For those that think im asking for sympathy , get out now. But if this type of situation
happens to me, then im sure many other share the same too. So enlighten me to why
this is supposed to be fair.

Me:

As my family is divorced , father is none resident of Canada . because of that, each month we have to pay $200 fine for living
in the house. As well as we have to still pay for property tax each year ( $11,000 ) , add those 2 together, $1160 per month gone.

compared to refugees accepted / adopted by slow Canadian governments:

Refugees :

Receives welfare of $900 per month , $ 300 per child per month. No tax , lives in free government housing.
Free education , free local college.

Now , i pass by the area daily and what do i see , i see some shops they open supposed to be (clothing store)
but instead, we see 10-20 jackets hang randomly , and nothing else BUT smell of marijuanna.

By now, everyone know they are just pot sellers ( the whole block's buisness are drugs / prostitution etc etc )

While waiting for bus, i see a refugee with 5 children , we end up chatting. I said " wow it must be hard taking care of so many"

the refugee replied " girl , the government pays ME , the more children i have, the more i get from government each month "

So yes, now im mad . How hard i work and it goes to pay for something like this.

This is justice? this is fair?

*** you canada government.


Problem #2 ok , there are 5 raccoons living in my roof.
After paying $600 for the removal and patching the rest up , there is ANOTHER problem.
It is illegal for the animal control to relocate the raccoons. What does this mean?
It means it'll either return to my house and i have to pay another $600 , or it'll go to someone else 's house.

So yes *** you canada government atleast make it legal for us to drop the raccoons off the park.
Im not paying $600 everytime this happens

Problem #3 , * you too refugees, we took you into Canada, used our tax to give you a better life so you dont have to suffer.
What do you do in return to repay us? you use the money to buy and sell drug , use it to buy illegal weapons.

You are turning our city into the very same hell hole we rescued you from. Oh Thank you so much.

Oh I can top that.

My mate Deacon, who was my first and only friend in England from the age of 11 - 14, has had to move to Milton Keynes (the Devils Layby!) recently. Why?

Well, when he and his family moved into their previous home, there was an initial hiccup with the Rent payments. The Landlord had given them the wrong account details, and the Direct Debit from Deacon's account didn't go out. Now this time, nicely sorted out by paying cash. Hurrah! Proper details are sorted, next payment goes without a hitch, Paul forgets about it, which is kind of the idea about Direct Debits.

Anyways, Christmas last year, he gets a phonecall from his Landlord informing him that he's not received the Rent for TEN BLOODY MONTHS, and has only just got round to chasing Deacon up. Obviously, this is a massive problem for a young family of 5 (D and his Missus, Little'un and the Twin Sprogs). Deacon checks with his bank, and yup, no payments had left the account. Neither the Bank nor the Landlord had informed him of this. Kicking himself for not having checked either, he faces eviction.

So he goes round the Council, only to be effectively told 'Oh, sorry to hear that, but since you've actually paid tax into the system, you can go and feth yourself!'

Nothing. No help, whatsoever. A very young, tax paying family sidelined as 'not being a priority'. What a crock!

Seems par for the course any more.. Governments are so interested in helping the poor they end up instituting a system where they reward poor decision making and outright laziness over hard work and personal discipline.
For example, here in South Carolina lately, due to the economy, we've been having part shortages at my job so what ends up happening is I work one week for 60 hrs and the next one for 20. Any week that I work less than 24 hrs in I get an unemployment check from the state as well. Now, I'm not going to knock unemployment. It's a nice safety net, but check out this doozy: I get paid more like this, even on my slow week than I do with a regualr 40 hr check.
Due to funny income taxes, I bring home 3/4 of my pay for 20 hrs, then my unemployment covers roughly 1/2 of my pay. So in a 20 hr week I get paid 5/4 of my normal pay. In the 60 hr week I should get paid 7/4 of my normal pay, but because of taxes I get paid something more like 6/4 of my pay.
So.. work 40 hrs and get paid 1/1 of my normal pay for 1/1 of my normal effort, work 60 hrs for 6/4 my normal pay for 6/4 of my normal effort or work 20 hrs for 5/4 of my normal pay for 1/2 my normal effort.. Now which choice is more enticing? Get paid more to do less? yes, please!! And I'm just a regular working stooge who hates being dependent on anyone and I already know how to manage my money well enough to not need to worry about a couple of intermittent crappy pay checks.
To me this is an active assault on my principles.. Nothing that made this country great is rewarded any more. Hard working, determined people hell-bent to make it on their own in the name of their own personal independence are now the caretakers of the slackers who do nothing but generate income outside of the law to avoid taxes and capitalize on social programs to live higher on the hog than others trying to do right. Now, it's getting to the point that the lower middle class keeps finding handouts from the government that only entice us to stop working our damn selves..

My sister and I owned a rental house, which was the house that I grew up in that was left to us when our parents died. My other sister was renting it from us when in 2006 it caught fire and burned, but not completely. My sister died of smoke inhalation but the unified government of Kansas City Kansas and Wyandotte County started harassing us about getting the house demolished pretty much the next day. First, I had to get a special permit just for the demolition contractors to be on the property, then I had to coordinate with the various utilities companies and the demo people to get the utilities shut off in the legal manner, which is unbelievably complicated. Then, I had to go to court every thirty days and explain to the grumpy judge why the demolition was not finished yet. Regardless of the fact that the complications were coming from the government, It seemed he was content to threaten me with a $2,500 fine. At the same time, my sister I live with was in and out the hospital with various ailments and she was on so many medications that she barely knew where she was most of the time. After all of the expenses, fines and other expenses, we finally got everything finished two years later and ended up going through all of the money we got from the insurance company and another couple of thousand dollars. This is why every time anybody asks me, I tell them in no uncertain terms KANSAS CITY KANSAS SUCKS!!!. Don't move here, don't let anyone move here. I would move if I could afford it, even if I had to go to some part of the country with a greater risk of natural disasters.

LunaHound wrote:Problem #2 ok , there are 5 raccoons living in my roof.
After paying $600 for the removal and patching the rest up , there is ANOTHER problem.
It is illegal for the animal control to relocate the raccoons. What does this mean?
It means it'll either return to my house and i have to pay another $600 , or it'll go to someone else 's house.

No, it means take a baseball bat, golf club, crobar, hammer, axe, shovel, or other improvised or actual weapon and kill it... this may seem barbaric to you, i dont know you, i dont know what kind of person you are. Failing that, buy a have-a-heart trap and relocate it yourself, or if it has done something you feel makes it worthy of death, but you still don't want to do it, find a friend who wount mind and ask them to kill it for you. I realize this was not the intention of this thread, but you seem upset so i'm trying to give you a solution.

Dude! Down South, we eat the little fethers! Kill them and send me the carcasses and I'll have a barbeque with the extra free time and money I'm getting from our broken social programs! WIN! And don't worry, I'll post pics too of me and the in-laws gorging ourselves and I'll see if I can find that how-to for tanning hides so I can make raccoon skin hats to send back to you

Edit: oh for feth's sake.. you can't say C00N in it's proper usage without Dakka Dakka getting all up and arms at you?

Luna, racoon removal would be easiest if you owned a gun, but you're in Canada. In the meantime, just put some rat poison and put it in the attic. I promise if you put enough of it they'll die.

mcfly wrote:Luna, racoon removal would be easiest if you owned a gun, but you're in Canada. In the meantime, just put some rat poison and put it in the attic. I promise if you put enough of it they'll die.

But no one wants to dig up dead raccoon family hiding between the insulation .

It took the animal control 6 hours to find them all. Not to mention sticking their head in the
roof space ( its not actually an attic thats why its so hard )

They your best bet is the have-a-heart traps, if you cant get one, you can make one out of chicken fencing and some thick wire.

EDIT: FYI Just because you "have-a-heart" doesn't mean you have to let them live.

fun story about have a heart traps: every year when I was young in Ottawa, there used to be lots of groundhogs that would come around. so, in order to get rid of them, my dad would get his have a heart trap out, and catch them. We then drove them down to the experimental farm and released them =P. also, one year we caught a skunk. we managed to get rid of it without too much hassle, but boy was it scary... looked like a ticking time bomb...

My friend traps squirrels in have a heart traps and drowns them. He does this because they keep getting in his garden and doing anti-garden things, so he really hates them. One time he caught a skunk and right when he was about to drown it he realized it wasn't a squirrel.

He also has bats in his belfry and a monstrous furnace, but those are irrelevant to the topic of trapping small creatures.

Life isn't fair, and then you die

with #1.
...and people wounder why i dont like socilalism....

with #2
1. get a havaheart trap
2. catch the raccoon with the trap
3. fill bath tub with watter
4. while raccoon is in said trap, put it in bath tub that has been filled with watter
5. dispose of raccoon... and beware of zombie raccoons (turn them into stew and make a hat out of them and i doubt they could zombify)

with #3
take that problem. X it by 1,000,000 and you have the same problem the USA has with mexico.

#1 Nothings is perfect there will always be some free loaders.

#3. People will do what they know, thats been thier whole lives and thier parent's lives.Cycles are hard to break.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Milton Keynes (the Devils Layby!) recently.

Don't insult Milton Keynes

LunaHound wrote:Problem #2 ok , there are 5 raccoons living in my roof.
After paying $600 for the removal and patching the rest up , there is ANOTHER problem.
It is illegal for the animal control to relocate the raccoons. What does this mean?
It means it'll either return to my house and i have to pay another $600 , or it'll go to someone else 's house.

....this is a joke, right? You pay them 600 bucks to get the c00ns out of your house and then they just leave them there because relocating is illegal??? How the fething feth does this make any fething sense???
I know it's a long shot, but have you ever tired just writing a letter to the mayor or something like that? To me this sounds like a real problem. Is there a Zoo around or something which can take them in?

themandudeperson wrote:Seems par for the course any more.. Governments are so interested in helping the poor they end up instituting a system where they reward poor decision making and outright laziness over hard work and personal discipline.

"Isn't a man entitled to the sweat of his own brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor."

Seriously, when I hear stories like that, Andrew Ryan had a pretty good idea

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Oh I can top that.

My mate Deacon, who was my first and only friend in England from the age of 11 - 14, has had to move to Milton Keynes (the Devils Layby!) recently. Why?

Well, when he and his family moved into their previous home, there was an initial hiccup with the Rent payments. The Landlord had given them the wrong account details, and the Direct Debit from Deacon's account didn't go out. Now this time, nicely sorted out by paying cash. Hurrah! Proper details are sorted, next payment goes without a hitch, Paul forgets about it, which is kind of the idea about Direct Debits.

Anyways, Christmas last year, he gets a phonecall from his Landlord informing him that he's not received the Rent for TEN BLOODY MONTHS, and has only just got round to chasing Deacon up. Obviously, this is a massive problem for a young family of 5 (D and his Missus, Little'un and the Twin Sprogs). Deacon checks with his bank, and yup, no payments had left the account. Neither the Bank nor the Landlord had informed him of this. Kicking himself for not having checked either, he faces eviction.

So he goes round the Council, only to be effectively told 'Oh, sorry to hear that, but since you've actually paid tax into the system, you can go and feth yourself!'

Nothing. No help, whatsoever. A very young, tax paying family sidelined as 'not being a priority'. What a crock!

If it was the case that the payments just weren't leaving their account then surely the rent money would still be there building up month on month? Why can't he just pay the outstanding amount from this?

If the money wasn't leaving the but he just just subsequently spent it anyway, then its hard to have much sympathy for him. I heard this excuse from an ex flatmate of mine. For whatever reason the direct debit wasn't coming out of his bank account but he just spent it anyway. Even a bit of simple arithmetic would make you suspicious if you had an extra £300 in your balance each month. Needless to say he didn't stay my flatmate for much longer.

slow New Yorkers move to the place I call home. The parents send their children to live with G'ma/G'pa/Aunt etc. etc. cause they're too stupid to pass some Regent test or something, bringin my scores down. Also, these sh itheads get free lunches, because they're mom and dad don't live together, yet pops drives a Lexus. Also retards think it's cooler to live in the projects than a real house, cause they could get a $300 pair of shoes every 2 weeks, and now they have too wait a month. Why, oh why govt. can't you just sanction the sterilization/extermination of morons like this?

I propably won't win this thread, but I believe we should start a petition to the govt. and Obama to have a mass sterilization done. Cruel? Not if it's done to the
right people.......

For raccoons and squirrels and the like, I have used a commercially available predator-scent product successfully. It's one thing to try and relocate a varmit. It's another to convince it to leave by tricking it into thinking that there's a coyote or a bobcat living next door

As for the social issues - yup, them's the breaks. My wife and I made good choices, bought a house that was within our means, didn't splurge on status symbols like SUVs or 'luxury houses'. Net result - we're the ones stuck paying taxes to bail out those who lived well beyond their means and are now crying to the government that they're losing their homes&cars.

LuciusAR wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Oh I can top that.

My mate Deacon, who was my first and only friend in England from the age of 11 - 14, has had to move to Milton Keynes (the Devils Layby!) recently. Why?

Well, when he and his family moved into their previous home, there was an initial hiccup with the Rent payments. The Landlord had given them the wrong account details, and the Direct Debit from Deacon's account didn't go out. Now this time, nicely sorted out by paying cash. Hurrah! Proper details are sorted, next payment goes without a hitch, Paul forgets about it, which is kind of the idea about Direct Debits.

Anyways, Christmas last year, he gets a phonecall from his Landlord informing him that he's not received the Rent for TEN BLOODY MONTHS, and has only just got round to chasing Deacon up. Obviously, this is a massive problem for a young family of 5 (D and his Missus, Little'un and the Twin Sprogs). Deacon checks with his bank, and yup, no payments had left the account. Neither the Bank nor the Landlord had informed him of this. Kicking himself for not having checked either, he faces eviction.

So he goes round the Council, only to be effectively told 'Oh, sorry to hear that, but since you've actually paid tax into the system, you can go and feth yourself!'

Nothing. No help, whatsoever. A very young, tax paying family sidelined as 'not being a priority'. What a crock!

If it was the case that the payments just weren't leaving their account then surely the rent money would still be there building up month on month? Why can't he just pay the outstanding amount from this?

If the money wasn't leaving the but he just just subsequently spent it anyway, then its hard to have much sympathy for him. I heard this excuse from an ex flatmate of mine. For whatever reason the direct debit wasn't coming out of his bank account but he just spent it anyway. Even a bit of simple arithmetic would make you suspicious if you had an extra £300 in your balance each month. Needless to say he didn't stay my flatmate for much longer.

