Josh Hamilton's tobacco use & drug use in general [Archive]

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 12:53 AM

If he has come back form drug addiction, then why is he chewing tobacco (WHICH IS A DRUG)?
It's not a debihilating drug. This man survived a severe addiction to heroin, coke, and likely other drugs as well. This is like saying "If he came back from drug addiction, why is he drinking soda (WHICH HAS A DRUG)?!" It's just not even close to being equal.

I have tremendous respect for Josh Hamilton because it's not easy to get your life back after wasting years to such drugs like heroin, cocaine, and crack. The fact that he's got his head on straight now, his life back on track, and is becoming a superstar baseball player, just increases the amount of respect I have for him. That takes A LOT more than you could even begin to imagine, and that he chews tobacco should not at all take away from that.

You make it sound as if it is ok to chew tobacco, because 'everybody else does it'.
No, I don't, but it's certainly not something you should lose respect for for someone doing.

howardryan6

07-15-2008, 01:00 AM

You must be high right now.

howardryan6

07-15-2008, 01:02 AM

This is like saying "If he came back from drug addiction, why is he drinking soda (WHICH HAS A DRUG)?!"

That might be one of the stupid statements I have ever read.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:07 AM

You must be high right now.
No, I'm straight edge, thanks. I just don't change my views of people based on what they do with their own bodies.

That might be one of the stupid statements I have ever read.
How so? Caffeine is a drug. Tobacco is a drug. That someone chews tobacco after recovering from severe addiction to the hardest drugs on the planet is something that he deserves to lose respect for? No.

japirish15

07-15-2008, 01:09 AM

I agree with Houston on this one. You guys are overreacting. I mean he has a sponsor to stay with him to make sure he doesn't get addicted again. The guy is dedicated to his job and his well-being, and a little chewing tobacco should not take away from that.

howardryan6

07-15-2008, 01:11 AM

Wow, you are defending someone who is breaking the law. How cool. Just because you smoke weed doesn't make it ok.

howardryan6

07-15-2008, 01:11 AM

Yeah tobacco shouldn't do much. Its just the most addictive drug in the world.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:11 AM

Wow, you are defending someone who is breaking the law. How cool. Just because you smoke weed doesn't make it ok.
Chewing tobacco is not breaking the law. :confused:

howardryan6

07-15-2008, 01:16 AM

Obviously you are mentally impaired at this time, so I am ending this conversation.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:16 AM

Yeah tobacco shouldn't do much. Its just the most addictive drug in the world.
Nicotine addiction does not hamper your ability to function. While it may be just as "addictive" as drugs like heroin and cocaine, it is certainly FAR from their level. Those drugs nearly ruined Josh Hamilton's career. They took him out of the game for a few years. That he was able to get over that addiction, barely play in the minor leagues, and instantly become a star in the majors, deserves the utmost respect, and chewing tobacco shouldn't take away from that in the least bit.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:17 AM

Obviously you are mentally impaired at this time, so I am ending this conversation.
Watch it with the insults. I am not defending breaking the law by saying that it's silly to lose respect for someone because they chew tobacco. I don't even know how you reach that conclusion.

I've also already told you that I'm straight edge, so, you can quit telling me that I'm high or some variation of it, because I'm not.

howardryan6

07-15-2008, 01:22 AM

Maybe your just ignorant then?

howardryan6

07-15-2008, 01:23 AM

"Nicotine addiction does not hamper your ability to function."

WOWOWOWOW!

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:25 AM

Maybe your just ignorant then?
Your post after this one actually indicates that you may be ignorant, or incredibly misguided.

howardryan6

07-15-2008, 01:27 AM

What does addiction do then? Ever heard of withdrawal?

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:30 AM

What does addiction do then? Ever heard of withdrawal?
I don't even know where you're pulling this stuff from, or what I have said that would indicate that I don't know what addiction does.

But I do think that you aren't quite aware of the differences between being addicted to heroin, crack, or cocaine, and being addicted to nicotine.

howardryan6

07-15-2008, 01:35 AM

Hmmm... I guess you just really don't get it. I won't be posting in this thread anymore, so please keep talking to yourself.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:40 AM

:rolleyes:

Okay, I get it. Tobacco is the devil, and it's totally on the level of heroin, and people that chew or smoke tobacco are evil.

lol.

metsguy234

07-15-2008, 03:18 AM

WOW! howardryan has officially become the most ignorant poster here...

This guy was addicted to freakin' hard street drugs (Like crack and heroin, not even just gateway drugs like marijuana), played no baseball for THREE WHOLE YEARS, came back and is an All Star and potential MVP candidate, and you call him a bad person for chewing tobacco?

No, tobacco is certaibly not good for you. That's been proven. But it has also been proven that it does not impair your ability to function.

Also- doing any sort of drug, whether bad or not, does not make you a "bad person". I live next door to a drug addict (this hasn't been confirmed, but we've seen track marks on her arms), yet she is an incredibly nice person.

And then you imply that SMOKING OR CHEWING TOBACCO makes you a bad role model???

I can name about 25 family members, family friends, others that I know who smoke and are great people. I can name, with some research, at least 50 baseball players who still chew tobacco. I don't think any of these people are bad people.

P.S.
No, I'm not a junkie, but it seems that countries where marijuana is legal (which it should be here, even though I'd never use it) seem to be more peaceful (Netherlands, Norway, Germany, etc.)

jcbarr

07-15-2008, 09:32 AM

I think the biggest point here is that Tobacco is LEGAL. If you have a problem with that then you need to attack someone else before you go after Hamilton. The day that tobacco becomes illegal is the day that I will fault him for using it.

filihok

07-15-2008, 09:44 AM

Wow! This thread took a crazy turn.

I like to be in on controversy so...

1) HowardRyan has the right to respect or disrespect for whatever reasons he see fit.

2) Personally, I think it would be better for Josh Hamilton if he did not chew tobacco.

3) Josh Hamilton has done an amazing job turning his life around and getting himself back on track. I am sure it takes more fortitude to do what he has done than most of us have.

4) Tobacco is a very dangerous drug. If its use were not rooted in tradition I am sure it would be illegal.

5) I beleive that the use of tobacco should be illegal.

jcbarr

07-15-2008, 10:39 AM

1) You are right he does have that right. Doesn't mean that I have to like it :)

2) It would be great if a lot of people didn't smoke, drink, eat fast foot things like that, but that to me is no reason to lose respect for someone. Nearly everyone that you have respect does something that is "disrespectful" either to others or to their own body. With my mother-in law it is as simple as she eats candy all the time.

3) I don't think that anyone can really disagree with you on this one. I think the uproar came from people assuming that he hasn't simply because he chews tobacco.

4) No more dangerous than alchohol or McDonald's and none of that is illegal.

5) Once again, then we need to make it illegal to eat at McDonalds, drink beer, take pain medication and everything else that can be "harmful" or "addictive". I'm not saying that you are wrong or that you aren't right, just playing devil's advocate kind of.

filihok

07-15-2008, 10:51 AM

jcbarr

07-15-2008, 11:04 AM

Uranium and Anthrax can cause almost instantaneous death to yourself and others around you. Our society is under the impression that as long as it takes a long time for something to kill you and it doesn't directly present harm to others then it is legal. Also if the government can make money hand over fist if they control the sale of it (liquor) then it is also okay.

filihok

07-15-2008, 11:06 AM

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 11:47 AM

I don't use them so my inclination is to make them illegal.
That's a really horrible justification. Just because YOU don't like or use something does not in any way, shape, or form, mean that other people shouldn't be able to.

I believe it is in the public good to keep dangerous products away from people.
I believe it is in the public good that people have the freedom to do whatever they want, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

No one thinks people should be allowed to walk around with a pocket full of uranium or anthrax.
Aren't these things, you know, very harmful to people around that person, as well? That's the difference. Yes, secondhand smoke is very harmful, but that is why there's designated smoking areas, and you can't smoke inside public buildings, and the like. Chewing tobacco is only harmful to the person chewing it, nobody else. People are well aware of the risks of chewing tobacco. If they still want to chew it, more power to them. That's their choice.

filihok

07-15-2008, 11:57 AM

That's a really horrible justification. Just because YOU don't like or use something does not in any way, shape, or form, mean that other people shouldn't be able to.

This is the exact justification that most people use for anything. If you killed people, you'd probably think that killing people was ok. Since you don't kill people, you probably don't think it's ok. If you molested children or were a producer of kiddie porn you'd probably not want legislation regulating those things...

Since most people don't kill and since most people don't enjoy sex with children it's illegal.

Aren't these things, you know, very harmful to people around that person, as well? That's the difference. Yes, secondhand smoke is very harmful, but that is why there's designated smoking areas, and you can't smoke inside public buildings, and the like. Chewing tobacco is only harmful to the person chewing it, nobody else. People are well aware of the risks of chewing tobacco. If they still want to chew it, more power to them. That's their choice.

Just out of curiosity what is your stance on illegal substances? Smoking crack is really only bad for the person smoking it. Do you believe that smoking crack should be legal? I don't mean this to sound like bait, it's a question, lots of people do think that many illegal drugs should be legal, and they have some good arguments.

Absolutely they are. The smoking bans haven't gone far enough. I still get plenty of second hand smoke walking down the street in public areas.

Saying that something is a personal choice is all well and good, buy it's not reality. The reality is that outside influences have a profound effect on the choices that we make.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 12:05 PM

This is the exact justification that most people use for anything. If you killed people, you'd probably think that killing people was ok. Since you don't kill people, you probably don't think it's ok. If you molested children or were a producer of kiddie porn you'd probably not want legislation regulating those things...

Since most people don't kill and since most people don't enjoy sex with children it's illegal.
All I have to say is that this seems like an incredibly ignorant view of how law works.

Just out of curiosity what is your stance on illegal substances? Smoking crack is really only bad for the person smoking it. Do you believe that smoking crack should be legal? I don't mean this to sound like bait, it's a question, lots of people do think that many illegal drugs should be legal, and they have some good arguments.
I'm in favor of complete drug legalization.

Saying that something is a personal choice is all well and good, buy it's not reality. The reality is that outside influences have a profound effect on the choices that we make.
Okay? In the end, it's still YOUR choice.

filihok

07-15-2008, 12:18 PM

I'm in favor of complete drug legalization

I agree that drugs should be similarly regulated. If tobacco is legal, so should marijuana be. If meth is illegal so should alcohol be.

Okay? In the end, it's still YOUR choice.

I agree with that. To some degree. We could go the roundy-round with the freewill argument, but that would be pointless.

