Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Anonymous Hack

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 4:37am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

'Explain'? Both Wolf and myself have pointed out why the Fathers were hypocrites, one of their main faults being that they owned slaves and did not abolish slavery. It too you more than fifty years as a country to work out that slavery was against the Constitution, and that was only after one of the bloodiest wars in recent history.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 11:07am

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,061 posts

Also, we cant be giving away money to people who are too lazy.

Do you know what taxes are, and do you know how they work? Also do you know how ignorant you sound?

Though still giving money to people like my old next-door neighbors, the "monkeys", who just **** freely put themselves on welfare every month: all that money that they use to buy alchohol and tobacco.

I realize Canada is not a shining pinacle of kindness, but it's nice to know I don't have to put up with this viewpoint all that often.

If they hae to give them any money at all, highly limit it, so the money strictly goes to food, housing, and like $20 bucks left over for pocket change.

You just advocated limitted government control, and this proposal would require MORE government control. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

They need to make the guidelines also stricter for applicants for welfare.

Do you know the regulations for welfare application? I'll admit I don't know the American ones, but Canada is fairly strict all things considered, so please go educate yourself on that before making claims.

But wolf, if you are disrespecting the rights that has made me who I am and you are disrespecting the rights that this country was built on, if you are, shut up. The founding fathers-hypocrites? Explain.

I think I explained this already. But let me try again for you.

Back in good ol' 1776, the grand year of American independence the American revolutionaries beat of the British because the British didn't feel the need to waste more money on a war they had the potential to win, but dragging it out would have affected both finances and other things, such as needing to deal with the French. the 18th century was the height of the slave trade, just so you know.

So, about a decade later some men wrote a lovely paper advocating equality for ALL MEN. What these men meant was, equality for all WHITE MEN. See, to them slaves were not men, despite writing it in their constitution these founding fathers were slave owners.

So, if one advocates freedom, yet does not give that freedom, then one is a hypocrite.

Now, as for "insulting" your founding fathers. How am I insulting them? By stating an unpleasant truth that contradicts the wonderful fairyland picture you painted? There are many unpleasant truths in history. Canada has several I could bring up. I'm not here to insult people I am here to discuss and debate.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 1:12pm

Mickeyryn

Mickeyryn

244 posts

Dang i just wrote a really long reply but the page timed out. Very well.

Back in good ol' 1776, the grand year of American independence the American revolutionaries beat of the British because the British didn't feel the need to waste more money on a war they had the potential to win, but dragging it out would have affected both finances and other things, such as needing to deal with the French. the 18th century was the height of the slave trade, just so you know.

So, about a decade later some men wrote a lovely paper advocating equality for ALL MEN. What these men meant was, equality for all WHITE MEN. See, to them slaves were not men, despite writing it in their constitution these founding fathers were slave owners.

So, if one advocates freedom, yet does not give that freedom, then one is a hypocrite.

Now, as for "insulting" your founding fathers. How am I insulting them? By stating an unpleasant truth that contradicts the wonderful fairyland picture you painted? There are many unpleasant truths in history. Canada has several I could bring up. I'm not here to insult people I am here to discuss and debate.

Sorry, I wrongfully accused you, and Im not being a sarcastic jerk. You are right. Though I mean to say that even how bad that matter was, it was patched by, (up for controvercy) the greatest president of the united states, Abraham Lincoln. He fixed slavery, even if he did have a few of his own previously.
Yeah.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 1:21pm

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,061 posts

Dang i just wrote a really long reply but the page timed out. Very well.

I would still like to see that reply because I'd rather not discuss the portions of American history that I'm not overly familliar with

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 2:14pm

megacooper

megacooper

171 posts

I dont know Amercian history, I just nod and grunt whilst thinking about another thing... yeah.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 4:18pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,666 posts

Knight

It is my belief mentally retarded people should be care for, but not with my tax money, why should I and others pay for broken people? They shouldn't be allowed to reproduce or go to school, or even get a job.

First off what happened to that freedom you were toting? It seems to me restricting one's allowance to reproduce or go to school would be restricting their freedom and would only further handicap these individuals. . Secondly do you feel you shouldn't have any social responsibility in a community?

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 4:38pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,934 posts

Knight

It is my belief mentally retarded people should be care for, but not with my tax money, why should I and others pay for broken people? They shouldn't be allowed to reproduce or go to school, or even get a job.

