Can't work, and wont' work
They aren't as distinct as they look
Can't is an ability. Won't is an attitude.
My wife Can't work (bad back, three blown disks, car accident). She would work if given the ability.
that being the case, we have a responsibility to make sure the basic needs of everyone are met.
Who is "we" ?
What definition of "basic needs" are we using today?
" Everyone" meaning 100%
What defines "are met" ?
I am pretty sure that your definition and my definition of "basic need" are different. I would consider sex to be a basic need, that everyone should have, and not everyone's needs are being met.
That works, until Doctors and Nurses refuse to be quarantined, claiming civil rights or some such shit.
When you live in a society that kicks you down the bottom of the social ladder and hands you a shovel to dig further down, you can expect some to give up.
The only ones I know telling people they can't make it are liberals. "Your too stupid/poor/wrong color we have to help you! "
There are plenty of people proving your assertion wrong. Dr Ben Carson is a great example.
I have nothing against people smoking pot. I'm sick of people claiming to be "hungry" and "looking for work"
Oh, most of the "homeless" are that way because of poor life choices...
http://verkoren.files.wordpres...
proper public health system.
A couple quick points. HealthCare is a privilege of wealth, not a right. If you want to assert that is a privilege of citizenship, that is fine, but make sure it is clearly defined as such. FYI, Privileges can be revoked by social contract, rights exist apart from social contracts.
The problem is insurance, but not in the way that you think. Middlemen increase prices, every time. Every proceedure that is not covered by insurance, is always much more affordable, and much more available when compared to procedures that are performed primarily by the insured, and are improved at a much faster rate. Laser eye surgery used to be quite expensive, and wasn't covered by insurance. It quickly became much more affordable and had vast improvements as more and more people paid for it (out of pocket, not covered by insurance).
National or even State run health care sucks. I have relatives in France and while they love Nationalized Health Care, they hate going to the doctors / hospitals because of how bad they are.
Umm, more power to them I guess. So for money I get to skip the adds, or I don’t have to see them at all? Seems unclear. Most of what my wife watches only requires a 5 second wait before allowing a skip. I expect that wait will skyrocket if subscription fees don’t bring in what marketing thinks they should.
From TFA:
She did say YouTube would continue to offer the option of music videos with ads for those who don’t want to pay.
Seems to suggest other previously commerical supported feeds might no longer be available to non subscribers.
All and all sounds like a bumpy road ahead.
The vast majority of coverage on CurrentC is negative – now this. It will be interesting to see how long they keep this thing on life support before pulling the plug. Anything after this would seem like good money after bad.
Everybody in the tech community was already worried about direct access to bank accounts and no fraud protection. How will the consortium behind CurrentC answer the already swirling security concerns when this happens so quickly after members give Apple Pay (and it's biometric locks) the boot?
The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.
Cute. But I'll refute your delusion with a single word. ObamaCare.
When Government tells me I have to buy a product, or else face fines by the IRS, under threat of guns and penalty of prison for non-compliance, I am no longer being "administrated", but ruled. I am not the state. I am opposed to the state as it exists right now.
You're fine with people mooching off the state now?
Reality doesn't mean I agree or disagree. The reality is, there are PLENTY(perhaps too many) of programs designed to keep people from starving to death. This is the reality. My statement was one of fact, not opinion.
Well, they're not.
Not stoned? Well the ones I was talking about are. And they manage to figure out how to get stoned, but not manage how to hold a job. But then again, that right there might be the problem. They would rather be stoned and sponge off the labor of others than actually hold a job. Yes, they exist, in quantities to be noticed every day in my city.
we're giving handouts to those who don't work and can't work anyway, I see no reason this makes a difference.
Can't work, and wont' work are two different things. Equating them does a disservice to both classes.
Having been unemployed a few times myself, and not spent any money on pot, and not been able to get a job I was overqualified for, I kinda feel that your projudices aren't based on real world experience.
I've been unemployed, under employed. Heck, I came to this town with a suitcase and a backpack, and had a job before I had a place to live. Is that real world enough. My prejudices are what allowed me to figure out that I could make it in this world, simply by working hard and smart. And your not smoking pot has nothing to do with the homeless in our downtown that smells of Pot 24/7.
Tobacco companies need to figure out the "Medicinal" value of cigarettes so that they can get the same pass as pot smoking.
And you just made the case that government can take any land away for any reason it deems sufficient to confiscate. Old people living in a hovel have no right to live there, because big government and big business just said they would rather have a shopping mall. Once you remove a "right" like you just did, you make government the grantor of rights, and that is a very very dangerous place to be.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Or how about the "'Escort whore out the door'..." comment recently made by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Vincet Sheheent about Republican Gov. Nikki Haley (the "whore").
Where is NOW? Where is Eric Holder looking for violations of Civil Rights Laws? Where is the front page outrage on the NYT? Where is "war on women" battle cry?
Democrats don't care about women. They care about Liberal Women, and only liberal women. All others are not worthy. The most sexist people I know are liberals who view women as objects of sexual desire (like Bill Clinton), but liberal women love being sexually desired, so it is symbiotic parasitical relationship.
And heating his mansions with Natural Gas is what? Carbon Trading is nothing but a sham investment scheme he is also benefiting from
Being a Hypocrite doesn't support what he was saying either. In fact, it lends itself to the opposite (not proof, but evidence), Al Gore was in the AGW game for personal gain, an not to save the planet. Even though he might actually believe he was saving the planet, but flying around in big planes and heating mansions with Natural gas (CO2 gas producer) simply means he is trying to make OTHERS save the planet, while he does more harm in a month than I do in a year (assuming he is right about CO2 emissions and Greenhouse gases) .
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
