Feds: ‘Poor’ Consume Like The Rich

FIne...

No.

You don't get it prestocked like some hard working billionaire stock wiz. You get the 200 yards of atoll with sparse vegetation and seabirds.

C'mon Mr Spartan... carve something out of nothing rather than have it handed to you. Or are you jsut so fucking entitled that you expect it to be perfect when you start?

And as usual reality doesn't match up with their ideology.

The more taxes on the rich are cut, the LESS they give to charity.

Exactly, hence taking benefits you've paid into is a "right thing".
Not taking them when you didn't pay into them is also a right thing.
See how this works?

Go live in a cave if you don't like it.

No. How any American can say such a thing is beyond me. Your rights are your rights they are intrinsic to your humanity. Just as your senses are yours so are your rights. Others may unjustly deny you use of them, but no person or collection of persons confers them on you. To believe otherwise runs completely counter to the principles this nation was founded upon.

Mine is over $200 a month.

Plus Tafkats do you live alone? If you do and you leave things off you save money. I've got a wife and two kids and we are constantly using electricity. Hell as I write this the dishwasher, washer, and dryer is running. Oh and of course the AC is running.

And we use these four things daily.

Oh okay. So now I'm back to being an extreme WF right winger. Must be either a Tuesday or a Thursday.

You expecting an argument from me about this?

Yes, paying for it earns you a claim. A claim that doesn't exceed your contribution.

And since it's my employer paying into it and not me, I'll not be collecting those benefits.

That's right.

Up next, gay, Mexican, a horse, a slightly smaller horse, a patch of moss, and a bottle of worcestershire sauce.

But then, Demi thinks the guy who wrote that is a douchebag, so whaddayagonnadoo?

You probably do seem like an extreme right winger to a smelly hippie.

And where do these uniquely American rights come from? Our creator.

What if you don't believe that we have one? LOL.

Regardless, barring divine intervention for the protection of the right to bear arms, which I have yet to witness myself, these rights are just another demand, made by the people, for what they will accept as the very basic conditions for their entry into the social contract.

As we've seen over and over again, that's only valid if the people in question have the will and more importantly ability to protect those rights - which is why the 2nd Amendment is so important.

As Heinlein famously said, your right to life doesn't mean anything to a drowning man in the ocean.

And your right to liberty didn't mean anything if you were a black man on a plantation in 1832.

You might as well talk about unicorns.

Rights are born of those with the ability to protect them.

Period.

Anything else is a fantasy.

And that's an argument against despotism, not for it.

The guy raped his slave and fled the British when he was Governor, leaving Virgninia undefended in the Revolutionary War. Oh, and he hired the first political hatchet job on a political rival, and helped form one of the first political parties.

Yes, he's a douchebag, no matter how pretty he or his words were.

Hell, the guy was positively French.

Frenches or Lea & Perrins?

The latter.

There is no evidence that Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings was anything other than consensual. That in no way, shape, form, or fashion constitutes "rape". It may be a relationship that many of us disapprove of because she was a slave, but it's light years from qualifying as "rape".

As for fleeing the British, who wouldn't attempt to avoid capture by the enemy? He would have done neither Virginia, nor the colonies, nor the Revolution any good whatsoever had he been captured. Had he been captured, as the author of the Declaration of Independence, he would have been one of the most valuable political prisoners the British could have captured. That, in itself, could have done far more harm than any possible good.

You're not a lefty though.

I liked to take you seriously, but I'm having a hard time.

It's interesting that you mention that. Considering that the power of the government ultimately derives from the individual right to self defense. Think about this the government has no power that you the individual citizen do not posses only on a smaller scale.

Umm what part of unjust denial did you miss?

No.

No it's not. It's actually an argument that legitimizes tyranny. How can there ever be tyranny if it's implemented by a law passed by popular consent? If our rights are not cast in stone then they are written in the sand.

When you're owned property, consent goes out the window.

Doesn't even matter if she wiggled her ass, and said "stick it in, big boy".

Now hold on. What if I jump back in time and buy up some slaves so that I could set them free? And what if, after that, some of the ladies are...very, very grateful?

According to the evil legal status of the time, they're technically property no matter how abhorrent I find the whole idea.

I live alone in a 1BR house and spend a lot of time at work, so yeah, that probably explains a lot of it.

Yeah...that is some grey area...but not one Jefferson stood on.

Oh, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that a guy having sex with his slave can somehow be consensual.

I DO NOT SMELL.


