New Opening On The Supreme Court.
How about a hand up instead of a hand out?
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
And then there are those that can and have worked but won't, which is what this was targeted for. The one's whose primary interest in anything liberal is how much free stuff they can get at the expense of others. This thread was doomed by yesterday evening, anyway.
There's only so much you can teach though. The Right doesn't like to admit it, but not everybody is equal. The playing field is not level. Some people (myself included) are less capable than others, no matter how much we learn. If society doesn't step in to assist those such as myself, what would happen to us? Slow death on the street. If this is the case, then the Right might want to rethink abortion.
On the abortion issue, that only became a partisan matter when Ronny Raygun turned it into one (even though one of his Hollywood ex girlfriends claimed he had forced her to have an abortion). Prior to that, you had Republicans, who were strong adherents of eugenics, who were proponents of abortion, including Preston Bush, the father of George Herbert, and grandfather of George W.
Nothing wrong with voluntary eugenics.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Just FYI and all, Obama is clearly a far left social liberal. It's just that the US president doesn't wield total power, so it doesn't matter if he's far left, right or whatever if the rest of the people aren't.
Now, if you think far left = communism, then no, he's not that, but we don't really consider communism as a valid part of the modern left and right dichotomy in the same way as fascism isn't a part of it.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,823
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
How about a hand up instead of a hand out?
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
And then there are those that can and have worked but won't, which is what this was targeted for. The one's whose primary interest in anything liberal is how much free stuff they can get at the expense of others. This thread was doomed by yesterday evening, anyway.
There's only so much you can teach though. The Right doesn't like to admit it, but not everybody is equal. The playing field is not level. Some people (myself included) are less capable than others, no matter how much we learn. If society doesn't step in to assist those such as myself, what would happen to us? Slow death on the street. If this is the case, then the Right might want to rethink abortion.
On the abortion issue, that only became a partisan matter when Ronny Raygun turned it into one (even though one of his Hollywood ex girlfriends claimed he had forced her to have an abortion). Prior to that, you had Republicans, who were strong adherents of eugenics, who were proponents of abortion, including Preston Bush, the father of George Herbert, and grandfather of George W.
Nothing wrong with voluntary eugenics.
If someone feels pressured, just the same, not to reproduce for reasons of race or disability, it certainly is. Are we Aspies supposed to voluntarily not have children? Because in that case, we might very well be denying the world of science the next Einstein, or the world of literature the next Lovecraft, or Kafka.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,823
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Now, if you think far left = communism, then no, he's not that, but we don't really consider communism as a valid part of the modern left and right dichotomy in the same way as fascism isn't a part of it.
If being a far left social liberal means providing healthcare to those denied coverage due to poverty or disability, or extending civil rights to our LGBT brothers and sisters, then I'm all for it.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Mongoose1
Raven
Joined: 14 Feb 2016
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 105
Location: In an airbase in Shangri-La
From a law student perspective, it's a great loss. Whether you agree with the guy or not, he based his opinions on solid law and not making up the law as he went along - which is not something that several other currently serving justices can say - no matter which side of the aisle they're on. When I was in the service, I took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Those of us who serve have the biggest burden of all because unlike the "suits" (politicians), we know that we may have to give our lives for it - and I very nearly came close to it myself a few times. That being the case, I believe that it is not unreasonable to expect even more of that from the suits who have more power than the military they control. Now, for the record - I'm neither Republican or Democrat. They all lie. Having served both as an enlisted man and as an officer, I've seen them lie. And, it amazes me how people of both sides take their lies as being the truth. But at least Scalia's quotes can be traced to the very case law that he cites. That's not always the case with the other justices. What scares me even more is who Oh-blah-blah (who is as big a liar and any of them) might replace Scalia with.
_________________
Currahee! We stand alone together!
Yeah, he's a dictator, wanting to extend civil rights to gays, and fighting against voter suppression.
Some perspective would be nice.
Obama wants to infringe upon the rights of a far larger portion than the 2% that gays make up and whether they can marry or not.
You can bet the US would have our, Australian, firearm laws if Obama had the say. Yeah, he's not a dictator because he can't do that, but if he could, would he? Yes.
Him doing this would be far, far worst than denying gay people the ability to marry, and he would do it; the reason he can't is because the people say no. The law of the land says no too, but hey, that's up of "interpretation"; kinda like what Scalia and his ilk did and do.
The thing about being liberal is that you should be liberal for all, not just your pet groups.
Yes, you'd be for stealing from others to give to the poor. How about giving to the poor yourself with others like you? There's enough like you out there so it wouldn't be a problem. That would be fair for everyone, right?
As a poor person, I think it'd be fair for all.
Gay marriage is good as long as whatever Church is ok with it, and a liberal ideology, rather than a socialist one.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,823
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Yeah, he's a dictator, wanting to extend civil rights to gays, and fighting against voter suppression.
Some perspective would be nice.
Obama wants to infringe upon the rights of a far larger portion than the 2% that gays make up and whether they can marry or not.
You can bet the US would have our, Australian, firearm laws if Obama had the say. Yeah, he's not a dictator because he can't do that, but if he could, would he? Yes.
Him doing this would be far, far worst than denying gay people the ability to marry, and he would do it; the reason he can't is because the people say no. The law of the land says no too, but hey, that's up of "interpretation"; kinda like what Scalia and his ilk did and do.
The thing about being liberal is that you should be liberal for all, not just your pet groups.
