Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Just to be clear I'm not against unemployment benefits at all, I am very much for it.

I was judging him based on the fact he is against "socialism" in general, when some aspects of socialism are obviously beneficial (as in socialized unemployment benefits). I was also judging him based on his friends responses, indicating that he isn't even trying to find a new job, and instead sits around drinking. He's abusing a system just because it's abusable, and claiming that he has the right too since they didn't make it non-abusable (which would be virtually impossible).

Systems like unemployment exist because people in bad situations deserve to be helped, and that help has to come from somewhere. People who immediately write it off as socialist and bad because it can be abused need to understand that sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. It can be abused, and it is, but I would still rather have it than not.

I agree with you. When young I had to go on unemployment for about 6 months, but ended up getting hired back (and at a higher wage) by the same company. My dad owned a small construction company and his workers often would have to go on unemployment during colder winter months (the mortar would freeze). Unemployment insurance is very important, especially for those in trade professions.

Critiquing a system does not equal condemnation. I think people do need a bridge from one job to another, but our current unemployment system has serious flaws. Here are a two big ones:

1) 2 years is far too long. If you can't get a job in your chosen field for a year, its time to think about changing fields.

2) Currently, if you file as a small business in any way, you lose your benefits even if you show zero profit. This means if you become unemployed the government pays you to NOT be entrepreneurial. The benefits could be used to help fund a new, profitable business but instead are reserved for those who wait for another position and opportunity to work for someone else.

Fixing these two obvious flaws would go a long way to correcting what used to be a reasonable system, but unfortunately politics tends to extend and exacerbate obvious flaws in entitlements, and not correct them. I tend to think that maybe private industry should be allowed to throw their hat in the ring. Mandate unemployment insurance, but allow private companies to compete for the business. I'm sure there would be a lot to work out to make this possible, but its worth a thought. It works with car insurance in PA, why not unemployment?

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

Actually, TheGame, that was highly rude of you to post something like that in a thread. I find that to be very personal. Damn man.

How is it rude? He's against the government doing something for him that he needed... and trying to justify it. I don't think that's rude, I'm just pointing out that he's a hypocrite.

People like to forget why things like unemployment payments were created in the first place. It's not because the government wanted more control over people's lives, it's because these corperations that Strangler has so much trust in could get rid of their employees at any time for any reason and bump them into an instant state of poverty. (People who have potential to get another job, but not nessicarily another job before rent is due next month...)

The second we bring up any subject about the government helping people who are truely in need for different reasons, he's strongly against it since he never had to take it himself.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

What is up with the hate?

EDIT:

Actually, TheGame, that was highly rude of you to post something like that in a thread. I find that to be very personal. Damn man.

Oh, did he insult me? This is why I have him set to "Ignore" and block his posts.

[Professor S]

Game, I signed out so that I could see what you wrote.

When are you going to learn that you can't shoe horn me into what you think is the conservative opinion? The paragraphs of assumptions you wrote have proven themselves, yet again, to be incorrect. As I mentioned in my post above, criticism does not equal condemnation. My opinions tend to be nuanced, and even though you continually try to paint me one way, your fiction cannot overturn reality once I actually offer my true opinion.

The part that probably bothers me the most is how cowardly it is to attack someone, and lie about their viewpoint, when you know they can't see what you are saying. It bothers me, but I'm not upset, mainly because it doesn't surprise me that you did it.

In all, this is a perfect example of why I ignored you in the first place and will continue to ignore you. I can debate anyone on any topic as long at they are fair and honest. You are neither, and that makes any conversation on politics with you pointless.

And with that, I will continue my policy of not feeding the trolls.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

The part that probably bothers me the most is how cowardly it is to attack someone, and lie about their viewpoint, when you know they can't see what you are saying.

You made the choice to block me... therefore you're hiding from me, not vice versa. And you call me a coward? Everything I post I'm aware that you can see if you wanted to, and I don't say anything different now then I did when I was not blocked. As far as I know, I could be unblocked the whole time, and your opinion could be skewing based off of what I say.

So with that said, the real 'coward' is the one who runs from any viewpoint that is different from their own... aka you. So go ahead and put your earmuffs back on Mr. Republican. As I told you from the start, that's not going to stop me from sharing my opinion...

When are you going to learn that you can't shoe horn me into what you think is the conservative opinion? The paragraphs of assumptions you wrote have proven themselves, yet again, to be incorrect.

My assumption (well, not assumption... since I knew it for a fact) was that you had recieved unemployment before, therefore you're not against it, and will find a reason to defend it.. in other words, you'd be a hypocrite just like the guy who posted on FB. What did you next post start with? The fact that you've recieved unemployment, and justification for why it is good. So I was right, yet again...

So what other entitlements are you for my delusional friend? Oh wait, we had this debate before... pretty much nothing right? Anything that you won't get and/or don't have potential to get. Including 'socialized' healthcare right? Or am I making a blind assumption again?

Oh... wait... I know, I know! He won't answer this question because he has me blocked... which brings me back to my first point, about who's hiding from who. And he has the audacity to call me a coward. pssssssh

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Professor S

The part that probably bothers me the most is how cowardly it is to attack someone, and lie about their viewpoint, when you know they can't see what you are saying.

Wow, your saying TheGame is the cowardly one here? He is not the one who blocked someone else simply because he didnt like what they were saying. Did I miss something?

Also, I in no way whatsoever feel that anything TheGame has posted in this thread as been anywhere near an "attack"