View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:33 am




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Search for:
 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Eric Cantor is a P.O.S. 
Author Message
Nessus
User avatar

Joined: November 2002
Posts: 4455
Location: Right behind you!
Gender: Female
Post Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
Cantor Spox: If There’s Hurricane Damage, Costs Will Have To Be Paid For With Spending Cuts

So glad he's so unwilling to help his fellow man. I don't hope ill will on the people in his district, but I do hope he has to go begging for relief money.

~spidey

_________________
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.


Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:17 am
Profile
Malbolge

Joined: September 2010
Posts: 349
Gender: None specified
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
...nearsighted jackass...

seems to be a common theme in US politics these days...

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/ ... to-brains/

_________________
"Words have no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of their reality." - Edgar Poe
http://exquisitehorrors.blogspot.com/


Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:43 am
Profile
Malbolge
User avatar

Joined: December 2010
Posts: 312
Location: San Diego
Gender: Male
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
Yeah, you don't cut disaster relief in the eve of a hurricane, just like you don't cut military spending in the middle of a war. The government really needs to get their act together.

But I would support smarter spending. I remember the FEMA trailers, and that was a huge waste. If we can spend smarter we can free up resources and manpower to better help out the victims of future disasters. ....but the government isn't doing that.

_________________
I am Arbitrator: Destroyer of hopes and dreams. Look upon my pessimistic posts, ye hopeful, and despair!

Après moi le déluge


Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:43 pm
Profile
GAF
User avatar

Joined: March 2009
Posts: 9288
Location: Alvin, TX
Gender: Female
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
I have some suggestions, but the rich people in power already don't like them. They'd rather take even more from the needy than invest in a little socialism or humanism. Such a shame that we've let our government get so bad. We might need to invest in a bit of anarchy if things get any worse.

_________________
Merciful Shadows

I'm on the quest for immortality here people! Down with death!! ~ Carpi

In America, law violates you! ~ Arq


Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:48 pm
Profile YIM
Nessus
User avatar

Joined: November 2002
Posts: 4455
Location: Right behind you!
Gender: Female
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
I was thinking to myself "at what point does it get so bad that we rise up against our government like what's happening all over Europe right now?"

Then I realized, the government already took away our rights to do so.

~spidey

_________________
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.


Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:33 pm
Profile
Malbolge
User avatar

Joined: December 2010
Posts: 312
Location: San Diego
Gender: Male
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
Wolfmammy wrote:
I have some suggestions, but the rich people in power already don't like them. They'd rather take even more from the needy than invest in a little socialism or humanism. Such a shame that we've let our government get so bad. We might need to invest in a bit of anarchy if things get any worse.


I think the problem is with the people, not the government. I wouldn't want to see socialism of any amount in any government because 1. We'd screw it up and it would get out of control, and 2. The government will expand to a ridiculous degree. Besides, Socialism has a way of creeping up into places where it shouldn't such as daily life and freedom of speech like in Canada and Europe.

Besides, a lot of those rich people we should be despising are working government/city jobs! So now it's rob from the rich, and give to the...government! And this is why socialism will not work.

And as for the Anarchy, I think we'd screw that up too lol. I think the vast majority of people need a swift kick in the ass and their entitlements taken from them so they can get their self-reliance back. When people get their self-reliance back we'll see more people taking charge and doing what they should be doing in the first place: Keeping watch on the government and stop being a bunch of lazy asses by voting in people who promise to do the work for them. :D

_________________
I am Arbitrator: Destroyer of hopes and dreams. Look upon my pessimistic posts, ye hopeful, and despair!

Après moi le déluge


Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:03 pm
Profile
Malbolge

Joined: September 2010
Posts: 349
Gender: None specified
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
Arbitrator wrote:
Wolfmammy wrote:
I have some suggestions, but the rich people in power already don't like them. They'd rather take even more from the needy than invest in a little socialism or humanism. Such a shame that we've let our government get so bad. We might need to invest in a bit of anarchy if things get any worse.


I think the problem is with the people, not the government. I wouldn't want to see socialism of any amount in any government because 1. We'd screw it up and it would get out of control, and 2. The government will expand to a ridiculous degree. Besides, Socialism has a way of creeping up into places where it shouldn't such as daily life and freedom of speech like in Canada and Europe.


