The Lazy Poor

[PoliticalChic]

And why should that be different?

What mistakes you make when, in your uneducated and thoughtless manner, you toss out some jumble of words as though you have made some profound point.

In reality, you regularly jam both of your feed in your mouth.

This is a case in point.

I'm putting my foot in my mouth by asking you your personal opinion on progressive taxation?

I take it you don't have then a personal opinion on progressive taxation.

Gee....I wonder why you left this off:

Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as “the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system,” and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, “It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have.”
Blum and Klaven, jr., “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.”


Destroyed, so many of your fondest and most firmly held views!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you have no personal opinion on whether or not the government of New York State should be redistributing wealth.

When time came for a vote, I would decide, and abide by the decision of the voters.


The real question is why folks like you are willing to allow judges to alter the Constitution.

Why don't we just apply your reasoning above, i.e., that judges are where they are because of decisions by the voters,

and thus, we should abide by them.

And btw, why are you complaining so much about the redistribution of wealth while you're incapable of clearly stating which redistributions of wealth you would end?

Folks like you, 'reliable Democrat voters,' are more than willing to 'abide by them'....or anyone else your masters tell you to.

Thoughtful individuals....not so much.

Of course, you've never read any of Talmon's views....so, (sigh)....once again, your education falls to me:


1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

a. Cultural totalitarianism is rule by the individual freed from all external authority or constraints, morality fully privatized with Judeo-Christian traditions under attack.

b. Moral and cultural relativism are predominant; no lifestyle is better than any other.

c. Paradoxically, relativist doctrine becomes absolutely unassailable: it brooks no challenges or deviations. ( 'reliable Democrat voters')



2. Mr. Talmon is concerned with drawing a distinction between “liberal democracy” and “totalitarian democracy,” both of which he sees as arising in the 18th century and coming into collision in the 20th.

“Liberal democracy” regards politics as a matter of trial and error, and political systems as pragmatic contrivances; it is solicitous of individualism and recognizes that there are legitimate areas of human activity outside the realm of the political.

“Totalitarian democracy” preaches absolute truth and a messianic vision of a “pre-ordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive”; its politics is but one aspect of an all-embracing philosophy. Both “liberal” and “totalitarian” democracy affirm the value of liberty; but for the first, liberty means individual spontaneity, for the second, reconciliation to an absolute, collective purpose—a kind of self-willed slavery, in fact. Both versions of “democracy” arose in the thinking of the 18th-century philosophes, but “liberal democracy” retreated before the bloody attempt to establish the City of God on earth and took refuge in the matter-of-factness of Anglo-American practice, while “totalitarian democracy” culminated eventually in Stalinism. « The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy, by J. L. Talmon Commentary Magazine



In short, you, and those like you, have moved us on the path away from freedom, and toward the gulags.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What mistakes you make when, in your uneducated and thoughtless manner, you toss out some jumble of words as though you have made some profound point.

In reality, you regularly jam both of your feed in your mouth.

This is a case in point.

I'm putting my foot in my mouth by asking you your personal opinion on progressive taxation?

I take it you don't have then a personal opinion on progressive taxation.

Gee....I wonder why you left this off:

Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as “the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system,” and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, “It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have.”
Blum and Klaven, jr., “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.”


Destroyed, so many of your fondest and most firmly held views!

I left it off because it's not your opinion, it's the opinion of a couple guys in Chicago who don't post on this board, so I can't argue with them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When time came for a vote, I would decide, and abide by the decision of the voters.


The real question is why folks like you are willing to allow judges to alter the Constitution.

Why don't we just apply your reasoning above, i.e., that judges are where they are because of decisions by the voters,

and thus, we should abide by them.

And btw, why are you complaining so much about the redistribution of wealth while you're incapable of clearly stating which redistributions of wealth you would end?

Folks like you, 'reliable Democrat voters,' are more than willing to 'abide by them'....or anyone else your masters tell you to.

Thoughtful individuals....not so much.

Of course, you've never read any of Talmon's views....so, (sigh)....once again, your education falls to me:


1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

a. Cultural totalitarianism is rule by the individual freed from all external authority or constraints, morality fully privatized with Judeo-Christian traditions under attack.

b. Moral and cultural relativism are predominant; no lifestyle is better than any other.

c. Paradoxically, relativist doctrine becomes absolutely unassailable: it brooks no challenges or deviations. ( 'reliable Democrat voters')



2. Mr. Talmon is concerned with drawing a distinction between “liberal democracy” and “totalitarian democracy,” both of which he sees as arising in the 18th century and coming into collision in the 20th.

