Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. Interesting because it represents the fulcrum between Liberal and Conservative viewponts, is the term equality. Here is misunderstanding writ large:
I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,
when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.
...the two can't exist together?
Actually.....no.....they can't.
a. For the Left, equality extends beyond the view of the Founders, which is equality before the law. The concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the egalitarian impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory.
b. Dewey noted in 1936 that liberalisms philosophy has rarely been clear cut, but that government should regularly intervene to help equalize conditions between the wealthy and the poor, between the overprivileged and the underprivileged.
Jo Ann Boydston, John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953, p. 284-285.
2. . By the 20th century, the new equality became a threat to freedom. FDRs New Deal and Trumans Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJs Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.
a. It seems to me, self-evident that immobilizing the producers with regulations and confiscatory taxation proves that a nation can have prosperity or equality in all aspects of living- but not both.
3. Perhaps the best way to reveal the inanity of the Lefts campaign for their view of equality is to revisit the satirical exposition of equality, written in 1961 by Kurt Vonnegut .
"Harrison Bergeron" is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and first published in October 1961 The satire raises a serious question concerning desirability of social equality and the extent to which society is prepared to go to achieve it.
Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so." This is the premise of the Showtime film adaption of Kurt Vonnegut's futuristic short story Harrison Bergeron. The film centers around a young man (Harrison) who is smarter than his peers, and is not affected by the usual "Handicapping" which is used to train all Americans so everyone is of equal intelligence.
Harrison Bergeron (TV 1995) - IMDb
b. Kurt Vonnegut begins Harrison Bergeron this way: The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal in every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was quicker or stronger than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
c. The government forced each individual to wear handicaps to offset any advantage they had, so that everyone could be truly and fully equal. Beautiful people had to wear ugly masks, the strong had to wear weights, the graceful had to wear bags of birdshot, and those with above-average intelligence had to wear government transmitters in their ears that would emit sharp noises every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
Kurt Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron.
4. So is this view of equality funny? Perhaps but it reminds me more of Lord Byrons words: And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'Tis that I may not weep.
The Great Society had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.
No doubt about it: you're as dumb as asphalt.
A perfect representative of the 'reliable Democrat voter.'
So.....exactly where does the money the government wastes in LBJ's multifarious programs come from?
Our Trillion-Dollar War, by Edgar K. Browning of The Independent Institute:
When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that . . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy. Now that this investment has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:
Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?
If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. Thats $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577.
Right Truth: War on Poverty, the high costs and the depressing results
The errors are all yours, sweetie.
You are wrong about the declaration
And you are wrong about Vonnegut.
And if you are close enough to read signs near my ear..at least take me to dinner first..
Sheesh.
"at least take me to dinner first.."
I thought you just came from the dumpster?
Every single word I've posted is correct. You can read the links....that's why they're their.
Your bloviation is meaningless.
As usual, you are Brobdingnagianly incorrect!
Whey they're "their"?
That correct too?
One thing I actually can agree with Shallow on... that us IT people (whether it be NOC, engineering, management, junior executive, etc) have strange hours depending on what is going on and can just as easily post during normal business hours as we can during the night
Probably the only thing we agree on though
Harrison Bergeron is a fantastic science fiction short story that does a great job of mocking what equality for all could mean. That said, it doesn't reflect the cartoon version of what right wing nuts think the left believe.
I didn't read the short story..but I have read Vonnegut. He was never about mocking "equality".
Perhaps you should read Harrison Bergeron?
One thing I actually can agree with Shallow on... that us IT people (whether it be NOC, engineering, management, junior executive, etc) have strange hours depending on what is going on and can just as easily post during normal business hours as we can during the night
Probably the only thing we agree on though
IT is a strange life as well. Easy enough to post while running a query or a trace, monitoring a cluster, pushing out a patch, etc.
I have a triple head display in front and a 6 display setup behind me, I have a lot of balls in the air at any given time. Half-dozen RDP.
I am securing the Palo Alto 5020 (pair) to replace 6 current Cisco and Netscreen FW's.. you want power, ease, and better security, check the Palo Altos out...
Whey they're "their"?
Whey they're "their"?
The mind of the left illustrated with aplomb.
Truthmatters got nothing on you...
The government spent massive amounts of money on the war which translated into increased demand for goods and services which boosted the US economy.
And the great pumpkin brings all the good little bois and gurls toys when he rises from the pumpkin patch...
How long are you going to keep repeating a story that never happened?
Whey they're "their"?
The mind of the left illustrated with aplomb.
Truthmatters got nothing on you...
Well at least she didn't try to dispute a Ted Nugent video by saying he was talking about "cutting the heads of snakes" when he was really talking about chopping off the head of the President of the United States.
That was hilarious. You do provide alot of humor around here.
You're denying that
1. government spending increased during WWII
2. GDP increased during WWII as a result
3. Unemployment fell during WWII as a result.
That qualifies you as an idiot. Or should I say renews your status as an idiot.
The Great Society had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.
No doubt about it: you're as dumb as asphalt.
A perfect representative of the 'reliable Democrat voter.'
So.....exactly where does the money the government wastes in LBJ's multifarious programs come from?
Our Trillion-Dollar War, by Edgar K. Browning of The Independent Institute:
When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that . . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy. Now that this investment has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:
Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?
If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. Thats $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577.
Right Truth: War on Poverty, the high costs and the depressing results
Give me one example of our government ever being funded by wealth! It's stupid to claim the only possible way to make a poor person not poor is to take wealth away from somebody else. Wealth isn't finite and it obviously is created. Not being poor simply means you have an income above a certain level and it doesn't require having any wealth at all.