The government, those who make and enforce the laws, have SOME responsibility to protect its citizens.

dannymac910

07-15-2008, 12:18 PM

I'm in favor of complete drug legalization.

wut?

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 12:19 PM

wut?
I said, I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs.

Alloutwar

07-15-2008, 12:37 PM

I am down with that too. Legal, taxed, regulated, etc.

I have always been afraid of the impact it will have on society, of course - PCP dude diving into traffic, cokeheads going on some terror spree, etc. But drunk drivers kill people routinely every year, and we sort of accept that...

dickay

07-15-2008, 12:38 PM

This is where the nut jobs tell you marijauna, crack, cocaine and all drugs should be legalized.

Yes, I too believe in America and freedom of choice. I too understand what was mentioned in here earlier, that people should be allowed to do unto themselves as they please so long as it doesn't hurt society/others.

Smoking bans discussed in here are not everywhere...if fact they are in few states if I'm correct....most of them highly urban areas.

Smoking for the most part initially only effects oneself as long as second hand smoke is controlled. However there is an undeniable effect on our medical system later in life. This is counteracted by the enormous taxes our govt. puts on cigarettes of which they use the medical consequences as justification. Do I like it...no....but most people at the moment have private health care leaving us taxpayers not having to fit most of the bill. God forbid our Govt. take control of healthcare.

Other more advanced drugs such as pot have been legalized elsewhere. Despite what the wackos want you to believe, in almost every case crime has risen dramatically. Our govt. then taxes this drug leading to underground trafficing to get past the high costs which leads to other problems.

Alcohol has been legal for some time but there was a period when it was not (prohibition). The underground trafficing led to others profiting greatly and our Govt. saw an advantage of taxing it on its own which led to it being legalized. Does its consumption effect society....without question. 50% of fatal vehicular accidents are alcohol related, nearly 22,000 per year. On top of that alcohol is involved in a large percentage of criminal behavior.

I smoke tobacco in the form of cigars periodically....i consume alcohol regularly. They probably should both be illegal, but our society has grown to accept these items and we are willing to pay for the higher taxes. There is a greater burden on being consistent making these illegal. Our society currently does not accept legalization of these other drugs, therefore it is not a smart idea to legalize them and deal with the consequences on our healthcare system, and to the increase in crime.

For one to say these drugs only effect the user is extremely naive and untrue.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 12:41 PM

This is where the nut jobs tell you marijauna, crack, cocaine and all drugs should be legalized.
Hey, no name calling. :)

The only drug I feel strongly about legalizing is marijuana, although I consider myself in favor of legalizing everything else. Marijuana, though, I am GREATLY in favor of legalizing.

dickay

07-15-2008, 12:44 PM

But drunk drivers kill people routinely every year, and we sort of accept that...

It's always easier when it happens to others eh??? Maybe this type quote is the problem...........try telling that to someone from M.A.D.D.

filihok

07-15-2008, 12:50 PM

The only drug I feel strongly about legalizing is marijuana, although I consider myself in favor of legalizing everything else. Marijuana, though, I am GREATLY in favor of legalizing.

And why is that Houston? What is different about Marijuana that other currently illegal drugs.

Alloutwar

07-15-2008, 12:50 PM

filihok

07-15-2008, 12:56 PM

Maybe this type quote is the problem

This type of quote isn't the problem, it's the absolute sad truth.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 12:57 PM

And why is that Houston? What is different about Marijuana that other currently illegal drugs.
Do I really need to explain the difference between marijuana and the other illegal drugs?

Seriously?

filihok

07-15-2008, 01:00 PM

Yes, yes you do.

Please spell out the differences for me between:

Caffeine
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Heroin
PCP
Cocaine
Paxil
Morphine
Oxycodone

And why some should be legal, and some should not

filihok

07-15-2008, 01:00 PM

Seriously

dickay

07-15-2008, 01:03 PM

My band actually played shows for S.A.D.D, and alcoholism runs in my family, so don't believe for a second that I'm somehow insulated. That's actually the main reason why I don't drink or do drugs at all.

It just rather ridiculous that alcohol can contribute to so many deaths, and yet it is allowed - albeit regulated (somewhat) and taxed. It just seems odd to do that for the one favorite drug, and none of the others (except tobacco, which has pretty good lobbying power).

What I said is simply whats going through my mind, when I think of the negatives of legalizing the other drug classes. Those negatives are already present today, and yet we conveniently 'overlook' them when discussing legalization.

Well you and I agree here. Yes, as I said earlier.....for sake of consistency alcohol and tobacco SHOULD be illegal but our society wouldn't go for it, ever, and our politicians are just too weak to try. Just because its wrong doesn't make it right to legalize other drugs which haven't been as regularly accepted by our society but are every bit as dangerous or greater.

I'm not so sold on alcoholics being an 'ism' or a disease. Seems like a convenient excuse to me. That said, my family has alcoholics as well....but I know first hand until you have a family member, or in my families case a young teenager, die at the hands of a drunk driver.....you are kind of insulated to the discussion. I'm not saying you haven't had such trauma in your life, only that those who claim these deaths are 'accepted' haven't been around those who have experienced such incident.

I suppose yes you are correct, much of America has 'accepted' these deaths.....those are the insulated ones. See, even I can admit when i'm wrong lol.

Alloutwar

07-15-2008, 01:04 PM

hahaha. I love how marijuana is seen as a horrible drug...ever seen the old PSA films, like 60's and 70's era? They show kids taking one puff, and then diving out of windows to their deaths. Classic.

Marijuana has many negative side effects, notably cognitive impairment with extended use. However, short-term effects are
- hunger
- extreme laziness
- ability to talk for hours about nothing
- possible paranoia
- delusions of understanding something much better than ever before
- driving incredibly slow on the highway

Any worse than intoxication, beer goggles, possible vehicular homicide, and increasing the chance of provoking a fight? Nope, not really. Marijuana is like the big comfy couch of drugs. It's possibly a gateway drug, when rich white kids grow bored of it, but so is everything else.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:05 PM

Alloutwar

07-15-2008, 01:06 PM

I'm not so sold on alcoholics being an 'ism' or a disease. Seems like a convenient excuse to me. That said, my family has alcoholics as well....but I know first hand until you have a family member, or in my families case a young teenager, die at the hands of a drunk driver.....you are kind of insulated to the discussion. I'm not saying you haven't had such trauma in your life, only that those who claim these deaths are 'accepted' haven't been around those who have experienced such incident.

Totally in agreement - I don't think 'alcoholism' exists, I think some people are especially weak-willed and get stuck on it. But my GF is a big believer in Al-Anon and all that stuff, so I can't even mentioned this point of view around her, lest I be slapped!

But honestly, I'm not sure I believe in ADD either, so it might be me on the outskirts of accepted thoughts. :)

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:06 PM

It's possibly a gateway drug, when rich white kids grow bored of it, but so is everything else.
It's not a gateway drug. There is nothing in marijuana that makes you more likely to try other, harder drugs. The "gateway" effect comes from the fact that in order to get it, you need to deal with drug dealers, who often times also deal with other drugs, and might, directly or indirectly, pressure you into trying them. It has nothing to do with the marijuana itself.

Wassit3

07-15-2008, 01:07 PM

Hey, no name calling. :)

The only drug I feel strongly about legalizing is marijuana, although I consider myself in favor of legalizing everything else. Marijuana, though, I am GREATLY in favor of legalizing.

why?

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:07 PM

Totally in agreement - I don't think 'alcoholism' exists, I think some people are especially weak-willed and get stuck on it. But my GF is a big believer in Al-Anon and all that stuff, so I can't even mentioned this point of view around her, lest I be slapped!
You don't think "alcoholism" exists in that it can be genetic and what not, or you don't think "alcoholism" exists in that, you don't think it's addictive? I doubt you don't think alcohol is addictive, but I just wanted to clarify

Wassit3

07-15-2008, 01:10 PM

Well you and I agree here. Yes, as I said earlier.....for sake of consistency alcohol and tobacco SHOULD be illegal but our society wouldn't go for it, ever, and our politicians are just too weak to try. Just because its wrong doesn't make it right to legalize other drugs which haven't been as regularly accepted by our society but are every bit as dangerous or greater.

I'm not so sold on alcoholics being an 'ism' or a disease. Seems like a convenient excuse to me. That said, my family has alcoholics as well....but I know first hand until you have a family member, or in my families case a young teenager, die at the hands of a drunk driver.....you are kind of insulated to the discussion. I'm not saying you haven't had such trauma in your life, only that those who claim these deaths are 'accepted' haven't been around those who have experienced such incident.

I suppose yes you are correct, much of America has 'accepted' these deaths.....those are the insulated ones. See, even I can admit when i'm wrong lol.

our politicians did try, look up prohibition and see what happened, its why they repelled the admendment making alcohol illegal....

Alloutwar

07-15-2008, 01:11 PM

You don't think "alcoholism" exists in that it can be genetic and what not, or you don't think "alcoholism" exists in that, you don't think it's addictive? I doubt you don't think alcohol is addictive, but I just wanted to clarify

Yah - sorry - I am not convinced there is a genetic predisposition towards some people being more susceptible to addiciton to alcohol.

I think alcohol is probably addictive, and might tend to affect people of a certain class or upbringing or environment, but I don't think it's genetic or technically a disease. Taking heroin isn't a disease, either; it's something incredibly stupid, that some people choose to do, and some can't break free of.

Wassit3

07-15-2008, 01:12 PM

HGM, never mind my asking why, i had not seen your responses yet to the other question, sorry:)

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:13 PM

I think alcohol is probably addictive
Probably?

filihok

07-15-2008, 01:13 PM

If you do not know the differences between those drugs, than it's not even worth having a conversation about them.

Also, if you notice what I've been saying, I don't think that some should be legal and some should not. I think they all should be legal.

Way to wriggle off the hook by claiming my ignorance...

I have noticed what you were saying...

Marijuana, though, I am GREATLY in favor of legalizing.

And why is that Houston? What is different about Marijuana that other currently illegal drugs.

I am still waiting for you to answer this question Or perhaps you feel that I am somehow beneath you to deserve an answer.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:15 PM

The differences are abundantly clear to anybody that knows anything about marijuana and the other drugs. I'm sure you're not ignorant of the drugs, so why are you asking me?

Alloutwar

07-15-2008, 01:16 PM

It's not a gateway drug. There is nothing in marijuana that makes you more likely to try other, harder drugs. The "gateway" effect comes from the fact that in order to get it, you need to deal with drug dealers, who often times also deal with other drugs, and might, directly or indirectly, pressure you into trying them. It has nothing to do with the marijuana itself.

