quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And that has never existed, Adam Smith's little world, and Adam Smith was no free-market guy.  He advocated strong government interference under several conditions in the 'markets'.  I don't understand why so many would misunderstand and read so much beyond reason into the a book by a man who studied and recieved a degree was in social philosopy (isn't that socialism in the parlance of the 'republicans' nowadays, and a teacher of moral philosophy before becoming the Director of the English Customs House near our American Revolution.

So, unable to buy your assumptions, I cannot buy the deal.

As opposed to who...Marx? You have to be kidding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And that has never existed, Adam Smith's little world, and Adam Smith was no free-market guy.  He advocated strong government interference under several conditions in the 'markets'.  I don't understand why so many would misunderstand and read so much beyond reason into the a book by a man who studied and recieved a degree was in social philosopy (isn't that socialism in the parlance of the 'republicans' nowadays, and a teacher of moral philosophy before becoming the Director of the English Customs House near our American Revolution.

So, unable to buy your assumptions, I cannot buy the deal.

As opposed to who...Marx? You have to be kidding.

No as opposed to the run of the mill untutored and inummerate internet babblers who couldn't find their own ass with two hands and a flashlight, now, you might be a Marxist, thats fine, but don't tout that he is an economic theorist, hell even Friedman had more economic relevance, although he was certainly cretinous.

I see that your guy is Hjalmer Schaact. 

And some friendly advice, if you have no knowledge of the subject matter, as you have so amply demonstrated, leaving off the lame projections and conspiratorial adhesion of non-sequiturs as synecdoche,  and further considering in your case, silence be the better part of valor, so that you will not be regarded as a buffoon by the entire board. 

However, that cause is lost to some who do have subject matter domain and have who have read your foolish cants to date.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Okay, so now you've said some reasonable things and even tied it to the thread. Thank you from me. Two quick comments if I may. It's always been a Marxist concept to look at evil corporations bad, government good. I personally contend evil government is worse, but I won't quibble. But, let's you and I say that the evil corporations could not be as evil if they weren't married to the government. If we can agree on that, then we can assign you to root out corporate evil and me to root out government evil.

quote:

Second, there is no evidence that anything that head start benefits children beyond the third grade. Studies show head start kids perform at par with non head start kids beginning in the third grade. So, to me, all head start is, is a baby setting welfare gift for people who don't want to raise their own kids but rather that I paid for someone to do it for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I get a theoretically equal vote in my government. I don't have any say-so in the affairs of a corporation.

A lot of people like to make the argument that you can "consent" to buying things from a corporate entity. The truth is that you can't live with any decency without power running to your house. Large, powerful companies have historically tended to trample municipal facilities, including those owned and operated by local governments.

http://www.nndb.com/people/763/000024691/

I think that large companies tend to be very crooked, and I trust them substantially less than I trust politicians in government. If you think that large companies are a better friend to you than the government, then you are fucking delusional. You're better off hedging your bets with an entity that you have some level of control over.

I just posted some material that demonstrates that programs like Head Start are highly effective at reducing violent crime, reducing repeat violent offenders by 70%, so your claim there is pretty much washed-up.

With that in mind, would you approve of all money presently going into gun control going into programs like Head Start? Or would you prefer it be left paying for functions of government that impede your ability to purchase and own a firearm?

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Okay, so now you've said some reasonable things and even tied it to the thread. Thank you from me. Two quick comments if I may. It's always been a Marxist concept to look at evil corporations bad, government good. I personally contend evil government is worse, but I won't quibble. But, let's you and I say that the evil corporations could not be as evil if they weren't married to the government. If we can agree on that, then we can assign you to root out corporate evil and me to root out government evil.

I get a theoretically equal vote in my government. I don't have any say-so in the affairs of a corporation.

