@no1marauder saidC'mon, they all shape-shift. That is why they call them Politicians,
AJ: I don't think that Trump ever reversed course on his beliefs.
Are you serious?
Trump in 1999: ‘I am Very Pro-Choice’
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914
Trump on Hillary Clinton in 2008: "Well, I know her and she’d make a good president or good vice president.” https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/polit ...[text shortened]... ples or beliefs that he wouldn't jettison tomorrow if it helped him politically or esp. financially.
20 years ago, Bill Clinton signed Defense of Marriage Act
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/21/20-years-ago-bill-clinton-signed-defense-of-marria/
And Hillary was a big supporter of what was viewed as anti-gay legislation., Man, did that change in a hurry.
@no1marauder saidAgain, egomaniacal politicians no no party. Look at Hilary the Supreme One. After her defeat to Trump in 2020
Daddy slipped him $150 million; even a buffoon would have a hard time blowing all that. He's been very anxious to hide his financial situation for a while, so it's hard to say if he's successful or in hock up to his eyeballs.
Ever listen to him on one of his many appearances on Howard Stern's show? He came off as what he is; a classless, misogynistic, clown. Maybe he w ...[text shortened]... I said, he really has no deep principles but an abiding faith that he is the center of the universe.
she had a list of things that toppled her from her high perch in that election season. She blamed EVERYONE, including Comey,
who let her off the hook. But never once did she think that being caught cheating in her own primary election
or getting caught with an illegal server in her home had anything to do with it.
Sadly, I wonder if even you do.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidBut I have the answer, I wish they would give me a call.
People who work hard get sick.
People who work hard get old.
People who work hard lose their jobs if a company fails or a CEO makes poor decision or if the company gets sold or for a million other reasons.
The People create an economic system and it should reflect our empathic nature. We should not let others suffer for what FDR correctly called "the hazards and ...[text shortened]... spech on signing the Social Security Act is here: https://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#signing
First, as to a company closing down, there, are, today, 7 million jobs available, You libs ignore that information like the plague!!! So, the guy gets laid off, and gets another job. We must assume he is responsible, self sufficient, a good planner (or, he is in the wrong country, he needs to move to Norway Nanny's nation). So, being responsible and a good planner, he has money set aside for being sick, and for when he gets old. (health insurance, and retirement). I bet you do. Why can't he. Too many children to raise, you say? Then, poor planning, but not my problem.
Now, as to your last paragraph, you are partially right. The People (your marxism is showing)...., that is, the elected government in this country, should recognize these suffering folks with no way out, and decide to support them in full. Free stuff!!! And there are only 40M of them. Support them, and get Rid Of All Other Entitlement Programs, so that the govt will have enough money to fund this new program. The result could not be more empathic!!
I know, I know, that puts a lot of losers in a bad spot, that they will have to go to work. Or starve. Not My Problem.
Is this solution too simple, or do you have friends who would now miss out on government handouts? Why would you not like this program, as hypothetical as it is.?
@earl-of-trumps said"Whataboutism" posts are for losers.
Again, egomaniacal politicians no no party. Look at Hilary the Supreme One. After her defeat to Trump in 2020
she had a list of things that toppled her from her high perch in that election season. She blamed EVERYONE, including Comey,
who let her off the hook. But never once did she think that being caught cheating in her own primary election
or getting caught with an illegal server in her home had anything to do with it.
Sadly, I wonder if even you do.
AJ made a claim; I easily showed it was false. I don't care about the Clintons.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidAJ: The People (your marxism is showing)..
But I have the answer, I wish they would give me a call.
First, as to a company closing down, there, are, today, 7 million jobs available, You libs ignore that information like the plague!!! So, the guy gets laid off, and gets another job. We must assume he is responsible, self sufficient, a good planner (or, he is in the wrong country, he needs to move to Norway N ...[text shortened]... ow miss out on government handouts? Why would you not like this program, as hypothetical as it is.?
Were the Framers of the Constitution "Marxists"?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Everybody in a human society is "our problem". A society with starving people has failed its most basic function.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidAnd irrelevant. You said:
@no1marauder Did I miss something? I was typing. Earl's statements are correct.
"AJ: I don't think that Trump ever reversed course on his beliefs."
You were obviously badly misinformed, weren't you?
@no1marauder saidno no no, don't you see, our society , the USA, will NOT fail them under my plan. Contrare', we will support them! The losers, who can no longer be parasites, will not be our problem. Please enlighten me, if you see how that can be, if we are caring for the truly needy.
AJ: The People (your marxism is showing)..
Were the Framers of the Constitution "Marxists"?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and es ...[text shortened]... a human society is "our problem". A society with starving people has failed its most basic function.
As to the framers using the word 'people',
i submit that your man Marx saw the 'people' in QUITE a different light. You see, Marx would be the daddy, for lack of a better word, and it is a nice word, of his people. Simply, he would take from the people 'With', and give to the people Without. Boss man, perhaps? Uhhh, not the Framers. They were escaping from Boss Men (the King!!!!! Oh Boy, a King, a Marx-type)
Bring it, you are really reaching here. You toy with 'People'?????
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidJesus, reading such raving is enough to give one a nosebleed.
no no no, don't you see, our society , the USA, will NOT fail them under my plan. Contrare', we will support them! The losers, who can no longer be parasites, will not be our problem. Please enlighten me, if you see how that can be, if we are caring for the truly needy.
As to the framers using the word 'people',
i submit that your man Marx saw the 'people' i ...[text shortened]... Oh Boy, a King, a Marx-type)
Bring it, you are really reaching here. You toy with 'People'?????
I know you can't get it through your head but here's two simple facts:
1) I'm not a Marxist;
2) You don't have the slightest clue what a "Marxist" is.
