The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Are you single and looking? Then join and meet others like you!
Latest Activity: Nov 21
Started by Heather McIntosh. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck Sep 8.
Started by Michael Pianko. Last reply by Michael Pianko Sep 7.
Started by Michael. Last reply by king Apr 28.
Started by Rachel Melinek. Last reply by Rachel Melinek Feb 8.
Started by A Former Member. Last reply by Floyd Jack Jan 1.
Started by A Former Member. Last reply by Michael OL Feb 22, 2013.
Started by Michael Pianko. Last reply by Shannon Equality Barber Jan 28, 2013.
Started by Keith Brian Johnson Jan 1, 2013.
Started by Steph S.. Last reply by Bud the Wonderer Dec 11, 2012.
Started by Robert Affinis. Last reply by Kalliope Wörter Nov 28, 2012.
Started by Xtian Cousineau. Last reply by Joseph P Oct 13, 2012.
Started by Harridan20. Last reply by Tonya Wynn Oct 13, 2012.
Started by Nayr Namel. Last reply by Nayr Namel Aug 28, 2012.
Started by Maruli Marulaki. Last reply by MolotovDerp Aug 23, 2012.
Started by Heather Geraghty. Last reply by MolotovDerp Aug 23, 2012.
Started by Shannon Equality Barber. Last reply by Shannon Equality Barber Aug 8, 2012.
Started by melanie.brewster. Last reply by Joseph P Jul 9, 2012.
Started by Harridan20. Last reply by brian Jun 27, 2012.
Started by Peter Nothnagle Jun 24, 2012.
Started by Kelly M. Last reply by Harridan20 Jun 23, 2012.
Never in sufficient quantity, and there are so often strings attached. Do you really want the church to be the primary supporter of social welfare? They're the second highest contributor, after government, and they always provide it as a means to force-feed their religion to the poor.
I thought you were an atheist. You seem to completely miss the fact that damned near all of your political ideals will benefit religion.
This is the biggest thing that pisses me off about atheistic Libertarians. They never think through their ideals to discover the likely end-result. Government should be results-based. All they have are unsupported assertions of what is the best way to govern, with neither a justification for their ideals, nor a plan for implementing those ideals. They're also woefully ignorant of the fact that their policies will bring back the days of the 1800's, of the Robber Baron corporations and mass poverty. They would turn the US into a Third World country.
No. When your religion is drilling into your head from birth that you're supposed to go forth and be fruitful, and damn the ability to pay for them, then you're going to end up with lots of children ... who will grow up in poverty, be more ignorant, and be less useful to society.
Because she was probably a slave. Even if not, sex is built into us by Evolution. Without contraception, you're going to have children, particularly back in those days.
Her children were sold into slavery. I think you missed a great deal of what the article was saying. She was an old, black woman who had no family and no social support to help her in her old age.
Heh, no, you're not theorizing anything. You're making up pure bullshit and making yourself look foolish. There were no tax credits for children, back in 1896, never mind much earlier than that, when she would have had her children.
Go back and read the article again, man.
i know that aunt winnie predated the new deal. i have no idea when the government started subsidizing having children i was merely "theorizing" that the new deal was a government response to problems created by the government. actually im sure that government interference caused the problem and they tried to fix that problem with more government interference.
i did read the article.
i fucked up on who plagarized who. my bad.
I strongly suspect you didn't even read the first page of that article, Patrick. Or if you did you didn't digest it well enough given your rant about the income tax & federal tax deductions when the charity account of Aunt Winnie was from 1896 - 1899, thus predating the federal income tax, the Square Deal, and the New Deal.
Also if plagiarism happened then it would mean John Kennedy plagiarized Glover Cleveland's comment, not vice versa.
agreed. sounds like he is plagerising kennedy's 'ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country' quote. fuck asking what i can do for my country.
""We used to be here. In fact, Grover Cleveland has this excellent statement. In 1887, President Cleveland said, 'Though the people may support their government, the government shall not support the people,'" Lehman responded."
Wait, what? Holy crap. He's actually holding that up as a statement of virtue?
Here, read this. It breaks down what life was like for people prior to the New Deal coming to fruition.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
© 2014 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.