The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 88

Who is "the enemy within" in Poland?


Al Paca
11 Apr 2011 #31
a very liberal president being elected in your country with a landslide majority

He was only elected because he's black... and was the anti-Bush.
And he's been driving this place into the ground ever since. He's either an idiot making poor decisions or he's trying to hurt the US. And it is widely accepted that he's no idiot.

in the UK, 13 years of a very liberal government has just ended with an unclear election result causing a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Yep, UK peeps have had enough of that misguided and harmful Liberal crap and given it the boot. Except over there even the Right is pretty Lib.

your suggestion that people who aren't rich shouldn't have kids

I didn;t say that. Only that folks should be able to afford what they want without depending on others to pay for it... Be it a car, a house or kids.

Then he has only himself to blame.

Ah, so you're all about personal responsibility... but only for them evil "rich" folks. Gotcha.

it's the Republicans who support the tax credits for people with kids which is almost the same thing.

Not the same thing. Not at all. Tax credits to help and promote stable families is much different than handing out cash and supporting folks who have no business having kids they can't afford.
strzyga 2 | 993
11 Apr 2011 #32
When the beczkowy money was introduced (a small payment to help young families when they have a new baby)

:D
did you misspell it on purpose or was it just one of those little things that make life worth living?
JonnyM 11 | 2,621
11 Apr 2011 #33
He was only elected

Elected being the operative word. With a huge majority.

Yep, UK peeps have had enough of that misguided and harmful Liberal crap and given it the boot. Except over there even the Right is pretty Lib.

By electing the Liberal Party into a coalition government for the first time in 90 years? Now, now Trener, you should stay off the waccy baccy.

I didn;t say that.

Actually you did. And if only those who could "afford it" had kids, what do you think that would do to the economy? (clues: inflation, underproduction).

Nice to see you back, TZ/Randal!
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #34
Not the same thing. Not at all. Tax credits to help and promote stable families is much different than handing out cash and supporting folks who have no business having kids they can't afford.

The point is, why should anyone get a tax credit just for having a kid? I can understand the mentality of helping struggling people who have kids to take care of, but if you can afford kids, why do you need a tax credit?

Besides, you don't know what they will spend the tax credit on. It could be anything from drugs to beer. It doesn't mean the tax credit is going to help support a stable family.
Bzibzioh
11 Apr 2011 #35
Enemy within are those greedy elements in society who want nothing to ever improve, are happy living in deplorable conditions, mock any attempt at the overall progress of their nation.

Is that what they told you in your political science classes? Poor thing.

Besides, you don't know what they will spend the tax credit on. It could be anything from drugs to beer. It doesn't mean the tax credit is going to help support a stable family.

Of course the government knows better what you and your family needs are and should spend those money for you.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
11 Apr 2011 #36
More so than someone who says ther are no poor conservatives? Come off it, and admit you're wrong as usual.

What are you talking about?

Where and when did I say there are "no poor conservatives" or even imply that?

You sound like you have been brainwashed by this Lefty propaganda about "conservatives are evil rich people".

Most "conservative" or "rich" people are just people taking chances starting small businesses and don't like seeing other people getting money for nothing. How horrible they are LOL

I've no idea what you're talking about, and looking back at this thread don't see any such thing. Perhaps you should get a better fitting tin foil helmet.

You mean you didn't see me point out clearly to you before in other conversations that you for some reason failed to speak out against Delphiamdomine's anti-Polish comments that Polish people are "subhuman"? Do I have to spell it out to you? When an Anti-Polish troll like Delphiadomine makes anti-Polish comments that Poles are "subhuman", "polacks" and that "he wishes there was anti-Polonism" etc YOU FAIL to condemn him for that.

Gee I wonder why??? LOL

The rent-a-mob Family of Radio Maryja offends many, including JPII who refused to meet them in Kraków during his last visit and the Polish Episcopate who have strongly criticised them for political extremism.

