Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / Sensata

Sensata

64 posts
  1. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/25/2012 12:10 PM
    Michael Wagner said: Scott I pay my own bills. Also I'm a firm believer of survival of the fittest so if by chance i do get sick and cant afford to pay for the treatment I would go without or find an inexpensive homeopathic method to deal with it.


    We cannot count on you making that same decision when you have a spear sticking out. It has not worked with others in the past.



  2. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    10/25/2012 1:10 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:
    Michael Wagner said: Scott I pay my own bills. Also I'm a firm believer of survival of the fittest so if by chance i do get sick and cant afford to pay for the treatment I would go without or find an inexpensive homeopathic method to deal with it.


    We cannot count on you making that same decision when you have a spear sticking out. It has not worked with others in the past.


    Au contraire. There's instances galore of people paying their own way. You make it sound as if every person that doesn't have insurance is laying the hospital bill at your feet.



  3. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/26/2012 8:10 AM
    Actually what I meant was that corporations abuse some of the laws, amendments and constitutional rights that were intended for individual people and that it is ridiculous that they are allowed to do so. I think we are on the same page but I just wanted to clarify.



  4. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/26/2012 8:10 AM
    Who says it's my decision to make??? Look at the way nature works. You think a dog that gets hit by a car gets to choose whether or not it gets help from a vet? The problem here is that society has lost sight of what really matters. In our society it is not the strong that survive and the weak that give way for the strong to thrive. As it stands right now the weaker you are the more help you get so you can feel strong. That's why welfare is out of control, that's why people would rather be jobless and lazy because they know that you and I pay taxes that will be thrown away on them so they can "feel" stronger. Makes me sick to see not just America but the human race going in that direction and expecting things to get better.



  5. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/26/2012 8:10 AM
    If you've never worked with insurance companies from the recieving end then you probably wouldn't understand. Most of the time they only pay pennies on the dollar if they decide to pay anything at all.



  6. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    10/26/2012 10:10 AM
    Michael Wagner said: Who says it's my decision to make??? Look at the way nature works. You think a dog that gets hit by a car gets to choose whether or not it gets help from a vet? The problem here is that society has lost sight of what really matters. In our society it is not the strong that survive and the weak that give way for the strong to thrive. As it stands right now the weaker you are the more help you get so you can feel strong. That's why welfare is out of control, that's why people would rather be jobless and lazy because they know that you and I pay taxes that will be thrown away on them so they can "feel" stronger. Makes me sick to see not just America but the human race going in that direction and expecting things to get better.


    Aren't we as humans above a "survival of the fittest" mentality? Otherwise our life expectancy would still be about 25 years, right? Humane societies do have a safety net. The problem of course is that there are always going to be those that take advantage of it. Fortunately, sitting on the couch watching diesel mechanic or trucking school commercials does not appeal to most of our society.



  7. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/26/2012 10:10 AM
    Ronald Conard, CGCS said:
    Michael Wagner said: Who says it's my decision to make??? Look at the way nature works. You think a dog that gets hit by a car gets to choose whether or not it gets help from a vet? The problem here is that society has lost sight of what really matters. In our society it is not the strong that survive and the weak that give way for the strong to thrive. As it stands right now the weaker you are the more help you get so you can feel strong. That's why welfare is out of control, that's why people would rather be jobless and lazy because they know that you and I pay taxes that will be thrown away on them so they can "feel" stronger. Makes me sick to see not just America but the human race going in that direction and expecting things to get better.


    Aren't we as humans above a "survival of the fittest" mentality? Otherwise our life expectancy would still be about 25 years, right? Humane societies do have a safety net. The problem of course is that there are always going to be those that take advantage of it. Fortunately, sitting on the couch watching diesel mechanic or trucking school commercials does not appeal to most of our society.


    Haven't you heard that 47% of Americans are sponging off the rest of us! Myth said it so it must be true.



