The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What part of "basic human right" don't you understand?

I'd love to hear what you folks consider a "decent living" and how it is a "basic human right"?

Providing everything and taking away the incentive to provide for oneself is truly what is out of touch, and contradicts what people think of as "the American Dream". It's outright insulting to folks who operate on a low income, not that I'd expect some young internet socialists with no life experience who likely have never experienced extreme poverty to understand.

Oh good god, you are the one who is operating under the apparent illusion that people on welfare are guilty until proven innocent - under the idea that people must prove themselves "worthy" in order to have the right to take advantage of the welfare state.

Instead of trying to treat people with a little bit of empathy, or of understanding for why someone has ended up where they are; you are just driving into this ridiculous trope of comparing the "deserving" with the "undeserving" poor.

What this is, is merely a convenient fiction intended to destroy the welfare state, by pretending that some people don't deserve access to it, and thereby undermining the concept that underpins the idea. Like I said earlier, people aren't welfare scroungers because they are selfish and lazy, they are forced into giving up hope because of a system that doesn't care about them - and instead of attacking the people who are treated the worst by a broken system, you would do far better to think about why modern capitalism apparently has created a subclass of people doomed to a life on welfare.

Bullschit. Requiring minimum standards to weed out potential fraud is common sense. Welfare is something we do because we care about people, not because every single person is entitled to free money just for being alive. I doubt most people receiving government money are cheats, but if the only harm in requiring minimal efforts by recipients to show that they aren't like Russell Brand or Spanky Macher or Linda Taylor is that *gasp* some people may question your socialist worldview, then boo frickin hoo.

Again, welfare is to help people ... not because all people have a RIGHT to free money. Considering the strict requirements many on the left want citizens to go through to exercise ACTUAL rights, like gun ownership or holding public protests, saying, oh by the way, can you get this form signed to show you checked to see if there were any jobs available before we send you your check this month, is pretty minimal.

"Unlike not dying of starvation, gun ownership is an actual right."

[Kingpoleon]

What part of "basic human right" don't you understand?

I'd love to hear what you folks consider a "decent living" and how it is a "basic human right"?

Providing everything and taking away the incentive to provide for oneself is truly what is out of touch, and contradicts what people think of as "the American Dream". It's outright insulting to folks who operate on a low income, not that I'd expect some young internet socialists with no life experience who likely have never experienced extreme poverty to understand.

Oh good god, you are the one who is operating under the apparent illusion that people on welfare are guilty until proven innocent - under the idea that people must prove themselves "worthy" in order to have the right to take advantage of the welfare state.

Instead of trying to treat people with a little bit of empathy, or of understanding for why someone has ended up where they are; you are just driving into this ridiculous trope of comparing the "deserving" with the "undeserving" poor.

What this is, is merely a convenient fiction intended to destroy the welfare state, by pretending that some people don't deserve access to it, and thereby undermining the concept that underpins the idea. Like I said earlier, people aren't welfare scroungers because they are selfish and lazy, they are forced into giving up hope because of a system that doesn't care about them - and instead of attacking the people who are treated the worst by a broken system, you would do far better to think about why modern capitalism apparently has created a subclass of people doomed to a life on welfare.

Bullschit. Requiring minimum standards to weed out potential fraud is common sense. Welfare is something we do because we care about people, not because every single person is entitled to free money just for being alive. I doubt most people receiving government money are cheats, but if the only harm in requiring minimal efforts by recipients to show that they aren't like Russell Brand or Spanky Macher or Linda Taylor is that *gasp* some people may question your socialist worldview, then boo frickin hoo.

Again, welfare is to help people ... not because all people have a RIGHT to free money. Considering the strict requirements many on the left want citizens to go through to exercise ACTUAL rights, like gun ownership or holding public protests, saying, oh by the way, can you get this form signed to show you checked to see if there were any jobs available before we send you your check this month, is pretty minimal.

"Unlike not dying of starvation, gun ownership is an actual right."

Are you trying to pull the ninth amendment?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What part of "basic human right" don't you understand?

I'd love to hear what you folks consider a "decent living" and how it is a "basic human right"?

Providing everything and taking away the incentive to provide for oneself is truly what is out of touch, and contradicts what people think of as "the American Dream". It's outright insulting to folks who operate on a low income, not that I'd expect some young internet socialists with no life experience who likely have never experienced extreme poverty to understand.

Oh good god, you are the one who is operating under the apparent illusion that people on welfare are guilty until proven innocent - under the idea that people must prove themselves "worthy" in order to have the right to take advantage of the welfare state.

Instead of trying to treat people with a little bit of empathy, or of understanding for why someone has ended up where they are; you are just driving into this ridiculous trope of comparing the "deserving" with the "undeserving" poor.

