Well, the Republic had a good long run.
To all of those “Principalled” voters who stood by their “Principals”, thanks. When I have to live like an animal, I’ll remember that you did what you thought was right. And all you who suffered under the evil delusion that “Voting is immoral”, have fun in hell. I only hope I get there first so I can make up your bed. You won’t like it.
It isn’t any fun to learn that the majority of your countrymen are abject morons. On the other hand, it will be easier not to feel much compassion for them when they’re starving to death because of their own stupid.
Edited to add:
Lord, if I will have friends, then let them be my friends.
let them stand at my shoulder and enjoy my joy
Let them stand on my ramparts and mix their blood with mine.
And if I will have enemies, let them be my enemies.
let them hate me squarely and without reservation
I will see them on their ramparts and know precisely where they stand
I will feel the teeth of my enemy in my flesh,
and I will feel the flesh of my enemy in my teeth
I will hold the hand of my friend
and he will holld mine.
Deliver me from the apathete. Friend nor enemy to none,
they weaken me and strengthen my enemies,
in the name of “Doing unto others” They are all that can truly defeat me.
62 comments Og | Uncategorized
Started a comment and it evolved into this:
http://frizzensparks.org/?p=1757
Pascal: Very good blog article. Almost 40 years ago at age 30, I decided that the chances I would ever see any social security payments was very low. I managed my finances accordingly and now could very easily give up the monthly check. I would support a means test if it ever came to a vote.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree that your suggestion of doing the moral thing and foregoing a SS check will have an effect on anything. We’ve already passed the tip-over point where the have-less can outvote the have-more. You have probably seen this quote:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859)
I wish I could be more optimistic, but unless the Republican party can give up fighting each other while the house they are in is burning down, I have little hope for a moral USA in the near future.
I don’t disagree with your assessment about effectiveness mkl. I don’t even disagree with Grau’s position to let them die in their pigsty and not think twice about it.
I knew this needed fighting when I was younger and kept hoping someone else would take the lead. The few who dared got pummeled by all those who like where this is headed (Nikita Khrushchev said they’d bury us; so it wasn’t the USSR, it was their pod-people instead. Same difference.)
No, I am guessing my track will remain a personal penalty for not having the balls to actually get angry when it still may have mattered. At least you know one person who refuses to allow them to steal in my name.
When the operators of this Ponzi scheme are asked by their Maker to account for what stuck to their fingers they will not be able to claim they did it FOR me.
“I would like a candidate with morals who would leave a specific religious belief out of the equation.”
Are you speaking about abortion? because that is not and will never be a religious belief.
I don’t know og… “Thou shalt not commit murder” is pretty much a religious belief.
Of course, it’s also pretty much a moral belief of virtually every civilization since the dawn of man.
Let me know where on the ramparts you want me.
davek
So hammurabic code was religious? Try and keep up.
‘So hammurabic code was religious?’
Well yes. Have you read it? The Babylonians were very religious people and they based their laws on it. Umm…that’s basic history.
Not a good analogy. Better is: It’s to my selfish advantage that murder is forbidden. I have a better chance to live that way.
You are of course absolutely correct, Steve; I just think of the dork worshipping babylonians as “pre real religion” so it’s my mistake. hard to take them seriously as a legitimate religion, to me, anyway. Do remember that the Hammurabic code was in fact a code written by man, and that religion was subject to it, wheras the Mosaic code (Which is what I mean by religious code) was (ostensibly) written by God, and set religion as the law. this is what i mean, basically. And in any event, it is morally wrong to murder no matter who you are or who you murder, even if you are an atheist. Abortion as a medeical treatment to remove an unwanted growth is a malthusian canard.
What you are saying is that the Mosaic code was explicitly religious and the Hammurabic code only implicitly so (or only derived secondarily from it). Ok, that makes sense.
But if you have a hard time understanding the Babylonian’s as religious just compare them to ancient Greece, a truly secular society. The difference is pretty stark.
However, the ancient Babylonians lived long before monotheism caught on. I’m betting they never even thought of it.
The reason the abortion issue is the MOST decisive issue in America today is that both sides (based on their initial assumptions) are correct. Because of that, neither side will give an inch. This moral conflict might be the trigger (although not necessarily the underlying reason) for civil war.
Both sides are correct? How so?
(Sorry, your comment somehow went to spam)
I am not certain exactly what I wrote either but what I’m sure I meant is that once you accept their initial premises, the logic of the other side is valid. Therefore it is in those initial premises that the mistake has been made and where the battle must be fought.
Therefore, I should probably have said that both sides had a valid argument, not necessarily a correct one.
So the always check your premises and make sure you opponent does as well.
I think I also made some random comment about the time period of the Babylonians and how because of that they would have had no means to know the truth.
So the rest of us have to accept that the “Pro choice” people’s stance is valid because their assumption that a human life is only a human life if they say it is?
Sorry. There is no “Pro choice” stance that has any moral basis, and is in fact immoral to the core.