Liberal politics are a lose-lose situation

[Bfgrn]

But they're not going to be able to stay fat and have stuff when the money is gone, are they?
Once you've destroyed our capitalist system, the money dries up.

See... that's the difference between socialists and capitalists. Socialists figure that there's only so much pie and everyone should have a little slice. Capitalists understand that we can always make more pie.

So you're in favor of the poor living like animals the way they do in third-world shit holes.

No thanks, you go live in your conservative utopia, I'll stick with what we have right here.

God Bless America!]

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it?

Let me simplify... you can't fund any programs to help the poor when you have NO MONEY. No capitalism = No money.

Save it for St Peter...I'm sure He is a 'capitalist'...

When you are in the political world, you have decisions to make every single day about who you will try to help and who you won't. In spite of the earnest quest of good technocrats everywhere, the simple fact is that there are only a few win-win solutions. Who you tax, who you give a tax break to, what programs you cut or add to, who you tighten regulations on, and who you loosen them on, what kind of contractors are eligible for government work, which school districts and non-profit groups get federal money, etc: these political decisions are generally not win-win. Instead, they mean that one group of people win, and one group of people loses. It is the nature of politics, and you can't take the politics out of politics.

The most fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives is that question of which side you are on. Conservatives believe that the rich and powerful got that way because they deserve to be, that society owes its prosperity to the prosperous, and that government's job when they have to make choices is to side with those businesspeople who are doing well, because all good things trickle down from them. Progressives, on the other hand, believe it is the poor and those who are ill-treated who need the most help from their government, and that prosperity comes from all of us -- the worker as well as the employer, the consumer as well as the seller, the struggling entrepreneur trying to make it as well as the wealthy who already have.

Jesus' main concern in terms of the people whose fates he cared about was for the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast. Comment after comment and story after story in the Gospels about Jesus relates to the treatment of the poor, generosity to those in need, mercy to the outcast, and scorn for the wealthy and powerful. And his philosophy is embedded with the central importance of taking care of others, loving others, treating others as you would want to be treated. There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no "greed is good," there is no invisible hand of the market or looking out for Number One first. There is nothing about poor people being lazy, nothing about the undeserving poor being leeches on society, nothing about how I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps so everyone else should, too. There is nothing about how in nature, "the lions eat the weak," and therefore we shouldn't help the poor because it weakens them. There is nothing about charity or welfare corrupting a person's spirit.

What there is: quote after quote about compassion for the poor. In Jesus' very first sermon of his ministry, the place where he launched his public career, he stated the reason he had come: to bring good news to the poor, liberty to the captives, to help the oppressed go free, and that he was here to proclaim a year of favor from the Lord -- which in Jewish tradition meant the year that poor debtors were forgiven their debts to bankers and the wealthy. In Luke 6, Jesus says the poor and hungry will be blessed, and the rich will be cursed. He urges his followers to sell all their possessions and give them to the poor. The one time he really focuses on God's judgment and who goes to heaven is in Matthew 25, where he says those who go to heaven will be those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those in prison, gave shelter to the hungry, and welcomed the stranger -- and those who don't make it were the ones who refused to help the poor and oppressed.

And he was a really serious class warrior, too -- he wasn't just into helping the poor; he didn't seem to like rich folks very much. In Matthew 6, he focuses on the love of money as a major problem. In Luke 11, he berates a wealthy lawyer for burdening the poor. In Luke 12, he says that the wealthy who store up treasure are cursed by God. In Luke 14, he says if we throw a party, we should invite all poor people and no rich people, and suggests that the wealthy already turned down their invitation to God's feast, and that it is the poor who will get into heaven (a theme repeated multiple times). He says that the rich people will have a harder time getting to heaven than a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle. He chases the wealthy bankers and merchants from the Temple.

