I thought heating assistance was funded through private donations (i.e. that box you check on your bill to add a little money on for this purpose).
I just find it ironic that those who melt at the term (spoiler box/trigger warning) Democrat Party continually act hypocritically and denigrate their political opponents with childish name calling.
LIHEAP - federaly funded.
Okay, try “narcissistic, dangerous, vengeful prick who has no fucking clue what he’s doing on any given issue”. It’s not name-calling if it’s an accurate description of his policies. :mad:
If you are talking about Trump that’d be fine. Though I’m sure referring to Mrs. Clinton as a cunt would have the left apoplectic, just saying. But when millions of supporters are lazily and crudely referred to increased polarization and hostility is the result. Michael Moore, for example, in the other thread is a liberal who is approaching the opposition properly. Calling people Trumpons, etc is problematic.
Listen, I know I sound a bit tiresome when I mention that words matter. However I think it’s important. My very first posts on this forum were on the subject that the arrogance of thinking one knows the motivations of another and acting as if that arrogant thinking was 100% infallible leads to misunderstandings and problems. I even got pitted, lol, because people, conflated the promotion of attempting nuanced thinking on a controversial subject with support or promotion of a controversial subject. That’s a simple minded error to make yet it’s made continuously here even though it’s a self proclaimed highly educated site.
Anyways, Clinton is most likely going to win and then we’ll have 4 years of vitriol directed at her because the right is definitely no better. I just think it’s a shame that politics has to be this way.
exactly,
when money taken out of my paycheck is used for highways
Me and my fellow citizens can use that highway
when money is taken out of my check to pay for the army
Me and my fellow citizens are protected by that army
when money is taken out out of my check to pay for National Parks
Me and my fellow citizens can enjoy those parks
when money is taken out of my check to pay for courts
Me and fellow citizens are served by them
but when money is taken from my check and paid directly to another citizen
only that citizen is entitled to enjoy the money that I earned, and I am excluded
huge difference
Meanwhile in another thread on 10/29/2016…
[QUOTE=octopus]
Exactly right! The left are totalitarian and this election cycle have been the predominant instigators and participants of violent activity. Disgraceful pigs in that video assaulting that woman who is exercising her freedom. I guess she “consequenced.” Blocking people from going to class. Attacking Trump supporters at his events. Shouting down and intimidating speakers. That’s the modern left.
[/QUOTE]
Your opinions and practices seem to have changed considerably since 10/29.
That’s not just false, it’s ridiculous. Your inability to see the connection is unfortunate but isn’t a reason to destroy civilized society. Maybe you didn’t see this post:
Continuing on, not in response to Peremensoe with whom I completely agree, but in response to the prior nonsense …
You could make the same argument about any number of government expenditures – in fact the vast majority of them – because they don’t appear to benefit you. It doesn’t appear to benefit you directly if the NIH spends millions finding a cure for a disease that you don’t have, or the EPA prevents pollution of air or drinking water in a place far away where you will never live. The civil rights act didn’t benefit you if you’re not black, and never will. But protection of society and the people in it, including basic justice and human rights and the provision of a social safety net and basic subsistence and health care, is a fundamental part of the very fabric of the society that we live in.
Most people with a conscience consider it a moral obligation to not have other people starve to death in the streets in front of them – people just like you except, like the disease that you believe you will never have or the water you believe you will never have to drink, you happen to believe (incorrectly) that you can never possibly be one of them. But even if you don’t, few of us want to live in a society where that happens, or where the desperate poor are begging you for charity or just taking it from you by force when they have no other choice. It violates every norm of morality and the very nature of civilization and the kind of country we want to live in.
I agree, voluntarily helping others is moral. That is called “charity”, this is the moral high ground and I support it.
When government takes from one to hand to another by threat of force, that is not “charity”. There is no volunteerism and thus no mortality there. Don’t fool yourself.
Sorry, I don’t believe in libertarian anarchy as a system for social order.
No need to be sorry.
I don’t see it the job of a secular government to enforce mortality. You seem to be OK with it.
It’s just a different philosophy, that’s all.
Well here, let me explain how giving the poor and downtrodden among us help so that they can live without resorting to crime helps you too. It means that they can live without resorting to crime, and without feeling like it would be in their best interests to storm the bastille.
Not really. Sometimes irritation or combativeness does rear its ugly head. I’m definitely not perfect and sometimes a video of some men assaulting a woman for holding a sign riles me up. The fact that the left likes to say that free speech has “consequences” is chilling when those “consequences” take the form of assault.
My harshest language in that quote was calling a few people pigs for the specific act of physically attacking a woman for exercising free speech. I think it’s accurate, metaphorically at least.
I’m not calling all on the left pigs, or racist, or retarded, or wishing they were taking to a gas chamber or some such like I’ve seen directed at conservatives on this board. Yeah, so I do advocate more civil language from both sides but when the langauge used to describe conservatives or Republicans is vile and continuously so sometimes mud gets tossed back.
Who cares? My concern is that people are helped in a systematic and universal way, not whether people give out of the good of their hearts or not. Or should we tell people not to murder and steel out of a spirit of “volunteerism” and not have the State enforce it by threat of force?
I agree that’s a problem for many modern bourgeois liberals, but fortunately my worldview finds that the State inevitably enforces some form of a moral worldview-the only question is that it should enforce the correct one. And yes, the State should ensure a moral, just, and orderly society where basic freedoms and securities are guaranteed and where everyone has at least a minimal standard of living,
Its weird how the ones who want to storm the Bastille the most right now, want to do it in the name of a rich Billionaire.
I, too, oppose the death penalty.
If you were arguing against corporate welfare, (which argument I have not seen in your posts), I could see your point.
However, like universal education, helping destitute citizens actually does help you. It reduces the amount of money you need to pay for police protection. It reduces the amount of money you have to pay to suppress disease. It puts money into the economy that keeps the nation more financially stable.
You are simply not excluded; you pay a little to avoid paying a lot.
What part of Clinton’s policies does “Cunt” describe? What part of her personality does the term encapsulate? Please, be explicit.
Well be my guest. Can you provide a rationally supportable reason to back Trump? Can you offer any good reason to vote for this guy? I can’t. I’ve looked. I’ve spent most of the past year trying to understand Trump supporters, mostly by just talking to them, and I can’t. These people don’t think. That’s what I’ve learned. They are, to an astonishing degree, simply either not willing to think rationally or not able to think rationally.
Want to fix it? Remove the party that is pathologically incapable of compromise and willing to field a candidate like Trump.
I’m not calling her or any of her supporters obscene names. I’m just saying that that level of discourse where each side calls the other candidates prick and cunt isn’t very productive. In my opinion.
I could give a few. Not that you or anyone else would be convinced. A protest vote or an F U vote aimed at the perceived establishment is rational. Thinking Trump may be for a more right wing court is rational. Lower taxes and lower amount of regulations is not a terrible idea. I personally think the downside of Trump is unlimited and that’s scary. So I don’t think I’m voting for Trump. However, I’m not going to demonized his supporters.
I don’t think it’s fixable since manipulating passions is profitable. Media have a huge incentive in scandalous, hysterical coverage. It captures eyeballs and cash.
Well, at best you’d have to redo the whole party system so there’s an effective filter against this sort of thing. And then we’d still be vulnerable to someone simply organizing a party dedicated to emotional button-pushers.
And in the current Social Media age there is often not even the filter of an editorial decision to decide if a piece of information is preposterous, before people with better things to do are being demanded a reaction to it…
Which does not get the MSM off the hook – it was professional paid editors who decided to cover every breath Trump took, and to cover the other R’s almost only when they themselves did/said something daft or lame.