Very good point. I was raised in a semi-rich white suburb, where kids started with pot and drinking around 15, and then somehow got into lines of coke by the time I saw them again at 20. I figure there were many factors, but I dunno. Pot seemed almost interesting, after studying beat poets and the 70's and all that...and from there in college, I could maaaybe see going on to 'shrooms once or twice. But once you're snorting or injecting stuff, that just doesn't even seem remotely natural.

filihok

07-15-2008, 01:17 PM

The differences are abundantly clear to anybody that knows anything about marijuana and the other drugs. I'm sure you're not ignorant of the drugs, so why are you asking me?

You still don't answer the question. Why are you "GREATLY in favor of legalizing" marijuana compared to the other drugs.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:18 PM

You still don't answer the question. Why are you "GREATLY in favor of legalizing" marijuana compared to the other drugs.
Because of the differences between marijuana and the other drugs. I thought that much was obvious.

Alloutwar

07-15-2008, 01:19 PM

Probably?

Haha - well, I can't be sure - I've tried to drink repeatedly, from college to now...and beyond a glass of wine once a month with the girly, or maaaybe an apple martini, I can't even stand alcohol. So I don't want to say it's definitely addictive as a substance - it leads me to think the addiction, unlike say tobacco (with nicotine), isn't physical, but psychological. But I am no expert.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:19 PM

Haha - well, I can't be sure - I've tried to drink repeatedly, from college to now...and beyond a glass of wine once a month with the girly, or maaaybe an apple martini, I can't even stand alcohol. So I don't want to say it's definitely addictive as a substance - it leads me to think the addiction, unlike say tobacco (with nicotine), isn't physical, but psychological. But I am no expert.
It's can be both physically and psychologically addicting.

Marijuana on the other hand...

filihok

07-15-2008, 01:27 PM

Because of the differences between marijuana and the other drugs. I thought that much was obvious.

And again, it is beneath you to spell out those difference to so enlighten our readers?

Or too time consuming? More time consuming than dodging the question repeatedly?

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:33 PM

It's less addictive than alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs. It's less debihilating than alcohol, a legal drug. It has medical uses.

filihok

07-15-2008, 01:37 PM

It's less addictive than alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs. It's less debihilating than alcohol, a legal drug. It has medical uses.

Thank you.

So now do you see legal marijuana as being like tobacco or alcohol where one can walk into a Wawa and buy it over the counter or do you see legal marijuana as being like Oxycontin where it would be a medical drug and subject to those types of regulations?

dickay

07-15-2008, 01:38 PM

You don't think "alcoholism" exists in that it can be genetic and what not, or you don't think "alcoholism" exists in that, you don't think it's addictive? I doubt you don't think alcohol is addictive, but I just wanted to clarify

I do certainly think it can be additictive....but I don't think people are 'born' with a disease which leads them to alcohol. That clear it up?

dickay

07-15-2008, 01:39 PM

our politicians did try, look up prohibition and see what happened, its why they repelled the admendment making alcohol illegal....

lol, thanks. read the whole thread though, I did talk quite a bit about prohibition earlier :rolleyes:

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:39 PM

Thank you.

So now do you see legal marijuana as being like tobacco or alcohol where one can walk into a Wawa and buy it over the counter or do you see legal marijuana as being like Oxycontin where it would be a medical drug and subject to those types of regulations?
I don't SEE it actually being legal in any way in the foreseeable future. I personally BELIEVE it should be legal like tobacco/alcohol.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:39 PM

I do certainly think it can be additictive....but I don't think people are 'born' with a disease which leads them to alcohol. That clear it up?
I was asking AllOutWar, as what you had said was pretty clear, but thank you anyway.

filihok

07-15-2008, 01:41 PM

It's less addictive than alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs. It's less debihilating than alcohol, a legal drug. It has medical uses.

Oh yeah...

So the reasons that you give for legalizing marijuana don't really apply to the majority of other currently illegal drugs. But you said that you favored legalizing ALL drugs. How do you reconcile this?

dickay

07-15-2008, 01:41 PM

It's less addictive than alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs. It's less debihilating than alcohol, a legal drug. It has medical uses.

I disagree wholehearted and will find time later today to post more on it. For the moment i'll just say alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as cigarrettes which have additives put into the tobacco to make it even more addictive. Alcohol is also less addictive than marijauna, but i'll save that for later. ;)

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:46 PM

Oh yeah...

So the reasons that you give for legalizing marijuana don't really apply to the majority of other currently illegal drugs. But you said that you favored legalizing ALL drugs. How do you reconcile this?
I've explained it in this thread. Simply put, I don't think the government should regulate what people decide to do with their own bodies.

I disagree wholehearted and will find time later today to post more on it. For the moment i'll just say alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as cigarrettes which have additives put into the tobacco to make it even more addictive. Alcohol is also less addictive than marijauna, but i'll save that for later. ;)
I'd like you to link to actual real studies then, because alcohol is physically addicting while marijuana is not, and I don't see how a substance that can cause physical addiction is less addictive than one that can't.

filihok

07-15-2008, 01:50 PM

I don't SEE it actually being legal in any way in the foreseeable future. I personally BELIEVE it should be legal like tobacco/alcohol.

So, would I be correct in saying that you actually see marijuana as a recreational drug like alcohol and tobacco, and not as a medical drug?

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 01:51 PM

So, would I be correct in saying that you actually see marijuana as a recreational drug like alcohol and tobacco, and not as a medical drug?
Uh, yeah, but one with possible medical uses.

jcbarr

07-15-2008, 02:09 PM

People who are alcoholics almost always have to have help to get off the drug. I have personally seen many people drop smoking weed all by themselves. This should tell you something about the drug itself. You can stop smoking weed without going in to withdraw, and if you can't then you were getting something that was a touch more than just grass.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 02:26 PM

Simply put, I don't think the government should regulate what people decide to do with their own bodies.
This is where we actually disagree. Regulation is fine, and important for public safety. I don't see any real problem with regulating smoking or drinking, for example. Criminalization is the whole problem.

That's the difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism, right there.

Anyway, interesting discussion so far... we really should break this thread off into separate threads though, and move the drug discussion to Ejections. I should have done that last night... ugh.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 02:30 PM

This is where we actually disagree. Regulation is fine, and important for public safety. I don't see any real problem with regulating smoking or drinking, for example. Criminalization is the whole problem.
Actually, we don't disagree. It was just poor wording on my part. I think the government should regulate drugs, just as they regulate tobacco and alcohol.

robinhoodnik

07-15-2008, 02:36 PM

I don't SEE it actually being legal in any way in the foreseeable future. I personally BELIEVE it should be legal like tobacco/alcohol.

I'd love to see marijuana legalized. It'd free up a lot of valuable court time, begin to unclog our prison system, and we're going to have to get the money that's lost on cigarette taxes back from somewhere, as smokers quit for financial reasons. Otherwise our pols are just going to jack up our taxes in other places to make up the difference.
Isn't Marijuana technically legal anyway? All you have to do is get the feds to issue a tax stamp. That's been the whole problem hasn't it? The feds wont issue tax stamps for marijuana?

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 02:38 PM

Isn't Marijuana technically legal anyway? All you have to do is get the feds to issue a tax stamp. That's been the whole problem hasn't it? The feds wont issue tax stamps for marijuana?
Huh? I haven't heard anything like this. :confused:

robinhoodnik

07-15-2008, 02:41 PM

Huh? I haven't heard anything like this. :confused:

That's how they originally outlawed it. They made it a taxable commodity like tobacco, it required a tax stamp, but the government refused to issue the stamps.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 02:42 PM

This is where the nut jobs tell you marijauna, crack, cocaine and all drugs should be legalized.
They should be, you over controlling freak!
:p

;)

Yes, I too believe in America and freedom of choice. I too understand what was mentioned in here earlier, that people should be allowed to do unto themselves as they please so long as it doesn't hurt society/others.

Smoking bans discussed in here are not everywhere...if fact they are in few states if I'm correct....most of them highly urban areas.

Smoking for the most part initially only effects oneself as long as second hand smoke is controlled. However there is an undeniable effect on our medical system later in life. This is counteracted by the enormous taxes our govt. puts on cigarettes of which they use the medical consequences as justification. Do I like it...no....but most people at the moment have private health care leaving us taxpayers not having to fit most of the bill. God forbid our Govt. take control of healthcare.
Yea, the "tax consequences" is often the convenient excuse. Most insurance policies take smoking into account already though. More importantly, the government doesn't subsidize health care in the United States (thank god!)!

Other more advanced drugs such as pot have been legalized elsewhere. Despite what the wackos want you to believe, in almost every case crime has risen dramatically. Our govt. then taxes this drug leading to underground trafficing to get past the high costs which leads to other problems.
Please provide some sort of evidense to substantiate this. There are more criminals per capita here than anywhere else in the world, and drugs are a huge part of that. We're turning huge swaths of our population into felons, and for what? Once someone is convicted as a felon, that doesn't go away. More importantly, turning them into felons doesn't do any good since this country largely considers punishment to be the only acceptable means of dealing with criminals (thus leading to higher recidivism rates than most other countries). Then there's the whole issue of prison being a training ground for criminals...

filihok

07-15-2008, 02:52 PM

us taxpayers not having to fit most of the bill

Us taxpayers do foot the bill...by paying insurance premiums and by paying more for goods and services as companies have to pay the insurance premiums.

We still pay the tax, just not to the government.

Please provide some sort of evidense to substantiate this. There are more criminals per capita here than anywhere else in the world, and drugs are a huge part of that. We're turning huge swaths of our population into felons, and for what? Once someone is convicted as a felon, that doesn't go away. More importantly, turning them into felons doesn't do any good since this country largely considers punishment to be the only acceptable means of dealing with criminals (thus leading to higher recidivism rates than most other countries). Then there's the whole issue of jail being a training ground for criminals...

Yes, it is easy to change crime statistics by chaning what is and isn't a crime. I think it's fairly clear what does and does not constitute most crimes. 100% agreed (and I mean that in the true sense of 100%-not 100% on the 110% scale) that the way we deal with criminals is as big a cause of our crime as anything else.

metsguy234

07-15-2008, 02:52 PM

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 02:52 PM

That's how they originally outlawed it. They made it a taxable commodity like tobacco, it required a tax stamp, but the government refused to issue the stamps.
Marijuana has been a Schedule I drug since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was passed.

jcbarr

07-15-2008, 02:54 PM

I don't know of anywhere in the world that has a "government" that has leagalized anything more "hardcore" than weed. If anything, most countries have even more strict punishment for drugs. Ever heard the story behind Brokedown Palace?