Oh come on the people who are most offended at Radio Maryja are people who enjoy slurring Polish people like Delphiadomine and people like you who tacitly support guys like Delphiadomine by not speaking out against his obvious anti-Polish racism.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #37
Of course the government knows better what you and your family needs are and should spend those money for you.

Since when does government spend the money for me? I am all for government giving bail out money to individuals, not corporations, if that's what you mean.
Bzibzioh
11 Apr 2011 #38
Since when does government spend the money for me?

Is the government letting you decide to which school your child will go by giving you a school voucher or keeping those expensive and dysfunctional public schools still running? For example.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #39
You can always homeschool you kids. You don't have to send them to public school. Government paying private schools is crossing a line.
Sure the schools are crap which is why they need to be reformed and that's up to the states, not the federal goverment. States run education, not the feds.
JonnyM 11 | 2,621
11 Apr 2011 #40
What are you talking about?

Where and when did I say there are "no poor conservatives" or even imply that?

see below

Conservatives like living in deplorable conditions and don't want progress for their country??

That's new to me. lol

Most "conservative" or "rich" people are just people taking chances starting small businesses and don't like seeing other people getting money for nothing. How horrible they are LOL

Some people would describe me as 'rich' and I've started, managed and sold two businesses, one of them most definitely not small, yet somehow I don't begrudge even one penny of my taxes going to alleviate child poverty and improving the chances of the weakest within our society. However feckless and indolent their parents are.

You mean you didn't see me point out clearly to you before in other conversations that you for some reason failed to speak out against Delphiamdomine's anti-Polish comments

I should comment on every post in the forum that you disagree with? Have you perchance noticed a logical flaw in that? Here it is:

YOU FAIL to condemn him for that.

When Jarnowa, JoePilsudski, Albainich etc post the viciously racist stuff on this very forum, we can just as easily say that you fail to condemn them for it.

the people who are most offended at Radio Maryja

Are educated Poles in Poland. Would you call them the 'enemy within'?
Al Paca
11 Apr 2011 #41
By electing the Liberal Party into a coalition government for the first time in 90 years? Now, now Trener, you should stay off the waccy baccy

Umm, it's Labour Party that is the real Lib problem in UK.

Actually you did. And if only those who could "afford it" had kids

Nope. You claimed I said only the "rich" should have kids, when all I have said is that only peeps who can afford to should. I realize such basic personal responsibility is a radical concept to Leftists but please do try to not put words in my words, thanks.

Nice to see you back, TZ

Do I know you?

The point is, why should anyone get a tax credit just for having a kid? I can understand the mentality of helping struggling people who have kids to take care of, but if you can afford kids, why do you need a tax credit?

Ok, now you're just sounding all... reasonable and stuff! :p

Besides, you don't know what they will spend the tax credit on. It could be anything from drugs to beer.

Oops, you blew in. A tax credit can't be spent. It doesn't come in the form of cash or a check, silly. Besides, responsible successful folks aren't likely to blow cash in that way anyhow. It's the loser, system suckers who are much more likely to take their free cash down to the corner junkie/ liquor store. After all, they've already shown poor decision making when they had kids they can't afford...
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #42
Oops, you blew in. A tax credit can't be spent. It doesn't come in the form of cash or a check, silly. Besides, responsible successful folks aren't likely to blow cash in that way anyhow. It's the loser, system suckers who are much more likely to take their free cash down to the corner junkie/ liquor store. After all, they've already shown poor decision making when they had kids they can't afford...

Wait a second...I thought tax credit helped people get tax refunds? If you get a credit, you get more refund, right?
And as for the rest of that you seriously got to look at reality. Look at all the booze and illegal drugs in the suburbs. It is everywhere and all kind of people spend their money on it. You know how many liquor stores are in my town? Poor people cannot support all those liquor stores.
JonnyM 11 | 2,621
11 Apr 2011 #43
only peeps who can afford to should have kids

What do you propose the others do, then? Become celibate (not easy) or practise contraception against the tenets of their faith. Or have abortions, likewise.
Al Paca
11 Apr 2011 #44
You can always homeschool you kids. You don't have to send them to public school. Government paying private schools is crossing a line.

