stupid people, just try n let them have a nice quaint life of little human projectile type suffering.

id gladly pay money in taxes if it means i dont have to read "lawsuit: another idiot vs. coffee company" - "you didnt say it was hot! ouch!"

AND furthermore, i LIKE shifting responsibility for my actions ;)

i think what people want from the government is protection from other people's stupidity in a lot of cases. take smoking - the ban in public buildings came into force to protect non-smokers from the stupidity of smokers. similarly the seatbelt laws protect children from the potential stupidity of their parents and also protect front seat passengers from the stupidity of adult backseat passengers. drivers are required to wear seatbelts because they are the ones responsible for the other occupants of the car, if something goes wrong a driver not properly secured in their seat is not going to be in the best position to control of the car. as for superman capes and the like - there are many many highly stupid and actually mentally 'challenged' people out there who really do need people to tell them what you imagine to be obvious. consider someone with autism - they are able to look after themselves in the day to day routine but they have a tendency in many cases to take things literally which is why autism charities warn people to be careful not to use euphamisms and the like when communicating with them. in such a case it is necessary for a warning to exist that says that a superman cape does not endow the user with superman powers. if you find these warnings and regulations condecending you don't have to pay attention to them but if you are as sensible as you seem to imply then you would abide by them unthinkingly. they are at worst silly to the average person and they are hardly worth such a rant.

Nothing but sunshine and kitten farts.
umm... kitten farts?

I find that post to be simplistic, yet difficult to read. Oh the paradox!
i thought the writer of it might have been drunk... :P


on topic though, there's a balance to be sought between government overprotection of its people and letting people seriously hurt themselves, or others, in want of more personal responsibility. for many actions or decisions it is not possible, or very difficult (or just not widely done) to consider the full concequences of your action. such actions (consumption of such goods or services) are called merit and demerit goods in economics. merit goods, like education, are ones people generally do not realise the full value of at the time of consumption, and would consume less without intervention. demerit goods, like smoking, are the opposite. the government needs to encourage consumption of the former and discourage the latter - simple economic truth. the question is how to achieve this - let the market handle it by simply putting warning stickers on cigarrettes and still letting people give themselves cancer? a middle ground of upping the price through product-specific tax and using advertising, awareness and education to discourage consumption of this demerit good? or go all-out and ban cigarettes all together? where does the correct balance lie in preserving personal responsibility but still protecting citizens from... well... themselves?

Use the magical enter key!
s'too long too read.

People are idiots and deserve what they get. They either wisen up and shake off government, or remain little infants under its rule. Their choice.

I especially like how this kind of crap is spouted by people who are quite happy with "Gov.Co." telling people whether or not they can get married, take a certain drug, terminate a pregnancy, or wear a certain color of tee shirt to a presidential speech.

Conservative's "responsibility" is just double-speak for "they're being mean to my big corporation".

I especially like how this kind of crap is spouted by people who are quite happy with "Gov.Co." telling people whether or not they can get married, take a certain drug, terminate a pregnancy, or wear a certain color of tee shirt to a presidential speech.

Conservative's "responsibility" is just double-speak for "they're being mean to my big corporation".
You have no clue about our ideologies, whatsoever. There's a radical difference between a Bush Republican, and someone who supports this viewpoint.

I especially like how this kind of crap is spouted by people who are quite happy with "Gov.Co." telling people whether or not they can get married, take a certain drug, terminate a pregnancy, or wear a certain color of tee shirt to a presidential speech.

Conservative's "responsibility" is just double-speak for "they're being mean to my big corporation".

I actually don't care if gays get married, if you'd read my "Let's Gay get married" post you would realize that. Also, I don't think drugs really solve anything and should be used as last resort. As for abortion, I am pro-life, and let's just leave it at that. I think you are mixing true Conservatisim with Bush Neo-Conservatisim which isn't true Conservatisim at all.

You have no clue about our ideologies, whatsoever. There's a radical difference between a Bush Republican, and someone who supports this viewpoint.Hahahaha. It's Coulter Republicans (a much more accurate term than Bush Republicans) that are some of the biggest, or perhaps loudest, spouters of this ideology.

Both Coulter Republicans and right-wing libertarians are quite willing to use each other in order to maintain power.

I cannot stand how many people will not accept responsibility for their own actions. It didn't seem to condescending to me, but maybe I'm just in an over-cynical mood today.

