There is nothing natural, and therefore nothing inalienable, in assuring equality of outcome. Pit an athlete against a cripple in a test of speed, you cannot make the cripple match the athlete, you can only force the athlete to match the cripple. There is nothing natural in that, and the cripple does not have the right to equal the athlete. He only has the right to try. This civilization, unless it wakes up from this Disney bullshit, is irrecoverably damned.
There are no more "rights". It's an illusion that we desperately cling to in order to convince ourselves that we are still a free country. Unless you can't pay your taxes, then watch how quickly the government takes your home from you. Oh, and let's not forget that lovely little ditty called "eminent domain". Tell that to corporations fleeing America in droves and outsourcing overseas. That ain't happening with Obamacare. Even without it things have gotten progressively worse over the past decade with insurance companies covering less and less due to soaring costs and the fear of litigation. Yeah, right. Not with under performing schools and idiot, entitled, pampered, spoiled, brain dead kids addicted to their fucking iPhones 24 hours a day. Wal-Mart disagrees. Tell that to the 10% currently unemployed. Hope & Change, bitches!!!
I can see how an Atheist would not believe in rights. Muad, as much as I think Roosevelt was bad for our nation, he didn't say folks have the right to recreation, he said they have the right to earn enough for recreation. There is a huge difference between those two things.
Actualy what he said was which leaves an awful lot of leeway for it to mean exactly what proponents (or detractors) say it means. So, yeah. FDR did promise Disney for everyone in that he didn't make clear and meaningful promises of goals towards which he was working.
Yep. When my son (who is taking Honors History) slyly asked me who I thought the worst president in the history of the nation was, I didn't even bat an an eye. "FDR". He gave me this look. "Whaaaat? Why?" Then I explained it to him. He'd been going on about some 19th century guy (can't remember who right now) who was basically that decade's version of Obama in terms of corruption and cronyism and such, then I explained how FDR was the biggest thief of them all, not just for his own generations but for the future as well. He was also surprised to hear some of the unkind things I had to say about Lincoln. Then- get this- he goes into class where his teacher is apparently an uber-lib and spews back my stuff at her just to get her all spooled up!!
FDR made plenty of mistakes, but he also did what needed to be done to prevent the US economy from outright collapsing. What would his detractors rather have had: the New Deal, or wallpapering their tar paper shack with hyperinflated dollars? Or the economic malaise that caused France and Britain to be completely unprepared for war? Or the jobs through conquest facism that fueled the Axis? The Depression was the worst peacetime crisis to hit humanity since the Plague. The US needed more than Herbert Hoover's belief in self-reliance to pull us out of it.
That's right. FDR had to destroy America to save it. It's a good thing those Japanese took the bait or we'd still have people living on their family farms to *this* *very* *day*! Right, Mike!?!?!
I'm through trying to convince anyone my rights exist. If you don't believe what's mine is mine, come try and take it from me and my trained attack chihuahua.
Meh. While I certainly wouldn't want the filthy poor to drag us all down with them, I don't see the harm in allowing everyone the promise of some basic standard of living, assuming no malice on their part. Or can someone explain how that would cause the rest of us to starve to death tomorrow?
There's absolutely no harm in letting the poor work for a living. I've had to do it my whole life. It's a good thing.
Money, independence, and the satisfaction of accomplishment are things that everyone should strive for. Right?
So "starve to death" is the threshold where I suddenly have a legitimate complaint about the impact a tax burden has on my lifestyle? Nice bit of deck-stacking, there. Enjoyment is something you should damned well pay for yourself, and not with money you don't have to spend elsewhere because the taxpayers are feeding you.
The jobs I've worked only offered the first one. You have to swallow several gallons a day of some intense bullshit to derive confidence and happiness from those demoralizing swill-holes.
Good. I was worried about you there for a minute. You sounded like one of the lefty rabble-rousers had hacked your account.
That's the problem with being so incredibly, successfully cynical, Dicky. No one can convince you that you've got anything to offer.
It's employers that don't give a fuck. About anyone. And why should they? They serve a system that sees people as cogs. One shouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the attitudes in this thread come of it.