I didn't read the short story..but I have read Vonnegut. He was never about mocking "equality".
Perhaps you should read Harrison Bergeron?
I've read plenty of Vonnegut..he was a favorite of mine when I was a kid.
One of the themes in most of his books was "Conformity" mandated by government.
That's an entirely different thing.
Perhaps you should read Harrison Bergeron?
I've read plenty of Vonnegut..he was a favorite of mine when I was a kid.
One of the themes in most of his books was "Conformity" mandated by government.
That's an entirely different thing.
Of course there's a non-conformist spirit to the story Harrison Bergeron, dude. It's Vonnegut. That doesn't mean he wasn't mocking what equality for all (as mandated by the gov't, of course) would look like in his own unique way.
Read it. It's a cool, quick read.
I've read plenty of Vonnegut..he was a favorite of mine when I was a kid.
One of the themes in most of his books was "Conformity" mandated by government.
That's an entirely different thing.
Of course there's a non-conformist spirit to the story Harrison Bergeron, dude. It's Vonnegut. That doesn't mean he wasn't mocking what equality for all (as mandated by the gov't, of course) would look like in his own unique way.
Read it. It's a cool, quick read.
I will.
But to think that Vonnegut was expressing the same sort of critique as say Ayn Rand about equality or conservatives in general..is really misunderstanding Vonnegut.
He was an extreme critic of the uber wealthy and big corporations. You see that in "Player Piano".
4. Speaking of poor, the definition is 'no home, no heat, no food.'
Do you know of any such?
Of course there's a non-conformist spirit to the story Harrison Bergeron, dude. It's Vonnegut. That doesn't mean he wasn't mocking what equality for all (as mandated by the gov't, of course) would look like in his own unique way.
Read it. It's a cool, quick read.
I will.
But to think that Vonnegut was expressing the same sort of critique as say Ayn Rand about equality or conservatives in general..is really misunderstanding Vonnegut.
He was an extreme critic of the uber wealthy and big corporations. You see that in "Player Piano".
Oh, of course. The OP is a drooling moron and completely wrong.
But that's par for the course for her.
No doubt about it: you're as dumb as asphalt.
A perfect representative of the 'reliable Democrat voter.'
So.....exactly where does the money the government wastes in LBJ's multifarious programs come from?
Our Trillion-Dollar War, by Edgar K. Browning of The Independent Institute:
When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that . . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy. Now that this investment has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:
Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?
If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. Thats $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577.
Right Truth: War on Poverty, the high costs and the depressing results
Give me one example of our government ever being funded by wealth! It's stupid to claim the only possible way to make a poor person not poor is to take wealth away from somebody else. Wealth isn't finite and it obviously is created. Not being poor simply means you have an income above a certain level and it doesn't require having any wealth at all.
1. Do you have any idea how many nasty emails I've received from asphalt for claiming that you're "dumber than asphalt'????
Seems even asphalt doesn't want be be seen in the same sentence with you.
2. Actually, smart of you to try to change the subject from your über-insane:
"The Great Society had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth."
3. And this classic: " It's stupid to claim the only possible way to make a poor person not poor is to take wealth away from somebody else."
Did you really say that?
Of course the government takes from one to give to whosoever they deem 'poor.'
Where else does government get money?
Earn it???
4. Speaking of poor, the definition is 'no home, no heat, no food.'
Do you know of any such?
Or...are you one of those simpletons who blandly accept whomsoever the government assigns that title?
Of course you are.
That's pretty much the description of 'the reliable Democrat voter.'
I'd bet anything that you are the product of government schooling.
True?
Give me one example of our government ever being funded by wealth! It's stupid to claim the only possible way to make a poor person not poor is to take wealth away from somebody else. Wealth isn't finite and it obviously is created. Not being poor simply means you have an income above a certain level and it doesn't require having any wealth at all.
1. Do you have any idea how many nasty emails I've received from asphalt for claiming that you're "dumber than asphalt'????
Seems even asphalt doesn't want be be seen in the same sentence with you.
2. Actually, smart of you to try to change the subject from your über-insane:
"The Great Society had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth."
3. And this classic: " It's stupid to claim the only possible way to make a poor person not poor is to take wealth away from somebody else."
Did you really say that?
Of course the government takes from one to give to whosoever they deem 'poor.'
Where else does government get money?
Earn it???
4. Speaking of poor, the definition is 'no home, no heat, no food.'
Do you know of any such?
Or...are you one of those simpletons who blandly accept whomsoever the government assigns that title?
Of course you are.
That's pretty much the description of 'the reliable Democrat voter.'
I'd bet anything that you are the product of government schooling.
True?
You obviously don't know what the definition of wealth is and Donald Trump is the only person I've heard talk about taxing wealth.
It's also bullshit to claim a $1 trillion in costs going to the poor. Do just the poor get Medicare?
4. Speaking of poor, the definition is 'no home, no heat, no food.'
Do you know of any such?
Sadly, here in the Peoples Republic, there are a lot of people who fall into this category.
On Thursdays, Del Taco has 3 chicken soft tacos for $2.09 - they're pretty good. So I have a habit of grabbing them for a quick dinner. About a year ago, I noticed a homeless guy on the sidewalk, so order an extra 3. Asked him if he wanted some tacos, which of course he did. And it became a habit. I count how many homeless are on the sidewalk and buy them tacos on Thursdays, usually only 4 or 5 are there. The point is, there are people who have no home, no food, and no heat. I'm in the most leftist state in the nation, and it's rampant here.