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 02:55 PM

Well, sorry for going off topic here, but:

Shouldn't everyone, rich and poor, in the U.S.A. , be able to have health care? Why should rich people be able to get plastic surgery after plastic surgery, when poor people can barely afford a lifesaving surgery?

Because they can afford it.

There should be some safeguards (and there are) and plenty of regulation, but socialized medicine isn't the answer. It's extremely inefficient, at the very least.

And for the record, poor people don't need to be able to afford life saving medical procedures. Hospitals are required to provide it.

jcbarr

07-15-2008, 02:56 PM

Plastic surgery isn't health care and it isn't covered by any insurance that I know of, unless you are getting for a legitimate helath reason, which there are very little other than major burning and things like that. When it is done for that reason it is more reconstructive.

Why shouldn't rich people be able to pay for the things that they want? I do agree that poor people tend to get crapped on when it comes to health care, but I know that in VA if you go the emergency room you will not be turned away even if you don't have any insurance.

Alloutwar

07-15-2008, 02:58 PM

Marijuana has been a Schedule I drug since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was passed.

Not quite true; it was schedule 1 in the 70's upgraded to schedule 2, and finally schedule 3 in the late 90's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinol Granted, that's THC from cannibis in pill form.

I originally got into IT through being a Pharmacy Tech at my local drugstore. Marinol was my favorite drug. :)

filihok

07-15-2008, 02:59 PM

Why shouldn't rich people be able to pay for the things that they want?

Because there is a "better" use for the money?

I do agree that poor people tend to get crapped on when it comes to health care, but I know that in VA if you go the emergency room you will not be turned away even if you don't have any insurance.

The bigger problem is that poor people wait until it is an emergency before going to see the doctor.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 03:04 PM

Not quite true; it was schedule 1 in the 70's upgraded to schedule 2, and finally schedule 3 in the late 90's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinol Granted, that's THC from cannibis in pill form.

I originally got into IT through being a Pharmacy Tech at my local drugstore. Marinol was my favorite drug. :)
Right, cannibis itself, though, is a Schedule I drug.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 03:05 PM

Because there is a "better" use for the money?
So? Why should we tell them what to spend THEIR money on?

filihok

07-15-2008, 03:07 PM

It's only THEIR money in the same way it is OUR country.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 03:08 PM

Because there is a "better" use for the money?

So? Who are you or I to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their money?

The bigger problem is that poor people wait until it is an emergency before going to see the doctor.

True, but that's a completely different discussion. Affordable insurance is definitely an important topic though.

It's only THEIR money in the same way it is OUR country.

wow... so, in your view, what people earn is only theirs because society allows them to keep it? How very Marxist of you...

filihok

07-15-2008, 03:14 PM

Yes...I am a common-ist

If you trace it back anyone's claim to any material thing is dubious at best and theft at worst.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 03:17 PM

So, people have no right to their money and shouldn't be allowed to spend it as they wish, and they shouldn't be allowed to decide what goes into their own body?

I'd hate to live in that society. I'm firmly anti-totalitarian.

filihok

07-15-2008, 03:23 PM

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 03:25 PM

guess im a bad person
I drink :( guess ill see most of you in heII with me :(

filihok

07-15-2008, 03:26 PM

guess im a bad person
I drink :( guess ill see most of you in heII with me :(

There's no such thing as ****...

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 03:27 PM

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 03:27 PM

In my opinion the single biggest reason for "all the problems in the world today" is inequality and the inequal distribution of resources.
I agree. But that doesn't mean that rich people shouldn't be allowed to spend their money as they want, which is exactly what you imply when you answer "Because there is a "better" use for the money?" to "Why shouldn't rich people be able to pay for the things that they want?"

filihok

07-15-2008, 03:30 PM

Well, under my system they wouldn't have as much money. They money they have, they are free to spend as they wish (as long as they spend it on something that is legal).

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 03:32 PM

Totally in agreement - I don't think 'alcoholism' exists, I think some people are especially weak-willed and get stuck on it. But my GF is a big believer in Al-Anon and all that stuff, so I can't even mentioned this point of view around her, lest I be slapped!

But honestly, I'm not sure I believe in ADD either, so it might be me on the outskirts of accepted thoughts. :)

ADD is legit. ADHD is BS

metsguy234

07-15-2008, 03:36 PM

Because they can afford it.

There should be some safeguards (and there are) and plenty of regulation, but socialized medicine isn't the answer. It's extremely inefficient, at the very least.

And for the record, poor people don't need to be able to afford life saving medical procedures. Hospitals are required to provide it.

See, capitalism always crumbles in the end. The rich sons of female dogs take over the government as the middle class crumbles. Communism would end all of these troubles.

So my list of people I hate now includes
-the government
-rich people
- Yankees fans
-rednecks
-Republicans
-Yankees players and staff
-conservatives in general
-capitalists
-closed-minded people

etothep

07-15-2008, 03:41 PM

I never said a single one of those things.

I think that society should implement something along the lines of MLB Revenue Sharing (it is a sports forum afterall).

In my opinion the single biggest reason for "all the problems in the world today" is inequality and the inequal distribution of resources.

There have been numerous countries who tried this & it has yet to work. If everyone makes the same amount of money, regardless of their jobs (or if they even have jobs), then nobody would be willing to put forth any more than the minimal effort b/c they're isn't a reward for doing so. Unless of course you threaten them w/ death for not trying hard enough according to your standards. I'm not even going to touch your earlier statement that people aren't free to spend their money on what they choose to spend it on.

As for the idea of inequality being the root of all the world's problems, I just don't know where to start. You believe that a high school dropout who gets a job as a janitor at a grocery store should make as much as a guy who busts his *** in high school to get into a good college where he busts his *** again to get a good job at a place like IBM, where he works his way up to CEO? That just makes no sense to me whatsoever. For the most part, especially in developed countries, you get what you're willing to put in. Mediocre input garners you mediocre output.

As for the original poster's (read: troll) statements...nicotine is the most addictive drug in the world? I'd really like to see your sources on that one. Also, what exactly are the effects that nicotine has on your daily functions (other than making someone want to go outside every now & then to smoke one...which obviously wouldn't be an issue with chewing tobacco)?

filihok

07-15-2008, 03:44 PM

There have been numerous countries who tried this & it has yet to work. If everyone makes the same amount of money, regardless of their jobs (or if they even have jobs), then nobody would be willing to put forth any more than the minimal effort b/c they're isn't a reward for doing so. Unless of course you threaten them w/ death for not trying hard enough according to your standards. I'm not even going to touch your earlier statement that people aren't free to spend their money on what they choose to spend it on.

As for the idea of inequality being the root of all the world's problems, I just don't know where to start. You believe that a high school dropout who gets a job as a janitor at a grocery store should make as much as a guy who busts his *** in high school to get into a good college where he busts his *** again to get a good job at a place like IBM, where he works his way up to CEO? That just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I didn't say that. I said revenue sharing. Some professions (and people) would make more. Some would make less. But those who make more wouldn't make as much more as they do now, and those who make less wouldn't make as much less. It would be more equal.

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 03:46 PM

I do certainly think it can be additictive....but I don't think people are 'born' with a disease which leads them to alcohol. That clear it up?

I agree. I have alcoholosim in my family... I drink... doesnt mean I can't control it. I belive you are more seseptible yes bit to adictive things in general not jsut alcohol

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 03:49 PM

us taxpayers do foot the bill...by paying insurance premiums and by paying more for goods and services as companies have to pay the insurance premiums.

We still pay the tax, just not to the government.

excelent point!!!

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 03:54 PM

The money I earn is mine, you thief!
:p

Seriously though, Equality is a great thing. Everyone should, as much as possible, have the same opportunities. That's the reason to fight against Nepotism and things like Nobility, let alone racism or sexism. Taking that to a Socialist extreme ends up hurting everyone though, as history has shown. Socialism and communism are just as bad as Feudalism and Fascism. As a matter of fact, their so extreme in the opposite directions that they largely take on the same form!

filihok

07-15-2008, 03:56 PM

filihok

07-15-2008, 04:00 PM

etothep

07-15-2008, 04:01 PM

I do certainly think it can be additictive....but I don't think people are 'born' with a disease which leads them to alcohol. That clear it up?

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/addiction/genetics/

The trick with being genetically predispoed to addiction, is that if you don't partake in such activities (drinking, smoking, or injecting certain things), then it won't show up. Some believe that's why such things as sex & gambling addiction have become more & more popular.

There have even been studies that have shown that being addicted to healthy things (such as working out), can lead to withdrawal symptoms when the user quits for an extended period of time.

But to the orginal point of Dickay's post, yes it's been shown w/o a doubt that there are genetic predispositions to having an "addictive personality", but since there's not just simply 1 addiction gene, it's hard to pinpoint just which genes interact w/ 1 another to cause the addictive tendencies. Obviously, the easiest way to abstain from becoming addicted to substances, or even activities, is to abstain...but wheres the fun in that?

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 04:03 PM

To reiterate...no I don't believe that at all.

This makes no sense to me

Minimum wage = $5.75 an hour

List of top earning CEO's (http://www.kansascity.com/static/pdfs/2007CEOsalarieschart.pdf)

the idea of mimimum wage is NOT a waget to live on. Minimum wage is a cruch in my opinion. If you are not happy about your pay leave and get a better paying job. and dont give me the college BS. I went to college and flunked out after 1 semester. Yet I make more that 3X what u just posted as minimum wage. I was not handed the job, i dont have family/friends that got me the job, nor did I "know" someone here. I got sick of making 8 bucks an dhour at a grocery store and started looking for a job. I deal with peopel yelling at me all day about stuff i can't control, thats why my pay is good.

Does that mean I shouldn't have tried to better my life and gotten a better job, so that some ceo from IBM could pay less so I can bag groceries??? (boy that last sentence makes no sense lol.

metsguy234

07-15-2008, 04:06 PM

As for the idea of inequality being the root of all the world's problems, I just don't know where to start. You believe that a high school dropout who gets a job as a janitor at a grocery store should make as much as a guy who busts his *** in high school to get into a good college where he busts his *** again to get a good job at a place like IBM, where he works his way up to CEO? That just makes no sense to me whatsoever. For the most part, especially in developed countries, you get what you're willing to put in. Mediocre input garners you mediocre output.

