www.ditl.org

Teaos wrote:I didnt claim to know anything. I presumed that the situation wasnt so totally desperate that there was no possible way to live a year with out welfare.

So you did claim to know something which you know nothing about. Are you lying on purpose or what?

And while I cant know that for sure, the chances of that being the case are slim to none.

So it's never happened where having no money leads to worse things? Good thinking, Einstein.

I gave a number of situations that could have avoided the use of welfare which you have not commented on.

You did. As I have said, you don't deserve to know about any situation that my family was in. So no, I won't comment on them.

So you did claim to know something which you know nothing about. Are you lying on purpose or what?

That statement makes no sense. I dont know you are human but I can presume so with a great level or certinty. I cant know the exact details but I can presume there is always another way out.

So it's never happened where having no money leads to worse things? Good thinking, Einstein.

Who the hells talking about anything else? I'm talking about not planning for the future and not doing everything in your power to provide for yourself and not have someone else do it for you.

You did. As I have said, you don't deserve to know about any situation that my family was in. So no, I won't comment on them.

Conveniant the one point that would prove me right is the one thing you wont mention. Remember your the one who brought a personal situation into this not I.

Wow, its nice to see we stayed on topic.

Teaos wrote: Who the hells talking about anything else? I'm talking about not planning for the future and not doing everything in your power to provide for yourself and not have someone else do it for you.

Which you presumed my family did or did not do. Which you know nothing about - you are thus lying. The chances, as you put it, of lacking in money leading to worse things 'slim to none'? So you presumed that that would never enter the equation. Because of course - being out of work for a whole year would never mean you might be in a tiny bit of trouble! You're promoted to super genius.

Conveniant the one point that would prove me right is the one thing you wont mention. Remember your the one who brought a personal situation into this not I.

I brought it in to show a point of how welfare is required because not all cases are of slobs who just sit at home watching TV and claiming welfare - some actually need it. While you then proceeded to comment on my personal sitatuation which you know nothing about, and yet claim to. You really don't get it, do you?

Wow, its nice to see we stayed on topic.

I don't see how welfare has anything to do with Picard's screwups.

I know right but oh well it seems to make the kids happy

You cant own many types of guns or animals. You cant marry your own sister. In some places you cant marry someone of the same sex. You cant swear in some places. You cant print or say certain things. You are unable or find it very difficult to get an abortion in many places. There are a lot of pointless laws for victimless crimes. You cant assist someone in killing themselves.

You can almost own any gun there is, in the USA with the assault weapons ban expiration. you just have to have a catagory 3 license. any other weapon that you are unable to own, are due to their purpose, you can't own a RPG-7 cause it's made to blow up tanks, there is no other value to it other than that, and in the case a complete nutjob gets one..

Again the greater good.

As for marrying your sister.. uh.. ignoring the biological reasons that is wrong.. o_O; I won't delve deeper in to this one, I just don't want to know.

And the animals? Well.. If you mean people that want 20 cats, in those cases most people are unable to care for all of those animals; and they are left neglected and/or abused. But I do slightly see your point for the animals.

There are many many things you cant do for no good reason apart from it annoys someone who has no right to dictact the way you live your life.

And you have no right to intrude on theirs by annoying them, their personal freedom to NOT be annoyed, and to live quietly and peacefully without interuption. which is why we have some of those dumb laws. (some i don't like, but I do understand them.)

Which you presumed my family did or did not do. Which you know nothing about - you are thus lying. The chances, as you put it, of lacking in money leading to worse things 'slim to none'? So you presumed that that would never enter the equation. Because of course - being out of work for a whole year would never mean you might be in a tiny bit of trouble! You're promoted to super genius.

Wow someone put on their grumpy undies today.

I didnt say no money cant lead to worse things. I said it is irrelivant to my point. Fact is there is always another way. You continued refuseal to say what you did to stay off welfare ties my hands a little but as I said there are many options out there to avoid it.

I brought it in to show a point of how welfare is required because not all cases are of slobs who just sit at home watching TV and claiming welfare - some actually need it. While you then proceeded to comment on my personal sitatuation which you know nothing about, and yet claim to.

And as I said. If it was set up properly Charity could be there to support those who truely need the help. Charity given by those who give tie and money in their own free will.

You really don't get it, do you?

Oh I get it just fine. Your family got in trouble. Duff luck it happens to a lot of people me included. What I'm saying is that to let emotions and personal hardship cloud judgement is a terrible way to make decisions. There are huge problems with the welfare state and it should be abolished. Thats not to say people still cant help out others if they want.

i'm sorry thorin,if you've had a murky time of things as of late, gimme a pm or email,if you ever need a chitterchatter or vent.
Laters

Teaos wrote: I didnt say no money cant lead to worse things. I said it is irrelivant to my point. Fact is there is always another way. You continued refuseal to say what you did to stay off welfare ties my hands a little but as I said there are many options out there to avoid it.

There is always another way? Relying on other's charity? There's no such charities for people without work. Again, showing your complete and utter lack of understanding.

And as I said. If it was set up properly Charity could be there to support those who truely need the help. Charity given by those who give tie and money in their own free will.

Charities are only given money to be charitable people. What if no one money to them? And again, there aren't charities - welfare takes its place, so to speak.

Oh I get it just fine. Your family got in trouble. Duff luck it happens to a lot of people me included. What I'm saying is that to let emotions and personal hardship cloud judgement is a terrible way to make decisions. There are huge problems with the welfare state and it should be abolished. Thats not to say people still cant help out others if they want.

Your following paragraph shows actually you don't get it. Emotions aren't clouding my judgement what so ever - I used my own situation as an example of why welfare is required; and why nearly every (if not every) western country in the world gives welfare.

But of course - I forgot - you want to live in a country where everything is choice. Where you can choose who you want to murder. Where you can choose whether you want to steal. Where you can choose whether you want to give money to person x and not person y. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and the modern world shows this in two ways;

1) There are no such countries where everything is choice, and never will be, as they will no longer be a country - without government, laws, or leadership.
2) All western countries give welfare.

Of course, you're right and they're all wrong.

There is always another way? Relying on other's charity? There's no such charities for people without work. Again, showing your complete and utter lack of understanding.

Now whos showing their ignorance. The salvation army does that exact job. St Johns does a similar thing. I know of several other smaller charites that exist in my country and proberly have some counter part in yours. They are charities that exist on willingly given donantions.

Charities are only given money to be charitable people. What if no one money to them? And again, there aren't charities - welfare takes its place, so to speak.

But people do give money so your point is moot. If the bludgers who can work but dont dont have someone giving them money they will go get a job or they will die. The people who truely need it might be able to find help through verious means such as the voluntary charities family or other means.

But of course - I forgot - you want to live in a country where everything is choice. Where you can choose who you want to murder. Where you can choose whether you want to steal. Where you can choose whether you want to give money to person x and not person y. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and the modern world shows this in two ways;

Nay that statement proves you have absolutly no working knowledge or politics. Crack a bloody book or read a reference paper. You speek of anarchy I wish for a Liberatarian state.

1) There are no such countries where everything is choice, and never will be, as they will no longer be a country - without government, laws, or leadership.
2) All western countries give welfare.

1) Your continued ignorance of politics is starting to become annoying.

2) A hundred years ago everyone had capital puishment - Does that make it right?

A Hundred years ago woman couldnt vote - Does that make it right?

Just because something is done doesnt mean its right. It just high lights a fundamental flaw in democracy.

2) A hundred years ago everyone had capital puishment - Does that make it right?

Funny you should mention that. I answered "Strongly Agree" on that test when shown the statement 'capital punishment is necessary'.

That doesn't make it right. Many other things do.

I said disagree because you can never be totally sure and the system just doesnt work. It costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them locked up for 30 years. It doesnt work as a deterant, it doesnt save money, the moral question could come into it but I don't really care about that.

It costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them locked up for 30 years.

Axes are reusable.

It all depends on the means of the execution in regard to how much money it costs. And I only believe in it in cases that have a preponderance of evidence.

Thats just the act of killing them. That in its selk can cost quite a bit. Your right that if we just cut their head off or pushed them off a high window it would be cheaper but they dont. They have to have a special facility with a lot of staff.

But the main cost comes from the court cases. To kill someone you need to go through a lot of court work and several appeals. That costs a LOT of money. Easier to just let them rot in jail.