BTW, Wilgrove, I read some of your posts in another topic and I agree with most of the things you said. I also like the term "Gov. Co." I think I'm going to adopt that and start using it myself.

Thank you, but I can't take responsibility for coming up with Gov. Co. The person who thought that up was a local radiol talk show personality, Keith Larson. I listen to him all the time.

umm... kitten farts?

LOL! I was waiting for someone to question that! :D You win a slice of cheese cake!

Both Coulter Republicans and right-wing libertarians are quite willing to use each other in order to maintain power.
The world does not revolve around the US. There are libertarians elsewhere as well who do not have to put up with their more ignorant fellow right-wings.

i think what people want from the government is protection from other people's stupidity in a lot of cases. take smoking - the ban in public buildings came into force to protect non-smokers from the stupidity of smokers. similarly the seatbelt laws protect children from the potential stupidity of their parents and also protect front seat passengers from the stupidity of adult backseat passengers. drivers are required to wear seatbelts because they are the ones responsible for the other occupants of the car, if something goes wrong a driver not properly secured in their seat is not going to be in the best position to control of the car. as for superman capes and the like - there are many many highly stupid and actually mentally 'challenged' people out there who really do need people to tell them what you imagine to be obvious. consider someone with autism - they are able to look after themselves in the day to day routine but they have a tendency in many cases to take things literally which is why autism charities warn people to be careful not to use euphamisms and the like when communicating with them. in such a case it is necessary for a warning to exist that says that a superman cape does not endow the user with superman powers. if you find these warnings and regulations condecending you don't have to pay attention to them but if you are as sensible as you seem to imply then you would abide by them unthinkingly. they are at worst silly to the average person and they are hardly worth such a rant.

As for the autistic child, while it's true they may not be able to comprehend that the Superman Cape doesn't exactly endown you with Superman's power. It should be the responsibility of the care taker to look after the child, and to teach him this, not Gov. Co.

Hahahaha. It's Coulter Republicans (a much more accurate term than Bush Republicans) that are some of the biggest, or perhaps loudest, spouters of this ideology.

Both Coulter Republicans and right-wing libertarians are quite willing to use each other in order to maintain power.

Generally speaking, the viewpoint you speak of ("Coulter Republicans" is a good term, actually, except that Coulter is logically inconsistent and overly belligerent, and I don't like to associate that attitude with what are largely my views) can be summarized as "The government should enforce morality and leave stupidity to punish itself, except where it endangers the lives of others".

The reason this is hard to keep consistent, and way easy to mock, is that one has to definte "morality" and "endangers the lives of others". Apart from that, the system works quite well: The government stops stuff that people thing is wrong, and otherwise doesn't care...

Which means the system only works well in a culture where a large majority accepts the same system of morality. And it doesn't work so well in... uh, well, in the modern world, what with competing religions (and various systems which involve lack of religion). At least, it could theoretically work, but there's so little consensus as to what's right and wrong, even as a social morality (means it helps society operate) as opposed to an absolute one.

Of course, another working alternative doesn't seem to be around yet, practically. Welfare states? = unemployment. Fascism? Well, we all saw where that leads... Libertarianism? Could work, but no one's actually tried it yet, oddly enough. This seems to indicate that government is just sort of flawed from the outset, regardless, because humanity is dumb.

I actually don't care if gays get married, if you'd read my "Let's Gay get married" post you would realize that. Also, I don't think drugs really solve anything and should be used as last resort. As for abortion, I am pro-life, and let's just leave it at that.Just examples, just examples...but I think you've pretty much proven my point.
I think you are mixing true Conservatisim with Bush Neo-Conservatisim which isn't true Conservatisim at all.As far as the cult of "personal responsibility" they're pretty much one and the same. Both forms of conservatism choose to protect business against the individual. On a practical level, "true" conservatism, at least in the U.S., no longer exists. They have been marginalized in their own party, cut out of power positions, and have made no effort to reassert their brand of conservatism. They will continue to vote for the neoconservatives because of an illogical fear of "liberals", thus guaranteeing their continued irrelevence.

you Ammmeerricans *said in european sneer* take your politics far too seriosuly. we just have a queen, who is really old. she waves sometimes, and we cheer. NOW THAT, is politics.


yaaay

i think its good to have massive WARNING signs on everything because people are so stupid they need telling. no point in being condesending, or patronise the stupid people, just try n let them have a nice quaint life of little human projectile type suffering.

id gladly pay money in taxes if it means i dont have to read "lawsuit: another idiot vs. coffee company" - "you didnt say it was hot! ouch!"

