RE: What is the 'nanny state' ?

RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/9/2010 7:31:59 AM)
ACORN has nothing to do with this dude, again... what are you fucking smoking...

juliaoceania -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/9/2010 7:37:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Charging people for search and rescue isn't really nanny government, thats forcing people to take responsibility for their own actions (which is going the opposite direction from nannyism). Telling people they can't go into the wild, or climb mountains, or go kayaking on wild rivers would be nanny government. We do all of that If a trail is dangerous, they close it. If you go on that trail anyways and get stuck, they will pull you out. If they have to endanger themselves because you are an asshat, they will charge you for it... You could even be arrested for such behavior.

Sanity -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/9/2010 9:20:46 AM)
You're completely lost, and theres no point in trying to bring you up to speed, but for everyone else - yes, ACORN was heavily involved in getting people mortgages that they couldn't afford, all with the nanny governments blessing, which in turn was a significant factor in the mortgage crisis that led to our current economic downturn. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania ACORN has nothing to do with this dude, again... what are you fucking smoking...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/9/2010 11:37:39 AM)
. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania ACORN has nothing to do with this dude, again... what are you fucking smoking... WTF? I guess they dont get the internetz in Long Beach...or TV, or newspapers. Or is this referring to something other than sub-standard lending practices?

DomKen -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/9/2010 1:33:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy . quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania ACORN has nothing to do with this dude, again... what are you fucking smoking... WTF? I guess they dont get the internetz in Long Beach...or TV, or newspapers. Or is this referring to something other than sub-standard lending practices? What is the dollar value of the sub prime mortgages ACORN made in 2005? or in any year? ACORN had nothing to do with the sub prime crisis.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/9/2010 2:30:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy . quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania ACORN has nothing to do with this dude, again... what are you fucking smoking... WTF? I guess they dont get the internetz in Long Beach...or TV, or newspapers. Or is this referring to something other than sub-standard lending practices? What is the dollar value of the sub prime mortgages ACORN made in 2005? or in any year? ACORN had nothing to do with the sub prime crisis. Kendoll, wrong again. The gift that keeps on giving. just one of dozens of articles "From the current hand-wringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards – at the behest of community groups and “progressive” political forces. In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining” – claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation. " "Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.

DomKen -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/9/2010 2:37:35 PM)
So you admit that ACORN made no mortgage loans. As to the rest redlining is illegal. A column from a Murdoch mouthpiece trying to discredit ACORN doesn't change that.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/9/2010 4:22:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you admit that ACORN made no mortgage loans. Nice strawman. That was never claimed, nor the issue.

thornhappy -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/9/2010 10:49:27 PM)
As a FR, just an aside... For those who rail against a nanny state... in the event of earthquake, tornado, flood, derecho, or hurricane, would you accept government assistance (municipal or federal)? Red Cross assistance? How about after an instance of terrorism, like the Murrah or WTC bombings?

Moonhead -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 5:08:23 AM)
Of course they would. They only want the government to stay out of their business when it suits them.

thishereboi -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 5:22:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi CA was just pissed because AZ was stirring up shit about illegals. How much money do you think CA make each year by exploiting all those people? They don't want laws enforced. That would crash your economy. So California is making money exploiting illegals but Arizona is losing money by being exploited by illegals? Did I say AZ was losing money?

thishereboi -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 5:27:13 AM)
quote: You quoted that incorrectly... first you posted this one. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Try to address what I posted, instead of the voices in your head julia. And where do you suppose all the "white flight fucktards" in Idaho are from? Yeah - they're Californians. No... they're Idahoans quote: And why do you resent them so, of course they're leaving that hell hole as fast as they can. What do you expect with California being one of the most Liberal, heavily taxed and regulated "nanny states" in the nation. I resent the home of White Power movements and dumb fuck militias... Mark Fuhrman types... (doesn't he live there?) Back to the thread that you keep trying to ignore by your lame attempts at flirting with me, etc.... you ignored two posts about your boric acid examples... And like I said, if you want to live with complete deregulation... move to China and then you posted this one... quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: They're from California, just like you. Let me type this s-l-o-w-l-y for you so that you may understand that hailing from a state within this country is not like having a nationality... we are all Americans no matter where we live, we become a citizen of whatever state we move to when we change our address.... you do understand this, right? I mean, it is not a complicated idea, try harder to grasp it. quote: We have all kinds living here, just like everywhere else. And wouldn't you know it, Fuhrman is from California too. Yes we have those types, they moved to Orange County and Idaho.... quote: You're the one who admits to perving my profile julia. But like I say, I'm used to all the attention so its okay. No ones made a decent point about the boric acid. And two of those who replied about it are incoherent babblers who I rarely if ever respond to. You are attempting to derail the thread because you are pointless, you have no answer so you keep harping on this... pathetic. quote: Or I could stay here in Idaho, where many of the wealthiest, most successful Californians are fleeing to (much to your chagrin)! We have enough people here, I hope more leave and go to Idaho, and pollute that state instead of mine Looks right to me.

