yeah well, you obviously have very weak moral fortitudes, sorry to hear your spirit got broken because the supreme court didn't rule your way. When you were listening to the audio report about what's wrong with America, did they mention you by name? or just in general?
You may not know this; BUT you have to sign up for SS. It does not come to anyone automatically. And the size of what you get is in a range that you chose from. SS uses what they think you told the government you earned. The Government record keeping doesn't work. It is very funny to look at what they have on file. For some reason they ask you to sign off that they have it correct. If you fail to sign up at the time they want, then you get a time penalty as well.
well then I aint gonna get shit. I never told them nuthin. Everything they know about me they had to find out for themselves.
My own contribution to self-righteousness: going over this thread I see by way of the quoting mechanism that a certain idiot (in the original sense of the word; look it up and you'll see what I mean) posted that in a republic, property rights take precedence over democracy, or something. Really? Every gov't on the planet has a law that condemns properties for the public good, for putting up highways, forts, stuff like that. What is true, if said idiot had read his Machiavelli, is that property rights are far more respected in republics than they are in dictatorships; even before communism that was true. It's also far more true in the US/Canada/western Europe/Japan/Anzac/India (much to their sorrow when trying to put in the necessary infrastructure to make that country a little less of a hellhole) than it is elsewhere, like, say, China or Russia, precisely because China/Russia are still dictatorships (soft in the Russian case, but still a dictatorship) while all those others are republics. In republics, it's mostly though not always true that what's yours is yours; in dictatorships, OTOH, what's yours is ALWAYS negotiable. As Machiavelli observed a long long time ago.
it means we have laws supposedly written when we were of sound mind and body, and even when the the mob votes in their democracy to violate my constitutional rights, hopefully the governmnent (namely the Supreme Court) steps in and says no.
Not referring to you here, but to that other guy, the original definition of idiot, in Wikipedia, which got it right for this one (and yes, the SC's purpose is partially to ensure that individual flaming examples of same who can convince a mob don't thereby restrict or destroy the rights of the remaining citizenry):
Birds of a feather? (also, you sure you're not The Tin Man/Scarecrow/Cowardly Lion? You know what I mean, I'm sure...)
In the universe where real people live, where laws are skewed in favor of the law writers and those who pay them. On its own, the "rule of law" has no moral content whatsoever. It can be good, it can be middling, it can be down right evil and oppressive.
no kidding, there is a big gap between the Declaration of Independence, and about six years later a legal document written by lawyers to protect white land owners that they call the "Constitution." hell, for a while that damn constitution wouldn't even let me buy beer.