Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't care if you don't reply to my very well-founded repudiation of your corrupt claptrap. Just read it, and move on. You should never feel compelled to respond to anything I post in reply to the offensive perspectives you promote.
First: Accusing them of what? Why don't you finish this sentence before typing more sentences? Or are you so shaken by the substantive repudiation of what you prefer that you cannot actually say what I'm accusing the people you're referring to of doing?
Second: Stop lying about what I wrote. What I wrote is there for all to read. I did not say what you said I said, i.e., "calling it selfish[,] placing one's luxury and comfort over others". What I labeled as selfish was failing to place the ethic of reciprocity above your own personal comfort and luxury. In other parts of this thread, I've been more explicit, condemning right-wingers for... So stop lying. I'm not "calling it selfish[,] placing one's luxury and comfort over others". I'm calling selfish putting one's own comfort and luxury over the critical foundations of society itself, over society's regard for other people's basic needs.
False: I've said many times in many threads that folks should be assigned work and even quoted the Delaware laws that call for that. I have never said Word One against making able folks accountable to work for what they're receiving to address their basic needs. If you refuse to read my comments well enough to know my actual perspective, or even have the decency to ask about aspects of my perspective you don't know about, then stop trying to talk about such things.
Again with the lie. That isn't what I said. Stop lying about what I said.
Yes I do have things to say about abusers - able folks who won't do work assigned by the department in accordance with the laws I referred to. And I've said these things in many threads. Your failure to read, remember, or ask is your own failing.
Promises, promises.
The civic responsibility being discussed in this thread is that which pertains to paying taxes to support society's safety net.
Living in society with others means being a member of the society, not expecting to be its lord and master, dictating how society should array itself around you and crying grievance when society is arrayed in a more just manner than you personally would prefer.
I see no problem with placing one's family's lives and health first. So basically you missed (or decided to ignore) the point, just like no1brownsfan.
Putting a human face on those who are the most vulnerable members of society disrupts the right-wing's egoistic narrative crafted to foster the comfort and luxury of some over the basic needs of others.
Nonetheless, despite your verbose rants, you have not explained why you and other liberals do not give away your incomes and pay higher taxes to fund the programs you support.
With 325 million Americans, and half of them democrats, our budget deficits would be reduced if you libs just gave up just half of your income and or paid 100% more in taxes. It would be a win-win situation for people who actually (not falsely) supported the causes which they supposedly cherish.
Heck, we Catholics tithe. Why not have the liberals "tithe" at least 10% of thier income (that is just a little bit) to the federal government? Liberals are greedy at heart and would have nothing to do with giving away THEIR money to support THEIR causes. This, of course, is the defininition of hypocrisy.
Nonetheless, despite your verbose rants, you have not explained why you and other liberals do not give away your incomes and pay higher taxes to fund the programs you support.
With 325 million Americans, and half of them democrats, our budget deficits would be reduced if you libs just gave up just half of your income and or paid 100% more in taxes. It would be a win-win situation for people who actually (not falsely) supported the causes which they supposedly cherish.
Heck, we Catholics tithe. Why not have the liberals "tithe" at least 10% of thier income (that is just a little bit) to the federal government? Liberals are greedy at heart and would have nothing to do with giving away THEIR money to support THEIR causes. This, of course, is the defininition of hypocrisy.
Why don't rich conservatives create all the jobs they say they can, hire everyone in the country and end unemployment?
Why don't rich conservatives create all the jobs they say they can, hire everyone in the country and end unemployment?
Companies aren't charities. Nor are they entitled to provide you or anyone else a job for the sake of doing so. Businesses exist solely to make a profit, and that is it. If they find a need to hire someone as demand increases, they will do so.
Nonetheless, despite your verbose rants, you have not explained why you and other liberals do not give away your incomes and pay higher taxes to fund the programs you support.
Yes I did. You just refuse to acknowledge the answer probably because it ruins the narrative of the corrupt perspective that you prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic
Why don't rich conservatives create all the jobs they say they can, hire everyone in the country and end unemployment?
I fear the parallel will go right over the heads of most right-wingers. They'll cling to their self-centered claptrap like its the last piece of the driftwood after the ship sinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
Companies aren't charities.
Liberals aren't charities either, any more or less than right-wingers are. Then inanity of your nonsense got caught up in itself. Imagine that.
Yes I did. You just refuse to acknowledge the answer probably because it ruins the narrative of the corrupt perspective that you prefer.
I fear the parallel will go right over the heads of most right-wingers. They'll cling to their self-centered claptrap like its the last piece of the driftwood after the ship sinks.
Liberals aren't charities either, any more or less than right-wingers are. Then inanity of your nonsense got caught up in itself. Imagine that.
You only think its nonsense because it's the truth. Show me where it is an obligation for any business to offer jobs? There isn't one. But of course liberals (or what passes for liberals today) don't like the truth, and will seek to insult, and deflect when presented with it.....Imagine that.
Wow, you're in for a surprise if you try carrying a gun in Canada or England or any other country thinking your second amendment rights follow you around. I'm sure the lack of a barcode on the back of your neck will make a compelling argument.
The Constitution is not government, it is the people.
The government does not grant me my rights, the Constitution prevents government from violating the natural rights I already posses.
Which is exactly why Liberals hate it so much and insist on calling it a "living document" so they can twist and pevert it to fit their agenda.
The fact that other countries citizens are not strong enough to stand up to their governments the way that Americans do does not change the concept of natural rights in any way.
You only think its nonsense because it's the truth.
No it is nonsense because it demonstrates flawed logic: You say "If L then G". It'sAutomatic says "If R then J". You say "!J because R != C". Yet, as I pointed out, your logic fails because "L != C" and so if R != C can justify !J then there is no reason (literally - no reason) in disputing that L != C can justify !G.
This is simple, first-year logic, and you just didn't get it, and even after reading this your probably still don't realize the failure of your logic.
The Constitution is not government, it is the people.
The government does not grant me my rights, the Constitution prevents government from violating the natural rights I already posses.
Which is exactly why Liberals hate it so much and insist on calling it a "living document" so they can twist and pevert it to fit their agenda.
The fact that other countries citizens are not strong enough to stand up to their governments the way that Americans do does not change the concept of natural rights in any way.
This! Especially the bolded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
No it is nonsense because it demonstrates flawed logic: You say "If L then G". It'sAutomatic says "If R then J". You say "!J because R != C". Yet, as I pointed out, your logic fails because "L != C" and so if R != C can justify !J then there is no reason (literally - no reason) in disputing that L != C can justify !G.
This is simple, first-year logic, and you just didn't get it, and even after reading this your probably still don't realize the failure of your logic.
No... the only flaw in logic here is on you in thinking that companies are obligated to provide jobs to everyone.
I think it is funny how people push for Social Darwinism when it has never been a policy practiced in this country. We as a society take care of each other no matter how much not like it.
There is a big difference between taking care of other people voluntarily because you want to help them and being forced to take care of people who refuse to take care of themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
