How I see the political spectrum, and why.

[ol' man]

Ol' man is more your speed. In terms of debating skills, I don't see any difference.

Eh?



As for divorces? My Mom has been through two of them now at age 52. I must say we never were on welfare except for a little while when my stepfather was in prison and my mom had a baby when he was in prison. She could not work and my stepfather didn't help, I guess he couldn't you know. I think she was on welfare for around 2 months at the most after she gave birth. Even though she was on welfare my stepfather had to pay back the state for the assistance it gave her while he was in prison.. I think probably less than that. I feel social services in that case were needed other wise in my whole life my mother has never gotten welfare. She went back to school when she was 40 and got a 4 year Registered Nursing degree. SHe has always worked. I think in certain situation welfare goes overboard though. In leslies case I guess I am not sure about. If her kid is really young and needs her there then I can see where in her case it would be okay or maybe the baby has special needs like physical problems with its health. I don't feel a good excuse is that she is trying to sort some things out in her head right now though to get welfare. If she is in school then indeed give her some support.

Every body goes through bad things. I spent half of my childhood awake at night waiting with a baseball bat in my hands in bed for that time that my step father would goto far and actually try and kill my mom or me. I guess my stepfater went to prison for pulling a gun on my mom once and pulling the trigger. Luckily the gun was not loaded. He has went to prison three different times for drugs, guns, home violence etc.....

I agree with welfare in certain cases but I think there should be hard limits set for it.

I don't know leslies situation so I am not going to pass judgment. I do how ever know squiggies and he is hopeless, LOL

 

[Ardsgaine]

I didn't see anything to debate, you were just presenting your views, i read it all and i pointed what i didn't agree with, i have no intentions to argue these days, plus i don't like the idea of long posts mainly because i'm not very articulated in english and when i write long sentences or too much sentences i don't make sense at all.

I apologize. I over-generalized in making my point, and it wasn't fair to you. I've noticed that you haven't been debating lately, and I didn't really expect a response from you. You did, however, understand the intention of my post and defended it when it was misconstrued. Thank you again for that, and thanks for not piling on in the current dispute. I appreciate that a great deal.

I'm sorry for not responding to the rest of your post, but I won't be debating in RW anymore.

 

[ol' man]

I'm sorry for not responding to the rest of your post, but I won't be debating in RW anymore.

I don't blame you this place is truly messed up? I think about everyone is to blame also.

 

[outside looking in]

I saw where this was going a few hours ago, and ran quickly in the other direction. I have my principles that I'll defend, and then I also have my sanity, which I cling to!

 

[outside looking in]

BTW, in case you're still at least reading this forum/thread Ards, I would have posted my thoughts on this topic but I typed them up in several lengthy PM's to Squiggy yesterday and didn't feel like retyping them.

I don't think I have a copy of what I had written saved, but I'll ask him to send the contents back to me. I'll edit out the unrelated stuff and post it here for your amusement.

 

[outside looking in]

And this is probably the point at which Ards and my own opinions would diverge. We both recognize that protecting individual's rights should be the key purpose of goverenment, but we would probably disagree in particulars of what rights deserve protecting. We would disagree on how much government it would or should take to protect those rights, and how many social philosophies would have to be implemented to ensure the rights are protected. If a corporation is using perfectly legitimate capilistic practices to obtain a monopoly standing, is that "their right" and should that right be defended, or do the rights of those that they suppressed to reach that position weigh more heavily? IMO, there should at least be the capacity in government to make such decisions. Does your right to smoke supercede my right to breathe fresh air? Does your right to swing your fist supercede my right to have a straight nose? Difficult questions for sure, and the solution is necessarily an infusion of leftist philosophies into the equation. How much is enough? Do other members of society have a "right" to my money? Do they have the "right" to eat if they are capable but unwilling to feed themselves? Do they have the "right" to eat if they are incapable of working? Do they have the "right" to tell me this, or that? This is the root of all laws and regulations (including taxes, of course).