What this is, is merely a convenient fiction intended to destroy the welfare state, by pretending that some people don't deserve access to it, and thereby undermining the concept that underpins the idea. Like I said earlier, people aren't welfare scroungers because they are selfish and lazy, they are forced into giving up hope because of a system that doesn't care about them - and instead of attacking the people who are treated the worst by a broken system, you would do far better to think about why modern capitalism apparently has created a subclass of people doomed to a life on welfare.

Bullschit. Requiring minimum standards to weed out potential fraud is common sense. Welfare is something we do because we care about people, not because every single person is entitled to free money just for being alive. I doubt most people receiving government money are cheats, but if the only harm in requiring minimal efforts by recipients to show that they aren't like Russell Brand or Spanky Macher or Linda Taylor is that *gasp* some people may question your socialist worldview, then boo frickin hoo.

Again, welfare is to help people ... not because all people have a RIGHT to free money. Considering the strict requirements many on the left want citizens to go through to exercise ACTUAL rights, like gun ownership or holding public protests, saying, oh by the way, can you get this form signed to show you checked to see if there were any jobs available before we send you your check this month, is pretty minimal.

"Unlike not dying of starvation, gun ownership is an actual right."

Are you trying to pull the ninth amendment?

No, because I'm more concerned with actual rights then whatever is plastered in the constitution.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

We could always elect Hillary ... that would be lower.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Uh....what? The VA HoD races were won by a clear message and well targeted and organized campaign, not by trolling tactics.

I think your big brain is missing the point

Those least likely to win are now most likely

I fail to see how there is any evidence of that from the Virginia House of Delegates races or anything else.

[dead0man]

In reference to Charles Manson's death...

This is sadder than the time High Hefner died

What a year for Commiefornia. Tragic.

I mean, Manson contributed more to popular culture than Hugh Hefner ever did.

I mean, Hugh Hefner contributed more to "not being a cult leader and having people murdered" than Manson ever did.

Hugh Hefner helped pave the path for America's decline.  The cultural scarring brought by the likes of Mr. Hefner and his kind will never fade.  Just the number of rapes which have occurred that can be indirectly attributed to the hedonistic lifestyle he promoted would number in the thousands today.

Manson was just a nut who couldn't even get his own hands dirty.

I understand you're hammering on the edge still, but the two emboldned ( ) lines proves you're trying too hard and some obvious cracks are showing.  How could someone contribute less to culture than Manson did (who contributed way less to culture than say, Angus Young), yet still be guilty of a "cultural scarring" hedonistic lifestyle that's lead to thousands of rapes?  That seems like a heavy effect on culture.


(and FTR, I don't believe that Hefner is guilty of things you accuse him of)

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

In reference to Charles Manson's death...

This is sadder than the time High Hefner died

What a year for Commiefornia. Tragic.

I mean, Manson contributed more to popular culture than Hugh Hefner ever did.

I mean, Hugh Hefner contributed more to "not being a cult leader and having people murdered" than Manson ever did.

Hugh Hefner helped pave the path for America's decline.  The cultural scarring brought by the likes of Mr. Hefner and his kind will never fade.  Just the number of rapes which have occurred that can be indirectly attributed to the hedonistic lifestyle he promoted would number in the thousands today.

Manson was just a nut who couldn't even get his own hands dirty.

I understand you're hammering on the edge still, but the two emboldned ( ) lines proves you're trying too hard and some obvious cracks are showing.  How could someone contribute less to culture than Manson did (who contributed way less to culture than say, Angus Young), yet still be guilty of a "cultural scarring" hedonistic lifestyle that's lead to thousands of rapes?  That seems like a heavy effect on culture.


(and FTR, I don't believe that Hefner is guilty of things you accuse him of)

Well, think of it this way.  One of these men was a cult leader who went to prison for his crimes and died with a rich legacy in art and music.  The other man (also a cult leader) died rich and happy, without having to face a day's bit of retribution for his own crimes, and left behind a legacy that empowers men to write, well, stuff like this.

who has gotten laid more, Mr Hefner or every poster here with more than 2000 posts?

I suppose "contributes more" is of subjective interpretation here.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

the state has no responsibility to ameliorate the worst aspects of poverty

Sociopathy

[Coolface Sock #42069]

No, but rich people should be sterilized.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

authoritarians going to authoritate

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I would rather put my trust on people in daily kos who have presented a clear case that the accusations are false, than the main stream media.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is correct. The 2020 nominee will be more on the Bernie wing of the party than the Clinton wing. Warren or Sanders himself are the strongest contenders. The establishment lost a lot of credibility and trust with the 2016 election.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Is it really too much to ask that the next Democratic President chooses a Health Secretary who doesn't believe that healthcare is a privilege?

