Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 3, 2016 20:22:59 GMT -5
sufficient-reason.tumblr.com/post/26781491317/dear-liberalheres-why-im-so-hostileOn commonality: On what progressives demand: On the difference between conservatives and progressives: The rub: Much, much more in the article itself, but these excerpts will have to do. Thoughts? Has the "social contract" gone too far? Is everything that modern progressivism accomplishes "accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle" as Mr. "N. Choate" contends? Is it wrong to do so?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 3, 2016 20:28:18 GMT -5
Meh. I am not going to explain myself to them.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 3, 2016 20:31:21 GMT -5
have a beer and be less hostile.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 3, 2016 20:32:17 GMT -5
Hostility is a 2 way street.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 3, 2016 20:34:11 GMT -5
Hostility is a 2 way street. so is drinking a beer.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,117
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jan 3, 2016 20:59:34 GMT -5
I'm not reading the article but will take Archie's advice.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jan 3, 2016 21:19:22 GMT -5
Is anyone interpreting the "right to a job" as a walk up to HR of a private company and ask, ney DEMAND! that he/she is entitled to a job? It is a shame! Such poor understanding of meanings! ( on the other hand it shouldn't come as a surprise since "well regulated militia" means any kook with a gun! )
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Jan 3, 2016 21:45:27 GMT -5
Oh please! Want a list of reasons I am hostile to conservatives? We can both put up the straw men. I am with the 'drink a beer' faction. Dear Conservative- I understand you completely- I consider you a soon to be extinct ugly remnant of society
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 3, 2016 22:29:32 GMT -5
Is anyone interpreting the "right to a job" as a walk up to HR of a private company and ask, ney DEMAND! that he/she is entitled to a job? It is a shame! Such poor understanding of meanings! ( on the other hand it shouldn't come as a surprise since "well regulated militia" means any kook with a gun! ) What does the "right to a job" mean? Explain it to us.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 22:41:13 GMT -5
The government should be the employer of final need. ie. no welfare, show up and work for your paycheck. CCC. all that jazz... (I'm just doing this quick because I want to post before husband )
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jan 3, 2016 22:46:05 GMT -5
Alright Virgil! Being that you are Canadian, I understand why you wouldn't know! FDRs "second bill of rights" was created so to speak during hard times- depression and so on. Jobs were absolutely hard to come by so the administration came up with the idea of Public Works: roads, bridges, public parks etc. That put back to work many individuals, gave them a purpose and took them off of welfare/social assistance. FDRs approach was that if one individual cannot find a job that would pay for his living then there is always something to be done, a place that your time and skills could be put to use, to the benefit of the society of which you are part of. In exchange for your welfare/social assistance you could work on public lands as not to make you feel that you are "handed over" this money. His idea GAVE you a sense of entitlement to your pay because to some extent you earned it. And he declared that a "right to a job"! Simple as that! It is assumed that one would do that out of a sense of pride, of personal worth. Working however you can for what you get is better than just stretching a hand out. The system is still applied in Romania, my country of origin. They call it "section 529" Rampant unemployment made them look for alternatives and some smart guy dug up FDRs approach and put it to use.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jan 3, 2016 22:47:23 GMT -5
I read the article. Just another extremist. I think he needs a "chill pill". Apparently, in his mind, the sick need not be taken care of, nor the elderly in their old age, just to give a couple of examples. And trusting local charity has the means to do it all is just crazy! (Our church operates a small food shelf, & it is used on an "emergency" basis. It doesn't take much to wipe the shelves clean. Private charity is a benefit in the communities who have it, but it cannot begin to cover all of the needs out there.)
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 3, 2016 23:11:29 GMT -5
The Mormons do a pretty good job of taking care of their own.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 23:14:48 GMT -5
There are legitimate reasons why a secular government should not rely upon religious organizations to provide comprehensive social services.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 3, 2016 23:51:46 GMT -5
There are legitimate reasons why a secular government should not rely upon religious organizations to provide comprehensive social services. Yeah. Religious organizations have standards.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 23:55:24 GMT -5
Great. Your religious organization has standards. So, they turn away anyone who doesn't meet their 'standards'. Meanwhile, the extremist 'other' religion offers free care to anyone... with a side helping of conversion to their goals... and the promise to vote in the next election (can you say Hamas anyone? ).... No issues there...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 3, 2016 23:59:52 GMT -5
I read the article. Just another extremist. I think he needs a "chill pill". Apparently, in his mind, the sick need not be taken care of, nor the elderly in their old age, just to give a couple of examples. And trusting local charity has the means to do it all is just crazy! (Our church operates a small food shelf, & it is used on an "emergency" basis. It doesn't take much to wipe the shelves clean. Private charity is a benefit in the communities who have it, but it cannot begin to cover all of the needs out there.) People might have more money to share and a greater will to share it if the government wasn't taxing the snot out of them to take care of other people. Every penny that the government spends on "cover[ing] cover all of the needs out there" comes from the taxpayer or from debt. The "extremist" who wrote the article hit that particular nail squarely on the head. Progressives don't trust their countrymen--their supposedly "free" brethren--to do the right thing. They believe government needs to force charity at the point of a gun.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 0:01:41 GMT -5
Great. Your religious organization has standards. So, they turn away anyone who doesn't meet their 'standards'. Meanwhile, the extremist 'other' religion offers free care to anyone... with a side helping of conversion to their goals... and the promise to vote in the next election (can you say Hamas anyone? ).... No issues there... So start up your own organization and help those you deem worthy of helping. Help the ones nobody else will. It's a free country. Or at least it was supposed to be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 0:02:54 GMT -5
You missed the point.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 0:16:29 GMT -5