I have never heard a conservative Christian quote any of these verses -- not once, and I have been in a lot of discussions with Christian conservatives, and heard a lot of their speeches and sermons. The one verse they always quote (and I mean always -- I have never talked to a conservative Christian about economics and not heard them quote this verse) is the one time in which Jesus says that "the poor will always be with us." The reason they love this quote so much is that they interpret that line to mean that in spite of everything else Jesus said about the poor, that since the poor will always be with us, we don't need to worry about trying to help them. Apparently since the poor will always be with us, we can go ahead and screw them. But Jesus making a prediction that there will always be oppressive societies doesn't mean he wanted us to join the oppressors. By clinging desperately to that one verse in the Bible, and ignoring all the others about the poor and the rich, Christian conservatives show themselves to be hypocrites, plain and simple.

Whole article...

 

[Mr Natural]

But they're not going to be able to stay fat and have stuff when the money is gone, are they?
Once you've destroyed our capitalist system, the money dries up.

See... that's the difference between socialists and capitalists. Socialists figure that there's only so much pie and everyone should have a little slice. Capitalists understand that we can always make more pie.

So you're in favor of the poor living like animals the way they do in third-world shit holes.

No thanks, you go live in your conservative utopia, I'll stick with what we have right here.

God Bless America!]

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it?

Let me simplify... you can't fund any programs to help the poor when you have NO MONEY. No capitalism = No money.

A trillion dollars unneccessarily pissed away on the Iraq fiasco did nothing to help the situation now did it. I don't hear you bitching about that.

 

[Murf76]

So you're in favor of the poor living like animals the way they do in third-world shit holes.

No thanks, you go live in your conservative utopia, I'll stick with what we have right here.

God Bless America!]

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it?

Let me simplify... you can't fund any programs to help the poor when you have NO MONEY. No capitalism = No money.

Save it for St Peter...I'm sure He is a 'capitalist'...

When you are in the political world, you have decisions to make every single day about who you will try to help and who you won't. In spite of the earnest quest of good technocrats everywhere, the simple fact is that there are only a few win-win solutions. Who you tax, who you give a tax break to, what programs you cut or add to, who you tighten regulations on, and who you loosen them on, what kind of contractors are eligible for government work, which school districts and non-profit groups get federal money, etc: these political decisions are generally not win-win. Instead, they mean that one group of people win, and one group of people loses. It is the nature of politics, and you can't take the politics out of politics.

The most fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives is that question of which side you are on. Conservatives believe that the rich and powerful got that way because they deserve to be, that society owes its prosperity to the prosperous, and that government's job when they have to make choices is to side with those businesspeople who are doing well, because all good things trickle down from them. Progressives, on the other hand, believe it is the poor and those who are ill-treated who need the most help from their government, and that prosperity comes from all of us -- the worker as well as the employer, the consumer as well as the seller, the struggling entrepreneur trying to make it as well as the wealthy who already have.

Jesus' main concern in terms of the people whose fates he cared about was for the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast. Comment after comment and story after story in the Gospels about Jesus relates to the treatment of the poor, generosity to those in need, mercy to the outcast, and scorn for the wealthy and powerful. And his philosophy is embedded with the central importance of taking care of others, loving others, treating others as you would want to be treated. There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no "greed is good," there is no invisible hand of the market or looking out for Number One first. There is nothing about poor people being lazy, nothing about the undeserving poor being leeches on society, nothing about how I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps so everyone else should, too. There is nothing about how in nature, "the lions eat the weak," and therefore we shouldn't help the poor because it weakens them. There is nothing about charity or welfare corrupting a person's spirit.

What there is: quote after quote about compassion for the poor. In Jesus' very first sermon of his ministry, the place where he launched his public career, he stated the reason he had come: to bring good news to the poor, liberty to the captives, to help the oppressed go free, and that he was here to proclaim a year of favor from the Lord -- which in Jewish tradition meant the year that poor debtors were forgiven their debts to bankers and the wealthy. In Luke 6, Jesus says the poor and hungry will be blessed, and the rich will be cursed. He urges his followers to sell all their possessions and give them to the poor. The one time he really focuses on God's judgment and who goes to heaven is in Matthew 25, where he says those who go to heaven will be those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those in prison, gave shelter to the hungry, and welcomed the stranger -- and those who don't make it were the ones who refused to help the poor and oppressed.

