View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 25th, 2014, 8:08 am



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 285 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next
 Rashard Mendenhall (Now with socialism) 
Author Message
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3142
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
aughsum wrote:
Maybe liberal isn't the right word for what I am - I believe the goverment has the right idea, but needs a complete overhaul. People are as dumb as I make them out to be, and they need to have functional systems in place so they can continue to function, not saying a lower-class citizen needs gov assistance to get a job and feed/shelter themselves, but they do a great job of abusing gov aid, having more kids than theyre able to support financially, etc. No one looks at the big picture, thats why the government exists.

This ties into my first post (and rashard mendenhall's tweet). I'm not saying I believe 9/11 is a conspiracy, but if the gov had to create a public fear of terrorism to demonize middle-eastern countries to set the stage for military action and the spreading of democracy to curb potential future military threats, then I wouldn't fault them for that. Like I said, chess.

So your evidence that people are dumb and need the government is that they abuse government provided assistance? Do you not see how circular that logic is? If those same people don't need the gov't to "get a job and feed/shelter themselves" then they certainly shouldn't need the gov't assistance to begin with, and as such those programs should be done away with. Then the issue of abusing the systems is gone.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly on people being that dumb. Some people are, but most are not. Not in terms of being able to take care of themselves and make decisions about how their lives should be run. History shows that when there is less government, people live better lives. As noted above, provide a single example of a well run government program, and then you'd have a reason to make the argument you are. Without that, there is zero reason to think that more government would solve any problems or make things better.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


May 15th, 2011, 9:42 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9891
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
Ask yourself this, who is dumb.......the segment that abuses a program, or the segment that offers the program and allows the continued abuse for years on end.

I understand that the government needs to help people who cannot help themselves. However, the unfortunate thing is that when the government gets involved that abuse runs rampant because the government is inept at running such programs. As was said, name one government program or a program that is overseen by the government that makes money, that doesn't have an incredible amount of abuse and selfishness involved, on both sides.

Government is necessary, but not in being involved in the private sector, taking over things like healthcare. Healthcare is not a God given right, it is not a device by which the bureaucrats are the ones to decide who gets what treatment, or how the doctors get paid. Other countries that have government run healthcare have less success in the treatments and cures of serious illnesses, particularly among the very young and elderly.

More government means one thing.....more cost and less efficiency. Increased government is what is causing this country to have ever increasing debt, such that our great grandchildren won't even be close to having it paid off if the American government stopped spending today.

You are welcome to your viewpoints. I understand that my words aren't going to sway you from your opinions. But for a person who claims to have an open-mindedness about things, it sure seems like you have tunnel vision.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


May 16th, 2011, 8:48 am
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
The only tunnel-vision going on here is you guys, pushing an issue that I'm not pushing back against.

I never said there was a well-run gov program - I dont think there is one.
I think people will abuse easily abusable programs, and the gov is massively screwed up in it's delivery of services they deem as nessicarry.

Part of me thinks there should be well-designed welfare/healthcare systems, the other part thinks we should let natural selection run It's course.


May 16th, 2011, 2:16 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
Off-topic this. Its not football related except that a player wrote the issues.


May 16th, 2011, 2:59 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
Wow! How did I ever miss this thread this weekend? But as njroar said, this discussion has become off-topic, so I'm gonna move it there. I'll be very interested to hear why aughsum is a socialist and/or why he thinks government can make decisions for us better than we can? As the great President Ronald Reagan once said, "Government isn't the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem". I'd also like to hear from aughsum about why the US is attempting to adopt European Democratic Socialist policies which have been a failure over there? In fact, Europe in general is moving toward the right since their Welfare State has proven unsustainable. This could have been predicted since socialistic principles have failed everywhere they have been tried throughout the course of human history, but the "elites" always seem to think they can make it work the next time. And they wonder why I laugh at them? :lol:

_________________
Image


May 16th, 2011, 7:31 pm
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
For the last fudge time: less government, redesigned, efficient government aid/programs.

Holy poop.


May 17th, 2011, 8:12 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
Imagine that - an admitted socialist who wants less government. Do you want to abolish the Congress and Supreme Court so Chairman Obama can govern with impunity or something? Or how about only allowing the elite of the "elites" to collect a government paycheck, while the rest of us serve as their slaves? Just curious since I've never heard of a socialist that wanted less government before. This ought to be good if you choose to elaborate. :lol:

_________________
Image


May 18th, 2011, 8:08 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9891
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
aughsum wrote:
For the last fudge time: less government, redesigned, efficient government aid/programs.

Holy poop.


Don't get mad at us. You were the one who originally posted that you wanted to see more government because people were stupid. The stupidity turned into abusing, and the more turned into less.