AND furthermore, i LIKE shifting responsibility for my actions ;)
Warning signs are not meant to warn anybody. They are meant to protect companies from lawsuits. Do you really think they put warnings about food being processed on equipment used to process peanuts because they care about people with peanut allergies? Of course not! They couldn't give a flying kitten fart about what people are allergic to!

Let's make it simple for manufacturers: every product should have a big red warning sticker on it that says: "Use or misuse of this product may cause injury and/or death". That way, the next person that gets splinters because they were using a plunger in a preemptive strike against clogs can't go suing the manufacturer simply because there wasn't a warning sticker that said "not to be used internally".

...<snip> Libertarianism? Could work, but no one's actually tried it yet, oddly enough. Libertarianism seems to be like communism... great in theory, but the devil's in the details. The libertarian who doesn't make exceptions ("I'm a pro-life libertarian." "I'm a libertarian, except for national security and energy protection because it's too important") is rare indeed.
you Ammmeerricans *said in european sneer* take your politics far too seriosuly. we just have a queen, who is really old. she waves sometimes, and we cheer. It must the the funky hats she wears that makes a difference. I would cheer if Bush would wear one of those the next time he has a press conference. :D

Warning signs are not meant to warn anybody. They are meant to protect companies from lawsuits. Do you really think they put warnings about food being processed on equipment used to process peanuts because they care about people with peanut allergies? Of course not! They couldn't give a flying kitten fart about what people are allergic to!

Let's make it simple for manufacturers: every product should have a big red warning sticker on it that says: "Use or misuse of this product may cause injury and/or death". That way, the next person that gets splinters because they were using a plunger in a preemptive strike against clogs can't go suing the manufacturer simply because there wasn't a warning sticker that said "not to be used internally".

Kitten Farts is a registered trademark of Wilgrove circa 2006.

Libertarianism seems to be like communism... great in theory, but the devil's in the details. The libertarian who doesn't make exceptions ("I'm a pro-life libertarian." "I'm a libertarian, except for national security and energy protection because it's too important") is rare indeed.

Well, I am still trying to discover what I am exactly, but so far anarcho-capitalism/minarchism are the ideologies to which I find the least objections. Even less so in terms of exceptions, as most things can be incorporated into the free market. I could be leaning between small government Conservative or full blown Libertarian. Not sure yet.

Libertarianism seems to be like communism... great in theory, but the devil's in the details. The libertarian who doesn't make exceptions ("I'm a pro-life libertarian." "I'm a libertarian, except for national security and energy protection because it's too important") is rare indeed.
It must the the funky hats she wears that makes a difference. I would cheer if Bush would wear one of those the next time he has a press conference. :D

I think it would be fun if he did a press conference drunk.

I think it would be fun if he did a press conference drunk.He hasn't? :eek: I could have sworn..... :D

I think I'm hovering somewhere between extremely minarchist libertarian, (only tiny police force and military), and full blown anarchist, (all government is coercion and therefore evil.) 'Tis quite confusing really.

...so far anarcho-capitalism/minarchism are the ideologies to which I find the least objections. Even less so in terms of exceptions, as most things can be incorporated into the free market. I could be leaning between small government Conservative or full blown Libertarian. Not sure yet.Do you have formal opportunities to vote this way? Local candidates? National? Or do you find yourself voting for "lesser evils"? (Pardon my lack of knowledge.)

Do you have formal opportunities to vote this way? Local candidates? National? Or do you find yourself voting for "lesser evils"? (Pardon my lack of knowledge.)
Well, given that I am in the UK now, I am stuck with no Libertarian Party, and a Conservative (Tory) Party increasingly aligning with the neo-fascist, left-wing wanna-be Labour scum. The Liberal-Democrats are thus the only party to which I can relate to on some levels, as they support both economic and social liberalism*. So, it's voting for lesser evils whilst I am here. When I emigrate to Sweden for studies, perhaps there I'll have more or a choice.

*Economic liberalism = laissez-faire.

...I am stuck with no Libertarian Party, and a Conservative (Tory) Party increasingly aligning with the neo-fascist, left-wing wanna-be Labour scum...So there are some advantages to the two-party system--it's easier to keep track of the players. :)

So there are some advantages to the two-party system--it's easier to keep track of the players. :)
The problem is they both suck just as badly. The UK is still somewhat a three-party state, but it's turning into a US II.

