13 Sep 2014, 5:13 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
People die in their own s**t now not because there are no services but because the system is so weighted down with and made cumbersome by typical government bureaucracy.
You're seriously trying to tell me people would be happier and would live longer without availability of medical treatment? Because government services is what gives that availability to people who otherwise couldn't afford it.
I can see that you didn't read what I actually wrote. That, or you elected to read into it what wasn't there.
Big surprise.
13 Sep 2014, 5:15 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
But the right has always striven to be heartless and evil, so they're simply accomplishing what they had set out to do. 
And the left as always striven to be simpleminded and childish.
Mission accomplished!
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Sep 2014, 5:16 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
People die in their own s**t now not because there are no services but because the system is so weighted down with and made cumbersome by typical government bureaucracy.
You're seriously trying to tell me people would be happier and would live longer without availability of medical treatment? Because government services is what gives that availability to people who otherwise couldn't afford it.
I can see that you didn't read what I actually wrote. That, or you elected to read into it what wasn't there.
Big surprise.
I admit I had forgotten to put the word bureaucracy in in connection to services. To expand on that, even with bullsh*t red tape, more people are going to survive with those services with all their bureaucracy than without.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Sep 2014, 5:19 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But the right has always striven to be heartless and evil, so they're simply accomplishing what they had set out to do.
And the left as always striven to be simpleminded and childish.
Mission accomplished!
Seeing to it that people have civil rights protection, workers rights protection, a social safety net for those with disabilities, in poverty, or are unemployed, and all the other humane efforts that make life livable for most people, is simpleminded and childish?
13 Sep 2014, 5:24 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
People die in their own s**t now not because there are no services but because the system is so weighted down with and made cumbersome by typical government bureaucracy.
You're seriously trying to tell me people would be happier and would live longer without availability of medical treatment? Because government services is what gives that availability to people who otherwise couldn't afford it.
I can see that you didn't read what I actually wrote. That, or you elected to read into it what wasn't there.
Big surprise.
I admit I had forgotten to put the word bureaucracy in in connection to services. To expand on that, even with bullsh*t red tape, more people are going to survive with those services with all their bureaucracy than without.
It doesnt say much about social programs if they are so hamstrung that the services they do provide are nothing more than an incidental byproduct of all the layers of bureaucracy between the taxpayer's dollar and the intended recipients.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Sep 2014, 5:45 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
People die in their own s**t now not because there are no services but because the system is so weighted down with and made cumbersome by typical government bureaucracy.
You're seriously trying to tell me people would be happier and would live longer without availability of medical treatment? Because government services is what gives that availability to people who otherwise couldn't afford it.
I can see that you didn't read what I actually wrote. That, or you elected to read into it what wasn't there.
Big surprise.
I admit I had forgotten to put the word bureaucracy in in connection to services. To expand on that, even with bullsh*t red tape, more people are going to survive with those services with all their bureaucracy than without.
It doesnt say much about social programs if they are so hamstrung that the services they do provide are nothing more than an incidental byproduct of all the layers of bureaucracy between the taxpayer's dollar and the intended recipients.
With the exception of the clusterf*ck going on with the VA, I really don't know of a single government agency not providing services to people in need because of excessive red tape.
13 Sep 2014, 6:52 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
People die in their own s**t now not because there are no services but because the system is so weighted down with and made cumbersome by typical government bureaucracy.
You're seriously trying to tell me people would be happier and would live longer without availability of medical treatment? Because government services is what gives that availability to people who otherwise couldn't afford it.
I can see that you didn't read what I actually wrote. That, or you elected to read into it what wasn't there.
Big surprise.
I admit I had forgotten to put the word bureaucracy in in connection to services. To expand on that, even with bullsh*t red tape, more people are going to survive with those services with all their bureaucracy than without.
It doesnt say much about social programs if they are so hamstrung that the services they do provide are nothing more than an incidental byproduct of all the layers of bureaucracy between the taxpayer's dollar and the intended recipients.
With the exception of the clusterf*ck going on with the VA, I really don't know of a single government agency not providing services to people in need because of excessive red tape.
Did I say they don't provide services? No, I clearly did not.
Read it again.
13 Sep 2014, 7:10 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Sep 2014, 7:28 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
People die in their own s**t now not because there are no services but because the system is so weighted down with and made cumbersome by typical government bureaucracy.
You're seriously trying to tell me people would be happier and would live longer without availability of medical treatment? Because government services is what gives that availability to people who otherwise couldn't afford it.
I can see that you didn't read what I actually wrote. That, or you elected to read into it what wasn't there.
Big surprise.
I admit I had forgotten to put the word bureaucracy in in connection to services. To expand on that, even with bullsh*t red tape, more people are going to survive with those services with all their bureaucracy than without.
It doesnt say much about social programs if they are so hamstrung that the services they do provide are nothing more than an incidental byproduct of all the layers of bureaucracy between the taxpayer's dollar and the intended recipients.
With the exception of the clusterf*ck going on with the VA, I really don't know of a single government agency not providing services to people in need because of excessive red tape.
Did I say they don't provide services? No, I clearly did not.
Read it again.
What you said was bureaucracy was keeping those services from people. I'm saying that people are getting those services, despite it.
And a simple fact is, the right has always used this argument about red tape against the existence of any government services, ignoring what would become of the needy if those services ceased to be.
13 Sep 2014, 8:01 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But the right has always striven to be heartless and evil, so they're simply accomplishing what they had set out to do.
And the left as always striven to be simpleminded and childish.
Mission accomplished!
Seeing to it that people have civil rights protection, workers rights protection, a social safety net for those with disabilities, in poverty, or are unemployed, and all the other humane efforts that make life livable for most people, is simpleminded and childish?
Any interest democrats have in "civil rights" and the "social safety net" (a.k.a hammock) is only to secure votes by keeping enough people on the teat. And before you go there, I've never claimed that the republicans are any better about doing anything other than appeasing their kind to secure votes. The difference with me is that I don't pretend that a pig's ass isn't pork.
13 Sep 2014, 8:06 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
People die in their own s**t now not because there are no services but because the system is so weighted down with and made cumbersome by typical government bureaucracy.
You're seriously trying to tell me people would be happier and would live longer without availability of medical treatment? Because government services is what gives that availability to people who otherwise couldn't afford it.
I can see that you didn't read what I actually wrote. That, or you elected to read into it what wasn't there.
Big surprise.
I admit I had forgotten to put the word bureaucracy in in connection to services. To expand on that, even with bullsh*t red tape, more people are going to survive with those services with all their bureaucracy than without.
It doesnt say much about social programs if they are so hamstrung that the services they do provide are nothing more than an incidental byproduct of all the layers of bureaucracy between the taxpayer's dollar and the intended recipients.
With the exception of the clusterf*ck going on with the VA, I really don't know of a single government agency not providing services to people in need because of excessive red tape.
Did I say they don't provide services? No, I clearly did not.
Read it again.
What you said was bureaucracy was keeping those services from people. I'm saying that people are getting those services, despite it.
And a simple fact is, the right has always used this argument about red tape against the existence of any government services, ignoring what would become of the needy if those services ceased to be.
Lord....
Raptor FOR THE SECOND TIME wrote:
"It doesnt say much about social programs if they are so hamstrung that the services they DO provide are nothing more than an incidental byproduct of all the layers of bureaucracy between the taxpayer's dollar and the intended recipients".
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
13 Sep 2014, 11:18 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Sep 2014, 11:37 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But the right has always striven to be heartless and evil, so they're simply accomplishing what they had set out to do.
And the left as always striven to be simpleminded and childish.
Mission accomplished!
Seeing to it that people have civil rights protection, workers rights protection, a social safety net for those with disabilities, in poverty, or are unemployed, and all the other humane efforts that make life livable for most people, is simpleminded and childish?
Any interest democrats have in "civil rights" and the "social safety net" (a.k.a hammock) is only to secure votes by keeping enough people on the teat. And before you go there, I've never claimed that the republicans are any better about doing anything other than appeasing their kind to secure votes. The difference with me is that I don't pretend that a pig's ass isn't pork.
A tad bit cynical, don't you think? Sure, there are politicians on both sides of the aisles who are calculating bastards who use people for personal gain. But to say that those leaders who had risked helping others to be treated like human beings, whether they were blacks, gays, workers, etc, at the possible ruination of their careers, had only done so for the sake of getting people to take the government teat insults the cause of civil rights which so many had fought and died for.
13 Sep 2014, 11:51 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But the right has always striven to be heartless and evil, so they're simply accomplishing what they had set out to do.
And the left as always striven to be simpleminded and childish.
Mission accomplished!
Seeing to it that people have civil rights protection, workers rights protection, a social safety net for those with disabilities, in poverty, or are unemployed, and all the other humane efforts that make life livable for most people, is simpleminded and childish?
Any interest democrats have in "civil rights" and the "social safety net" (a.k.a hammock) is only to secure votes by keeping enough people on the teat. And before you go there, I've never claimed that the republicans are any better about doing anything other than appeasing their kind to secure votes. The difference with me is that I don't pretend that a pig's ass isn't pork.
A tad bit cynical, don't you think? Sure, there are politicians on both sides of the aisles who are calculating bastards who use people for personal gain. But to say that those leaders who had risked helping others to be treated like human beings, whether they were blacks, gays, workers, etc, at the possible ruination of their careers, had only done so for the sake of getting people to take the government teat insults the cause of civil rights which so many had fought and died for.
1. I'm talking about NOW, not 50 or however many years ago
2. I like insults
3. Stop pretending to be more affected by civil rights improvements than the people for which those civil rights improvements were intended
4. Don't bother lecturing me about #3, I'll just laugh.
14 Sep 2014, 12:06 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
14 Sep 2014, 12:15 am
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But the right has always striven to be heartless and evil, so they're simply accomplishing what they had set out to do.
And the left as always striven to be simpleminded and childish.
Mission accomplished!
Seeing to it that people have civil rights protection, workers rights protection, a social safety net for those with disabilities, in poverty, or are unemployed, and all the other humane efforts that make life livable for most people, is simpleminded and childish?
Any interest democrats have in "civil rights" and the "social safety net" (a.k.a hammock) is only to secure votes by keeping enough people on the teat. And before you go there, I've never claimed that the republicans are any better about doing anything other than appeasing their kind to secure votes. The difference with me is that I don't pretend that a pig's ass isn't pork.
A tad bit cynical, don't you think? Sure, there are politicians on both sides of the aisles who are calculating bastards who use people for personal gain. But to say that those leaders who had risked helping others to be treated like human beings, whether they were blacks, gays, workers, etc, at the possible ruination of their careers, had only done so for the sake of getting people to take the government teat insults the cause of civil rights which so many had fought and died for.
1. I'm talking about NOW, not 50 or however many years ago
2. I like insults
3. Stop pretending to be more affected by civil rights improvements than the people for which those civil rights improvements were intended
4. Don't bother lecturing me about #3, I'll just laugh.
1. Civil rights are still relevant today, especially in the face of voter suppression, and now for gay marriage.
2. Of course you do.
3. I don't pretend I'm more affected by civil rights improvements, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate and support those improvements. All Americans should feel that way.
4. And I can laugh right back.
And as I'm loathe to admit it, Dox is right
- this thread is supposed to be about ISIS, and it should return to that point.