“Liberal democracy” regards politics as a matter of trial and error, and political systems as pragmatic contrivances; it is solicitous of individualism and recognizes that there are legitimate areas of human activity outside the realm of the political.

“Totalitarian democracy” preaches absolute truth and a messianic vision of a “pre-ordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive”; its politics is but one aspect of an all-embracing philosophy. Both “liberal” and “totalitarian” democracy affirm the value of liberty; but for the first, liberty means individual spontaneity, for the second, reconciliation to an absolute, collective purpose—a kind of self-willed slavery, in fact. Both versions of “democracy” arose in the thinking of the 18th-century philosophes, but “liberal democracy” retreated before the bloody attempt to establish the City of God on earth and took refuge in the matter-of-factness of Anglo-American practice, while “totalitarian democracy” culminated eventually in Stalinism. « The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy, by J. L. Talmon Commentary Magazine



In short, you, and those like you, have moved us on the path away from freedom, and toward the gulags.

Since you never lie, I can trust you to give an honest answer...

...name the Democrats you've voted for.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Folks like you, 'reliable Democrat voters,' are more than willing to 'abide by them'....or anyone else your masters tell you to.

Thoughtful individuals....not so much..

Did you forget that you just said this a couple posts ago?

When time came for a vote, I would decide, and abide by the decision of the voters.

You identify yourself as one who abides by the decisions of the voters, and then you turn around and label people who do that as thoughtless.

lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm putting my foot in my mouth by asking you your personal opinion on progressive taxation?

I take it you don't have then a personal opinion on progressive taxation.

Gee....I wonder why you left this off:

Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as “the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system,” and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, “It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have.”
Blum and Klaven, jr., “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.”


Destroyed, so many of your fondest and most firmly held views!

I left it off because it's not your opinion, it's the opinion of a couple guys in Chicago who don't post on this board, so I can't argue with them.

You do so make a habit of being wrong.

And language is a large part of your problem.

It certainly is my opinion.

Dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[Folks like you, 'reliable Democrat voters,' are more than willing to 'abide by them'....or anyone else your masters tell you to.

Thoughtful individuals....not so much..

Did you forget that you just said this a couple posts ago?

When time came for a vote, I would decide, and abide by the decision of the voters.

You identify yourself as one who abides by the decisions of the voters, and then you turn around and label people who do that as thoughtless.

lol

The only possibility you see is clutching at the straw of pretending to misunderstand.
Try to be honest.

Many Supreme Court decisions have been in error.

The voice of the people is the source of all power.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am for the residents of each state determining their destiny with respect to any endeavors not listed in article 1, section 8.

I am for observing the law of the land.

And, I never lie.

So you have no personal opinion on whether or not the government of New York State should be redistributing wealth.

When time came for a vote, I would decide, and abide by the decision of the voters.


The real question is why folks like you are willing to allow judges to alter the Constitution.

Well, that’s an unsurprisingly ignorant statement.

Judges do not ‘alter’ the Constitution. They review laws to determine their constitutionality predicated on facts, evidence, and case law. When voters, either through referendum or their elected representatives, enact legislation offensive to the Constitution, such as Proposition 8, the courts have no other choice than to invalidate such laws.

Indeed, judges protect and defend the Constitution by following its case law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Folks like you, 'reliable Democrat voters,' are more than willing to 'abide by them'....or anyone else your masters tell you to.

Thoughtful individuals....not so much..

Did you forget that you just said this a couple posts ago?

When time came for a vote, I would decide, and abide by the decision of the voters.

You identify yourself as one who abides by the decisions of the voters, and then you turn around and label people who do that as thoughtless.

lol

The only possibility you see is clutching at the straw of pretending to misunderstand.
Try to be honest.

Many Supreme Court decisions have been in error.

The voice of the people is the source of all power.

You need to keep track of what you say one minute to the next.

Supreme Court decisions are only 'in error' in the opinion of those who disagree with them.

Do you wish to end the Supreme Court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of the law?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee....I wonder why you left this off:

Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as “the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system,” and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, “It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have.”
Blum and Klaven, jr., “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.”


Destroyed, so many of your fondest and most firmly held views!

I left it off because it's not your opinion, it's the opinion of a couple guys in Chicago who don't post on this board, so I can't argue with them.

You do so make a habit of being wrong.

And language is a large part of your problem.

It certainly is my opinion.

Dunce.

There is no need to namecall.

If you oppose the progressive tax system, what would you replace it with, and why.

 

[kwc57]

since "the lazy poor" is "code" for blacks.....let's talk about the corrupt, criminal, and lazy Asians.

Self loathing is so unbecoming.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why don't we just apply your reasoning above, i.e., that judges are where they are because of decisions by the voters,

and thus, we should abide by them.

And btw, why are you complaining so much about the redistribution of wealth while you're incapable of clearly stating which redistributions of wealth you would end?

Folks like you, 'reliable Democrat voters,' are more than willing to 'abide by them'....or anyone else your masters tell you to.

Thoughtful individuals....not so much.

Of course, you've never read any of Talmon's views....so, (sigh)....once again, your education falls to me:


1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

a. Cultural totalitarianism is rule by the individual freed from all external authority or constraints, morality fully privatized with Judeo-Christian traditions under attack.

b. Moral and cultural relativism are predominant; no lifestyle is better than any other.

c. Paradoxically, relativist doctrine becomes absolutely unassailable: it brooks no challenges or deviations. ( 'reliable Democrat voters')



2. Mr. Talmon is concerned with drawing a distinction between “liberal democracy” and “totalitarian democracy,” both of which he sees as arising in the 18th century and coming into collision in the 20th.

“Liberal democracy” regards politics as a matter of trial and error, and political systems as pragmatic contrivances; it is solicitous of individualism and recognizes that there are legitimate areas of human activity outside the realm of the political.

“Totalitarian democracy” preaches absolute truth and a messianic vision of a “pre-ordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive”; its politics is but one aspect of an all-embracing philosophy. Both “liberal” and “totalitarian” democracy affirm the value of liberty; but for the first, liberty means individual spontaneity, for the second, reconciliation to an absolute, collective purpose—a kind of self-willed slavery, in fact. Both versions of “democracy” arose in the thinking of the 18th-century philosophes, but “liberal democracy” retreated before the bloody attempt to establish the City of God on earth and took refuge in the matter-of-factness of Anglo-American practice, while “totalitarian democracy” culminated eventually in Stalinism. « The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy, by J. L. Talmon Commentary Magazine



In short, you, and those like you, have moved us on the path away from freedom, and toward the gulags.

Since you never lie, I can trust you to give an honest answer...

...name the Democrats you've voted for.

Well, it's fair to take that grim silence from you as being 'None'.

That makes you a 'reliable Republican voter', correct? and thus by your own measure,

not 'thoughtful'.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Ever notice that PC complains incessantly about the poor and the welfare state that assists them,

but NEVER offers a better way to do things?

They are already offered the same free "choice" as everyone else: a free public education that equips them with all the necessary tools to get a job (math, reading, writing). From there they can EARN their way towards college, apply for a few scholarships, or choose the military for the means to afford a more skilled education. The catch? They have to work hard and apply themselves. Do you honestly expect the more responsible people to pick up the tab for those with no initiative of their own to LEARN how to succeed in life? We each "choose" how successful we want to be, based on our willingness to educate and apply ourselves. You also begin to learn, when life's own experiences teaches you what opportunities are left for those who happen to turn away from that pursuit of an education.

Government in no way helps the poor by cradling and nurturing them whenever someone fails to take an active, accountable and a responsible role for their OWN life. Government is the enabler to poverty, with all their free government programs and offers (like cell phones). It's a form of entitlement reward that takes away the need to really have any personal initiative - creating a "government will simply do it" mentality.



One of our Founders sums it up best:

I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
- Ben Franklin

 

[Mac1958]

since "the lazy poor" is "code" for blacks.....let's talk about the corrupt, criminal, and lazy Asians.

Self loathing is so unbecoming.

Yup.

I wonder if there is any word that has negative connotations which isn't a "code" word for blacks in the eyes of the PC Police.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you have no personal opinion on whether or not the government of New York State should be redistributing wealth.

When time came for a vote, I would decide, and abide by the decision of the voters.


The real question is why folks like you are willing to allow judges to alter the Constitution.

Well, that’s an unsurprisingly ignorant statement.

Judges do not ‘alter’ the Constitution. They review laws to determine their constitutionality predicated on facts, evidence, and case law. When voters, either through referendum or their elected representatives, enact legislation offensive to the Constitution, such as Proposition 8, the courts have no other choice than to invalidate such laws.

Indeed, judges protect and defend the Constitution by following its case law.

What better proof could there be that you slept too close to your radium-dial watch?

"Judges do not ‘alter’ the Constitution."

Of course they do.

Everytime they find a 'penumbra' unrelated to the language of the Constitution.

It is the very definition of corruption.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you forget that you just said this a couple posts ago?

When time came for a vote, I would decide, and abide by the decision of the voters.

You identify yourself as one who abides by the decisions of the voters, and then you turn around and label people who do that as thoughtless.

lol

The only possibility you see is clutching at the straw of pretending to misunderstand.
Try to be honest.

Many Supreme Court decisions have been in error.

The voice of the people is the source of all power.

You need to keep track of what you say one minute to the next.

Supreme Court decisions are only 'in error' in the opinion of those who disagree with them.

Do you wish to end the Supreme Court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of the law?

Dred Scott, dim-wit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I left it off because it's not your opinion, it's the opinion of a couple guys in Chicago who don't post on this board, so I can't argue with them.

You do so make a habit of being wrong.

And language is a large part of your problem.

It certainly is my opinion.

Dunce.

There is no need to namecall.

If you oppose the progressive tax system, what would you replace it with, and why.

Dunce?

I thought that was your nickname.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only possibility you see is clutching at the straw of pretending to misunderstand.
Try to be honest.

Many Supreme Court decisions have been in error.

The voice of the people is the source of all power.

You need to keep track of what you say one minute to the next.

Supreme Court decisions are only 'in error' in the opinion of those who disagree with them.

Do you wish to end the Supreme Court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of the law?

Dred Scott, dim-wit.

It was only 'in error' to those who disagreed with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Folks like you, 'reliable Democrat voters,' are more than willing to 'abide by them'....or anyone else your masters tell you to.

Thoughtful individuals....not so much.

Of course, you've never read any of Talmon's views....so, (sigh)....once again, your education falls to me:


1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

a. Cultural totalitarianism is rule by the individual freed from all external authority or constraints, morality fully privatized with Judeo-Christian traditions under attack.

b. Moral and cultural relativism are predominant; no lifestyle is better than any other.

c. Paradoxically, relativist doctrine becomes absolutely unassailable: it brooks no challenges or deviations. ( 'reliable Democrat voters')



2. Mr. Talmon is concerned with drawing a distinction between “liberal democracy” and “totalitarian democracy,” both of which he sees as arising in the 18th century and coming into collision in the 20th.

“Liberal democracy” regards politics as a matter of trial and error, and political systems as pragmatic contrivances; it is solicitous of individualism and recognizes that there are legitimate areas of human activity outside the realm of the political.

“Totalitarian democracy” preaches absolute truth and a messianic vision of a “pre-ordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive”; its politics is but one aspect of an all-embracing philosophy. Both “liberal” and “totalitarian” democracy affirm the value of liberty; but for the first, liberty means individual spontaneity, for the second, reconciliation to an absolute, collective purpose—a kind of self-willed slavery, in fact. Both versions of “democracy” arose in the thinking of the 18th-century philosophes, but “liberal democracy” retreated before the bloody attempt to establish the City of God on earth and took refuge in the matter-of-factness of Anglo-American practice, while “totalitarian democracy” culminated eventually in Stalinism. « The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy, by J. L. Talmon Commentary Magazine



In short, you, and those like you, have moved us on the path away from freedom, and toward the gulags.

Since you never lie, I can trust you to give an honest answer...

...name the Democrats you've voted for.

Well, it's fair to take that grim silence from you as being 'None'.

That makes you a 'reliable Republican voter', correct? and thus by your own measure,

not 'thoughtful'.

"silence from you as being 'None'."

As in the case of your wit, it is only half-so.

The correct phrase is 'None...of your business.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

You need to keep track of what you say one minute to the next.

Supreme Court decisions are only 'in error' in the opinion of those who disagree with them.

Do you wish to end the Supreme Court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of the law?

Dred Scott, dim-wit.

It was only 'in error' to those who disagreed with it.

'Standing' is only in error to those hanging upside down.

You, as batty as you are, are the reference.