Mentally disabled people are still part of the community and can do things, they can work, contribute, even if not like a normal person. It should thus be in your interest to favorize their integration in society, instead of pumping money (that has to come from somewhere) to keep them alive and bored.
Which reminds me, they also have their dignity and rights as well and being tossed into medical institutions away from society certainly doesn't make them all too happy.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 5:28pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

Yes, it would be somewhat taking away their freedom, but on reproducing for example, why would you want a severely autistic person to create another severely autistic person? It makes no sense. I wouldn't consider myself right-wing. I follow classical liberalism. Free Market, freedom, equality, etc...

And like I said, I mean really mentally ill people. Kids in wheelchairs and can't talk and stuff like that. I guess it's possible they could get a job, somehow maybe, it wouldn't be that good. And again, they aren't learning, I'm sure it's possible for them to learn some things, but now at least, we're paying for them to go to school to color and glue stuff. Which is a WASTE of money.

I don't agree with current taxes, or the money system. I'd abolish Income Taxes and The Federal Reserve. And lower taxes too. I'd also cut federal spending in nearly half. And taxes don't really need to pay for things. It puts too much on the people. Like Social Security, we take more out than we put in. It's ridiculous.

And by social responsibility, do you mean feeling the need to help everyone? No, not at all. If I was rich I would donate money and give some away, because I'm a nice guy, IMO at least hah. But as I'd have it people would be individualists, they take care of themselves, and can help if they want. Taxes don't need to be abolished, though income taxes do, Taxes need a reform. The Fair Tax seems like a good place to go.

And The Constitution is outdated? Okay I agree for the most part on some of it. But saying it's perfectly fine for the government to know everything about citizens, like where they are, what they're doing, the messages they've sent and what they're saying on the phone is wrong. Very wrong, doesn't matter where you live, it shouldn't happen anywhere.

Abolishing private schools want help. If there were no private schools there still would be an issue, you see private schools aren't ran by the government, and have better students, courses, and education, the ones ran by the government are worse. Thus, the department of education needs to be abolished, and save the government money too, instead of pouring it into schools.

And in the case Schneck Vs United States, during WW1 a guy was handing out flyers, saying don't join the army, we shouldn't join the war. He was arrested, and there was the Espionage and Sedition Act, so if you spoke out against the government like that, they considered it "clear and present danger", which would get you in trouble.

The answer to healthcare is no more government. Let the states run it. Fewer government mandates and regulation will allow competition and innovation. What keeps things going? Competition. Without that, everything will be the same and they won't try to make it any better, because what is there now is the only one you can get, with no better alternative.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 5:32pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

Sorry, meant taxes don't need to really pay for healthcare or other major things. In 3rd paragraph.

 

Posted Jan 27, '13 at 6:04pm

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,061 posts

I don't agree with current taxes, or the money system. I'd abolish Income Taxes and The Federal Reserve. And lower taxes too. I'd also cut federal spending in nearly half. And taxes don't really need to pay for things. It puts too much on the people. Like Social Security, we take more out than we put in. It's ridiculous

Glad to see you have no understanding of economics.

But as I'd have it people would be individualists

No one ever said anything about not being an individual. Not sure where this came from.

Abolishing private schools want help. If there were no private schools there still would be an issue, you see private schools aren't ran by the government, and have better students, courses, and education, the ones ran by the government are worse. Thus, the department of education needs to be abolished, and save the government money too, instead of pouring it into schools.

Removing private education forces more funding toward public education because more students would be enrolled. Furthermore with public being the only choice parents would demand the government invest in education.

And in the case Schneck Vs United States, during WW1 a guy was handing out flyers, saying don't join the army, we shouldn't join the war.

It's called war time power, the government actually is allowed to do this because there is a chance it will hurt at home support. However, this is not an issue today.

The answer to healthcare is no more government. Let the states run it.

1. The states ARE the government
2. National unity on healthcare produces better results.

Without that, everything will be the same and they won't try to make it any better, because what is there now is the only one you can get, with no better alternative.

Fun fact, out of all Westernized countries the U.S.A is the ONLY country without a firmly established universal healthcare system. Furthermore, out of the developed nations it is one of the worst for healthcare. I think we can say private healthcare doesn't work

 
Reply to The Anonymous Hack

You must be logged in to post a reply!