And he was a really serious class warrior, too -- he wasn't just into helping the poor; he didn't seem to like rich folks very much. In Matthew 6, he focuses on the love of money as a major problem. In Luke 11, he berates a wealthy lawyer for burdening the poor. In Luke 12, he says that the wealthy who store up treasure are cursed by God. In Luke 14, he says if we throw a party, we should invite all poor people and no rich people, and suggests that the wealthy already turned down their invitation to God's feast, and that it is the poor who will get into heaven (a theme repeated multiple times). He says that the rich people will have a harder time getting to heaven than a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle. He chases the wealthy bankers and merchants from the Temple.

I have never heard a conservative Christian quote any of these verses -- not once, and I have been in a lot of discussions with Christian conservatives, and heard a lot of their speeches and sermons. The one verse they always quote (and I mean always -- I have never talked to a conservative Christian about economics and not heard them quote this verse) is the one time in which Jesus says that "the poor will always be with us." The reason they love this quote so much is that they interpret that line to mean that in spite of everything else Jesus said about the poor, that since the poor will always be with us, we don't need to worry about trying to help them. Apparently since the poor will always be with us, we can go ahead and screw them. But Jesus making a prediction that there will always be oppressive societies doesn't mean he wanted us to join the oppressors. By clinging desperately to that one verse in the Bible, and ignoring all the others about the poor and the rich, Christian conservatives show themselves to be hypocrites, plain and simple.

Whole article...

Drivel.

Jesus wasn't Robin Hood. If God had wanted us to be fascists.. He'd have simply made us fascists. What value are we to Him if our good works are not done freely? There's no point in allowing Free Will, if we don't have choices.

"Progressives" are nothing more than modern fascists. They've just found a nicer sounding word for the same old dog-n-pony show. It's a facade for socialism just like it was in Mussolini's day. They believe they can regulate private business to the point of de facto state ownership. They don't believe in the rights of the individual to his own property or to his own benefit. They believe in the collective, and right of might.

It's a filthy ideology that dehumanizes the individual person under the guise of love for humanity, one that removes CHOICE.... choice that was given to us by God.

So, who the fuck do you think you are to try and take it away?

 

[Murf76]

A trillion dollars unneccessarily pissed away on the Iraq fiasco did nothing to help the situation now did it. I don't hear you bitching about that.

And you won't. I, for one, did not relish the idea of a madman like Saddam Hussein sitting on a big pile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

How quickly we forget what the circumstances were which surrounded our decision to disarm him.



You know what I didn't hear YOU bitching about?... how every scrap of Democrat spending since Obama took office has ended up being MORE than the lying bastards told us it would be. Or how they have yet to stand by their own Pay-Go rule.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I see now why leftists are so angry and bitter all the time. Their ideology is a guaranteed loss. How? Let me explain.

Liberalism has almost always won throughout the history of this country. What conservatives today accept as the status quo, their conservative predecessors fought against.

That's why YOU are so angry all the time. You're wedded to the ideology of the losers.

 

[Mr Natural]

A trillion dollars unneccessarily pissed away on the Iraq fiasco did nothing to help the situation now did it. I don't hear you bitching about that.

And you won't. I, for one, did not relish the idea of a madman like Saddam Hussein sitting on a big pile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

How quickly we forget what the circumstances were which surrounded our decision to disarm him.



You know what I didn't hear YOU bitching about?... how every scrap of Democrat spending since Obama took office has ended up being MORE than the lying bastards told us it would be. Or how they have yet to stand by their own Pay-Go rule.

You mean the big pile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that weren't found and never existed?

 

[Bfgrn]

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it?

Let me simplify... you can't fund any programs to help the poor when you have NO MONEY. No capitalism = No money.

Save it for St Peter...I'm sure He is a 'capitalist'...