  8. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/26/2012 10:10 AM
    Ronald Conard, CGCS said:
    Michael Wagner said: Who says it's my decision to make??? Look at the way nature works. You think a dog that gets hit by a car gets to choose whether or not it gets help from a vet? The problem here is that society has lost sight of what really matters. In our society it is not the strong that survive and the weak that give way for the strong to thrive. As it stands right now the weaker you are the more help you get so you can feel strong. That's why welfare is out of control, that's why people would rather be jobless and lazy because they know that you and I pay taxes that will be thrown away on them so they can "feel" stronger. Makes me sick to see not just America but the human race going in that direction and expecting things to get better.


    Aren't we as humans above a "survival of the fittest" mentality? Otherwise our life expectancy would still be about 25 years, right? Humane societies do have a safety net. The problem of course is that there are always going to be those that take advantage of it. Fortunately, sitting on the couch watching diesel mechanic or trucking school commercials does not appeal to most of our society.


    It just seems messed up to me that now our government is doing things like quietly supporting the cancer industry to control population among many other things that are just as ridiculous. What most of our society doesn't realize is that it's not just the people anymore taking advantage of the system but also the government.



  9. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/26/2012 11:10 AM
    Forced to buy health insurance but cigarettes are still legal??? Seems like someone is taking advantage!



  10. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/26/2012 11:10 AM
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said:
    Michael Wagner said: I guess what I'm getting at is that in the 18th and 19 centuries our government structure worked well and since then in the 20th and 21st centuries it no longer works properly and should be restructured to fit todays needs.


    Yeah, in the 18th century the government was so good it fostered a revolution. In the 19th century things were humming along smoothly, except for slavery, a civil war, and ethnic cleansing of aboriginal Americans, of course. Minor glitches, like the fact that only white men were allowed to vote.

    The good old days. If only our government today would provide us with some revolutions and genocide, but then the lame stream media would probably only criticize it.


    I think you forgot that all of those things ended well for our society except maybe the one about ethnic cleansing. But honestly there could be arguments made for that too. Did you forget that slavery is over or that we revolted and won? Or maybe you forgot that any citizen over 18 can vote now. I'm confused how you see these as bad things. Can you explain please?



  11. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/26/2012 11:10 AM
    Michael Wagner said:
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said:
    Michael Wagner said: I guess what I'm getting at is that in the 18th and 19 centuries our government structure worked well and since then in the 20th and 21st centuries it no longer works properly and should be restructured to fit todays needs.


    Yeah, in the 18th century the government was so good it fostered a revolution. In the 19th century things were humming along smoothly, except for slavery, a civil war, and ethnic cleansing of aboriginal Americans, of course. Minor glitches, like the fact that only white men were allowed to vote.

    The good old days. If only our government today would provide us with some revolutions and genocide, but then the lame stream media would probably only criticize it.


    I think you forgot that all of those things ended well for our society except maybe the one about ethnic cleansing. But honestly there could be arguments made for that too. Did you forget that slavery is over or that we revolted and won? Or maybe you forgot that any citizen over 18 can vote now. I'm confused how you see these as bad things. Can you explain please?


    Yes Stephen, please tell us why genocide is a bad thing!



  12. Stephen Okula
    Stephen Okula avatar
    3 posts
    10/26/2012 11:10 AM
    Michael Wagner said:
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said:
    Michael Wagner said: I guess what I'm getting at is that in the 18th and 19 centuries our government structure worked well and since then in the 20th and 21st centuries it no longer works properly and should be restructured to fit todays needs.


    Yeah, in the 18th century the government was so good it fostered a revolution. In the 19th century things were humming along smoothly, except for slavery, a civil war, and ethnic cleansing of aboriginal Americans, of course. Minor glitches, like the fact that only white men were allowed to vote.

    The good old days. If only our government today would provide us with some revolutions and genocide, but then the lame stream media would probably only criticize it.