I honestly don't understand exactly what you are looking for. Redesigned and efficient government programs? If that is the case, then we agree. And the fact is, if you redesign the programs and make them more efficient, you automatically reduce government involvement in peoples lives.

Classic case of a fouled government program in Michigan: a lottery winner who has over a million dollars in cash is receiving food stamps because the laws state that he must show a minimal amount of income to qualify. Lottery winnings in the bank are not considered income, so he qualifies. He has no job. He said he feels no guilt because he made all the proper calls and asked all the questions. Is it his fault that the rules were written that way? No. But it is his fault for even asking the questions while he's got more money than most people. As it turns out, there are numerous former lottery winners doing the same thing. They have the money for food, but why spend your own money when you can spend someone elses? Sorry buddy, but that isn't something you typically see conservatives doing.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


May 18th, 2011, 10:06 pm
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
slybri19 wrote:
Imagine that - an admitted socialist who wants less government. Do you want to abolish the Congress and Supreme Court so Chairman Obama can govern with impunity or something? Or how about only allowing the elite of the "elites" to collect a government paycheck, while the rest of us serve as their slaves? Just curious since I've never heard of a socialist that wanted less government before. This ought to be good if you choose to elaborate. :lol:


Thanks for reminding me why I hate discussing politics.

A few posts ago, about three words after I referred to myself as a socialist, I clarified my position. Were I a purebred socialist, I would have omitted the second part; were I a purebred (whatever I am), I would have o otter the socialist part.

I'd like to see congress reformed, the current structure is ripe for corruption - little to no accountability, rampant beauocracy.

Obama is one man, he's not some kind of god - it's funny how anti-Obama people can't really put into words why, exactly, they're anti-Obama.

I don't really get the part about only the elites collecting a paycheck - I think you may have run out of talking points, as happens early-on in every political conversation I've ever been involved in.

This really isn't getting anywhere, me continuing to respond to this is just as childish as you keeping going with this. There really is nothing to argue - I have my views, you have yours, were both entitled to separate opinions - I don't care about yours, you shouldn't care about mine.


May 18th, 2011, 10:10 pm
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
m2karateman wrote:
aughsum wrote:
For the last fudge time: less government, redesigned, efficient government aid/programs.

Holy poop.


Don't get mad at us. You were the one who originally posted that you wanted to see more government because people were stupid. The stupidity turned into abusing, and the more turned into less.

I honestly don't understand exactly what you are looking for. Redesigned and efficient government programs? If that is the case, then we agree. And the fact is, if you redesign the programs and make them more efficient, you automatically reduce government involvement in peoples lives.

Classic case of a fouled government program in Michigan: a lottery winner who has over a million dollars in cash is receiving food stamps because the laws state that he must show a minimal amount of income to qualify. Lottery winnings in the bank are not considered income, so he qualifies. He has no job. He said he feels no guilt because he made all the proper calls and asked all the questions. Is it his fault that the rules were written that way? No. But it is his fault for even asking the questions while he's got more money than most people. As it turns out, there are numerous former lottery winners doing the same thing. They have the money for food, but why spend your own money when you can spend someone elses? Sorry buddy, but that isn't something you typically see conservatives doing.


More government management does not equal more government.

So.. The dumbest/trashiest 20% of the population isn't responsible for a much larger percentage of the nations programs? Never changed my stance on that either - you guys are interpeting my posts in a way that gives you the ability to respond to them objectively, not as they were intended.

Everyone has seen that story on the news.. What's your point? Is e lottery guy a liberal? Dd I say I have anything against conservatives? No? Then why are you being defensive? The only thing I've noticed conservatives doing lately is being involved in gay sex scandals. There, I bit.


May 18th, 2011, 10:14 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
aughsum wrote:
Thanks for reminding me why I hate discussing politics.

I used to hate discussing politics too, but then Obama came along and the rest is history

aughsum wrote:
A few posts ago, about three words after I referred to myself as a socialist, I clarified my position. Were I a purebred socialist, I would have omitted the second part; were I a purebred (whatever I am), I would have o otter the socialist part.

But you did, so it's fair game. Whenever a conservative makes a slip of the tongue or mis-speaks, the lamestream libtard media is all over them, so I'm all about giving it back to their kind when they do the same. You reap what you sow.

aughsum wrote:
I'd like to see congress reformed, the current structure is ripe for corruption - little to no accountability, rampant beauocracy.

Hey, we actually agree upon something. As a supply sergeant in the US Army for 8-1/2 years, I saw first hand how corrupt, inefficient, lazy, and basically useless the DOD civilian employees of the bloated bureaucracy actually were. I also see how corrupt politicans have become in Congress and throughout government and see a need for extensive reforms. But, I'm mostly in favor of voting the bums out and will do my best to do so in the next election. My activism and networking run deep.

aughsum wrote:
Obama is one man, he's not some kind of god - it's funny how anti-Obama people can't really put into words why, exactly, they're anti-Obama.