Would you do it, PP? I mean, say you and I were married and the school district in which we lived was sucky. Would you homeschool our kids?
Bzibzioh
11 Apr 2011 #45
You can always homeschool you kids.

That's nice but is not the answer to the problem.

Government paying private schools is crossing a line.

No, it's not. It's for parent to decide what kind of education I like for my kid, not the state.

Sure the schools are crap which is why they need to be reformed

No, you can't reform them, as long as the unions calling the shots. For them kids don't matter, only their privileges do. They provide handsomely to every democratic party presidential and local election funds to keep the status quo.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #46
No, it's not. It's for parent to decide what kind of education I like for my kid, not the state.

If you got the money to pay private school tuition, go ahead. The government paying for each child in America to attend an expensive private school is pure socialistic doctrine. If you think the country isn't bankrupt now...wait until we get the bill for that. Sheesh.

No, you can't reform them, as long as the unions calling the shots. For them kids don't matter, only their privileges do. They provide handsomely to every democratic party presidential and local election funds to keep the status quo.

And this idea that excellent performing teachers should get three figure salaries for good work? Who is going to pay for their salaries if they all decide to get it together and outperform one another? How is that sustainable? You realize how much money would be needed to support all these teachers who decide to get it together and earn the high dollar salary?

The solutions are not easy. Best idea is to fire the bad teachers instead of paying excellent teachers more. People will get it together and do a good job if they know they will lose their job and can't find another one.
Bzibzioh
11 Apr 2011 #47
The government paying for each child in America to attend an expensive private school is pure socialistic doctrine. If you think the country isn't bankrupt now...wait until we get the bill for that.

Actually it would be cheaper for the country. Give every child the average amount of what it cost now to educate them in the public school system. If they want to stay in that system - fine. However, if parents wish to add some money and send the child to a private school it would be another option. If parents wish to home school them - it would be another. But that would break the teacher's union monopoly and that's why they fight like mad to not let this happen.

Best idea is to fire the bad teachers instead of paying excellent teachers more.

Unions would never allow that. Only recently, because of a lot of criticism even from democrats, they agreed to fire a bad teacher but only after 9 months.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #48
It's better to leave it to the states and local government. They need to be responsible for it. Make the school system responsible for the quality of education in their district. If they aren't doing well, start firing teachers, principals, administrators. With so many bad teachers in need of jobs, they will have a problem finding new ones. Another problem is they will just sit around drawing unemployment. Soon, you could have a teacher shortage, too. Now as it was before, it's up to the parents to educate their kids. Reality is, if the parents are well educated, the kids usually are, too. Parents have got to do most of the educating at home, even when their kids go to school eight hours a day or the kid doesn't learn anything.
Bzibzioh
11 Apr 2011 #49
It's better to leave it to the states and local government.

No, it's not. That was the whole premise of our discussion - government knows best how to spend your money - which you didn't understand at all.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #50
There was a time when the majority of Americans were poor and thankful there was a free place to send their kids. Many Americans didn't speak English or were illiterate and the terrible government came along and provided their kids with a school and books without it costing them anything. Terrible, I know!
Bzibzioh
11 Apr 2011 #51
There was a time when

Start dealing with the recent situation, will ya? Comparing it with the first settlers will get you nowhere.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #52
I'm just saying...that is why government started public education and made it possible for all kids to attend. People who can't read cannot decide which private school is best for their kids so the government built the school, hired a teacher and sent the kids to it. One thing that would be nice is having a choice among public schools. Charter schools are helping to fill that gap but there needs to be more of them. Charters are a good idea in places where schools are generally bad. Why not close all the public schools in that area, replacing them with charters?

Not all school districts perform badly so you wouldn't have to do anything with the ones who are doing great.
Bzibzioh
11 Apr 2011 #53
Why not close all the public schools in that area, replacing them with charters?