How about this:

Do you think a rich person who inherits all their money and doesn't have to be working a day in their life should have more money then a poor person who just barely missed out on a college scholarship, could not afford to pay the tuition, and ended up working at Burger King until his death, just barely making enough money to get by???

filihok

07-15-2008, 04:06 PM

the idea of mimimum wage is NOT a waget to live on. Minimum wage is a cruch in my opinion. If you are not happy about your pay leave and get a better paying job. and dont give me the college BS. I went to college and flunked out after 1 semester. Yet I make more that 3X what u just posted as minimum wage. I was not handed the job, i dont have family/friends that got me the job, nor did I "know" someone here. I got sick of making 8 bucks an dhour at a grocery store and started looking for a job. I deal with peopel yelling at me all day about stuff i can't control, thats why my pay is good.

Does that mean I shouldn't have tried to better my life and gotten a better job, so that some ceo from IBM could pay less so I can bag groceries??? (boy that last sentence makes no sense lol.

There are not as many (3*5.75) $17.25 an hour jobs as there are people. Some people HAVE to work for that amount. And since it is not a wage to live on, that's a big problem.

filihok

07-15-2008, 04:13 PM

To expand my last though.

You have to keep wages down to keep inflation down and goods affordable.

Nobody wins if you increase the minimum wage and the price of goods goes up even more.

If you're going to suppress the wages you then it's only fair to help out the people making those wages by giving them some kind of bonus. It's not only fair, it's about the only way that they can survive.

etothep

07-15-2008, 04:15 PM

How about this:

Do you think a rich person who inherits all their money and doesn't have to be working a day in their life should have more money then a poor person who just barely missed out on a college scholarship, could not afford to pay the tuition, and ended up working at Burger King until his death, just barely making enough money to get by???

You mean the kid who missed out on a scholarship couldn't apply for financial aid or get a part time job to help pay for school? Or that he couldn't start off in community college for a few semesters to build up his grades & then transfer in w/ scholarship opportunities?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of working hard & building wealth was to provide for your family? Providing for you family while you're alive is ok, but doing so after dying is unacceptable?

There are not as many (3*5.75) $17.25 an hour jobs as there are people. Some people HAVE to work for that amount. And since it is not a wage to live on, that's a big problem.

A lot of the people who HAVE to work for that amount, are in that position by choice. Be it they didn't take school seriously, or got pregnant too early & had to ditch school or what have you. A majority of the minimum wage workers fall into 1 of 3 categories (young people doing part time jobs, newly released convects/felons, or elderly who need a simple part time job b/c their welfare checks aren't enough)

There also needs to be a realm of realism added to this conversation. Nobody likes thinking this, much less saying it, but somebody has to be a janitor. Someone has to be a fastfood worker. Everyone can't be successful politicians or CEO's or what have you, it just doesn't work like that. Yeh, it would be nice if everyone made 100K/yr or more, but it just won't, and can't, happen. So the pothead who spent his high school years taking bong rips to the face & is having a rough 3rd year at the community college while still having freshman status, yeh I'd say he earned that crappy job he's likely got.

metsguy234

07-15-2008, 04:19 PM

You mean the kid who missed out on a scholarship couldn't apply for financial aid or get a part time job to help pay for school? Or that he couldn't start off in community college for a few semesters to build up his grades & then transfer in w/ scholarship opportunities?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of working hard & building wealth was to provide for your family? Providing for you family while you're alive is ok, but doing so after dying is unacceptable?

Why should he have to work hard to get to college while the other kid gets in without any work needing to be done?

This is the folly of capitalism.

filihok

07-15-2008, 04:20 PM

You mean the kid who missed out on a scholarship couldn't apply for financial aid or get a part time job to help pay for school? Or that he couldn't start off in community college for a few semesters to build up his grades & then transfer in w/ scholarship opportunities?

No, a lot of people don't even have those meager opportunities.

A majority of the minimum wage workers fall into 1 of 3 categories (young people doing part time jobs, newly released convects/felons, or elderly who need a simple part time job b/c their welfare checks aren't enough)

I don't have the all-powerful LINK to post here. But I'm pretty sure that this is far from reality.

filihok

07-15-2008, 04:21 PM

There also needs to be a realm of realism added to this conversation. Nobody likes thinking this, much less saying it, but somebody has to be a janitor. Someone has to be a fastfood worker. Everyone can't be successful politicians or CEO's or what have you, it just doesn't work like that. Yeh, it would be nice if everyone made 100K/yr or more, but it just won't, and can't, happen.

This is exactly what I said two or three posts earlier...

That's why the money needs to be distributed better.

etothep

07-15-2008, 04:27 PM

Why should he have to work hard to get to college while the other kid gets in without any work needing to be done?

This is the folly of capitalism.

Obviously he has to have the grades to get into the school. So the poor kid should just get to have the rich kid pay for his school then?

No, a lot of people don't even have those meager opportunities.

I don't have the all-powerful LINK to post here. But I'm pretty sure that this is far from reality.

I've never applied for financial aid outside of my state, but I've yet to hear the story of the student in NC who didn't get enough financial aid to cover their tuition. Are they guaranteed enough to cover room & board. food, books, etc, but that's why they can get a job to cover the rest should they need to. They could also take a year off after high school & work full time & save up money for college.

Oh, & here's the LINK http://www.dws.state.nm.us/LMI/pdf/minwage2007.pdf

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 04:31 PM

There also needs to be a realm of realism added to this conversation. Nobody likes thinking this, much less saying it, but somebody has to be a janitor. Someone has to be a fastfood worker. Everyone can't be successful politicians or CEO's or what have you, it just doesn't work like that. Yeh, it would be nice if everyone made 100K/yr or more, but it just won't, and can't, happen. So the pothead who spent his high school years taking bong rips to the face & is having a rough 3rd year at the community college while still having freshman status, yeh I'd say he earned that crappy job he's likely got.

thank you!!!
glad someone said it

filihok

07-15-2008, 04:33 PM

So the pothead who spent his high school years taking bong rips to the face & is having a rough 3rd year at the community college while still having freshman status, yeh I'd say he earned that crappy job he's likely got.

This is not the average person working for minimum wage

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 04:36 PM

So I have to pay for the potheads education.... I have 2 words for you and the 1st is gonna get bleeped out.... _ _ _ _ you.

Im not paying for joe potheads education becaus he smoked it all. Many studednt loans done make you pay until 6 months AFTER you get out of college.

etothep

07-15-2008, 04:36 PM

This is not the average person working for minimum wage

The average person working for minimum wage, according to the Dept fo Labor Statistics, is likely a 16-19 year old white chick....haha, adobe is killing me over here

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 04:37 PM

This is not the average person working for minimum wage

id like to live in your town then :rolleyes: because the grocery stores/gas stations/etc are FULL of them in my area.

etothep

07-15-2008, 04:42 PM

This is the folly of capitalism.

If only there was a folly of communism :rolleyes:

Plus, we don't really live in a wholly capitalist society. No one in this country owns their car. How can I say that? Because you pay taxes on them every year. Same goes for your house/land and your income at every paycheck (so some guy I'll never meet in Wyoming can collect is Social Security check b/c he made no plans for his retirement while he was working)

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 04:55 PM

Why should he have to work hard to get to college while the other kid gets in without any work needing to be done?

This is the folly of capitalism.

Colleges don't just take people in simply because they can afford it. You still need to do the work.

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 05:06 PM

If only there was a folly of communism :rolleyes:

Plus, we don't really live in a wholly capitalist society. No one in this country owns their car. How can I say that? Because you pay taxes on them every year. Same goes for your house/land and your income at every paycheck (so some guy I'll never meet in Wyoming can collect is Social Security check b/c he made no plans for his retirement while he was working)

the car tax is to pay for the roads in the town, the home property taxes, is for the land. the house you could pick up and put somewhere else if u felt so inclinded.

metsguy234

07-15-2008, 05:10 PM

Colleges don't just take people in simply because they can afford it. You still need to do the work.

Here's a scenario.

There's a small, liberal arts college in Montana that has only ONE building and about 100 students.

They have 2 students that they could let in, they could let in the incredibly smart poor kid, but lose tons of money by paying for his or her four years of college, or they could let in the fairly smart filthy stinkin' rich kid, who can put up enough grades to avoid a controversy, and will also buy the school two more buildings and upgrade all of the facilities.

One word- BRIBES

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 05:13 PM

etothep

07-15-2008, 05:15 PM

Here's a scenario.

There's a small, liberal arts college in Montana that has only ONE building and about 100 students.

They have 2 students that they could let in, they could let in the incredibly smart poor kid, but lose tons of money by paying for his or her four years of college, or they could let in the fairly smart filthy stinkin' rich kid, who can put up enough grades to avoid a controversy, and will also buy the school two more buildings and upgrade all of the facilities.

One word- BRIBES

You're right, everyone ever accepted to college got there by bribing their way in. My parents must have bribed the Office of Undergraduate Admissions here at NC State so I could get in. It couldn't have had anything to do w/ the my grades & extracurricular activities. Maybe that's why they couldn't afford to help me pay for college either & why I had to take out student loans to afford it. You, sir, have opened my eyes

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 05:22 PM

You're right, everyone ever accepted to college got there by bribing their way in. My parents must have bribed the Office of Undergraduate Admissions here at NC State so I could get in. It couldn't have had anything to do w/ the my grades & extracurricular activities. Maybe that's why they couldn't afford to help me pay for college either & why I had to take out student loans to afford it. You, sir, have opened my eyes

didnt u know... your student loans are just a way for the man to keep u down :p
and your loans... are to pay the BRIBES to the school to let you in :rolleyes::p;)

etothep

07-15-2008, 05:24 PM

didnt u know... your student loans are just a way for the man to keep u down :p
and your loans... are to pay the BRIBES to the school to let you in :rolleyes::p;)

Yeh, I'm getting tired of the man holding me down

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 05:28 PM

dickay

07-15-2008, 05:34 PM

Well, under my system they wouldn't have as much money. They money they have, they are free to spend as they wish (as long as they spend it on something that is legal).

sounds like communism

filihok

07-15-2008, 05:47 PM

id like to live in your town then :rolleyes: because the grocery stores/gas stations/etc are FULL of them in my area.

I live in Washington DC. Nation's Capitol. I've never seen a white person working at any of the jobs I would assume are minimum wage jobs. Most are adults, not teenagers

filihok

07-15-2008, 05:50 PM

sounds like communism

I prefer common-ist

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 05:51 PM

I live in Washington DC. Nation's Capitol. I've never seen a white person working at any of the jobs I would assume are minimum wage jobs. Most are adults, not teenagers
Washington DC is mostly non-white, which goes a long way to explaining why most people you see at minimum wage jobs are...not white.