Responsibility is such a convoluted concept that anyone who attempts to assign it is being very irresponsible.

As for the autistic child, while it's true they may not be able to comprehend that the Superman Cape doesn't exactly endown you with Superman's power. It should be the responsibility of the care taker to look after the child, and to teach him this, not Gov. Co.
i said people, not children. autism isn't just a childhood condition.

As for the autistic child, while it's true they may not be able to comprehend that the Superman Cape doesn't exactly endown you with Superman's power. It should be the responsibility of the care taker to look after the child, and to teach him this, not Gov. Co.
as well that a rating of "M for Mature" on a video game usually means that buying it for your pre-teen grandson is a bad Idea. and thus one shouldn't be shocked when sex or nudity or violence is part of the game.

I think that if the author of the thread doesnt take responsibility for not formatting it and making it readable, the government should step in.

I think that if the author of the thread doesnt take responsibility for not formatting it and making it readable, the government should step in.

Seconded!

Libertarianism? Could work, but no one's actually tried it yet, oddly enough. This seems to indicate that government is just sort of flawed from the outset, regardless, because humanity is dumb.
It was tried in the 19th century in Britain. Turns out, a mixed economy is better than pure capitalism.

Gather around boys and girls, it's time to talk about responsibility and what it should mean. See, when you were a kid, your parents could just control everything couldn't they? Your mom would kiss your boo boo, your dad would fix your bike, and everything was great. Nothing but sunshine and kitten farts. However, when you turned into an adult, everything changes, the rule changes. Your parents let you loose because they hoped that they raised you well enough so that you can be responsible for yourself. Back in the old days, people had no problem with being responsible for themselves and their actions. If you didn't wear a seatbelt, and you went flying through the windshield, well, that was your own damn fault. If you smoked and got lung cancer, even when there's a warning on the package stating that it may happen, once again, your own damn fault. However, it seems like times are changing. Less and less people want to be responsible for their actions, people don't want to be as self reliant as they once were. Nowanddays it seems like people want Gov. Co. to take care of them, be there for them from craddle to grave. Neverminding the fact that such a system would lead to overtaxation and possible police state. It seems like people aren't as willing to claim personal responsibility for their own action as they once were. Instead they would rather blame someone else for them. Oh, it's the government fault for not making me wear my seatbelt, they should've told me it would hurt being turned into a human projectile! Ohhh someone should've told me to sit my ass down in class and learn, so that I won't fail at life. Ugh, someone should told me the Superman Cape doesn't really make me fly! See, it's just silly, if you do somehting stupid, then, dee dee dee, it's your own fault. But I guess in a time where people are demanding that their government take care of them from craddle to grave, there's no need or self reliance, there's no need for personal responsibility, and there's no need for common sense. Beside, we all remember how great our childhood was, let us return that with Gov. Co. being our mom and dad.

Which explains the masses of communists.

I think that if the author of the thread doesnt take responsibility for not formatting it and making it readable, the government should step in.

and that government will be met with my 12 gauge, stomping on my freedom of speech rights, for shame!

Which explains the masses of communists.

Don't forget the socialist.

I think the moral of the story is...

Wipe your own ass. :)

I think the moral of the story is...

Wipe your own ass. :)

exactly.

It was tried in the 19th century in Britain. Turns out, a mixed economy is better than pure capitalism.

Ah. I didn't know that. I think I want to go find sources for this info, 'cause my econ department is kinda radical libertarian to the point of being ridiculous. Any ideas (books, etc) where I should look to start?

It was easier in the 60's, there was what, 10 channels? Now there are over 150 channels and with the internet its just not as easy as it used to be.

and what exactly is wrong with Libertarians Black Forrest? What is wrong, with actually having to do stuff for yourself, instead of waiting on the government to do it for you? You seem to be a supporter of socialist ideas, tell me, why would a country in which people do things for themselves, and not rely on the government as much be worse than a country with the opposite?

and what exactly is wrong with Libertarians Black Forrest? What is wrong, with actually having to do stuff for yourself, instead of waiting on the government to do it for you? You seem to be a supporter of socialist ideas, tell me, why would a country in which people do things for themselves, and not rely on the government as much be worse than a country with the opposite?

As I told you before. Your kind of liberterians simply register as static.