Well indeed, Deacon feely holds his hands up to his part in this debacle. But it's more the councils attitude that a young family were not a priority. Single mother? No problem! Immigrant, no problem! And you know, fair enough. But come in. Dude has 3 very young children and a partner needing a roof over their head. How the situation arose is less important to the story than the way the council handled it.

That is bull
refugees should have to pay the same amount as anyone else
if they live there they pay to live there
refugees from where anyway
I guess the welfare system suck whereever you go
as for the racoons are they harming you?
if no than you shouldnt have to worry about them if they are just living there
just have them pay rent

I'm glad the US at least fixed the earned income credit (EIC) on our taxes, so now people can only claim a total of 2 dependents. Kinda discourages having more than 2 kids.

let me ask you why this is fair
dvc has dorm rooms(unlike other comunities colleges)
but there only for foreign students
while student that live here have to pay 1600$ to live about 1/2 mile away if they moved here from somewhere else while foreign student live on campus for free

What the hell happened to your signature.

Are you talking to me Tacobake?
what do you mean

garret wrote:Are you talking to me Tacobake?
what do you mean

I should have been specific. I meant Luna and I was being semi-sarcastic. I get yours, a game or something.

I am a big fan of the idea that the government shouldnt support the poor/illegals. Why you may ask? Cause all it does is feth over the non-lazy who actually want to do something with their lifes. The Above is a perfect example of this!

We give them free food, free/low income houses, free medical, (Yes its free... if you show up to an ER and cant pay by law they cant turn you away, thats why your Bill is so high cause your paying for every person that has ever stiffed the system), Free Money and countless handouts in every way shape or form from cloths to cars.

I also wish that the government would bulldoze every last building in every shantytown/ghetto/trailor Park. Dont want to be homeless? Upkeep your building and dont turn it into a drug slum.

Dont want to starve and have a roof over your head? Get a job! Dont sit at home with 10 kids waiting for the food stamps to show up while cooking meth in the kitchen.

Oh lord dont even get me started on Mexico right now....
That country just needs to fall off the face of the earth.

LunaHound wrote:

mcfly wrote:Luna, racoon removal would be easiest if you owned a gun, but you're in Canada. In the meantime, just put some rat poison and put it in the attic. I promise if you put enough of it they'll die.

But no one wants to dig up dead raccoon family hiding between the insulation .

It took the animal control 6 hours to find them all. Not to mention sticking their head in the
roof space ( its not actually an attic thats why its so hard )

Moth Balls and Cayenne Pepper.

let me ask you why this is fair
dvc has dorm rooms(unlike other comunities colleges)
but there only for foreign students
while student that live here have to pay 1600$ to live about 1/2 mile away if they moved here from somewhere else while foreign student live on campus for free

What is dvc?

Most colleges charge extra to students who come from out of country or out of state. I'll also bet that the college gets federal monies for having a certain amount of foreign students at their college. So giving the foreign students free room and board encourages them to go there, and nets the college extra cash. Fair? Not by a long shot. How to deal with it? File a discrimination suit against them. To my knowledge, any colleges that are funded by government monies (state or federal) are subject to the Equal Opportunity Act. And suing people and organizations seems to be the American way now.

Ironhide wrote:What is dvc?

Diablo Valley College

i dont go there as a full student so i can really do anything.
me im all for the concept of welfare just not the way its put out.
i think it should only be given for 8 month straight(the time it take to find a job) and you have wait 4-5 years in order to apply again
but dont think we should help illegal immirgrants
why because it incurages more to come in

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Oh I can top that.

My mate Deacon, who was my first and only friend in England from the age of 11 - 14, has had to move to Milton Keynes (the Devils Layby!) recently. Why?

Well, when he and his family moved into their previous home, there was an initial hiccup with the Rent payments. The Landlord had given them the wrong account details, and the Direct Debit from Deacon's account didn't go out. Now this time, nicely sorted out by paying cash. Hurrah! Proper details are sorted, next payment goes without a hitch, Paul forgets about it, which is kind of the idea about Direct Debits.

Anyways, Christmas last year, he gets a phonecall from his Landlord informing him that he's not received the Rent for TEN BLOODY MONTHS, and has only just got round to chasing Deacon up. Obviously, this is a massive problem for a young family of 5 (D and his Missus, Little'un and the Twin Sprogs). Deacon checks with his bank, and yup, no payments had left the account. Neither the Bank nor the Landlord had informed him of this. Kicking himself for not having checked either, he faces eviction.

So he goes round the Council, only to be effectively told 'Oh, sorry to hear that, but since you've actually paid tax into the system, you can go and feth yourself!'

Nothing. No help, whatsoever. A very young, tax paying family sidelined as 'not being a priority'. What a crock!

I'd like to se so rich that I'd be unable to spot that my bank account had 10 months of extra money in it I was planning to pay as rent.

LunaHound wrote:
As my family is divorced , father is none resident of Canada . because of that, each month we have to pay $200 fine for living
in the house. As well as we have to still pay for property tax each year ( $11,000 ) , add those 2 together, $1160 per month gone.

Please help me understand Luna what is the 200.00 dollars for exactly?
Is the nonresident status a choice?

jp400 wrote:
I also wish that the government would bulldoze every last building in every shantytown/ghetto/trailor Park. Dont want to be homeless? Upkeep your building and dont turn it into a drug slum.

Nice.

So what then would you propose to do about the (millions of) homeless?

thats exactly what san francisco did
then they all came to my town
thats the same year that all the gangbangers came to my highschool

Okay. There is light to be shed. It gets Sicarius now.

LunaHound wrote:
Refugees :

Receives welfare of $900 per month , $ 300 per child per month. No tax , lives in free government housing.
Free education , free local college.

The Government is REQUIRED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW to give that money to refugees. However, it is just the money that they get. Nothing else. They CAN get scholarships, the money is just so they survive. Most refugees can't speak a WORD of English, so the Gov't gives them education to LEARN English so they can get a job. It costs a lot more than $900 to live with decent food and shelter.

LunaHound wrote:Now , i pass by the area daily and what do i see , i see some shops they open supposed to be (clothing store)
but instead, we see 10-20 jackets hang randomly , and nothing else BUT smell of marijuanna.

That's a huge stereotype. They escape their countries to LIVE and not be tortured and executed in horrifying ways. Not to get high. That smell of marijuana might explain something about your neighborhood. Not trying to be personal!

LunaHound wrote:By now, everyone knows they are just pot sellers ( the whole block's buisness are drugs / prostitution etc etc )

No. You THINK they are pot sellers. I explained earlier that they escaped to survive. People make jokes all the time about Cubans coming to Canada to sell crack. It's easy money if you can get away with it, so why blame them? They're not even refugees! It's not like people born in Canada don't end up selling pot themselves.

LunaHound wrote:While waiting for bus, i see a refugee with 5 children , we end up chatting. I said " wow it must be hard taking care of so many"

the refugee replied " girl , the government pays ME , the more children i have, the more i get from government each month "

There is a good reason for that. Children, food, shelter, and clothing as a whole costs a hell of a lot of money. That woman probably mis-worded what she meant, the Gov't doesn't PAY her, but HELP her. She probably didn't know that much English at the time. If YOU had 5 children, you'd be getting money too. EVERY person in Canada with a child under 18 gets money from the Gov't.

LunaHound wrote:So yes, now im mad . How hard i work and it goes to pay for something like this.

If you lived in Canada for most of your life, you would think that. If you came from a war-torn country for salvation, you would be thankful with a feeling of safety. That's what you NEED after escaping a country where death and destruction rule over.

LunaHound wrote:This is justice? this is fair?

Indeed it is. Truth hurts, don't it?

LunaHound wrote:*** you canada government.

Yes, our Gov't saves people so it must really suck, right?

People will never be happy until THEY get what THEY want without thought of others. That's how life is. If Russia were to declare war on the United States, YOU would be running too. YOU would likely run to either Britain or the States because Canada would be the battleground (since it's halfway between the two countries).

Of course, there is the possibility that you are mistaking refugees for immigrants, which are completely different from one another.

No YOU are stereotyping assuming i dont know whats going on in that area. EVERYONE in my city know whats going on in that area . How dare you claim i dont know and im just stereo typing.

The government gave them a new chance a new life in Canada to start. They dont use the opportunity to make something out of themselves, instead abuses the system.

Truth hurts? no your comprehension does hurt my brain cells .

Read exactly what i type and stop trying to twist my words.

Where in Canada do you live? if you live in Vancouver area i can point exactly where im talking about just so you can shut up and think i know nothing about their situation.

efarrer wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
As my family is divorced , father is none resident of Canada . because of that, each month we have to pay $200 fine for living
in the house. As well as we have to still pay for property tax each year ( $11,000 ) , add those 2 together, $1160 per month gone.

Please help me understand Luna what is the 200.00 dollars for exactly?
Is the nonresident status a choice?

The $200 is in some sort of ratio with us renting out the house ( to my cousin)
so basically he pays us, we receieve some sort of income, and we have to pay the government penalties

Because right now the house while half belongs to my mom ,yet the ownership belongs to my dad. Which his citizenship expired long ago.
None resident choice status..... he would of course perfer not to lose it. However, it was his choice to never come back to canada ( divorce )

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:

LunaHound wrote:This is justice? this is fair?

Indeed it is. Truth hurts, don't it?

it isnt fair
y,now why
they go to his/her country and get free stuuf basically and they repay them by turning it into a shithole where drugs and prosttution run rampant
how bout this for a law "if you come to a country you have to get a F***ing job"
god and people wonder why the economy is gak

efarrer wrote:

jp400 wrote:
I also wish that the government would bulldoze every last building in every shantytown/ghetto/trailor Park. Dont want to be homeless? Upkeep your building and dont turn it into a drug slum.

Nice.

So what then would you propose to do about the (millions of) homeless?

Simple, they can become a productive and positive member of a community and do something worthwhile.... Or starve/die.

I honestly could care less about the gang bangers, illegals, meth heads, and other oxygen thiefs that plague this country. I feel that our government has grown so soft that warm butter is harder then they are. Most of this would be solved if our Police were better funded and were allowed a firmer hand when dealing with these idiots.

I mean seriously, who the feth was the idiot that decided to allow illegals to get drivers licenses, Stimulas Checks, free health care, and the right to vote or even hold a fething job here in this country? Oh right, the families of the illegals who are also illegal complained to the white house and like the spikeless freakshow that is our government we bend over backwards for them.

Oh and Mexico, we will stop shipping guns to your country when you stop shipping your unwanted non-english speaking hordes to ours.

Gah!

And the Gangers complain when the law cracks down on them cause in there eyes, Being part of a fething gang is "culture". We yeah bacteria is also a culture yet millions of people scrub away every day trying to eradicate it.


We should do the same with the gangs......

Lets look at it this way.

How much does an average family spend?

Tax, food , morgage , property / income tax , utilities ( all the bare minimum )

The refugees? all covered. Now if they all have LEGAL jobs , i have absolutely no problem with helping them.

BUT if the parents arnt grateful enough to do something legal from the money they drain from the system
what make you thinnk the 5 children for example raised by them under the same ideas are going to grow up any better?
If not repeat the same problems?

Multiply them generation after generation how much money do you think tax payers have to feed this?

This is also just the tip of an iceberg .


*EDIT

@ the guy that just doesnt seem to get it

You wouldnt even know it if you catch someone reaching into your pocket for your wallet.
Bet you think they are giving you a free hand job?

To be fair I'm sure 90% of all refugees/Immigrants to any country do work their arse off and end up providing a net contribution to their new home. its just the other 10% that give them a bad name. About the same ratio that you'll find in the native population in my experience.

Lazy scumbags are Lazy scumbags whether them be a refugee or not.

Working or not, if your here illegally you need to GTFO!

If you have a green card welcome to your new home!

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/ref/illegal_alien_numbers.html

40 million illegals in the US and growing.....

You know, some in europe think that we're barbaric and hypocritical for wanting to kick illegal aliens out.

There was a case where a man raped a woman, there were witnesses and strong evidence against him but the case was thrown out because he couldn't speak english, came from a small tribe in africa(could find no translator), and based on that he couldn't get a fair trial. This was against his right to get said fair trial. We should have an english speaking clause or something in the constitution.

@Luna
That actually does sound like total garbage. The truth is, the refugees were born in a war torn country so why should they not handle the situation and leave while we handle the situation and give them money?

Work hard, thousands on welfare depend on you.

RAAAR. Stupid reffuges fleeing war. Stupid Immagrants looking for a better life. Stupid minorities and other poor people, having tosell thier body because the have no skills no hope and no future. Oh and most importantly, stupid gangbangers, who grow up in a hell hole in a place with gakky schools and no jobs. Going out in the Streets every night hoping to sell 50 dollars of pot to some frat guys and not get killed by an Big cartel, beat silly by cops or robbed by custemers. And yep they spend it on shoes clothing and fansy cars, it's the only way they garner respect from thier peers andthe outside world. Whatelse are they going to do? Save up move out and then what? Sure there are most who go to thier crappy schools, graduate, don't make enough money at burger king to cover a sick kid, dying parent, or other trama. What do you do? You can't get a loan. Your crappy job doesnt have health insurance, your parents are as poor as you are. You do what you have toto survive. You sell the only things the people with the money want to buy from you, drugs or your very body.

I find it funny how people on top can complain about their, oh so heavy, burdens of a few tax dollars that are killing them when they don't know CRAP about true misery or suffering. When your parents die from a treatable disease because the city mill they worked at didn't give insurance, or watch your kids suffer because your crappy job doesn't have insurance. To know thatyour grandparents were poor, your parents were poor, you're poor, and your kids will be poor. Hell everybody around you is poor. All of your family tree is poor. And when you plead for help, you are scorned, threatened to be sterilized, bulldozed. Your music, culture, dress style, way of speaking and even your features, are mocked. You are blamed for all of society's ills. All you see are 3 ways to sucsess, Rapping, sports, or illegal drug, prostitution sells. Better hope you have a good grasp of the English language or at least a football.

I don't mind though, It's the well to do people who complain about taxes and go out on the weekends to buy coke the snort off a hooker's rear end.

It's a cycle thats refered to as "the game" or "the trap" Nobody hardly ever retires from prostitution or drug dealing, and so veryfew realise the dream of "Making it out of the hood." Try ling your life knowing you'll be dead by thirty Either by a brutal rape/murder if your a prostitute, or by a mob hitman, cop, custumer, rival, robber, if your a seller. You have no past, no future, no family, no friends, nothing. All you have is the dread that's always there, that this night could be your last. You know a cold vionlent lonely death is all you have to look forward to. That's real suffering, ad unending misery. The $200 bucks a year you lose in taxes isn't SH@$.

