Since When Does Conservatism Mean 'Let the Poor Starve?'

[Mac1958]

If we are going to communicate we need to purge the scoffers, partisan hacks and slanted misconceptions of our reasonable opponents.

Yes, but here's the problem: Most of the energy and influence within the party right now lies with people who have no interest in communicating, people who have been convinced that they can somehow just "win".
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If we are going to communicate we need to purge the scoffers, partisan hacks and slanted misconceptions of our reasonable opponents.

Yes, but here's the problem: Most of the energy and influence within the party right now lies with people who have no interest in communicating, people who have been convinced that they can somehow just "win".
.

Yep, itis part of the duopoly's means of controlling the population and keeping us channeled into their false dichotomy of choosing either Republican or Democrat in every election. They demonize each other with the most absurd rhetorical nonsense to keep us from voting third party candidates in, and then when they get the power reshuffle after the election, they expect everyone to calm down and let them run the country.

They are at cross purposes with their own selves.

 

[JimBowie1958]

wait, are you calling the poor people our pets?

wait, you are a blithering idiot?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Charity is not a mandated duty of the government, ergo there is no authority to pursue it, and charity at gunpoint especially is not an underlying principle of democracy."
No. But when the majority elect representatives who agree to give charity, it is an underlying principle of democracy to abide by their decision.

The government cannot grant itself extra-constitutional authority by popular vote or a work-around for a pesky limitation. There is but one process that can accomplish that.

"Charity at gunpoint" is a particularly unattractive stance, imo, since so many countries in this world DO actually function that way. We should not even be toying with the notion that this country is totalitarian.

We are clearly heading in that direction.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

The Democrats are not communists.

Most of them are comfortable with socialism as a means of reducing the barbarities of capitalism, and that does not make them communists.

Most of their leaders are Marxists of some variety, but again that does not make them communists.

If we are going to communicate we need to purge the scoffers, partisan hacks and slanted misconceptions of our reasonable opponents.

As I have stated ad infinitum, Communism is a catch-all term used for all things Marxist/socialist. It has been so since the 1960s.

 

[jillian]

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.

Very admirable post. There's a middle ground where the people of this country can agree on what you're talking about and that's what needs to happen. I'll be the first to admit many on the left are as crazy about this as you're implying many on the right are.

Middle ground be damned!

Everything needs to be free!

Go Bernie!!

bernie has never said that, ignoramus.

 

[jillian]

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.

Since conservatives started making it harder for poor women and girls to get abortions.

Children w/o food starve.

Duh.

Ueah, so let's just kill them to make sure kids don't starve.

Makes sense according to Mao and Stalin.

no one wants to kill children.

but the rabid right is pro birth and then says f'em.

 

[jillian]

"Charity is not a mandated duty of the government, ergo there is no authority to pursue it, and charity at gunpoint especially is not an underlying principle of democracy."
No. But when the majority elect representatives who agree to give charity, it is an underlying principle of democracy to abide by their decision.

The government cannot grant itself extra-constitutional authority by popular vote or a work-around for a pesky limitation. There is but one process that can accomplish that.

"Charity at gunpoint" is a particularly unattractive stance, imo, since so many countries in this world DO actually function that way. We should not even be toying with the notion that this country is totalitarian.

We are clearly heading in that direction.

you should probably know a little something about how our government works.
first, the constitution permits congress to legislate for the general welfare and to govern all things in interstate commerce. that is broad authority.
second, you don't decide what is constitutional. congress doesn't decide what is constitutional. the court does. and the court has already ruled that these types of programs ARE constitutional.

you're welcome.

 

[theHawk]

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.

Yes, there are starving people in the US, as in they go to bed hungry at night and are not sure of where there next meal is coming from. Just because some starve worse doesnt make the starvation here OK, dimwit.

Show us these "starving" people in America. How many people have died of starvation?

People being hungry because they can't afford to stuff their faces with all the sugary shit they want isn't starving.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Charity is not a mandated duty of the government, ergo there is no authority to pursue it, and charity at gunpoint especially is not an underlying principle of democracy."
No. But when the majority elect representatives who agree to give charity, it is an underlying principle of democracy to abide by their decision.

The government cannot grant itself extra-constitutional authority by popular vote or a work-around for a pesky limitation. There is but one process that can accomplish that.

"Charity at gunpoint" is a particularly unattractive stance, imo, since so many countries in this world DO actually function that way. We should not even be toying with the notion that this country is totalitarian.

We are clearly heading in that direction.

you should probably know a little something about how our government works.
first, the constitution permits congress to legislate for the general welfare and to govern all things in interstate commerce. that is broad authority.

It grants no additional authority beyond those matters that are enumerated for it, nor is it carte blanche for the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants, which is how it is currently applied.

you don't decide what is constitutional. congress doesn't decide what is constitutional. the court does. and the court has already ruled that these types of programs ARE constitutional.

That a particular Court rules something as constitutional does not render it constitutional if it is not. Reference Dred Scott, for example.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Yes, there are starving people in the US, as in they go to bed hungry at night and are not sure of where there next meal is coming from. Just because some starve worse doesnt make the starvation here OK, dimwit.

Show us these "starving" people in America. How many people have died of starvation?

People being hungry because they can't afford to stuff their faces with all the sugary shit they want isn't starving.

Our starving are the morbidly obese who have room for one more french fry. They are forced to waddle to bed with their digestive processes on-going.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As I have stated ad infinitum, Communism is a catch-all term used for all things Marxist/socialist. It has been so since the 1960s.

Billy, that is bullshit.

Thats like libtards saying that the word racism is a catch all term for ideologies they dont like. Sure, they use it that way, but that is not the meaning of the word 'racism' and they look stupid as shit when they misuse the word.

Communism is a subset of Marxism and Marxism is a subset of Socialism. There are many forms of socialism that long predate and have little to do with Marxism.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

As I have stated ad infinitum, Communism is a catch-all term used for all things Marxist/socialist. It has been so since the 1960s.

Billy, that is bullshit.

Shrug. If you say so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Show us these "starving" people in America. How many people have died of starvation?

Dying from starvation is one of many factors that cause death due to exposure, illness, etc. Lack of food causes lower resistance to could and disease.

So how many people die of ONLY starvation. Who knows, but many die of exposure and common disease because they have little access to food and frequent periods when they cannot eat.

People being hungry because they can't afford to stuff their faces with all the sugary shit they want isn't starving.

You are an ignorant wretch. Go do you happy dance at the thought of other Americans suffering from lack of food, you evil fucktard.

1. 1 in 6 people in America face hunger.
2. The USDA defines "food insecurity" as the lack of access, at times, to enough food for all household members. In 2011, households with children reported a significantly higher food insecurity rate than households without children: 20.6% vs. 12.2%.
3. Food insecurity exists in every county in America. In 2013, 17.5 million households were food insecure. More and more people are relying on food banks and pantries. Collect food outside your local supermarket for a local food bank. Sign up for Supermarket Stakeout.
4. 49 million Americans struggle to put food on the table.
5. In the US, hunger isn’t caused by a lack of food, but rather the continued prevalence of poverty.

11 Facts About Hunger in the US | DoSomething.org | Volunteer for Social Change

 

[JimBowie1958]

As I have stated ad infinitum, Communism is a catch-all term used for all things Marxist/socialist. It has been so since the 1960s.

Billy, that is bullshit.

Shrug. If you say so.

No, I dont define the meaning of English words, dude.

You have a choice to either use words like you know what they mean or use words like you dont and you are just making shit up like a libtard would.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.

That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.

hilarious.

You're wrong, my friend.

[i

You are comparing apples to oranges when you look at the percentage of people considered poor under an official poverty line that is regularly increased above inflation. Then you compare that to an inflation adjusted cost for welfare spending that includes every new program the government spends money on, a great portion of which was not started under the Great Society programs and were escalated by Nixon more than any Democrat.

And when the War on Poverty began, the poverty rate was closer to 20% and has been steady around 15%since about 1970..

Things have improved even with your own chart.

Like I said, the war on poverty failed.

What's the definition of insanity?

No, the war on poverty did not fail.

It isnt so just cause you want it so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Very admirable post. There's a middle ground where the people of this country can agree on what you're talking about and that's what needs to happen. I'll be the first to admit many on the left are as crazy about this as you're implying many on the right are.

Middle ground be damned!

Everything needs to be free!

Go Bernie!!

bernie has never said that, ignoramus.

Lol, I cant help but shake my head when I see things like that.

When people resort to just inventing things and saying it is fact, you know they have nothing left to add to the discussion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

no one wants to kill children.

but the rabid right is pro birth and then says f'em.

Those on the right who want to save the lives of unborn babies are not the same one on the right who say let the poor starve and insist that there isno hunger in America. The first groups is traditional genuine conservatism, the second is a neocon Corporate Crony slime ball.

 

[jillian]

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.

Very admirable post. There's a middle ground where the people of this country can agree on what you're talking about and that's what needs to happen. I'll be the first to admit many on the left are as crazy about this as you're implying many on the right are.

Middle ground be damned!

Everything needs to be free!

Go Bernie!!

bernie has never said that, ignoramus.

Lol, I cant help but shake my head when I see things like that.

When people resort to just inventing things and saying it is fact, you know they have nothing left to add to the discussion.

Exactly. There are things to disagree with that are real. But the minute trolls do things like that it kills discussion and forces people into defense mode.

 

[jillian]

no one wants to kill children.

but the rabid right is pro birth and then says f'em.

Those on the right who want to save the lives of unborn babies are not the same one on the right who say let the poor starve and insist that there isno hunger in America. The first groups is traditional genuine conservatism, the second is a neocon Corporate Crony slime ball.

As a general rule I find that the most anti-choice on the right are also the most opposed to contraception and sex Ed and programs geared to helping single mothers.

I suspect though I'm not sure, but I may notice it more than you.

Read their posts. It almost always ends with some angry nasty man calling women "sluts".