Acting in your own self interest instead of helping people cannot be called anything other than selfish. Maybe it's okay to be a little selfish. But come on. That's the definition of the word.
It’s a complex and nuanced situation where you're never given a black and white choice between the two, but in America and the UK at least you do have a clear choice of one party trying to work for the majority and the other representing the people benefiting from the status quo.
Quite right sir.
Everyone knows the Labour Party was and is a creation of the trade union movement and as such works to their agenda rather than the common man or the nation.
The country should not be run for the benefit of the Aristocracy of Labour.
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Acting in your own self interest instead of helping people cannot be called anything other than selfish. Maybe it's okay to be a little selfish. But come on. That's the definition of the word.
It’s a complex and nuanced situation where you're never given a black and white choice between the two, but in America and the UK at least you do have a clear choice of one party trying to work for the majority and the other representing the people benefiting from the status quo.
Quite right sir.
Everyone knows the Labour Party was and is a creation of the trade union movement and as such works to their agenda rather than the common man or the nation.
The country should not be run for the benefit of the Aristocracy of Labour.
One Britain for all not the privileged few!
*slaps Kalkino with a glove*
+1
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
I wish I could just go back to sleep and not go to my classes.
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
how does that work
scotus precedent is that legislatures can write active nonsense and still issue constitutional legislation
ronya on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
My (least) favorite argument against socialized healthcare is, "If I can afford my care, why should I pay for anyone else's?"
I just want to extrapolate the logic of that situation into other contexts and show people who say that how that would work.
How many police officers can you, as an individual, afford to protect yourself? How many fireman and firetrucks? How many lengths of road can you build and pay for? How many bullets and tanks will you donate to the war effort? How many sandbags will you personally send to flood zones? How much money do you spend annually on donations to scientists to research the vaccines you pay $5 for at your local Walgreens every autumn?
And here's the real kicker: Unless you are a millionaire or you just don't use it because you're stupid, you literally can't afford your healthcare. You can only afford healthcare insurance.
this is in a nutshell why i hate the idea that charity, the private sector and donations from people who got rich through tax breaks can be a subsititue for a strong tax funded public welfare system
i don't want to rely on rich peoples good will to have my schools and hospitals funded, i want everyone to controbute and we all have nice things instead of a two tier system of awesome stuff for rich folks and shitty stuff for the rest of us as and when the elite feel like throwing us a bone and hosting a charity dinner for their friends to donate to my local hospital
The rich are always going to have better things, even things that are covered by social services. That's just the nature of the beast, and trying to work against that is futile and needless.
All we need to make sure is that we're not protecting the exceeding quality of the systems used by the wealthy at the expense of the quality of everyone else's.
i've said countless times after voicing opinions like these that i am not a communist, i don't mind the existence of rich people (i can even buy into the idea of the necessity of financial reward to encourage success), i don't think 100% equal wealth distribution is realistic or possible
i do think that you eventually hit diminishing returns in terms of success=wealth what is the difference between having a hundred million dollars or two hundred million? is that difference to one person worth all the people who go without?
Why does someone else go without? Wealth creation isn't zero-sum.
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
i love watching people attempt to come up with a non-religious argument against gay marriage
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
how does that work
scotus precedent is that legislatures can write active nonsense and still issue constitutional legislation
When rights are concerned, they need some reasonable excuse. How good the excuse needs to be varies from right to right.
I wonder how many of those people screaming "the GOVERNMENT is elected by US and should therefore act IN ONLY OUR INTERESTS" are also willing to consistently uphold the notion that, say, a corporation should act in only the interests of its voting shareholders.
well.... they do
polite society typically takes some kind of corporate social responsibility, plus nation-state responsibilities to humans and fellow states, as given
it might be a transparent hypocrisy but the rhetoric is there
maybe it's a result of my time spent studying politics but i tend to focus on what people are doing rather than what they say they're doing
talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words
then neither government nor corporations spend any significant proportions of their budgets on aiding others, typically speaking
it's the 0.7% that is spent on foreign aid that makes people mad, though
You say 'people', but it is the right-wingers who complain about foreign aid that are most likely to say companies should only work for their shareholders.
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
I hope you all get recycled in the next page or so.
And your sacrifice resurrects boob [chat]
I wonder how many of those people screaming "the GOVERNMENT is elected by US and should therefore act IN ONLY OUR INTERESTS" are also willing to consistently uphold the notion that, say, a corporation should act in only the interests of its voting shareholders.
well.... they do
polite society typically takes some kind of corporate social responsibility, plus nation-state responsibilities to humans and fellow states, as given
it might be a transparent hypocrisy but the rhetoric is there
maybe it's a result of my time spent studying politics but i tend to focus on what people are doing rather than what they say they're doing
talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words
then neither government nor corporations spend any significant proportions of their budgets on aiding others, typically speaking
it's the 0.7% that is spent on foreign aid that makes people mad, though
You say 'people', but it is the right-wingers who complain about foreign aid that are most likely to say companies should only work for their shareholders.
yes
yes, that is the point of my remark
inconsistency is typical
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
i love watching people attempt to come up with a non-religious argument against gay marriage
there really isn't one
You'll also be hardpressed to find anyone arguing a religious one that also wants to defend the stoning and honor-killing and cloth-separating the Bible also demands in the same sections where gay stuff is outlawed.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
how does that work
scotus precedent is that legislatures can write active nonsense and still issue constitutional legislation
When rights are concerned, they need some reasonable excuse. How good the excuse needs to be varies from right to right.
doesn't that elevated scrutiny standard only apply for protected classes, in which case any outright ban would be unconstitutional anyway
My (least) favorite argument against socialized healthcare is, "If I can afford my care, why should I pay for anyone else's?"