Keep up with your attitudes! It will guarantee you guys never obtain any significant power.

Try offering solutions rather then bitching that everybody else are bunch of lazy stupid fuckoffs.

Good at surgery are you?

Ah. I didn't know that. I think I want to go find sources for this info, 'cause my econ department is kinda radical libertarian to the point of being ridiculous. Any ideas (books, etc) where I should look to start?
Milton Friedman "Capitalism and Freedom", Friedrich von Hayek "The Road to Serfdom" and Ludwig von Mises "Human Action" on Libertarianism for starters. Rothbard and Rand also are excellent sources. Check Schumpeter and Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" for different views on Capitalism. Lastly, nowhere better than Marx's "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto" for left-wing theories.

As for 19th century Britain, it was not even minarchist. Terrible government policy was the cause for much distress then. In any case, read those books. You'll end up somewhat wiser and be able to make your own choice.

and what exactly is wrong with Libertarians Black Forrest? What is wrong, with actually having to do stuff for yourself, instead of waiting on the government to do it for you? You seem to be a supporter of socialist ideas, tell me, why would a country in which people do things for themselves, and not rely on the government as much be worse than a country with the opposite?


The people from countries with big governments that educate them in how to compose prose write OPs that are formatted and readable.

The people from 'libertarian' "educate yourself" countries don't.

+1 big government.

As I told you before. Your kind of liberterians simply register as static.

Keep up with your attitudes! It will guarantee you guys never obtain any significant power.

Try offering solutions rather then bitching that everybody else are bunch of lazy stupid fuckoffs.

Good job on dodging the question, thus dodging an actual debate.

+1 big government.
Seriously? Heard of private schools? I went to one. Yeah. And somehow, I can still conceive perfectly eloquent posts. A real conundrum then, isn't it?

Good job on dodging the question, thus dodging an actual debate.
It was simply an ad-hominem attack against you from what I can tell. Too bad that is all most people are willing to offer us.

The people from countries with big governments that educate them in how to compose prose write OPs that are formatted and readable.

The people from 'libertarian' "educate yourself" countries don't.

+1 big government.

Ok, can we please use actual arguments instead of "LOL YOU DIDN'T FORMAT NOOBZZZ!!!!" attacks? Comon, if you're not going to have a serious debate about responsibility, then please leave my thread.

It was simply an ad-hominem attack against you from what I can tell. Too bad that is all most people are willing to offer us.

Yea it was an attack, but hey, whatever makes them feel good about themself.

Good job on dodging the question, thus dodging an actual debate.

I am not doding anything. I just know your kind is only convinced of what you think everybody should be doing.

I have been one of the lazy stupid fucks that took goverment handout. Mom did it for 2 years when we were kids.

I have yet to call on it and my sister and I have probably gone farther because mom decided to be a lazy fuck off and use the goverment to improve her training rather then taking "responsibilty for her actions" and working 2-3 minimum wage jobs to make ends meet.

So for your being ripped off by taxes, you got a woman that has over 40000 births in her career and has given way back to the "pot" then she took.

It was simply an ad-hominem attack against you from what I can tell. Too bad that is all most people are willing to offer us.

:rolleyes:

Whatever, he started with one so he gets one back.

Yea it was an attack, but hey, whatever makes them feel good about themself.

:rolleyes:

Whatever dude, hey you win. Feel better now.

:rolleyes:

Whatever, he started with one so he gets one back.
How utterly counter-productive. From what I can tell, he had asked you to explain exactly why you dislike libertarianism. A perfectly good question; you can, of course, refrain from answering if you so please.

How utterly counter-productive. From what I can tell, he had asked you to explain exactly why you dislike libertarianism. A perfectly good question; you can, of course, refrain from answering if you so please.

Please.

You aren't even remotely being productive in our "discussion" You simply toss out your worthless comments....

If you don't want to help, then do refrain from answering.

I am not doding anything. I just know your kind is only convinced of what you think everybody should be doing.

"Your kind", nice, anyways, yes I do think people need to be more responsible for themselves then rely on the government. Government isn't susspose to cradle you like your parents did when you were little. They are susspose to be there for defense, police, and basic medical care. That is it.


I have been one of the lazy stupid fucks that took goverment handout. Mom did it for 2 years when we were kids.

I have yet to call on it and my sister and I have probably gone farther because mom decided to be a lazy fuck off and use the goverment to improve her training rather then taking "responsibilty for her actions" and working 2-3 minimum wage jobs to make ends meet.