When you are in the political world, you have decisions to make every single day about who you will try to help and who you won't. In spite of the earnest quest of good technocrats everywhere, the simple fact is that there are only a few win-win solutions. Who you tax, who you give a tax break to, what programs you cut or add to, who you tighten regulations on, and who you loosen them on, what kind of contractors are eligible for government work, which school districts and non-profit groups get federal money, etc: these political decisions are generally not win-win. Instead, they mean that one group of people win, and one group of people loses. It is the nature of politics, and you can't take the politics out of politics.

The most fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives is that question of which side you are on. Conservatives believe that the rich and powerful got that way because they deserve to be, that society owes its prosperity to the prosperous, and that government's job when they have to make choices is to side with those businesspeople who are doing well, because all good things trickle down from them. Progressives, on the other hand, believe it is the poor and those who are ill-treated who need the most help from their government, and that prosperity comes from all of us -- the worker as well as the employer, the consumer as well as the seller, the struggling entrepreneur trying to make it as well as the wealthy who already have.

Jesus' main concern in terms of the people whose fates he cared about was for the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast. Comment after comment and story after story in the Gospels about Jesus relates to the treatment of the poor, generosity to those in need, mercy to the outcast, and scorn for the wealthy and powerful. And his philosophy is embedded with the central importance of taking care of others, loving others, treating others as you would want to be treated. There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no "greed is good," there is no invisible hand of the market or looking out for Number One first. There is nothing about poor people being lazy, nothing about the undeserving poor being leeches on society, nothing about how I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps so everyone else should, too. There is nothing about how in nature, "the lions eat the weak," and therefore we shouldn't help the poor because it weakens them. There is nothing about charity or welfare corrupting a person's spirit.

What there is: quote after quote about compassion for the poor. In Jesus' very first sermon of his ministry, the place where he launched his public career, he stated the reason he had come: to bring good news to the poor, liberty to the captives, to help the oppressed go free, and that he was here to proclaim a year of favor from the Lord -- which in Jewish tradition meant the year that poor debtors were forgiven their debts to bankers and the wealthy. In Luke 6, Jesus says the poor and hungry will be blessed, and the rich will be cursed. He urges his followers to sell all their possessions and give them to the poor. The one time he really focuses on God's judgment and who goes to heaven is in Matthew 25, where he says those who go to heaven will be those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those in prison, gave shelter to the hungry, and welcomed the stranger -- and those who don't make it were the ones who refused to help the poor and oppressed.

And he was a really serious class warrior, too -- he wasn't just into helping the poor; he didn't seem to like rich folks very much. In Matthew 6, he focuses on the love of money as a major problem. In Luke 11, he berates a wealthy lawyer for burdening the poor. In Luke 12, he says that the wealthy who store up treasure are cursed by God. In Luke 14, he says if we throw a party, we should invite all poor people and no rich people, and suggests that the wealthy already turned down their invitation to God's feast, and that it is the poor who will get into heaven (a theme repeated multiple times). He says that the rich people will have a harder time getting to heaven than a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle. He chases the wealthy bankers and merchants from the Temple.

I have never heard a conservative Christian quote any of these verses -- not once, and I have been in a lot of discussions with Christian conservatives, and heard a lot of their speeches and sermons. The one verse they always quote (and I mean always -- I have never talked to a conservative Christian about economics and not heard them quote this verse) is the one time in which Jesus says that "the poor will always be with us." The reason they love this quote so much is that they interpret that line to mean that in spite of everything else Jesus said about the poor, that since the poor will always be with us, we don't need to worry about trying to help them. Apparently since the poor will always be with us, we can go ahead and screw them. But Jesus making a prediction that there will always be oppressive societies doesn't mean he wanted us to join the oppressors. By clinging desperately to that one verse in the Bible, and ignoring all the others about the poor and the rich, Christian conservatives show themselves to be hypocrites, plain and simple.

Whole article...

Drivel.

Jesus wasn't Robin Hood. If God had wanted us to be fascists.. He'd have simply made us fascists. What value are we to Him if our good works are not done freely? There's no point in allowing Free Will, if we don't have choices.