I live in a middle class town in New Jersey. Most people at minimum wage jobs are teenagers here.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 05:53 PM

I prefer common-ist
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck.....

Wassit3

07-15-2008, 06:06 PM

metsguy234

07-15-2008, 06:13 PM

communism was tried and failed in all instances...

Communism failed because the leaders were wacky.

Stalin, Castro, that's not what Karl Marx envisioned.

BravesFan4Life

07-15-2008, 06:15 PM

Communism only works in the right settings with the right leader...

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:22 PM

Every system only works under the right leaders. That's why most of the world is a **** hole

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:23 PM

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck.....

Ok Houston, if you'd like to call me a communist with all of it's connotations why don't you just do so.

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:26 PM

Same goes for your house/land and your income at every paycheck (so some guy I'll never meet in Wyoming can collect is Social Security check b/c he made no plans for his retirement while he was working)

So much greed in the world...mine mine mine

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 06:26 PM

I live in Washington DC. Nation's Capitol. I've never seen a white person working at any of the jobs I would assume are minimum wage jobs. Most are adults, not teenagers

all over CT places ive been in FL, and Maine.

Washington DC is mostly non-white, which goes a long way to explaining why most people you see at minimum wage jobs are...not white.

I live in a middle class town in New Jersey. Most people at minimum wage jobs are teenagers here.

ditto

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:28 PM

Washington DC is mostly non-white, which goes a long way to explaining why most people you see at minimum wage jobs are...not white.

I have seen white people. Most of them are dressed is suits & ties and the female version of suits and ties. I have NEVER seen a white person working at McDonalds, CVS, Giant, etc...

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:33 PM

The average person working for minimum wage, according to the Dept fo Labor Statistics, is likely a 16-19 year old white chick....haha, adobe is killing me over here

I don't see how you arrived at this.

According to the stats you posted female workers 16-19 (or 16-19 year old white chicks) make up 3.7% of those making minimum wage.

etothep

07-15-2008, 06:37 PM

So much greed in the world...mine mine mine

So you have no issue with working hard to give others your money?

I have no issue with paying taxes for police, firemen, roads, politicians, but not for social security, welfare, & federal subsidies (aka: corporate welfare)

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 06:38 PM

Ok Houston, if you'd like to call me a communist with all of it's connotations why don't you just do so.
Why are you getting offended by people saying that the things you're saying are very communistic? There's nothing wrong with believing in communism, so I don't see why you'd take offense to somebody calling you a communist.

I don't know you well enough to know your full views on things, but the things you've said in this thread indicate that you believe in communism or some variation of it, which is perfectly fine. One of my closest friends believes in communism.

I have seen white people.
Never said or implied that you hadn't. :confused:

Most of them are dressed is suits & ties and the female version of suits and ties. I have NEVER seen a white person working at McDonalds, CVS, Giant, etc...
I have.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 06:38 PM

I prefer common-ist

Afraid of being labeled Socialist or Communist?

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:41 PM

Why are you getting offended by people saying that the things you're saying are very communistic? There's nothing wrong with believing in communism, so I don't see why you'd take offense to somebody calling you a communist

For the same reason on another thread you were offended when someone said you must be high. You weren't high. You were offended because it is not the truth.

I'm not a communist. I'm not a capitolist. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not an Independant.

So please don't pigeonhole me as such.

robinhoodnik

07-15-2008, 06:41 PM

guess im a bad person
I drink :( guess ill see most of you in heII with me :(

Guinness or Bud, first twelve is on me. ;)

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:41 PM

Afraid of being labeled Socialist or Communist?

Afraid? No.

See the above post.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 06:42 PM

HGM said what I was trying to say above...

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 06:42 PM

Ok Houston, if you'd like to call me a communist with all of it's connotations why don't you just do so.

commie :p

So much greed in the world...mine mine mine

for what I earned... absolutely. I work 60+ hours a week so I can have the thinkgs I want... like a brand new car, new computerm etc. its MY choice to work extra hard for the little things lin life... so screw u if u want me to give the $ i worked extra hours for to someone who sat at work all day and did noghting. like the people in my office

robinhoodnik

07-15-2008, 06:43 PM

ADD is legit. ADHD is BS

Lol, back when I was a kid.............
They called it boys being boys.

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 06:43 PM

Guinness or Bud, first twelve is on me. ;)

poring a jagerbomb as we speak :)

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:43 PM

So you have no issue with working hard to give others your money?

I have no issue with paying taxes for police, firemen, roads, politicians, but not for social security, welfare, & federal subsidies (aka: corporate welfare)

No, I don't. I don't feel it's MY money. It's just money

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 06:43 PM

Lol, back when I was a kid.............
They called it boys being boys.

adhd is a kid being a kid. add is a chemical imbalance that with proper medication can be fixed.

HoustonGM

07-15-2008, 06:44 PM

For the same reason on another thread you were offended when someone said you must be high. You weren't high. You were offended because it is not the truth.
I wasn't offended. I just found it unnecessary to attack me by calling me high or not in a stable state of mind instead of debating me on the points I was raising (and that was actually earlier in this monstrosity of a thread, :p). The difference between being called high and being called a Communist is that one is meant to insult present mental capacity, while another is just labeling a belief system.

I'm not a communist. I'm not a capitolist. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not an Independant.

So please don't pigeonhole me as such.
The beliefs you've said in this thread do indicate a Communistic bent, would you disagree with that?

As I said, I don't know you well enough to know your full views on things, but the things you've said in this thread indicate that you believe in communism or some variation of it, which is perfectly fine.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 06:45 PM

For the same reason on another thread you were offended when someone said you must be high. You weren't high. You were offended because it is not the truth.

I'm not a communist. I'm not a capitolist. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not an Independant.

So please don't pigeonhole me as such.

Being Communist or Socialist hardly carries the same sort of stigmatism as drug use.

From your defensiveness, it really makes me wonder about your convictions... if you're ashamed of your own beliefs, why do you support them?

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:45 PM

Lol, back when I was a kid.............
They called it boys being boys.

Agreed. They take away gymclass. They shorten recess. They feed you full of sugars. Then they wonder why a 5-15 year old kid can't sit in class 6-8 hours a day.

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:46 PM

I am not ashamed of my own beliefs. What would give you THAT idea? I'm here freely sharing them with anyone who wants to read them. How is that shame?

filihok

07-15-2008, 06:47 PM

Being Communist or Socialist hardly carries the same sort of stigmatism as drug use.

From your defensiveness, it really makes me wonder about your convictions... if you're ashamed of your own beliefs, why do you support them?

Houston was saying that he believed that drug used should be legalized. I'm not sure what stigma comes from engaging in a legal endeavor.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 06:48 PM

No, I don't. I don't feel it's MY money. It's just money

You provide your expertise and time, and receive money in return for that. if the money you receive for doing the work that you do isn't yours, then what is?

If I come and "borrow" your car for a week, would you be OK with that?

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 06:48 PM

Agreed. They take away gymclass. They shorten recess. They feed you full of sugars. Then they wonder why a 5-15 year old kid can't sit in class 6-8 hours a day.

thats the difference between ADD and ADHD. ADHD has to do with how a person acts. ADD is how they think.

metsguy234

07-15-2008, 06:48 PM

I have seen white people. Most of them are dressed is suits & ties and the female version of suits and ties. I have NEVER seen a white person working at McDonalds, CVS, Giant, etc...

Well, from my Staten Island experience, I'm oddly never seen a non-white person working at a CVS. I found it a bit strange, although I'm not gonna make Rick Reilly-esque claims...

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 06:55 PM

I am not ashamed of my own beliefs. What would give you THAT idea? I'm here freely sharing them with anyone who wants to read them. How is that shame?
You're the one asking us not to call you a Communist...

Houston was saying that he believed that drug used should be legalized. I'm not sure what stigma comes from engaging in a legal endeavor.
It should be, but currently it isn't. Additionally, that comment came from someone who obviously had no clue what he was talking about, since HGM has often publicaly said that he's "straightedge"/clean. Most importantly though, the comment was obviously intended as an insult, based on the context in which it was made and the lack of any couching.

metsguy234 is publicly Communist...
I obviously don't agree with him at all, but it doesn't change my opinion about him as a person.
*shrug*

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:01 PM

I don't see how you arrived at this.

According to the stats you posted female workers 16-19 (or 16-19 year old white chicks) make up 3.7% of those making minimum wage.

On page 3, it states that females between the ages of 16-19, while consisting of just 3.7% of the total paid hourly wages (only group lower is men between the ages of 16-19), are responsible for 13.8% of all minimum wage hours. Page 3 also shows that 80% of all minimum wage hours are garnered by caucasians.

Page 5 lists that DC is at the bottom of minimum wage hours in this country. Though I think its great that you assume that life as you see it in your city is the norm.

Page 8 gives a total of 85.2% for the number of minimum age hours responsible by those w/o a college degree.

Page 9 then states that the 4 year age span with the highest minimum age representation among both men & women is 20-24. So yeh, I guess I was slightly off, that the average minimum age worker is a 20-24 year old white chick, just barely ahead of a 20-24 year old white guy & then a 16-19 white chick.

And Page 12 even goes to show that for both men & women, the number of minimum wage hours as consistently been on the decrease since 1979 (from 13.4% in '79 to 2.3% in '07)

Don't be afraid of the truth, it can't hurt you

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:02 PM

I wasn't offended. I just found it unnecessary to attack me by calling me high or not in a stable state of mind instead of debating me on the points I was raising (and that was actually earlier in this monstrosity of a thread, :p). The difference between being called high and being called a Communist is that one is meant to insult present mental capacity, while another is just labeling a belief system.

So you weren't offended but you call it an "attack"? Interesting choice of words.

The beliefs you've said in this thread do indicate a Communistic bent, would you disagree with that?

I would not. Many of my beliefs are similar to those of communists. More also come from Native American beliefs-specifically those regarding the fallacy of the ownership of material things.

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:03 PM

You provide your expertise and time, and receive money in return for that. if the money you receive for doing the work that you do isn't yours, then what is?

If I come and "borrow" your car for a week, would you be OK with that?

It's money.

I don't own a car. I gave mine up shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq.

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:06 PM

You're the one asking us not to call you a Communist...

Because I'm not a communist

It should be

You believe

but currently it isn't. Additionally, that comment came from someone who obviously had no clue what he was talking about, since HGM has often publicaly said that he's "straightedge"/clean. Most importantly though, the comment was obviously intended as an insult, based on the context in which it was made and the lack of any couching.

