From: Rol_Lei Nut on
Neil Harrington wrote:
> "Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7gudlkF2rba42U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> "Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> At this point I wouldn't be at all surprised if Republicans start
>>>> demanding sterilization and euthanasia for the mentally handicapped....
>>> I thought sterilization before giving child support money to unwed
>>> mothers was a great idea. If it's my money, shouldn't I have the right to
>>> put restrictions on it before the Libs give it away to others? After all,
>>> they still have the choice. They can refuse to get sterilized, and
>>> support themselves! (Now, isn't that a unique idea?)
>> Yes, Bill, tell us all about your experience as a working single Mom
>> raising a young child...
>
> How did the single mom get to be a single mom in the first place?
>
>> I'm sure you could write a paper (with "statistics") showing that a single
>> parent can work, raise a child and *still* have enough time for up to 4
>> hours sleep every day.
>>
>> You ideas go beyond political thought and ideology: I'm sorry, they are
>> simply the rants of a bitter, spoiled, stingy, ill-informed and
>> oh-so-self-righteous narrow-minded old man who would rather have a couple
>> of more dollars in his pocket than provide a safety net for any sort of
>> misfortune which may happen to other people (for whatever reason).
>
> You sound like a bitter, spoiled, ill-informed and oh-so-self-righteous
> narrow-minded fellow yourself, though admittedly not a stingy one -- at
> least with other people's money.
>
> If you really want to make sure those who won't work or support themselves
> are nevertheless well supported, well fed, housed and taken care of in every
> way, why not share YOUR money with them? Remember the old saying, "charity
> begins at home." Be charitable. It isn't a proper function of the
> government.
>
>

Well, I do. I pay my taxes. And in genral I'm glad they are also used to
help needy people.

It is public/government policy to determine who is "needy". For the most
part I can agree with the situation where I live.

Just think, I can walk through parks here at night without fear (and
even without guns), how weird is that for you?
From: Bill Graham on

"DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:4aaaaea4$0$27598$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5NidnfuTjrorNzfXnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com
>
> [...]
>
>> that isn't socialism......What horse puckey! I know socialism when I
>> see it.
>
> No, you don't. The moment you see democratically elected governments
> doing anything other than letting the pirates put profits ahead of people
> and you simply scream "socialism!" but you have no clue what you're
> talking about. You have no idea what socialism is and you've proved in
> here over and over that you have no intention whatsoever of finding out.
>
>
The dictionary definition is quite clear, and it was sited somewhere
above.....That isn't the problem. The problem is your complicated
interpretation of the definition. I am quite happy with my definition,
thanks.....If you don't like it, then think up another word for it. - I bet
you think the second amendment gives the militia, "the right to keep and
bear arms", too, don't you?

From: Bill Graham on

"Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7gvqdpF2qo6l2U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:7gudlkF2rba42U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> "Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> At this point I wouldn't be at all surprised if Republicans start
>>>>> demanding sterilization and euthanasia for the mentally
>>>>> handicapped....
>>>> I thought sterilization before giving child support money to unwed
>>>> mothers was a great idea. If it's my money, shouldn't I have the right
>>>> to put restrictions on it before the Libs give it away to others? After
>>>> all, they still have the choice. They can refuse to get sterilized, and
>>>> support themselves! (Now, isn't that a unique idea?)
>>> Yes, Bill, tell us all about your experience as a working single Mom
>>> raising a young child...
>>
>> How did the single mom get to be a single mom in the first place?
>>
>>> I'm sure you could write a paper (with "statistics") showing that a
>>> single parent can work, raise a child and *still* have enough time for
>>> up to 4 hours sleep every day.
>>>
>>> You ideas go beyond political thought and ideology: I'm sorry, they are
>>> simply the rants of a bitter, spoiled, stingy, ill-informed and
>>> oh-so-self-righteous narrow-minded old man who would rather have a
>>> couple of more dollars in his pocket than provide a safety net for any
>>> sort of misfortune which may happen to other people (for whatever
>>> reason).
>>
>> You sound like a bitter, spoiled, ill-informed and oh-so-self-righteous
>> narrow-minded fellow yourself, though admittedly not a stingy one -- at
>> least with other people's money.
>>
>> If you really want to make sure those who won't work or support
>> themselves are nevertheless well supported, well fed, housed and taken
>> care of in every way, why not share YOUR money with them? Remember the
>> old saying, "charity begins at home." Be charitable. It isn't a proper
>> function of the government.
>
> Well, I do. I pay my taxes. And in genral I'm glad they are also used to
> help needy people.
>
> It is public/government policy to determine who is "needy". For the most
> part I can agree with the situation where I live.

Here, it used to be my individual policy to determine who is "needy", and
how much charity I gave to them. Now, it is government policy, and in
general, I don't like the government's decision....also, it is a very
socialistic policy, for the government to take my tax money and give it to
the people they think are needy. I have spend much of my life living with
these people, and believe me, they were perfectly capable of taking care of
themselves.....My government is as inefficient at finding needy people as
they are at everything else they do.

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>"Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> You ideas go beyond political thought and ideology: I'm sorry, they are
>> simply the rants of a bitter, spoiled, stingy, ill-informed and
>> oh-so-self-righteous narrow-minded old man who would rather have a couple
>> of more dollars in his pocket than provide a safety net for any sort of
>> misfortune which may happen to other people (for whatever reason).
>
>"For whatever reason?" Not so. I believe in charity for those who deserve
>it. And by that, I mean for those whose misfortune has been no fault of
>their own. I just don't believe in stealing the taxpayer's money and giving
>it to those who had every chance that I had to become self supporting,

But stealing the taxpayer's money in order to kill people by the
hundreds of thousands? Sure! Rightards only object to helping
Americans.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>"DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message

>> No, you don't. The moment you see democratically elected governments
>> doing anything other than letting the pirates put profits ahead of people
>> and you simply scream "socialism!" but you have no clue what you're
>> talking about. You have no idea what socialism is and you've proved in
>> here over and over that you have no intention whatsoever of finding out.
>>
>The dictionary definition is quite clear, and it was sited somewhere
>above.....

a political and economic theory of social organization that
advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange
should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

>That isn't the problem.

The problem is that you don't agree with the definition. You want to
use your own definition.

And what does it say about someone that they would rather cling to
their own prejudices and hatres than accept the truth?

> The problem is your complicated
>interpretation of the definition. I am quite happy with my definition,

Q.E.D.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net