Sanity -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 5:30:18 AM)
You know that its not black and white like that, thornhappy. At ridiculous extremes most any argument falls apart, sure. But if you look at the argument more realistically you'll see that at the kernal of it most Libertarians and Conservatives inhabit a place much closer to the middle than typical big government Liberals do. There was a poll done recently by James Carville, a fairly radical Democrat and a former Clinton aide that shows how many Americans believe that our "nanny government" is becoming far too aggressive: quote: 55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama? The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent. Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.” On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal. When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy As a FR, just an aside... For those who rail against a nanny state... in the event of earthquake, tornado, flood, derecho, or hurricane, would you accept government assistance (municipal or federal)? Red Cross assistance? How about after an instance of terrorism, like the Murrah or WTC bombings? http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama

Sanity -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 6:17:40 AM)
Thank you julia, another perfect example. Our glorious Teachers Unions are a prime example of how our current nanny state consistently rewards failure, aren't they! But I would disagree with your idea that nanny state failures require exponentially more nanny state intervention. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Unfortunately, after starting my research up in Yosemite, I am thinking that people do need a nanny state... I was aware of the stupidity inherent within human beings before I went up there, especially the tourist kind, but what one employee told me of the questions he was regularly asked convinces me that there is a significant portion of people who cannot think high enough to keep themselves safe... these are the questions he told me about (or various forms of them) are as follows 1. Is there a switch that turns Yosemite Falls off at night? And where is it located? ( I actually overheard someone ask a ranger if they recently "diverted" the Falls[:D]) 2. Where is the bear pen where they house the bears? (Insert any other form of wildlife into that question, as if Yosemite is a zoo. 3. Is there a place I can four wheel in Yosemite Valley? 4. Do you sell deer food in this store? Then there are the behaviors... walking into the street to get the "perfect" photo. This of course is not done correctly unless a tourist backs up traffic on busy days, or steps right out in front of a tour bus almost getting mowed down. Then there are people who take toddlers up to the base of Yosemite Falls, on slippery wet rocks, when the falls are full... of course, there is usually at least one Falls related death per year because people are fucking stupid... I rest my case for he nanny state... yes some people do need their coffee marked "hot"

Musicmystery -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 7:42:46 AM)
The silly nanny state should stop solving people's problems for them, like giving them a military to fight their enemies for them. It makes for weak people and raids the treasury. Let them fight their own terrorists. We'd have a much healthier populace, and much more observant. Just like those opposed to abortion, those opposed to military spending shouldn't have to see their tax dollars go toward it. Let the private sector provide military services to those who wish to have them, rather than have the nanny state force it on people. Pure Libertarians would love it, anyway! Until the "nanny state" bitchers embrace policies like these, they are simply whining. Regulation is important for a number of reasons, current and historical--especially because some will always want to do whatever they want at the expense of others. Hence, we will always have a need for business, environment, safety and legal restrictions. It's a fact of life. Not everyone is sensible, and not everyone agrees on what is sensible. Hell, we have police precisely because some people are going to abuse their freedom and abilities at the expense of others. "Nanny state?" Try welcome to reality and to adulthood. Every organization, large and small, formal and ad hoc, has rules, and for good reason.

mnottertail -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 7:44:37 AM)
837 polled, this is cute, and of the 837 exactly 837 would not have the beginning of a clue what a socialist is. But they know one when they see one.

Musicmystery -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 7:45:38 AM)
Well he does go to a lot of parties/receptions and talks to a lot of people...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 7:51:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy As a FR, just an aside... For those who rail against a nanny state... in the event of earthquake, tornado, flood, derecho, or hurricane, would you accept government assistance (municipal or federal)? Red Cross assistance? How about after an instance of terrorism, like the Murrah or WTC bombings? Why wouldnt someone NOT accept payments for what they are forced to "insure" against via taxes? The issue is what role the government should play in subsidizing peoples risk against those losses, not what you would do after youve already paid for them. Natural disasters...infrastructure or unforseeable losses only, anyone in area at high risk for the hazard should have to buy private insurance. Government administered insurance pools for catastrophic losses are fine, but it should be state level, and individual premiums based on risk, unless the risk is so widespread in the state that the financial ramifications impact the vast majority of the residents and there is the potential for signficicant free-riding. Terrorism...yes...areas at high risk for terrorist activity are such because they are symbols of the country or financial/industrial/governmental targets critical to the country. Everyone in the country should bear that risk. If we were ever in a position where terrorism were frequent enough to develop a private insurance market we'd be fucked in so many other ways the direct costs of the act wouldnt mean shit anyway.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 7:57:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 837 polled, this is cute, and of the 837 exactly 837 would not have the beginning of a clue what a socialist is. But they know one when they see one. Typical ad hominen, this time against a Democrat sponsored organization. In case you havent noticed samples of 800-1200 are the norm and statistically valid. You are right though, that many would not have a clue what a socialist is. The libs on this board must not know, because they dont recognize one when he's standing right in front of them.

Sanity -> RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? (7/10/2010 8:00:32 AM)
You failed to address my point about how the teachers unions are a miserable failure. Oh thats right, you belong to a teachers union, don't you. You like the fact that regardless of how inept you are at your job you can't be fired, don't you. You failures who are suckling on nannys teats will never look around and never complain as you're getting fat while fucking off, and at everyone elses expense. The countrys education has gone to hell, but you couldn't be any happier. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The silly nanny state should stop solving people's problems for them, like giving them a military to fight their enemies for them. It makes for weak people and raids the treasury. Let them fight their own terrorists. We'd have a much healthier populace, and much more observant. Just like those opposed to abortion, those opposed to military spending shouldn't have to see their tax dollars go toward it. Let the private sector provide military services to those who wish to have them, rather than have the nanny state force it on people. Pure Libertarians would love it, anyway! Until the "nanny state" bitchers embrace policies like these, they are simply whining. Regulation is important for a number of reasons, current and historical--especially because some will always want to do whatever they want at the expense of others. Hence, we will always have a need for business, environment, safety and legal restrictions. It's a fact of life. Not everyone is sensible, and not everyone agrees on what is sensible. Hell, we have police precisely because some people are going to abuse their freedom and abilities at the expense of others. "Nanny state?" Try welcome to reality and to adulthood. Every organization, large and small, formal and ad hoc, has rules, and for good reason.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875