Interesting point. In Britain the percentage of immigrants living off benefits is massively below the percentage of the native populace.

sexiest_hero wrote:RAAAR. Stupid reffuges fleeing war. Stupid Immagrants looking for a better life. Stupid minorities and other poor people, having tosell thier body because the have no skills no hope and no future. Oh and most importantly, stupid gangbangers, who grow up in a hell hole in a place with gakky schools and no jobs. Going out in the Streets every night hoping to sell 50 dollars of pot to some frat guys and not get killed by an Big cartel, beat silly by cops or robbed by custemers. And yep they spend it on shoes clothing and fansy cars, it's the only way they garner respect from thier peers andthe outside world. Whatelse are they going to do? Save up move out and then what? Sure there are most who go to thier crappy schools, graduate, don't make enough money at burger king to cover a sick kid, dying parent, or other trama. What do you do? You can't get a loan. Your crappy job doesnt have health insurance, your parents are as poor as you are. You do what you have toto survive. You sell the only things the people with the money want to buy from you, drugs or your very body.

I find it funny how people on top can complain about their, oh so heavy, burdens of a few tax dollars that are killing them when they don't know CRAP about true misery or suffering. When your parents die from a treatable disease because the city mill they worked at didn't give insurance, or watch your kids suffer because your crappy job doesn't have insurance. To know thatyour grandparents were poor, your parents were poor, you're poor, and your kids will be poor. Hell everybody around you is poor. All of your family tree is poor. And when you plead for help, you are scorned, threatened to be sterilized, bulldozed. Your music, culture, dress style, way of speaking and even your features, are mocked. You are blamed for all of society's ills. All you see are 3 ways to sucsess, Rapping, sports, or illegal drug, prostitution sells. Better hope you have a good grasp of the English language or at least a football.

I don't mind though, It's the well to do people who complain about taxes and go out on the weekends to buy coke the snort off a hooker's rear end.

It's a cycle thats refered to as "the game" or "the trap" Nobody hardly ever retires from prostitution or drug dealing, and so veryfew realise the dream of "Making it out of the hood." Try ling your life knowing you'll be dead by thirty Either by a brutal rape/murder if your a prostitute, or by a mob hitman, cop, custumer, rival, robber, if your a seller. You have no past, no future, no family, no friends, nothing. All you have is the dread that's always there, that this night could be your last. You know a cold vionlent lonely death is all you have to look forward to. That's real suffering, ad unending misery. The $200 bucks a year you lose in taxes isn't SH@$.

Haha , nice and long i'l sum it up for you.

"bad choices"

Too many childrens to feed? use a stupid condom , so the stupidity wont spread
Buy fancy car and blings to get respect from your peers? haha pathetic
Their life expectancy is 39?ok?, just dont drag others into it.

You know sexiest_hero , listening to gansta rap trying to justifying their doing can only make sense to their fellow pot smokers thats
high beyond any basic comprehension.

I hope you realize something hero , the way the current system is going , and how we are all supposed to play saints?
It will not be able to keep up exponentially with feeding the lazy. Oh wait, it already couldnt.

And let me just say this... if Mexicans can cross border , live in USA, STEAL american Jobs
why the ************************ make you think an american born in the getto cannot do the same.
I'll tell you why, its the trash " Get rich doing illegal things or die trying" thats killing them
NOTHING ELSE. bad choices simple as that.

LunaHound wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:RAAAR. Stupid reffuges fleeing war. Stupid Immagrants looking for a better life. Stupid minorities and other poor people, having tosell thier body because the have no skills no hope and no future. Oh and most importantly, stupid gangbangers, who grow up in a hell hole in a place with gakky schools and no jobs. Going out in the Streets every night hoping to sell 50 dollars of pot to some frat guys and not get killed by an Big cartel, beat silly by cops or robbed by custemers. And yep they spend it on shoes clothing and fansy cars, it's the only way they garner respect from thier peers andthe outside world. Whatelse are they going to do? Save up move out and then what? Sure there are most who go to thier crappy schools, graduate, don't make enough money at burger king to cover a sick kid, dying parent, or other trama. What do you do? You can't get a loan. Your crappy job doesnt have health insurance, your parents are as poor as you are. You do what you have toto survive. You sell the only things the people with the money want to buy from you, drugs or your very body.

I find it funny how people on top can complain about their, oh so heavy, burdens of a few tax dollars that are killing them when they don't know CRAP about true misery or suffering. When your parents die from a treatable disease because the city mill they worked at didn't give insurance, or watch your kids suffer because your crappy job doesn't have insurance. To know thatyour grandparents were poor, your parents were poor, you're poor, and your kids will be poor. Hell everybody around you is poor. All of your family tree is poor. And when you plead for help, you are scorned, threatened to be sterilized, bulldozed. Your music, culture, dress style, way of speaking and even your features, are mocked. You are blamed for all of society's ills. All you see are 3 ways to sucsess, Rapping, sports, or illegal drug, prostitution sells. Better hope you have a good grasp of the English language or at least a football.

I don't mind though, It's the well to do people who complain about taxes and go out on the weekends to buy coke the snort off a hooker's rear end.

It's a cycle thats refered to as "the game" or "the trap" Nobody hardly ever retires from prostitution or drug dealing, and so veryfew realise the dream of "Making it out of the hood." Try ling your life knowing you'll be dead by thirty Either by a brutal rape/murder if your a prostitute, or by a mob hitman, cop, custumer, rival, robber, if your a seller. You have no past, no future, no family, no friends, nothing. All you have is the dread that's always there, that this night could be your last. You know a cold vionlent lonely death is all you have to look forward to. That's real suffering, ad unending misery. The $200 bucks a year you lose in taxes isn't SH@$.

Haha , nice and long i'l sum it up for you.

"bad choices"

Too many childrens to feed? use a stupid condom , so the stupidity wont spread
Buy fancy car and blings to get respect from your peers? haha pathetic
Their life expectancy is 39?ok?, just dont drag others into it.

You know sexiest_hero , listening to gansta rap trying to justifying their doing can only make sense to their fellow pot smokers thats
high beyond any basic comprehension.

I hope you realize something hero , the way the current system is going , and how we are all supposed to play saints?
It will not be able to keep up exponentially with feeding the lazy. Oh wait, it already couldnt.

And let me just say this... if Mexicans can cross border , live in USA, STEAL american Jobs
why the ************************ make you think an american born in the getto cannot do the same.
I'll tell you why, its the trash " Get rich doing illegal things or die trying" thats killing them
NOTHING ELSE. bad choices simple as that.

let me ad to that.
they can get out of the ghetto any time they want. they have legs dont they
y,know there are alot of jobs out there that have GREAT health insurance that require little experiance
take me mom for example? she work at a returant supply store and she has good health insurance
or how about a trucker or well theres alot of them out there like that
whats stopping them? laziness and blaming it on "THE MAN"

Yep, ok let's use your example.

So Bob walks out of the ghetto. He is now homeless as he can't afford the higher rent in other areas. He applies for a job. On the application it says 'Address'. Application denied.

It really isn't as simple as walking out of the ghetto and getting a job, otherwise everyone would do it. Do you really think people enjoy living in poverty?

Greebynog wrote:Yep, ok let's use your example.

So Bob walks out of the ghetto. He is now homeless as he can't afford the higher rent in other areas. He applies for a job. On the application it says 'Address'. Application denied.

It really isn't as simple as walking out of the ghetto and getting a job, otherwise everyone would do it. Do you really think people enjoy living in poverty?

Then how does Mexican do it on such scale that the American workers felt enough impact to hold strikes?

Luna, volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter. You badly need the life experience.

where i live its easy for homeless people to get again
GREAT JOBS that pay alot
and he could have well y,know do better in school if he wanted to get him and his kids out of the ghetto
or he could have saved up money instead of duying nice shoes or fancy cars inorder to pay some rent to live
atleast for 2 months
let me reiterate
BAD CHOICES!!!!

BloodofOrks wrote:Luna, volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter. You badly need the life experience.

Im not saying poverty doesnt exist no.

Im saying people arnt holding themselves responsible , and let their bad choices
get away with simple excuses.


So can someone explain how does mexicans that jumped fence managed to do
all the things someone from ghetto cant ? *edit Please someone answer this?

I assume you meant reiterate when you wrote illiterate, how ironic.

And where do you live that it's easy for homeless people to get great jobs? It's not like that in South East London.

The way you and Luna are talking garret, I assume you've always lived comparitively comfortable lives, is this correct?

my bad
no i always havnt
there was a time when my mom didnt have money and i lived with my grand parents
my cousin is trying to get out of the ghetto right know
its hard but its not impossible
she is actually trying unlike other
atleast she know it her own fault
also i dont need you reminding me about my bad laguage skills
i get teased enogh about it at school
edit: i live in concord,ca

Greebynog wrote:I assume you meant reiterate when you wrote illiterate, how ironic.

And where do you live that it's easy for homeless people to get great jobs? It's not like that in South East London.

The way you and Luna are talking garret, I assume you've always lived comparitively comfortable lives, is this correct?

Thats by far incorrect . Im the only one in my house that works. I alone pay for property taxes
that doesnt belong to me , i alone pays for all the penalties. Though atm i do live in the house for free ( belongs to father that divorced),
it still totals to $1160 a month i have to pay MYSELF .

*Points
Not everyone raised in a bad position should always end up to crime related choices.
Look at me and my choices.

Allow me to share with you the story of Roy, a homeless man I knew back when I volunteered at the Church of the Immaculate Conception's soup kitchen.

Roy used to work at an insurance company. Roy had no siblings and both his parents had passed on. One day while Roy was cooking breakfast the gas in his apartment went out. He spent an hour looking for the building superintendent and when he found him it turned out they were doing work on a neigbor's apartment and had turned of Roy's gas by mistake. Already late for work, Roy told them to turn his gas back on and went to his job. When he arrived home, his apartment had burned down. Now this was a huge problem for Roy as Roy was an epileptic and his medication was in his apartment and he had forgotten to take it before he left for work. Roy had no close friends so he stayed at a men's shelter that night but was assaulted by another man at the shelter and fled, leaving his belongings and importantly, his ID. That night Roy had a seizure and ended up in a coma. When Roy got out of the hospital, his savings were gone, eaten up by his medical bills. He had lost his job as he had no ID when he was hospitalized so no one had contacted his employer. So Roy ended up homeless.

Some people make poor decisions, others get screwed by circumstances outside of their control. Being born into a poor family in a bad neighborhood screws people over. That is why we have a social safety net to allow those who are willing and able to rebuild their lives after some tragedy or poor choice screws it up. If we did nothing everyone would pay the cost through higher crime, street violence etc.

Also the reason illegal immigrants find jobs (or used to before the economy went to hell) is often because the people who employ them pay them as little as they can manage, force them to work 10-12 hours at a time, give them no benefits and can threaten to have them deported if they cause trouble. In other words they can get jobs because the situation they come from is so desperate that being treated like slaves is a step up for many of these people so long as they can send money home to their wives and kids. The reason some groups of illegal immigrants are organizing strikes is that in many cases they are so abused that the risk of deportation is worth the possibility of improving the working conditions for themselves and others.

bloodoforks im pretty sure you know im talking about the people that abuses the system not people like Roy you just described.

When it comes down to Mexican situation you just discribed , yep thats pretty much it. So it all comes down to again...

choices. Get rich and die trying right? ghetto's way

*edit , and see there obviously is a problem here.
here we are talking about the people that abuses the systems , and we end up
having discussing about Roy that obviously deserve aid from the system.

When can we as humanity weed out and force the abusers to take their responsibility?

Of course not Luna, that's something of a truism.

And garrett, I wasn't trying to mock you, please take no offence.

I would say however, that you two do have comparitevly comfortable lives. Garrett, you had grandparents you could turn to in times of need, and Luna, were you raised in 'the ghetto'? Did you goto school there? Have your family always lived in poverty? Seeing as both of you can afford a hobby as expensive as Warhammer, you really can't be that badly off.

An example for you, annecdotal sure, but a good one. There is a homeless bloke in New Cross (SE London, where I live) that has been homeless and begging in the same spot for the entire time I have lived here (about three years). I say hi to him every day, and give him any spare change, and if I have time, I stop for a cigarette and a chat. About four years ago he was made homeless suddenly due to a truely horriffic event in his personal life. Broke and traumatised he turned to drink. After around two years he stopped drinking and tried to sort his life out. The only accomodation he could get was a squat (no references for landlords, no deposit), from which he applied for jobs too numerous to mention. With no qualifications, a huge gap in his CV, no decent clothes to wear to interviews etc he was turned down for everyone. Then the council got an eviction order, back o the streets for Dave. The house stands empty to this day by the way. Now he's back to square one, no address to put on job applications, no money, no prospects. He desperately wants to help himself, but is hamstrung at every opportunity, and is constantly harrassed by the police, often being arrested and held for hours at a time before being realeased with no charge, never being told why what he had done wrong.

I'd love you to meet him and tell him to just go get a job.

Edit: too slow.

Allow me to clarify: I don't care if people abuse the system. If the government does not help these people with their living expenses then they either turn to crime or become homeless and then we have to deal with that. Bread and circuses Luna. If someone wants to live on the bottom rung of society because they don't want to get a job then I don't care. The burden of paying for abusers is small. Is it fair? No. But the risk of cutting off people who are actually trying to better their lives is more of a threat then allowing a few squatters to leech off the system.

I'll throw another argument for social benefits out there for those cold-nosed fiscal conservatives amongst you. In a time of recession, higher tax on things like savings and income taxes for high earners, spent directly on benefits, can have the effect of boosting the economy. Rather than having money sat about in people's accounts, people are spending it, which promotes economic growth.

Greebynog , by now at page 2 you should know the people im talking about , since first post are people that HAVE assistance from the system and chose to abuse it.

Having warhammer as hobby shows i have a good life? Lets see how it went for me.

ATM , i babysit + assemble / paint for commission , have been doing it for awhile now. And during summer
i teach swimming to people that i babysat and their friends.
When i take commissions , 80% of the time they would rather give me (for example) $200 worth of their army they are bored of instead of $100 cash. I paint their unwanted stuff and sell it to someone else that wants it for good price, and it goes on etc etc.