    I think you forgot that all of those things ended well for our society except maybe the one about ethnic cleansing. But honestly there could be arguments made for that too. Did you forget that slavery is over or that we revolted and won? Or maybe you forgot that any citizen over 18 can vote now. I'm confused how you see these as bad things. Can you explain please?


    Read your own post, Mike. You said that the government structure worked well in the 18th and 19th centuries. I pointed out a few problems America had in those centuries which could be laid at the feet of the government; institutionalized slavery, sanctioned ethnic cleansing, and a civil war that killed over 300,000 Americans, more than any war in our history.

    And now you say those ended well?

    Tell that to the Cherokees. Ever hear of "the Trail of Tears"? African-American families have still not recovered from the social disruption of slavery, where families were torn apart and scattered. And I cannot comprehend the values of someone who thinks the aftermath of the Civil War, with hundreds of thousand killed, southern cities like Atlanta and Richmond laid waste, is "ending well".

    You go on to say that government in the 20th century "no longer works properly". Huh, what? The twentieth century saw women and blacks get the vote, civil rights, government programs that got the country through the Great Depression, victories in WWI & WWII, the rebuilding of a peaceful and prosperous western Europe after the destruction of the Second World War (the Marshall Plan), the greatest boon in economic history in the 1950's-'60's fostered in no small part by government policies like the GI Bill, the space program, the disintigration of international communism as it imploded trying to keep up with us, and the USA becoming the greatest military power in the history of the world, not too shabby for a government that "no longer worked properly". (That is forgiving ourselves for Prohibition and the Viet Nam debacle - no one is perfect).

    You may be right about the 21st Century, but it's too soon to tell. This century certainly started poorly, with the 9-11 attack followed the most idiotic President in our history who made the stupidest presidential decision ever in invading Iraq.

    The government may seem divisive now, but it has been more so in the past. I can remember the Viet Nam era, the riots in the streets at the '68 Democratic convention in Chicago, the Watts race riots, Kent State students protesting the war shot dead by National Guard troops, now that was seriously divisive. But even that was rather civilized compared to the conflict of things like abolition that lead to the Civil War.



  13. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/26/2012 12:10 PM
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said:
    Michael Wagner said:
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said:
    Michael Wagner said: I guess what I'm getting at is that in the 18th and 19 centuries our government structure worked well and since then in the 20th and 21st centuries it no longer works properly and should be restructured to fit todays needs.


    Yeah, in the 18th century the government was so good it fostered a revolution. In the 19th century things were humming along smoothly, except for slavery, a civil war, and ethnic cleansing of aboriginal Americans, of course. Minor glitches, like the fact that only white men were allowed to vote.

    The good old days. If only our government today would provide us with some revolutions and genocide, but then the lame stream media would probably only criticize it.


    I think you forgot that all of those things ended well for our society except maybe the one about ethnic cleansing. But honestly there could be arguments made for that too. Did you forget that slavery is over or that we revolted and won? Or maybe you forgot that any citizen over 18 can vote now. I'm confused how you see these as bad things. Can you explain please?


    Read your own post, Mike. You said that the government structure worked well in the 18th and 19th centuries. I pointed out a few problems America had in those centuries which could be laid at the feet of the government; institutionalized slavery, sanctioned ethnic cleansing, and a civil war that killed over 300,000 Americans, more than any war in our history.

    And now you say those ended well?

    Tell that to the Cherokees. Ever hear of "the Trail of Tears"? African-American families have still not recovered from the social disruption of slavery, where families were torn apart and scattered. And I cannot comprehend the values of someone who thinks the aftermath of the Civil War, with hundreds of thousand killed, southern cities like Atlanta and Richmond laid waste, is "ending well".

    You go on to say that government in the 20th century "no longer works properly". Huh, what? The twentieth century saw women and blacks get the vote, civil rights, government programs that got the country through the Great Depression, victories in WWI & WWII, the rebuilding of a peaceful and prosperous western Europe after the destruction of the Second World War (the Marshall Plan), the greatest boon in economic history in the 1950's-'60's fostered in no small part by government policies like the GI Bill, the space program, the disintigration of international communism as it imploded trying to keep up with us, and the USA becoming the greatest military power in the history of the world, not too shabby for a government that "no longer worked properly". (That is forgiving ourselves for Prohibition and the Viet Nam debacle - no one is perfect).