"Progressives" are nothing more than modern fascists. They've just found a nicer sounding word for the same old dog-n-pony show. It's a facade for socialism just like it was in Mussolini's day. They believe they can regulate private business to the point of de facto state ownership. They don't believe in the rights of the individual to his own property or to his own benefit. They believe in the collective, and right of might.

It's a filthy ideology that dehumanizes the individual person under the guise of love for humanity, one that removes CHOICE.... choice that was given to us by God.

So, who the fuck do you think you are to try and take it away?

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Thank you for the TEXTBOOK example Murf...

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

 

[Truthmatters]

then by all means, why in the heck don;t you CHOOSE to help our neediest fellow citizens, not getting help from your church or charity, through some of your taxes? you CHOOSE TO KILL others with your taxes, you choose to bail out the crooks who took us on Wall street, why not choose to help some of your own....? (the general you)

Choosing to help others is not suppose to stop at your church's door, you are NOT suppose to just turn in to cold wax in your secular life, is what I was taught....

Do good in all that you do.

This does not stop once you leave church or mass or synagogue or mosque or temple on sundays, fridays or saturdays....

that's my personal view on it, as a devout Christian.

Saying all of that, this does not mean that I do not see problems with our systems to take care of the neediest among us....this does not mean I do not see govt waste....but in many cases, many many many cases, charities are ineffective....where MOST or too darn much of their charity money goes towards their admin costs and salaries and overhead and waste to where 25-50 cents on the dollar you donated, makes it to the actual person in need....both systems have deficiencies....

and we need reform, all around, so that government help should focus more on education and lifting the person up through teaching them to support themselves....I agree with all that....

but with me, charity for the neediest does not stop at the church door....

care

Do not presume to know what I choose to do, or not do, in the name of charity. It makes you look hysterical.

You do NOT have the right to rob me for the sake of YOUR charitable choices. That does not make you a good Christian. It merely makes you a good THIEF.Its called democracy, if the majority votes to feed our poor and you would rather they starve then you just lost the vote and it is not theft. You can move to some country that doesnt want to feed its poor. YOU DO NOT GET TO DEMAND WE LET THEM STARVE. You either like democracy or you dont. If you call democracy theft then fucking leave and find yourself a non democracy to live in.
The fucking federal government has no business engaging in "charity". There's no enumerated power for it to do so. Social welfare should come at the state level in whatever amounts the States choose to provide it. And if the federal government would stop robbing us all blind, maybe the States might be able to collect a little themselves to run their budgets on.

You dont get to determine the constitution all by your self.

This country has already decided we can feed the poor if we decide to so fuck off and move to some place where the poor are allowed to starve and you can rest easy.

 

[Murf76]

You mean the big pile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that weren't found and never existed?

Yep. The same ones that every Democrat who voted to go in believed were there. Saddam had only himself to blame. He took great pains to give the impression that he had more than he did. His 'shoot the messenger' attitude kept him living in a very insular world, to the point where he never truly recognized his danger.

 

[Gadawg73]

Do the terrorists care if a liberal or conservative wins an election here?

 

[Murf76]

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Thank you for the TEXTBOOK example Murf...

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

Democrats don't give a rat's ass about "people". All they care about is their own power. If they cared about "people", they wouldn't be trying to force their immoral ideology down our throats.

And yeah... Republicans DO care about "property". Because "people" have a right to their own "property".

"Selfishness" is entirely subjective. I say that when you rob a citizen of his rightful property, it is YOU who is being "selfish". You have no innate right to the labor or property of other citizens. And you have no right to subvert God's will on free choice and replace it with your own arbitrary judgment.

 

[Care4all]

then by all means, why in the heck don;t you CHOOSE to help our neediest fellow citizens, not getting help from your church or charity, through some of your taxes? you CHOOSE TO KILL others with your taxes, you choose to bail out the crooks who took us on Wall street, why not choose to help some of your own....? (the general you)

Choosing to help others is not suppose to stop at your church's door, you are NOT suppose to just turn in to cold wax in your secular life, is what I was taught....

Do good in all that you do.