In other words warhammer for me have nothing to do with how "good" my life is.


@bloodofork: Basically you said " because the officials cannot weed out the abusers , its better to let it be so it wont effect the real needy ones"

Well thats fine, atleast you agreed its still not fair. Now i realize instead of whinning it doesnt do anything, nor we assume The officials have no ways
to weed abusers out.

Well for one, they can limit the amount of children that will receive the benefits. To say 2 per family, and only 1 if its single parent.
This will stop the reckless BREEDING that i stated in the first post and example of people DELIBERATELY making MORE children for the sake of
extra money given from government.


Remember China's one child policy? now that works.
What does canada do? their loop holes encourages the burden on the rest of the country EXPONENTIALLY .

Um, Luna, China "one child policy" has never been demonstrated to have actually controlled China's population. Not only that, but it has resulted in the forced sterilization of tens of thousands and who knows how many forced abortions. I wouldn't go around promoting a system of government controlled reproduction.

BloodofOrks wrote:Um, Luna, China "one child policy" has never been demonstrated to have actually controlled China's population. Not only that, but it has resulted in the forced sterilization of tens of thousands and who knows how many forced abortions. I wouldn't go around promoting a system of government controlled reproduction.

Well , let me explain alittle bit in details regarding that, because silly as this will sound...
it the truth.

China's 1 child policy did result in forced sterilization . But the difference is the culture itself.

The sterilization isnt so much " oops no condom! must do abortion now" no. For the chinese, it was mostly
aborting the FEMALE fetus. Because in their society , they feel males are more capable of taking care of them at their old age.


So again i'lll repeat:

they can limit the amount of children that will receive the benefits. To say 2 per family, and only 1 if its single parent.
This will stop the reckless BREEDING that i stated in the first post and example of people DELIBERATELY making MORE children for the sake of
extra money given from government.

should be implemented to counter this: "I'll make more babies since the government will give me money for each and all of them, more baby = more money"


Now im not sure if you know about Canadian rules , but essentially, government pays MORE than enough to support EVERY single
baby till they are 18.
Do you see why the parents dont mind breeding as many babies as they can now? They have NOTHING to lose, and everything to gain.

Okay, I'll spell this out for you. Children conceived out of wedlock are forcibly aborted by the Chinese government and often both the mother and father are forced to undergo surgery which renders them sterile. And as you have pointed out, since many parents want sons, they abort female fetuses which has resulted in a large gap in gender population which has resulted in a black market which buys and sells female children so that parents can guarantee that their son's will have a wife when they come of age. Policing reproduction results in human rights abuses. Period.

Also back up the claim about women having more kids for welfare dollars with some facts then it might warrant a response. As of this moment, all you've backed your statement up with is hearsay which is useless if we are going to have any sort of rational discussion about this topic.

Another thing, if you cut benefits for extra children, who suffers? The children. It's not their fault their parents are workshy layabouts.

For an interesting view of how all of you are right and all of you are wrong, work in an Inner London school.

People at all levels abuse systems an power, look ad a dictator, or wall street crooks, lieing salesmen and politics. So find me a group where some don't abuse the system. China has horrible human rights violations. It is a poor example. This everybodies fault but mine attitude is getting bad. Like I've said before You haven't seen poor till you visit a 3rd world country, or watch a family lose everything. You'd think conservitaves would be for abortion....

kind of late:
yes know i live a nice life and i can afford warhammer because i have a job
i work all day on the weekend and have no days off ever
and hero i would like it if you didnt insult conservitives
i can say alot worse of leftist
@greebynog: its funny you said that right know because there is this girl campaigning for free medical care for illegal immigrants

"I work all day on the weekend and have no days off ever."

You need a better work contract.

1.I didn't insult anybody. I offered that maybe they should take a hard look at themselves before judging, that maybe the problem is the people who sell drugs but the people who buy them. I could give a damn less about conservatives, but I'll be damn if I'll sit by and let somebody talk about knocking down homeless shanty towns and sterilising people to save 5 bucks on every paycheck.

2nd. An illegal person is still a person. They come, and rich cheap people hire them to do hard work. Would you let a man bleed and die because he doesn't have papaerwork. Don't blame them blame the people that hire them, "Illegaly" I might add.

3rd. This isn't a leftest or rightwing thing, We're dealing with whole groups of people,The homeless, the poor, people who live in the ghetto, Illegal immergents, and refugees, have all been grought up in this thread as the cause of hardships. That is always a first step down a dark road.

Left wing and right wing are just different ideas about the same issue. It doesn't make us mortal enemies, whose party wants to ruin the world.

Simple Lunahound:
There is no justice.

There is JUST US.

Man may make laws, but he cannot make justice.
(and I'm not a believer, so this isn't a pro-god' reference.).

An example for you, annecdotal sure, but a good one. There is a homeless bloke in New Cross (SE London, where I live) that has been homeless and begging in the same spot for the entire time I have lived here (about three years). I say hi to him every day, and give him any spare change, and if I have time, I stop for a cigarette and a chat. About four years ago he was made homeless suddenly due to a truely horriffic event in his personal life. Broke and traumatised he turned to drink. After around two years he stopped drinking and tried to sort his life out. The only accomodation he could get was a squat (no references for landlords, no deposit), from which he applied for jobs too numerous to mention. With no qualifications, a huge gap in his CV, no decent clothes to wear to interviews etc he was turned down for everyone. Then the council got an eviction order, back o the streets for Dave. The house stands empty to this day by the way. Now he's back to square one, no address to put on job applications, no money, no prospects. He desperately wants to help himself, but is hamstrung at every opportunity, and is constantly harrassed by the police, often being arrested and held for hours at a time before being realeased with no charge, never being told why what he had done wrong.

If you feel sorry for the guy, let him move in with you, buy him some clothes, and help him find a job. Instead of giving him your spare change. As the saying goes, "Give a man a fish and he's eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for the rest of his life." For the record, I have encountered these type of people, and a majority of the time all they do is feed you a line so you will give them more money. Why not follow this guy around one day (making sure he doesn't see you) and find out if he really is off the "sauce"? There are programs and services they can avail themselves of if they truly want off the streets.

Another thing, if you cut benefits for extra children, who suffers? The children. It's not their fault their parents are workshy layabouts.

Putting limits on how many children a family can claim for benefits/aid is not wrong and will not cause the children to starve. The parents refusing to work, or find a job, will cause the children to starve. The children won't even starve then if people would report the parents for child neglect. Then they will become wards of the state and get the care and attention they deserve.

Um, Luna, China "one child policy" has never been demonstrated to have actually controlled China's population. Not only that, but it has resulted in the forced sterilization of tens of thousands and who knows how many forced abortions. I wouldn't go around promoting a system of government controlled reproduction.

Then stop buying products made in that country.

Luna is NOT saying poor people, refugees, and such do not deserve aid from the government. Luna is talking about the people who deliberately abuse the system so they do not need to improve their lifestyle and continue to suck benefits away from those who do need them.

im a teen so i cant complain about my work
since its on the weekend
but right know i dont have anything to say because what i thinks has already been said

Thank you Ironhide T-T you seem to be the only 1 that understood my posts.

And you worded way better than i did <3

sexiest_hero wrote:

2nd. An illegal person is still a person. They come, and rich cheap people hire them to do hard work. Would you let a man bleed and die because he doesn't have papaerwork. Don't blame them blame the people that hire them, "Illegaly" I might add.

An illegal person is a person, but by entering the country, I don't know, "ILLEGALY" they are breaking the law. If everyone speeds, then should we remove the speed limit? As to your question about the bleeding, I would have to think about it.

1) I am not legally obliged to help ANYONE. As long as I don't stop at all and walk right past, I am not in the wrong legally.
2) It is against my morals to let someone bleed to death.
3) If I do help, something wrong could happen and I could get sued by the man's family.
4) If I am sued, I will have to pay the family and my career could be endangered, as in never be able to practise medicine in my forseeable future and have to find another career I want to invest time into.
5) College is expensive.

I would probably help him out in the end, but it would take perhaps a minute to do so.

@garret
I'm a teen also, I work on thursday sand weekends because of university. During the summer I do some construction work to supplement my paycheck and I still cannot afford warhammer.

1) I am not legally obliged to help ANYONE. As long as I don't stop at all and walk right past, I am not in the wrong legally.
2) It is against my morals to let someone bleed to death.
3) If I do help, something wrong could happen and I could get sued by the man's family.
4) If I am sued, I will have to pay the family and my career could be endangered, as in never be able to practise medicine in my forseeable future and have to find another career I want to invest time into.
5) College is expensive.

So, you'd rather you had a career in medicine, and the man dies? Personally, I'd go for a lesser job, and we both live.

This is the kind of attitude that will bring our society to ruin. If everyone only looked out for themselves, then the only outcome I can see is that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

halonachos wrote:
I would probably help him out in the end, but it would take perhaps a minute to do so.

It seems that you skipped over this part.^^^^^^

But to answer your question about the whole career thing.

A) I help fellow out, he sues, I can't get a job in medicine, learn from my mistake, never help anyone again, saved 1 person.
B) I help fellow out, he's happy, I get a career in medicine and can help even more people and am even more capable of doing so, saved 1 person + future.
C) I let him bleed to death, regret it, but get medical degree and dedicate my life to helping others in order to make up for letting the guy die, save +future.
D) I let him bleed to death, I have no black marks against me in terms of medicine, I enter the medical field and help people, save +future.
E) I tell him to bleed faster, he lives miraculously.
F) I tell him to bleed faster, he dies.
G) I tell him to bleed faster, and I then get hit by the ambulance coming to help him.

Those are all options and some possible outcomes. So, there are utilitarian beliefs here, but a person IS a person so...(see last post for answer)
I would always hope for outcome B

Alright, that's fair enough - chalk any misplaced annoyance up to differences between our respective countries. I still have difficulty getting my head around the fact you guys have to pay for hospital care, for example.

Do you not have a good samaritan law over your way then ?

Yes, we have a good samaritan law, but if a hospital sees that you could be a higher potential risk to malpractice, then they wouldn't hire you. So, no career for you despite the good samaritan law.

Ambulances are free and they are medical care.

What's up with all this drowning of squirels and raccons? Sounds a bit Dahmerish to me. Why don't you just grab it by it's tail and bash it's head against the wall?

I'm appalled at the anti rodentism.

GG

IIRC, Good Samaritan Laws in the US are different from those in most European countries. Last country I was in (Germany), anyone could provide aid and not have to be worried about being prosecuted.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

To Summarize:

The details of good Samaritan laws/acts in various jurisdictions vary, including who is protected from liability and in what circumstances.[3] Not all jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, in those cases only protecting trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses.[4] In some cases, laypersons are only protected when rendering aid in narrow circumstances, such as during a declared public health emergency.

@Ironhide

I have a choice about buying products from China? Oh my. Seriously, I oppose China's human rights violations not China or its citizens. I was criticizing Luna for romanticizing a public policy which results in millions of people being mistreated, not trying to start an embargo on China.

Like the US has a spotless record on Humand Rights at the moment?

Hey, America has a peerless record if you don't count things that happened before the 21st century.

As to the good samaritan thing, you gotta love the whole consent area. They poke fun at it in "The Incredibles" for goodness sake.

It is sad that when I was in EMT training the first two things we learned were 1) History of the career and 2) Legal matters. Its hard to want to help someone if they are going to sue you for doing so.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Like the US has a spotless record on Humand Rights at the moment?

And thats why the US should pull out of Europe. We are plainly evil, and for the good of humanity should pull all our forces back to the US and US waters.

Yes, america should pull itself out of the world. No more foreign military bases, all US factories will be demolished and rebuilt in america and then 15ft walls will be built around the borders. When the world falls into decay and pleads for help, our leaders will look up and whisper...no.

The watchmen FTW!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Like the US has a spotless record on Humand Rights at the moment?

Nope. But seeing as I spent a fair amount of time during the last four years protesting many of the "spots" being added to the record you certainly don't blame me right?

Nope, you're just a barbaric, bloodthirsty, idiotic american just like the rest of us my friend.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Like the US has a spotless record on Humand Rights at the moment?

I doubt there's any country with a spotless record.

Yes, america should pull itself out of the world.

I believe "Splendid Isolation" has been tried before. It doesn't work.

That said if you were willing to keep your Zac Efrons, Cyrus' etc we'd be very grateful.

Only if you can keep your madonnas and Beckhams.

Japan tried isolation and it worked until an american named Perry sailed in there and said open seys mee.

1. People are always going to try and sue, thats what Insureance is for.

2. I know everybody in the Military is required to provide aid, and protected unless we contribute to their death directly. Medical personel have the same protection.

3.Check out America's tourture boats, secret prisons, and sidesteping the constitution and geneva conventions, and tell me again about our peerless record.

4. You think the treat of being sued is hard, If an enemy is more wounded than a comrade, I have to make sure he gets treatment first.

@Frazzled: Whenever the U.S pulls out of world issues something bad happens.

reds8n wrote:

I believe "Splendid Isolation" has been tried before. It doesn't work.

It does work, if done properly. After all we only entered WWII because Japan attacked us. They only attacked us because we embargoed them. I'm afraid if its good enough for Switzerland, its good enough for me. Its for the good of humanity after all.

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote:

I believe "Splendid Isolation" has been tried before. It doesn't work.

It does work, if done properly. After all we only entered WWII because Japan attacked us. They only attacked us because we embargoed them. I'm afraid if its good enough for Switzerland, its good enough for me. Its for the good of humanity after all.

The US was a founding member of the League of Nations though. Ignoring it's ineffective failed run, the US was involved in international politics before WWII we just didn't go throwing our military around. (Unless it was against Spain of course.)

@hero

I don't know how military medical works...yet.

I do know that if a fireman is hurt while in a burning building, the other firemen will help him first. I believe it goes that you help the one that can be more beneficial, oh and the fact that your human emotions would override your senses and you would rather help a person you know and not some random guy.

As to helping an enemy if he is hurt more, I don't know how this works if it is dictated in some manual or what. I will go and say that this is because of medical beliefes saying that the squeeky wheel doesn't get the oil and the more injured gets treatment first(most of the time). Triage sucks.

Just to clarify... you get the reference yes ?

Not sure that phrase would have been used in your classes etc... or if you'd have even covered that period much.

If it didn't work with a much simpler world economy ( from the British perspective anyway ) back then there's no way it'd work now. Try it. And watch CHina pull all their loans and credit, along with Saudi Arabia and everyone else.

