ScreamingTrees Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 We had one, back when slavery preceded the company store What does slavery have to do with having a market that has no government interference to pump tax payer's $$ into businesses that don't really produce any goods and would fail if they didn't have that funding? Those businesses were never necessary to keep the "economy" going, even if that was the typical reasoning for wasting other people's money on **** decisions. No one owns traditional slaves nowadays, though one can argue that there are modern forms of slavery being practiced, whether intentional or not. Why is this relevant?
Necris Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 I think it's hilarious that men insist on feeling persecuted for things like not being able to force a woman to have an abortion, not being able to force a woman to carry a baby to term, being stuck having to support their offspring, etc. Keep it up, guys. Its a shame that people feel that it should be their right to kill their children what a sad, sad, disgusting world we live in.
zengirl Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 EDIT: I also support legalization of all drugs. People will do what they do.. Why turn an otherwise harmless, non-violent person into a criminal for ingesting a plant? No one has ever really died from smoking it, unless it was laced with a hard drug (another valid reason to legalize it and have credible suppliers) or they got a brain tumor from years of smoking, but, c'mon, that's certainly no worse than killing your liver from alcohol abuse. I'm no smoker, but I don't see why it's such a big deal. Little kids can get drunk and act stupid, so who cares if they're getting high? It's probably safer and less physically harmful than drinking would be. You can abuse everything, and also respectfully and maturely enjoy most things in moderation. Unlike you, I strongly support government regulation. However, I also strongly agree with this. Ironically, if the drug industries were legal and regulated (I'd say only a few of the softer drugs like shrooms and marijuana should/would become a "real" industry, probably -- I probably wouldn't be for selling heroin in department stores; decriminalizing and legalizing aren't the same thing), then kids would find it harder to get weed. More kids CAN get weed these days more easily than alcohol or tobacco. Why? Drug dealers don't care about age limits, but convenience stores do. Ironic. FWIW, Kids aren't typically "just trying" meth or heroin or even cocaine anyway. Harder drugs aren't something someone typically tries till later in life, unless they come from an environment with extraordinary problems. It's also ironic that the biggest drug problem with kids today are their parents pharmaceuticals.
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 We had one, back when slavery preceded the company store Well if that's how you feel, I'd never make you participate in a free market, just as I hope you'd never make me participate in a heavily progressive economic system. You should be free to live how you want, and myself likewise.
zengirl Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Well if that's how you feel, I'd never make you participate in a free market, just as I hope you'd never make me participate in a heavily progressive economic system. You should be free to live how you want, and myself likewise. As long as we live in the same country, we have the same market. No way around it, really.
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 As long as we live in the same country, we have the same market. No way around it, really. Sort of. Different states can have different rules. Some will be more progressive, others will be more free market (hopefully). Won't matter much anyway, the whole financial and monetary system that all this government relies on for funding is going down like the Titanic pretty soon. edit: we could also allow for certain states or regions to secede if they really disagree with the whole national picture.
zengirl Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Sort of. Different states can have different rules. Some will be more progressive, others will be more free market (hopefully). Won't matter much anyway, the whole financial and monetary system that all this government relies on for funding is going down like the Titanic pretty soon. edit: we could also allow for certain states or regions to secede if they really disagree with the whole national picture. We tried a government of the states, held loosely, and it didn't work well. It led to a very bloody war.
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 We tried a government of the states, held loosely, and it didn't work well. It led to a very bloody war. It only led to war because the Radical Republicans wouldn't let the South leave. The Confederacy didn't want war, the Union did.
zengirl Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 It only led to war because the Radical Republicans wouldn't let the South leave. The Confederacy didn't want war, the Union did. Oh, the Confederacy wanted the War as much as the other side did (neither REALLY wanted war, per se, but the Confederacy probably wanted "war" a little more). In fact, the first few states that seceded were counting on War to bring the South together. I'm a Civil War buff and a Southern gal and I've been to most of the Southern sites. At any rate, it wasn't working long before the War itself. You have to be one country or none at all. Our states are not operated like mini-countries anymore, and they couldn't do as well independently. If they broke apart, another country would invade us in a second these days (probably would've happened if they'd broken apart during the Civil War). Just the way our country is set up --- we already suffer from having less universal laws and education than many countries. At any rate, if that were ever polled, I assume it'd get extremely high #s to keep the United States together. So I'm not exactly worried States' Rights are coming back anytime soon.
EasyHeart Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 More kids CAN get weed these days more easily than alcohol or tobacco. Why? Drug dealers don't care about age limits, but convenience stores do. Ironic.This was true even when I was in college. I was 17 when my state raised the drinking age to 21 (thanks a lot, gubbermint!!!). In college, we couldn't get a beer, but it was easy to get pot, hash, coke, shrooms, acid or pretty much anything else we wanted.
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Oh, the Confederacy wanted the War as much as the other side did (neither REALLY wanted war, per se, but the Confederacy probably wanted "war" a little more). In fact, the first few states that seceded were counting on War to bring the South together. I'm a Civil War buff and a Southern gal and I've been to most of the Southern sites. At any rate, it wasn't working long before the War itself. You have to be one country or none at all. Our states are not operated like mini-countries anymore, and they couldn't do as well independently. If they broke apart, another country would invade us in a second these days (probably would've happened if they'd broken apart during the Civil War). Just the way our country is set up --- we already suffer from having less universal laws and education than many countries. At any rate, if that were ever polled, I assume it'd get extremely high #s to keep the United States together. So I'm not exactly worried States' Rights are coming back anytime soon. I'm a southerner too, live near many of the battlefields: Manassas/Bull Run, Antietam, Balls Bluff, Winchester. In any case, countries are fake, they're not real so we don't have to have one country or none at all, that's a false choice. And while I'm sure no one would vote to leave if there was a ballot measure to do so they still do have that right. Remember it wasn't the South that was the first region to want to leave, the Northeast states wanted to leave at the end of the War of 1812. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that no one should be made to participate in a system they don't like. If I think I can better finance my retirement than the Social Security program can, why make me participate in it? If I think I can take care of my health care needs without buying overpriced insurance via government mandate, why make me do it? That's what I think true freedom is about, you being free to live your life and me being free to live mine. By whatever measure we like (assuming we don't harm others). We don't regulate who people can marry or be friends with, why regulate all this other stuff?
Kamille Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Sort of. Different states can have different rules. Some will be more progressive, others will be more free market (hopefully). You rely on the concept of state to contest the concept of government. What would be the difference between the two and how would the boundaries of these states be determined and policed? Also, what the heck is a free-market state? That sounds like a contradiction to me. The free-market is a market unencumbered by the notion of borders.
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 23, 2012 Author Posted March 23, 2012 i don't know where he's getting his information (sources please) but the ones I'm finding say it's more along the lines of $35-75, along with doctor's fees. You also need to take the shot every 12 weeks. (So every 3 months.) The side effects include weight gain, a higher chance of depression, decreased sex drive, and nausea. Math time... the shot is an average of $45, 4 times a year. That's about $180 a year, without exam and doctor fees. If your insurance doesn't cover it (mine doesn't), that's entirely out of pocket. When you only make 20k a year, and might also be supporting a family on that income, that expensive of a procedure can actually break the budget. I'm not really supposed to be sharing this information. My job requires me to sell items to hospitals and clinics. Pharma is part of what I sell. Here is how pricing for these drugs works. Physicians and hospitals purchase Depo-Provera for something like $90-100 per shot! This is used for patients who have medical insurance that reimburse it. I'm not entirely sure what they charge the insurance company. Most physicians use the generic form of Depo called Medroxyprogesterone, which is about $35 per shot. Non-Profits have access to a government program called 340b. With this program drug companies are only allowed up to a 400% markup on drugs. Technically this is considered cost for them. Depo-Provera $15 per shot, the generic is $12. Anyone without insurance coverage should be able to get access this at a community health care center. The pills are actually even cheaper... typically $5-10 depending on the brand. I think the biggest issue you have with CHC's is that they are non-profits and the people in charge of purchasing are typically VERY lazy, stupid, or uninterested. I work with perhaps 6 Community Health Centers. Only 4 use the 340b program... the rest pay sticker price for all drugs... and either eat the cost or pass it on to the uninsured. With all honesty... the women who work for Catholic affiliated businesses have jobs and money. If the government wanted to really help women in poverty... they would force compliance for their own program. 1
Emilia Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Its a shame that people feel that it should be their right to kill their children what a sad, sad, disgusting world we live in. You are a man I presume
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 You still rely on the concept of state to contest the concept of government. What would be the difference between the two and how would the boundaries of these states be determined and policed? Also, what the heck is a free-market state? That sounds like a contradiction to me. The free-market is a market unencumbered by the notion of borders. What? I want small government, not no government. Just courts and minimal police, minimal military. No mandatory social security program, no mandatory public schooling (although in theory those could exist), no CIA, no Homeland Security, no TSA, no DEA, no Department of Agriculture (which gives a lot of money to big corporately owned farms), no Federal Reserve, etc. The free market state would basically be people buying and selling freely and the state's responsibility would be enforcement of contracts and defending from possible foreign invasion (which has happened only once in US history, and we brought it on ourselves).
Necris Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 You are a man I presume Yes, and? Besides there are women who feel the same way I do.
thatone Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Sort of. Different states can have different rules. Some will be more progressive, others will be more free market (hopefully). Won't matter much anyway, the whole financial and monetary system that all this government relies on for funding is going down like the Titanic pretty soon. edit: we could also allow for certain states or regions to secede if they really disagree with the whole national picture. not really. the idea of states' rights died when the civil war ended.
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 not really. the idea of states' rights died when the civil war ended. And we got the tyranny of the nation state instead.
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 23, 2012 Author Posted March 23, 2012 You are a man I presume Only men care about human life?
thatone Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 And we got the tyranny of the nation state instead. not really. you're ignorant of the reasons that led up to the civil war (and yes, it was about slavery), but then again most people are ignorant of the reasons, so here, i'll help... it was the middle class that wanted slavery gone. a small landowner had no chance to compete against a large slave owning landowner. that's why the middle class left for territories like missouri in droves, and did NOT want those states to become slave states. so, no, the pre civil war south was not a magic happy funland as ignorant lower middle class southerners seem to think it was. unless they owned thousands of acres and hundreds of slaves, they would be worse off than they are now.
xxoo Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Only men care about human life? Both sides of the abortion debate are motivated by deep concern over human life. 1
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 not really. you're ignorant of the reasons that led up to the civil war (and yes, it was about slavery), but then again most people are ignorant of the reasons, so here, i'll help... it was the middle class that wanted slavery gone. a small landowner had no chance to compete against a large slave owning landowner. that's why the middle class left for territories like missouri in droves, and did NOT want those states to become slave states. so, no, the pre civil war south was not a magic happy funland as ignorant lower middle class southerners seem to think it was. unless they owned thousands of acres and hundreds of slaves, they would be worse off than they are now. Well pre-Civil War was also largely about the fight against two national banks, a fight between gold standard champions and those who disliked the gold standard, the expansion of American imperialism (against Mexico for example), and the slavery question. So yes, the pre-Civil War era had many problems. But, once Reconstruction in the South ended and we returned to a gold standard and abandoned big government policies life in the US was quite good. From about 1877-1896 America had a golden age.
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 23, 2012 Author Posted March 23, 2012 not really. you're ignorant of the reasons that led up to the civil war (and yes, it was about slavery), but then again most people are ignorant of the reasons, so here, i'll help... it was the middle class that wanted slavery gone. a small landowner had no chance to compete against a large slave owning landowner. that's why the middle class left for territories like missouri in droves, and did NOT want those states to become slave states. so, no, the pre civil war south was not a magic happy funland as ignorant lower middle class southerners seem to think it was. unless they owned thousands of acres and hundreds of slaves, they would be worse off than they are now. If that was the case then why did middle and lower class southerners fight FOR slavery? Where they enslaved themselves... or do you think their army was entirely comprised of millionaire slave owners? The fact is that it was a mixed bag... with most southerners supporting the institution despite the fact that they were not currently engaged in it. Yes there was a strong and vocal minority who were opposed.
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 If that was the case then why did middle and lower class southerners fight FOR slavery? Where they enslaved themselves... or do you think their army was entirely comprised of millionaire slave owners? The fact is that it was a mixed bag... with most southerners supporting the institution despite the fact that they were not currently engaged in it. Yes there was a strong and vocal minority who were opposed. Not to mention non slave owners who fought for the Confederacy. In defense of home, the ideal of states rights, whatever. I have ancestors who fought on both sides of the Civil War so I understand it was a really complicated war. That still doesn't mean that states rights can't be a good thing.
mesmerized Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 If I'm raped, or I'm dependent on him, or he'll beat me, or I'm a naive teenager who has been pressured into sex.... Which happens WAY more often here than these guys even realize. I was shocked when I found out about some of my friend's rape cases. One of them was raped by her grandfather when she was a child and been in therapy ever since. The other was raped twice on two different occasions and never reported and is still affected by them. And other similar cases, most of which go unreported. These women all seem like happy normal women but they deal with a lot of pain underneath. Why is it so hard to be responsible in your sexual behavior? letting men opt out of child support is the worst idea EVER. Wouldn't men just love sleeping around unsafely knowing there is no consequence for them?? And before you go on that it's the same for women now, no it's not. For most women, abortion causes a lot of sadness, depression and other mental or in some cases physical issues. Now I agree if an adult women has had many abortions that shows her irresponsibility, then the men she sleeps with should be able to opt out of supporting!
Recommended Posts