Oh the Irony...

[Gary K]

Hmm, well ranting aside, there's articles 25 and 26 of The United Nations declaration of human rights:

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.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...-human-rights/

In regards to the article, then isn't it understandable why there is so much protest? Oakland isn't the only area where there's problems with affordable housing and yet some people on the far right dismiss any concerns with stuff like that and just regard anyone on the lower end of the ladder as lazy or "bums". Maybe the rich man was right to deny Lazarus scraps of food and crumbs off his table?

So a corporation had a vacant property inhabited by some single mothers. Oh, boo hoo, they must have been devastated.

You make me laugh, AB. You swear up and down you're not a Socialist and what do you do? You quote the biggest socialist organization on the planet as an authority on "rights" and morality The UN is pure socialism. It's the biggest example of rule by non-elected bureaucrats this world has ever seen. And you want them to have have power over sovereign nations as you're quoting them as "the" authority on morality and rights. As corrupt as the UN is that's just completely laughable. You've just completely destroyed your own protestations of not being a socialist. :dizzy: :hammer:

I've been waiting for you to make this mistake. Not maliciously, but just because I knew a socialist like you had to expose the depth of their belief in socialist concepts and institutions. It's also nice of you to show your disrespect for liberty, for without property rights there is zero liberty. You're a totalitarian from the ground up.

 

[Clete]

it's understandable why the incompetent find this so appealing, and why the politicians on the left find them to be such a reliable voting base

Don't know if you're aware of it, but there's been a push (by the left of course) to expand that voting demographic, the incompetent voter, by extending voting rights to children.

and of course, the illegal immigrant - the more uneducated the better

Democracy is evil. The more of it you have, the more evil the nation will become because the majority (i.e. as a group - a.k.a. the mob) is evil. God knew this way back in Genesis and the founding fathers of this country knew it too which is why they tried to limit the amount of democracy in the original government. Their mistake was to forget that a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

What we as Christians should advocate is less democracy, not more. Of course the ideal is an entirely different form of government but that's not reality. From within the context of the constitutional democratic republic that actually exists, we should push for as much republic and as little democracy as is possible. In my view that means limiting voting rights to those who own significant amount of land (i.e. an acre or more or something along those lines).

Also, there should be no professional politicians on the federal level. No one should be permitted to make their living in a position of power. Federal terms of power should be limited to one and only one term and then whoever sat in that seat of power can never be elected to any federal office ever again - period. The number of years of a single term would likely need to be longer than they currently are because otherwise our ability to negotiate trade deals and treaties and to otherwise deal with other governments would be severely weakened. This, however, is a fundamental flaw in the form of government we find ourselves in anyway and so, without completely changing the form of government, this issue can only be mitigated, not fixed. Indeed, it is precisely this issue that has given rise to what has come to be called the "deep state" and since the problem is innate to the actual form of government that exists in the U.S. no president will ever succeed in ridding us of it entirely. It's like trying to rid the beach of sea foam while keeping the surf. It cannot be done.

 

[Right Divider]

In my view that means limiting voting rights to those who own significant amount of land (i.e. an acre or more or something along those lines).

While I generally agree with you. I don't like the idea that you want to take away my right to vote, since my land is only about a third of an acre.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The United Nations declaration of human rights? You have got to be kidding me!

Of course, you're not kidding though, right?!

If you want to know why every post I make in response to virtually anything you say is laced with insults, this post can stand as a perfect explanation.

Every actual argument ANYONE makes that you bother to respond to at all is met this sort of completely pure stupidity!

And I mean that literally! You are flatly stupid! There can be no other rational explanation.

You deserve whatever you get. You have only your own stupidity to blame for whatever disaster befalls you.

:wave2:

Well, the reason why you lace posts with insults would seem to be because you have nothing of substance to offer, just declaration and a whole bunch of shouting. If you disagree with the articles then instead of acting like someone who constantly seems to foam at the mouth then set out why, otherwise you're just on yet another boring rant.

Some of the attitudes in the far right fundamentalism camp would have people like Lazarus be called a bum simply for begging for scraps of food, so your assessment of intelligence or stupidity mean absolutely squat.

I don't wish any sort of "disaster" to befall you in turn as you would seem to maliciously hope for me.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

You make me laugh, AB. You swear up and down you're not a Socialist and what do you do? You quote the biggest socialist organization on the planet as an authority on "rights" and morality The UN is pure socialism. It's the biggest example of rule by non-elected bureaucrats this world has ever seen. And you want them to have have power over sovereign nations as you're quoting them as "the" authority on morality and rights. As corrupt as the UN is that's just completely laughable. You've just completely destroyed your own protestations of not being a socialist. :dizzy: :hammer:

I've been waiting for you to make this mistake. Not maliciously, but just because I knew a socialist like you had to expose the depth of their belief in socialist concepts and institutions. It's also nice of you to show your disrespect for liberty, for without property rights there is zero liberty. You're a totalitarian from the ground up.

I'm no such thing as a "totalitarian" or whatever label you want to compartmentalize people into. I agree with both articles quoted in relation to basic human rights that I believe people should have. If you differ then set out why, don't just blow smoke and toss out labels that you want to pigeonhole people into.

 

[ok doser]

I agree with both articles quoted in relation to basic human rights that I believe people should have. .

ok, let's consider this one:

Article 25.(1) Everyone has the right to ... housing ....

and then let's consider this:

At least 320,000 homeless people in Britain, says Shelter Charity says figure for England, Scotland and Wales is likely to be underestimate https://www.theguardian.com/society/...n-says-shelter

how many of those 320,000 homeless people are you hosting right now in your house?

and why are you denying the "right" of the rest to live with you?

 

[Gary K]

I'm no such thing as a "totalitarian" or whatever label you want to compartmentalize people into. I agree with both articles quoted in relation to basic human rights that I believe people should have. If you differ then set out why, don't just blow smoke and toss out labels that you want to pigeonhole people into.

I see you also have reading comprehension issues. I gave you my reasons.

It's also nice of you to show your disrespect for liberty, for without property rights there is zero liberty.

There is a name for a person who has had his right to own and control his own property taken away from him. He's called a slave. So what you are in effect advocating is slavery.

And, that idea is the one of the base tenets of Marxism. Remember, from each according to his own ability. That means if a person is capable of earning more than his absolute necessities marxists would take the rest of his property away from him. That's exactly what you're advocating by saying those who have property they aren't using at the moment should lose control of it and others who didn't earn it should just be able to commandeer it at will. You are advocating marxism right down the line. You have done this repeatedly on multiple occasions and on multiple issues that are marxist issues. Thus, you hold the basic tenets of marxism to be true. In other words, you are a marxist/socialist but supposedly can't even realize it.

That you can't see the evil in this practice is amazing. It's back to the days of serf and royalty where the royalty, i.e, government, takes away anything above subsistence level living from the population. It's the equality of slavery and poverty in society with the "elite" owning everything and taking everything at their own whim. That is the destination that is being aimed at by those you follow.

Here's a little something for you from one of greatest political minds of all time, Alexis de Tocqueville.

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm no such thing as a "totalitarian" or whatever label you want to compartmentalize people into.

:rotfl:

 

[Clete]

While I generally agree with you. I don't like the idea that you want to take away my right to vote, since my land is only about a third of an acre.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'd lose the right to vote also.

Can you imagine the how high the demand for land would be? You'd really have to want to have skin in the game!

 

[Clete]

I'm no such thing as a "totalitarian" or whatever label you want to compartmentalize people into. I agree with both articles quoted in relation to basic human rights that I believe people should have. If you differ then set out why, don't just blow smoke and toss out labels that you want to pigeonhole people into.

Someone already told you why. You thought it was a rant, you slobering moron!

 

[Arthur Brain]

I see you also have reading comprehension issues. I gave you my reasons.



There is a name for a person who has had his right to own and control his own property taken away from him. He's called a slave. So what you are in effect advocating is slavery.

And, that idea is the one of the base tenets of Marxism. Remember, from each according to his own ability. That means if a person is capable of earning more than his absolute necessities marxists would take the rest of his property away from him. That's exactly what you're advocating by saying those who have property they aren't using at the moment should lose control of it and others who didn't earn it should just be able to commandeer it at will. You are advocating marxism right down the line. You have done this repeatedly on multiple occasions and on multiple issues that are marxist issues. Thus, you hold the basic tenets of marxism to be true. In other words, you are a marxist/socialist but supposedly can't even realize it.

That you can't see the evil in this practice is amazing. It's back to the days of serf and royalty where the royalty, i.e, government, takes away anything above subsistence level living from the population. It's the equality of slavery and poverty in society with the "elite" owning everything and taking everything at their own whim. That is the destination that is being aimed at by those you follow.

Here's a little something for you from one of greatest political minds of all time, Alexis de Tocqueville.

Hmm, your "reasons" are bat crazy and your desire to label anyone a "Marxist" who doesn't step in line with your own beliefs has been all too evident. You tried this same garbage with anna and were schooled in the ignorance of it time and again. If you want to label people and assume what they think then knock yourself out but there's no reason to take you seriously. May as well be getting "lectured" by Alex Jones...

:rain:

 

[ok doser]

Hmm, your "reasons" are bat crazy and your desire to label anyone a "Marxist" who doesn't step in line with your own beliefs has been all too evident. You tried this same garbage with anna and were schooled in the ignorance of it time and again. If you want to label people and assume what they think then knock yourself out but there's no reason to take you seriously. May as well be getting "lectured" by Alex Jones...

:rain:

congratulations

you manage to formulate a complete response without addressing a single point ffreeloader made


that means you lose

 

[Arthur Brain]

Someone already told you why. You thought it was a rant, you slobering moron!

Well, no he didn't and considering their propensity for hyperbole and weakness for conspiracy theories it's hardly surprising he was off base,. Of course it was a rant on your behalf, same as the end of your post here. Childish shouting and tedious name calling, hardly the product of an intelligent and reasoned mind. Not healthy to be so angry all the time either really...

Meantime, you haven't addressed anything and still waiting as to whether Lazarus was just some work shy "bum" who deserved his lot in life?

 

[Arthur Brain]

:rotfl:

Wow, you're easily amused. By what though is anyone's guess.

 

[God's Truth]

Well, no he didn't and considering their propensity for hyperbole and weakness for conspiracy theories it's hardly surprising he was off base,. Of course it was a rant on your behalf, same as the end of your post here. Childish shouting and tedious name calling, hardly the product of an intelligent and reasoned mind. Not healthy to be so angry all the time either really...

Meantime, you haven't addressed anything and still waiting as to whether Lazarus was just some work shy "bum" who deserved his lot in life?

Lazarus not being a thief is what allowed him to go to Abraham.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Lazarus not being a thief is what allowed him to go to Abraham.

Nobody was saying he was a thief to begin with but plenty seem to look down on people like Lazarus who was homeless and begging.

 

[God's Truth]

Nobody was saying he was a thief to begin with but plenty seem to look down on people like Lazarus who was homeless and begging.

...but the thread is about someone just taking over property that isn't theirs.

 

[Arthur Brain]

...but the thread is about someone just taking over property that isn't theirs.

So why make a point about Lazarus if that's all you're bothered about?

 

[ok doser]

... plenty seem to look down on people like Lazarus who was homeless and begging.

in this thread? :freak:

 

[God's Truth]

So why make a point about Lazarus if that's all you're bothered about?

You are the one who brought up Lazarus as some kind of defense for the women stealing space in a home that isn't theirs.