    You may be right about the 21st Century, but it's too soon to tell. This century certainly started poorly, with the 9-11 attack followed the most idiotic President in our history who made the stupidest presidential decision ever in invading Iraq.

    The government may seem divisive now, but it has been more so in the past. I can remember the Viet Nam era, the riots in the streets at the '68 Democratic convention in Chicago, the Watts race riots, Kent State students protesting the war shot dead by National Guard troops, now that was seriously divisive. But even that was rather civilized compared to the conflict of things like abolition that lead to the Civil War.


    Ok so I was generalizing a little too much I guess. The 20th century wasn't so bad until about the mid 1960's but after that how many market crashes have we seen or how about wildly unpopular wars. How about elections where people vote for one of two people they can't stand to look at. And yes Viet Nam was quite the debacle but people then actually had the gall to stand up and speak what they believed. Today our government has become so powerful people are afraid to do that. Instead of our government giving us rights that are due to us they are slowly taking them away in ways most people don't even understand until it has already been stripped. I bet if you had asked 100 people a year ago if they thought the government would force them to buy health insurance in the next 2 years 80 of them would have looked at you like you were nuts.



  14. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/26/2012 12:10 PM
    It's really too bad everyone is trying to pick apart what I believe but none of you seem to be offering anything but criticism. Maybe I could have a change of heart if someone even thought about convincing me that our government is good and not falsely strong. Show me that the US government is headed in the right direction and maybe I could see it in a different light.



  15. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    10/26/2012 1:10 PM
    Michael Wagner said:
    The 20th century wasn't so bad until about the mid 1960's but after that how many market crashes have we seen or how about wildly unpopular wars.


    First, I'm having a really difficult time understanding much (actually almost all) of what you are writing.

    Second, you need to open a history book of the 20th century if you think it was rosy prior to 1960. Did you forget two world wars, the great depression, segregation, etc.?



  16. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/26/2012 1:10 PM
    Ronald Conard, CGCS said:
    Michael Wagner said:
    The 20th century wasn't so bad until about the mid 1960's but after that how many market crashes have we seen or how about wildly unpopular wars.


    First, I'm having a really difficult time understanding much (actually almost all) of what you are writing.

    Second, you need to open a history book of the 20th century if you think it was rosy prior to 1960. Did you forget two world wars, the great depression, segregation, etc.?


    Well what I get from what you're saying is that you think all of those things were un-necessary. In my opinion war is not always bad if it actually acomplishes something. The great depression was bad for the people, yes, but was also a necessary step in checking the system. In order to put a stop to all of the credit issues something had to break. It was the economy. Not a bad thing. I find it very strange that you would defend our government but then try to point out horrible things it has done. And you say I don't make sense.



  17. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    10/28/2012 8:10 AM
    Ronald Conard, CGCS said:

    Humane societies do have a safety net. The problem of course is that there are always going to be those that take advantage of it....


    Speaking of safety nets, my son claims he came up with the thought that yes, safety nets are good, but not when they turn in to hammocks.



  18. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    10/28/2012 8:10 AM
    Peter Bowman, CGCS said:
    Ronald Conard, CGCS said:

    Humane societies do have a safety net. The problem of course is that there are always going to be those that take advantage of it....


    Speaking of safety nets, my son claims he came up with the thought that yes, safety nets are good, but not when they turn in to hammocks.


    Awesome!!