At what point have you moved from a capitalist "right" to a socialist "left" economic organization? How much socialism does the US or any other country "need?" In my opinion, the delineating question to ask is where the goal ceases to be "protecting the rights of the individual" and instead becomes "for the good of the people..." If you approach every sociopolitical and economic question with that basic criteria, you can fairly consistently draw the line between the right and the left.

Using that basic seive, perhaps you'll see why Ards and I view Hitler the way we do. Was his actions and motives "for the good of the people...?" In all likelihood, no, but you can be even more sure that his actions were not to "protect the rights of the individual." He violated rights at will to suit his needs, whatever his goals or motives might have been, and that is the sovereignty of individual rights is the most basic requirement for a "right" philosophy.

I hope this helps clarify my thoughts on the issue.

 

[flavio]

Ardsgaine will run off again.

Not surprising really.

 

[Leslie]

wow.

well, since this was all about me...I guess I should respond something...

thanks to those who spoke for me in my absence.

First of all, that comment did hurt, very much, along with others in here. I'm sorry that I'm weak and not strong like others, like all of the family members here, I'm sorry that my husband blew every cent we had, savings and all on booze women and hookers and drugs and I that have no resources to go on with on my own, sorry that I need help, and I'm sorry that my parents have all their money invested and locked in for their own future, and aren't able to give me much but moral support and $20 to buy my kids a Harry Potter movie, but that is the situation. I'm shellshocked, I'm at sea, I don't know where to go or what to do, I need help, and I am grateful I can get it, because at the end of this month, myself and my boys would have been homeless.

I'm sorry I used myself as an example...apparently that was wrong for some reason. I hadn't realized I was in a debate, I'd thought I was just talking, expressing myself for a little while. I had thought about using other kinds of circumstances as an example as to why I think that everyone deserves some help when they need it, but I thought that the voice of experience would be better. I'll try to decide against that next time. And whatever is said, I was and am expressing my appreciation and gratefulness for the system I'm living in, I'm so very glad I'm not in another. We've contributed to it, and now that we need help, we're getting it.

And I'm sorry that my comments were so very useless and unintelligent, so very subpar, I hadn't realized that a treatise was necessary to reply in this forum, I was just talking a little and enjoying myself browsing.

 

[samcurry]

I feel there are quite a few members that are posting in the RW that need to reread ris's sticky post at the top.
While everyone is surely guarenteed their opinion and can post it freely, there is no need to ever target individuals.
Disagreements will happen because of this noncensorship, but if things continue in here(RW) we will be left with no choice but to tighten the reigns. Thee has been way to much mud slinging for mine or most everyone else here taste.
remember with the lack of censorship comes great responsibility on your own parts. So if you dont want a fulltime babysitter act and treat others as you would want to be treated in return.

 

[freako104]

First of all, that comment did hurt, very much, along with others in here. I'm sorry that I'm weak and not strong like others, like all of the family members here

your not weak les. dont say that. your one of the stronger women i know. your going through a lot of shit that you dont deserve. if it helps its your stregnth i respect(among other things)


squig get the hell off ards case. i dont always agree with him but no more personal attacks. hell its actually great he stays home and teaches the kids and jan works. at least hes helping with the kids.











AND EVERYONE SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! read ris goddamn sticky. and read sams post we need to respect each other.

 

[Justintime]

While i won't put it quite that way i agree.

 

[flavio]

. hell its actually great he stays home and teaches the kids and jan works. at least hes helping with the kids.

Sure, that's great. For him to make it seem as if there is something wrong with Leslie getting some assistance when he doesn't even work himself was completely out of line though.

It also puts into perspective his writings on economic theory. When you're not directly involved with economics, making money, or paying taxes it's probably much easier to justify personal views on the subject.

 

[Justintime]

Ok, this thread is going nowhere.