Huh? Just read the Obama Bashing Thread. I have hundreds of examples in there. He has surrounded himself with socialists/communists/Marxists/statists/Maoists, etc. as Czars and non-Senate confirmed advisors. If he didn't agree with their thinking, why would he appoint so many of them to positions not needing Senate confirmation? Furthermore, he panders to special interests (unions, environmentalists, illegal immigrants, etc.) more than any other President I've ever seen. He also promised transparency, but has been the least transparent President in memory. And don't even get me started on his lies. I have yet to see a speech where he hasn't lied or misrepresented the truth atleast once. Words can not adequately describe how much I HATE that scumbag.

aughsum wrote:
I don't really get the part about only the elites collecting a paycheck - I think you may have run out of talking points, as happens early-on in every political conversation I've ever been involved in.

That was a joke, but what do you want to talk about? Let's try how human nature leads to socialism's failure? Or how about socialism's dismal record throughout human existence? We could also try how the redistribution of wealth leads to more poverty and not less. How about why the motive of profit in private industry is more efficient than a collective state mentality in the public sector? We could also discuss why business is leaving high tax states for lower tax states (or countries for that matter)? I could go on and on and on. Try me sometime and don't assume for a second that I'll run out of "talking points".

aughsum wrote:
This really isn't getting anywhere, me continuing to respond to this is just as childish as you keeping going with this. There really is nothing to argue - I have my views, you have yours, were both entitled to separate opinions - I don't care about yours, you shouldn't care about mine.

You couldn't be more wrong. A good, honest, healthy debate on the issues is an integral part of out republic. Besides, I'm looking forward to destroying any socialist argument you put out there. You see, I value free speech. Do you support it if it doesn't agree with your agenda? I'm game. Are you?

_________________
Image


May 18th, 2011, 11:11 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
Aug, don't let them get to you! Sly likes to poke fun, it's his thing...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 19th, 2011, 9:44 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9891
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
aughsum wrote:
More government management does not equal more government.


Then please explain....what exactly IS more government to you? From my standpoint, saying I want less government implies I want less government oversight and regulations, less government sponsored programs intended to do good, but drain the taxpayers due to poorly worded rules. Less government, to me, means less government involvement and control.

aughsum wrote:
So.. The dumbest/trashiest 20% of the population isn't responsible for a much larger percentage of the nations programs? Never changed my stance on that either - you guys are interpeting my posts in a way that gives you the ability to respond to them objectively, not as they were intended.


No, actually, they aren't RESPONSIBLE for them, they were the excuse for the creation of them. The 20% of the population you speak of didn't create those programs and vote them into existence. Our elected officials did that. So I don't hold them responsible for the creation of the programs or the loopholes that our "legal beagles" wrote into the regulations governing those programs. Less government involvement would be our government telling those 20% that they won't get state or federal welfare, so they need to deal with life as they've made it for themselves. Sounds simple enough to me.

aughsum wrote:
Everyone has seen that story on the news.. What's your point? Is e lottery guy a liberal? Dd I say I have anything against conservatives? No? Then why are you being defensive? The only thing I've noticed conservatives doing lately is being involved in gay sex scandals. There, I bit.


My point is who is the real cause of the issue? Is it the lottery winner who is playing by the rules, no matter how immoral it may be, or is it the government officials who created the program and wrote the rules he's playing by? My vote is the latter. And that is the issue with more government, they have good intentions but everything they touch becomes a farce.

I agree with your statements about restructuring all of the government. I'd love to see us start anew, re-elect all of Congress, all of the Senate, and that a better system be put in place all around. It should be easier to cast out officials that don't follow the will of the People, but only follow their own selfish agendas. Same goes for the President. The only thing that should remain unscathed is the Constitution of the United States. There is not one thing wrong with that document. The only thing wrong is all the legal idiots that feel they need to spin their own interpretations into it. They should all be shot.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


May 19th, 2011, 10:28 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
If you are not in one of the two partyies, you are in the "other" party depending on who you talk to. I will have to say Aug, you are a bit confusing though on what you are getting at. Most here are very conservative, so you are going to get a LOT of backlash on anything that seems non-party line conservative.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


May 19th, 2011, 10:36 am
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
steensn wrote:
If you are not in one of the two partyies, you are in the "other" party depending on who you talk to. I will have to say Aug, you are a bit confusing though on what you are getting at. Most here are very conservative, so you are going to get a LOT of backlash on anything that seems non-party line conservative.


I should have known better than to post something political on an american pro football team message board.


May 19th, 2011, 10:57 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 285 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.