blake murphy wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:52:11 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:30:13 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:43:12 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the
>>>>>>>> fate of those who not only have dreams, but follow through on
>>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I'm saying those who have dreams should follow them but not
>>>>>>> insist others do the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you insist that they support the lazy and unambitious?
>>>>>> Especially when they tend to breed like flies?
>>>>>
>>>>> you'd rather they die like flies instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> blake
>>>>
>>>> What do you get when you feed starving people?
>>>>
>>>> More starving people.
>>>>
>>>> People should not breed what they cannot afford to support.
>>>> It's not fair to the rest of us that breed responsibly...
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm seriously in to personal
>>>> responsibility!
>>>
>>> just about no one got where they are purely as a result of their own
>>> personal efforts. when growing up, you went to school that someone
>>> else paid for. your got to school on roads that someone else paid
>>> for. you are protected by a police force that somebody else paid
>>> for. etc., etc.
>>>
>>> the idea that everyone is solely responsible for their own success
>>> or failure is a false one, and some need more help than others.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> I have no problem with them getting help, so long as they eventually
>> "get there" so they can start helping back. Not living their entire
>> life on the dole...
>
> what do you think the percentage of parasites is compared to the
> percentage of people who really need help? how do you distinguish
> between the two? and given the pittance that any of these people
> actually get, is it really worth the amount of ****ing and moaning
> that some non-poor people do about the tremendous 'burden' placed on
> them? don't forget, we're talking about eleven percent of the
> federal budget.
>
> don't you think it might be better to bitch about the thirty-some
> percent spent on the military? do we really need to spend almost as
> much as the rest of the world combined?


Yup, since we are the *sole* superpower and there are a LOT of pukes out
there who would "act up" even more than they already do if there was a
vacuum of US military power...

Your kind of pacifist thinking was de rigeur in the US in the post - WWI
period, blake - and you know what *that* led to...


--
Best
Greg