do you support socialism?
is it something that you would want in your country?.
V101,
As I understand it (I hope our Canadian friends will correct me if I'm wrong), serious, life threatening conditions are taken care of quickly, while those that are less severe sometimes have to wait. Those that have money, and don't want to wait, will come to the US.
they have a very big child abuse enabler international reputation in the courts can these things be a reason for banning these stupid ass carts that claims to have all the answers to mans hardest questions.. why should every library have to permit them to plant their lame ass carts close to the entrance.. i'm thinking that soon due to all the bad publicity surrounding the jehovah witness cult leaders that cart witnessing will come to be seen as a very big waste of time by all it's members that have become hall less thus missing a shit load of meeting and a beginning to start thinking for themselves.. i'm sure many jws hate this type of work even now, even though it's an easy way to get your time in and not be labeled inactive or keep the elders off your back.
have you noticed that a lot of carts don't have a jw near by?
i never see anybody at the carts where i live, i've even asked people nearby and nobody knew who put the cart there.
Is there a limit to how many can man a cart? I imagine that carts would be useful if a congregation needed extra hours to make them look good. A cart used 16 hours a day, with rotating shifts of 2 publishers at a time, would equal close to 6000 hours a year.
do you support socialism?
is it something that you would want in your country?.
Pure Socialism is a no-go. A mix of socialism and capitalism has been proven to work. Many equate socialism as being communism, linking it to fears of the Cold War era. Not true.
The secret is finding the balance.
rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
JeffT,
You make some good points about divisiveness, we need less rancor, and more truth about what this country needs, but I think it needs more empathy, and less righteousness (in my opinion).
You realize that Social Security was not meant to be enough to survive on with no other resources. My wife and I are retired and couldn't survive on Social Security alone, so made sure that we owned a home by the time we retired. We couĺd never make it on S.S. alone, and never expected to. Unfortunately, many, by no fault of their own, are forced to, but that's a topic for another day.
We've always been self employed, paying our own Social Security, property taxes, and living expenses. Being lucky, we live in a state that chose to embrace Medicaid, so we weren't bankrupted by my heart attack 10 years ago, though thankfully we're on Medicare now, and don't have to worry about medical costs.
We were both in the Performing Arts, so like 90% of performers, we struggled at times, but still made our house payments, and though at times we qualified for food stamps, we always had enough money for food, and didn't feel right about taking advantage of the system, as we felt that others had more need of the help.
I suppose that many here would consider us leeches for accepting Medicaid, and not getting well paying jobs with benefits, but I'm not ashamed of it. As a result of it, we have two sons, one of whom went to university, and now has an excellent job, pays taxes, and contributes to society. The other is studying the Performing Arts, and will probably struggle like we did, but we are proud of them both, because in their own way, they'll provide something of value to the world.
I realize that there are some who take advantage of the system. But I'm not petty enough to deny the help that a wealthy nation should extend to the disadvantaged, just to prevent a few from cheating.
I sympathize with many here who were always on the cusp, too much income to qualify for benefits, but too little to really make ends meet, but that's not the fault of those who qualify. Despite the naysayers here, a country that can spend trillions on ineffective wars, and give those who don't need it huge tax breaks, should easily pay for healthcare and education for all.
So, despite the avalanche of dislikes from the conservatives that will likely appear, I'm proud to be among those who benefited from the humanity of leaders like Roosevelt, who, while advantaged, realized that we should take care of our own who are poor, uneducated, unlucky, and yes, even undeserving, because who knows when it might be them or their children and loved ones that might need the help.(speech accompanied by stirring fanfare!)
Anyway, that's where I stand.
rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
Simon,
I'm sorry to say, YOU are the liar! In your comment you've parroted one of the talking points that those who study history would never make. I wonder if this has to do with one of Sean Hannity's recent monologues, that puts out the same garbage.