I'm taking a bit of exception to that one... Living in Canada, we look across "The Line" every day and shake our heads at the freedoms that Americans have been giving away for the last decade or two and wonder where your sense of self preservation has gone...

I have, in Canada, a much more accepted freedom of religion, accepted freedom of lifestyle, accepted freedom of art and media, a more supportive community, yes through social democracy, but with FAR less government oversight then the massive bureaucracy that the US Federal Gov't has become. I pay taxes sure, but I receive services that I need, when I need them and nobody ever wonders if a shareholder somewhere is going to get upset because I got sick... or lost my job... or anything else

In general looking at it from the outside, it looks to us, that in your fear of "Socialism" you have created a weird concoction of Liberalized, Politically Correct, Fascism (state supported, for profit, private corporations).

Every time I watch US news, and a commentator says something about "Socialism", I wonder if they actually know what Democratic Socialism is and how very different it is from Fascism and Communism which are both authoritative, totalitarian states.

I'm not trying to offend in return or "trash on" the US. However I am far more afraid for my American friends and family then I have ever felt here in Canada. How can you talk about lack of freedom here, when people there fight so hard to get treated in a hospital, or have to move across state lines to get married, or can't build a temple or religious building without public uproar?

What exactly, is the problem with the general concept of "Socialism" and "Humanism"?
The simple fact is, I feel... That a community can / should help it's people... and you don't need to be a gun toting communist to do it.

_________________
"Words have no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of their reality." - Edgar Poe
http://exquisitehorrors.blogspot.com/


Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:28 pm
Profile
GAF
User avatar

Joined: March 2009
Posts: 9288
Location: Alvin, TX
Gender: Female
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
Well...there's really not anything that I can add to that. Thank you, Sleepless.

People here often do get the wrong idea about socialism or humanism. Most only look as far as the TV and don't question it when a politician likens it to either fascism or communism. I'm not totally against the concept of communism, either. It works very well if you take the human element out of it. ;)

As for anarchy, people get the wrong idea about that, as well. But it probably would take a violent topple to bring the government back down to where the people control it rather than it controlling the people. Ideally, it would be a peaceful anarchy in the end rather than a 'violence for the sake of violence' type of deal.

_________________
Merciful Shadows

I'm on the quest for immortality here people! Down with death!! ~ Carpi

In America, law violates you! ~ Arq


Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:30 am
Profile YIM
Nessus
User avatar

Joined: November 2002
Posts: 4455
Location: Right behind you!
Gender: Female
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
Arbitrator wrote:
I think the problem is with the people, not the government. I wouldn't want to see socialism of any amount in any government because 1. We'd screw it up and it would get out of control, and 2. The government will expand to a ridiculous degree. Besides, Socialism has a way of creeping up into places where it shouldn't such as daily life and freedom of speech like in Canada and Europe.


Or into my bedroom in who I am allowed to sleep with and marry, or even so far as to get inside my uterus and force me to stay pregnant or face jail time. Oh yeah, that's what the US is trying to do, not Canada or Europe.

Arbitrator wrote:
Besides, a lot of those rich people we should be despising are working government/city jobs! So now it's rob from the rich, and give to the...government! And this is why socialism will not work.


Let's see, your basing this remark on 20 government jobs? Pretty funny since out of the 400 people on Forbes list of richest people in America, not one of them get that money from the government, but a lot of them were made rich through needless government subsidies for their companies. (Oil, anyone?)

Our government is huge and controlling in every way except the ones that count. I would take a Socialist society where I don't constantly have to be afraid of injuring myself and going bankrupt because I can't afford to buy health insurance here. I would take socialism over having to barely scrape by on my meager PUBLIC JOB salary because I get no help at all from my government when it comes to maternity leave or childcare from my government.

I would take socialism over having to live with the fact that the top 2% of this country make more money per year than do every single person in the US under them because of all the help they keep getting from our government.

~spidey, who thinks Canada looks REALLY attractive.

_________________
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.


Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:01 am
Profile
Malbolge
User avatar

Joined: December 2010
Posts: 312
Location: San Diego
Gender: Male
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
sleeplessimmortal wrote:
I'm taking a bit of exception to that one... Living in Canada, we look across "The Line" every day and shake our heads at the freedoms that Americans have been giving away for the last decade or two and wonder where your sense of self preservation has gone...

I'm wondering same thing. I'm seeing Americans give up more and more freedoms for convenience and "safety", and that is what's irritating me. It's when people give up their responsibilities and rely on the government to provide them is when we start going down a dangerous path to where our freedoms are removed; it's a sad chapter in America. I don't want you to think that I believe we are the beacon of freedom and everyone else is oppressive socialists, I don't.

sleeplessimmortal wrote:
I have, in Canada, a much more accepted freedom of religion, accepted freedom of lifestyle, accepted freedom of art and media, a more supportive community, yes through social democracy, but with FAR less government oversight then the massive bureaucracy that the US Federal Gov't has become. I pay taxes sure, but I receive services that I need, when I need them and nobody ever wonders if a shareholder somewhere is going to get upset because I got sick... or lost my job... or anything else


I draw my example from one Ezra Levant, who is being analyzed by a Canadian Human Rights worker. No matter what you think of this man, he's there for one reason: Offending a prominent Muslim abroad by saying what was on his mind while he was visiting Canada. Here, I can say whatever it is I want to say and the worst that I'll be called is a racist homophobe bigoted closed minded extremist, you know, the words that the typical left wing throws around as if it were beads at a Mardi Gras parade. Over in Europe, I have to pay a fine or go to jail for hate speech even if it wasn't. I'm seeing one group having the freedom of religion, lifestyle, art, and media, but another group being suppressed because it is contrary to left wing ideology.

I agree with some of your points: Canada has a far small government than the U.S. But what I was criticizing was how far it has gone with suppressing freedom of speech. Most people don't even know what socialism actually is, just like people don't know what communism actually is. But the only thing that is certain is how human nature manipulates and changes an idea and the affect that has on the nation as a whole, which is typically adverse as time goes on. I also agree that a community should help it's people but without government oversight.

However, I don't agree (at least looking at myself) that I have a fear of socialism. I can't speak for the rest of the nation, but I certainly do not fear it (nor do I fear homosexuality but that's separate from this argument). Though I am concerned about if we get on that track how far it will go in the future in changing the identity of the nation's core principles.

I never thought you were trashing the U.S., but you and I are at two ends of the argument seeing the same problem from a different point of view. You see freedom for one group, I see the same but I also see oppression of another. Regarding your medical comment I was actually on CMS (County Medical Services) which is a government run program for people with low income. It was not hard for me to see a hospital even though some doctors didn't accept it. The primary clinic I had to go to was UCSD, which is a pretty nice hospital. The wait times sucked though, as everyone took advantage of the system. When I was on my feet I immediately removed myself from the program, though many people don't. I'm not against these programs, but I am against the abuse of these programs, and it's vulnerability to such abuse.

As for a religious temple, are you referring to the ground zero mosque? Know when it's gonna be opened? 9/11/12. Why in the hell of all 365 days to choose from, they have to pick that day? To many who signed against it, even for me it's a slap in the face. That is what the uproar is about. And for those to get married beyond state lines to get married, I really don't care about homosexual marriages as it is not an important issue to me. But If we can agree on one thing, we can agree that we should let the institution decide of who to marry, and the government butts out of the moral decision but enforces the contract instead. (Unless you want the government oversight to this social decision then we probably won't agree).

The problem isn't with the general concept of "Socialism" and "Humanism". It's what humanity is going to do with the idea that's the problem. If history has taught us anything, is that NO idea will stay true to it's original theme.

Wolfmammy wrote:
As for anarchy, people get the wrong idea about that, as well. But it probably would take a violent topple to bring the government back down to where the people control it rather than it controlling the people. Ideally, it would be a peaceful anarchy in the end rather than a 'violence for the sake of violence' type of deal.


I know, Wolf. But I'm saying people aren't going to adhere to that. They're gonna take that idea to the wrong level. That was my point.

spiderlimbs wrote:
Or into my bedroom in who I am allowed to sleep with and marry, or even so far as to get inside my uterus and force me to stay pregnant or face jail time. Oh yeah, that's what the US is trying to do, not Canada or Europe.


Or me exercising my right to speak out against that if I choose (which Canada and Europe will punish me for). Opinions and freedom of speech should not be considered a hate crime if there is a rational reason behind it. I'm not gonna argue on my viewpoint itself, as I am concentrating on the government's reaction to such ideas.

spiderlimbs wrote:
Let's see, your basing this remark on 20 government jobs? Pretty funny since out of the 400 people on Forbes list of richest people in America, not one of them get that money from the government, but a lot of them were made rich through needless government subsidies for their companies. (Oil, anyone?)