"Walks like a duck" is rareley used in a complimentary way.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 07:07 PM

I am not ashamed of my own beliefs. What would give you THAT idea? I'm here freely sharing them with anyone who wants to read them. How is that shame?
This series of posts:

sounds like communism

I prefer common-ist

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck.....

Ok Houston, if you'd like to call me a communist with all of it's connotations why don't you just do so.

For the same reason on another thread you were offended when someone said you must be high. You weren't high. You were offended because it is not the truth.

I'm not a communist. I'm not a capitolist. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not an Independant.

So please don't pigeonhole me as such.

I can sympathize with the desire not to want to be "pigeonholed", but it's tough not to apply a label to Politics. Doing so tends to help the conversation as well, since it gives everyone a solid framework to have a discussion within.

Regardless, I would have said Socialist rather than Communist anyway. Communists tend to be much more extreme than what you're advocating here, although most people don't really know the difference.

I'm also sympathetic to your views as well. Personally, I'm willing to do whatever I can do to provide help to those who have need, it's just that human nature is what it is. If the government collectively attempts to ensure that there is no need, then the only thing that happens is that everyone is needy. People, as a group, look out for themselves. That's just part of human psychology (and in the extreme cases it goes beyond psychology to survival instincts).

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:10 PM

Page 5 lists that DC is at the bottom of minimum wage hours in this country. Though I think its great that you assume that life as you see it in your city is the norm.

:)

There are probably very few minimum wage jobs in DC because the cost of living is so high. $5.85 an hour wouldn't begin to cover it.

Page 8 gives a total of 85.2% for the number of minimum age hours responsible by those w/o a college degree.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's much harder to earn a college degree making minimum wage. Or when your parents make minimum wage.

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:12 PM

There are probably very few minimum wage jobs in DC because the cost of living is so high. $5.85 an hour wouldn't begin to cover it.

If the cost of living is so high there, what makes you think it's their only job & not a second one? To that point, if they can't afford to live in that city, I'm sure there are less expensive areas in the DC area that they could move to if they wanted.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's much harder to earn a college degree making minimum wage. Or when your parents make minimum wage.

If you're making minimum wage, maybe you shouldn't be having children ;)

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:13 PM

I can sympathize with the desire not to want to be "pigeonholed", but it's tough not to apply a label to Politics. Doing so tends to help the conversation as well, since it gives everyone a solid framework to have a discussion within.

Well, if it helps the conversation, by all means feel free to apply whatever labels you see fit.

Regardless, I would have said Socialist rather than Communist anyway. Communists tend to be much more extreme than what you're advocating here, although most people don't really know the difference.

Since most people don't know the difference between socialist and communist it'll help the conversation to label me as a communist. Though I am neither.

I'm also sympathetic to your views as well. Personally, I'm willing to do whatever I can do to provide help to those who have need, it's just that human nature is what it is. If the government collectively attempts to ensure that there is no need, then the only thing that happens is that everyone is needy. People, as a group, look out for themselves. That's just part of human psychology (and in the extreme cases it goes beyond psychology to survival instincts).

And yes, the human greed factor is very unlikely to be undone by any form or government or laws enacted. But a guy can dream can't he?

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:14 PM

If you're making minimum wage, maybe you shouldn't be having children ;)

Maybe not, but they do.

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:15 PM

Maybe not, but they do.

& so their kids are obviously at a disadvantage not of their own or their government's doing, but by their parent's doing. Don't blame society for the ignorance of a few.

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 07:17 PM

If you're making minimum wage, maybe you shouldn't be having children ;)

i agree however things happen... and im sure ill get nailed on this but im saying it once then not replying to any coments about it but im pro-choice... if they didn't want to have an abortion then its not like there are many ways around it.

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:17 PM

& so their kids are obviously at a disadvantage not of their own or their government's doing, but by their parent's doing. Don't blame society for the ignorance of a few.

I'm not blaming society. But I believe that the purpose of a government is to watch out for the welfare of it's citizens

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 07:17 PM

I would not. Many of my beliefs are similar to those of communists. More also come from Native American beliefs-specifically those regarding the fallacy of the ownership of material things.
The majority of "government" systems used by Native American peoples were tribal. Such systems are the basis of... well, all government really. We all used to live in tribal environments. The problem is that tribal systems simply don't scale once the group grows beyond about 100 people. The direct successor to tribal governmental systems are various forms Feudalism and/or Manorialism though, which is in direct contradiction to Socialist or Communist ideology. You might want to study up on exactly what you're espousing a little bit.

"Walks like a duck" is rareley used in a complimentary way.

Far be it for me to speak for someone else here, but in my view the "walks like a duck" comment was a reaction to your defensiveness about the issue of being "labeled" a Communist. My reaction above, asking why you're ashamed of being called a Communist, came from the same place.

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:18 PM

i agree however things happen... and im sure ill get nailed on this but im saying it once then not replying to any coments about it but im pro-choice... if they didn't want to have an abortion then its not like there are many ways around it.

haha, now its really gonna start on here :p

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 07:19 PM

& so their kids are obviously at a disadvantage not of their own or their government's doing, but by their parent's doing. Don't blame society for the ignorance of a few.

bingo!!!

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 07:19 PM

haha, now its really gonna start on here :p

:( its what i was afraid of but im just ot going to comment on it

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:20 PM

I'm not blaming society. But I believe that the purpose of a government is to watch out for the welfare of it's citizens

And yet you think that the rich citizens should be forced to take pay cuts so the poorer citizens can make more. Which citizens is the gov't to watch out for?

Also, just curious what the cutoff is for having to take a paycut? 40K? 50K? How would you decide it?

robinhoodnik

07-15-2008, 07:20 PM

I prefer common-ist

Common-ist, commune-ist, Lennin-ist, Marx-ist, it's all pretty much the same.

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:22 PM

The majority of "government" systems used by Native American peoples were tribal. Such systems are the basis of... well, all government really. We all used to live in tribal environments. The problem is that tribal systems simply don't scale once the group grows beyond about 100 people. The direct successor to tribal governmental systems are various forms Feudalism and/or Manorialism though, which is in direct contradiction to Socialist or Communist ideology. You might want to study up on exactly what you're espousing a little bit.

:)

I'm not talking about government. I'm talking about the fundamental belief of the people.

Far be it for me to speak for someone else here, but in my view the "walks like a duck" comment was a reaction to your defensiveness about the issue of being "labeled" a Communist. My reaction above, asking why you're ashamed of being called a Communist, came from the same place.

How can I make this more clear? I am NOT ASHAMED of being called a communist. I just am not a communist.

metsguy234

07-15-2008, 07:23 PM

I'm proud to be a communist ,and I make my views well known and I am not ashamed of them.

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:24 PM

haha, now its really gonna start on here :p

No...cause the game starts in half an hour and this little bit of mental masturbation will be long forgotten.

Until tomorrow morning when I get to work...;)

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 07:24 PM

And yes, the human greed factor is very unlikely to be undone by any form or government or laws enacted. But a guy can dream can't he?

Being realistic and having a desire to work with people the way they are is just more productive, in my view. I don't waste my time and energy wishing people were different simply because, on the whole, they never will be. That speech from that movie... "Greed is good"... I can't remember the movie now. Anyway, it's not far from the mark. Greed should be controlled (self controlled as much as possible), but really the desire to do better for yourself is the only thing that works. There needs to be something for someone to gain in order for them to be motivated to do anything. Not many people like to, or are willing to admit that, but the fact is that people do good things for the primary purpose that they get something out of it. If people are made to do things that they really don't like to do, then at best the expectation is that they will be inefficient about it.

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:26 PM

And yet you think that the rich citizens should be forced to take pay cuts so the poorer citizens can make more. Which citizens is the gov't to watch out for?

Also, just curious what the cutoff is for having to take a paycut? 40K? 50K? How would you decide it?

It wouldn't be a "paycut".

It would be much like the Baseball Revenue sharing system. Everyone makes their money. The money is "taxed". The money is redistributed. Though the distribution may be in some form other than cash. Possibly services could be included.

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:27 PM

It wouldn't be a "paycut".

It would be much like the Baseball Revenue sharing system. Everyone makes their money. The money is "taxed". The money is redistributed. Though the distribution may be in some form other than cash. Possibly services could be included.

Haha, so since I make over 80K, I'd have to mow some guy's lawn b/c he only makes 35K?

You've lost your mind

1) I already pay more taxes than the other guy
2) The extra income I generate means I'm more of a factor in our economy, thus stimulating it more than the guy whose yard I'd be mowing to help him out. If it wasn't for those w/ the higher incomes, then a lot of the lower income jobs wouldn't even exist. You do realize this right?

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:28 PM

Being realistic and having a desire to work with people the way they are is just more productive, in my view. I don't waste my time and energy wishing people were different simply because, on the whole, they never will be. That speech from that movie... "Greed is good"... I can't remember the movie now. Anyway, it's not far from the mark. Greed should be controlled (self controlled as much as possible), but really the desire to do better for yourself is the only thing that works. There needs to be something for someone to gain in order for them to be motivated to do anything. Not many people like to, or are willing to admit that, but the fact is that people do good things for the primary purpose that they get something out of it. If people are made to do things that they really don't like to do, then at best the expectation is that they will be inefficient about it.

We need to adopt a free market type strategy to our politics. If people were allowed to move freely between governments then we could all live someplace we feel comfortable. And governments would be more accountable to providing for its citizens.

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:29 PM

Haha, so since I make over 50K, I'd have to mow some guy's lawn b/c he only makes 35K?

You've lost your mind

:)

No...i didn't say anything about mowing lawns. I meant things like access to health care, education, child care, etc...

robinhoodnik

07-15-2008, 07:30 PM

I have seen white people. Most of them are dressed is suits & ties and the female version of suits and ties. I have NEVER seen a white person working at McDonalds, CVS, Giant, etc...

Come up here to my area. 95% of them are white. BK, McD's, Wal-Mart (which not coincidentally was placed right in the vicinity of three or four trailer parks), etc.
Know what? I've been offering $10 an hour, to start, with absolutely NO skills required, to a whole arse load of people who're crying about lack of work, or poor pay. Not even one taker, and always some lame excuse. The last offer was to a half-assed, very part time, roofer with a new baby. Told me he couldn't do that (work for ten an hour, under the table) because when he works, he gets $25 an hour (also under the table). So I inquired about his skills. Can you mow lawns? No. Can you do some basic carpentry? No. Masonry? No. Stone work? No. landscape design/construction? No. Basic plumbing repairs? No.
What more can you do?