With that statement, you have just become one of the ignorant mass that the right delights in.
rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
MeanMrMustard,
You do realize, that in the United States, people have been lifted out of poverty in a large measure due to the activities of liberals?
In the early 20th century, at a time when philanthropy by private individuals, family, churches and charities (the libertarian idea of the best way to help the poor) were the only options for aid, the rates of extreme poverty were magnitudes higher than today.
At the end of the 19th century, we were much closer to a libertarian society than we are today. At one time, before we had entitlements, there were large numbers of people living on the streets of New York's Bowery. Were they too lazy to better themselves, could they all, by dint of hard work and entrepreneurial savvy, become wealthy?
I never see libertarians like Ron Paul advocate everyone starting from scratch, each with the same resources, property, and education. It's more like, "let's live under Libertarian principles starting right now!" while retaining all the property and advantages they've accrued up till this moment.
You point out the many failures of Socialism, while never giving any examples of the successes of pure Libertarian societies. And why is that? Whereas Socialism seems appealing in many ways, most would agree that it requires a mix of some socialist ideas with capitalism, to achieve a fair balance. Despite your declarations of doom, countries with such socialist ideas as free healthcare and education, haven't fallen into ruin. You proclaiming they're on the slippery slope to total collapse doesn't make it so.
Without making me wade through hours of tedious, biased videos, and hundreds of pages of charts, diagrams and theoretical opinions. can you, in your own words, explain why no one has attempted setting up a pure Libertarian society, or, if they have, what was the result?
You are very articulate, obviously intelligent, probably well educated, either through schooling or private study, so you should be able to answer the question without the use of other's words.
I look forward to your reply.
rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
Simon,
You are correct that the left is moving further from the shore. I think it's a good thing. Thank you for saying "the left" rather than "Democrats".
Any serious student of history will discover that the left (which I will from this point call liberal) has been responsible for all legislation that has helped the poor and disenfranchised. Abraham Lincoln would fall under that definition by today's terms.
Social Security, Medicare, and the Voting Rights Bill were all advocated by liberals and fought against by conservatives.
Strom Thurmond, arguably one of most racist of legislators, left the Democratic Party when it became obvious that racism was no longer welcome there. How do you think the term "Dixiecrat" came into being?
In 1939, 78% of the elderly were living in extreme poverty. Thanks to Social Security, that rate has fallen to 10% (still too high in my opinion.)
Thanks for making the point that liberals are moving away from conservatives. I wouldn't have it any other way.
rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
MeanMuStard. So, I think what you're saying is that Libertarians say things in such a way that you can pretty much defend anything they say by simply saying "you just don't understand it!"
I don't, and since that puts me in with the majority of intelligent, clear thinkers, I think we should leave it at that.
Thanks!
I'll vote for anyone from a party that best represents the diversity of race, gender, and religion that makes this country great! Oh, wait... that doesn't leave much choice. I know! I'll vote for someone who will make voter registration easier, is against gerrymandering, and works hard to combat voter suppression! No... that doesn't work either. I've got it! Someone who'll work to make sure Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid get the funding they need, while making sure that all children get the education they need to succeed in this complex technological world we live in, while seeing to it that their basic needs are taken care of. Damn it!... I guess I have only one choice. ANYONE from a party that believes these things.
rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
MeanMrMustard.
Sorry, we just live in a different universe. I went back and re-read the articles, and they look the same to me. I think we both have a completely different take on what is acceptable, and not acceptable in a civilized society.
Am I not correct that the Libertarian view of children, is that a mother or father may not inflict physical violence on their children, but should be allowed to let them die of neglect, by withholding food, shelter, or clothing, because to require this would infringe on their liberty, or freedom to do as they please with their property? Does this philosophy also mean that they have the right to sell their children? That's what I take from this article. If I'm wrong, please tell me what I'm misunderstanding. I'm sincere. I don't see any other interpretation of what I just read. I'm not trying to smear anyone, I would really appreciate your take on this.
Thanks.
