- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 3, 2013 at 2:20 am #781316
dyn99ParticipantWhat kind of Republican or conservative advocates the state forcing a parent to give their kids up for adoption?
Isn’t that the exact depravation of rights that conservatives rail against?
Hooper, you are making my point about how stupid the Republican Party is right now.
Seriously, you should be ashamed to call yourself a conservative. Forced government adoptions? Unbelievable…
January 3, 2013 at 2:42 am #781317
miwsParticipantBonnie, I agree with you.
I wish hoop would just flat out state that he thinks the poor, those who “made bad choices”, those that “didn’t save for a rainy day” should just die.
He sure as hell has been inferring it for quite sometime, now.
C’mon, hoop. Just say it. And no back pedaling; “….well I didn’t mean….”
Just say it hoop….
Criminy, I thought I was passive-aggressive….
Mike
January 3, 2013 at 2:58 am #781318
hooper1961Memberdhg in post 19 – the mandate should be you don’t buy insurance you get no care!
miws and why should taxpayers foot the bill for other peoples bad choices?
a few years back someones house was left to burn down (from what I remember the firefighters watched it burn) because they elected not to pay the fire district tax. i suspect other people who did not pay the fire district fee quickly learned to pay the fee or else. same thing with medical care. buy insurance or pray you stay healthy.
January 3, 2013 at 3:17 am #781319
oddrealityParticipantHooper, you really should have been horrified by those firefighters letting the mobile home burn down like most everyone else was when that happened – not acting like it is the way things ought to be.Most would be horrified to let people die for similar reasons.
I already pray I stay healthy ,who in their right mind would opt to get ill??
E pluribus unum…”from the many one”.
That is a socialist idea if ever I heard one.You are perhaps living in the wrong country.
January 3, 2013 at 3:34 am #781320
miwsParticipantYep!
He won’t say it!
Just regurgitates his usual BS!
Mike
(Oh, and hoop, how would you have felt if your house was next door to the one left to burn, and and even though the firefighters were trying to protect your house, the flames jumped over anyway and burned your place down?)
January 3, 2013 at 3:36 am #781321
hooper1961Memberactually the person who owned the home had chosen not to pay the fire district fee and thus faced the consequences of that choice. if the firefighters fought the fire what incentive would others have to continue to pay the fee?
yes it was a harsh lesson and hopefully homeowners quickly learned to pay the fee or pay the consequences if there home catches fire. this is economics 101.
if obama had simply used this as the leverage to encourage people to buy insurance it would have been far better. this way no one is mandated to buy anything; but if something bad happens tough luck if you elected not to purchase insurance!
January 3, 2013 at 3:41 am #781322
oddrealityParticipantMike , he would be happy because he paid the fee….I am sure he would be insured and would not mind his place burning down and losing all his possessions.I mean really, it would be ok because clearly he would have made all the right decisions so no problem.
Society has a name for people with no empathy/sympathy for others. Sociopath.I really hope there are no sociopaths here.
January 3, 2013 at 4:07 am #781323
dyn99ParticipantAnd then a very smart, entrepreneurial lawyer found the guy whose house burned down courtesy of the fire department, signed him up on a contingent-fee agreement and sued the fire department.
The guy who lived in a mobile home worth $40k got a $4 million settlement from the fire district who violated state law by breaking their legal mandate to protect the public from fires. The attorney claimed emotional distress, property damage, willful infliction of harm, and many more counts in the pleadings.
The smart, enterprising lawyer also sued the firefighters who made the choice to let the house burn down, and they all lost their jobs and pensions, and live savings.
The guy whose house burned down was recently featured on an episode of MTV cribs. His new $1m pad is AH-MAZE-ING!!!
And everyone lived happily ever after. :)
There, now the story has a happy and realistic ending!
January 3, 2013 at 4:21 am #781324
JoBParticipantwin for the dyn
January 3, 2013 at 5:13 am #781325
miwsParticipantoddreality, thanks for answering my question form post 30. hoop sure as hell didn’t.
dyn99, props to you for the Paul Harvey moment—-the rest of the story…
Mike
January 3, 2013 at 5:15 am #781326
RagsParticipantJust wondering why it is that I need the government’s permission to: drive a car, build a house, get married, get divorced, adopt a child BUT, if I decide on my own to have a baby even though I have no means to support it; and even if I’m unemployed, a convicted felon, an alcoholic, or drug addicted, the government will help me do it and even pay for it for me. Those of you who are ignoring the intent of the orginal post that the statistics show that 50 percent of births are government funded are not recognizing how serious this really is. This is not a political issue but truly a societal issue. Why is it a “privilege” to drive a car and an “entitlement” to have a child??? Why do we need Child Protective Services, Child Haven, Tree House, etc. etc. to care for children who are brought into the world either carelessly or for selfish reasons and end up in abusive and neglected situations? Am I advocating licensing the right (not privilege) to have children? Maybe so!
January 3, 2013 at 5:17 am #781327
JoBParticipantJanuary 3, 2013 at 5:33 am #781328
RagsParticipantJoB…..I understand what you’re saying and accept that it will probably never happen, but I’m just trying to make people understand that this is not a political issue. I’ve done years of social work as a CASA and domestic abuse crisis counselor so have a pretty in-depth understanding of how insididious this really is as I’m sure you do as well.
January 3, 2013 at 6:17 am #781329
hooper1961Membermiws – i did answer you in post 31. if you don’t buy insurance and get sick tough luck.
January 3, 2013 at 9:47 am #781330
miwsParticipantOkay, so you bought your insurance, so everything would be fine and dandy if your house burned down due to a fire from your uninsured/non fee paying neighbor’s house jumping over to your place? What if the fire was due to your neighbor’s careless smoking?
What are your thoughts on the additional info dyn99 provided?
Mike
January 3, 2013 at 1:18 pm #781331
EdSaneParticipantThis may be a bit off topic but I felt a bit inspired reading this thread. What Hoop1961 fails to realize (as do many conservatives). Is who pays the bills in this Country, State and County. Conservatives complain about costs and taxation and paying for “others”. What they fail to realize is that Liberal Seattlites, Liberal King County Residents, Liberal Tech Companies. Pay a boat load of taxes. In fact plenty of Liberals (with their college degrees) as well. I’m happy to pay more in taxes so that my fellow citizens have a better standard of living then any other country. I want to be 1st, not last!
January 3, 2013 at 1:40 pm #781332
redblackParticipantrags/hooper:
Those of you who are ignoring the intent of the orginal post that the statistics show that 50 percent of births are government funded are not recognizing how serious this really is. This is not a political issue but truly a societal issue.
this is indeed a societal problem, but it ain’t the one you seem to believe it is: that poor people should not be reproducing.
those of you who advocate the state mandating adoption for people who can’t afford to raise children without government assistance are either ignoring or are completely clue-resistant to one glaring conclusion that can be drawn here:
a sizable portion of the state’s population is eligible for medicaid.
to quote george w. bush, “we need to make the pie higher.” in other words, if we fix poverty and income inequality, a lot of “problems” will go away.
(and, no, i’m not talking about taking your hard-earned millions and redistributing it to poor people – even though your taxes are already too low. i’m talking about a return to full employment and better pay and benefits, even for jobs that don’t require a college education.)
but no, rags, the intent of the original post was to say something inflammatory. hooper doesn’t like taxes going for social services, and has been posting similar b.s. for months now. he sees an article in the times that points out that taxpayers helped keep someone from dying and he thinks, “well, gee, why am i paying for that?” and then he comes here and writes a post that asks why he has to pay for it. read the archives. i assure you, he’s not being attacked for being reasonable.
January 3, 2013 at 4:00 pm #781333
JoBParticipantYeah Rags, EdSane and redblack!
January 3, 2013 at 5:21 pm #781334
hooper1961Memberi have never liked social services as far back as i can remember. in college it annoyed me that a portion of my student fees paid for daycare services of other students.
redblack – you are correct jobs are needed. infrastructure (streets, water systems, power transmission and sewer systems) are in need of repair and upgrades. it is stupid to spend $30,000,000,000 extending unemployment benefits when productive work opportunities could be made available and society as a whole would benefit.
January 3, 2013 at 5:24 pm #781335
JoBParticipantJanuary 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm #781336
JoBParticipanthoop..
” it is stupid to spend $30,000,000,000 extending unemployment benefits when productive work opportunities could be made available and society as a whole would benefit.”
the big lie is that you have to take something away from people who have nothing to give something to people who have nothing.
gasp.. you could take it away from major corporations who use the tax money you hand to them to compete unfairly with you.
January 3, 2013 at 6:26 pm #781337
hooper1961MemberJoB – what the blank is wrong with expecting people to work for a living?
Some of us were taught at a young age if you don’t do your chores you go hungry. One quickly learns to do their chores. I started working for others when I was 12 (yard work for neighbors).
January 3, 2013 at 7:10 pm #781338
dyn99ParticipantOn the short list of intelligent ideas that Hoop manages to come up with is the idea of putting the long-term unemployed to work for the government rather than paying them not to work.
It worked incredibly well in the 1930’s, and we are still benefitting from those public works projects that were built today.
Mind you, that may be the only compliment I give Hoop for a very long time…
January 3, 2013 at 7:15 pm #781339
JoBParticipanthoop..
there is nothing wrong with expecting people who can work and can get jobs to work for a living.
what is wrong is expecting people who can’t get jobs or can’t work to work for a living and blaming them for their failure.
January 3, 2013 at 7:17 pm #781340
JoBParticipantdyn99..
i am all in favor of WPA type projects…
lord knows that we have plenty of need..
but hoop would have us cut everyone’s safety net so that a few could be employed building roads..
the rest could …….. ?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.