Obama's war on men.

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Obama's war on men.

I think we know what Bama's reelection is all about: Turning the government into every woman's daddy when they're child and every women's husband when they're and adult.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-julia-ad-and-the-new-hubby-state/2012/05/11/gIQAcRdoIU_story.html

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia

So in Obama's world, men will be either sperm donors or worker bees that only pay taxes for all the women that can't get anything better than a deadbeat dad. It's all about subsidizing deadbeat dads and the women that get knocked up by them. What a country!

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10717
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Obama = more smart

Obama = more smart Americans, Romney = more stupid Americans.
Good to know, thanks.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I think we know

EXC wrote:

I think we know what Bama's reelection is all about: Turning the government into every woman's daddy when they're child and every women's husband when they're and adult.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-julia-ad-and-the-new-hubby-state/2012/05/11/gIQAcRdoIU_story.html

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia

So in Obama's world, men will be either sperm donors or worker bees that only pay taxes for all the women that can't get anything better than a deadbeat dad. It's all about subsidizing deadbeat dads and the women that get knocked up by them. What a country!

 

 

Thus concludes our public service announcement on misogynistic conspiracy theories.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I find it rather

 I find it rather condescending and demeaning to assume that Julia is such a blithering incompetent that she couldn't possibly survive and prosper without the "help" of Bama. She seems like a very smart and responsible person. Going to college, working the same job all those years. I suspect that if Bama wasn't involved, Julia wouldn't have to wait until age 42 to start her own web design business. It would be feasible for her to start a business shortly after graduating and by the time she had kids she could send them to a private academy rather than the failure that is our public school system. And then she wouldn't be dependent on social security still existing when she is 67. Because it isn't going to exist, there isn't enough money.

Instead, the smart and competent Julia is bound to a life of mediocrity and dependent upon politicians continuing to give here benefits for almost a century. What happens when Julia reaches 67 and the promised benefits don't exist? You are not "helping" your kids by keeping them living in your house their entire lives so you can provide for them. You help them by providing them the knowledge and skills so they can care for themselves and others. Keeping people dependent on government their entire lives is not helping. Give them an environment where they can build their own success and they don't have to be dependent on government that is fiscally irresponsible and is most likely not going to have the means to keep its obligations.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Thus concludes

Brian37 wrote:

Thus concludes our public service announcement on misogynistic conspiracy theories.

I am being as critical of 'sperm donars' as I am of any woman. But that doesn't matter cause all you got is strawmen and lies.

Enjoy your United States of Entitlement. At least until the Hubby State goes bankrupt.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:Thus

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thus concludes our public service announcement on misogynistic conspiracy theories.

I am being as critical of 'sperm donars' as I am of any woman. But that doesn't matter cause all you got is strawmen and lies.

Enjoy your United States of Entitlement. At least until the Hubby State goes bankrupt.

 

Government always bad until it sucks up to you. Corporate welfare, naw, thats not a nipple.

Keep watching Fucks News, it gets you higher than crack.

FYI it has NOTHING to do with wanting a "nanny state", it has to do with monopolies of power and as long as money corrupts our government and is owned by Wall Street you are not going to get a damned bit of sympathy from me fighting a monopoly.

As long as the right wants tax breaks for the rich and as long as the rich don't give one shit about the pay gap, boo and fucking hoo.

 

Our country is "of the people", not "of the rich only to do the bidding of the rich".

