|
Well, I'm happy to judged on my merits and my flaws.
Anyone that can look at another human being as subhuman is deeply messed up.
I don't care what time period.
Furthermore, these men had access to the same explicit frameworks of morality that I use. Jefferson even studied it explicitly.
They all agonized and rationalized what they did with respect to slavery. In other words *they* knew it was wrong, and *they* did it anyway.
Frankly, I'm not here for the knee jerk reverence of long dead monsters.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh gosh, what am I doing? I said I wouldn't respond on this thread. I'm a bit sleepy right now, and forgetting myself (again). I'm out.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting Humpty Dumpty like interpretation of "sociopath".
Here's a modern definition:
"a person who is completely unable or unwilling to behave in a way that is acceptable to society"
Whatever he was by 21C Western woke standards, by the standards of his day his behaviour wasn't considered unacceptable to that society, nor was it illegal so he wasn't a sociopath.
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting Humpty Dumpty like interpretation of "sociopath".
Here's a modern definition:
"a person who is completely unable or unwilling to behave in a way that is acceptable to society"
Whatever he was by 21C Western woke standards, by the standards of his day his behaviour wasn't considered unacceptable to that society, nor was it illegal so he wasn't a sociopath.
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting Humpty Dumpty like interpretation of "sociopath".
Here's a modern definition:
"a person who is completely unable or unwilling to behave in a way that is acceptable to society"
Whatever he was by 21C Western woke standards, by the standards of his day his behaviour wasn't considered unacceptable to that society, nor was it illegal so he wasn't a sociopath.
|
|
|
|
|
for the record, honey, that is such a serious distortion of reality it's breathtaking.
stop repeating what you learned in government schools.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, man. I should repeat all the stuff from youtube videos with the title "Truth Exposed"
Or you know, I could just read Jefferson's own words in his own memoirs (I have)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Point taken and I'm not defending any state hitting the federal tit. Illinois and California is coming soon for OSM "other states' money" to bail out their pension plans.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
California and Illinois are financial (and political) messes. There is no denying that. Neither is on course to correct their issues but…
Do yourself a favor and Google for a list of US states whose citizens pay more in federal taxes than their states receive back from the feds. California and Illinois have been in the top 5 for decades and decades. In other words… other states routinely have been taking their money for 40+ years. Think of this as simple payback.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: 4. No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
so? It's not a family money pot
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Really? Then why have Cali and Illinois gotten screwed for decades while “poor” southern states suck on the federal teat?
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm, no. I disagree completely with your assertion.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not being lazy at all. I still find it hysterical that New York needs disaster assistance with a snow storm.
The fed has grown so large and dominate that it's become ridiculous. But that wasn't the point of my original post.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
By that logic, I hope you find it ridiculous that the southern states need help with hurricanes.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: I still find it hysterical that New York needs disaster assistance with a snow storm.
What exactly would you consider a legitimate usage for disaster relief?
The following have all been impacting communities since the United States existed: Fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes.
The first US federal assistance was in 1802 for a fire.
The disaster relief act of 1969 says the following
extensive property loss and damage as a result of recent major disasters including,
but not limited to, hurricanes, storms, floods, and high waters and wind-driven waters
So it does not include fire. But it does include storms which would include snow (and tornadoes.) It also says "but not limited to" so presumably fires as well.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been asked to refrain from political discussion in the forum, which was really not my intent. I was born in New York. If you live in the north, deal with the snow, and honestly it was completely overhyped.
That said, there really is no limit to people's desire to spend other people's money. When you take money from all and selectively give it to "those in need", you are on dangerous ground. Imagine if I were to come by and take your money to a need I thought was sufficient on my own merit? Now if I could convince you to be charitable, that's your decision.
But in reality, I just thought it was hysterical New York can't handle snow. That was the context of my OP. Nothing more. Just remember, Congress hasn't passed a real budget in decades - because they are spending other peoples money... that's all.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: I've been asked to refrain from political discussion in the forum...
That said, there really is no limit to people's desire to spend other people's money ...I just thought it was hysterical New York can't handle snow.
Ok. But I didn't ask anything at all about that.
What I asked was what you considered, if anything, a legitimate disaster for which one could designate it as such.
|
|
|
|
|
go back to the original post... but don't worry about it.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: go back to the original post.
I read all of them. No clarity from that to answer my question.
Certainly the original disaster designation for a 'fire' was something that cities had been dealing with for centuries. Back then, far as I have seen, every city was a potential fire bomb just waiting to go off.
The follow on legislation specifically added storms. For which this fits. Storms of course vary by location but it is certainly true that Gulf states experience hurricanes and midwest states experience tornadoes. And many places experience snow storms. And of course floods. All of those have existed for a very long time.
So back to my original question - are none of them disasters? So the legislation should have never existed in the first place?
Or there is some specific recent even that you accept is a disaster and as such would qualify for Federal designation?
|
|
|
|
|
If states all received back what they pay in federal taxes the federal taxes would just be local taxes by another route.
There's a clue in the name "United" States of America. "United" means inter alia helping each other, otherwise you may as well have 50 small countries each paying their own way, in global terms some moderately important, many insignificant.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree 100% - which is why I was defending California & Illinois.
|
|
|
|
|
Your statement makes a lot of sense and I agree 100%.
But anyway, I think better not to reignite the fire here 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: 4. No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
