Really... right/left in politics is stupid.

Page 2 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

diseased
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 870
Location: Victoria, BC

25 Oct 2006, 10:06 pm

Corvus wrote:
Why is it you want to keep me barely above poverty, myself, while keeping others under it? I'd be benefitting society more if I had money.


Don't attribute that to me, man. I had nothing to do with that plan, and I think, in its current incarnation, it's a waste of money and time.
I'm also not going to waste my time defending ANY government, in light of the fact that I think they're all, to one extent or another, just collections of useless, parasitical, greedy bastards.
Every now and then a decent idea gets implemented, but it's rare.

My original point was that I thought you were painting all welfare recipients with too broad a brush. Yes, many do abuse the system. By the same token, many don't. They're the ones the system is for. Welfare (US and Canada) DOES need to be reformed, but not eliminated.



Corvus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,674
Location: Calgary

25 Oct 2006, 10:51 pm

oh, well forget everything I said then because I didnt respond correctly and we're on the same page :wink:



Xuincherguixe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: Victoria, BC

26 Oct 2006, 2:12 am

The thing about politics, is that what's supposed to happen is that somehow, people work together.

You wouldn't know it from the way it's reported on the news, but the various politicians do frequently do exactly that.


Even though I don't like the right (more the far right really), they do have some good ideas. The fact that they are 'on the other side' doesn't mean that a good idea suddenly becomes bad (mind you by the magic of politics good ideas do frequently turn into bad ones, but I don't think any party has a monopoly on that)

The fact of the matter is, the main dividing line in politics is between insightful, and short sighted policies. I mean, is there really that much a difference between a policy that grinds the rich up for hot dog meat, and one that grinds up the poor? (That's a rhetorical question.)


A short sighted conservative might decide that he hates the disgusting poor people, and that if they want money they should get some frick'n jobs. The result of this being all manner of economic damage from suicide,crime, and the fact that less money will be flowing (poor people spend most of their money). A short sighted Liberal might see, oh! these people can't get jobs. Let's just give them money. Well it's much more humane, it still fails to address many problems. Such as that these people will feel worthless.

When both sides start looking at the bigger picture, there is a good chance they would reach similar conclusions, or at least come up with solutions the other side is more likely to accept (let's keep people that absolutely refuse to compromise ever out of this. Most of those people need serious therapy and should stay out of politics anyways). Such as in order to get welfare they have to do something like say, dig ditches, or government programs to help train people for jobs and help them find some. (I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, just giving an example)


The world is a complicated place, and more than answer often exists. This is part of why politics exists. So let's all keep an open mind about everyone else. Most of the places that do tend to be a lot less violent too as an added benefit.