A regular commenter on blogs commented on mine a few days ago.What he commented revealed everything there is to know about the extreme leftist attitude toward The United States of America.
He goes by the name "Ducky," and is a rank liberal/progressive.
First of all he challenged my contention that bus drivers in Wisconsin are being paid extremely high wages, some into the $100 thousand dollar range and up.
He ridiculed the concept as impossible and demanded that I produce evidence of such a delusional thought.
When I produced evidence of same, he failed to respond.
An honest person would have said something like, "Wow! I never realized that!"
But not Ducky.
He did what he always does when presented with facts: he ran and hid.
There was a particular one-liner he made that really caught my eye.
He said, "Rights are whatever we as a culture decide they are. "
Lots of people think like that.
Those people, like Ducky, would have sided with the Red Coats early on in our history, for they do not believe, as did Thomas Jefferson, that certain rights are unalienable (remember the Declaration of Independence: "...that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?").
Today, those same people's ideological descendants still believe in the morally relativistic dogma that "rights are whatever we as a culture decide they are."
What these people don't get, is that real rights are NOT whatever we as a culture decide they are. They are unalienable. They are God given.
That one does not happen to believe in God is irrelevant, much like not believing in lightning is irrelevant...it doesn't matter what you believe, you will not change the fact that lightning exists, nor will you change the fact that God exists.
The happenings in Egypt, Libya and other places demonstrate that deep in the heart of every man, woman and child who ever has lived, who lives today and who ever will live beats a desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It is only the despots of the world who restrict and deny them those rights that they have but are not allowed to enjoy.
As usual, the Duckster has demonstrated, as he always does, that he is incapable of rational, linear thinking and is nothing more than a pseudo-philosophical sophomore, seeking to vomit out figments of his infertile imagination.
I think of him as a pathological, putrid piece of protoplasm whose prime purpose on this painful path of pedantic progress is to pause and ponder pathetic platitudes.
Come on, Duck...you're not too old to open your mind and actually learn something are you?
Maybe so.
17 comments:
I am very happy to say that I have never been engaged with a conversation with Ducky. Nor do I want to.
I have read some of his comments on other blogs and he tends to eschew the topic at hand or misconstrues it.
I wonder if this quack believes that slavery and segregation were rights, just because "we as a society" decided they were. And by "we," I mean democrats. Of course, along came those fascist Republicans and stomped all over their rights.
The liberals' greatest success was removing God from our chain of command. If rights come from the government and not the Creator, than there is no such thing as an inalienable right. The government can take away any right they want. And worse, they can make up any right they want. Right to kill your unborn baby, right to food, right to a minimum wage, right to be a sexual pervert, right to housing, it just goes on and on with these leftist parasites. As we see in Wisconsin, they will never be satisfied.
Leticia: The only thing you've missed is the joy of being called stupid by someone who thinks he is all wise.
LR: I only wish he would exercise his right to remain silent!
But you nailed the point of the post, which was not Ducky, himself, but the attitude of the leftist/liberal/progressives.
He goes by the name "Ducky," and is a rank liberal/progressive.
With a name like that, what would anyone expect.
nomadium: Thanks for the visit. Yeah, what WOULD one expect?
"[H]e is incapable of rational, linear thinking and is nothing more than a pseudo-philosophical sophomore, seeking to vomit out figments of his infertile imagination."
Mostly correct. I would add he doesn't speak from his own imagination. Rather he spouts Liberal talking points he heard from various other Liberals. None of which are original.
As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."
Irresponsibility and moral relativism are two hallmarks of liberalism.
Ducky sounds like he needs some serious help. I can live without Ducky.
The constitution is just an unfortunate impediment as far as people like Ducky is concerned.
The Duckys of the world are everywhere these days. Mostly protesting in front of the capitol building in Wisconsin, as they love to hop on buses and grab picket signs that anybody hands them.
The Duckys of the world only need a slogan that falls off the lips easily, like 'FOX LIES!' and they scream it over and over.
I don't let the Duckys of the world have any portion of a forum on my site, as they would just befoul it with their idiocy.
Putrid protoplasm, spot on Joe.
