No Fault Evictions

[woodieallen]

But if you are eating junk food and living in poor conditions then you will be more susceptible to health conditions, also was it not found that obesity was linked to the poorer regions so another issue.

You can eat cheaper and better if you cook a proper meal yourself. Regardless of where you live.

 

[Jacob]

Who said they are evil?

You did. You are equating them with your apocalyptic view of Marxism.

 

[Spectric]

You can eat cheaper and better if you cook a proper meal yourself. Regardless of where you live.

Going back to good old living when it was the norm to actually prepare and cook food in the home but for many that is a lost art and hence why so many takeaways and ready meals. You hear the excuse that "oh we don't have the time" which is just nonsense, all it takes is some planing but then when you look around so many are just making life difficult simply through their own actions.

 

[BC'er]

You did. You are equating them with your apocalyptic view of Marxism.

Show us where I said that Jacob.

"Apocalyptic"? No, an apocalypse is a singular event. The mind-numbing and soul-destroying misery of socialist states continues for decades until they either collapse under the weight of their inherent contradictions or are violently overthrown as in say, Cambodia or Romania.

Now what about the questions I asked in my last post? Elephantophobia?

 

[Jacob]

Show us where I said that Jacob.

"Apocalyptic"? No, an apocalypse is a singular event.

Not grammatical. Did you mean "the apocalypse will be a singular event"?
"Apocalyptic" is OK and makes sense though. It matches your tub-thumping fundamentalist style.

The mind-numbing and soul-destroying misery of socialist states continues for decades until they either collapse under the weight of their inherent contradictions or are violently overthrown as in say, Cambodia or Romania.

Neither Cambodia or Romania were remotely socialist, in the European sense of the idea. They'd probably call themselves Marxixt/Leninist or similar, though I doubt Marx or Lenin would have been happy to take the blame!
Britain is a socialist state - to varying degrees. Peaked in 1945 with the Attlee government and major socialist reforms mostly still with us, successful and highly regarded, though somewhat under threat at the moment.

USA was founded on socialism. You should read Thomas Paine.
I lifted this from the web:

Many people see the term "socialist" and run scared without doing much research on "democratic socialism". Several of the country's early leaders were of a democratic socialist persuasion as seen in their laws and literature, although the "ism" terms did not really exist when this country was developed. Remember: the preamble of the US Constitution sets out the objectives of this country and the Bill of Rights and Amendments are only "add ons" to implement the preamble. Our forefathers were very much against the domination of the moneyed class (their term was "aristocracy"). Alexander Hamilton believed that taxes were a necessity. George Washington believed in "liberality". At the time of our country's birth, liberals were those who believed in developing a country for the people and away from the kind of money dominance of big banks, corporations and aristocracy in Great Britain. Conservatives supported the British rule and the dominance of a "monied class". During the early stages of the United States, corporations were limited and licensed. “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” — Thomas Jefferson.

Hope that helps!

 

[BC'er]

In that case it would be the apocalypse

Neither Cambodia or Romania were remotely socialist, in the European sense of the idea. They'd probably call themselves Marxixt/Leninist or similar, though I doubt Marx or Lenin would have accepted that!
Britain is a socialist state - to varying degrees. Peaked in 1945 with the Attlee government and major socialist reforms mostly still with us, successful and highly regarded, though somewhat under threat at the moment

USA was founded on socialism. You should read Thomas Paine.
I lifted this from the web:

Many people see the term "socialist" and run scared without doing much research on "democratic socialism". Several of the country's early leaders were of a democratic socialist persuasion as seen in their laws and literature, although the "ism" terms did not really exist when this country was developed. Remember: the preamble of the US Constitution sets out the objectives of this country and the Bill of Rights and Amendments are only "add ons" to implement the preamble. Our forefathers were very much against the domination of the moneyed class (their term was "aristocracy"). Alexander Hamilton believed that taxes were a necessity. George Washington believed in "liberality". At the time of our country's birth, liberals were those who believed in developing a country for the people and away from the kind of money dominance of big banks, corporations and aristocracy in Great Britain. Conservatives supported the British rule and the dominance of a "monied class". During the early stages of the United States, corporations were limited and licensed. “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” — Thomas Jefferson.

Hope that helps!

Yes, you did write "..the apocalyptic..." and of course what I mentioned in my last post is indeed the definition of the term. Your use of it is incorrect usage.

I've read Paine, and others including Jefferson. In fact I was reading quotations from one his letters while sitting on the toilet yesterday.

There is nothing even slightly "socialist" in the foundation of the United States, though the Founding Fathers as they call them, believed in the perfectibility of man and similar tripe. An ideal which conveniently lacked both a definition and a timeline making it unnecessary to give up slavery or slave mistresses for example, while allowing a pleasing self-conceit that certainly comes through in Jefferson's writings.

But to return to your anonymous paragraph from the Net, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" along with "Common Sense" and "The Rights of Man" have less than nothing in common with socialism of any kind, as you of course well know. It is fundamentally individualistic philosophy and culture shot through with a profound and well-justified inherent distrust of government of every kind and then at least, a determination to ensure that it's pwers were minutely defined and strictly controlled. The antithesis of socialist thinking of every kind.

What's your next diversion?

 

[Jacob]

....

What's your next diversion?

Probably to press the ignore button. You seem to be a slightly hysterical tub-thumping fundamentalist with nothing interesting to say.