This does not stop once you leave church or mass or synagogue or mosque or temple on sundays, fridays or saturdays....

that's my personal view on it, as a devout Christian.

Saying all of that, this does not mean that I do not see problems with our systems to take care of the neediest among us....this does not mean I do not see govt waste....but in many cases, many many many cases, charities are ineffective....where MOST or too darn much of their charity money goes towards their admin costs and salaries and overhead and waste to where 25-50 cents on the dollar you donated, makes it to the actual person in need....both systems have deficiencies....

and we need reform, all around, so that government help should focus more on education and lifting the person up through teaching them to support themselves....I agree with all that....

but with me, charity for the neediest does not stop at the church door....

care

Do not presume to know what I choose to do, or not do, in the name of charity. It makes you look hysterical.

You do NOT have the right to rob me for the sake of YOUR charitable choices. That does not make you a good Christian. It merely makes you a good THIEF.

The fucking federal government has no business engaging in "charity". There's no enumerated power for it to do so. Social welfare should come at the state level in whatever amounts the States choose to provide it. And if the federal government would stop robbing us all blind, maybe the States might be able to collect a little themselves to run their budgets on.

calm down....take some deep breaths...

NO ONE is robbing from you or stealing from you.

you live in a democratic republic.

IF you are being robbed because of social security for the elderly or disability or food stamps etc....

then i am majorly being robbed by paying taxes for presidents going in to unnecessary war, without a congressional ''declaration of war'', as the constitution states is necessary, needing 2/3's of the senate and 2/3's congressmen in the house, voting yea.

or my tax monies were stolen to give exxon a free ride with no income tax obligation...

or my tax monies were stolen to fund the republican ''faith based initiatives'' ....

or my tax monies were stolen to bail out the crooks on wall street

or my tax monies were stolen to build a statue of thor in birmingham alabama

or my tax monies were stolen to pay for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska...

or my tax money was stolen for: BLANK- you fill in.

SO, SPARE ME your drama! pleaseeeeeeeeee!

 

[Murf76]

then by all means, why in the heck don;t you CHOOSE to help our neediest fellow citizens, not getting help from your church or charity, through some of your taxes? you CHOOSE TO KILL others with your taxes, you choose to bail out the crooks who took us on Wall street, why not choose to help some of your own....? (the general you)

Choosing to help others is not suppose to stop at your church's door, you are NOT suppose to just turn in to cold wax in your secular life, is what I was taught....

Do good in all that you do.

This does not stop once you leave church or mass or synagogue or mosque or temple on sundays, fridays or saturdays....

that's my personal view on it, as a devout Christian.

Saying all of that, this does not mean that I do not see problems with our systems to take care of the neediest among us....this does not mean I do not see govt waste....but in many cases, many many many cases, charities are ineffective....where MOST or too darn much of their charity money goes towards their admin costs and salaries and overhead and waste to where 25-50 cents on the dollar you donated, makes it to the actual person in need....both systems have deficiencies....

and we need reform, all around, so that government help should focus more on education and lifting the person up through teaching them to support themselves....I agree with all that....

but with me, charity for the neediest does not stop at the church door....

care

Do not presume to know what I choose to do, or not do, in the name of charity. It makes you look hysterical.

You do NOT have the right to rob me for the sake of YOUR charitable choices. That does not make you a good Christian. It merely makes you a good THIEF.Its called democracy, if the majority votes to feed our poor and you would rather they starve then you just lost the vote and it is not theft. You can move to some country that doesnt want to feed its poor. YOU DO NOT GET TO DEMAND WE LET THEM STARVE. You either like democracy or you dont. If you call democracy theft then fucking leave and find yourself a non democracy to live in.
The fucking federal government has no business engaging in "charity". There's no enumerated power for it to do so. Social welfare should come at the state level in whatever amounts the States choose to provide it. And if the federal government would stop robbing us all blind, maybe the States might be able to collect a little themselves to run their budgets on.

You dont get to determine the constitution all by your self.