Again: teacher's unions. Which you seem to be a big fan of. Unions have been practicing extortion from the government for decades. America doesn't need public unions anymore: they silence voters' choice, redistribute wealth and clog the political system. Republicans seek to limit government growth to protect the country's pocketbooks. Public-union bosses want to increase the cost of government to protect their racket.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #54
If wealth is getting redistributed, where's mine? I am not wealthy and since it's being redistributed, seems logical I should get some, no?

I am a fan of people getting treated fairly, not the idea of a poor performer getting fired. A teacher should get a fair salary. The union goes overboard when it protects lousy teachers, though.
Bzibzioh
11 Apr 2011 #55
I am a fan of people getting treated fairly, not the idea of a poor performer getting fired.

If you are not good at what are you being paid for - you should go looking for another job. That what would happened if you were working for a private employer. The same rules should apply for public jobs.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #56
If you are not good at what are you being paid for - you should go looking for another job.

I agree 100% Send those ineffectual teachers packing.
Al Paca
11 Apr 2011 #57
Commie union traitor!
MediaWatch 10 | 945
11 Apr 2011 #58
MediaWatch: Where and when did I say there are "no poor conservatives" or even imply that?

Jonny:
see below

MediaWatch: Conservatives like living in deplorable conditions and don't want progress for their country??

That's new to me. lol

Jonny how does my asking sarcastically that conservatives "like living in deplorable conditions and don't want progress for their country" prove to you that I feel there are no poor conservatives?

What's your point anyway?

Do you ever tire of these childish games of "gotcha"? LOL

Some people would describe me as 'rich' and I've started, managed and sold two businesses, one of them most definitely not small, yet somehow I don't begrudge even one penny of my taxes going to alleviate child poverty and improving the chances of the weakest within our society. However feckless and indolent their parents are

Well that's fine. Its a nice gesture for someone like you who is "rich" to give some of your tax money to feckless and indolent parents who can't take care of their own kids.

But why should other taxpayers who are not as rich as you be mandated to give their tax money to these feckless and indolent parents who can't raise their kids without help? Why perpetuate a culture of feckless and indolent people having kids who will only burden most non-rich taxpayers?
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
11 Apr 2011 #59
But why should other taxpayers who are not as rich as you be mandated to give their tax money to these feckless and indolent parents who can't raise their kids without help? Why perpetuate a culture of feckless and indolent people having kids who will only burden most non-rich taxpayers?

We give our taxes to defense spending and corporate welfare which we may not agree with. Everybody has stuff they don't want their taxes spent on, that's the point. So what. Not much you can do about it.

I would rather see my tax dollars go to poor people in this country than these feckless third world dictators, foreign countries who hate us and military invasions that cause more anger toward America. But, that's not going to stop the right wing from giving the tax money to the world's Hosni Mubaraks, is it?

It's a trade off. If you are going to do that, then you should honor the tax payers who want their money to go to domestic issues like health care and poverty as well, not to mention infrastructure and subsidized gasoline.

Now there's an idea. Stop invading Libya and spend some money so we don't have to pay so much for a gallon of gas.
JonnyM 11 | 2,621
11 Apr 2011 #60
how does my asking sarcastically that conservatives "like living in deplorable conditions and don't want progress for their country" prove to you that I feel there are no poor conservatives?

Easily and logically.

Well that's fine. Its a nice gesture for someone like you who is "rich" to give some of your tax money to feckless and indolent parents who can't take care of their own kids.

Not a gesture; it's the law. In Poland and wherever you live.

But why should other taxpayers who are not as rich as you be mandated to give their tax money to these feckless and indolent parents who can't raise their kids without help?

A civilised society, where every child has as good a chance as possible, regardless of the quality of their parents.

Why perpetuate a culture of feckless and indolent people having kids who will only burden most non-rich taxpayers?

How do you propose to change that? Abandoning them to their own devices which the widespread existence of slums and poverty shows is ineffective. Or some darker and less humane method?


Home / News / Who is "the enemy within" in Poland?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.