HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

McDonalds Tell Workers To Get A 2nd Job

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-25-2013, 05:19 PM
  #326
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkP View Post
Uh.. China?
Blood-in-the-streets Revolution. But hey, if you think trying to lock down Baptists, Mormons and Latin immigrants to a 1-child policy is viable, be my guest.

And that's ignoring the "minor" issue that social policy in the US (and to a lesser extent in Canada) is premised on an expanding population base...

  Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2013, 05:32 PM
  #327
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Man, you had the strawman locked and loaded before I even stated a position. Impressive!
What strawman? Your question was asinine. What difference does it make whether or not the people taking part in this thread have raised children or not? That was the single topic of your statement so........

Doppler Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2013, 07:27 PM
  #328
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
What strawman? Your question was asinine. What difference does it make whether or not the people taking part in this thread have raised children or not? That was the single topic of your statement so........
Your mom's question is asinine.

I wondered out loud how many people here have direct experience in the rearing of children, which is the topic of the conversation. It's interesting that you projected that line of thought as being somehow threatening.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2013, 07:27 PM
  #329
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 71,431
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
You know what the outcome of such a policy would be, right?
People would try harder to get jobs instead of just living on welfare. Want kids? Get a job.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2013, 07:57 PM
  #330
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
People would try harder to get jobs instead of just living on welfare. Want kids? Get a job.
For someone who doesn't have a job and hasn't paid taxes you sure are angry about people's taxes going to those without jobs. Do you feel the same anger about other peoples tax money going to the services you enjoy?

And fwiw over 9/10 people getting assistance are either elderly, disabled or already employed. Need to get past misleading stereotypes.

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2013, 07:58 PM
  #331
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Your mom's question is asinine.

I wondered out loud how many people here have direct experience in the rearing of children, which is the topic of the conversation. It's interesting that you projected that line of thought as being somehow threatening.
No the topic of the conversation is not the rearing of children nor who has direct experience of raising children, the question was whether or not the government should be allowed to legislate who is allowed to raise children.

Doppler Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2013, 07:58 PM
  #332
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
People would try harder to get jobs instead of just living on welfare. Want kids? Get a job.
That's not what happens, as evidenced by several billion people on this planet.

Making policy that requires outcomes we *know* won't happen is idiotic.

  Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2013, 09:10 PM
  #333
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
No the topic of the conversation is not the rearing of children nor who has direct experience of raising children, the question was whether or not the government should be allowed to legislate who is allowed to raise children.
You don't see a topical connection between the raising of children and the legislation of the raising of children?

Ok, Mr. Officer, I'll be sure to clear my comments with you in advance from now on.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2013, 11:21 PM
  #334
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 71,431
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
For someone who doesn't have a job and hasn't paid taxes you sure are angry about people's taxes going to those without jobs. Do you feel the same anger about other peoples tax money going to the services you enjoy?

And fwiw over 9/10 people getting assistance are either elderly, disabled or already employed. Need to get past misleading stereotypes.
** looks at paycheck **

** sees taxes being taken out **

OK, bro.

Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2013, 11:58 PM
  #335
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,563
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=WhiskeyYourTheDevils;69595581]Its very simple. If you are unable to pay for the basic needs of a child (food, shelter, clothing, care, etc), than you are not in a stable enough financial condition to be raising a child. Sure, healthy kids can come out of bad environments, but as you would agree, they are the exception and not the rule, and the odds are stacked against them, big time. But healthy kids almost
Quote:
never come out of environments where they are not fed and have no shelter or basic care.
A healthy environment, doesn't necessarily with your Worthington Law View of human value.


Quote:
Thatís why you shouldnít have kids until you have money saved up. If you have zero money in the bank, and are barely earning enough to make ends meet, do you think it would be a good idea to have a kid?
parents waiting to bank up enough cash for 18ish years per child would put a bite in the birth rate and consequentially kid based businesses like...McDonalds.
Quote:
Bad things happen, but people shouldnít expect the government to bail them out at the first sign of distress.
Unless they're a CEO.
Quote:
You keep trying to characterize me as someone who wants to exterminate poor children, just because I donít support funneling money to low income families. Youíre extremism makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you as you are constantly misinterpreting/misreading what I post.
Let's give it all to the people who don't need it instead.

Quote:
Here is a perfect example of your inability to read. I said that itís not the role of the government to guarantee natural rights, thereby implying that having children is a natural right. Are you really that incapable of reading my posts? Let me refresh you. You said:

To which I replied:

Your reply, which made absolutely no sense:
Our government took up the standard of natural rights with the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, written by a hero of your movement O'l TJ.


Quote:
Holy **** dude, you really really really have a hard time with reading comprehension, huh? Where did I state that I wanted to strip anyone of any rights?
In the following sentence:
Quote:
There is no legal right to a having a child, that is what I stated.
Which is factually incorrect on your part. You are under the impression that it doesn't exist and shouldn't exist even though it does.
Quote:
My only argument is that it is not the governmentís responsibility to guarantee the right to funding for children. People can have all the kids they want, but there should be consequences to having kids that you canít care for, not benefits.
And I'm saying someone needing help raising kids doesn't make them the villain and it takes a very high income and some luck on top of that, to make having kids consequence free for anyone.