And women vote too, or would you like western society to go back to them being bun factories who stay in the kitchen?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
~~~~

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are not "helping" your kids by keeping them living in your house their entire lives so you can provide for them. You help them by providing them the knowledge and skills so they can care for themselves and others. Keeping people dependent on government their entire lives is not helping. Give them an environment where they can build their own success and they don't have to be dependent on government that is fiscally irresponsible and is most likely not going to have the means to keep its obligations.  

Beyond Saving, do you think genetics plays a role in people being poor?  Some people can't help being losers, it's in their genes.  Our genes are out of our control; the genes design our brains, and our brains rule our lives.  We have extremely limited control over the emotional parts of our brains, and no control over most of it.  I'm not discounting the environment by any means, but genetics plays the larger role in our destiny.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:Beyond

Philosophicus wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are not "helping" your kids by keeping them living in your house their entire lives so you can provide for them. You help them by providing them the knowledge and skills so they can care for themselves and others. Keeping people dependent on government their entire lives is not helping. Give them an environment where they can build their own success and they don't have to be dependent on government that is fiscally irresponsible and is most likely not going to have the means to keep its obligations.  

Beyond Saving, do you think genetics plays a role in people being poor?  Some people can't help being losers, it's in their genes.  Our genes are out of our control; the genes design our brains, and our brains rule our lives.  We have extremely limited control over the emotional parts of our brains, and no control over most of it.  I'm not discounting the environment by any means, but genetics plays the larger role in our destiny.

Entropy itself is a solid scientific law which atheist often use to refute magic and claims of utopias. Life is neither solely environment or biology BUT a combo of both. I myself often could not understand why growing up adopted why I could not conform to my parents "authoritarian" upbringing, but when I meet my biological family I understood where my emotional sensitive nature came from.

So while I rail against Beyond, I cannot fully agree with you on this. Poor is not genetic and there are plenty of people who start out poor who get rich. I see life as a range governed both by order and chaos, much like you can predict a hurricane by climate, but not when the exact second it forms, or the amount of rain or destruction it produces.

Evolution is BOTH nature and environment and cannot exist without either. If Beyond would get a clue he could see what I see. But poverty is not an illness, it is a product of climate. It isn't a matter of judging or genetics, it is a matter of the climate of those at the top willing to maintain the best bottom. You are treating poverty as an illness which is no different than treating it as a crime. Poverty is part of a range, not genetic anymore than our atmosphere will only produce snow.

Beyond's problem is that he sees wealth as solely about choices having nothing to do with luck and that is the ONLY problem I have with him. He has what he has because of both work and luck. I just get pissed at him that he thinks that wealth is the center of the universe when the work of others is what does most of what makes him lucky. I WILL give him credit for his own labor, I will not give credit to the climate that has fostered the gap he thinks is ok and isn't hurting the people below him.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:Beyond

Philosophicus wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are not "helping" your kids by keeping them living in your house their entire lives so you can provide for them. You help them by providing them the knowledge and skills so they can care for themselves and others. Keeping people dependent on government their entire lives is not helping. Give them an environment where they can build their own success and they don't have to be dependent on government that is fiscally irresponsible and is most likely not going to have the means to keep its obligations.  

Beyond Saving, do you think genetics plays a role in people being poor?  Some people can't help being losers, it's in their genes.  Our genes are out of our control; the genes design our brains, and our brains rule our lives.  We have extremely limited control over the emotional parts of our brains, and no control over most of it.  I'm not discounting the environment by any means, but genetics plays the larger role in our destiny.

 

I do think it plays a role. Some people are just plain stupid or have dispositions towards substance abuse/depression/psychological disorders which may or may not be genetic and may make it substantially harder for a person to be financially successful. Obviously, someone born with some kind of serious impairment is going to have difficulties in life that I can't relate to. And in many ways I believe our society does an absolutely abysmal job helping those with serious disabilities, mostly because the majority of people operate under the assumption that the government is taking care of them, when it isn't.

 

I don't think the majority of people currently in our benefit system fit into this category and the woman in this slide show certainly is not. My belief is that the majority of people who are losers (for lack of a better word) are there because they believe that someone else is responsible for their situation. They abuse alcohol and drugs, bounce paycheck to paycheck, have unstable employment etc. because they are constantly told that the rich are "lucky" and therefore believe they can't succeed or simply don't know how to succeed. They sit around bitching about their boss and everyone with more than they have, while doing absolutely nothing to improve their situation. They think someone else is responsible for their problems so therefore, they wait for someone else to fix them when the sad reality is that no fairy god Bama is coming to help.

 