  19. James Schmid
    James Schmid avatar
    1 posts
    10/28/2012 12:10 PM
    Michael Wagner said: Who says it's my decision to make??? Look at the way nature works. You think a dog that gets hit by a car gets to choose whether or not it gets help from a vet? The problem here is that society has lost sight of what really matters. In our society it is not the strong that survive and the weak that give way for the strong to thrive. As it stands right now the weaker you are the more help you get so you can feel strong. That's why welfare is out of control, that's why people would rather be jobless and lazy because they know that you and I pay taxes that will be thrown away on them so they can "feel" stronger. Makes me sick to see not just America but the human race going in that direction and expecting things to get better.


    Totally. I think we should get back to the survival of the fittest mentality as well. We could save so much on prison costs if we just stopped locking up all of these hyper-violent murders and rapists, and gave them their fair shot to make it. I mean, who are we as a society to imprison these strong individuals in order to protect the weak would-be victims? This isn't what darwin intended at all. These storng individuals should be out driving the future success of the human race as they weed out the weak by killing them, and increase the proportion of the strong in future generations by raping and impregnating as many women as possible, resulting in more of their "strong" offspring. We are doing an injustice to nature by running prisons.

    Sounds awesome huh?



  20. James Schmid
    James Schmid avatar
    1 posts
    10/28/2012 12:10 PM
    Michael Wagner said:

    I think you forgot that all of those things ended well for our society except maybe the one about ethnic cleansing. But honestly there could be arguments made for that too.



    Really? I mean seriously? You're actually saying that there are arguments to be made in favor of genocide?



  21. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/29/2012 6:10 AM
    James Schmid said:
    Michael Wagner said: Who says it's my decision to make??? Look at the way nature works. You think a dog that gets hit by a car gets to choose whether or not it gets help from a vet? The problem here is that society has lost sight of what really matters. In our society it is not the strong that survive and the weak that give way for the strong to thrive. As it stands right now the weaker you are the more help you get so you can feel strong. That's why welfare is out of control, that's why people would rather be jobless and lazy because they know that you and I pay taxes that will be thrown away on them so they can "feel" stronger. Makes me sick to see not just America but the human race going in that direction and expecting things to get better.


    Totally. I think we should get back to the survival of the fittest mentality as well. We could save so much on prison costs if we just stopped locking up all of these hyper-violent murders and rapists, and gave them their fair shot to make it. I mean, who are we as a society to imprison these strong individuals in order to protect the weak would-be victims? This isn't what darwin intended at all. These storng individuals should be out driving the future success of the human race as they weed out the weak by killing them, and increase the proportion of the strong in future generations by raping and impregnating as many women as possible, resulting in more of their "strong" offspring. We are doing an injustice to nature by running prisons.

    Sounds awesome huh?



    Really? I mean seriously??? You think that is the strength in our society?



  22. James Schmid
    James Schmid avatar
    1 posts
    10/29/2012 2:10 PM
    Michael Wagner said:
    James Schmid said:
    Michael Wagner said: Who says it's my decision to make??? Look at the way nature works. You think a dog that gets hit by a car gets to choose whether or not it gets help from a vet? The problem here is that society has lost sight of what really matters. In our society it is not the strong that survive and the weak that give way for the strong to thrive. As it stands right now the weaker you are the more help you get so you can feel strong. That's why welfare is out of control, that's why people would rather be jobless and lazy because they know that you and I pay taxes that will be thrown away on them so they can "feel" stronger. Makes me sick to see not just America but the human race going in that direction and expecting things to get better.


    Totally. I think we should get back to the survival of the fittest mentality as well. We could save so much on prison costs if we just stopped locking up all of these hyper-violent murders and rapists, and gave them their fair shot to make it. I mean, who are we as a society to imprison these strong individuals in order to protect the weak would-be victims? This isn't what darwin intended at all. These storng individuals should be out driving the future success of the human race as they weed out the weak by killing them, and increase the proportion of the strong in future generations by raping and impregnating as many women as possible, resulting in more of their "strong" offspring. We are doing an injustice to nature by running prisons.

    Sounds awesome huh?



    Really? I mean seriously??? You think that is the strength in our society?


