|
Post by mr potatohead on Apr 29, 2021 16:07:11 GMT
Government isn't morally bound to create a welfare state. Our government is bound by the Constitution, NOT to interfere in our lives and NOT to appropriate or administer our property without our consent.
Although "labels" was used for the top and bottom of the sandwich giving the illusion that this sandwich is about labels, the meat in the center is not about labels. If it was, the Socialist Mr Member would have used labels too. That's why I asked. I don't think this can be considered Chiastic since, intentional or not, it contains a base message of political party moral superiority embedded in the center although the reality is that both sides use labels.
The real message here is that the quote by the Socialist Mr Member is a virtue signal of his "humble" moral superiority, while the Capitalist is portrayed as the "arrogant bad guy", using all of the labels in the imagined (non-quote) reply.
|
|
brothersteve
Caneguru
He ain't heavy, he's my brother
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by brothersteve on Apr 29, 2021 17:26:31 GMT
Food for thought with all the changes and proposed changes on the horizon:
There are those who say the Constitution was written by and for white supremacists and that revisions, or even a totally new one, should be written. Wonder when that starts?
EMINENT DOMAIN = government (state or other) acquisition of private property, has been spoken of around my area for over a decade. The 'consent' part is they tell you they will give you $x.xx for the property, take it or leave it....not very democratic if you ask me.
|
|
macky
Caneguru
Upside down
CLUELESS TOSSER
Posts: 2,828
|
Post by macky on Apr 29, 2021 21:18:40 GMT
Government isn't morally bound to create a welfare state. Our government is bound by the Constitution, NOT to interfere in our lives and NOT to appropriate or administer our property without our consent.Although "labels" was used for the top and bottom of the sandwich giving the illusion that this sandwich is about labels, the meat in the center is not about labels. If it was, the Socialist Mr Member would have used labels too. That's why I asked. I don't think this can be considered Chiastic since, intentional or not, it contains a base message of political party moral superiority embedded in the center although the reality is that both sides use labels.The Member wasn't asking the Govt to create a welfare state. He was advocating that the govt pays the people who have had their SOVEREIGN RIGHTS as Americans or Kiwis trashed by their company, until they find new jobs. That maintains some stability in society, the money the Redundants receive will travel the Money-go-round, supporting both small and big business (corner grocery store, supermarket, electric company, council rates, tax etc). And in fact SUPPORTS sensible capitalism and local business security. It's about time the 200 + year old Constitution is revised and re-written. Unless I'm off the mark, the conditions in the 1790-something years were just a wee bit different than they are today, and quoting regulations from those times as justification for todays predations of Big Business companies on our citizens demonstrates a kind of "frontier" attitude which obviously hasn't kept up with the times. The right to bear arms is another one. Farmers need semi-auto's, houses need ONE gun for house invasion defence. But carrying military style weapons to civil demonstrations is simply amazing to the rest of the world. The Member's suggestion was NOT because he was a Socialist, because that hasn't been proven. "Socialist" was a put-down label designed to quash the suggestion without debate. Simple. And at the last, if the American people don't want a govt that actually governs, but rather that the economy AND the resulting social unrest and displacement is guided entirely by market forces, then that has already been proven disastrous for so many otherwise hard working and law abiding citizens. The quality of life goes down, the food becomes more non-food as my daughter noted when she was in LA recently, more people out of work, the living standards of American and NZ have slipped steadily since the 70's, and finally less people owning more, while a larger poverty class emerges. If in fact The People still don't want a govt that governs, that regulates where necessary, why have elections at all ? And why continue to argue among yourselves over "Leftist' and "Far right" , Dems vs Reps etc etc etc ? Which end up only as polarizing labels to support your "arguments". And as far as the Constitution is concerned, that died on Jan 6 when a Trump-incited crowd invaded the Capitol, aided by police or not, and tried to stop a legitimate election from being ratified. That proved to the world that America does not abide by its own Constitution, and resorts to action via unproven conspiracy theories and a constantly repeated unproven mantra by some sort of Leader. So any semblance that awful day that amazed and horrified the world re Democracy, Capitalism or Socialist labels disappeared on the back of a new label, Anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Deuce Gunner on Apr 29, 2021 21:36:47 GMT
Government isn't morally bound to create a welfare state. Our government is bound by the Constitution, NOT to interfere in our lives and NOT to appropriate or administer our property without our consent.Although "labels" was used for the top and bottom of the sandwich giving the illusion that this sandwich is about labels, the meat in the center is not about labels. If it was, the Socialist Mr Member would have used labels too. That's why I asked. I don't think this can be considered Chiastic since, intentional or not, it contains a base message of political party moral superiority embedded in the center although the reality is that both sides use labels.So any semblance that awful day that amazed and horrified the world re Democracy, Capitalism or Socialist labels disappeared on the back of a new label, Anarchy. Democrat lackeys with the assistance of Democrat state and city leadership field tested the anarchy idea in Portland and several other major cities throughout 2020.
|
|
macky
Caneguru
Upside down
CLUELESS TOSSER
Posts: 2,828
|
Post by macky on Apr 30, 2021 7:02:09 GMT
So any semblance that awful day that amazed and horrified the world re Democracy, Capitalism or Socialist labels disappeared on the back of a new label, Anarchy. Democrat lackeys with the assistance of Democrat state and city leadership field tested the anarchy idea in Portland and several other major cities throughout 2020. Exactly. Proving that Anarchy has no "left" or "right" about it. It's just rioting, either with or without purpose. Give up the partisan attitudes and face your real enemies, you know, not only the drug thugs from the streets, but the organized crims and war criminals like the Kissingers and the CIA. The PTB.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Apr 30, 2021 12:18:24 GMT
Government isn't morally bound to create a welfare state. Our government is bound by the Constitution, NOT to interfere in our lives and NOT to appropriate or administer our property without our consent.Although "labels" was used for the top and bottom of the sandwich giving the illusion that this sandwich is about labels, the meat in the center is not about labels. If it was, the Socialist Mr Member would have used labels too. That's why I asked. I don't think this can be considered Chiastic since, intentional or not, it contains a base message of political party moral superiority embedded in the center although the reality is that both sides use labels.The Member wasn't asking the Govt to create a welfare state. He was advocating that the govt pays the people who have had their SOVEREIGN RIGHTS as Americans or Kiwis trashed by their company, until they find new jobs. That maintains some stability in society, the money the Redundants receive will travel the Money-go-round, supporting both small and big business (corner grocery store, supermarket, electric company, council rates, tax etc). And in fact SUPPORTS sensible capitalism and local business security. It's about time the 200 + year old Constitution is revised and re-written. Unless I'm off the mark, the conditions in the 1790-something years were just a wee bit different than they are today, and quoting regulations from those times as justification for todays predations of Big Business companies on our citizens demonstrates a kind of "frontier" attitude which obviously hasn't kept up with the times. The right to bear arms is another one. Farmers need semi-auto's, houses need ONE gun for house invasion defence. But carrying military style weapons to civil demonstrations is simply amazing to the rest of the world. The Member's suggestion was NOT because he was a Socialist, because that hasn't been proven. "Socialist" was a put-down label designed to quash the suggestion without debate. Simple. And at the last, if the American people don't want a govt that actually governs, but rather that the economy AND the resulting social unrest and displacement is guided entirely by market forces, then that has already been proven disastrous for so many otherwise hard working and law abiding citizens. The quality of life goes down, the food becomes more non-food as my daughter noted when she was in LA recently, more people out of work, the living standards of American and NZ have slipped steadily since the 70's, and finally less people owning more, while a larger poverty class emerges. If in fact The People still don't want a govt that governs, that regulates where necessary, why have elections at all ? And why continue to argue among yourselves over "Leftist' and "Far right" , Dems vs Reps etc etc etc ? Which end up only as polarizing labels to support your "arguments". And as far as the Constitution is concerned, that died on Jan 6 when a Trump-incited crowd invaded the Capitol, aided by police or not, and tried to stop a legitimate election from being ratified. That proved to the world that America does not abide by its own Constitution, and resorts to action via unproven conspiracy theories and a constantly repeated unproven mantra by some sort of Leader. So any semblance that awful day that amazed and horrified the world re Democracy, Capitalism or Socialist labels disappeared on the back of a new label, Anarchy. There was no mention of lost rights, only a lost job. Mr Member, who is asking for the socialist welfare handout, still has the sovereign right to work, but he's not ENTITLED to any particular job, even if he may confuse RIGHTS (equality) with ENTITLEMENT (equity), they are not at all the same. No one is entitled to something that someone else has earned, but they have the right to work for it and locate their own. Grow up. Get a new job, slacker.
|
|
macky
Caneguru
Upside down
CLUELESS TOSSER
Posts: 2,828
|
Post by macky on May 1, 2021 8:41:07 GMT
There was no mention of lost rights, only a lost job. Mr Member, who is asking for the socialist welfare handout, still has the sovereign right to work, but he's not ENTITLED to any particular job, even if he may confuse RIGHTS (equality) with ENTITLEMENT (equity), they are not at all the same. No one is entitled to something that someone else has earned, but they have the right to work for it and locate their own. Grow up. Get a new job, slacker. 1) Any person is entitled to a job by way of his employer hiring him. His entitlement has come by way of qualifications, experience, and suitability that his employer has deemed fit to hire him. At that point, providing he does a good job as deemed by his employer, he IS ENTITLED to do that job AND NO ONE ELSE under normal circumstances. Nobody else just arrives at the company on Monday morning, sits themselves down at the person's desk and proceeds to do his job. 2) As a citizen of either "your" country, or "mine" said person has a Sovereign Right to expect that if the company he works for is making a reasonable profit, and his job is not being superseded by updated technology, that he has done a good job, to keep that job. If the company simply takes his job from him and gives it to another country, then that person's Sovereign Rights have been abused, because a foreign power (whose govt he never voted for, neither he is a citizen of) has now got his job. 3) Entitlement to a job has nothing to do with something that someone else has earned. The person earned it by way of approval from his boss/company, BY HIS OWN EFFORTS. 4) Neither was the Member asking for a "socialist welfare handout". He was asking that those that have had their jobs taken from them simply because they are being given to foreign countries receive a bulk payment so that they can keep their houses from mortgagee sales and keep the CAPITALIST system going by way of the money-go-round. It seems that anything that smacks of social justice gets a "socialist" label from you, which is an indication of far right attitudes that do not take into account that quite often these days, many people are having their own responsibilities lifted from them by means out of their own control. Because the govt has sanctioned out-sourcing, and is elected to govern, it should not just stand by and let market forces and greed dictate what happens to their citizens that is out of citizens' control, but is morally and socially responsible for looking after said citizens. Until they can find another job. "Grow up. Get a new job, slacker." I would suggest you find a good sample (say 50-60) of the millions of Americans that have lost their jobs to outsourcing in the last four years (and I don't mean those you know nearby, and not to mention job loses this century) and tell them that to their faces, and let me know what condition you're in when you get back.
|
|