No "bad", anyway.

When I lived in Memphis, I had a 1300 square foot house, and $230 a month was on the high side, but not unheard of. A lot of it was what Frontline said. Older house, 25 year old heating/cooling system, midsouth heat.

It's coming from Maud Dib, possibly the biggest Confederate apologist I've ever encountered.

He probably thinks the slaves were much happier being told what to do.

She was taken with him to Paris, was once on their soil certainly a free woman by French law.

Yet she returned to Monticello where she was a slave, never to be accorded the same stature again.

Must have been love right?

Not what the Hemmings family states.

They state Jefferson forced her to come back to Virginia by the promise that he'd eventually free her family from slavery, including her child, who was also HIS child. Said child died back in Virginia, but she had six other children.

The same people that protected Jefferson's standing also claimed the Hemings family was lying when it came to their heritage.

Of course, that was all proven to be bullshit by the DNA testing. Jefferson was father to her children.

Who were slaves, and lived as slaves.

Free women don't have to promise to fuck the boss so their family and children might some day be free. Slaves can't give consent.

Rape.

He fled the British because he was a vacillating coward that refused to call up the militia when Benedict Arnold landed with 1600 men. He was a horrible executive that completely failed to protect one of the richest colonies, and then claimed later that he 'didn't understand that he was still governor' when it came time to plot a detailed defense - he hid with his family for several MONTHS. Officially he 'resigned' his post, which was after the fact - in reality he simply deserted.

If he wasn't the fair haired child they would have shot him for treason, and there was a reason that he didn't ever serve office in Virginia again despite his accomplishments with a pen and paper.

^^^ Jefferson freed ALL of her children.

Easy.

An employer can have a totally consensual relationship with an employee. Now, he can also commit forcible sex (rape) or tell her that she will be fired or demoted, or not get a pay raise or promotion if she does not have sexual relations with him. Those are very different things from a consensual relationship.

In Jefferson's case, he freed all of Hemings children when they came of age and 3 of the 4 children entered society as "white". Sally herself was given "her time" by Jefferson's daughter upon his death. In other words, she was retired.

While Jefferson did own slaves, he was also one of the Founding Fathers who condemned the institution and stated that getting rid of slavery was like holding a wolf by the ears: you don't like it, but you don't dare let go.

In all, 12 U.S. Presidents were slave owners and 8 of them owned slaves while in office. Of the first 12 Presidents, all but John Adams and John Quincy Adams owned slaves. Yet, I've never seen Demi call any of them douchebags.

Ah yes, good rightists have to have a fervent belief in God - so much so that they are that much more fervent than the guy standing next to them.

Bullshit. Belief in God has nothing to do with political stance - there are conservatives that are atheists and liberals that are born agains.

In other words, stupid Sandbagger post. You've made so many of them, it sure looks like you aren't so bright.

Uh huh.

Really? I can tax you then? $25 for blatant stupidity please.

Try reading some political thought not brought forward by Limbaugh or the Mises Institute.

Self defense as a polity is the first and primary role of the government, but no, it isn't the sole role of the government, and yes, every government out there reserves rights for itself that the individual does not possess - see Washington putting down the Whiskey Rebellion or riding out to deal with soldiers marching on the capital for back pay.

I don't always agree with those actions, but they sure as fuck have been established.

The part where you positively asserted that they mean anything at all outside of the interpretation I provided.

Saying they exist doesn't make it so. They don't exist unless the body politic enforces them.

Let me guess - you are too dumb to understand the rhetoric and the reason for the rhetoric, right?

You are talking about the empty rhetoric.

No it's not. It's actually an argument that legitimizes tyranny. How can there ever be tyranny if it's implemented by a law passed by popular consent? If our rights are not cast in stone then they are written in the sand.[/QUOTE]

They are written in sand. They always have been.

The men have to be stone, not the empty rhetoric that is the sand.

Not while he was alive, he didn't.

He kept most of the family in slavery until his death.

Robert was allowed to buy his freedom, and James was freed after he trained his younger brother to take his place.

Two escaped, though there was some question as to whether or not they were allowed to escape, but that isnt' being freed.

Only two slaves were freed by Jefferson during his lifetime - he had several hundred.

What's worse - the Hemings children were 7/8ths white. It was illegal to keep them as slaves at the time. But Jefferson refused to admit they were his kids, and without that they couldn't prove they weren't black.

Fuck him with a rusty ice pick. That's a despicable thing to do to your own kids.