This country has already decided we can feed the poor if we decide to so fuck off and move to some place where the poor are allowed to starve and you can rest easy.

Piss off, nutter.

YOU do not have a right to rob people based on your warped view of "democracy". We DO have a U.S. Constitution, and there's nothing in it which allows your representative idiots in Congress to simply vote for whatever the fuck they want. Democracy is confined to the framework of Republican governance. Congress must operate within the guidelines of it's enumerated power.

You know... you spend alot of time on a political board for someone who never manages to display any accumulated knowledge for having had the experience. I can't imagine that no one's told you that Congress can't just do whatever it wants.

 

[HUGGY]

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Thank you for the TEXTBOOK example Murf...

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

Democrats don't give a rat's ass about "people". All they care about is their own power. If they cared about "people", they wouldn't be trying to force their immoral ideology down our throats.

And yeah... Republicans DO care about "property". Because "people" have a right to their own "property".

"Selfishness" is entirely subjective. I say that when you rob a citizen of his rightful property, it is YOU who is being "selfish". You have no innate right to the labor or property of other citizens. And you have no right to subvert God's will on free choice and replace it with your own arbitrary judgment.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsTNrVFA0h4]YouTube - Baby tantrum[/ame]

 

[Murf76]

then by all means, why in the heck don;t you CHOOSE to help our neediest fellow citizens, not getting help from your church or charity, through some of your taxes? you CHOOSE TO KILL others with your taxes, you choose to bail out the crooks who took us on Wall street, why not choose to help some of your own....? (the general you)

Choosing to help others is not suppose to stop at your church's door, you are NOT suppose to just turn in to cold wax in your secular life, is what I was taught....

Do good in all that you do.

This does not stop once you leave church or mass or synagogue or mosque or temple on sundays, fridays or saturdays....

that's my personal view on it, as a devout Christian.

Saying all of that, this does not mean that I do not see problems with our systems to take care of the neediest among us....this does not mean I do not see govt waste....but in many cases, many many many cases, charities are ineffective....where MOST or too darn much of their charity money goes towards their admin costs and salaries and overhead and waste to where 25-50 cents on the dollar you donated, makes it to the actual person in need....both systems have deficiencies....

and we need reform, all around, so that government help should focus more on education and lifting the person up through teaching them to support themselves....I agree with all that....

but with me, charity for the neediest does not stop at the church door....

care

Do not presume to know what I choose to do, or not do, in the name of charity. It makes you look hysterical.

You do NOT have the right to rob me for the sake of YOUR charitable choices. That does not make you a good Christian. It merely makes you a good THIEF.

The fucking federal government has no business engaging in "charity". There's no enumerated power for it to do so. Social welfare should come at the state level in whatever amounts the States choose to provide it. And if the federal government would stop robbing us all blind, maybe the States might be able to collect a little themselves to run their budgets on.

calm down....take some deep breaths...

NO ONE is robbing from you or stealing from you.

you live in a democratic republic.

IF you are being robbed because of social security for the elderly or disability or food stamps etc....

then i am majorly being robbed by paying taxes for presidents going in to unnecessary war, without a congressional ''declaration of war'', as the constitution states is necessary, needing 2/3's of the senate and 2/3's congressmen in the house, voting yea.

or my tax monies were stolen to give exxon a free ride with no income tax obligation...

or my tax monies were stolen to fund the republican ''faith based initiatives'' ....

or my tax monies were stolen to bail out the crooks on wall street

or my tax monies were stolen to build a statue of thor in birmingham alabama

or my tax monies were stolen to pay for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska...

or my tax money was stolen for: BLANK- you fill in.

SO, SPARE ME your drama! pleaseeeeeeeeee!

Oh, puh-leeze.
Go back and review your prima donna post above... and THEN preach to me about "drama".

Geez, you could probably break glass with all your shrill squalling about how we should CHOOSE to pay more of our hard-earned cash out for layabouts and how we're so bad and mean that we CHOOSE to use our tax dollars to KILL people". Sheesh.

 

[Murf76]

YouTube - Baby tantrum

There, there. Try not to cry.