We should remove the U.N while we're at it.

reds8n wrote: Do you not have a good samaritan law over your way then ?

Thats hard to say , because legally, im also a life guard . If im off duty for example,
and someone with AIDS drowns , im still legally held responsible if i dont save and resuscitate the person.

What is the US issue with the UN exactly?

You have to train to control your emotions, they will more than likely get in the way. Youd save the fireman if it was the most expediant thing to do, you wouldn't drop a person you happen to be helping to go back for him. You'd help the Civilain out first, then go back for you buddy,because nobody gets left behind. Firefighters know the dangers when they take the job they know who they have to help first.

The U.N is the butt of many jokes and ridicule,rightfully so. But they have also done plenty good, and present the image of a unified front.

Edit: I don't understand your last comment Luna, are you saying that if the person didn't have AIDS you wouldn't help them, or if the person did have AIDS you'd be hesitant?

Thats funny. Well, you probably don't already know he has aids, and I believe that that's why they make those nifty little mouth covers that you can use, or you could just use a shirt or cloth.

In the grand ol' USA if I am an EMT and I see someone lying on the streets bleeding and I'm off duty I could just as easily say "feth it, I'm going home.". While if I stayed to help, I'm legally obliged to stay there with the bleeder until "equal or better trained" personnel arrive on the scenes.

I always tell people doing stupid and potentially dangerous things "Just because I have EMT training doesn't mean I have to use it.". Yes I am NREMT-B.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:What is the US issue with the UN exactly?

They suck up $billions. Most of that goes to graft.
They are the refuge of bureaucrats and dictators.
They hold Human Rights hearings and then are shocked, shocked when the the Iranian President goes goomba when giving a speech to them.
They do nothing benefitting democracies. They do spend a lot at fabulous ski resorts. Politicans love that.

sexiest_hero wrote:You have to train to control your emotions, they will more than likely get in the way. Youd save the fireman if it was the most expediant thing to do, you wouldn't drop a person you happen to be helping to go back for him. You'd help the Civilain out first, then go back for you buddy,because nobody gets left behind. Firefighters know the dangers when they take the job they know who they have to help first.

But the enemy combatant most likely knows that he's going to get fethed up as well. What if your ally was closer to you than the enemy then, who do you help first?



@reds8n,
We really don't learn about that. We learn the Triple entente, and then we learn about WW1 and go to reasons WW2 was started.

Just because I have EMT training doesn't mean I have to use it."

The old "I'm not going to help you because it might hurt me." way of thinking. It leads to people bleeding to death while everybody walks by and pretends not to see anything. What if it was a loved one laying there bleeding and somebody was to say that and walk by? What happens if it is you? I know I'd help you out, and anyone else. An hero is somebody who steps up and saves a life. To turn away from a dieing person is... the opposite of being a hero.

Ah, but usually I say it to people who are trying to ride an electrical scooter in doors or a similar silly attempt.

An EMT is also trained to fix anything from a cut finger to a guy who has been shot 50 times and is still alive after being hit by a bus. So, I could say that I would deny treatment to a person who hits his nards on a rail while skatebording or I could say that I am denying help to someone who is dying.

There are lots of possibilities, but it is so much better when someone else thinks of the outcomes. Perhaps the reason why you had such a negative response to my comment is that you really want to deny a dying person aid. I meant it out of a jest, your mind took it elsewhere.

If the enemy is further away then you help the closest. It simply comes down to who is in more danger and who can you safely get to, regardless of what side they are on. Remember they are fighting because some old fart told them to as well. The enemy has to be treated fairly remember. hell enemy Officers have to be saluted and can't be forced to work.

Yeah, I bet that sucks.

I just like annoying people, you see. I know I am annoying so that doesn't help. I could go into hypothetical situations, but I wouldn't want to make you too angry. Lightly pissed is just enough.

If you ment it out of just, say J/K (jusk kidding). How was I to know you were joking otherwise. I feel better now I really thought you'd abamdon a person. As for helping people who do stupid things, Just wait till you complete your training and work a few years. If you didn't help teens that try something they see on jack-ass the WWE or movies, we wouldn't have youth at all. In fact I think 80% or so 911 calls come from people doing something stupid and hurting themselves.

Edit I'm not upset I don't mind a good debate!

I never say JK, its against my morals.

My teachers told us a story about a guy who called for help after he got a banana stuck in his rectum somehow by accident.

My training is done, Nationally certified because a 12 hour shift doesn't work well with going to college, but I didn't want to take the class in vain.

EDIT: You didn't seem upset, but I didn't want to push you that far. Besides, if it was a debate I'm pretty sure I would've lost.Badly.

LunaHound wrote:
Thats hard to say , because legally, im also a life guard . If im off duty for example,
and someone with AIDS drowns , im still legally held responsible if i dont save and resuscitate the person.

A bit off-topic maybe, but to transfer HIV via saliva, both the saver and the patient would have to have a open wound in their mouths for that to happen. And even then the chance of that happening is very unlikely. All in all, it's very, very rare for diseases to transfer due to mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. To get HIV from saliva you would have to drink several liters of the stuff.

I just wanted to clear that up, so people don't shy away from trying to save lifes due to fear of disease.

edit: wrote AIDS instead of HIV

Maybe she does have an open sore in her mouth all of the time, you never know.

Or maybe the person she's resuscitating has a needle for a tongue, you never know.

Perhaps I should just stop this nonsense, you never know.


But yeah, aids is spread via blood. So as long as you don't drink the guys blood or jab him with a needle and then yourself then you are safe. Just use that handy CPR mask though to prevent the spread of other diseases like cancer.

halonachos wrote:...to prevent the spread of other diseases like cancer.

I see what you did there

halonachos wrote:Maybe she does have an open sore in her mouth all of the time, you never know.

Or maybe the person she's resuscitating has a needle for a tongue, you never know.

Perhaps I should just stop this nonsense, you never know.


But yeah, aids is spread via blood. So as long as you don't drink the guys blood or jab him with a needle and then yourself then you are safe. Just use that handy CPR mask though to prevent the spread of other diseases like cancer.

Average people dont just need mtm out of the blues.
Obviousely something happend so external injury is highly probable.
Also dont forget hepatitis .

And for the record i dont have any sore of any type you are gross.

Oh yes, I am gross for pointing out that something is probable. Candida and other nasty diseases thrive in the human mouth.

Most people are not average, so being average is really not being average in fact its rather abnormal to be average.

reasons for MTM:
External Injury, choking, drowning, hereditary disease, SIDS, etc.

PS: The whole human body is disgusting get used to it. Its called being a human. You also would rather become a vampire instead of eating a dog or hunting, I think that's rather gross myself.

By the way, the point with mouth-to-mouth might be moot as there are much debate to the validity to the whole procedure as recent research seem to point to CCR (compression only) having a larger effect. But as usual normal CPR guidelines should be followed.

What are CPR guidelines over where you are at? Here its 30 compressions for every 2 breaths.

Exactly the same here, but as I said, newer research indicate that CCR might be more effective than CPR.

Well, que sera sera.

Anyways, thats why we use :

but as i said people dont run around carrying this, and it sucks to run into an emergency without it and be
legally bound to rescue someone with diseases.

Just be off duty, also we are trained to use the following as barriers:

1)Cloth around the area.
2)Our hands, usually wearing gloves.
3)The mask found in the first aid kit.
4)The above object.

You have many choices, some are cleaner than others. Also, its hard to tell whether or not a person has a disease from the way they look or act even.

There once was a doctor who was patching up a guy who had been beaten badly and was bleeding wildly all over the place. The doctor saved the guys life, but was drenched in blood, some of it got into his eye. The guy told the doctor that he had aids. The doctor was worried to hell.

I have a question concerning the "free" housing in Canada to foreign immigrants.

How does that work? I know some people that immigrated to Toronto and they live in an apartment complex with about 6 or 7 family members,and not all of them work, and the ones that do, only work menial jobs. (possibly sweat shops)

How long are you allowed to stay there? and How do you qualify?

GG

halonachos wrote:What are CPR guidelines over where you are at? Here its 30 compressions for every 2 breaths.

We do rate of 80-100 compression per min ( though reality its 60 per min since rescue breathing)

4 cycles of (15 compressions and 2 breath)

@ Pharcae , mouth to mouth is by far not moot. Because thats when we keep the air way open at the same time checking
for any sign of vitcim's breathing.

In our procedure, there are no time or actions wasted.

ABC's of Health.

We do a cycle of 4, check pulse and keep going. If they are breathing, but having difficult we stop compressions but maintain rescue breathing.

If its a larger incident, those who can have their airway opened and maintain breathing are tagged red, if they need someone to stay and help them breath they are tagged black, if they are dead they are tagged black. I would hate to do triage.

@halo are you telling that to me or to Pharcae?

i know the Airway Breathing Circulations >.>

More to pharcae about the CCR and CPR comparison. ABC means that breathing and compressions are equally important but compressions must be done more in order to pump the blood.

Regarding the towel thing , say some guy is shot and his lung is filled with blood.

Say i plug my finger into the punctured wound and the moment he is resuscitated he throws up the blood into my mouth since his lung is already filled with blood.

Thats gross no matter how you look at it and dangerous.
What does vampire and eating dog have to do with this?

This is going super off topic -_-

Uhm, to clear up any misunderstandings, when I said that MTM might be falling out of "fashion" i meant the ventilation. Ensuring that the airway is open/if the patient is breathing is still a part of CCR. But anyways, no point in debating this as CCR still is just research and not much else.

And as I said earlier CPR is the one to use according to international guidelines.

LunaHound wrote:Regarding the towel thing , say some guy is shot and his lung is filled with blood.

Say i plug my finger into the punctured wound and the moment he is resuscitated he throws up the blood into my mouth since his lung is already filled with blood.

Thats gross no matter how you look at it and dangerous.
What does vampire and eating dog have to do with this?

This is going super off topic -_-

First of all, he wouldn't vomit blood, its his lung and not his stomach. He would cough it up though. Oh, its also VERY bad practice to stick your finger into a puncture wound, it contaminates the wound with your external bacteria(MRSA is spread this way) and could cause further trauma to the wound. You cover it up, not put your finger into it.

As to the whole mouth thing, you wouldn't give cpr to the guy unless he is not breathing. Chances are he is still awake and has what is called a "sucking" chest wound. His lung would collapse and he would stop breathing/coughing at this point you could find a mask to use. There should be some around the lifeguard station.

LunaHound wrote:

Say i plug my finger into the punctured wound -

You never do that. Open wounds/similar can take a compress dressing or bandage but you never put things in them or try and remove things out of a wound either. Do that and you won't be covered by your insurance and you're well and truly on your own.

Is is, apparently, very unlikely that'll get someone to revive through CPR, you're really just trying to keep them alive until defib pads get there and/or actual medical personnel.

That said the one and only time I've ever had to perform CPR the guy came round after about 1 minute ! Longest fething minute of my life though.

Torniquits are bad too, unless they're already missing the pieces below the bleed. Just FYI.

I didnt say vomit blood, when i say throws up blood i basically meant ( sudden release of blood from his mouth into my mouth due to him
been resuscitated hence he is now breathing, and the pooled up blood that was flooded in his lung as i said )

If someone is shot i seriousely wont have the time to go look around looking for things to stick in the puncture lol.
And no there are no life guard stations around! (this is what i meant by "held legally responsible when off duty")
So no mask , no gears , just me and anyone around thats willing to assist me. or maybe someones dirty t shirt .

Yep, apply pressure until paramedics arrive. Take some cloth(preferably the victims) and put it on the wound and keep it pressed down. Wait until someone better trained in gun shots arrives and talk to the guy who was shot to try to keep the guy's focus. Talk about family and try to reassure him that he's going to live, even if you don't believe it.

Also he probably would've began moving if he was resuscitated, giving you some time to remove your face from the vicinity of his before the blood eruption comes.

In america though, in most places, you can just walk by without worrying about being held to blame.


EMT SAYING: You came into this world naked, you're going to leave it naked. This comes from the fact that most heavily injured people are stripped while in the ambulance to remove a chance of missing signs of bruising/bleeding.

BloodofOrks wrote:@Ironhide

I have a choice about buying products from China? Oh my. Seriously, I oppose China's human rights violations not China or its citizens. I was criticizing Luna for romanticizing a public policy which results in millions of people being mistreated, not trying to start an embargo on China.

Yes, you do. When you buy something, look at where it is made, if it says China, then don't buy it. Not everything is made in China. While you may have been criticizing Luna for his views, you are also being a hypocrite if you bemoan the practices, but still continue to buy their products. Because the money they make off of said products allows the government of said policies to remain in power.

Love how this topic has strayed off topic.

@Ironhide (going waaaay back): I'd love to give him a place to stay, but I don't think my 5 housemates or my landlord would see it like that. Perhaps the council could have just let him have one of the 1 million empty homes in Britain.

I feel I should clarify my earlier points; I agree that people abusing benefits is a problem. I just happen to think that people living in pverty is far more of a problem, and we should deal with that first. Get everyone off the streets, get everyone above the poverty line, get everyone decent educational opportunities. After that, we'll catch the scroungers. I think it's far more criminal that in London, one of the wealthiest economic centres in the world (I seem to remember it's the wealthiest, buut I can't be sure) we have one in three children growing up in poverty and extremely high homlessness rates. I care more about that than a few people getting more benefits than they deserve.

Greebynog wrote:
I feel I should clarify my earlier points; I agree that people abusing benefits is a problem. I just happen to think that people living in pverty is far more of a problem, and we should deal with that first. Get everyone off the streets, get everyone above the poverty line, get everyone decent educational opportunities. After that, we'll catch the scroungers. I think it's far more criminal that in London, one of the wealthiest economic centres in the world (I seem to remember it's the wealthiest, buut I can't be sure) we have one in three children growing up in poverty and extremely high homlessness rates. I care more about that than a few people getting more benefits than they deserve.

QFT

@Ironhide: Are you boycotting Chinese products, or are you okay with the human rights abuses? Luna pointed to a Chinese social program and suggested something along those line be implemented. I pointed out what such a plan actually entailed. Then you called me a hypocrite for informing Luna of what she had suggested. So by your logic, since I do not think Canada should adopt China's "one child policy" I should be boycotting China... what?