Quote:
But go on projecting your bias onto me, Iím done discussing this with you. Youíve proven on several occasions that you refuse to take the time to properly read my replies, you have continually mis-characterized my arguments, you've dodged multiple legitimate questions, and you have shown a complete inability to consider my posts without making asinine assumptions about my position, solely on the basis of my avatar.
What am I missing? You think the right to even the most basic of our principles is predicated on wealth and the guys up top should get everything they want.


Quote:
Like Jonathan said, why make hard times even harder by adding a significant financial burden to your life? And as Iíve posted earlier, if youíve already got kids, you should have saved up enough to weather any reasonably expected hard times (layoff, illness, etc).
"Reasonably expected" in the free for all environment you guy want would leave very few eligible for breeding and disproportionately in first world countries.

Hasbro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 12:10 AM
  #336
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deekortiz3 View Post
Main point being that it should not last their entire adolescent life. The current system simply breeds leeches in how we provide money for these families. It is meant to help you get back on your feet not provide a live-able income for 18 years.

I'd consider charging the unfit parents with some form of child endangerment which could eventually lead to having your children taken away after multiple offenses.
Which would lead to caring for kids their entire adolescent life, now minus whatever money and labor the parent contributed.

Hasbro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 12:16 AM
  #337
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
That's not what happens, as evidenced by several billion people on this planet.

Making policy that requires outcomes we *know* won't happen is idiotic.
Someone call Epsilon. I don't want to step on his punchline.

Hasbro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 12:55 AM
  #338
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,175
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro View Post
Which would lead to caring for kids their entire adolescent life, now minus whatever money and labor the parent contributed.
I wonder if some people ever stop to think just how much it would cost for the government to claim and raise all these kids they think people shouldn't be having.

RandV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 07:47 AM
  #339
WhiskeyYourTheDevils
Registered User
 
WhiskeyYourTheDevils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 8,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro View Post
your Worthington Law View of human value.
I see you still are projecting, nice.


Quote:
parents waiting to bank up enough cash for 18ish years per child would put a bite in the birth rate and consequentially kid based businesses like...McDonalds.
Good. Tell me again why you think overpopulation is a good thing?


Quote:
Unless they're a CEO.
Not surprised that you feel that way. I don't agree, but if you feel like CEOs deserve to be bailed out, then I guess that makes sense, considering your posts.

Quote:
Let's give it all to the people who don't need it instead.
Interesting word choice. How about we don't decide who gets what.

Quote:
Our government took up the standard of natural rights with the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, written by a hero of your movement O'l TJ.
And you continue to prove my point . . . to what movement do you think I belong. Again, I ask you to read this thread, maybe then you will realize that I'm not apart of any movement. But please continue to generalize based on my avatar.


Quote:
And I'm saying someone needing help raising kids doesn't make them the villain
Who said that it does?

Quote:
and it takes a very high income and some luck on top of that, to make having kids consequence free for anyone.
Its not consequence free for anyone who has to pay for their children. That in and of itself is a consequence. The only people who get to have children consequence free are people who can't afford to do so in the first place.

Quote:
What am I missing? You think the right to even the most basic of our principles is predicated on wealth and the guys up top should get everything they want.
Swing and a miss, haha this is comical.

Quote:
"Reasonably expected" in the free for all environment you guy want would leave very few eligible for breeding and disproportionately in first world countries.
You really have to stop assuming my beliefs. You come across as a complete tool.

WhiskeyYourTheDevils is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 09:11 AM
  #340
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyYourTheDevils View Post
I see you still are projecting, nice.
You were the one who flat out said people don't deserve a right based on their class and put way too much credence in someone's ability to produce a healthy child into their tax bracket.


Quote:
Good. Tell me again why you think overpopulation is a good thing?
Just under your threshold we'd lose about 90% of the world population



Quote:
Not surprised that you feel that way. I don't agree, but if you feel like CEOs deserve to be bailed out, then I guess that makes sense, considering your posts.
That was what is know as sarcasm, since you believe some exec deserves an ivory back scratcher than peons deserve a living wage.


Quote:
Interesting word choice. How about we don't decide who gets what.
Or rather let the pigs at the trough gorge themselves some more.



Quote:
And you continue to prove my point . . . to what movement do you think I belong. Again, I ask you to read this thread, maybe then you will realize that I'm not apart of any movement. But please continue to generalize based on my avatar.
Someone who thinks a right doesn't exist in this country that clearly does and worships the rich.

From your thread:
"Taking the hard earned money from one man and giving it to another is hardly a way to create sympathy."

Oddly enough, when someone at the upper end of the scale does such a thing it's not considered as exploitation by your ilk.




Quote:
Who said that it does?
You in the next sentence here:



Quote:
Its not consequence free for anyone who has to pay for their children. That in and of itself is a consequence. The only people who get to have children consequence free are people who can't afford to do so in the first place.

Quote:
Swing and a miss, haha this is comical.



You really have to stop assuming my beliefs. You come across as a complete tool.
Yeah it only counts as class warfare when you think someone who needs it gets help.

Hasbro is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.