Being self sufficient, say someone who makes $30-40k a year doesn't require you to be particularly smart or talented. I know some really stupid people who make much higher incomes. I think what we should do as a society is to encourage those who are capable to become successful and self-sufficient, and discourage them from having children until they are. Currently, our society encourages them to have children and go through their life remaining fiscally irresponsible. Our benefit system has become in effect an enabler- which any psychologist will tell you is a bad thing, even though in the short term enabling might seem like the nicer thing to do.  

 

I don't know if you have ever had someone close to you with a drug problem, but the worst thing you can do is give that person money when they ask. I know, it seems really cruel because you can guarantee that person will swear up and down it is for food. The they really NEED that money just this once. When you give in, they go buy an 8-ball. You didn't help them, you made their situation worse by "helping". What that person really needs is a reality check, they have to hit rock bottom and realize they are at rock bottom and decide for themselves they want to climb up. Only after they have that realization, can you offer them real help and turn their life around.

 

For those who are truly incapable of caring for themselves I have no problem helping out. However, I believe that private charity is a far more effective and humane way to care for those people than government. People who work private charities tend to be a lot more in touch with what people really need because they are on the front lines everyday. Government bureaucrats that sit in a cubicle making decisions based on paper applications in front of them are simply incapable of having that kind of perspective. Government is by definition bound by laws and regulations written by people who are extremely removed from the situation. A charity can adapt to attempt to serve needs a lot more quickly- they don't need permission of a bureaucrat in DC. I do have to note that large charities can suffer from similar problems, which is why most of my charitable donations go to very small charities with a handful of exceptions. The larger a group of people, the more inefficient it will be and the more resources it will waste.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:For

Beyond Saving wrote:

For those who are truly incapable of caring for themselves I have no problem helping out. However, I believe that private charity is a far more effective and humane way to care for those people than government. People who work private charities tend to be a lot more in touch with what people really need because they are on the front lines everyday. Government bureaucrats that sit in a cubicle making decisions based on paper applications in front of them are simply incapable of having that kind of perspective. Government is by definition bound by laws and regulations written by people who are extremely removed from the situation. A charity can adapt to attempt to serve needs a lot more quickly- they don't need permission of a bureaucrat in DC. I do have to note that large charities can suffer from similar problems, which is why most of my charitable donations go to very small charities with a handful of exceptions. The larger a group of people, the more inefficient it will be and the more resources it will waste.

I totally agree with you, Beyond. Plus, alot of people that work in private charities do so, either because of personal experience or because of a family member that may suffer from a similiar disorder. One of my biker bros lost a child to leukemia. He gives a whole lot of volunteer time and money for children with cancer. He even organized a giant motorcycle run for it. 

Far better than a government bureaucrat has ever done for anyone.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:Thus

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thus concludes our public service announcement on misogynistic conspiracy theories.

I am being as critical of 'sperm donars' as I am of any woman. But that doesn't matter cause all you got is strawmen and lies.

Enjoy your United States of Entitlement. At least until the Hubby State goes bankrupt.

 

And the solution in your eyes is to cut taxes (you remember them - the way the country pays for stuff?) on the people and corporations who don't pay them to begin with?  Are you just wanting to make sure the people who don't need entitlements get them? Or is this the old "privatize the profits and socialize the costs" mantra?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Beyond

harleysportster wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

For those who are truly incapable of caring for themselves I have no problem helping out. However, I believe that private charity is a far more effective and humane way to care for those people than government. People who work private charities tend to be a lot more in touch with what people really need because they are on the front lines everyday. Government bureaucrats that sit in a cubicle making decisions based on paper applications in front of them are simply incapable of having that kind of perspective. Government is by definition bound by laws and regulations written by people who are extremely removed from the situation. A charity can adapt to attempt to serve needs a lot more quickly- they don't need permission of a bureaucrat in DC. I do have to note that large charities can suffer from similar problems, which is why most of my charitable donations go to very small charities with a handful of exceptions. The larger a group of people, the more inefficient it will be and the more resources it will waste.

I totally agree with you, Beyond. Plus, alot of people that work in private charities do so, either because of personal experience or because of a family member that may suffer from a similiar disorder. One of my biker bros lost a child to leukemia. He gives a whole lot of volunteer time and money for children with cancer. He even organized a giant motorcycle run for it. 

Far better than a government bureaucrat has ever done for anyone.

True enough but we both know that the average person just won't stand for a multitude of private charities. Most of them (at least in my area) think we have too many now. Do we stretch the private charities thinner and thinner until they need to get on the dole? Or should they practice stricter austerity measured than they already do (not everyone who applies to private charities gets help)?