Number one - I have nothing against responsible gun owners.
Number two - No one is going to take anyone's guns. There is neither any real desire to among sane people, plus it would be impossible.
Number three - So gun owners outnumber gays (though I have to imagine there are gay gun owners); does that supposed to make their plight any less in need of rectifying?
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,823
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Yes, you'd be for stealing from others to give to the poor. How about giving to the poor yourself with others like you? There's enough like you out there so it wouldn't be a problem. That would be fair for everyone, right?
As a poor person, I think it'd be fair for all.
Gay marriage is good as long as whatever Church is ok with it, and a liberal ideology, rather than a socialist one.
Taxation is NOT THEFT! Is taxation for road repair theft? Is taxation for national defense theft? And I think you know voluntary donations can only go so far - not nearly to the extent of the government's reach.
And as far as gay marriage is concerned - homophobes have made denying marriage to the LGBT community the focus of their culture war, in both secular and religious life. Whether or not churches are okay with it or not has little bearing on everyone from hillbilly county clerks, to state governors, denying marriage licenses to them.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So this was the only such charity in town, public or private? Their choice was to comply, or starve? I call BS.
Assuming there's any truth to that story, the Baptists want to help other Baptists, or win converts (which, to them, is saving souls). What is your gripe exactly? They're not obliged to help anybody.
It's pretty normal to want to help people with whom one has something in common, rather than random strangers. A century ago there were thousands of Mutual Aid Societies, in which people of modest means with something in common (often a profession, or a country of origin) combined their resources in order to help each other. Today, in a less organized fashion, I occasionally see requests for fellow alumni, veterans, hobbyists, even Objectivists to donate to "one of ours" who is in need.
But you presume the right to take my money at gunpoint and distribute it according to your standards. By what authority? What makes you think you're entitled to boss people around?
Absurd straw man. Nobody says this. However much I practice, I will never be able to play basketball like Michael Jordan, or create music which a billion people want to hear like Kanye West. What of it? Their wealth was not taken from me and I have no claim on it.
So you claim the right to support yourself by armed robbery. This is the morality of a common criminal. Thank you for making that clear.
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,823
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
So this was the only such charity in town, public or private? Their choice was to comply, or starve? I call BS.
Assuming there's any truth to that story, the Baptists want to help other Baptists, or win converts (which, to them, is saving souls). What is your gripe exactly? They're not obliged to help anybody.
It's pretty normal to want to help people with whom one has something in common, rather than random strangers. A century ago there were thousands of Mutual Aid Societies, in which people of modest means with something in common (often a profession, or a country of origin) combined their resources in order to help each other. Today, in a less organized fashion, I occasionally see requests for fellow alumni, veterans, hobbyists, even Objectivists to donate to "one of ours" who is in need.
But you presume the right to take my money at gunpoint and distribute it according to your standards. By what authority? What makes you think you're entitled to boss people around?
Absurd straw man. Nobody says this. However much I practice, I will never be able to play basketball like Michael Jordan, or create music which a billion people want to hear like Kanye West. What of it? Their wealth was not taken from me and I have no claim on it.
So you claim the right to support yourself by armed robbery. This is the morality of a common criminal. Thank you for making that clear.
I never said the Southern Baptists were the only charity in Dallas, but they certainly were a major one.
And yes, Christians, if they really are Christians, do have to help the needy. And if they don't, then their faith isn't producing works, which is no real faith at all. Plus, there is something untoward about a church that has to make converts of people by coercion by otherwise withholding food and shelter. Then again, I never had a high opinion of the Southern Baptists, or most other evangelical churches. And yes, if your wondering, I am a Christian.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,823
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Where did I say anything about armed robbery?
That's what righties think needing public support is. That is, till they need it themselves.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
If someone feels pressured, just the same, not to reproduce for reasons of race or disability, it certainly is. Are we Aspies supposed to voluntarily not have children? Because in that case, we might very well be denying the world of science the next Einstein, or the world of literature the next Lovecraft, or Kafka.
I underlined the word voluntary just for you. Here, I'll do it again but also in capps: VOLUNTARY
This is when a couple decides not to produce children that might inherit an undesirable hereditary handicap that one (or both) parents are afflicted with. They are hurting no one, but saving a then unconceived child from a future of hardships. If they still want kids there is always the option to adopt an unwanted existing one. There is no shortage of those in most places.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,823
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
If someone feels pressured, just the same, not to reproduce for reasons of race or disability, it certainly is. Are we Aspies supposed to voluntarily not have children? Because in that case, we might very well be denying the world of science the next Einstein, or the world of literature the next Lovecraft, or Kafka.
I underlined the word voluntary just for you. Here, I'll do it again but also in capps: VOLUNTARY
This is when a couple decides not to produce children that might inherit an undesirable hereditary handicap that one (or both) parents are afflicted with. They are hurting no one, but saving a then unconceived child from a future of hardships. If they still want kids there is always the option to adopt an unwanted existing one. There is no shortage of those in most places.
You seriously think disabled people don't live fulfilling lives?
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Alabama Supreme Court - Embryo is a child |
01 Mar 2024, 1:51 am |
Autism History museum opening in Michigan |
17 Feb 2024, 4:52 pm |
Which court card best describes YOU? |
16 Mar 2024, 1:53 am |
Israel and the International Criminal Court |
13 Feb 2024, 5:01 pm |