How many examples do you need? These are just 20 out of hundreds. Do I need to match the 400 you presented to make my point valid? You made your point about how the rich get government perks, and again that's another example of government waste. GE, the banks who received bailouts, the government employees who receive perks from the private sector and from within the government itself. This is an example of the extent of how bad the government really is. Would you trust such a government with a new system which gives itself more power with people like this running the show? I know I can't.

Here in America, government jobs are VERY lucrative, with excellent benefits. Maybe you should move down here and get one like here in San Diego. I also recommend General Atomics, or Dyncorp. Hell, anyone here who was prior military can land one of these jobs and make out like a king. In fact, most of the people I go to class with has landed these jobs, from Infantry in the Army, to avionics guys that were in the Marine Corps, to a few former Navy SEALs (though one has his own business now). Disclaimer: What is in bold is not an example of government corruption; just wanted to point that out.

So to summarize, my points were 1. The current corruption and red tape within the government cannot sustain socialist policies and hold true to it's ideals. and 2. Even though America has it's flaws if I were to go into a certain country and speak out against a particular lifestyle I would be castrated. No system is perfect, and I never said America was either. But I am speaking out in a rational way against the flaws of all systems, and the best thing about it is I won't have to answer for it to the government. With that being said I think every system can do with some improvement. So we can either find some compromises with the argument (which I'm certainly willing to find some common ground here). Or we can both stick to our guns (which isn't how we get things done as congress has shown).

/endrant.

_________________
I am Arbitrator: Destroyer of hopes and dreams. Look upon my pessimistic posts, ye hopeful, and despair!

Après moi le déluge


Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:42 pm
Profile
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: November 2008
Posts: 7140
Location: New York
Gender: Female
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
Arbitrator wrote:
As for a religious temple, are you referring to the ground zero mosque? Know when it's gonna be opened? 9/11/12.


Pardon? Where did you hear that? Not to go off topic, but I would very much appreciate it if you would provide a link to a reliable news source (not a discussion board, or someone's blog, please) that confirms that. Thanks.

-- Nephele


Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:08 pm
Profile
Malbolge
User avatar

Joined: December 2010
Posts: 312
Location: San Diego
Gender: Male
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
Nephele wrote:
Arbitrator wrote:
As for a religious temple, are you referring to the ground zero mosque? Know when it's gonna be opened? 9/11/12.


Pardon? Where did you hear that? Not to go off topic, but I would very much appreciate it if you would provide a link to a reliable news source (not a discussion board, or someone's blog, please) that confirms that. Thanks.

-- Nephele


I'll look for an article. If I can't find a credible source without bias I will withdraw the comment.

Edit: After further review I discovered that the Park 51 building I was referring to was not a mosque; which defeats this part of the argument. So I withdraw my comment. In addition to this It was very hard for me to filter through the media BS to find a confirmation on the date I presented. So I will withdraw that as well. So I'll say that I was wrong by taking information that wasn't verified and running with it regarding the Park 51 building. :) The only way I can really know for sure if it will open on 9/11/2012 is by waiting until then. But thanks Nephele for pointing that out :). It's a very bad thing for me to just run with unconfirmed information and defend it as if it was an undisputed fact.

With that being said, I believe that everyone deserves to believe whatever they want without fearing reprisal so long as it done civilly. Everyone deserves to be under the same standard with no special perks exclusive to their race, creed, sexuality, and religion. No government on this earth does does this effectively, so my idea is to remove the government's say on these subjects and restrict the government into only enforcing the law which guarantees the safety and protection of the people instead of restricting the people's right to do or say whatever they want in a civil manner.

_________________
I am Arbitrator: Destroyer of hopes and dreams. Look upon my pessimistic posts, ye hopeful, and despair!

Après moi le déluge


Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:27 pm
Profile
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: November 2008
Posts: 7140
Location: New York
Gender: Female
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
I respect you for retracting that comment, Arbitrator.

-- Nephele


Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:34 pm
Profile
Manisha
User avatar

Joined: October 2009
Posts: 8453
Location: Jacksonville Florida.
Gender: Female
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
Arbitrator wrote:
so my idea is to remove the government's say on these subjects and restrict the government into only enforcing the law which guarantees the safety and protection of the people instead of restricting the people's right to do or say whatever they want in a civil manner.