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:31 PM

Come up here to my area. 95% of them are white. BK, McD's, Wal-Mart (which not coincidentally was placed right in the vicinity of three or four trailer parks), etc.
Know what? I've been offering $10 an hour, to start, with absolutely NO skills required, to a whole arse load of people who're crying about lack of work, or poor pay. Not even one taker, and always some lame excuse. The last offer was to a half-assed, very part time, roofer with a new baby. Told me he couldn't do that (work for ten an hour, under the table) because when he works, he gets $25 an hour (also under the table). So I inquired about his skills. Can you mow lawns? No. Can you do some basic carpentry? No. Masonry? No. Stone work? No. landscape design/construction? No. Basic plumbing repairs? No.
What more can you do?

I'll agree...some people don't want to work. I don't think that's the majority of poor people though...

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:31 PM

Come up here to my area. 95% of them are white. BK, McD's, Wal-Mart (which not coincidentally was placed right in the vicinity of three or four trailer parks), etc.
Know what? I've been offering $10 an hour, to start, with absolutely NO skills required, to a whole arse load of people who're crying about lack of work, or poor pay. Not even one taker, and always some lame excuse. The last offer was to a half-assed, very part time, roofer with a new baby. Told me he couldn't do that (work for ten an hour, under the table) because when he works, he gets $25 an hour (also under the table). So I inquired about his skills. Can you mow lawns? No. Can you do some basic carpentry? No. Masonry? No. Stone work? No. landscape design/construction? No. Basic plumbing repairs? No.
What more can you do?

Haha, Americans don't do any actual labor these days. Where have you been?

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 07:32 PM

I'm not blaming society. But I believe that the purpose of a government is to watch out for the welfare of it's citizens

But should the government actively attempt to prevent bad choices? You're going way beyond "safety nets" with this sort of a statement, and this is the sort of thing that gets me bent out of shape about Socialist or Communist views. It's my life to **** up, and I am going to seek out what help I can if I do screw it up, but I have zero expectations of entitlement... The government wants to reduce crime and homelessness, which is good, but the government shouldn't be in the business of coddling people.

Take an extreme example of a toddler in a home. As a parent, you do your best to "child proof" your house because you expect your child to do things that are dangerous out of sheer ignorance. However, you can't bubble wrap the kid or the place. Children who are never bumped or bruised simply don't learn.

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:33 PM

:)

No...i didn't say anything about mowing lawns. I meant things like access to health care, education, child care, etc...

Health care, education, & child care?

I'm teaching & raising the minimum wage people's kids who you admitted shouldn't have been conceived to begin with? Or I'm just supposed to pay for the kids they knew they couldn't afford to raise?

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:34 PM

But should the government actively attempt to prevent bad choices? You're going way beyond "safety nets" with this sort of a statement, and this is the sort of thing that gets me bent out of shape about Socialist or Communist views. It's my life to **** up, and I am going to seek out what help I can if I do screw it up, but I have zero expectations of entitlement... The government wants to reduce crime and homelessness, which is good, but the government shouldn't be in the business of coddling people.

Take an extreme example of a toddler in a home. As a parent, you do your best to "child proof" your house because you expect your child to do things that are dangerous out of sheer ignorance. However, you can't bubble wrap the kid or the place. Children who are never bumped or bruised simply don't learn.

Agreed...I'm not saying that. As in robinhoodnick's example, some people don't want to work.

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:37 PM

Health care, education, & child care?

I'm teaching & raising the minimum wage people's kids who you admitted shouldn't have been conceived to begin with? Or I'm just supposed to pay for the kids they knew they couldn't afford to raise?

See...this whole concept of "I'm supposed to pay" is what's out of wack.

The low wage workers perform necessary tasks. The wages must be low to keep goods and services affordable.

Instead of raising the wage and causing inflation, the money simply needs to be re-distributed.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 07:38 PM

I'm not talking about government. I'm talking about the fundamental belief of the people.
Government is a reflection of it's collective society. The only time that a government doesn't reflect it's society is when it's forced upon the people that it "represents" through (usually external) armed force. The Fascist governments in Europe were elected first, you know

How can I make this more clear? I am NOT ASHAMED of being called a communist. I just am not a communist.

Like I said, I'd have said Socialist (and I'm fairly sure that I have been, for the vast majority of this discussion).
But, as HGM said, "if it walks like a duck...". You were acting ashamed, or defensive at least.
*shrug*

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:38 PM

Health care, education, & child care?

I'm teaching & raising the minimum wage people's kids who you admitted shouldn't have been conceived to begin with? Or I'm just supposed to pay for the kids they knew they couldn't afford to raise?

If you don't take care of the children, and give them an opportunity to improve their lot, you're going to end up taking care of them for their whole life. Better to give a little so you don't have to give a lot.

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:38 PM

See...this whole concept of "I'm supposed to pay" is what's out of wack.

The low wage workers perform necessary tasks. The wages must be low to keep goods and services affordable.

Instead of raising the wage and causing inflation, the money simply needs to be re-distributed.

The wages are low b/c the jobs require little to no talent to perform & b/c of a generally high turnover rate

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 07:40 PM

We need to adopt a free market type strategy to our politics. If people were allowed to move freely between governments then we could all live someplace we feel comfortable. And governments would be more accountable to providing for its citizens.

...you are allowed. Is the US government preventing you from moving somehow?

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:41 PM

Government is a reflection of it's collective society. The only time that a government doesn't reflect it's society is when it's forced upon the people that it "represents" through (usually external) armed force. The Fascist governments in Europe were elected first, you know

I would contend that governments are forced upon people. I was born into this government. It was no choice of mine.

wait for it...

wait for it...

I am leaving...I'm moving to Sweden in 2 months...

But, as HGM said, "if it walks like a duck...". You were acting ashamed, or defensive at least.
*shrug*

How is saying "I'm not a communist" acting ashamed?

robinhoodnik

07-15-2008, 07:43 PM

Haha, Americans don't do any actual labor these days. Where have you been?

Out doing the labor. You?

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:43 PM

...you are allowed. Is the US government preventing you from moving somehow?

The U.S. government prevents people from coming in correct? Other governments also prevent people from coming in. So, no the U.S. government is not preventing ME from moving. But governments are preventing people from moving, yes.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 07:45 PM

Instead of raising the wage and causing inflation, the money simply needs to be re-distributed.

The money has got to come from somewhere. Each unit of money, any money, represents labor and skills. If the government just "prints more money" then all money (and therefor labor and skills) are worth less. If you tax earnings and "wealth" in order to "redistribute" the money, then you're taking money from someone. There's just no way around that.

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:45 PM

Out doing the labor. You?

feeding trolls on here

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:46 PM

The money has got to come from somewhere. Each unit of money, any money, represents labor and skills. If the government just "prints more money" then all money (and therefor labor and skills) are worth less. If you tax earnings and "wealth" in order to "redistribute" the money, then you're taking money from someone. There's just no way around that.

Yes...that's exactly what i'm trying to do. Redistribute the money. Take from the rich, give to the poor. I'm Robin Frickin Hood.

etothep

07-15-2008, 07:47 PM

The U.S. government prevents people from coming in correct? Other governments also prevent people from coming in. So, no the U.S. government is not preventing ME from moving. But governments are preventing people from moving, yes.

a passport, clean record, & not bringing flora &/or fauna into the other country should open the doors to a good number of the countries on this planet to you

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 07:50 PM

The U.S. government prevents people from coming in correct? Other governments also prevent people from coming in. So, no the U.S. government is not preventing ME from moving. But governments are preventing people from moving, yes.

Their controlling the movement of people between nations. There are many excellent reasons to do so, not least of which includes security. There are also many excellent reasons to not do so, or to at least reduce the bureaucracy involved. The main problem is that immigration is one place where decidedly different legal systems must meet, and there are often conflicts involved.

For example, Cuban immigration... now, the Cubans have never been able to actively oppose the US, but they can make trouble. At various points in time the US government has openly accepted any Cuban nationals no questions asked. That sort of thing tends to create problems though, both locally and internationally.

robinhoodnik

07-15-2008, 07:51 PM

I'll agree...some people don't want to work. I don't think that's the majority of poor people though...

From my experience, it IS the majority of poor people. Once they're getting the welfare handouts, they just sit back and cruise. I've known women who knew exactly how many kids they'd have, when they'd have them, and exactly how far apart to space them in order to remain on the dole until they're eligible for social security.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 07:52 PM

If you don't take care of the children, and give them an opportunity to improve their lot, you're going to end up taking care of them for their whole life. Better to give a little so you don't have to give a lot.

Agreed. Public Education, including health care for school aged children and nutritional programs are vital. And have been enacted both Federally and nationally for years and years.

TheNamelessPoet

07-15-2008, 07:53 PM

Out doing the labor. You?

:p

robinhoodnik

07-15-2008, 07:56 PM

I'm Robin Frickin Hood.
Hey!!!! :p

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:59 PM

From my experience, it IS the majority of poor people. Once they're getting the welfare handouts, they just sit back and cruise. I've known women who knew exactly how many kids they'd have, when they'd have them, and exactly how far apart to space them in order to remain on the dole until they're eligible for social security.

I have NO DOUBT that some of those people exist.

What is your experience out of curiosity?

filihok

07-15-2008, 07:59 PM

Agreed. Public Education, including health care for school aged children and nutritional programs are vital. And have been enacted both Federally and nationally for years and years.

And the results are less than awe inspiring. So, perhaps, more should be done.

ohms_law

07-15-2008, 08:03 PM

What we're saying in reply to you is that:

See...this whole concept of "I'm supposed to pay" is what's out of wack.

"I'm supposed to pay" is exactly what you're telling people. You're telling me that I'm supposed to pay a large portion of my paycheck largely to bail out those who have made mistakes that I haven't (or that I have, but dealt with on my own).

I earned the money with my labor and skills. I am willing to share it for community problem solving, but I'm not willing to be dictated to about exactly how, when, and how much.

And the results are less than awe inspiring. So, perhaps, more should be done.

based on... what? Gut feeling?

robinhoodnik

07-15-2008, 08:07 PM

I have NO DOUBT that some of those people exist.

What is your experience out of curiosity?

Association, when I was younger.
I drove one friend to the local "community access" office one time (so he could do his monthly appearance) and while I was waiting, a guy who worked there was an old drinking buddy of my fathers, we talked a bit, and he tried to recruit me into the system. Told me that I was the first legitimately "disabled" person he'd seen in years. Told me he could set me up with welfare, SSI disability, medicaid/medicare, housing, foodstamps, etc.:mad: