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

[DifferentDrummr]

You have yet to support your OP.
i am still waiting for you to do that.

Stop shifting the burden of proof and provide a link that supports your OP.

So you are saying that you are never heard of all of the social programs wee have that give people
free housing, free food, and either free or subsidized utilities?

are you serious?
this is all common knowledge. sources are not needed.

HUD-- provides free or reduced cost housing as well as uilities.
food stamps provides free food.

you are telling me you have never heard of these programs or are you just being obtuse?

Not what you claimed. Quit backpedaling.

Yes, federal programs exist. No, they do not help everyone who needs it. And no, private volunteers are not likely to make up the difference.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Your posts are a joke.

Get in the fight or get out of the arena.

If you would like to volunteer here in Indy, here are some good places to get off your bottom and help:

Wheeler Mission Ministries | Home | Homeless Shelters in Indianapolis

St. Vincent de Paul – Society of St. Vincent de Paul-Indianapolis Archdiocesan Council, Inc.

MENTOR Indiana - Become a Youth Mentor Today

Not what you claimed, either. All you were whining about was my post about nutrition.

Fine, here's something to back it up:

The Economics of Obesity: Why are Poor People Fat?

 

[code1211]

Not what you claimed, either. All you were whining about was my post about nutrition.

Fine, here's something to back it up:

The Economics of Obesity: Why are Poor People Fat?

Poor people are not a different species. They are human beings. "Poor people", when fat, are fat due to the same reasons as anyone else.

Do you really believe that Poor People gain weight for reasons that are different than the reasons that cause weight gain among the "the rich"?

Calories in- calories out. High sugar choices create more fat. Processed food generally delivers less nutrition by weight than more natural foods.

Making wise choices is the key. Learning which choices are the wise ones is the key. This is why volunteering is important. Only the exceptional learn when not taught. Poorer folks are generally not exceptional.

Those who are obese in poverty are making choices on WHAT TO EAT. They are NOT making choices on EATING OR NOT. Obviously.

Everybody prefers to have great outcomes. Not everybody knows how to create them.

 

[snakestretcher]

Its not that complicated. The US was not formed on the socialist utopian ideas of "everyone has a right to free ****". What the US WAS formed on and is still the driver of economic success in the US today is that people have the right to aspire to wealth and success.

BUT....

Lets make sure we are ALL perfectly clear here. I (nor any other conservative I know) am NOT opposed to you and every other like minded liberal and leftist gathering your resources and giving freely to ensure that EVERYONE can have ALL those things you profess a belief in. YOU and every other like minded leftist can pool your resources with the leftists in Hollywood and other parts of the entertainment community, with the Bill Gates of the world, Tom Steyer, Sussman, Fred Eychaner, Bloomberg, George Soros, and al the rich elected leftist politicians, sell off your largess, and give that **** away. NOTHING is stopping you. Hell...with all the leftists in this country bleating on about the virtues of socialism, one would think you would have actually ACTED on your rhetoric by now.

Since...you know...you actually BELIEVE in the **** you are spewing.

Tell me, which socialised policies give everyone the right to get things for free? I do hope you never fall on hard times because you will, naturally, forego any state aid out of principle, correct?

 

[snakestretcher]

Poor people are not a different species. They are human beings. "Poor people", when fat, are fat due to the same reasons as anyone else.

Do you really believe that Poor People gain weight for reasons that are different than the reasons that cause weight gain among the "the rich"?

Calories in- calories out. High sugar choices create more fat. Processed food generally delivers less nutrition by weight than more natural foods.

Making wise choices is the key. Learning which choices are the wise ones is the key. This is why volunteering is important. Only the exceptional learn when not taught. Poorer folks are generally not exceptional.

Those who are obese in poverty are making choices on WHAT TO EAT. They are NOT making choices on EATING OR NOT. Obviously.

Everybody prefers to have great outcomes. Not everybody knows how to create them.

When America in general has an obesity epidemic I suggest singling out poor people for making poor choices is somewhat ironic. You live in one of the least healthy countries on Earth with a 40% obesity rate (2015-2016 numbers), and getting worse. You don't have 40% poor people do you? No, you just eat too much and exercise hardly at all. Try leaving the car at home occasionally and use those things dangling off your hips to *gasp*, walk instead of wasting away. You also rely on prescription drugs far too much-and anti-depressants, in particular, are known to promote weight gain.
Adult Obesity Facts | Overweight & Obesity | CDC

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Poor people are not a different species. They are human beings. "Poor people", when fat, are fat due to the same reasons as anyone else.

Do you really believe that Poor People gain weight for reasons that are different than the reasons that cause weight gain among the "the rich"?