A lot of people like to make the argument that you can "consent" to buying things from a corporate entity. The truth is that you can't live with any decency without power running to your house. Large, powerful companies have historically tended to trample municipal facilities, including those owned and operated by local governments. Dennis Kucinich actually made himself a bit of a hero by fighting against that sort of thing.

http://www.nndb.com/people/763/000024691/

I think that large companies tend to be very crooked, and I trust them substantially less than I trust politicians in government. If you think that large companies are a better friend to you than the government, then you are fucking delusional. You're better off hedging your bets with an entity that you have some level of control over.

quote:

Second, there is no evidence that anything that head start benefits children beyond the third grade. Studies show head start kids perform at par with non head start kids beginning in the third grade. So, to me, all head start is, is a baby setting welfare gift for people who don't want to raise their own kids but rather that I paid for someone to do it for them.

I just posted some material that demonstrates that programs like Head Start are highly effective at reducing violent crime, reducing repeat violent offenders by 70%, so your claim there is pretty much washed-up.

With that in mind, would you approve of all money presently going into gun control going into programs like Head Start? Or would you prefer it be left paying for functions of government that impede your ability to purchase and own a firearm?

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

Second, there is no evidence that anything that head start benefits children beyond the third grade. Studies show head start kids perform at par with non head start kids beginning in the third grade. So, to me, all head start is, is a baby setting welfare gift for people who don't want to raise their own kids but rather that I paid for someone to do it for them.

I just posted some material that demonstrates that programs like Head Start are highly effective at reducing violent crime, reducing repeat violent offenders by 70%, so your claim there is pretty much washed-up.

Found your link to a two page report. I didnt look at references. The report stated this:

Quality Child Care Cuts Crime
Powerful evidence from one study after another proves that high quality care in the first years of life can greatly reduce the risk that today’s babies and toddlers will become tomorrow’s violent teens and adults.1


My question is wouldn't the highest quality child care be a parent at home with the child? I think it's obvious that early care is vitally important for a child. But, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that is what a child gets when raised by a parent rather than a stranger? Why are we even considering having strangers raise child?

(in reply to butternutsquash)

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


A lot of people like to make the argument that you can "consent" to buying things from a corporate entity. The truth is that you can't live with any decency without power running to your house. Large, powerful companies have historically tended to trample municipal facilities, including those owned and operated by local governments.

As I stated a little earlier. I live off the grid. My house is not connected to any utility except that I have propane delivered and propane is a very competitive market here.

However, as a whole, in CA all utilities are heavily regulated by the state. For instance, if you put solar panels on your roof here in sunny California, your local utility has no choice but to reimburse you half the cost and pass that cost onto other rate payers. The State will also give you tax credits and the Feds give you tax credits so you end up paying little out of pocket. In addition, if you spin your electric meter backwards from the power you generate from those panels, the State requires the utility to pay you for the electricity at the same rate that they sell it to you, despite the fact that you have no overhead to maintain as the power company does.

(in reply to butternutsquash)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Found your link to a two page report. I didnt look at references. The report stated this:

Quality Child Care Cuts Crime
Powerful evidence from one study after another proves that high quality care in the first years of life can greatly reduce the risk that today’s babies and toddlers will become tomorrow’s violent teens and adults.1


My question is wouldn't the highest quality child care be a parent at home with the child?

quote:

I think it's obvious that early care is vitally important for a child. But, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that is what a child gets when raised by a parent rather than a stranger?

quote:

Why are we even considering having strangers raise child?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

Because I don't want to find myself taking the charity of strangers after some uneducated vermin break down my door, shoot me through the spine, and gleefully rape my wife as I lie there with the life flowing out of my body.

Not to worry. There's little chance of you accepting anything from anybody after you're dead.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

Try actually reading the story, you offensive cunt.

GOD THIS UNMODERATED SHIT IS THE MOST AWESOME THING EVER!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

Try actually reading the story, you offensive cunt.

GOD THIS UNMODERATED SHIT IS THE MOST AWESOME THING EVER!!!

I knew this was a sock. Now, I know to whom it belongs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

As I stated a little earlier. I live off the grid. My house is not connected to any utility except that I have propane delivered and propane is a very competitive market here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I don't suppose this has occurred to you but once you are in a mugging you are totally involved, and to base your actions on the assumed good intention of the criminal is tantamount to suicide, but to each their own.

"Good intentions" is your term. What I am saying is that, if someone is holding you up with a gun, he most likely doesn't want to kill you, or you would already be dead. He wants your money. If you do something to make him panic or the gun goes off by accident while you're struggling, congratulations: you're dead, and all you've accomplished is to ruin the asshole's day by becoming an item on his rap sheet. Most of the time, if you are being held at gunpoint or knifepoint by an armed robber, the robber's intent is to 1) get something in the deal and 2) get away as quickly as possible. If the thug thinks you are wasting his time, he might kill you just so he can get away quicker.

The vermin is simply not worth your time, and he's certainly not worth your life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

Try actually reading the story, you offensive cunt.

GOD THIS UNMODERATED SHIT IS THE MOST AWESOME THING EVER!!!

I knew this was a sock. Now, I know to whom it belongs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I'm pretty sure if you have read my lame projections and conspiratorial adhesion of non-sequiturs, or even my foolish cants to date, as you say, you really wouldn't confuse me with a Marxist. So, I have to conclude you're just ranting and not really reading. You really don't want a discourse so much as a soapbox.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I don't suppose this has occurred to you but once you are in a mugging you are totally involved, and to base your actions on the assumed good intention of the criminal is tantamount to suicide, but to each their own.

"Good intentions" is your term. What I am saying is that, if someone is holding you up with a gun, he most likely doesn't want to kill you, or you would already be dead. He wants your money. If you do something to make him panic or the gun goes off by accident while you're struggling, congratulations: you're dead, and all you've accomplished is to ruin the asshole's day by becoming an item on his rap sheet. Most of the time, if you are being held at gunpoint or knifepoint by an armed robber, the robber's intent is to 1) get something in the deal and 2) get away as quickly as possible. If the thug thinks you are wasting his time, he might kill you just so he can get away quicker.

The vermin is simply not worth your time, and he's certainly not worth your life.

Like if you don't carry any money.
And no matter how you spin it you are arguing to depend on a lack of malice on his part.
Victimhood is not a plan it's what you get when the plan fails.

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I don't suppose this has occurred to you but once you are in a mugging you are totally involved, and to base your actions on the assumed good intention of the criminal is tantamount to suicide, but to each their own.

"Good intentions" is your term. What I am saying is that, if someone is holding you up with a gun, he most likely doesn't want to kill you, or you would already be dead. He wants your money. If you do something to make him panic or the gun goes off by accident while you're struggling, congratulations: you're dead, and all you've accomplished is to ruin the asshole's day by becoming an item on his rap sheet. Most of the time, if you are being held at gunpoint or knifepoint by an armed robber, the robber's intent is to 1) get something in the deal and 2) get away as quickly as possible. If the thug thinks you are wasting his time, he might kill you just so he can get away quicker.

The vermin is simply not worth your time, and he's certainly not worth your life.

Like if you don't carry any money.
And no matter how you spin it you are arguing to depend on a lack of malice on his part.
Victimhood is not a plan it's what you get when the plan fails.

LOOK. IF YOU PULL A GUN ON SOMEONE WHO ALREADY HAS A GUN TRAINED ON YOU, THE MOTHERFUCKER IS GOING TO SHOOT YOU. WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, YOU FUCKING RETARDED MORON?

YOU ARE FUCKING DENSE.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html#.Un4yXvnDyQw

REALITY HAS NEVER BEEN ON YOUR SIDE HERE. YOU HAVE SPENT YOUR LIFE BELIEVING SHIT.

REALITY IS THAT YOUR OWN KID IS MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED, YOU DUMB SHIT.

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/more-guns-in-us-homes-more-kids-getting-shot-131026.htm

IT IS NOT THAT YOU ARE REALLY THIS STUPID. YOU ARE JUST AN ASSHOLE.