Last Viewed Society Blogs (899)

Modern civilization is victimized by selfishness unfortunately in which everyone is talking and seeking about his or her own happiness and forgetting about real happiness which is related to the people around us in the shape of our family,kids ,relatives,friends,neighbors and those who need us ,but unfortunately we are too busy in chasing paper money that we are forgetting these true essences of life ,so money is guarantee of real happiness??? Think about it now

His mistake was that he picked all Democrats.

... on the issue of mass psychosis. We would be remiss if we didn't seek to understand it in the context of the (increasingly) crazy world we're living in today.

A high percentage of profiles list their occupation as "I love my job"
I love my job too, but that's not my occupation.
It's such a large percent that I'm ruling out whatever their education is.
So when they say masters degree and they are working in a grocery store making $100,000...

Something is burning!

I love my job.

Some good points made by Seth Myers;



The well known author and advice columnist has 2 witnesses that confirmed,
that she told them about the rape shortly after it happened decades ago.
But, it is far from the first accusation of such a heinous crime by Trump.

Imagine the outrage by Republicans if Obama had 22 women accuse him
of s*xual misconduct, including forceful rape. Seriously, imagine it.

Republicans literally forced Democratic Senator (and former comedian) Al Franken to resign with their feigned outrage,
because of one photo of Franken placing his hands over the breasts (not touching) of a woman asleep on a plane flight. Sure, it wasn't right, even if it was meant as a joke.
Franken apologized and resigned.

Trump on the other hand (pun intended) can almost always be counted on to do much worse things, and then lie about them.

This is not the type of person who should be representing the USA to the world.
This is not the type of person who should be in any political power position,
least of all the presidency.
He is not only totally unqualified for the position, he is morally corrupt.
Indeed, he is criminally corrupt. Anyone who supports him is indeed "deplorable", and in denial, because "you can't handle the truth".

With people living longer, the health service under pressure, house prices through the roof and Brexit - could you suggest ways we can fix broken Britain? Ideas encompassing pensions, environment, council tax, education, transport, drugs, betting, military security, housing and gambling.

So I see the Democrats latest brilliant idea is a rehash of the "reparations" proposal that crops up every now and then when the left feels that they haven't thrown enough bad ideas out there recently (how wrong they are!). One by one like lemmings all their 2020 candidates are jumping on the pandering reparations bandwagon.

I'd like to know who would figure out who receives these reparations and who pays them.

Obama is black. His father was born in Kenya, lived most of his privileged government aristocratic life there and only came to America to go to college and graduate from Harvard (oh and get married and divorced a couple of times). B. Hussein also graduated Harvard of course. Now I'll grant you that I know first hand anyone who attended Harvard is deserving of reparations, but nowhere in Obama's family background does slavery appear except maybe at the hands of his African predecessors (since black Africans invented slavery).

And Obama's mother was a white women from America born in Kansas.

Does Obama get reparations?

How about this Rhodes Scholar Kamala Harris? I saw her on TV today jumping on the reparations bandwagon. She's black. Does she qualify? Well let's see. Her mother is a Tamil Indian and her father is from Jamaica. Her mother immigrated to America in 1960 and her father in 1961, 96 years after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Does she get the deal?

And what about the descendants of white Northern abolitionists? Should they be forced to pay reparations?

Who is going to figure this all out?

How about if you are 1/4 descendant of of an abolitionist, 1/4 descendant of a slave owner, 1/4 descendant of a slave and 1/4 descendant of someone who never lived in America while slavery existed.

We are going to create a new department of government filled with actuaries, accountants and genealogists to sort it all out?

And who pays for it? My ancestors didn't live in this country when there was slavery here. They had nothing at all to do with it. They were too busy trying to survive persecution and genocide in the countries that they fled.

There isn't a single person alive today who was a slave nor anyone who owned slaves. To reward those who were never wronged by forcing those who never wronged them to compensate them is the definition of unjust.

To people who claim they would be so happy to pay "reparations" to black people, what's stopping you? Go out and find a black person and hand them a wad of your cash. I'm fine with that. But keep your grubby hands out of MY pocket. You can do whatever you want with your money, but not with mine.

Here’s another good idea. Only Democrats owned slaves. The Democrats were the party of slave owners. Republicans didn’t own slaves, the Republican Party was founded for the purpose of defeating the Democrat slave owners and abolishing slavery.

So if there are going to be reparations, clearly only Democrats should pay. I’d be fine with that too.

First, as I've written about before and some of you may know, I was an eyewitness to the Muslim terrorist attack on New York City on 9/11/2001, the most deadly attack on American soil by any foreign entity in history since the United States was established. I lost friends, I almost lost family, and I witnessed things on that day and in the months to follow that will live in my memory to my own dying day.

But that isn't what this blog is about. It's about the left's perversion of the concept of charity by commingling it with oppressive totalitarian government authority.

A couple of days ago I had the misfortune to watch Jon Stewart appear before Congress, expressing outrage that Congress has been slow to appropriate taxpayer funding to continue to pay for the costs associated with the health problems that 9/11 first responders suffered as a result of their exposure to carcinogens at the site of the attack. Indeed he was seemingly infuriated that they had to even keep asking for this funding to be renewed every so often over the 18 years since the attack. Apparently he has been a champion of this cause for some time. It sounds noble on its face, but it's not.

My first observation is that like all actors, it's hard to tell how much of his emotional outburst is real and how much is contrived, but that's also a diversion from the point so I won't discuss it here.

Helping the first responders to that attack is a worthy cause. I have sympathy for them and have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is using the power of the government to force other people to pay for it and just assuming that's okay. That's not charity, it's totalitarianism. Charity is about voluntarily contributing to a cause, not being forced to do so.

Helping first responders is a worthy cause. It has a place on the world's gigantic list of things worthy of charitable help. But it doesn't necessarily make everyone's top priority list of possible donations. Speaking for myself, for example, I have a family member who served in Afghanistan fighting against the Muslim terrorists who brought us 9/11. He was severely wounded and will need tremendous help for the rest of his life. The costs are astronomical. On my list of priorities, helping him with donations comes before the 9/11 first responders as worthy as they are. As much as I want to help them, whatever money I am forced to pay for that cause, I would rather give to my family member. Call me mean and uncompassionate, but that's the reality and I consider it my God given right to determine how I use the limited resources I've earned to donate to help others as I decide, not as someone else decides.

How about this Mr. Stewart. I'd be willing to pay for the government to do a mailing to ask for voluntary contributions from Americans and have a checklist of worthy causes to which they can voluntarily contribute instead of forcing them to pay for someone else's priority cause. What you are proposing is not charity, it's totalitarian government authority and I don't approve regardless of how worthy the cause may be. You aren't asking for donations, you are asking for people to be forced to pay for this cause because you, with your apparently superior sense of morality, have determined that it is of higher moral value than say, contributing to help for my family member. I resent that, and I am not acting when I express MY outrage towards your arrogant, coercive activities.

It's not like I'm surprised though. The left has a passion for using the government to force other people to pay for things they claim are the moral priorities everyone must abide by whether they agree with them or not. They seem to revel in the concept of forcing people to do things against their will, the opposite of the conservative value of individual liberty that this country was founded upon.

I took a trip down memory lane when I looked at some very old threads. Those who have been around here as long as I have will no doubt remember some of these members who are no longer active on this site such as;
OREGONGOLD
MONTEMONTE
TTOM50
SCUBADIVA
THERESMYFRIEND
PUR4MANCE
CUDDLINGSOUL
VENUSENVY
GLATLOL

It left me wondering whatever happened to these folks?.