Calories in- calories out. High sugar choices create more fat. Processed food generally delivers less nutrition by weight than more natural foods.

Making wise choices is the key. Learning which choices are the wise ones is the key. This is why volunteering is important. Only the exceptional learn when not taught. Poorer folks are generally not exceptional.

Those who are obese in poverty are making choices on WHAT TO EAT. They are NOT making choices on EATING OR NOT. Obviously.

Everybody prefers to have great outcomes. Not everybody knows how to create them.

Your so-called "choice" rationale is BS. Poorer people usually don't HAVE the same choices that are available to the rich.

Convenience stores rarely carry fresh produce, and it might be an hour-long bus ride to the nearest store that does.

Poorer people also rarely have even the time, much less the dues, to go exercise at a gym.

You really are comparing apples and oranges here.

 

[code1211]

Your so-called "choice" rationale is BS. Poorer people usually don't HAVE the same choices that are available to the rich.

Convenience stores rarely carry fresh produce, and it might be an hour-long bus ride to the nearest store that does.

Poorer people also rarely have even the time, much less the dues, to go exercise at a gym.

You really are comparing apples and oranges here.

Everything you say is true.

I spoke to a person who was in one of the do-gooder foreign operations like the Peace Corps. On her first day in the village, one of the children was sent to get the water.

She returned with the water hours later. Turns out the water was about 5 miles away.

The American worker asked how can you go 5 miles to get water every day?

The answer was accompanied by a questioning look: "That's where the water is."

Food Deserts are a reality and that's a shame. That's also a reality. That said, though, you go to where the "water" is if you want to get the water.

 

[Luther]

It’s hard to govern effectively when the state’s finances are being strangled by the inability to raise taxes.


Proposition thirteen was a mistake

LOL!!!!

Calif has some of the highest taxes of any state!!!

Yeppers!

 

[NotreDame]

Clearly you read a book, went to a seminar, or somebody told you some half-baked analysis of what rights are, and you now treat it as gospel.

None of the above is really an argument at all; you're just throwing out random buzzwords of 'no evidence' and hoping that some of it sticks. Because I've "provided no evidence" that the text contains the letter R, you seem to feel free to assert that it doesn't. (Watch, folks: he's going to take that last sentence literally.)

Come up with an honest argument or I'll leave you to your sandbox.

Clearly, you did not attend a seminar, have not read any books, which is the problem. Your argument has many deficiencies and they are:

1. Lack of any intelligible principle, rule, or reasoning to distinguish between positive and negative rights. Your claim the provision under discussion is a positive right as opposed to a negative right is at the moment your mere opinion supported by no evidence or logical argument explaining how to distinguish between positive and negative rights, and why the provision is a positive right.

2. Your argument rests upon the assumption the prose you quoted contemplates something being provided and there is a mandate to provide that something. There is no evidence and lack of a sound argument supporting this assumption.

3. Your contention the provision you have quoted mandates the government to provide something is unsupported by any wording in the text. Conspicuously absent from the text are the words government, supply, commodity, which is to say the plain text does not support your view.

It is probably best to leave me to my sandbox, because my sandbox is one of intelligent, rational argument, valuable evidence, and that is clearly not your forte. I would be very pleased if you did not respond with unadulterated nonsense. To be sure, I am enthusiastic with the notion you may not respond at all, because your lack of rational arguments are not challenging.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Clearly, you did not attend a seminar, have not read any books, which is the problem. Your argument has many deficiencies and they are:

1. Lack of any intelligible principle, rule, or reasoning to distinguish between positive and negative rights. Your claim the provision under discussion is a positive right as opposed to a negative right is at the moment your mere opinion supported by no evidence or logical argument explaining how to distinguish between positive and negative rights, and why the provision is a positive right.

2. Your argument rests upon the assumption the prose you quoted contemplates something being provided and there is a mandate to provide that something. There is no evidence and lack of a sound argument supporting this assumption.

3. Your contention the provision you have quoted mandates the government to provide something is unsupported by any wording in the text. Conspicuously absent from the text are the words government, supply, commodity, which is to say the plain text does not support your view.

It is probably best to leave me to my sandbox, because my sandbox is one of intelligent, rational argument, valuable evidence, and that is clearly not your forte. I would be very pleased if you did not respond with unadulterated nonsense. To be sure, I am enthusiastic with the notion you may not respond at all, because your lack of rational arguments are not challenging.

So you admit (although your list demonstrates it beautifully) that you cannot come up with an honest argument. Very well: enjoy yourself. :2wave:

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Everything you say is true.

I spoke to a person who was in one of the do-gooder foreign operations like the Peace Corps. On her first day in the village, one of the children was sent to get the water.