So for your being ripped off by taxes, you got a woman that has over 40000 births in her career and has given way back to the "pot" then she took.

See, your mom did take responsibility. She worked hard in her training, and at her jobs. She also paid back what she borrowed from the government, because well hell, it's the right thing to do. I like her. As to why you're attacking yourself, or your mom, I have no clue.

Please.

You are even remotely being productive in our "discussion" You simply toss out your worthless comments....

If you don't want to help, then do refrain from answering.
I will post when and where I please. Another ad-hominem. Fair enough. That is your modus operandi, it would seem.

:rolleyes:

Whatever, he started with one so he gets one back.

Oh please, tell me where I specifically attacked you.

Ok, can we please use actual arguments instead of "LOL YOU DIDN'T FORMAT NOOBZZZ!!!!" attacks? Comon, if you're not going to have a serious debate about responsibility, then please leave my thread.




To answer your question: government represents collective personal responsibility.

We turn over, in the form of taxes and obediance to laws, some of our responsibility to the government with the intent that it takes responsibility for certain things.

The irresponsible thing is to refuse to pay taxes or obey laws - it is taking but not giving back.

"Your kind", nice, anyways, yes I do think people need to be more responsible for themselves then rely on the government. Government isn't susspose to cradle you like your parents did when you were little. They are susspose to be there for defense, police, and basic medical care. That is it.

See, your mom did take responsibility. She worked hard in her training, and at her jobs. She also paid back what she borrowed from the government, because well hell, it's the right thing to do. I like her. As to why you're attacking yourself, or your mom, I have no clue.

Welfare my boy. Welfare is what is always bitched about.

'Nowanddays it seems like people want Gov. Co. to take care of them, be there for them from craddle to grave.'

Comments such as that usually are tossed at people who take welfare. Why would I seek the abolishment of something that helped us?

I will post when and where I please. Another ad-hominem. Fair enough. That is your modus operandi, it would seem.

:rolleyes:

Welfare my boy. Welfare is what is always bitched about.

Actually, if you actually READ the post you'd understand that I was talking about personal responsibility. Let's take the Steeler's QB recent motorcycle crash to illistrate this. See, he didn't wear a helment, thus, his head met the pavement, up close and personal. It's his own damn fault, and it should be left at that. However, I bet you that soon we'll be hearing about how Penn. should now pass a Helment law requring everyone to wear helments. Comon, if you're stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helment, or ride a car without a seatbelt, then you're an idiot, and it's no one fault except your own.


'Nowanddays it seems like people want Gov. Co. to take care of them, be there for them from craddle to grave.'

In the form of such laws like you need to wear a seatbelt/helment, or cigarettes is bad for you and those warning labels that is on the package themselves isn't good enough! No, we must put Ads on TV that make no sense to anyone that has common sense. Also, it seems like the anti-gun crowd expects police to just magically show up when you call in a robbery. Which only works if you live right next to the police station. For those of us who live out in the country (like me), I rely on my 12 gauge more than I rely on the police.

Comments such as that usually are tossed at people who take welfare. Why would I seek the abolishment of something that helped us?

and yet, I didn't bring up welfare, you did, and since you did bring that up. Welfare is susspose to be a temporary situation until you get back on your feet. However, there are some (note: I didn't say all welfare receptiants) Welfare Queens who are having one child after another as a way to get more Welfare etc. The Welfare Queen must be stopped. I don't mind people who only use Welfare when they absoutely have to, and only temporarly, but I do have a problem with people who think it's a salary, and treat it as such.

However, there are some (note: I didn't say all welfare receptiants) Welfare Queens who are having one child after another as a way to get more Welfare etc. The Welfare Queen must be stopped. I don't mind people who only use Welfare when they absoutely have to, and only temporarly, but I do have a problem with people who think it's a salary, and treat it as such.

So how much money do you think the welfare "queen" makes? Less of course the cost of feeding and maintaining the child. If someone is prepared to survive at that level why not leave them alone, they're clearly fucked. What would you do to them that wouldn't fuck up the child? Cut the welfare and then give out to them because they're starving, or perhaps she should go on the game to get money in. Oh I know you'd cut her income and then maintain it's not your "responsibility" how the mother and child manage to survive.

If someone is on welfare they are fucked. If they think they're scamming the system and living like kings or queens then they are figments of a republicans imagination not actual real people.