When I use the term "the People" I mean it in the same way as the Framers did i.e. all members of the national community. How that is endorsing a "king" or a "boss" in your confused mind is a riddle I cannot solve.
@no1marauder saidRaving ? I think that you have that confused with common sense. It makes perfect sense. If you and I lived in a village of 1000, and 100 are in really bad shape, we would take care of them, and go on with our lives. Hopefully you as a person who leans on people (like your Norway friends, et al ad nauseam) will not come over to my hut and try to get some of my fish that I've been catching all day. You are a Marxist, because there is no way that you will agree that those are MY fish. You cannot stomach me having a hut full of fish, while you and another frisbee thrower just take it easy.
Jesus, reading such raving is enough to give one a nosebleed.
I know you can't get it through your head but here's two simple facts:
1) I'm not a Marxist;
2) You don't have the slightest clue what a "Marxist" is.
You have GOT to be messing with me, no way you can not agree with my premise. I always admit when I am wrong,why dont you?
Here's some of the many ways the US safety net is deficient, often in ways that discourage work:
"The United States is the only country included in the analysis with no national paid leave policy for mothers or fathers."
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/sweden-norway-iceland-and-estonia-rank-highest-family-friendly-policies-oecd-and-eu
"The United States has always stood out among wealthy nations (and, often, less-than-wealthy nations) for its stark lack of policies that support families. We are the only industrialized country that doesn’t offer some kind of paid family leave. We lack any sort of child allowance, a monthly or weekly cash supplement from the government to help parents raise children, a policy that is standard fare in most other nations. For one of the richest countries in the world, child poverty rates have remained persistently high in America. And the lack of affordable child care has become a national crisis, with daycare costing parents more than in-state tuition in half of the country."
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a27496656/3-women-on-what-its-actually-like-to-have-universal-childcare/
"The fact remains that Americans are more likely to experience significant declines in their standard of living when they retire and to be relatively poor in old age than people in other advanced economies, and this is only expected to get worse."
https://www.epi.org/blog/retirees-compare-countries/
" The US has fewer physicians, hospital beds, and psychiatric care beds than most other economically advanced countries, ranking towards the bottom in each of these parameters. The US is also the only advanced economy in the world not to have full health coverage of its population."
https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-country/
So there's a lot to do.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidNo, in actual human societies in the Natural State, we don't allow 100 to get into "bad shape" and then begrudgingly trickle some meager amount down to them while considering them "losers" and "parasites".
Raving ? I think that you have that confused with common sense. It makes perfect sense. If you and I lived in a village of 1000, and 100 are in really bad shape, we would take care of them, and go on with our lives. Hopefully you as a person who leans on people (like your Norway friends, et al ad nauseam) will not come over to my hut and try to get some of my fish ...[text shortened]... ing with me, no way you can not agree with my premise. I always admit when I am wrong,why dont you?
Your ridiculous ideas about how only a select few "work hard" and most others are simply lazy is unsupported by any type of evidence though a standard staple of ignorant and elitist thought.
BTW, did you make those fish? Then what makes them yours? No society would allow one person to hoard a commodity if it was sufficiently rare that others in the community could not have equal access to it. In normal circumstances, few would object to your hoarding as there might be plenty of fish, but supposed there was a shortage and people were faced with starvation while you had an abundance? A just society would compel you to share your bounty whether you wanted to or not.
Your premise is based on your incorrect views of human nature and your acceptance as inevitable an economic system imposed on the vast majority by force. So from such garbage in, it is not surprising you get garbage out.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidHow do you 'not allow' someone to get into bad shape? A curious comment. A bit controlling, don't you think. I dont like exercise. One of your thugs gonna make me exercise? That is what you are saying. As to losers, one who can figure a way to live off the govt is a loser.(I think it is proven that one can collect almost $40K, look it up, I am not a link kind-of-guy...if you look at your posts, you will see why). What else would you call him? Oh, I know, how about parasite. You truly think that that is not an appropriate term for these people. I think it is, sue me.
No, in actual human societies in the Natural State, we don't allow 100 to get into "bad shape" and then begrudgingly trickle some meager amount down to them while considering them "losers" and "parasites".
Your ridiculous ideas about how only a select few "work hard" and most others are simply lazy is unsupported by any type of evidence though a standard staple of ign ...[text shortened]... ed on the vast majority by force. So from such garbage in, it is not surprising you get garbage out.
Marauder, some people work harder than others. Whew. Like a fisherman, in the hot sun. Hey, if he catches fish, they are his. The license he paid the government for says they are his. A leftist or a Marxist would say they are not his.
I totally disagree with your take on a society telling a guy that they want his stuff. You see, follow me here, he will just stop fishing. The best fisherman in the village. And he quits. He is like the goose laying golden eggs, the fable has the society kill the fisherman,.... the goose. You are really off your rocker. So they would compel him to share his fish?. He would just stop 'having fish'. I sure would, and I bet you would. Boy it really would be bad if he sold his fish and hadmore money than somebody. A regular Jeff Bezos of the island!!!! Your inhabitants would rather starve than see that! Oh Marauder, you get so fancy with your prose and links that you lose sight of the sparrow.
And, I don't know what you mean by (my) acceptance as inevitable an economic system imposed on the vast majority by force. I certainly would not, maybe you mistyped that one. Leftists are into force, you must have meant that for someone else.
@AverageJoe1
You define ‘people’. as all members of a national society. Creepy indeed, but it figures, coming from a group guy, a mob guy. Is there not one real independent guy among you guys?
I do not consider myself in any way a member of a national society. I get what NATO is, but you literally think that we, including the cretins in Portland, are all in one national society. And your writings bespeak it as ‘fhe way it should be.”