Greebynog wrote:I feel I should clarify my earlier points; I agree that people abusing benefits is a problem. I just happen to think that people living in pverty is far more of a problem, and we should deal with that first. Get everyone off the streets, get everyone above the poverty line, get everyone decent educational opportunities. After that, we'll catch the scroungers. I think it's far more criminal that in London, one of the wealthiest economic centres in the world (I seem to remember it's the wealthiest, buut I can't be sure) we have one in three children growing up in poverty and extremely high homlessness rates. I care more about that than a few people getting more benefits than they deserve.

im going to get shot for this.
but the who is going flip my burgers or wash my car?
that is capitalism and if you do that we will have a void in the system where all the low icome jobs are usually take from

Just because someone flips burgers or washes cars doesn't mean they should live below the poverty line. We should not have people in our societies who cannot afford to live to an acceptable standard.

I'm not advocating giving people in menial jobs six-figure salaries, just enough money to adequately live.

what im saying is there is a system inline that we shouldnt interupt

Yeah, the system's clearly working fantastically at the moment.

let me ask you this greebynog
lets sy we get all the poor people a associates degree or bachelars
what do you plan to do about all the low incomme jobs they used to take
the problem with your plan is thst you plan to give them all this stuff(like apartments)that thay cant pay rent since there flipping burgers or something else
what your plan when whan they default this apartment rents?

Some of the answer sounds almost like they perfer communism

but they sugar coat it since they do realize they still need the hard working to run the country
and the rich to let the lazy leech from.

whos they? luna

I assume I'm 'they' Luna, and actually, as Frazzled found out in another discussion my politics can be defined as "Pragmatic Left-leaning Liberal", or Social Liberalism, as I like to call it, in order to make it sound snappy and important. I don't believe in out and out communism, and I support the working man, that's exactly what this is about, and is the fundamental underlying principle of all Socialism, including my wishy-washy moderate version of it. I hope you don't think of Socialism as a dirty word. People are constantly exploited in their jobs and cannot afford basic necessities. Not all poor people are lazy Luna, far from it. Not all unempyed people are lazy or workshy. The rich aren't all some lovely bunch of wonderful, hard working go-getters who deserve all they have. Has the rank greed and corruption that has lead to a global financial collapse not illustrated that to you?

Garret; at what point did I suggest degrees for all? Some people aren't cut out for higher education, some don't want it. Of course we need people in low income jobs (perhaps somewhat ironically, this is where immigration can be a boon), I'm just saying that these people should still be able to feed their kids.

No greebynog , i KNOW poor and lazy are not totally related.

What have i being saying 1st post is, government need tighter controls with what they are handing out so the lazy doesnt abuse / take what the REAL NEEDY people should have.

And what I have been saying is that you overestimate the problem. You are yet to provide any solid evidence of your claims that this is a huge and terrifying threat to our societies.

And whilst you're pointing and shouting at the boogeyman in the corner, you're missing the burglar coming in through the window.

"And whilst you're pointing and shouting at the boogeyman in the corner, you're missing the burglar coming in through the window."
Sigg'd

I'd like to add at this point that I pretty much agree with everything Greebynog is saying.

LunaHound wrote:
Some of the answer sounds almost like they perfer communism

but they sugar coat it since they do realize they still need the hard working to run the country
and the rich to let the lazy leech from.

And some of the others sound like silly people who don't really seem to understand exactly what terms mean and come across of incapable of realising that people's opinions tend to be varying shades of grey. Still when you appear to base your entire philosophy off a a crib sheet of Atlas Shrugged that's the sort of low intellect thinking we come to expect.

I am intrigued that you think it is the "hard working" who run the country. I do note you separate them from "the rich", we'll make a socialist of you yet.

what do you plan to do about all the low incomme jobs they used to take

Mechanisation ? I believe was the huge hope for the future.... I assume it's coming alongside the paperless office that computers are going to give us ...?

Oh, and

truth, about three quarters of resettled refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees.

We have to remember that many of these people have fled from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a long humanitarian tradition of accepting refugees and helping them start their new lives here.

For this reason, government-assisted refugees receive a one-time amount of up to $1,330 from the federal government to cover essentials — basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $710 per month. This assistance is temporary — lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first.

reds8n wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Some of the answer sounds almost like they perfer communism

but they sugar coat it since they do realize they still need the hard working to run the country
and the rich to let the lazy leech from.

And some of the others sound like silly people who don't really seem to understand exactly what terms mean and come across of incapable of realising that people's opinions tend to be varying shades of grey. Still when you appear to base your entire philosophy off a a crib sheet of Atlas Shrugged that's the sort of low intellect thinking we come to expect.

I am intrigued that you think it is the "hard working" who run the country. I do note you separate them from "the rich", we'll make a socialist of you yet.

what do you plan to do about all the low incomme jobs they used to take

Mechanisation ? I believe was the huge hope for the future.... I assume it's coming alongside the paperless office that computers are going to give us ...?

No, i do NOT think the hard working runs the country, i think they SUPPORT the country. And right now the hard working camel have one straw too many on it's back.
you think mechanisation can save our future? i think thats intriguing too , because before thats possible, what do you think will happen between point A and point C?

Your quote is also fail too. You forgot about the part they are making more babies for the only purpopse to receive additional government cheque?
Might want to read on that sir

No, i do NOT think the hard working runs the country, i think they SUPPORT the country.

Not what you typed though. If you are going to debate with the adults you need to learn to actually say what you mean.

And right now the hard working camel have one straw too many on it's back.
you think mechanisation can save our future? i think thats intriguing too , because before thats possible, what do you think will happen between point A and point C?

I would say we already have technology capable of flipping burgers.

Your quote is also fail too. You forgot about the part they are making more babies for the only purpopse to receive additional government cheque?
Might want to read on that sir

I have been, I note you don't attempt to defend the vastly inaccurate figures you claimed earlier.


Now let's look at the child support payments then

Basic benefit
We calculate the basic benefit as described below:
■ $108.91 per month for each child under 18 years of age
(if you live in Alberta, see the note below); and
■ an additional $7.58 per month for your third and each
additional child.
www.cra.gc.ca 15
We reduce the basic benefit if your family net income is
more than $37,885. For a family with one child, the
reduction is 2% of the amount of family net income that is
more than $37,885. For families with two or more children,
the reduction is 4% of the amount of family net income
that is more than $37,885.
Note
The Alberta provincial government has chosen to
provide different benefit amounts depending on the age
of each child. For Alberta residents, the basic monthly
benefit is:
■ $99.66 for each child under 7;
■ $106.41 for each child 7 to 11;
■ $119.08 for each child 12 to 15; and
■ $126.16 for each child 16 or 17.

Somewhat different ..again !.. from the figures you quoted.

Gst Credit and Tax benefits count as money too

Which applies to everyone.

You'll note that many of the benefits count as taxable income too.

Got any figures for the "facts" you're quoting then ? Or are you pulling these.... out of thin air as well then ?

That said.... your benefit system ( like everyone's I'd guess) is quite confusing.

And you do take a lot of refugees. Fra more than your countries "fair" share.

Confusing? more room for abuse.
Facts? Well i AM a canadian , and my friends and their families always talk about it. If ur asking if i actually checked gov link, nope i havnt. (semi thin air according to you adults ? )
Yes it applies to everyone but the amount is way different.

Anyways i'll just assume you are right, its past my bed time.

LunaHound wrote:Confusing? more room for abuse.

Indeed. Or underpayments. CUts both ways.

Facts? Well i AM a canadian , and my friends and their families always talk about it. If ur asking if i actually checked gov link, nope i havnt. (semi thin air according to you adults ? )

No then you haven't any actual facts. To borrow a word "FAIL".

Yes it applies to everyone but the amount is way different.

Anyways i'll just assume you are right, its past my bed time.

Indeed. The same way that most "rich" people don't pay as much tax as they find ways around it.

Good night.

Just stirring the pot, but perhaps there are different tax brackets and allowances for refugees as compared to canadian citizens?

As to the whole socialist thing, we can't mechanize lower paying jobs because we need them to train youths coming into the workforce and for people who decide to drop out of school. You see, in switzerland you have a limit of success. If a dishwasher makes 600 a month, then the executive that owns the business can only make IIRC only 1,200 a month. Not sure about exact dollar amounts, but it is limited. While in america the dishwasher could make 600 a month and the executive can make up to 10,000 a month. My father never went to college, but he did 21 years in the navy, studied diesel engines and all sorts of engines, and now makes triple what he did in the navy by working for MSC. He can rebuild parts for ship engines while people higher ranking than him can't, but he's almost in one of the top two ranks now and teaches people on the ship about the engines.

So what you are telling me is that he shouldn't get paid a lot more than a person who cleans the dishes on the ship perhaps and that his income should be limited because he wanted to succeed? People are dishwashers and in lower income jobs for a reason, some have two jobs, but night classes are possible during the week so there is no excuse to trying to find a way to get a better job. I worked two jobs before, 1 in retail and the other in construction and I could still go to my local community college and take classes. I got paid $6.00 in my retail job starting out, and $9.35 at the construction job, so depending on the job you can make a lot of money or enough to support a family.

halonachos wrote:Just stirring the pot, but perhaps there are different tax brackets and allowances for refugees as compared to canadian citizens?

No, they don't.

People are dishwashers and in lower income jobs for a VARIETY of reasons,.

Fixed.

Your ability to see the point and yet miss it is really quite amazing.

And I don't quite see why making things up about the SWiss for either.

type of education salary range
apprenticeship (typically 3 or 4 years) CHF 40'000 - 80'000
academic CHF 70'000 - 150'000
"lower" management CHF 120'000 - 250'000
"higher" management CHF 200'000 +++

The point you miss is that both jobs are dependant upon each other. I don't think the guy at the top/equivalent "works" X times harder especially.

Isn't that one of the perks of being a top guy. You start off working hard, if you work hard enough you get to be one of the guys who don't work hard.

Like leveling in WoW. When you are level 1 you have a hard time killing wild boars, when you are level 80 you have it easy against the boars.

As you can see in the very pay range that you quoted, it is possible for someone at a lower level to earn more than the guy at a higher level. This could be due to time working at the place, but could also be because of skills brought in.

halonachos wrote:. This could be due to time working at the place, but could also be because of skills brought in.

Skills ? On an apprenticeship course ? Really ?

[/facepalm]

Isn't that one of the perks of being a top guy. You start off working hard

Many don't though do they ? That's part of our current problem perhaps.

About the skills, you had several job levels. You just chose to apply the apprenticeship level to poke fun at me you fool. The manager levels man, look at the manager levels.

reds8n wrote:Many don't they do they?

I'm going to guess you meant "Many don't now do they?" and I will respond by saying yes a lot of them do. But with a higher life span it only seems like CEOs have never worked hard.

Like retail: 1 million cashiers, of which 1/4 become managers, of the managers 1/4 become district managers, of the district managers 1/10 become executives, and so on and on so that when a new president is selected from the top CEO ranks, it looks like the hard workers on the bottom have no chance. I am trying to say something here, but I'm afraid its getting lost in translation.

halonachos wrote:About the skills, you had several job levels. You just chose to apply the apprenticeship level to poke fun at me you fool.

But it's so easy with what you type.

So you're accepting that what you claimed earlier about Switzerland is bs then ? Or are you just following your usual scatter gun approach to what I'll generously describe as "debating" ?

Hmm... not too exactly sure about that. It could've changed since the time I was in high school, but like I said they could have a lower manager make more than a higher manager(don't know if you skipped that part in haste to take a jab at me).

halonachos wrote:Hmm... not too exactly sure about that. It could've changed since the time I was in high school, but like I said they could have a lower manager make more than a higher manager(don't know if you skipped that part in haste to take a jab at me).

Things changes since you were in school ? fething hell ! They didn't even send you a memo ? Lazy Swiss heathens.

I never denied it was possible, but exceptionally unlikely I would suggest and generally that would come with length of service or skill base. And that's not particular to the Swiss either.

Still why let the facts get in the way of your world view eh ?

This shows that america is only considering capping executive income. Its called nationalization instead of socialism I guess.

Yes Reds8n, why let facts obscure YOUR world view after all.

Everyman and his dog knows this. It was mooted after the massive outcry by the public at the salaries and bonuses people in the bailed out companies are/were getting.

And this is relevant how ?

..is this the equivalent of debating chaff ?

EDIT : what facts have you presented ? YOu made up some stuff about Switzerland and.. and... what ? Are you drunk ?

Well, you said it was common in many countries to limit pay. America doesn't, just because you can't put it together doesn't mean its not a valid argument it means that you can't think.
Switzerland was nationalized at some point and according to the textbooks we used they limit pay for executives in relation to the lowest paid worker.

halonachos wrote:Well, you said it was common in many countries to limit pay.

Where ?

America doesn't

Except you do, as the link that YOU posted shows. You also have wage caps in areas such as sport for example.

, just because you can't put it together doesn't mean its not a valid argument it means that you can't think.
Switzerland was nationalized at some point and according to the textbooks we used they limit pay for executives in relation to the lowest paid worker.

It's not a valid argument if it isn't relevant.

Finding the relevance is up to you, I can find relevance between the article and the discussion while you can't. So that means either I am more creative in thinking or that you are too dull.

Ah, misread the whole "that's not particular to the swiss" thing.

halonachos wrote:Finding the relevance is up to you, I can find relevance between the article and the discussion while you can't. So that means either I am more creative in thinking or that you are too dull.

Indeed.

Or that you're too thick to realise there is no relevance between that article and what we were actually "talking" about.

Hmm... I wonder.

Clinicly gifted would like to argue that point.

Gifted=Thinks differently.

You see a tomato and see a fruit, I see a tomato and see ketchup.

Enlighten me then oh wise one.

Don't say wise one, Socrates was wise and drank hemlock. I am not saying wise, I am saying that I will always think differently from you no matter what you say. I will always interpret facts different from you. We will never reach an agreement.

halonachos wrote: Socrates was wise and drank hemlock. .

Yes. But to prove a point.

A lot of people, mindcrushingly stupid ones, miss this vital fact.

oh,

Clinicly

is spelt clinically btw.

You got gifted right at least.


And we can agree, see:

I am not saying wise

You're not. We agree.

Still waiting for this explanation.....

He drank hemlock because he couldn't do philosophy anymore, boo hoo. He said an unexamined life was not worth living. Apparantly what he was doing before going to trial was not examining his life at all. I think that most don't think on that point.

What is "still waiting for this explanation.....". I am guessing the post before this whole side discussion.

I believe that you are not wise either, so yes that is an agreement.

halonachos wrote:He drank hemlock because he couldn't do philosophy anymore, boo hoo.

And you're one of the people who either don't know or understands why he did it. Congratulations.

Given your acknowledged anti Govt. interference stance I thought you'd be more supportive of his stance.

