Making Baby Jesus Cry

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Anymore?

I see your point. I pay for, but take little in return from, the govt. However, it is still technically supposed to come to the rescue in time of tragedy. We can’t - shouldn’t move toward strict Social Darwinism or an “each man for himself” system of defense and security against attack/natural disaster. That’d be the end of the nation. Like it or not, you’re stuck with taking care of others. There’s nothing a civilized society can or should do about that. The questions NO raises are:

1. Where does that duty end; and

2. How do we teach people accustomed to a govt safety net for everything that they have to be responsible for their own lives?

I have no answers.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc


I have nothing more to say on the topic for now. Except that people who don't give money to the Red Cross are chumps.

(Again, with a few exceptions who have disclosed themselves to me directly, I have no idea who has given what. Hank may be cool. Or he may be a chump. I'll leave that to the board to decide.)

This is an attempt at a joke, right? Please tell me you weren't serious.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Oh hogwash. This country was equally divided during the Clinton administration and 9/11 was but a momentary pause in the partisan bickering that has been our history whenever we have a CE that isn't milk toast.

2. i remember some serious anti-Bush hatred election night 2000 and in the weeks thereafter.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is an attempt at a joke, right? Please tell me you weren't serious.

Speaking of jokes . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/06/kat...ion=cnn_latest

(FEMA sends evacuees to the wrong Charleston)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I see your point. I pay for, but take little in return from, the govt. However, it is still technically supposed to come to the rescue in time of tragedy. We can’t - shouldn’t move toward strict Social Darwinism or an “each man for himself” system of defense and security against attack/natural disaster. That’d be the end of the nation. Like it or not, you’re stuck with taking care of others. There’s nothing a civilized society can or should do about that. The questions NO raises are:

1. Where does that duty end; and

2. How do we teach people accustomed to a govt safety net for everything that they have to be responsible for their own lives?

I have no answers.

Can someone give an example of a society that has no safety net -- where people are all self-reliant? Because I'm not feeling it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Speaking of jokes . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/06/kat...ion=cnn_latest

(FEMA sends evacuees to the wrong Charleston)

fuck that. I want an answer from Florence Nightengale.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Can someone give an example of a society that has no safety net -- where people are all self-reliant? Because I'm not feeling it.

Sparta and the Arapahoe until about 1870.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sparta and the Arapahoe until about 1870.

Can you send me some kind of article on Sparta that backs this up? They lived near water, yes? Perhaps some discussion of a terrible storm lo those many years ago. TIA.

Actually now I'm curious about the class structure of Sparta, and whether they had something like larger landowners who did the whole "distribute grain to the villagers/farmers from the central stores (collected by the large landowner from the farmers or whatever) in times of bad harvests" type thing.


ETA because for some reason I'm thinking that the Greeks were somewhat like the Romans in that only certain people were citizens, and then there was this whole underclass, possibly bifurcated between free people and slaves, who were sort of dependents of the relatively few big cheeses, and that the big cheeses were responsible for their dependents, and I am not talking about their bio families. But I am not sure.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I have posted about 10 posts on the subject, most of them clumped around a half hour period, and mostly in response to a particularly asinine postition you insisted on defending. As it was a holiday weekend, I choose to believe you were simply drunk.

This morning, I linked to two documents that seem to be relevant to a discussion of interest to the board, but not particularly to me (i.e. who was more negligent in the early stages of responding to the disaster).

To the extent I have energy to discuss the topic at all, I am much more interested in ongoing, current incompetence (the subject of my multiple posts with you Sunday).

I don't recall one thing you've said on this board, let alone this topic. To be respected on either board one must make one's bones. You can't just start posting a lot and assume you're making sense, or arguing well. The only person who could possibly show up and have immediate credibilty would be my wife. But that is becuase she's proven herself here, and Paigow/SS would flatter her to try and co-opt her talents. The mere fact that she has sex with a well-respected poster would not give her credibilty, in an of itself (please pass on softball- "your wife screws not bob?" harhar).

I have nothing more to say on the topic for now.

Most of us had reached the conclusion that you've never had anything to say on topic.

Except that people who don't give money to the Red Cross are chumps.

(Again, with a few exceptions who have disclosed themselves to me directly, I have no idea who has given what. Hank may be cool. Or he may be a chump. I'll leave that to the board to decide.)

Your grandstanding about an idea that someone else created is vile. I'm sure the lack of acknowledgements or disclosures to you are quite low due to the grandstanding. Anyone remember Ironweed "shaking the trees" this way?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Can you send me some kind of article on Sparta that backs this up? They lived near water, yes? Perhaps some discussion of a terrible storm lo those many years ago. TIA.

Actually now I'm curious about the class structure of Sparta, and whether they had something like larger landowners who did the whole "distribute grain to the villagers/farmers from the central stores (collected by the large landowner from the farmers or whatever) in times of bad harvests" type thing.


ETA because for some reason I'm thinking that the Greeks were somewhat like the Romans in that only certain people were citizens, and then there was this whole underclass, possibly bifurcated between free people and slaves, who were sort of dependents of the relatively few big cheeses, and that the big cheeses were responsible for their dependents, and I am not talking about their bio families. But I am not sure.

We're having a cheese tasting at my home next weekend. I would invite you if you lived near here. All the invitees are upper crust, but not all will be big cheeses.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't recall one thing you've said on this board, let alone this topic. To be respected on either board one must make one's bones. You can't just start posting a lot and assume you're making sense, or arguing well. The only person who could possibly show up and have immediate credibilty would be my wife. But that is becuase she's proven herself here, and Paigow/SS would flatter her to try and co-opt her talents. The mere fact that she has sex with a well-respected poster would not give her credibilty, in an of itself (please pass on softball- "your wife screws not bob?" harhar).



Most of us had reached the conclusion that you've never had anything to say on topic.


Your grandstanding about an idea that someone else created is vile. I'm sure the lack of acknowledgements or disclosures to you are quite low due to the grandstanding. Anyone remember Ironweed "shaking the trees" this way?

Atticus?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Atticus?

I have nothing more to say on the topic for now.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Speaking of jokes . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/06/kat...ion=cnn_latest

(FEMA sends evacuees to the wrong Charleston)

It seems like a reasonable mistake, given that half of the federal government is now located in the Mountaineer state.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You still think the GOP can win with the white-male vote alone?

And, Penske, why would the Christian-Right want an anarcho-libertarian justice?

She is anti-Roe v Wade.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not a bad piece, but that guy has a huge ego. "When [i]I[/] won this case Requist did X". I also don't know why he had to throw in this jab:

• and reducing the protections accorded the mostly poor people of color who are suspected or accused of crime.

I agree the article was overly self-focused but still more classy than Souter's silence or Dershbagoshits "thug" comment.

Ginsburg's comments were the epitome of class for someone who is of a very different ideological bent.