The irony here, I think, is that in the beginning I believe the government thought that taking away these rights, etc... was their fucked up way of trying to protect us and keep us safe, but then they got carried away, created their own agendas and viola! Welcome to government. My opinion, anyway.

You say that the government should only create laws that "guarantees the safety and protection of the people instead of restricting the people's right to do or say whatever they want in a civil manner", but what happens when the two merge together? What happens in the cases that for someone to feel safe and protected, one cannot speak their mind- no matter how civil? Basically- when does something become too politically correct?

Just curious.

_________________
"And what if you could have genetic perfection? Would you change who you are if you could?"
-The Graverobber; Repo! The Genetic Opera


Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:53 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Malbolge
User avatar

Joined: December 2010
Posts: 312
Location: San Diego
Gender: Male
Post Re: Eric Cantor is a P.O.S.
Nephele wrote:
I respect you for retracting that comment, Arbitrator.

-- Nephele


:) It means a great deal to me. The respect is mutual.

Midieval Fantasy wrote:
The irony here, I think, is that in the beginning I believe the government thought that taking away these rights, etc... was their fucked up way of trying to protect us and keep us safe, but then they got carried away, created their own agendas and viola! Welcome to government. My opinion, anyway.


Governments in history have always shown a tenancy to address the immediate issue swiftly, lest it be seen by the people as complacency. I share your opinion, I think that the government, once it has a hold and a say with social issues, will do more harm than good since these types of issues require a great deal of thought, time, and careful planning to ensure fairness for all, and the government nor the mainstream media/people have the patience to really work out a proper solution.

Midieval Fantasy wrote:
You say that the government should only create laws that "guarantees the safety and protection of the people instead of restricting the people's right to do or say whatever they want in a civil manner", but what happens when the two merge together? What happens in the cases that for someone to feel safe and protected, one cannot speak their mind- no matter how civil? Basically- when does something become too politically correct?

Just curious.


No It's fine :). When I say that the government should only creates laws to ensure the safety and protection of the people, I mean this: The government should protect the person if 1. his/her safety is in jeopardy 2. The person's freedoms are being restricted and 3. The nation as a whole is under attack by a foreign power. If someone says "kill the conservatives/liberals!" that shows a direct intent to harm people, and should be dealt with. It is neither civil or beneficial for the nation.

But when people say "homo/heterosexuality is wrong because X, Y, and Z" or "The church/mosque/whatever is wrong because X, Y, and Z" and the government fines them or puts them under a human rights watch because it's perceived as a "hate crime" that is when the government goes too far.

Now, with that being said, Now we enter the general population. People these days are very thin skinned. Instead of having a reasonable discussion or a spirited debate, they immediately get offended, and when you try to reason with them they'll call you all sorts of names and ironically accuse you for being closed-minded. People have the potential to blow things out of proportion with a complete disregard to reason. Many have their chosen political camps, but few within have power within said camps and they use that power to punish you for thinking a certain way. They use the media, and tug on a few heartstrings and *poof* public outrage. So the government uses it's power to block a certain way of thinking, and thus our freedom of speech is infringed upon.

Once this happens, fewer people from an opposing viewpoint to the popular one want to speak out because of a fear of being labeled as a racist, a bigot, a "phobe", and so on. We then go further down one path and any constructive criticism is suppressed. Eventually there is very little room for self-evaluation and self-improvement within the government. Eventually it becomes a government that dictates a large part of how you should live your life; it becomes a government that takes the view that it is protecting you from yourself. You can't eat this, you have to buy this brand of light bulb, you can't buy a legal firearm to protect yourself from those who bought their firearms illegally from street gangs, and so on.

The government needs to understand that people will be offended, and that people will be in conflict with each other. People will fly off the handle and not be reasonable and that is a character issue, not an issue so dire that we need laws to prevent that. But we do need laws and protection from people who actively harm people because they want to take the conflict to a dangerous level, and that is where the government should step in rather than make laws as a preventive measure like we do now.

_________________
I am Arbitrator: Destroyer of hopes and dreams. Look upon my pessimistic posts, ye hopeful, and despair!

Après moi le déluge


Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:46 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.