What is "still waiting for this explanation.....". I am guessing the post before this whole side discussion.

I believe that you are not wise either, so yes that is an agreement.

Indeed it is.

And by just agreeing with me you've just shot down your own argument some more. Brilliant, thanks.

Okay fine, Socrates drank hemlock in a protest against the censorship of thought by the Greek government. Fine, you got me to say that.

Oh yay, you are winning in an argument about us never agreeing with each other. How droll.

At least you understand that term.

I understand loads of terms.

However, I find that using larger vocabulary terms is superfluos to facilitating the message that one is trying to convey to another in discussion.

I could say the above or I could say:
I think that using larger words is unnecessary in trying to tell another what one is thinking.

halonachos wrote:

However, I find that using larger vocabulary terms is superfluos to facilitating the message that one is trying to convey to another in discussion.

superfluous is how it's spelt. That's also appallling grammar/sentence contruction in the above "sentence".

I could say the above or I could say:
I think that using larger words is unnecessary in trying to tell another what one is thinking.

True. But if one can use them correctly then one can appear smart, or at least moderately well informed. There are of courses nuances that can be lost. The difference between something being "big" or massive" for example. Or laboured and pointless.

reds8n wrote:There are of courses nuances that can be lost.

Its "There are, of course, nuances that can be lost. I blame my spelling of superfluous on my less-than-sensitive keyboard.

reds8n wrote: The difference between something being "big" or "massive" for example. Or laboured and pointless.

Easily written correctly as:
"The difference between something being "big" or "massive", or "laboured" and "pointless" for example."

Criticizing grammar with bad grammar is not good. We should stop that.

halonachos wrote:

Its "There are, of course, nuances that can be lost. I blame my spelling of superfluous on my less-than-sensitive keyboard.

No, that's not correct. The lack of , is quite intentional. Ironically that's a nuance.....

reds8n wrote: The difference between something being "big" or "massive" for example. Or laboured and pointless.

Easily written correctly as:
"The difference between something being "big" or "massive", or "laboured" and "pointless" for example."

Criticizing grammar with bad grammar is not good. We should stop that.

Nope. That's another nuance you've missed.

I can explain it if you'd like.


Oh

However, I find that using larger vocabulary terms is superfluos to facilitating the message that one is trying to convey to another in discussion.

You still said "courses" instead of "course".

Another point with the larger words, they can get clunky and difficult to use. Their use is not really necessary.

The correction I did for the sentence containing "big" or "massive" was hard to do so I was trying for the correction. You see, the way you structured the sentence left an incomplete bit at the end that seemed to belong with the previous sentence. After all, using an or as the beginning of the second sentence when the previous one was also comparing something makes it seem like the two go together.

Anywho, going to lunch and then to study. I will be back to annoy you my good sir.

Modquisition on:
Gentlemen, politeness is required under the Rules of Dakka, even in the OT zone. The discussion has been interesting - don't smash it by personal stuff and nit picking.

Modquisition off.

And remember kids,

jp400 wrote:I am a big fan of the idea that the government shouldnt support the poor/illegals. Why you may ask? Cause all it does is feth over the non-lazy who actually want to do something with their lifes. The Above is a perfect example of this!

We give them free food, free/low income houses, free medical, (Yes its free... if you show up to an ER and cant pay by law they cant turn you away, thats why your Bill is so high cause your paying for every person that has ever stiffed the system), Free Money and countless handouts in every way shape or form from cloths to cars.

I also wish that the government would bulldoze every last building in every shantytown/ghetto/trailor Park. Dont want to be homeless? Upkeep your building and dont turn it into a drug slum.

Dont want to starve and have a roof over your head? Get a job! Dont sit at home with 10 kids waiting for the food stamps to show up while cooking meth in the kitchen.

That's pretty much how I feel too. When the government takes 30% of the money I make in a year, if not more, to support those too lazy to get a job and make something of their life, I'd say I've about had it. And the truth is, in America, you CAN make something of yourself if you just get off your rear and do it! Find a job in construction or at a retail outlet or something, don't sit around sucking money off of us who are willing to work for a living!

GAH! It irks me so much! Sure, supporting the poor is noble, just, and right. But let the charities do it. The charities support the ones who are willing to do something in exchange for shelter and food.

And illegal immigrants? Why the heck should we support the poor from other countries? Sure, you want to come to America to make a life for yourself. Ok, fine. Go ahead. But do it legally. Illegal immigration is just that: ILLEGAL!

LunaHound, as for those nasty varmints, I think Redbeard's "predator-scent" idea is a great one. Doesn't leave any corpses either. (Personally, I use a BB gun to plink squirrels, but that would be less practical for raccoons in an attic.)

Sure, supporting the poor is noble, just, and right. But let the charities do it.

Should I need to point out why this is wrong?

halonachos wrote:Just stirring the pot, but perhaps there are different tax brackets and allowances for refugees as compared to canadian citizens?

Yes they do ,
reds8n sees that everyone is charged the same tax , but since he doesnt live here, he doesnt realize
the refunds the governments give.

And the amount of refunds differ to different citizen based on their income .

For example, 2 years ago, we had to help my dad pay almost $60,000 in the tax he owed since he left Canada. ( this amount is what reds8n assumes everyone pays )
Its only till sometime last febuary ( 10+ month later) the IRS finished investigating our family, and refunded $19,000 back. ( this amount is what reds8n doesnt know we get back)


@Brother Captain Andrecus

I have no idea where to acqiure predator scent , but so far i have been told to get a bucket, fill it with bleach , close the lid and poke some holes around it and leave it
in every corner of the house. Apprantly the odor of it will disturb them enough to not want to nest near it. ( though i think raccoons will just push the bucket off the roof lol )

LunaHound wrote:

halonachos wrote:Just stirring the pot, but perhaps there are different tax brackets and allowances for refugees as compared to canadian citizens?

Yes they do ,
reds8n sees that everyone is charged the same tax , but since he doesnt live here, he doesnt realize
the refunds the governments give.

And the amount of refunds differ to different citizen based on their income .

For example, 2 years ago, we had to help my dad pay almost $60,000 in the tax he owed since he left Canada. ( this amount is what reds8n assumes everyone pays )
Its only till sometime last febuary ( 10+ month later) the IRS finished investigating our family, and refunded $19,000 back. ( this amount is what reds8n doesnt know we get back)

Except A. That isn't what I think and B that isnt what he said.

Of course people pay different % tax depending upon their income. *golf clap*

Immigrants do not have a special "immigrants" tax bracket. They are taxed/receive benefits exactly the same as every other person in their bracket.

Amazing what you can find when you actally look things up instead of basing your entire "argument" on hearsay and " well my mate says".

The Dreadnote wrote:

Sure, supporting the poor is noble, just, and right. But let the charities do it.

Should I need to point out why this is wrong?

Why is this wrong? Why the heck should we HAVE to pay for the lazy to be lazy. If you had to apply through a charity, it would help weed out the scum that abuse the system.

And before you say "Well what about the other people!"..

Honestly I dont care about them. If starvation and death cant motivate you to get off your arse and find a job then we need to weed you from the gene pool.

reds8n wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

halonachos wrote:Just stirring the pot, but perhaps there are different tax brackets and allowances for refugees as compared to canadian citizens?

Yes they do ,
reds8n sees that everyone is charged the same tax , but since he doesnt live here, he doesnt realize
the refunds the governments give.

And the amount of refunds differ to different citizen based on their income .

For example, 2 years ago, we had to help my dad pay almost $60,000 in the tax he owed since he left Canada. ( this amount is what reds8n assumes everyone pays )
Its only till sometime last febuary ( 10+ month later) the IRS finished investigating our family, and refunded $19,000 back. ( this amount is what reds8n doesnt know we get back)

Except A. That isn't what I think and B that isnt what he said.

Of course people pay different % tax depending upon their income. *golf clap*

Immigrants do not have a special "immigrants" tax bracket. They are taxed/receive benefits exactly the same as every other person in their bracket.

Amazing what you can find when you actally look things up instead of basing your entire "argument" on hearsay and " well my mate says".

K lets just pretend that because i cant find the details on that stupid website, everyone in my province's anguish is just all in our imagination.

As i already said they dont have a special tax bracket, they do have additional refunds ( sometimes they get more refund than what they originally paid depending on how the government adjust it ). Not sure how many times i have to repeat myself. ( and again you'll say "find the link or it didnt happen" )
Im staying out of this convo now, because someone from europe apparently knows more than what our community have been dealing with for the past decade.

sorry British Columbian, i have failed you because i suck at digging stuff up in that website.

Greebynog wrote:@Ironhide (going waaaay back): I'd love to give him a place to stay, but I don't think my 5 housemates or my landlord would see it like that. Perhaps the council could have just let him have one of the 1 million empty homes in Britain.

I feel I should clarify my earlier points; I agree that people abusing benefits is a problem. I just happen to think that people living in pverty is far more of a problem, and we should deal with that first. Get everyone off the streets, get everyone above the poverty line, get everyone decent educational opportunities. After that, we'll catch the scroungers. I think it's far more criminal that in London, one of the wealthiest economic centres in the world (I seem to remember it's the wealthiest, buut I can't be sure) we have one in three children growing up in poverty and extremely high homlessness rates. I care more about that than a few people getting more benefits than they deserve.

Does Britain offer low-cost/no-cost housing to the poor/needy?

BloodofOrks wrote:@Ironhide: Are you boycotting Chinese products, or are you okay with the human rights abuses? Luna pointed to a Chinese social program and suggested something along those line be implemented. I pointed out what such a plan actually entailed. Then you called me a hypocrite for informing Luna of what she had suggested. So by your logic, since I do not think Canada should adopt China's "one child policy" I should be boycotting China... what?

I don't boycott Chinese products and I don't have a problem with their policies. I don't live in China, nor am I Asian, nor am I an expert on their culture/way of living. So I'm not going to presume to have the right to tell them what they can or can't do. China says they have a population problem. Who am I to say they don't? At least they don't have soldiers walking through streets killing every fifth person to fix thier population problem.

I said you were a hypocrite if you bought Chinese products, but extolled the evils of their policies. Because by doing so you are providing such an "evil" regime with money to finance it practices, which would be hypocritical.

Did someone actually say that Canada should adopt China's "one cild policy"? I must have missed that post. I thought we were saying to limit the amount of children that can be claimed for government benefits/aid, not limiting them to how many they could have.

jp400 wrote:Why is this wrong? Why the heck should we HAVE to pay for the lazy to be lazy. If you had to apply through a charity, it would help weed out the scum that abuse the system.

And before you say "Well what about the other people!"..

Honestly I dont care about them. If starvation and death cant motivate you to get off your arse and find a job then we need to weed you from the gene pool.

So then they'll just be ripping off the charities? That's not the way to go. Government just needs to regulate their programs better.

Did I miss something? Is reds8n Canadian or EU? So hard to tell these days with the internet giving me all this factual information.

He is EU, i can tell just by him bringing out the tax link and point that at me without bringing out the rebate returns that im talking about.

Where the hell did I ever use the word evil? You're putting words in my mouth and it is not appreciated.

Uh, where does it say, "BloodofOrks thinks China is evil", in my previous post? But if it makes you feel better:

I said you were a hypocrite if you bought Chinese products, but extolled the wrongness of their policies. Because by doing so you are providing such a country with money to finance it practices, which would be hypocritical.

Ironhide wrote:

I said you were a hypocrite if you bought Chinese products, but extolled the evils of their policies. Because by doing so you are providing such an "evil" regime with money to finance it practices, which would be hypocritical.

The way you phrased this implies that I called China evil. I said no such thing. You're the only one on this thread who has called China evil.

What's really stupid about this is that I gave nothing more than an accurate description of the enforcement strategy a single Chinese policy and called it for what is was: a human rights abuse. Hey guess what? The United States has committed hundreds of human rights abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, our secret network of CIA prisons, the NSA wire taps and other programs and fronts. These programs were abuses of both civil liberties and human rights. If I were a jerk I could accuse you of supporting the deaths of Iraqi women and children for buying American products but I recognize that it is a petty way to go about an argument. Everyone has blood on their hands. Threatening a boycott for human rights abuses is pointless because the Chinese could accuse us of our own crimes and do the same and they'd be just as right to do so.

Did it never occur to you that you don't actually know my feelings toward China as a whole? Maybe I oppose a boycott because I think it's bad policy. I don't have to have a black or white opinion on this issue. The opinion of my world view you have constructed from my posts is inaccurate at best.

Ironhide wrote:

Did someone actually say that Canada should adopt China's "one cild policy"? I must have missed that post. I thought we were saying to limit the amount of children that can be claimed for government benefits/aid, not limiting them to how many they could have.

Luna endorsed it.

LunaHound wrote:


Remember China's one child policy? now that works.
What does canada do? their loop holes encourages the burden on the rest of the country EXPONENTIALLY .

I warned Luna that endorsing such a program wasn't exactly a good idea since the program resulted in social problems and government abuses.

BloodofOrks wrote:Um, Luna, China "one child policy" has never been demonstrated to have actually controlled China's population. Not only that, but it has resulted in the forced sterilization of tens of thousands and who knows how many forced abortions. I wouldn't go around promoting a system of government controlled reproduction.

She misunderstood what I meant so I put it bluntly. Then You called me a hypocrite for trying to explain to Luna why casual endorsements of China's one child policy might give people the wrong idea about what she was endorsing. You took my comments out of context and have been picking apart my words. I even tried to explain what I meant by my earlier comment.

BloodofOrks wrote:@Ironhide

I have a choice about buying products from China? Oh my. Seriously, I oppose China's human rights violations not China or its citizens. I was criticizing Luna for romanticizing a public policy which results in millions of people being mistreated, not trying to start an embargo on China.

Now again: I never intended my comments as a criticism of China! I was trying to warn Luna against a bit of language she used which represented a far more extreme policy then what she was endorsing. I wasn't trying to attack anyone. If anyone has taken any offense to anything I have post then I am sorry, I never intended to offend anyone. Ironhide, the only opinion I gave was that I oppose human rights abuses. I oppose all human rights abuses even those committed by my own government! What are you demanding of me? That I be more apathetic? I have only stated facts. You don't know my opinions about China so how is it appropriate to call me a hypocrite?

First off, thank you for spelling it out for me. I try to read everything and decipher what the writer intended, buy damn if it ain't hard to get it right all the time.

Second, sorry for taking your post out of context. Although it does seem to be commonplace around here.

