Abegweit
Anarchist trader
You really have no shame, do you? F off.
Assorted personal political thoughts.
- Thread starter LightSpectra
- Start date
You really have no shame, do you? F off.
Pot calling the kettle black, huh?
useless
Social Justice Rogue
I am confident Abegwit personallys knows and understands the situation of every person and family who are on welfare, individually.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
I won't have a civilized discussion with anyone who starts with that taxes=theft crap. There's no point.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Says the guy who just posted an enormous straw man in the other thread.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Indeed. You have lived up to your promise. Congrats.
I am confident that I know far more of them than you. And most of them, as I said, are bureaucrats.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,811
Not only do I sence arrogance and the type of jerkness banned in the Tavern in this statement but I would to know how welfare aids not benefit the people.
I am also amused with the notion that "civil servants are evil." Without Sir Humphrey you cannot set proper structure and effeicient action within a democratic goverment.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Sence [sic] what you want. 70% of welfare money goes to bureaucrats. And most of the rest goes to bribe poor women to kick the fathers of their children out of their lives. How does any of this benefit people, other bureaucrats and selfish women?
I have no idea who Sir Humphrey might be. I do know that you need to learn how to use a spellchecker.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
I understand it's your sthick to hate bureaucrats (without acknowledging that there is some need for bureaucracy in a functioning society) but there are undoubtedly more people who are not bureaucrats that are on welfare than there are actual bureaucrats.
But yeah, it's clear you don't really understand the situation, and that you're not interested in reality, but more interested in enforcing your ideology, regardless of who suffers.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
[Citation needed]
What are you, some sort of Male Right's activist?
Also, much like those who recieve welfare, you really have no idea what the reason for kicking the "fathers out" in each woman's individual case.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,811
Because all single mothers are selfish and the welfare money is a conspiracy of a keptrocracy.
This Brit is amused.
Sir Humphrey is a characture from Yes Minister. He is the Permanent Secretary for the Department of Administrative Affairs: basically a high rank civil servant. His case is wll noted through the series. Yes Minister is a good TV program I suggest the watching of.
I also know how to use a spellchecker... but I think the forum rules had a intresting bit on trying to use such notions in fueling your debate.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
I've noticed that "Men's Rights" is a lot like "Christian Rights." They appear to be defined roughly as "the right to be in charge." Both groups try to hijack the language of genuine victims when, in reality, they are merely losing the stature they held in the past. The fact that someone is reading a Richard Dawkins book on the bus next to you is not exactly the same as being thrown to the lions.
That said, the truly radical feminists do kinda bug me. I'm talking about the "98.5% of male-female sex is actually rape" types that go way way way waaaay off the deep end. Granted, I think rape is what creates this level of feminism, so I can't blame them for being bitter if they were victimized. Still, I think the idea that women and men are going to "live separately" in some kind of permanent sense is the height of silly wish thinking and is every bit as surreal as the worst of the religious right's 'Left Behind' daydreaming.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Let's be clear about this. My stance is that there is no need for mindless paper-pushers who lord over other peoples' lives. None. I do need acknowledge any need for thieving nannies.
This is factually wrong.
Yeah. Right. The situation clearly proves that we need still more nannies and still more thieves. This is a basic axiom of the universe that lefties live in. No matter how many nannies and how many thieves there are, we always need more. Always.
What I really don't understand is this idea that theft benefits the people stolen from. Explain please.
As a Civ player, I can't help but say 'the bureaucracy [took me a few tries to remember how to spell that] is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy'
I love how Wikipedia has totally invaded our collective consciousness when it comes to making statements of fact! I'd like to see a source too, mind.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Given that you haven't cited ANY sources for your original 70% claim...
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
I have never heard of "Christian Rights". I think it's something you made up. But back to the question: do you think that the State bribing women to kick the fathers of their children out somehow empowers women? I submit that it empowers bureaucrats.
Grow a pair. Seriously. You need to become a man. Do you even know that means?
Hard work. Honesty. Decency. Be someone admirable. That's what a man does. A man protects women. But he does not support lies. And he does not bow down to woman's childish whims.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Cite your source for the "70%" claim.
"Woman's childish whims"? Pray tell what does that entail?
"Woman's childish whims"? Pray tell what does that entail?
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
I don't even know where to begin. I obviously agree with a lot of that, but just not the way you're spinning it. Of course a man should be decent, honest, and skilled/hard working etc. I also think that men have a duty to physically protect women when the need arises for obvious reasons. The rest of what you said is pretty much the maddened screed of a throwback.
