Why does the right want to deny basic human rights to US Citizens?

[Casca XV]

Is that why every time a state tries to drug test people on welfare they find that 98% of people tested pass with flying colors and it ends up costing more to test them than they end up saving?

98%? Maybe there is an article out their that says that but I doubt its true.

I'm in a high skilled Blue Collar trade.

Years ago when I first applied for the apprenticeship I was told I did not have a chance because there were 30 guys applying with only one spot open, and I was by far the applicant with the least experience and qualifications.

I got the spot because was the only one who could pass the drug test.

The few time I have had to look for work I have had a huge advantage over the competition because I can piss in a cup anytime I need to.

I guarantee "working men" are using drugs a hell of a lot less often than people on welfare.

 

[CLAX1911]

Then you need to explain - or at least give a very specific example of - government action that takes place without any people whatsoever.

why it wouldn't have anything to do with anything I said.

Otherwise you're just repeating the same unsubstantiated nonsense.

I'm repeating that what you're saying has nothing to do with what I posted because it has nothing to do with what I posted.

Wrong again and again. Government resources have the capacity to (and do) create all kinds of things that private individuals and organizations don't have the capacity to.

the government doesn't have resources the people do.

Wherever you're coming up with this crap, put it down, turn it off, and take some online courses in government.

Well I'm coming up with this by virtue of the government taking taxes from people if it creating anything why does it need taxes why is there a deficit? Why does it borrow money?

Why can't it just sell what it creates and make profit that way why did they need to steal from the people at gunpoint?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

I'm rejecting the false use of the term Rights, abused by people that just want your vote for their gain.

So most of the world's countries agree on a definition of human rights, the US endorses that written agreement in the decades ever since, but YOU reject it! Well lah-dee-freaking-dah! :lamo

You need to advance a real argument if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

The 5% poorest Americans are richer than 68% of the rest of the world.

Everyone knows you've lost the argument when you have to resort to comparing the US to Africa.

By the way: Brownshirts both in 1930's Germany and today were/are Leftist just like you.

That's what the holocaust deniers say.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Well I'm coming up with this by virtue of the government taking taxes from people if it creating anything why does it need taxes why is there a deficit? Why does it borrow money?

Why can't it just sell what it creates and make profit that way why did they need to steal from the people at gunpoint?

Think about it: if this approach actually worked, why wouldn't somebody, somewhere in the world, have done it by now? You can't possibly be the first one to have thought about it.

 

[CLAX1911]

Think about it: if this approach actually worked, why wouldn't somebody, somewhere in the world, have done it by now? You can't possibly be the first one to have thought about it.

No idea what on Earth you are talking about.

I still stand by my original statement. Taxation is theft.

You haven't argued otherwise.

 

[Aberration]

That's what the holocaust deniers say.

Was Otto von Bismarck a holocaust denier?

It’s ironic his first of its kind policy of offer state provided healthcare is the policy that started what we now call National Socialism.

Couldn’t possibly get more ironic.

 

[code1211]

Okay, so it doesn't seem like you believe that these dysfunctional realities are unchangeable. That's good; thanks for clearing it up.

Personally, I'd like to know why the people continue to vote for such unenlightened leaders....

I have no control over what you assume.

Why do people continue to vote for unenlightened leaders?

As far as I know, in the White House in particular, the unenlightened were dismissed in favor of Trump. They had their 7 decades from WW2 onward to get it done and they failed. Repeatedly. Irredeemably.

The people in the US seem to have decided that a different course is called for.

Regarding the village, I have no idea.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

I have no control over what you assume.

Why do people continue to vote for unenlightened leaders?

As far as I know, in the White House in particular, the unenlightened were dismissed in favor of Trump. They had their 7 decades from WW2 onward to get it done and they failed. Repeatedly. Irredeemably.

The people in the US seem to have decided that a different course is called for.

Regarding the village, I have no idea.

Mr. Trump spent his entire adult life as a con artist. No idea what makes you think that's somehow "enlightened." :shock:

 

[DifferentDrummr]

No idea what on Earth you are talking about.

I still stand by my original statement. Taxation is theft.

You haven't argued otherwise.

You can't understand a simple question, so you just repeat your original position and pretend the question never existed. Sad.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Was Otto von Bismarck a holocaust denier?

It’s ironic his first of its kind policy of offer state provided healthcare is the policy that started what we now call National Socialism.

Couldn’t possibly get more ironic.

Considering that Bismarck was DEAD by the time Hitler was 6 years hold, your question is beyond even your usual level of nonsense.

 

[CLAX1911]

You can't understand a simple question, so you just repeat your original position and pretend the question never existed. Sad.

You asked me about some approach to god-knows-what about god-knows-what.

No I don't understand your question what approach approach to what?

 

[rwee2000]

First, to be clear, I'm referring to the long-established UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US (up until now) has been pressing other countries to accept.



Why have conservatives and libertarians been so dead set against this? Allowing Americans to live so far below the poverty level hurts both the economy and national security. To make it happen for the sake of a tax cut is completely and utterly stupid.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

None of which is free, someone has to pay for it. A RIGHT doesn't obligate anyone to do anything. Free speech doesn't FORCE anyone to listen, the right to assemble doesn't force anyone to join you, the 2nd doesn't force you to buy a gun, and so on. The right to food. So Article 25 IS forcing people to do something, at least pay for the things listed. Imagine if I FORCE you to grow a garden and FORCED you to give the food away, or FORCED you make or buy clothing and give them away. See that's where the problem lies.

Now you can say we have a moral or social obligation, to do the thing, but they are NOT rights.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

None of which is free, someone has to pay for it. A RIGHT doesn't obligate anyone to do anything. Free speech doesn't FORCE anyone to listen, the right to assemble doesn't force anyone to join you, the 2nd doesn't force you to buy a gun, and so on. The right to food. So Article 25 IS forcing people to do something, at least pay for the things listed. Imagine if I FORCE you to grow a garden and FORCED you to give the food away, or FORCED you make or buy clothing and give them away. See that's where the problem lies.

Now you can say we have a moral or social obligation, to do the thing, but they are NOT rights.

And how do you prove, objectively, that the declaration is wrong and you're right?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

You asked me about some approach to god-knows-what about god-knows-what.

No I don't understand your question what approach approach to what?

YOUR approach to how to run a national government. Or are you going to back away from it now?

the government taking taxes from people if it creating anything why does it need taxes why is there a deficit? Why does it borrow money?

Why can't it just sell what it creates and make profit that way why did they need to steal from the people at gunpoint?

 

[CLAX1911]

YOUR approach to how to run a national government.

What approach?

Or are you going to back away from it now?

I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

What approach?

I don't know what you are talking about.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? That was your quote at the bottom of post 490.

And if you STILL pretend not to know what I'm talking about, you're done.

 

[CLAX1911]

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

no I generally don't understand what you're talking about. how about instead of asking me if I'm being obtuse you try and find a better way to ask you a question I didn't understand it.

That was your quote at the bottom of post 490.

That was a question, it wasn't the description of any kind of approach.

And if you STILL pretend not to know what I'm talking about, you're done.

no I genuinely don't know what you're talking about. I've told you this several times but you just double down on the same thing why is that?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

That was a question, it wasn't the description of any kind of approach.

Of course it was: you asked "why don't governments do X?" That's a question AND a call for approaching revenue differently, whether you meant it that way or not.

Now you're backing away from it, showing conclusively that you can't support your insane "taxation is theft" idea.

 

[CLAX1911]

Of course it was: you asked "why don't governments do X?"

yes that was a question the major clue should have been the? At the end of the sentence. It is an inquiry that you have not addressed probably because you can't.

That's a question AND a call for approaching revenue differently, whether you meant it that way or not.

that's false it was a question and a challenge to your approach. One you shied away from. and then got carrying on about semantics and asking me if I'm being obtuse on purpose.

Now you're backing away from it, showing conclusively that you can't support your insane "taxation is theft" idea.

I can absolutely support my taxation is theft idea.

Tax is the government demanding money from you or they will inact violence upon you. I don't see a difference if it's the government or somebody you would call a mugger.

you can say they're stealing it to do alteristic things or things that will benefit the general populace but it doesn't mean it's not theft. If I seize your house in your pantry to create a soup kitchen for the homeless and the needy I would be doing it for the betterment of society right? If you believe in such altruism you should willingly give up your house and your pantry if you don't that's blatant hypocrisy.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

yes that was a question the major clue should have been the? At the end of the sentence. It is an inquiry that you have not addressed probably because you can't.

that's false it was a question and a challenge to your approach. One you shied away from. and then got carrying on about semantics and asking me if I'm being obtuse on purpose.



I can absolutely support my taxation is theft idea.

Tax is the government demanding money from you or they will inact violence upon you. I don't see a difference if it's the government or somebody you would call a mugger.

you can say they're stealing it to do alteristic things or things that will benefit the general populace but it doesn't mean it's not theft. If I seize your house in your pantry to create a soup kitchen for the homeless and the needy I would be doing it for the betterment of society right? If you believe in such altruism you should willingly give up your house and your pantry if you don't that's blatant hypocrisy.

I see no reason to waste time with anyone who advances an argument and then is dishonest about backing away fromit.

 

[CLAX1911]

I see no reason to waste time with anyone who advances an argument and then is dishonest about backing away fromit.

That's funny you accuse me of that. it was your claim that the government creates something and I asked you what you couldn't answer. So instead of saying you don't know where that you couldn't answer you proceeded to attack your strawman.

But if you're more interested in saving face the actual intellectual pursuits then by all means ignore me.

I have no such pretensions I'm anonymous here.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

That's funny you accuse me of that. it was your claim that the government creates something and I asked you what you couldn't answer. So instead of saying you don't know where that you couldn't answer you proceeded to attack your strawman.

But if you're more interested in saving face the actual intellectual pursuits then by all means ignore me.

I have no such pretensions I'm anonymous here.

And of course, more dishonesty from you. I think you know that I answered you questions; you just didn't happen to like the answers or have any kind of response to mine. Intellectual pursuits aren't possible with an attitude like that.

 

[CLAX1911]

And of course, more dishonesty from you.

Accusations of dishonesty don't hold much value without credibility.

Basically put you claiming dishonesty without explaining why you might as well be calling me a poopoo head.

I think you know that I answered you questions; you just didn't happen to like the answers or have any kind of response to mine.

My apologies, I didn't see any answer to the question. I take complete ownership of my overlooking if your answer. If you could point out the post you answered my question in, or explain again if appreciate it.

Intellectual pursuits aren't possible with an attitude like that.

Attitudes like what?

 

[Aberration]

And how do you prove, objectively, that the declaration is wrong and you're right?

Right and wrong are subjective, neither can be proven. The opposite of your question also can not be proven, that any of the things listed are ‘rights’. It’s the very thing that makes them not rights.