She returned with the water hours later. Turns out the water was about 5 miles away.

The American worker asked how can you go 5 miles to get water every day?

The answer was accompanied by a questioning look: "That's where the water is."

Food Deserts are a reality and that's a shame. That's also a reality. That said, though, you go to where the "water" is if you want to get the water.

You seem to be implying that situations like these just have to be accepted.

WHY is there no plumbing going to the village? Perhaps because the local governor decided to embezzle the money to get himself a Thai sex slave instead?

Similarly, WHY are there "Food Deserts" in a country as rich as the US? Perhaps because of the corruption that Republican policies open the doors for? Granted, Republicans prefer to acquire real estate over Thai sex slaves, but you get the point.

 

[NotreDame]

So you admit (although your list demonstrates it beautifully) that you cannot come up with an honest argument. Very well: enjoy yourself. :2wave:

You are the king of illogical reasoning. You made the claim of a positive right. It is YOUR BURDEN to support that claim by evidence and argument. You haven’t done so, and insisting I make counter argument is to commit the Fallacy of Burden Shifting.

You made the claim the provision is mandating someone or something provide a commodity. The supporting premises you espoused to support the claim rest upon specific assumptions, that I’ve identified and you’ve not supported with evidence or argument. You are engaging in the Fallacy of Burden Shifting by asking for a counter argument as you make no effort to provide evidence or argument to support your assumptions.

Your posts are vacuous. I do enjoy critiquing your irrational arguments though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[code1211]

You seem to be implying that situations like these just have to be accepted.

WHY is there no plumbing going to the village? Perhaps because the local governor decided to embezzle the money to get himself a Thai sex slave instead?

Similarly, WHY are there "Food Deserts" in a country as rich as the US? Perhaps because of the corruption that Republican policies open the doors for? Granted, Republicans prefer to acquire real estate over Thai sex slaves, but you get the point.

Regarding the food deserts and the choices of the for-profit companies to not locate in the areas of high crime, violence and low profit potential, if there was money to be made and it was safe, there would be grocery stores.

This is not a major mystery and is not a political question. It is simply a question of economics.

Regarding the water, it is what it is. The little girl in the story who was traveling to get the water was not described as having inner circle access to the decision making process of "the local governor".

The point, though, is that the folks who reside in the "food deserts" in America have options unknown to folks who reside in real deserts elsewhere in the world.

In Indianapolis, urban food deserts exist, primarily, in the US Congressional 7th District represented by Andre Carson. The mayor of Indianapolis is Joe Hogsett. Both of these gentlemen are Democrats.

The political corruption you seem to detest and possess should be redefined to include a wider range of political affiliation.

Out of curiosity, how many urban food deserts nationwide are in Democrat Districts as opposed to Republican districts? Your assertion seems to indicate that the majority are in Republican districts. Link?

The slur against Republicans seems on its face to be both misplaced and unjustified. It also avoids the real problem to address regarding economics and the personal responsibility required of individuals to care for themselves.

At some point, freedom in a free society rests on free choice.

 

[Lursa]

Clearly you read a book, went to a seminar, or somebody told you some half-baked analysis of what rights are, and you now treat it as gospel.

None of the above is really an argument at all; you're just throwing out random buzzwords of 'no evidence' and hoping that some of it sticks. Because I've "provided no evidence" that the text contains the letter R, you seem to feel free to assert that it doesn't. (Watch, folks: he's going to take that last sentence literally.)

Come up with an honest argument or I'll leave you to your sandbox.

?? There were many solid concepts and arguments in there to be considered...it would be very interesting to see if actual focused responses to the OP can be argued in return...the OP is coherently challenged.... A return argument seems to be needed, not with questions, but actual statements to argue in support of the OP.

 

[Lursa]

I didn't accuse you of wrongdoing at all. I just know your habit of wanting to pull most discussions away from the main points in favor of focusing on insignificant details, mostly so you can claim, "See? I was right!"

Nothing wrong with that, but I'm really not interested in that game right now. If that's what you want, look for another jousting partner.

The trend continues:

I know...which in reality generally means, you were wrong and cannot.

It's a discussion forum, it's even your own OP...you have a regular tendency to accuse others of wrongdoing when you reach dead-ends in your claims and OPs.

The purpose of starting an OP on a discussion forum is, in reality, "to bother to support your claims and arguments."

 

[NotreDame]

Because I've "provided no evidence" that the text contains the letter R, you seem to feel free to assert that it doesn't. (Watch, folks: he's going to take that last sentence literally..

I want to address the profoundly, mind numbing, unintelligent remark above. Quite obviously, well quite obviously except for some, if the text doesn’t contain the letter R, a logical and rational deduction is the text doesn’t contain or use R and isn’t about R.

A text discussing the traffic infraction of failing to come to a complete stop at a red light is not discussing homicide, doesn’t deal with homicides, and the absence of any words or wording related to or inferring or implying or referring to homicide is evidence the text isn’t dealing with homicide.

There’s NOTHING in the text to support what you said about the text.

Your argument is empty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

Not what you claimed. Quit backpedaling.

Yes, federal programs exist. No, they do not help everyone who needs it. And no, private volunteers are not likely to make up the difference.

Yes it is what i claimed and they help all people that sign up and qualify.
you still have yet to prove you OP.

so have a nice day.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Regarding the food deserts and the choices of the for-profit companies to not locate in the areas of high crime, violence and low profit potential, if there was money to be made and it was safe, there would be grocery stores.

This is not a major mystery and is not a political question. It is simply a question of economics.

Regarding the water, it is what it is. The little girl in the story who was traveling to get the water was not described as having inner circle access to the decision making process of "the local governor".

The point, though, is that the folks who reside in the "food deserts" in America have options unknown to folks who reside in real deserts elsewhere in the world.

In Indianapolis, urban food deserts exist, primarily, in the US Congressional 7th District represented by Andre Carson. The mayor of Indianapolis is Joe Hogsett. Both of these gentlemen are Democrats.

The political corruption you seem to detest and possess should be redefined to include a wider range of political affiliation.

Out of curiosity, how many urban food deserts nationwide are in Democrat Districts as opposed to Republican districts? Your assertion seems to indicate that the majority are in Republican districts. Link?

The slur against Republicans seems on its face to be both misplaced and unjustified. It also avoids the real problem to address regarding economics and the personal responsibility required of individuals to care for themselves.

At some point, freedom in a free society rests on free choice.

If you simply dodge my question, how can you expect me to answer yours?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

I want to address the profoundly, mind numbing, unintelligent remark above. Quite obviously, well quite obviously except for some, if the text doesn’t contain the letter R, a logical and rational deduction is the text doesn’t contain or use R and isn’t about R.

A text discussing the traffic infraction of failing to come to a complete stop at a red light is not discussing homicide, doesn’t deal with homicides, and the absence of any words or wording related to or inferring or implying or referring to homicide is evidence the text isn’t dealing with homicide.

There’s NOTHING in the text to support what you said about the text.

Your argument is empty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The more you scream "no evidence" at everything you can't answer, the sillier you look. You're not making arguments at all: just throwing the same platitude repeatedly against a wall and hoping it will stick at some point.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

?? There were many solid concepts and arguments in there to be considered...it would be very interesting to see if actual focused responses to the OP can be argued in return...the OP is coherently challenged.... A return argument seems to be needed, not with questions, but actual statements to argue in support of the OP.

Since you've already dictated that you refuse to answer any questions from me, there's very clearly no point in my responding any further.

 

[Condor060]

Is that why Ford is laying off thousands of U.S. workers?

I'm sorry, did I miss it, When did Ford become the nations largest provider of jobs? Our economy is now gauged by what Ford does? Amazing.
Who da thunk

 

[code1211]

If you simply dodge my question, how can you expect me to answer yours?

You asked about the government of the village. I don't know even which country she was in and that is not the point of the story. The obvious point is the culture differences between USA convenience and luxury and third world poverty.

You made a claim that Food Deserts are the fault of Republican office holders in our government and I SHOWED you that you are absolutely wrong in the case of Indianapolis.

Was there another question that you were thinking about but did not state that you want to discuss?

 

[snakestretcher]

News Flash! The United States of America was set up as a republic based on minimal govt and self reliance. We don't believe in universal standards of living to include food, clothing and shelter controlled by govt entitites.

Does it say anything about self-reliance in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? I hope you never fall on hard times, because your refusal to accept state aid wouldn't help you. You would refuse, wouldn't you? Perhaps you could go lecture the victims of Katrina about self-reliance. I'm sure you would be warmly received.

 

[snakestretcher]

I'm sorry, did I miss it, When did Ford become the nations largest provider of jobs? Our economy is now gauged by what Ford does? Amazing.
Who da thunk

What Ford does is an economic indicator. Do you understand what that is? When companies leave America because they can make more money overseas, that is also an economic indicator.

 

[Condor060]

What Ford does is an economic indicator. Do you understand what that is? When companies leave America because they can make more money overseas, that is also an economic indicator.

Funny how you would cherry pick one to be your economic indicator. Nothing else in your world counts but Ford. Got it