Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hey, us old geezers are far more important than most realize.history is rife with old people like you who have no use anymore too...go finish your bowl of cream of wheat before it gets cold.....and dont shit yourself,call your nurse....
Yeah they helped the Democrats move the jobs out.Hilarious. Republicans helped move millions of jobs to China then, just when there are so few jobs, complain the poor don't want to work.
I fail to see what point you are trying make about conservatives, other than just trying to berate them.
Are conservatives preventing you or anyone else from helping those in need? No, they aren't. So don't lay the blame on conservatives for the situation poor people are in.
We all know what you are really talking about- thieving. You're talking about the left's desire to tax the shit out of the middle class in order to redistribute wealth to "the poor". The poor being lazy bums that are already collecting welfare checks. I don't see any starving people in the US, so your definition of poor and desperation is way off. If you want to see actual starving people you'll need to travel to places like Africa. Even the poorest people in the US have it a hundred times better than people living in squalor in war-torn, third world shitholes.
Some are obese, but not all of them. Hell, I doubt that even a majority of them are obese. Cheap food is high in calories and so eating poor is a good way to get fat, ironically.Most of the US poor are obese. Letting them starve? Might be a plan.
Stephanie, while doing genealogical research, I have read town meeting minutes from the 1700's in Maine. Even then there were taxes, to pay for a minister, a clerk, a teacher and maybe even a town office and a schoolhouse at some point. Even communities with only 200 or 300 souls were giving help to the few among them that had become unable to support themselves.Charity and care of the poor and disabled was a responsibility of the state governments when our Constitution went into effect in 1789.Well said, but even Christ made it clear that charitable acts must come from the heart, from one's own resources. Regardless of the nobility of aiding the poor, taking resources from one by force and giving them to another is theft by any definition.
Taxation is not theft as Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. The government has the right to draw revenue from the population as payment due for its services. I agree that taxes have gotten way too high, but still, it is not theft unless someone uses the money illegally.
I am not sure what time period you are referring to. I was talking about western Europe in the Middle Ages to the early modern Age. Now in the USA we had little charity, but we had another form of it in the Homestead laws where someone could go to the frontier, stake out a claim and it was granted to him if he made adequate improvements to it. We dont have that any more.Before the government became involved in such activity, philanthropic individuals and the religious community took care of it, as they should. It is not the venue of government.
When the Great Depression hit, the states could no longer handle the load and the national government took over. Child labor had ceased and FDR insisted the able- bodied work for their own well being and for the nation's. We are still using many of those improvements today, and the list is long.
really? how did they do that. they had money trees growing and just plucked the money from it to take care of everyone?
wait, are you calling the poor people our pets?Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.
And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.
Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.
But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.
The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.
I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.
Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.
Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.
Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.
We need to be bigger and better than that.
Stephanie, while doing genealogical research, I have read town meeting minutes from the 1700's in Maine. Even then there were taxes, to pay for a minister, a clerk, a teacher and maybe even a town office and a schoolhouse at some point. Even communities with only 200 or 300 souls were giving help to the few among them that had become unable to support themselves.Charity and care of the poor and disabled was a responsibility of the state governments when our Constitution went into effect in 1789.Well said, but even Christ made it clear that charitable acts must come from the heart, from one's own resources. Regardless of the nobility of aiding the poor, taking resources from one by force and giving them to another is theft by any definition.
Taxation is not theft as Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. The government has the right to draw revenue from the population as payment due for its services. I agree that taxes have gotten way too high, but still, it is not theft unless someone uses the money illegally.
I am not sure what time period you are referring to. I was talking about western Europe in the Middle Ages to the early modern Age. Now in the USA we had little charity, but we had another form of it in the Homestead laws where someone could go to the frontier, stake out a claim and it was granted to him if he made adequate improvements to it. We dont have that any more.Before the government became involved in such activity, philanthropic individuals and the religious community took care of it, as they should. It is not the venue of government.
When the Great Depression hit, the states could no longer handle the load and the national government took over. Child labor had ceased and FDR insisted the able- bodied work for their own well being and for the nation's. We are still using many of those improvements today, and the list is long.
really? how did they do that. they had money trees growing and just plucked the money from it to take care of everyone?
Interestingly, towns also had the right to tell a newly arrived family to move on if they didn't seem to have a means of supporting themselves. It was called being "warned." So there were liberals and conservatives at work before the revolution, too.
A lot of folks have begun using the argument "forced" about government policies--taxes, equal rights laws, etc. Have people forgotten that in a democracy, a majority rules, and the majority elected our law makers and current president. Those who didn't vote for the current leaders have to be good losers and bide their time until the next election while still following the laws. It has always been that way. What is all this suddenly about "willing" participation in abiding by the laws of this country?I pretty much agree OP. However, when people reference Jesus and govt redistribution, I think he meant people should do it WILLINGLY. Not by force, by some other entity..
A lot of folks have begun using the argument "forced" about government policies--taxes, equal rights laws, etc. Have people forgotten that in a democracy, a majority rules, and the majority elected our law makers and current president. Those who didn't vote for the current leaders have to be good losers and bide their time until the next election while still following the laws. It has always been that way. What is all this suddenly about "willing" participation in abiding by the laws of this country?I pretty much agree OP. However, when people reference Jesus and govt redistribution, I think he meant people should do it WILLINGLY. Not by force, by some other entity..
Would do, Billy, if I cared about political labels. Thanks for the tip.Stephanie, while doing genealogical research, I have read town meeting minutes from the 1700's in Maine. Even then there were taxes, to pay for a minister, a clerk, a teacher and maybe even a town office and a schoolhouse at some point. Even communities with only 200 or 300 souls were giving help to the few among them that had become unable to support themselves.Charity and care of the poor and disabled was a responsibility of the state governments when our Constitution went into effect in 1789.Well said, but even Christ made it clear that charitable acts must come from the heart, from one's own resources. Regardless of the nobility of aiding the poor, taking resources from one by force and giving them to another is theft by any definition.
Taxation is not theft as Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. The government has the right to draw revenue from the population as payment due for its services. I agree that taxes have gotten way too high, but still, it is not theft unless someone uses the money illegally.
I am not sure what time period you are referring to. I was talking about western Europe in the Middle Ages to the early modern Age. Now in the USA we had little charity, but we had another form of it in the Homestead laws where someone could go to the frontier, stake out a claim and it was granted to him if he made adequate improvements to it. We dont have that any more.Before the government became involved in such activity, philanthropic individuals and the religious community took care of it, as they should. It is not the venue of government.
When the Great Depression hit, the states could no longer handle the load and the national government took over. Child labor had ceased and FDR insisted the able- bodied work for their own well being and for the nation's. We are still using many of those improvements today, and the list is long.
really? how did they do that. they had money trees growing and just plucked the money from it to take care of everyone?
Interestingly, towns also had the right to tell a newly arrived family to move on if they didn't seem to have a means of supporting themselves. It was called being "warned." So there were liberals and conservatives at work before the revolution, too.
While you're doing all that research, you might look up the definition of "liberal" in use at the time. It is the correct one.
We have the largest monetary reserves...Hey, us old geezers are far more important than most realize.history is rife with old people like you who have no use anymore too...go finish your bowl of cream of wheat before it gets cold.....and dont shit yourself,call your nurse....
Think of the companies that would be out of business without us; shuffle board manufacturers, Brylcream, horse shoes, bowling, marketers for I Love Lucy reruns, and much much more.
Would do, Billy, if I cared about political labels. Thanks for the tip.Stephanie, while doing genealogical research, I have read town meeting minutes from the 1700's in Maine. Even then there were taxes, to pay for a minister, a clerk, a teacher and maybe even a town office and a schoolhouse at some point. Even communities with only 200 or 300 souls were giving help to the few among them that had become unable to support themselves.Charity and care of the poor and disabled was a responsibility of the state governments when our Constitution went into effect in 1789.Taxation is not theft as Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. The government has the right to draw revenue from the population as payment due for its services. I agree that taxes have gotten way too high, but still, it is not theft unless someone uses the money illegally.