Joe, not knowing a better place to say it, I'll try here.
Regarding your post on the bus driver's wages and Ducky's response, it should be noted that while your figure of $150K seems to be accurate, at least according to your source article, the same article also explains how we get to that figure.
The recipient had to work an average of 75 hours a week for the entire year. That of course included overtime at time and a half for hours over 40 each week, a pretty normal occurrence in a lot of places.
So while it seems high at first blush, as usual, the devil is in the details.
But I might ask, why would any conservative begrudge someone working almost double time so that he, or she can feed his, or her family?
Isn't that the American way?
DM: I don't begrudge anybody anything.
I think any person who is willing to do what it takes to earn whatever he wants to earn should be allowed to earn it. Without having to have a large portion of it taken away by an entity that produces nothing: the government.
That includes very, very rich people.
But the expenditure of public money is a public trust, and public sector unions violate that trust...a trust that belongs to the people, not to the unions.
I don't care one whit what private sector unions do, but public sector unions, such as SEIU have an intrinsic obligation to be dilligent about how and when public money is spent.
You hear on MSM that the governor is trying to break the union.
That is patently false.
What he IS trying to do is to get them to relinquish their "collective bargning" power over pensions and benefits, things that are not owed or earned, just given.
To SEIU, "collective barganing" means "give us what we want or Cousin Vito will visit you in the form of a strike against the public.
Bad stuff.
Really bad stuff.
I've been thinking about unions in general, and I've come to the conclusion that we don't really need unions at all anymore.
When the first unions were instituted, there was a crying need for organization. Children were being forced to work. Workers were being treated as little more than slaves. Company bosses were taking advantage of employees because the employees were more or less locked into their jobs for life. There was no recourse for the American worker then.
But since then, The United States have formed the various Wage and hour control boards, and all industry, including labor relations between management and employee is strictly regulated.
What can unions do that the government can't do, now?
Union leaders have become nothing more than extortionists and thieves. We don't need them. They have outlived their usefulness.
Joe, I guess you and will have to disagree. I believe that if an employer, whether it be a state, or a private company, agrees to give an employee a salary, benefits, and/or a pension, in exchange for his work, it is indeed earned.
I also believe that if a government agrees to a certain set of conditions, it has a responsibility to live up to those agreed conditions.
Now in the case of Wisconsin, the union has agreed to every giveback the Governor said the state needed to tackle the deficit.
In other words, they agreed to do their fair share, and be part of the solution.
But the governor says that is not enough. He wants this particular union to relinquish their agreed upon collective bargaining rights.
But only this union. I find it funny that if the Gov believes public unions are such a big part of the problem, he is not willing to push for the elimination of these same rights for firefighters and police.
He is in fact trying to destroy this particular union. Ideological consistency would argue for an approach that takes on the public unions that supported his candidacy, bu8t we have not seen that, have we?
Now, if you would provide some evidence that the average bus drivers salary is anything near 150,000 you might have something.
What you have is a single driver working 80 hour weeks. You find examples of this in ant industry.
Come on Joe, you're jealous because you aren't paid crap. That's what happens with no unions down there in cracker land.
... besides , what do you care about wages in Wisconsin, you live in Florida.
You get what you pay for down there.
DM: In principle, I agree. But we are in hard times. I lost a job because of the economy, and that was after I had voluntaraly "given back" as much as I could. The business just couldn't keep going.
Ducky: I am not the least bit jealous. I took my present job knowing the pay, benefits, etc.
I would never consider it my "right" to tell my employer what to pay me.
If I don't like what I am earning, I can go elsewhere (though not so easily in this economy).
I don't even begrude my neighbor earning as much as he wants to earn, even if it makes him a millionaire and I stay in my little lower-middle-income bracket.
But thank you for your deep concern for my wellbeing down here in Sunny Florida.
We are a United States, and what happens in one state often happens in others.
We in Florida have the second or third worse housing market in the nation and our governor is trying to find ways to cut our budget, too.
Is he facing opposition from those who just want to go deeper and deeper in debt? You bet he is.
So...what's ahead for Florida, another Wisconsin?
Post a Comment