    You wrote that you are a firm believer in "survival of the fittest". Survival of the fittest is a term used to describe the situation in which the "fittest" successfully reproduce thereby contributing more of their genetic material to the future gene pool of their species. Those who are not "fit" reproduce less successfully, thereby reducing the proportion of their genetic material in future generations. I was not making any statement about whom I believe to be the strength in our society, I was trying to illustrate what the manifestation of your firm belief would look like.

    The fit reproduce, the ones who don't reproduce fail to pass their genes to future generations, because they were not "fit".

    If you get murdered, you are less likely to on pass your genetic information than the murderer is.

    You were not talking about the strength in society, you were talking about "survival of the fittest". Perhaps your understanding of this concept is flawed.



  23. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    10/29/2012 3:10 PM
    Michael Wagner said:


    Really? I mean seriously??? You think that is the strength in our society?


    So Michael can you define the "fittest" of society? What qualities do you deem to be present in the "fittest"?



  24. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/31/2012 10:10 AM
    survival of the fittest
    n.
    Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce.

    It's not just who is stronger physically than who but who is genetically superior in everyway. Smarter, faster, more agile, more adaptable, just plain better all around.

    I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on the concept.

    Just because my ideas are unpopular doesn't make them wrong! It's an opinion, take it or leave it.



  25. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    10/31/2012 10:10 AM
    Michael Wagner said: survival of the fittest
    n.
    Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce.

    It's not just who is stronger physically than who but who is genetically superior in everyway. Smarter, faster, more agile, more adaptable, just plain better all around.

    I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on the concept.

    Just because my ideas are unpopular doesn't make them wrong! It's an opinion, take it or leave it.


    Thank you. I'll leave it. It's pretty scary actually.



  26. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/31/2012 11:10 AM
    Scary to you but scarier to me the other way. Go against nature long enough and it will correct the problem.



  27. James Schmid
    James Schmid avatar
    1 posts
    10/31/2012 11:10 AM
    Michael Wagner said: survival of the fittest
    n.
    Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce.

    It's not just who is stronger physically than who but who is genetically superior in everyway. Smarter, faster, more agile, more adaptable, just plain better all around.

    I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on the concept.



    None of the qualities that you have mentioned are pre-requisite to survival and reproduction. There is no requirement to be genetically superior in every way. The only requirement is to reproduce. You're missing that. You don't have to be prettier, stronger, etc. blah, blah, blah, or anything else.

    You are also failing to realize that you are trying to apply vague theory to specific instances in social society. Look at other highly socialized, cooperative organisms. Ants, Bees, etc. I would say that social cooperation in raising the young to maturity (government handouts), has worked well for these organisms. The fire ants are doing pretty well on my course.



  28. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    10/31/2012 12:10 PM
    James what you described is parenting. I dont think there are adult ants sitting at home having young getting fed by the rest of the colony their whole adult life. They go to work in the support of the rest of the colony Otherwise what would happen if the whole colony decided to become lazy and expect to be taken care of? The colony becomes weak first, then their society collapses. Just a thought...



  29. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/31/2012 1:10 PM
    http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/welfare.shtml

    A good short summary of the welfare system. The US has actually done remarkably well addressing Jon's concerns over the past twenty years.



  30. Michael Wagner
    Michael Wagner avatar
    0 posts
    10/31/2012 1:10 PM
    [quote">None of the qualities that you have mentioned are pre-requisite to survival and reproduction. There is no requirement to be genetically superior in every way. The only requirement is to reproduce. You're missing that. You don't have to be prettier, stronger, etc. blah, blah, blah, or anything else.

    You are also failing to realize that you are trying to apply vague theory to specific instances in social society. Look at other highly socialized, cooperative organisms. Ants, Bees, etc. I would say that social cooperation in raising the young to maturity (government handouts), has worked well for these organisms. The fire ants are doing pretty well on my course.

    This is very confusing to me. Don't you kill the ants?



View or change your forums profile here.