I am not sure what time period you are referring to. I was talking about western Europe in the Middle Ages to the early modern Age. Now in the USA we had little charity, but we had another form of it in the Homestead laws where someone could go to the frontier, stake out a claim and it was granted to him if he made adequate improvements to it. We dont have that any more.
When the Great Depression hit, the states could no longer handle the load and the national government took over. Child labor had ceased and FDR insisted the able- bodied work for their own well being and for the nation's. We are still using many of those improvements today, and the list is long.
really? how did they do that. they had money trees growing and just plucked the money from it to take care of everyone?
Interestingly, towns also had the right to tell a newly arrived family to move on if they didn't seem to have a means of supporting themselves. It was called being "warned." So there were liberals and conservatives at work before the revolution, too.
While you're doing all that research, you might look up the definition of "liberal" in use at the time. It is the correct one.
I heartily disagree that there is "no general obligation to play someone else's version of 'good citizen.'" If you want to live in a country continually divided by civil wars like many in the third world, keep it up. Make sure if extremists on both sides don't like the results of the election, that they shut down Congress and refuse to do work. I didn't mean you had to like it, or not complain, but we all certainly need to abide by the majority decision til we get another turn. It's not being "forced," it's an underlying concept of democracy, and you can quibble using words like "representative republic" all you like. Quit whining.A lot of folks have begun using the argument "forced" about government policies--taxes, equal rights laws, etc. Have people forgotten that in a democracy, a majority rules, and the majority elected our law makers and current president. Those who didn't vote for the current leaders have to be good losers and bide their time until the next election while still following the laws. It has always been that way. What is all this suddenly about "willing" participation in abiding by the laws of this country?I pretty much agree OP. However, when people reference Jesus and govt redistribution, I think he meant people should do it WILLINGLY. Not by force, by some other entity..
We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic, and there is no general obligation to play someone else's version of "good citizen" and "bide your time" for the benefit of your opponents.
Keep in mind that were this country a pure democracy, you would not like the results at all.
I heartily disagree that there is "no general obligation to play someone else's version of 'good citizen.'" If you want to live in a country continually divided by civil wars like many in the third world, keep it up.A lot of folks have begun using the argument "forced" about government policies--taxes, equal rights laws, etc. Have people forgotten that in a democracy, a majority rules, and the majority elected our law makers and current president. Those who didn't vote for the current leaders have to be good losers and bide their time until the next election while still following the laws. It has always been that way. What is all this suddenly about "willing" participation in abiding by the laws of this country?I pretty much agree OP. However, when people reference Jesus and govt redistribution, I think he meant people should do it WILLINGLY. Not by force, by some other entity..
We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic, and there is no general obligation to play someone else's version of "good citizen" and "bide your time" for the benefit of your opponents.
Keep in mind that were this country a pure democracy, you would not like the results at all.
Make sure if extremists on both sides don't like the results of the election, that they shut down Congress and refuse to do work.
I didn't mean you had to like it, or not complain, but we all certainly need to abide by the majority decision til we get another turn.
It's not being "forced," it's an underlying concept of democracy
and you can quibble using words like "representative republic" all you like.
And what do you think would happen if we had a "pure democracy?" That folks with no social conscience would be the majority? I doubt it.
That is an interesting observation. The Federal Government does not have the largest monetary reserves, but I am thinking of some 'reserves' you might be referring to.We have the largest monetary reserves...
I haven't checked all of thread - have you been called a RINO yet?I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity. We need to be bigger and better than that.
We are divided. That is a fact. We have been split right down the middle since Al Gore lost the election in 2000 and the Democrats subsequently removed their masks and came out as the nuevo-Communistas they truly are.
I haven't checked all of thread - have you been called a RINO yet?I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity. We need to be bigger and better than that.
.