Like it or not, there are some things that government can do better than the private sector. That is, of course, when people aren't screaming about how high their taxes are when they don't pay any.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: And the

jcgadfly wrote:

 

And the solution in your eyes is to cut taxes (you remember them - the way the country pays for stuff?) on the people and corporations who don't pay them to begin with?  Are you just wanting to make sure the people who don't need entitlements get them? Or is this the old "privatize the profits and socialize the costs" mantra?

I want to put the costs of government services on the people who create the need for them. The current system is ridiculous and unsustainable.

We subisidize land users, water users, polluters, and people that have kids they can't take care of themselves, etc... So over time just exepct that what you reward you'll get more of, what you punish you'll get less. Just common sense.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to see that current system punishes beneficial behaviors and rewards those that create poverty and environmental damage.

Julia's parents are rewarded for having a daughter they can't afford. Julia is rewarded for not get and education and a job to take care of herself. Obama just wants more dependency on him. He's using women's natural tendency to look for a provider to get their vote.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

And the solution in your eyes is to cut taxes (you remember them - the way the country pays for stuff?) on the people and corporations who don't pay them to begin with?  Are you just wanting to make sure the people who don't need entitlements get them? Or is this the old "privatize the profits and socialize the costs" mantra?

I want to put the costs of government services on the people who create the need for them. The current system is ridiculous and unsustainable.

We subisidize land users, water users, polluters, and people that have kids they can't take care of themselves, etc... So over time just exepct that what you reward you'll get more of, what you punish you'll get less. Just common sense.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to see that current system punishes beneficial behaviors and rewards those that create poverty and environmental damage.

Julia's parents are rewarded for having a daughter they can't afford. Julia is rewarded for not get and education and a job to take care of herself. Obama just wants more dependency on him. He's using women's natural tendency to look for a provider to get their vote.

 

And taxing corporations and the rich folk who are underpaying along with sensible spending cuts (cut defense, not education) would help solve the problem. I'm not even asking for Eisenhower level taxes - going back to the tax rates under Clinton would be a help.

I agree with you on subsidies, btw. Are you for them on corporations or just individuals? It seems that corporations suddenly lose their personhood when asked to pay taxes

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And taxing

jcgadfly wrote:

And taxing corporations and the rich folk who are underpaying along with sensible spending cuts (cut defense, not education) would help solve the problem. I'm not even asking for Eisenhower level taxes - going back to the tax rates under Clinton would be a help.

Why is that when we go into the gociery store, the "fair" price one should pay is based on the cost of producing the product. But with taxes, "fair" is based how much you earn? Not at all based on how much cost your business and lifestyle produce in services.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I agree with you on subsidies, btw. Are you for them on corporations or just individuals? It seems that corporations suddenly lose their personhood when asked to pay taxes

I don't understand why the cost for any individual or group can't be calculated then given a bill. Businesses do it all the time. Why can't government operate the same.

People want to make lifestyle choices and then pass the costs of these onto other people. That is all politics has become.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:And

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And taxing corporations and the rich folk who are underpaying along with sensible spending cuts (cut defense, not education) would help solve the problem. I'm not even asking for Eisenhower level taxes - going back to the tax rates under Clinton would be a help.

Why is that when we go into the gociery store, the "fair" price one should pay is based on the cost of producing the product. But with taxes, "fair" is based how much you earn? Not at all based on how much cost your business and lifestyle produce in services.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I agree with you on subsidies, btw. Are you for them on corporations or just individuals? It seems that corporations suddenly lose their personhood when asked to pay taxes

I don't understand why the cost for any individual or group can't be calculated then given a bill. Businesses do it all the time. Why can't government operate the same.

People want to make lifestyle choices and then pass the costs of these onto other people. That is all politics has become.

Because what one earns is how much one is paid for producing the product called labor. 

Government does do that - that's what taxes are. If they acted as businesses the bill would include the cost of the product, the cost of labor, fees they have to pay out and a significant markup for shits and giggles. You're getting mad because you're getting off cheap? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Government

jcgadfly wrote:

Government does do that - that's what taxes are. If they acted as businesses the bill would include the cost of the product, the cost of labor, fees they have to pay out and a significant markup for shits and giggles. You're getting mad because you're getting off cheap? 

Income tax is far from a bill for services rendered.

If you decide no longer to shop at your grociery store, the stores costs go down by a similar amount of your spending cut. The amount of labor needed to service your food consuption goes down by a correlated amount.

If you stop working and go on welfare. The government's costs for delivering services to you go up. This is why we are going bankrupt and income tax is a major reason why. It's highly irrational to have a reverse correlation between cost and benefit.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca