T1B

trev wrote:For those who think the government should take care of the "helpless", define helpless.

help·less
–adjective
1. unable to help oneself; weak or dependent: a helpless invalid.
2. deprived of strength or power; powerless; incapacitated They were helpless with laughter.
3. affording no help.


hope this helps.....

trev wrote:For those who think the government should take care of the "helpless", define helpless.

You.

Felix wrote:help·less
–adjective
1. unable to help oneself; weak or dependent: a helpless invalid.
2. deprived of strength or power; powerless; incapacitated They were helpless with laughter.
3. affording no help.


hope this helps.....

adj. - democrat

Martyred wrote:

trev wrote:For those who think the government should take care of the "helpless", define helpless.

You.

I knew you would be right along with a typical stupid remark.

RadioFan wrote:form of student loans, military service or food stamps.

Uhh, those are loans paid back with interest to the government.

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote:even folks who are able-bodied need some kind of help at one point or another, whether that be in the form of student loans, military service or food stamps.

Military service is a professional career not a form of public assistance.

Not for some it isn't. The military is constantly advertising about free tuition and/or gaining skills for the private sector, not making a career out of it.

RumpleForeskin wrote:

RadioFan wrote:form of student loans, military service or food stamps.

Uhh, those are loans paid back with interest to the government.

Thanks, Marcus.

The topic is government help, at one time or another. I know it's difficult, but at least try to keep up. Douche.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:Why should "we as a people" spend resources on the most worthless dregs of society?

Maybe because a society is often judged by how it treats its most unfortunate members. Just a thought.

The fed gov should crush their skulls, drag them with a wire for a little while, and then toss 'em in the trash.

Let's get some consistency up in this bitch.

mvscal wrote:Those are benefits, idiot.

And it's government help.

mvscal wrote:
Military service is a professional career...

And that's where your country went wrong.

Creating a militarist caste that's out of touch with civilian reality and light years away from the vision of a
"well-armed citizenry" your founding fathers envisioned.

That's okay. You'll just keep blowing your cock-snot over your Sparta fantasies, complete with steamy scenes
of *cough* fraternal *cough* camaradery. You know, sweaty men, bonding together under fire, hugging 'n stuff.

poptart wrote:The fed gov should crush their skulls, drag them with a wire for a little while, and then toss 'em in the trash.

Let's get some consistency up in this bitch.

Is that what Jesus would do?

RadioFan wrote:

poptart wrote:The fed gov should crush their skulls, drag them with a wire for a little while, and then toss 'em in the trash.

Let's get some consistency up in this bitch.

Is that what Jesus would do?

In all fairness, I think 'Tart was just reading from the Korean Canine Cookbook, or, KCC as it's known in
culinary circles.

Marty.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Most are severely mentally retarded. Some are not mentally retarded, but are so emotionally disturbed that they can't function

Is that some kind of technical jargon for being from Kansas City?

It's a good day there if nobody goes to the hospital.

Fucking WORD.

-JSC

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote:Creating a militarist caste that's out of touch with civilian reality .

Link?

Here's one Vietnam vet's opinion. I happen to agree with him.
"Bacevich is, for instance, fascinating on evangelical Christianity (and its less than war-like earlier history) as well as on the ways in which the military, after the Vietnam debacle, rebuilt itself as a genuine imperial force, separated from the American people and with an ethos "more akin to that of the French Foreign Legion"

BTW, Bacevich's son, 1st Lt. Andrew J. Bacevich, got zapped in Iraq two months back. But I'm sure you'll hold that against him too.

mvscal wrote:Fucking sheep.

If your family or friends refuse to take responsibility for you, you can die in the gutter for all I care.

And yet you support public education right?

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

mvscal wrote:Those are benefits, idiot.

And it's government help.

No, it's contractually stipulated compensation for services rendered.

As are student and business (SBA, for example) loans.

mvscal wrote:Offering loans is a service not compensation for services rendered.

Actually it's the reverse of services rendered in your example.

With military service, you agree to give something to the government, and they agree to pay you back with free tuition and benefits. With student and SBA loans, the government helps with benefits up front and the recipient agrees to pay it back. You're right, a pretty simple fucking concept.

Rack 88.

mvscal wrote:So your paycheck is just your company's way of helping you out, right?

No, my paycheck is for services rendered. Nor did I enter into an employment contract with my company under the stipulation that they can order me around 24-hours a day, tell me where I'm going to live, when to eat and when to shit for 4 years, then pay for my college tuition, either.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:..... His nag, ERRR, "wife,"

damn, even terry's trying to sidestep the mvscal word substitution thing.

mvscal wrote:So you do understand the difference between compensation owed to an individual as opposed to a service offered to an individual.

What is this, an Abbot and Costello routine?

If you're asking me if I think the government owes anybody anything, then no, that's not what I'm saying. Unless, of course, one agrees to contractually serve the government with the stipulation that it will owe you for services rendered. Thus, the tuition perks ...

I think the government has an appropriate role in student and SBA loans, and even welfare and food stamps. Are people going to abuse the system? Of course. Do I like it? Fuck no.

If you gamble personal and civic responsibility for a "do nothing", "underachieving", "apathetic" lifestyle in order for having the Government feel good crew take care of you when you can't anymore?

You deserve what you'll recieve.
and
NO
it wasn't the fault of those who didn't play your fucked up game, wipe the moldy cheese and dead roaches off the floor, spit shine it until you find the real reason looking right back at you.

Abso-fuckin'-lutely.

[tangent] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was you and I, Y2K, who agreed that able-bodied people who don't have a lot of money don't necessarily have to contribute to being poor.

i.e. If you live in a shithole and can afford rent, that doesn't mean you can't clean up the fucking trash in your yard and mow it. It doesn't mean that just because Maria or Tyrone or Clint has toys strung out all over the yard, that one has to emulate laziness, not to mention a neighborhood or community. Nor does it mean that just because Jose or Nappyhen or Bubba doesn't understand the difference between "tree" and "tired" gives one any excuse for leaving tires in the yard. [/tangent]

End of rant.

Btw, I have a college student renting in the house next to mine. These experiments are verified, at least when it comes to mowing the lawn. (No tards -- we don't have tires, trash nor toys in our yards, only clumps of Rack Fu horrors, given how much rain we've had in the last 6 weeks.)

Jsc810 wrote:Who has the duty "to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves"? According to almost 7 out of 10 Americans, government has that responsibility.

James Madison would beg to differ:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Truman wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Who has the duty "to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves"? According to almost 7 out of 10 Americans, government has that responsibility.

James Madison would beg to differ:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Madison also owned slaves. Should we also consult his views on race for use in modern day public policy?

RadioFan wrote:

poptart wrote:The fed gov should crush their skulls, drag them with a wire for a little while, and then toss 'em in the trash.

Let's get some consistency up in this bitch.

Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would take his jokes over to .net ........ where tomas gets them.

RadioFan wrote:(No tards...)

'didio, just where the fuck do you think you're posting at?

Haven't I eviscerated you enough already for the presumption?

You annoy me, boy.

BSmack wrote:

...Yet Madison's words still hold true to this day.

You might wanna wipe the irony off your feet before you go and track in another straw man, B...

Truman wrote:

BSmack wrote:

...Yet Madison's words still hold true to this day.

You might wanna wipe the irony off your feet before you go and track in another straw man, B...

So in other words, you can find no words to refute my contention that a man who has been dead nearly 200 years and who's passing predates more than half of all the Amendments to the Constitution and nearly all the legal precedents used to support the current system of welfare and entitlement programs might not be the best motherfucking person on earth to quote on this subject?

Got it.

BSmack wrote:
So in other words, you can find no words to refute my contention that a man who has been dead nearly 200 years and who's passing predates more than half of all the Amendments to the Constitution and nearly all the legal precedents used to support the current system of welfare and entitlement programs might not be the best motherfucking person on earth to quote on this subject?

Got it.

What I got was yet another example of a patented, fallacious BStraw argument.

But since you brought up the subject of "more than half of all the Amendments to the Constitution and nearly all the legal precedents used to support the current system of welfare and entitlement programs" predating Madison's death ...