Alright Virgil! Being that you are Canadian, I understand why you wouldn't know! FDRs "second bill of rights" was created so to speak during hard times- depression and so on. Jobs were absolutely hard to come by so the administration came up with the idea of Public Works: roads, bridges, public parks etc. That put back to work many individuals, gave them a purpose and took them off of welfare/social assistance. FDRs approach was that if one individual cannot find a job that would pay for his living then there is always something to be done, a place that your time and skills could be put to use, to the benefit of the society of which you are part of. In exchange for your welfare/social assistance you could work on public lands as not to make you feel that you are "handed over" this money. His idea GAVE you a sense of entitlement to your pay because to some extent you earned it. And he declared that a "right to a job"! Simple as that! It is assumed that one would do that out of a sense of pride, of personal worth. Working however you can for what you get is better than just stretching a hand out. The system is still applied in Romania, my country of origin. They call it "section 529" Rampant unemployment made them look for alternatives and some smart guy dug up FDRs approach and put it to use. This may be news to you, but requiring that people work to qualify for social assistance has been a defunct policy for the better part of a century. No, when progressives talk about the "right to a job", they aren't talking about government make-work programs to qualify for social assistance. Requiring people to work is inhumane. Think of the disabled, the single mothers, the elderly, the unemployable, the drug-addicted. To the progressive, the "right to a job" means an exorbitant minimum wage, no discrimination in hiring or firing (no matter how reasonable), powerful unions, protections for privileged groups, free education and training, hard caps on executive compensation, indefinite support for the unemployed and unemployable, and hiring quotas for groups nobody wants to employ. It would be nice if they'd stuck with Pres. Roosevelt's vision, but he's a raging, heartless conservative by today's standards. The 2012 equivalent dollar value of his entire "New Deal" program over half a decade was just under $325 billion, or about what America now spends on social assistance in three months. (Purchased using debt, I might add.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 0:25:24 GMT -5
Well when FDR said it he was talking about CCC.
And when I talk about it... that is what I mean.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 0:29:16 GMT -5
The point being that Americans, like all people, are small-minded religious nutcases who might freely place standards on the beneficiaries of the sweat of their brow. This is unacceptable, thus the government must see to it that the proceeds of people's labour is confiscated and redistributed in accordance with the wishes of the state, whose judgment is superior to that of the small-minded people clinging to their guns and their religion. I'm familiar with the doctrine.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 0:31:29 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 0:31:39 GMT -5
Well when FDR said it he was talking about CCC.
And when I talk about it... that is what I mean. Then you're an apostate of true progressivism in that regard. You're heartless, your views are antiquated and inhumane, and they're precisely what are being "progressed" away from.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 0:32:25 GMT -5
I give up. What is "the point"?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 4, 2016 1:00:14 GMT -5
Yeah. Religious organizations have standards. Best not put a Spotlight on the Catholics then.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 1:24:57 GMT -5
Yeah. Religious organizations have standards. Best not put a Spotlight on the Catholics then. My parents are Catholic. They've devoted a substantial part of their retirement to charity work affiliated with the church. Everything from building houses in Mexico to soup kitchens to reading to the disabled. This is in addition to paying 55% of their life's incomes (and another 15% in sales tax plus heaven knows how much more in liquor taxes, municipal taxes, car taxes, per-item taxes, taxes on taxes) to the government in exchange for virtually nothing in return (they kept themselves healthy, saved for retirement, will never qualify for any kind of assistance until the day they die). So why don't you tell us all about how those damned Catholics can't be trusted with the money they earn. Remind us how blessed the rest of us to have Big Brother there to prevent that 55% from also being pissed away on Catholic charities. They aren't fans of message boards, so I'm at least grateful they can do it without putting up with the ignoramuses in cyberspace.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 1:30:07 GMT -5
Is anyone interpreting the "right to a job" as a walk up to HR of a private company and ask, ney DEMAND! that he/she is entitled to a job? It is a shame! Such poor understanding of meanings! ( on the other hand it shouldn't come as a surprise since "well regulated militia" means any kook with a gun! ) Since it actually DOESN'T mean that... your point is completely and utterly lost.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 1:38:45 GMT -5
As far as the thread subject is concerned though... Everyone that's a citizen of they country they are in OR has the appropriate work Visa has a right to A job... what they don't have is a right to ANY SPECIFIC job.
There's only one reasonable and acceptable "discrimination" to employment: "is the person capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job?" If yes, hire them. If no, don't hire them.
Age (as long as they are old enough to work legally in the position), gender, race, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, and disability that won't affect performance... should all have exactly ZERO effect on a person's ability to become employed.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 2:10:00 GMT -5
As far as the thread subject is concerned though... Everyone that's a citizen of they country they are in OR has the appropriate work Visa has a right to A job... what they don't have is a right to ANY SPECIFIC job. There's only one reasonable and acceptable "discrimination" to employment: "is the person capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job?" If yes, hire them. If no, don't hire them. Age (as long as they are old enough to work legally in the position), gender, race, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, and disability that won't affect performance... should all have exactly ZERO effect on a person's ability to become employed. Paragraph #2 conflicts with paragraph #3. A person's age, gender, disabilities, race, religion, orientation, and marital status can all have a predictable impact on their ability to perform a particular job effectively or at all. All of these can also correlate heavily with other tangible factors that impact work ability. An employer doesn't get to discriminate against Asians, for example, if he can prove that Asians consistently sell 30% fewer cars than black sales associates in his highly black-centric neighbourhood. Either he has the discretion to hire the best person for the job or he doesn't; his rationale is irrelevant. Over the years, our society has shifted from overwhelmingly "does" to "does not"--to its detriment, conservatives would say, even without the employer's loss of freedom.
|
|