Why don't you toddle on out and enslave somebody. That always makes you Democrats feel better, doesn't it?

 

[Bfgrn]

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Thank you for the TEXTBOOK example Murf...

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

Democrats don't give a rat's ass about "people". All they care about is their own power. If they cared about "people", they wouldn't be trying to force their immoral ideology down our throats.

And yeah... Republicans DO care about "property". Because "people" have a right to their own "property".

"Selfishness" is entirely subjective. I say that when you rob a citizen of his rightful property, it is YOU who is being "selfish". You have no innate right to the labor or property of other citizens. And you have no right to subvert God's will on free choice and replace it with your own arbitrary judgment.

Selfishness ISN'T subjective. Is it an 'immoral ideology' to care about other people? Did Jesus preach caring about others was an 'immoral ideology'?

This appears to me as a classic example of the axiom, 'It takes one to know one' ... the truth is YOU don't give a rat's ass about "people", so you need to justify YOUR 'immoral ideology' as being acceptable. It ISN'T, in God's eyes...

 

[editec]

A trillion dollars unneccessarily pissed away on the Iraq fiasco did nothing to help the situation now did it. I don't hear you bitching about that.

And you won't. I, for one, did not relish the idea of a madman like Saddam Hussein sitting on a big pile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

How quickly we forget what the circumstances were which surrounded our decision to disarm him.

Clearly true.

You, for example, have apparently forgotten that Saddam was NOT sitting on a big pile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

You know what I didn't hear YOU bitching about?... how every scrap of Democrat spending since Obama took office has ended up being MORE than the lying bastards told us it would be. Or how they have yet to stand by their own Pay-Go rule.

As long as you're still deluding yourself that there is going to be a difference between how the Republicans would have dealt with this meltdown, and how Obama is dealing with it, there is no hope we'll every solve the problem.

Have you forgotten that BUSH II started the stimulus programs?

Apparently you have.

McCain would be doing essantially the same damned thing if he was POTUS.

 

[Murf76]

Selfishness ISN'T subjective. Is it an 'immoral ideology' to care about other people? Did Jesus preach caring about others was an 'immoral ideology'?

This appears to me as a classic example of the axiom, 'It takes one to know one' ... the truth is YOU don't give a rat's ass about "people", so you need to justify YOUR 'immoral ideology' as being acceptable. It ISN'T, in God's eyes...

Nobody says that YOU can't care about people, or that YOU can't engage in Christian charity. You just don't have the right to make economic slaves of productive U.S. citizens in order to accomplish YOUR charitable goals. So.. yeah. It's fucking immoral.

At the state and local level, it is perfectly alright for citizens to democratically elect to engage in social welfare. But that is NOT the role of federal government. And that's the part that you fascists just can't seem to accept. Because you want the power to control people from the top down. And THAT is likewise immoral. It's tyranny, because it's outside the authority of Constitutional law.



Oh... and you don't know me. You don't know what I do, or what I do not do, in terms of charity. So... fuck off. You sputtering on about "selfishness" isn't likely to impress me or guilt me into agreement with your whacko ideology.

 

[midcan5]

Conservatives do not seem to realize the only reason they can express themselves as conservatives is because of liberalism. Conservatism has never done a single thing that helped humankind. I have asked repeatedly for something good C has done and have never received an answer. Why, because conservatism is simply reactionary politics. Conservatism is the sponges that lives off those who make progress. Imagine a conservative world? You can not because they have throughout history opposed change, and moralized their own position in a society they could not and cannot create. Arguing with them is useless as their knowledge of history and progress is nil, their ideas come from other conservative sponges who live in a world of liberal politics and liberal society. They need to blame liberals because if they ever turned the mirror on themselves they may just realize their ideas are empty when not detrimental.

If you doubt this consider what happened under Coolidge/ Hoover and Reagan/ Bushs - a destruction of the middle class and the economy. Then consider FDR or LBJ's advancement of society and civil rights - while not perfect it demonstrates clearly conservatism has been a complete failure.