First off these safety nets are meant for those who really need it and should be. Those who deny that people do become dependent on welfare simply don't want to see the facts. As to the Jesus cartoon? not worth a comment.
I know, I still try to stick to the points of the topic. I enjoy the conservative cartoons as they enjoy theirs. I get the point the cartoon is making but disagree and feel it would be pointless for me to address it as I feel that what we are saying about the question answers what needs to be answered. Good to see you again.
No biggy. You wouldn't be the first to have made this mistake. :-)
For the record, though, be aware that I post a lot of 'stuff' with which I either disagree or with which I may or may not agree. Even then, sometimes it's a mix.
No mistaken my opinion, those who really need it? Good!!! But to ignore the fact that many many abuse these programs and many who could work don't. The idea of many of those who are on it learning that they don't have to work and care for them selves can't be dismissed nor ignored. How many are they? I don't know, but I think we both would be astounded.
While having these government aid programs, like food stamps, can help out a family in need. However, I agree, long term use of government aid can cause a dependency on it, and should be discouraged.
I blame libs for A) pretending to care about the poor (as opposed to using them as pawns in their class warfare rhetoric), B) making the poor slavishly dependent on them in order to have a ready bloc of voters, and C) accusing 'cons' of being heartless bastards on account of wanting to be FREELY charitable as opposed to being FORCED into it.
So in terms of playing pin the blame on [x], I guess we're even.
"Socialists do not merely want a welfare state, they absolutely must have one. They must have a grovelling dependent class from which to obtain their daily opiate: an hallucinogenic euphoria which comes from the delusion of being superior to, and more altruistic than, all others. They must have 'the poor, huddled masses' in much the same manner as vampires must have the blood of their victims."
Well, I guess you're blaming "libs" for things they haven't done, and forgiving "cons" for being heartless bastards for using tax money for their OWN benefit, but refusing to contribute to the civilization that makes their success possible.
But if believing BS propaganda makes you feel better about it, fine.
Actually, I have little use for either flavor of statism. I find both of them repugnant. I'm just able to see the repugnance in both whereas statists themselves (of either 'lib' or 'con' bent) are not. To me and other libertarians--i.e., those of us who just want to be left the hell alone--there's not a pubic hair's worth of difference. You two can fight amongst yourselves over which end of Uncle Sam's turd tastes better till the cows come home. . .just leave us the hell alone.
Does that sound like I 'believe BS propaganda' from either statist sock puppet?
Yes - because you believe that you can live as a libertarian within a society that has already built and paid for it's civilization, AND is at the same time under attack by the rich and powerful.
A philosophicly libertarian position in that circumstance is a abdication of meaningful political opinion to a fantasy utopia, and is essentially support for an aristocracy.
1) The 'rich and powerful (as yet to be defined)' will ALWAYS attempt to gain the advantage over others (i.e., 'attack'). No variant of a socialist--or a libertarian, for that matter--utopia will ever change that. Just as the poor will always be among us, so will the rich/elite. The BEST we can do as members of this society is to take away the primary TOOL of the rich/elite. That tool is GOVERNMENT. It always has been, and it always will be. This is my central beef with statists of leftward bent: they somehow believe the cat can be tamed enough to keep faithful watch over the canary. It ain't gonna happen. (Incidentally, libertarians helped to PAY for that very same society of which you're so proud. They also don't mind paying user fees for those services which society provides. This dog won't hunt.)
2) "A philosophically libertarian position" is one in which subscribers 'fantasize' about owning THEMSELVES, yes. (They're the original abolitionists.) That's all they want. In contrast to the various fantasies of statists, theirs is the far SUPERIOR 'fantasy.'
Only insofar as the wealthy are the ones who can afford to own the politicians that make the laws that are backed by...guns. Those individuals in government are the only ones granted legitimization to initiate force and against which no one is allowed to defend himself.
You are SO SO smart!... I am sure you MUST know the answer....I bet you have even written a best selling book called "Irony: the truth they tried to hide from you"
Or while the whacked out liberals are trying to ban clips or any gun that shoots more than one bullet.... yet DHS is ordering tens of thousands of assault rifles and 30 round mags... Oh, I forgot. Its do as I say, not as I do. and the Government is the all mighty omnipotent entity run by selfless elites who only want to do whats best for the poor... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!! I can't get through that sentence without busting up with laughter.
Liberals are feigning outrage..it is a constant state of mind for them..they never want to waste a good crisis..and if they can't find one..they will create one..then be "outraged" about it while blaming George Bush.
Nice try tho.
You CAN differentiate between the sentiments of the author of a cartoon or article and those of the one who posts it, right?
For the record, though, be aware that I post a lot of 'stuff' with which I either disagree or with which I may or may not agree. Even then, sometimes it's a mix.
So in terms of playing pin the blame on [x], I guess we're even.
"Socialists do not merely want a welfare state, they absolutely must have
one. They must have a grovelling dependent class from which to obtain
their daily opiate: an hallucinogenic euphoria which comes from the
delusion of being superior to, and more altruistic than, all others.
They must have 'the poor, huddled masses' in much the same manner as
vampires must have the blood of their victims."
But if believing BS propaganda makes you feel better about it, fine.
Does that sound like I 'believe BS propaganda' from either statist sock puppet?
A philosophicly libertarian position in that circumstance is a abdication of meaningful political opinion to a fantasy utopia, and is essentially support for an aristocracy.
2) "A philosophically libertarian position" is one in which subscribers 'fantasize' about owning THEMSELVES, yes. (They're the original abolitionists.) That's all they want. In contrast to the various fantasies of statists, theirs is the far SUPERIOR 'fantasy.'
I sense a gun control argument here....
http://chainsmashers.mixxt.co...
Left-wing Virals And Hoaxes
http://chainsmashers.mixxt.co...
When Tolerance Is Tyranny
http://chainsmashers.mixxt.co...
28th Amendment etc.
http://chainsmashers.mixxt.co...
IRONIC