Third, I'm not demanding anything of you. I just want you to realize how crazy it is to bemoan something, while at the same time supporting it (albeit indirectly). Kinda like how people complain about big government not doing anything to save the environment, yet drive smog-producing, gas-guzzling, cars while gulping down a burger and tossing the big gulp out the car.

So....what are your opinions on China?

You guys told me the world is not just black and white there are various shades of gray. Yes you are right.
I brought up China's one child policy as idea that we might be able to refine with poverty and population control ,
obviousely atm in the stages of extreme black or white. You guys are so eager to shut me up that you forget the whole gray part.
why?

This is exactly why humans never solve anything. No one ever come up with some sort of solution to what i said.
Instead all you focus on is trying to say what i said doesnt happen at all.

Thats the sad part , and i dont mean sad as insult, Like emotionally sad. Because what i said does happen and our
whole province is aware of this. Yet outsider rather come and tell us it doesnt happen?

My opinions regarding China are... complicated. As I said before I don't like their human rights record, however I acknowledge that the US currently doesn't have a sterling record itself, so making demands of China without first dealing with our own issues make us hypocrites. That said, China should be applauded for how much progress they have made in such a short amount of time. It wasn't long ago that the nation was being pressed to the breaking point by a brutal communist dictator. China has come a long way, and it is important to recognize what it comes from to put it proper context.

I think military and economic posturing is usually counterproductive. The Chinese government is often made to feel discriminated against by western powers. Now it can be argued that much of China's behavior in this regard is posturing, but I think the situation can be best improved by working to maintain friendly relations and giving the Chinese government incentives to better the lives of it's citizens.

Besides, the US and China's economies are so mutually dependent that a blow to China's economy will damage our own. Right now is an especially bad time to strain our relations as we are trying to convince China to buy more of our debt and are reworking international banking laws which we will need China's support to work. Pragmatically, it is in both the US and China's best interest to maintain trade.

One story that gives me hope is that of the Chinese performance artist Zhang Huan. Zhang began his work in the early nineteen-nineties. His works dealt with the physical nature of life and were rather extreme and meant to be almost unbearable. The Chinese government caught wind of Zhang's performances and despite the fact that Zhang's works were not even political in nature, raided his house on two occasions. Both times Zhang had to leave town to avoid arrest. Zhang's works went on to earn international fame. These days the Chinese government loves to brag about the richness of it's once oppressed artistic communities and have praised Zhang's works.

China is a complicated place with a lot of complicated problems. There's a lot to like and a lot that needs to be improved. I don't know how to fix China's problems, but I think many of these problems would be best resolved through incentive and careful diplomacy. And lets face it, China has one of the worlds largest economies and it's probably only going to get bigger as China's middle class grows. As China's economy develops and the standard of life for it's citizens is raised, people are going to want more involvement in their government. If China feels that it is in it's best interest as a growing power to have a freer society, then it might very well happen. The path to a more free open China is probably going to take a very long time. I feel that it is probably better to back slow steady change than to take a massive risk on policies which could backfire.

That being said it is important to try not to appease the Chinese government too much in regards to their human right issues. Which is very complicated due to the US's current human right problems. I have no idea how to market this one. I'll just have to trust that the US has ambassadors and Statesmen who are capable of figuring that out.

I should stop now as I could likely ramble for a few pages more. China perplexes me and I have very mixed feeling about it's government. Odds are tomorrow I'll read some article on this subject and completely change my mind again.

You can ramble as much as you want , i'll read them in PM if you dont want to post it here right now

LunaHound wrote:
K lets just pretend that because i cant find the details on that stupid website, everyone in my province's anguish is just all in our imagination.

As i already said they dont have a special tax bracket, they do have additional refunds ( sometimes they get more refund than what they originally paid depending on how the government adjust it ). Not sure how many times i have to repeat myself. ( and again you'll say "find the link or it didnt happen" )
Im staying out of this convo now, because someone from europe apparently knows more than what our community have been dealing with for the past decade.

sorry British Columbian, I have failed you because i suck at digging stuff up in that website.

No, again that's not what I said.

And yes, when you made stupid accusations based on,ies and hearsay I would like it if you could provide some evidence, especiallt for the refund for the taxes they haven't paid that you're now whining about.

Still, I'll just sit here and wait for more of your bluster and shoutinginstead of an actual argument.

Again.

Stupid accusations? Ppl would stone you to death if you are in BC right now.

Enough , dont need someone across the globe telling us what happen and doesnt happen.

t(^^t) <- thats what i think of your so called "stupid accusation"

jp400 wrote:

The Dreadnote wrote:

Sure, supporting the poor is noble, just, and right. But let the charities do it.

Should I need to point out why this is wrong?

Why is this wrong? Why the heck should we HAVE to pay for the lazy to be lazy. If you had to apply through a charity, it would help weed out the scum that abuse the system.

And before you say "Well what about the other people!"..

Honestly I dont care about them. If starvation and death cant motivate you to get off your arse and find a job then we need to weed you from the gene pool.

I find it somewhat hard to believe that finding a job is as easy for everyone as you seem to be asserting. Otherwise there wouldn't be a joblessness problem.

It's the middle ground that I'm concerned about, that lies somewhere between "I can get a job very easily" and "I am abusing the system". I don't know about you, but I've never been starving or homeless, and I haven't managed to get a job yet. I don't presume to know how hard it is for the less priveliged.

jp400 wrote:Honestly I dont care about them.

This is what's wrong. Nothing I can do about it except try and pick up the slack.

LunaHound wrote:Stupid accusations? Ppl would stone you to death if you are in BC right now.

Enough , dont need someone across the globe telling us what happen and doesnt happen.

t(^^t)

It would seem you do.

Still why let the facts get in the way of your bigotry eh ?

OH noes ! The $%^ £$% girl called me a name !

The Canadian federal government plans to remove a $975 landing fee (called "head tax" by its critics) on refugees. The tax will continue to be imposed on others seeking permanent residency in Canada, official sources say.

Just putting this up, apparantly there was a refugee only tax that is being repealed for temporary refugees. America has a policy of charging for transportation and resettling.

Circa 1999.
Canada in 1995 began to charge immigrants a landing fee of C$975 to cover administrative costs and to cover the cost of some integration services. Refugee advocates capitalizing on the arrival of Kosovars to create an exemption from landing fees for refugees, say: "It is ludicrous to offer them financial assistance through resettlement on the one hand and then force them to go into debt in order to pay this head tax on the other."

In addition to the landing fee, there is also a $500 administration fee for adults who apply for permanent residence and a $100 fee for dependents. A family of four normally pays $3,150 to enter Canada as legal immigrants and the Canadian government spends an estimated $30,000 to $40,000 to resettle each family. Refugees, who are exempt from administrative fees but not landing charges, can borrow the money from the government to pay landing fees.

Canadian officials granted special exemptions in 1998 to 1,453 people who, because of criminal records or medical conditions would otherwise have been barred from entering Canada. The exemptions, known as minister's permits, were given to a total of 2,600 people, more than half of whom had a criminal record. The permits are issued for a limited period of time and can be revoked at any time by the immigration minister.

The ending of the second paragraph is funny.

I didnt call you any name 0.o .

Facts? you dig up half of the facts and call it whole.
Dig up the rebates and government returns too why dont you?

Bigotry? You mean someone that reads half of the rules and claims to be right while accusing known issue to the locals to be "stupid accusation" ?

LunaHound wrote:
I didnt call you any name 0.o .

Facts? you dig up half of the facts and call it whole.
Dig up the rebates and government returns too why dont you?

Yes, F A C T S the things you haven't provided any of .

You want me to argue your point for you ? What returns are you talking about ?

Bigotry? You mean someone that reads half of the rules and claims to be right while accusing known issue to the locals to be "stupid accusation" ?

No, you don't even know what that means ? Wow... not that surprising though I guess.

There's a big difference often between what people think they know and the actual facts.

Like immigrants not being paid 900 dollars a month + 300 dollars per child for example.

Typically these people then resort to some vague attempt at making threats.

Oh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

I know what bigotry means ty.

Im offended because like i said sooo many times already.
Why start talking with half of the process, why not also post
the tax rebates they receive?

Im offended because you said it was "stupid accusation"
because someone in england dont know xx about what happens in my province yet they still woof woof woof

halonachos wrote:

Canadian officials granted special exemptions in 1998 to 1,453 people who, because of criminal records or medical conditions would otherwise have been barred from entering Canada. The exemptions, known as minister's permits, were given to a total of 2,600 people, more than half of whom had a criminal record. The permits are issued for a limited period of time and can be revoked at any time by the immigration minister.

It appears that the issue isn't refugees becoming criminals, but letting in refugees that were already criminals. That's pretty bad in my books.

LunaHound wrote:
Why start talking with half of the process, why not also post
the tax rebates they receive?

Which are what ? What do they get ?

Im offended because you said it was "stupid accusation"
because someone in england dont know xx about what happens in my province yet they still woof woof woof

It was and is a stupid accusation.

You should try reading and researching, it'll help you out a lot.

Or at the very least mean that you're not just postsing the equivalent of white noise.

Again.

Depend upon what the crime(s) were surely Mr. H ?

Issuance date Number of Payments Amount Issued
April 20th, 2009 Cheques 679,894 $184,381,765.47
Direct Deposits 2,198,895 $641,787,159.29
Total 2,878,789 $826,168,924.76


Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) credit
Issuance date Number of Payments Amount Issued
April 3rd, 2009 Cheques 5,038,360 $460,564,101.27
Direct Deposits 3,516,411 $370,045,455.84
Total 8,554,771 $830,609,557.11

... and... ?

It doesn't matter what crime. A crime is a crime is a crime.

According to another article, a refugee is qualified as a visitor if they are authorized to stay for at least 12 months and must be taxed income if they are to receive "family allowance". If a refugee is out of status then they get no "family allowance" but pay no tax either. Welfare in B.C is determined by residency, which is against the rest of Canada and is being fought against so refugees in B.C can get welfare regardless.

halonachos wrote:It doesn't matter what crime. A crime is a crime is a crime.

So you'd refuse refuge for a christian fleeing persecutiuon from Indonesia/similar ? Somone whose crime was merely believing in a different god ?

LunaHound wrote:Issuance date Number of Payments Amount Issued
April 20th, 2009 Cheques 679,894 $184,381,765.47
Direct Deposits 2,198,895 $641,787,159.29
Total 2,878,789 $826,168,924.76


Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) credit
Issuance date Number of Payments Amount Issued
April 3rd, 2009 Cheques 5,038,360 $460,564,101.27
Direct Deposits 3,516,411 $370,045,455.84
Total 8,554,771 $830,609,557.11

I believe that those are refunds.

reds8n wrote:

halonachos wrote:It doesn't matter what crime. A crime is a crime is a crime.

So you'd refuse refuge for a christian fleeing persecutiuon from Indonesia/similar ? Somone whose crime was merely believing in a different god ?

Where are you getting these religious criminals from or are you just throwing random things again?

Not many countries still have that as a crime reds8n. Its 2008, not the late 1700s.

Also, persecution is not always allowed under law. A person being persecuted is different from being a criminal.

PS: Its not against the law to be christian in Indonesia.

In fact, christianity/judaism are only outlawed in countries with Sharia Law(the muslim theocracy) and last time I checked, it takes a while for new systems of government to be put in place so christians/jews have a chance to get out. Also, any muslim hoping to convert can leave the country and then convert while out of the country. These people are not called criminals.

halonachos wrote:Not many countries still have that as a crime reds8n. Its 2008, not the late 1700s.

Also, persecution is not always allowed under law. A person being persecuted is different from being a criminal.

sadly there's quite a few countries where various religions are if not outlawed then its adherents are victimised to the point of murder

Indonesia is perhaps not the best example but recent laws etc there have been making life every difficult for people.

PS: Its not against the law to be christian in Indonesia.

In some countries it is, unbelievably, illegal to convert -- " proselytizing"

Also, any muslim hoping to convert can leave the country and then convert while out of the country. These people are not called criminals.

See here

The chap returned to his country after converting. He should've stayed in germany.

There was also a typo in that article; "while" not "Wwhile".

Back on topic though mate.

According to tax refunds, etc. Non-residents can get their taxes refunded to them. Refugees are categorized as non-residents/visitors so they can get their taxes back.

In the first site you posted, I saw a lot of the word militant, sectarian violence, attacks. Perhaps these are not new laws, but people going against the law?

What taxes are they paying though and how are they then claiming back more than they paid ? That's the issue I have.

HE didn't convert in Germany, but anyway...

halonachos wrote:In fact, christianity/judaism are only outlawed in countries with Sharia Law(the muslim theocracy) and last time I checked, it takes a while for new systems of government to be put in place so christians/jews have a chance to get out. Also, any muslim hoping to convert can leave the country and then convert while out of the country. These people are not called criminals.

That's actually not true at all. Any Muslim who converts is considered apostate, and is therefore subject to the death penalty. At least according to the most conservative interpretations of Sharia.

Its also worth pointing out that alternative faiths are not explicitly banned under Sharia. They cannot convert followers (though only because of the aforementioned death penalty), and they cannot build new places of worship (though they can repair old ones), but are otherwise permitted to operate as they see fit.

At reds8n,
If they are authorized to stay for 12 years or over, they pay income tax. If they are not a resident, they can get the money back. If they decide to stay as a resident then rules still apply, but they can stay for over 5 years without being a resident.
Also, those who go to canada, but are not granted refugee status often stay as an illegal immigrant.

At dogma,
About people being called criminals, I was talking about them converting after leaving the country. By leaving the country I mean emigrating to a non-sharia law country. I was wondering about that no alternative religion thing, there are churches in Saudi Arabia but they are not allowed to build additional ones.

I need some sleep. Ciao for now.

halonachos wrote:
I was wondering about that no alternative religion thing, there are churches in Saudi Arabia but they are not allowed to build additional ones.

The rules regarding the treatment of other religions form the most explicit component of Sharia. That's why Sharia nations that break from the classical mold are so significant. Actually there was a big deal made over a country (either Yemen or Qatar) for doing that just a couple months ago.

reds8n wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Stupid accusations? Ppl would stone you to death if you are in BC right now.

Enough , dont need someone across the globe telling us what happen and doesnt happen.

t(^^t)

It would seem you do.

Still why let the facts get in the way of your bigotry eh ?

OH noes ! The $%^ £$% girl called me a name !

Ok dude, you need to calm the hell down and stop getting all rear end hurt over this.

This thread is closed due to multiple flameouts and from people who normally don't do so.