Coronavirus - Covid-19

[NoobCrawler]

Originally Posted by Greatscott

"You're Welcome"... for what?

You posted leftist jibber-jabber that has been disproven.

Without having to show an ID, how to you verify that people are legal to vote?

As someone in a state with no ID laws, all I do is give a name. For all they know it’s my name. It could be my neighbors name. Or any others. Granted, we have particular polling places...but that’s only if you physically go there. It feels pretty uncomfortable not having to show ID.

[Greatscott]

Originally Posted by NoobCrawler

As someone in a state with no ID laws, all I do is give a name. For all they know it’s my name. It could be my neighbors name. Or any others. Granted, we have particular polling places...but that’s only if you physically go there. It feels pretty uncomfortable not having to show ID.

Sadly, you are in my home state, which, along with a lot of left-falling governments, has been the most resistive to voter ID, and having an ID system that is both meaningful and inexpensive. Washington state has gone the other way, they have a good state ID, but it costs $54, which I can see being prohibitive for those low-income families.

[bbrigg]

Originally Posted by Greatscott

Sadly, you are in my home state, which, along with a lot of left-falling governments, has been the most resistive to voter ID, and having an ID system that is both meaningful and inexpensive. Washington state has gone the other way, they have a good state ID, but it costs $54, which I can see being prohibitive for those low-income families.

The reason they charge so much for the ID is that it's the only way that they can back up their argument that requiring an ID to vote disenfranchises the poor. As a long time resident of Indonesia, a country which requires voters to produce an ID to vote and which actually has a lot of real poor people, I can categorically state that getting an ID to vote is not an insurmountable obstacle as leftists claim.

This is so true that the lady in her nineties, who was used as a poster child in a court case brought by Democrats against a voter ID law, easily obtained a voter ID after she had testified in court that it was an unreasonable burden. The idea that voter ID laws suppress minority voters has been shown to be empirically untrue by the increase in minority voting in states that require voter ID. The very idea that a free and fair election can be held when voters cannot be verified is patently ridiculous and anybody claiming differently is proof that ideology trumps intellect in their case.

[bbrigg]

Originally Posted by JatoTheRipper

Some socialism is necessary for a healthy society IMHO.

Jato, all due respect but you appear to have fallen into the trap, deliberately placed by progressives, that all things done collectively are "socialism". This distorts, and attempts to disinfect, the proper definition of "socialism" which is an ideology based on a collective, or the government, controlling the means of production.

To use the fake definition of "socialism" the way that progressives attempt to push on us means that things like the post office and highways are socialist and would also include any publicly funded corporation since they are, by definition, collectively funded.

In fact, everything in the free market would be "socialist" under the false definition since even a Mom and Pop store is supported by a collective, of sorts, made up of their customers. We know, however, that under true socialism Mom and Pop would be carefully selected and would be told what products to sell and how much they would be allowed to charge for them.

Totally agree on the social corrisiveness of endless welfare for the, largely, undeserving.

[themountain]

Originally Posted by bbrigg

Jato, all due respect but you appear to have fallen into the trap, deliberately placed by progressives, that all things done collectively are "socialism"..

dont you worry ...he has not

[bbrigg]

Originally Posted by themountain

dont you worry ...he has not

I wouldn't laugh too hard. Your own weak attempt to fob my facts about Giovanni Gentile off with your Italian link, hoping that would be the end of it. You don't think they would have tried to engage in any whitewashing? They actually didn't but their lies of omission are quite clear in view of the quotes from the man's own writings. Fascism is a movement of the left, always has been. The state above all, which is well known, shows that it is utterly divorced from conservatism. Looks like you were fooled by the revisionists too.

You probably aren't even aware that Lenin publicly bemoaned that socialism had lost an excellent potential leader when Mussolini went to Fascism.

[Greatscott]

Originally Posted by bbrigg

Jato, all due respect but you appear to have fallen into the trap, deliberately placed by progressives, that all things done collectively are "socialism". This distorts, and attempts to disinfect, the proper definition of "socialism" which is an ideology based on a collective, or the government, controlling the means of production.

To use the fake definition of "socialism" the way that progressives attempt to push on us means that things like the post office and highways are socialist and would also include any publicly funded corporation since they are, by definition, collectively funded.

In fact, everything in the free market would be "socialist" under the false definition since even a Mom and Pop store is supported by a collective, of sorts, made up of their customers. We know, however, that under true socialism Mom and Pop would be carefully selected and would be told what products to sell and how much they would be allowed to charge for them.

Totally agree on the social corrisiveness of endless welfare for the, largely, undeserving.

I believe we need a good capitalist market with a healthy does of social consciousness to help out those in need. But, the underlying goal of the program should be focused on taking that tax liability and changing it into a tax asset. In a lot of cases, that would cost more in the short term because it would require job training, but I would much prefer my tax dollar go towards that then to pay baby factories to stay home and replicate generational welfare. There is simply no motivation for these people to get jobs.

Case in point, my nephew's wife, she has been on welfare for over 20 years, with short spats of gainful employment. She has five kids (3 fathers), and the youngest will turn 18 in less than two years. She is trying desperately to get Medi-Cal to pay to get her tubes untied so she can have another kid, otherwise that welfare tit dries up, and she will actually have to find a job.

Never minding the welfare issue, all five of her kids have social dysfunctional/mental problems. Given that there are three fathers, the short chromosome is definitely coming from her. When you add my nephew into the mix, who is the product of a career alcoholic, and had has been on mental-stabilizing meds all of his life, their offspring really has little chance of being "normal". This is a case were two wrongs do not make a right; and, if you saw them, you'd know they were VERY wrong.

Back on topic a little...
Now is a perfect example of why we need social programs. People have been put out of work, they need help, and when the crisis expires, theoretically, they'll go back to work.

[bbrigg]

Originally Posted by Greatscott

I believe we need a good capitalist market with a healthy does of social consciousness to help out those in need. But, the underlying goal of the program should be focused on taking that tax liability and changing it into a tax asset. In a lot of cases, that would cost more in the short term because it would require job training, but I would much prefer my tax dollar go towards that then to pay baby factories to stay home and replicate generational welfare. There is simply no motivation for these people to get jobs.



Case in point, my nephew's wife, she has been on welfare for over 20 years, with short spats of gainful employment. She has five kids (3 fathers), and the youngest will turn 18 in less than two years. She is trying desperately to get Medi-Cal to pay to get her tubes untied so she can have another kid, otherwise that welfare tit dries up, and she will actually have to find a job.



Never minding the welfare issue, all five of her kids have social dysfunctional/mental problems. Given that there are three fathers, the short chromosome is definitely coming from her. When you add my nephew into the mix, who is the product of a career alcoholic, and had has been on mental-stabilizing meds all of his life, their offspring really has little chance of being "normal". This is a case were two wrongs do not make a right; and, if you saw them, you'd know they were VERY wrong.



Back on topic a little...

Now is a perfect example of why we need social programs. People have been put out of work, they need help, and when the crisis expires, theoretically, they'll go back to work.

Absolutely. Welfare's prime goal should be to get as many people off its rolls and into productive activity. Even with zero tax revenue somebody being gainfully employed is, at the minimum, less of a drain on the rest of society. Any person with multiple children born on welfare should be given a choice between sterilization or loss of income. I shouldn't be paying for other people's kids.

Welfare should be a hand up, not just a handout.

[themountain]

Originally Posted by bbrigg

Absolutely. Any person with multiple children born on welfare should be given a choice between sterilization or loss of income.

Just ...WOW...

..and you really live in Indonesia ?? Ever told anybody there these things ??

[Greatscott]

Originally Posted by bbrigg

Absolutely. Welfare's prime goal should be to get as many people off its rolls and into productive activity. Even with zero tax revenue somebody being gainfully employed is, at the minimum, less of a drain on the rest of society. Any person with multiple children born on welfare should be given a choice between sterilization or loss of income. I shouldn't be paying for other people's kids.

Welfare should be a hand up, not just a handout.

Having kids while you are already on welfare, is, in my humble opinion, irresponsible, if not criminal. But, how are you going to punish these people, and it certainly isn't the kids' fault for having shitty parents? But, as much as I agree with the sentiment of forced sterilization, I think that concept is a bit draconian, and would only fly in a socialist government.

Positive or negative reinforcement to change bad habits. I believe along with job training and child care, welfare should be limited to three years. Again, we'll pay more in those three year than we would in five years of regular welfare, but at the end of it the welfare stops and cannot be applied for again for 10 years. It doesn't matter how many kids they have, doesn't matter if they take advantage of the training offered, three years and done. Birth control, of course would be covered, if not encouraged under this program. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, sickness, exceptional family members, pandemics, etc...

[bbrigg]

Originally Posted by themountain

Just ...WOW...

..and you really live in Indonesia ?? Ever told anybody there these things ??

Yes, for over thirty years and I espouse my views freely. Most of the people agree with me as there is only a very rudimentary welfare system so most people haven't yet learned to leech off others. People here do not see the sense in helping out professional grifters and people recognize that sort quite easily, having no social pressure on them to feel sorry for anybody with a sob story. When there is no welfare state and people have little of their own they learn to be choosy about who deserves charity. The charitable institutions here are quite harsh in their judgement as well. This has nothing to do with a lack of compassion or generosity, it has to do with reality, not moral preening. People can't afford that here.

I'm considered way too soft hearted by many. I do help out deserving people here but I get to decide who and how to help. How many families have you helped to a better position in life using your own money? I get frequent visits from people who I had forgotten that I ever helped out.

The problem with you progressives is you are mainly "charitable" with other peoples hard earned money. You have managed, in your little minds, to divorce government largesse from the labor of those who pay the taxes. It isn't free money to anybody but dirty politicians, idiots and you progressives so you are in good company.

[Frank211]

Hmmmm

Sent from my LGMP450 using Tapatalk

[Greatscott]

Originally Posted by Frank211

Hmmmm

Sent from my LGMP450 using Tapatalk

I don't get it either...