I just want to extrapolate the logic of that situation into other contexts and show people who say that how that would work.
How many police officers can you, as an individual, afford to protect yourself? How many fireman and firetrucks? How many lengths of road can you build and pay for? How many bullets and tanks will you donate to the war effort? How many sandbags will you personally send to flood zones? How much money do you spend annually on donations to scientists to research the vaccines you pay $5 for at your local Walgreens every autumn?
And here's the real kicker: Unless you are a millionaire or you just don't use it because you're stupid, you literally can't afford your healthcare. You can only afford healthcare insurance.
this is in a nutshell why i hate the idea that charity, the private sector and donations from people who got rich through tax breaks can be a subsititue for a strong tax funded public welfare system
i don't want to rely on rich peoples good will to have my schools and hospitals funded, i want everyone to controbute and we all have nice things instead of a two tier system of awesome stuff for rich folks and shitty stuff for the rest of us as and when the elite feel like throwing us a bone and hosting a charity dinner for their friends to donate to my local hospital
The rich are always going to have better things, even things that are covered by social services. That's just the nature of the beast, and trying to work against that is futile and needless.
All we need to make sure is that we're not protecting the exceeding quality of the systems used by the wealthy at the expense of the quality of everyone else's.
i've said countless times after voicing opinions like these that i am not a communist, i don't mind the existence of rich people (i can even buy into the idea of the necessity of financial reward to encourage success), i don't think 100% equal wealth distribution is realistic or possible
i do think that you eventually hit diminishing returns in terms of success=wealth what is the difference between having a hundred million dollars or two hundred million? is that difference to one person worth all the people who go without?
Why does someone else go without? Wealth creation isn't zero-sum.
there is not an infinite amount of wealth
there is a finite amount of wealth in existence and a finite number of people
in order for wealth to be as concentrated as it is in the hands of as few people as it currently is, yes, the majority of people have to have less money so the 1% of richest people can have as much as they do
if you're trying to tell me with low taxes and no regulation for the private sector we can all one day be billionaires, i would have to question that
0
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
how does that work
scotus precedent is that legislatures can write active nonsense and still issue constitutional legislation
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
how does that work
scotus precedent is that legislatures can write active nonsense and still issue constitutional legislation
When rights are concerned, they need some reasonable excuse. How good the excuse needs to be varies from right to right.
doesn't that elevated scrutiny standard only apply for protected classes, in which case any outright ban would be unconstitutional anyway
If there is no legitimate argument for a ban, it won't even pass the lesser standards.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
i love watching people attempt to come up with a non-religious argument against gay marriage
Posts
whats going on
Bleed-thru.
I propose we need to set the authors of that book on fire for the common good.
I guess this just happened.
Quite right sir.
Everyone knows the Labour Party was and is a creation of the trade union movement and as such works to their agenda rather than the common man or the nation.
The country should not be run for the benefit of the Aristocracy of Labour.
One Britain for all not the privileged few!
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
moving on saturday
u do the math
*slaps Kalkino with a glove*
we made "Sled of Doom", with the tagline "Conquer the World Today"
Our commercial consisted of stop action action figures fighting to 3 sonic youth songs being played over each other and people screaming
we got an A
7?
how does that work
scotus precedent is that legislatures can write active nonsense and still issue constitutional legislation
I read "math" as "meth."
y i gotta do the meth?
Why does someone else go without? Wealth creation isn't zero-sum.
i love watching people attempt to come up with a non-religious argument against gay marriage
there really isn't one
*dolphin*
When rights are concerned, they need some reasonable excuse. How good the excuse needs to be varies from right to right.
You say 'people', but it is the right-wingers who complain about foreign aid that are most likely to say companies should only work for their shareholders.
And your sacrifice resurrects boob [chat]
yes
yes, that is the point of my remark
inconsistency is typical
You'll also be hardpressed to find anyone arguing a religious one that also wants to defend the stoning and honor-killing and cloth-separating the Bible also demands in the same sections where gay stuff is outlawed.
nice rothko painting
where did you learn to art
yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
doesn't that elevated scrutiny standard only apply for protected classes, in which case any outright ban would be unconstitutional anyway
there is not an infinite amount of wealth
there is a finite amount of wealth in existence and a finite number of people
in order for wealth to be as concentrated as it is in the hands of as few people as it currently is, yes, the majority of people have to have less money so the 1% of richest people can have as much as they do
if you're trying to tell me with low taxes and no regulation for the private sector we can all one day be billionaires, i would have to question that
Takei Tech
NO YOU DO THE MATH
14th amendment violation, for starters.
If there is no legitimate argument for a ban, it won't even pass the lesser standards.
http://www.xojane.com/healthy/i-did-something-so-horrible-this-morning-that-i-cant-even-put-it-in-my-headline
There's the homophobic argument.