Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If that' what Americans want why did the re-elect Obama, who promised handouts, vs Romney, who promised exactly what you are saying?For most Americans, it is a fair shot at the American dream
Americans do not want handouts. They want to be able to obtain good jobs that they can support their families on. They want to live without the fear of getting sick and losing everything they have. They want to be able to send their kids to college. They want to be able to work hard and be justly rewarded for that work
John Kennedy, speaking of the economy said.....A rising tide lifts all boats
Now, a rising tide only lifts the yachts
That is not social justice
If that was Romneys message, he had a funny way of presenting it
Other than vague, trickle down promises of jobs and prosperity for all. Where were specific programs targeted at helping the middle class?
So, no one likes Christianity?
Christianity is not FORCED.... it is up to you to VOLUNTARILY follow the doctrine.. Christ is not sitting there directly taking from you, throwing you in jail if you do not... government is doing that
Perhaps you should do more to open your mind to a better understanding. Yours is simply ridged refusal to move off of your point, and to accomplish that, you degrade others.Social justice depends, as every other word or phrase, on what people choose for it to mean.
In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money, that health is more important than profits, that a good life for all is better than extremes where a tiny few reign over a large minority.
In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.
In between are various mixes.
(I sure hope that pisses off the cat in the hat.)
It has nothing to do with people being 'more important than money'...
And 'refusal to share' is nothing more than a bullshit way of saying 'what is yours is ours' in liberal speak.. you have no right to the property of others, but each person has the right or freedom to give voluntarily as much as they wish to help others.... your idea of social justice is when you think others don't do enough for your agenda, they should be forced to do what you deem as enough
As usual, this individual has understood what was in his/her mind and not the original post.
Nothing more can be expected from someone whose head is hard as a diamond.
Perhaps you should do more to open your mind to a better understanding. Yours is simply ridged refusal to move off of your point, and to accomplish that, you degrade others.It has nothing to do with people being 'more important than money'...
And 'refusal to share' is nothing more than a bullshit way of saying 'what is yours is ours' in liberal speak.. you have no right to the property of others, but each person has the right or freedom to give voluntarily as much as they wish to help others.... your idea of social justice is when you think others don't do enough for your agenda, they should be forced to do what you deem as enough
As usual, this individual has understood what was in his/her mind and not the original post.
Nothing more can be expected from someone whose head is hard as a diamond.
If that' what Americans want why did the re-elect Obama, who promised handouts, vs Romney, who promised exactly what you are saying?
If that was Romneys message, he had a funny way of presenting it
Other than vague, trickle down promises of jobs and prosperity for all. Where were specific programs targeted at helping the middle class?
You're missing the point. As usual. Government helps create jobs simply by creating an atmosphere where that is possible. When that is done, people will create jobs on their own. They dont a gov't program to do that.
I realize the idea that people will do the right thing without being commanded by central authority is anathema to you. But there you have it.
Helping those that can't help themselves is one thingNo it doesn't
It means helping people who need help.
In the case of tax dollars. If the current tax structure and government assistance is allowing one group to prosper and another group to struggle, it is time to relook the priorities of the government
Taking money from some to give to people who are perfectly capable of helping themselves is quite another and is not justice in any sense of the word.
The wealthy are more than capable of helping themselves. Why do we give them government subsidies?
If that was Romneys message, he had a funny way of presenting it
Other than vague, trickle down promises of jobs and prosperity for all. Where were specific programs targeted at helping the middle class?
You're missing the point. As usual. Government helps create jobs simply by creating an atmosphere where that is possible. When that is done, people will create jobs on their own. They dont a gov't program to do that.
I realize the idea that people will do the right thing without being commanded by central authority is anathema to you. But there you have it.
Absolutely correct
The GOP response to jobs was....We Don't Care
You got laid off.....WE DON'T CARE
Jobs are going overseas......WE DON'T CARE
You don't have healthcare......WE DON'T CARE
You just graduated and there are no jobs.......WE DON'T CARE
Raise taxes on the richest 2%..........WE CARE
In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.Oh, it is pretty clear what you were getting at
It is perfectly clear, though apparently not to you. Could that description not be used about Nazi German or Stalinist Russia?
Use originality and give up the predetermined!
In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.Oh, it is pretty clear what you were getting at
It is perfectly clear, though apparently not to you. Could that description not be used about Nazi German or Stalinist Russia?
Use originality and give up the predetermined!
Can be pointed right at your ilk that tries to force others to share in your redistribution schemes that fit your PERSONAL charity agenda
Use logic and give up the progressive chanting
We are all aware of the disadvantages of being born into a poor, uneducated single parent family, but what is the prescription for addressing this widespread problem? One view is to provide educational and other opportunities to escape this environment and, hopefully, end this repetitive cycle. Unfortunately, this approach seems to have had limited success.
Another view, seemingly espoused in the President's Social Justice agenda, is to remove the trappings of poverty by subsidizing these families into a middle class standard of living. The obvious risk to this approach is that it removes incentives for self-improvement, both for the individuals directly involved and for other individuals who then see the relative value of their own efforts diminished.
Which is the better approach? At an individual and even societal level, it probably depends on one's personal philosophical beliefs. However, these approaches also involve divergent economic premises: The Individual Opportunity approach depends on an ever-expanding private sector job market, while the Social Justice approach depends on ever-increasing government revenues.
At this point, neither approach looks very promising. What is your prescription?
Social justice depends, as every other word or phrase, on what people choose for it to mean.
In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money, that health is more important than profits, that a good life for all is better than extremes where a tiny few reign over a large minority.
In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.
In between are various mixes.
(I sure hope that pisses off the cat in the hat.)
It means "spreading the wealth", i.e. taking from hard working successful people and giving to worthless crap people so they'll continue to vote Democrat.
That's how you define social justice? Really?
I have to disagree.
It means "spreading the wealth", i.e. taking from hard working successful people and giving to worthless crap people so they'll continue to vote Democrat.
That's how you define social justice? Really?
I have to disagree.
Have you answered the question yet? How do YOU define social justice?
I like this definition
social justice
The fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice.
Social Justice??
Depends on who you ask.
To a liberal it means that everyone is equal.
Doesn't matter if they work or don't They deserve whatever the providing party gets and those providing should be overjoyed to pick up their slack. Oh and their responsibilities are assumed by the providers as well. In effect the useless fucks get a free ride at the taxpayers expense and the providers of that free ride have no say in the matter.
To a Conservative it means you work hard for what you have and your life is your own responsibility.
If that was Romneys message, he had a funny way of presenting it
Other than vague, trickle down promises of jobs and prosperity for all. Where were specific programs targeted at helping the middle class?
You're missing the point. As usual. Government helps create jobs simply by creating an atmosphere where that is possible. When that is done, people will create jobs on their own. They dont a gov't program to do that.
I realize the idea that people will do the right thing without being commanded by central authority is anathema to you. But there you have it.
Absolutely correct
The GOP response to jobs was....We Don't Care
You got laid off.....WE DON'T CARE
Jobs are going overseas......WE DON'T CARE
You don't have healthcare......WE DON'T CARE
You just graduated and there are no jobs.......WE DON'T CARE
Raise taxes on the richest 2%..........WE CARE