Arresting people for being in a park by themselves, but it is OK to be in the local Wally-World with 100 other people. It seems like camping (if you are doing it right) is a social distancing sport all onto its own, and something that would be encouraged.

[NoobCrawler]

Originally Posted by Frank211

Hmmmm


Sent from my LGMP450 using Tapatalk

To add to that, why is that okay...but nearly all small/other businesses were forced to close, when they could implement the same restrictions.

[hpiguy]

Originally Posted by NoobCrawler

To add to that, why is that okay...but nearly all small/other businesses were forced to close, when they could implement the same restrictions.

Because small businesses don't have the pull on Corporate hill that Commie Mart does.

[iplaywithrocks]

Walmart sells food and or has a pharmacy.

I run a construction business and could stay open even though construction was shut down because bathrooms are essential

Always a loop hole .

[JatoTheRipper]

Originally Posted by iplaywithrocks

Maybe it’s all the vowels in my govt name but.....

What’s the over under on how many people posting in this thread are actually registered to vote ?

Or even do vote ?

Spain is so pretty .

Not voting is a protected freedom though. Not voting doesn't invalidate somebody's opinion just like voting doesn't somehow make a person's opinion more important or correct. I'm registered to vote, but I choose not to. I think the whole idea of voting has become a joke. Anybody can vote in some places. If you don't need an ID to prove you are a citizen in the area in which you are voting that pretty much undermines that entire system. It's absolutely disgusting. The people that think it's acceptable for illegals to vote should be traded to the country from which the illegals come. They sure as hell aren't USA-loving Americans. I don't know where America went wrong in this regard, but it's surely wrong.

Originally Posted by bbrigg

Jato, all due respect but you appear to have fallen into the trap, deliberately placed by progressives, that all things done collectively are "socialism". This distorts, and attempts to disinfect, the proper definition of "socialism" which is an ideology based on a collective, or the government, controlling the means of production.

To use the fake definition of "socialism" the way that progressives attempt to push on us means that things like the post office and highways are socialist and would also include any publicly funded corporation since they are, by definition, collectively funded.

In fact, everything in the free market would be "socialist" under the false definition since even a Mom and Pop store is supported by a collective, of sorts, made up of their customers. We know, however, that under true socialism Mom and Pop would be carefully selected and would be told what products to sell and how much they would be allowed to charge for them.

Totally agree on the social corrisiveness of endless welfare for the, largely, undeserving.

Fair enough. No offense taken. I'm not an expert on socialism nor on any other economical or political systems.

The classic definition of socialism is just as bad as social welfare. We need a minimal amounts of both for a successful society. Too much government intervention is bad. A society of able-bodied people leeching off of the system, which is driven by hard-working tax payers, is just as bad. And the idea of community owned can be both good and bad.

Originally Posted by bbrigg

Absolutely. Welfare's prime goal should be to get as many people off its rolls and into productive activity. Even with zero tax revenue somebody being gainfully employed is, at the minimum, less of a drain on the rest of society. Any person with multiple children born on welfare should be given a choice between sterilization or loss of income. I shouldn't be paying for other people's kids.

Welfare should be a hand up, not just a handout.

I agree 100%! You should be forced onto some kind of birth control when you are on welfare. If you can't support yourself, as an adult, you sure as hell can't support a child and therefore you shouldn't have one. It's sad we have scumbags that have children while on welfare. It's even worse that some people are OK with supporting children of adults who already can't support themselves. This is wrong - in black and white - and I'm baffled people can't see this.

If people want to support children of welfare recipients then I should have the choice to not be part of that. This is why our system is failing and our government is constantly going into a deeper debt. We can't continue to tax hard workers more while giving that hard earned money to system leeches and the kids they can't support. It's insanity.

[Greatscott]

Originally Posted by iplaywithrocks

Walmart sells food and or has a pharmacy.

I run a construction business and could stay open even though construction was shut down because bathrooms are essential

Always a loop hole .

Depends on the state as well, and what the guidelines they put out. Here in Idaho, the store did not have to be "essential" to remain open. Stores just need to control the number of people in the store, and they had some magic number to say how many could be in a space. Our LHS is booming to the point that their shelves were almost bare. The shops right across the boarder in the socialistic commune known as Washington State deamed hobby shops non-essential, and therefore bad, and therefore closed them down. Luckily they got a bunch of stock in and it no longer looks like their sole product is TP. Of course, dine-in restaurants and barbers were not allowed to open.

[Mike Flea]

On the lighter side of this:

[magic_yeti]

[QUOTE=JatoTheRipper]
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbrigg
Absolutely. Welfare's prime goal should be to get as many people off its rolls and into productive activity. Even with zero tax revenue somebody being gainfully employed is, at the minimum, less of a drain on the rest of society. Any person with multiple children born on welfare should be given a choice between sterilization or loss of income. I shouldn't be paying for other people's kids.

Welfare should be a hand up, not just a handout.

I agree 100%! You should be forced onto some kind of birth control when you are on welfare. [\QUOTE]

I could throw up when I read something like that. Thought we left this behind the last 75 years.