I'm tired of this whole privilege/right debate. Healthcare is objectively not a right. There aren't any inherent natural rights, and everything is relative. Similarly, what people deserve is subjective. Universal healthcare is, however, good policy and that is why both I and probably Ralph Northam support it.

[Santander]

Is it really too much to ask that the next Democratic President chooses a Health Secretary who doesn't believe that healthcare is a privilege?

I'm tired of this whole privilege/right debate. Healthcare is objectively not a right. There aren't any inherent natural rights, and everything is relative. Similarly, what people deserve is subjective. Universal healthcare is, however, good policy and that is why both I and probably Ralph Northam support it.

There is nothing absurd nor ignorant about that post.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Is it really too much to ask that the next Democratic President chooses a Health Secretary who doesn't believe that healthcare is a privilege?

I'm tired of this whole privilege/right debate. Healthcare is objectively not a right. There aren't any inherent natural rights, and everything is relative. Similarly, what people deserve is subjective. Universal healthcare is, however, good policy and that is why both I and probably Ralph Northam support it.

There is nothing absurd nor ignorant about that post.

Another iteration of the 'if you believe said thing you MUST be a republican'.

[Santander]

Is it really too much to ask that the next Democratic President chooses a Health Secretary who doesn't believe that healthcare is a privilege?

I'm tired of this whole privilege/right debate. Healthcare is objectively not a right. There aren't any inherent natural rights, and everything is relative. Similarly, what people deserve is subjective. Universal healthcare is, however, good policy and that is why both I and probably Ralph Northam support it.

There is nothing absurd nor ignorant about that post.

Another iteration of the 'if you believe said thing you MUST be a republican'.

Well, which party would "healthcare is objectively not a right" belong better in?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Is it really too much to ask that the next Democratic President chooses a Health Secretary who doesn't believe that healthcare is a privilege?

I'm tired of this whole privilege/right debate. Healthcare is objectively not a right. There aren't any inherent natural rights, and everything is relative. Similarly, what people deserve is subjective. Universal healthcare is, however, good policy and that is why both I and probably Ralph Northam support it.

There is nothing absurd nor ignorant about that post.

Another iteration of the 'if you believe said thing you MUST be a republican'.

Well, which party would "healthcare is objectively not a right" belong better in?

More Rs hold said position than Ds. But that is far from the only relevant question in determining what party Blairite belongs to. This just screams of insanely exclusive doctrinal purity, a true cancer. The fact is that the Democratic party is a big tent, period. Sjoyce doesn't like that? Boo hoo. He will have to suck it up.

[Kingpoleon]

What part of "basic human right" don't you understand?

I'd love to hear what you folks consider a "decent living" and how it is a "basic human right"?

Providing everything and taking away the incentive to provide for oneself is truly what is out of touch, and contradicts what people think of as "the American Dream". It's outright insulting to folks who operate on a low income, not that I'd expect some young internet socialists with no life experience who likely have never experienced extreme poverty to understand.

Oh good god, you are the one who is operating under the apparent illusion that people on welfare are guilty until proven innocent - under the idea that people must prove themselves "worthy" in order to have the right to take advantage of the welfare state.

Instead of trying to treat people with a little bit of empathy, or of understanding for why someone has ended up where they are; you are just driving into this ridiculous trope of comparing the "deserving" with the "undeserving" poor.

What this is, is merely a convenient fiction intended to destroy the welfare state, by pretending that some people don't deserve access to it, and thereby undermining the concept that underpins the idea. Like I said earlier, people aren't welfare scroungers because they are selfish and lazy, they are forced into giving up hope because of a system that doesn't care about them - and instead of attacking the people who are treated the worst by a broken system, you would do far better to think about why modern capitalism apparently has created a subclass of people doomed to a life on welfare.

Bullschit. Requiring minimum standards to weed out potential fraud is common sense. Welfare is something we do because we care about people, not because every single person is entitled to free money just for being alive. I doubt most people receiving government money are cheats, but if the only harm in requiring minimal efforts by recipients to show that they aren't like Russell Brand or Spanky Macher or Linda Taylor is that *gasp* some people may question your socialist worldview, then boo frickin hoo.

Again, welfare is to help people ... not because all people have a RIGHT to free money. Considering the strict requirements many on the left want citizens to go through to exercise ACTUAL rights, like gun ownership or holding public protests, saying, oh by the way, can you get this form signed to show you checked to see if there were any jobs available before we send you your check this month, is pretty minimal.

"Unlike not dying of starvation, gun ownership is an actual right."

Are you trying to pull the ninth amendment?

No, because I'm more concerned with actual rights then whatever is plastered in the constitution.

Actual rights and the Madisonian Constitution are not mutually exclusive, but you’ve never been a big supporter of democracy.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What part of "basic human right" don't you understand?

I'd love to hear what you folks consider a "decent living" and how it is a "basic human right"?

Providing everything and taking away the incentive to provide for oneself is truly what is out of touch, and contradicts what people think of as "the American Dream". It's outright insulting to folks who operate on a low income, not that I'd expect some young internet socialists with no life experience who likely have never experienced extreme poverty to understand.

Oh good god, you are the one who is operating under the apparent illusion that people on welfare are guilty until proven innocent - under the idea that people must prove themselves "worthy" in order to have the right to take advantage of the welfare state.

Instead of trying to treat people with a little bit of empathy, or of understanding for why someone has ended up where they are; you are just driving into this ridiculous trope of comparing the "deserving" with the "undeserving" poor.

What this is, is merely a convenient fiction intended to destroy the welfare state, by pretending that some people don't deserve access to it, and thereby undermining the concept that underpins the idea. Like I said earlier, people aren't welfare scroungers because they are selfish and lazy, they are forced into giving up hope because of a system that doesn't care about them - and instead of attacking the people who are treated the worst by a broken system, you would do far better to think about why modern capitalism apparently has created a subclass of people doomed to a life on welfare.

Bullschit. Requiring minimum standards to weed out potential fraud is common sense. Welfare is something we do because we care about people, not because every single person is entitled to free money just for being alive. I doubt most people receiving government money are cheats, but if the only harm in requiring minimal efforts by recipients to show that they aren't like Russell Brand or Spanky Macher or Linda Taylor is that *gasp* some people may question your socialist worldview, then boo frickin hoo.

Again, welfare is to help people ... not because all people have a RIGHT to free money. Considering the strict requirements many on the left want citizens to go through to exercise ACTUAL rights, like gun ownership or holding public protests, saying, oh by the way, can you get this form signed to show you checked to see if there were any jobs available before we send you your check this month, is pretty minimal.

"Unlike not dying of starvation, gun ownership is an actual right."

Are you trying to pull the ninth amendment?

No, because I'm more concerned with actual rights then whatever is plastered in the constitution.

Actual rights and the Madisonian Constitution are not mutually exclusive, but you’ve never been a big supporter of democracy.

Do you believe that rights are granted by the constitution or something?

[Kingpoleon]

Please tell me you’re being sarcastic.

Rights are provided by the Constitution, and as our governing document we are inherently bound to it as much as we are to democracy. Violating any of it is tantamount to saying it is no longer applicable, destroying the mandate of Congress, the President, and our society.

[Santander]

Uh, our rights come from God, not a piece of paper. The Constitution merely affirms the United States' commitment to upholding certain rights.

[bagelman]

Is it really too much to ask that the next Democratic President chooses a Health Secretary who doesn't believe that healthcare is a privilege?

I'm tired of this whole privilege/right debate. Healthcare is objectively not a right. There aren't any inherent natural rights, and everything is relative. Similarly, what people deserve is subjective. Universal healthcare is, however, good policy and that is why both I and probably Ralph Northam support it.

There is nothing absurd nor ignorant about that post.

Another iteration of the 'if you believe said thing you MUST be a republican'.

sjoyce is completely in the right.

This is correct. The 2020 nominee will be more on the Bernie wing of the party than the Clinton wing. Warren or Sanders himself are the strongest contenders. The establishment lost a lot of credibility and trust with the 2016 election.

How is this absurd/ignorant? Unless I'm really missing something this seems completely right.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

sjoyce is completely in the right.

Look, I agree with Sjoyce on the issue of Healthcare being regarded as a right. What I don't agree with is the claim Blairite is automatically a Republican for thinking otherwise. I care about maintaining a big tent. We don't need to (and shouldn't ever feel the desire to) adopt Blairite's point of view on this, but to trot out the litmus test card as a response is just lame.

[Virginiá]

One can believe something should be a right, and they can view it as a right, but until it is codified into law and/or the constitution, then it won't be treated as such. Given where society finds itself technologically and resource-wise, I do believe healthcare should be a right, but I also understand clearly that a lot of elections need to be won and laws need to be passed before healthcare is actually treated as a right.

[Kingpoleon]

One can believe something should be a right, and they can view it as a right, but until it is codified into law and/or the constitution, then it won't be treated as such. Given where society finds itself technologically and resource-wise, I do believe healthcare should be a right, but I also understand clearly that a lot of elections need to be won and laws need to be passed before healthcare is actually treated as a right.

There’s still a difference between single-payer and universal, as to which, for your statement only the latter is implied.

Also, since when did “right to” mean “the government gives it to you”? I support revenue-neutral, universal healthcare because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s a right.