You DO realize that the 13th Amendment abolished the abhorrant practice of slavery in this country, do you not? Now, if you would simply cite the Article in the Constitution that bestows Congress the authority to provide cradle-to-grave entitlements to the "less fortunate" at taxpayer expense (predating Madison, of course), then I will happily allow you to resume your daily role as the Board's town pump.

Oh, no hurry... I'm sure a progressive-leaning SCOTUS will find it for you in about 20 years.

War Wagon wrote:

RadioFan wrote:(No tards...)

'didio, just where the fuck do you think you're posting at?

Haven't I eviscerated you enough already for the presumption?

You annoy me, boy.

To wit.

Welfare?

Nope.

If idiots like WW want to better themselves? Sure.

Like 88 said, everybody deserves a second chance. Even dumbfuck forklift drivers and their "wifeys."

OK, maybe not.

poptart wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

poptart wrote:The fed gov should crush their skulls, drag them with a wire for a little while, and then toss 'em in the trash.

Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would take his jokes over to .net ........ where tomas gets them.

poptart wrote:Let's get some consistency up in this bitch.

Indeed.

I think the word people were looking for is choices.

Anyone can be a victim or a survivor...given the attitude for either.

BSmack wrote:

Truman wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Who has the duty "to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves"? According to almost 7 out of 10 Americans, government has that responsibility.

James Madison would beg to differ:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Madison also owned slaves. Should we also consult his views on race for use in modern day public policy?

What, exactly does owning slaves during a time when that was a common practice have to do with the spending guidelines of congress?

Ang wrote:I think the word people were looking for is choices.

Anyone can be a victim or a survivor...given the attitude for either.

Government help works both ways.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:It's a good day there if nobody goes to the hospital.

So... I take it, you're referencing the rare days when Mrs Norbit doesn't sit on a tard for acting up?

No, I'm referencing the rare days when the kids don't go postal after they've been frightened by a pic of Sue Bird.

I need to consult one of the KC Tards to get a ruling on this one. Did you just bust out some epic "I know my wife is a disgusting, KFC-inhaling wildebeest, but what is Sue Bird?" smack? Am I supposed to be insulted by that remark?

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote:
Madison also owned slaves. Should we also consult his views on race for use in modern day public policy?

What, exactly does owning slaves during a time when that was a common practice have to do with the spending guidelines of congress?

Absolutely nothing, which is why he posted it. It's an old lawyer's trick. When you can't attack the facts, go after the witness.

Truman wrote:

BSmack wrote:
So in other words, you can find no words to refute my contention that a man who has been dead nearly 200 years and who's passing predates more than half of all the Amendments to the Constitution and nearly all the legal precedents used to support the current system of welfare and entitlement programs might not be the best motherfucking person on earth to quote on this subject?

Got it.

What I got was yet another example of a patented, fallacious BStraw argument.

But since you brought up the subject of "more than half of all the Amendments to the Constitution and nearly all the legal precedents used to support the current system of welfare and entitlement programs" predating Madison's death ...

You DO realize that the 13th Amendment abolished the abhorrant practice of slavery in this country, do you not? Now, if you would simply cite the Article in the Constitution that bestows Congress the authority to provide cradle-to-grave entitlements to the "less fortunate" at taxpayer expense (predating Madison, of course), then I will happily allow you to resume your daily role as the Board's town pump.

Oh, no hurry... I'm sure a progressive-leaning SCOTUS will find it for you in about 20 years.

A very brief perusal of the Constitution yields Article I, Section 8. You know, the part about giving Congress the power to, amongst other things, "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States".

IMNSHO, it is most definitely NOT the role of the federal government to care for the destitute, handicapped, ill, aged, etc. It's just another sign of Americans' piss-poor grasp of government's proper role (and their own frigging laziness) that they think that shuffling off the messy problem off to the federal government is the answer. No number of emotional appeals featuring weepy vignettes of elderly invalids doesn't change the argument.

It is not the role of federal government to "take care of us," save us from our own stupidity, or micromanage every frigging aspect of our lives (health care, education, etc.). Citing the Constitution's "general welfare" bit to rationalize government's meddling in "well-meaning" ventures is a dangerous opening for increasing government power and contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers (whose status as slave owners or "dead white guys" is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand).

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." --Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison (Letter to Edmund Pendleton)

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison (Letter to James Robertson)

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson