Printable View
I find it interesting that, whenever I turn on the TV or radio, there seems to be someone complaining about the media's "liberal bias". Am I the only one who thinks this is BS? I mean, really. Most mainsrteam media I've seen is quite conservative. Anyone else have an opinion?
Try this.
It's obvious to those who aren't liberal.
I fail to see how the media is even mildly liberal compared to how unliberal it is. I WISH it was liberal as Bill O'Riley says it is.
Well, here in Spain we got liberal and conservative to choose from. The problem here resides mainly for the conservatives, since the main conservative newspapers are quite sensationalistic too, so except for a couple of newspapers, most of the convervative media here is quite ridiculous. The liberal media has more decent journalists, although some can also get quite lame, although you don't tend to see headings such as "ASASSINS!!!" in the liberal newspapers. I'm not saying conservatives are evil, the simple fact is that most conservatives in Spain are preety bad journalists, not all of them, of course, I actually get to read one of the serious conservative newspapers just for a couple of writers really worth reading.
However, both the liberal and the conservative media tend to agree on something: George Bush. It may strike as strange that conservative newspapers speak greatly against Bush, but the fact is that he is disliked from both sides here.
As for the US; when I was there I only watched Fox News because I thought it was very amusing.
I'd say that the BBC is fairly evenly balanced, but others would disagree. They give most coverage to Labour, which is fair enough because they're in government, followed by the Tories and the Lib Dems.
British newspapers come in both Liberal and Conservative flavours, with the Guardian and the Independant being leftie, whereas the Times and the Daily Telegraph lean more to the right of centre. They'd be the four major 'broadsheets', so I guess the balance there is fair. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that the tabloids will tend to lean more to the right.
I say the media is rather conservative. Non-Stop coverage of how bad Clinton's scandle was. Seems like they are favoring conservatives in the fights in the senate right now. They aren't going after Bush like they did to Clinton. Looks more right to me.
More or less, the media has never really been slanted one way or the other. Both sides attempt to paint the media as biased against them in order to cry foul and draw sympathy from those in the center. Lately, the media has been more critical of the Bush Administration because they were so very docile in the events leading up to and directly after 9/11, where just about everyone went along with what the Bush Administration was preaching.
As details came out, that much of the information that was used and reported, had been, for lack of a better word, "terribly misguided", the media in particular looked like saps because they had gone on unquestioning of the government's doings, when in fact, the very basis of the media is to question, not to go along with.
To be honest, I find it very amusing when I hear someone cry foul about the media, especially conservatives, because honestly, the Right in the USA has more power than ever before, yet they still act as if THEY are the oppressed side. The media is always criticized when it reports on things that neither side wants to acknowledge, but sadly, lately the media has fallen into the trap of trying to justify itself as not being biased, when in reality, the news stories should speak for themselves and they oftentimes do. Just because people on either side don't want to admit fault or acknowledge wrongs or damning reports as being true, won't make them disappear, but in fact, it only escalates the situation more.
Now, more than any time in the last 20 years, the American people don't trust the government or the people in power, and it has little to do with the media. It has to do with the politicians that are in power, regardless of side. When those in charge refrain from accountability or from any sort of explanation for action aside from the "Our way or the highway" appraoch, it makes many people question and more often than not disillusioned.
Don't get me wrong, certain parts of the media have their biases, but to say that the entire media system is slanted one way or the other doesn't add up, because if there was an obvious agenda the media was trying to push, and many would have you believe that it is a Liberal agenda, then it's completely inexplicable that the Right would still have as much power as they do, unless that means the media is completely inept and therefore, doesn't pose any sort of threat to either party, which is obviously not the case being made by those in power.
I fully expect people to show me links of particular cases of bias, and I have no doubt that they exist, but there is no conclusive proof that the entire system is rigged one way or the other, otherwise this wouldn't be a polarized nation, but a completely docile obedient one, that always votes the same party into power.
Whether you trust your government, your media, your politicians or what have you is your business. I think truth eventually comes out in the end, and when that truth doesn't get acknowledged, it hurts everyone involved.
Take care all.
I don't think the media is quite as liberal as the conservatives would like to think it is.
I think the media is biased -- it's biased in favor of entertaining the viewer/reader. They spend so much time on non-stories like Michael Jackson and the Steroids in Baseball rather than real stories like international news, or the nominee issue (quick bet you can't even name 5 of the controvercial judges), or SS. It's all based on what the people *want* to know rather than what they need to know.
There are lots of issues that need more coverage
Social Security
Oil and how exactly we ended up paying $2.25 a gallon at the pump
The War -- remember Iraq and Afghanistan
Minuutemen and the immigration thing
Other international things that I don't know about because they aren't
covered at all (I think there was a riot in China that had to do with japanese textbooks)
Instead we get
Michael Jackson was an hour late to court and wore pajamas.
Mark McGuire may or may not have used steroids.
Is ward churchill an actual cherokee? (I'm watching this discussed right now. yawn)
Will 2006 be a good year for republicans/democrats?
Let me know when you see an actual news item here...
--How does Social Security need more coverage? It's had enough coverage, and the only coverage it would get is how eeeevil the Republicans our because they want to put all our elderly into homeless shelters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
--As for oil and gas prices--first of all, it's getting plenty of coverage. Second, the prices are not the highest they've ever been when you factor in inflation. Somehow, the mainstream liberal media is too busy telling us that gas prices are making us poor to mention that they really aren't that bad, we've just been used to them being very good.
--The war also gets plenty of coverage, they don't need to be listing the names of our casualties, or any of our operations. Besides, much coverage on the war now would make it look good, and they can't do that.
--Why do the Minutemen need more coverage? They're a group of people trying to stop illegal immigration. End of story. Unless something really bad happens to or because of them, there's no story.
--I heard about the riot in China concerning the Japanese textbooks. Who cares? How does that affect us?
Many studies have shown an obvious liberal slant to the media. I haven't heard of any studies that show a conservative sland to the media--even FOX News. And no, I'm not talking about people like Bill O'Reilly.
Why do we have another topic about this?
If you can get access to LEXIS-NEXIS, try running the numbers....
Like I mentioned in the post Sasquatch linked to, try checking "Matthew Shepard" vs. "Jesse Dirkhising" or "Jeffry Curley" and see which event the media thinks is more important--a homosexual brutally murdered by two heterosexuals or a heterosexual brutally murdered by two homosexuals. I guarantee that Shepard got more coverage than Jesse or Jeffry combined.
Then try checking "James Byrd" vs. "Ken Tillery" to see the same bias in racial matters.
Then try the terminology they use. Say, "extreme right" vs. "extreme left", then "far right" vs. "far left", etc.. I've run the numbers on LEXIS-NEXIS on this, and apparently the mainstream media is unaware there is such a concept as 'center right'.
Then there's the individual examples--CNN's admitting they covered the truth for Sodom, Dan Rather's testicle-polishing interview with same, Memo-gate, the New York Time exaggerating the stolen bombs, Eason Jordan accusing the military of targeting journalists, Walter Cronkite's dishonest Tet Offensive reporting that may indeed have lost us the war (dropped support 25%) and caused us to betray and abandon our allies in one of the most shameful acts in American history, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum
But, as I noted, there's a rather large amount of liberal bias--not only easy to see but pretty well-documented--this being one of my favorite links, wherein Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas says the media bias was worth as much as 15 points to John F'ing Kerry.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, a good and reputable journalist knows how to report without bias. By and large, television news is not well done and more prone to bias. Generally print media is pretty respectable.
And I might add that by and large AMERICA is conservative. We're not right-wing nutters by any stretch of the imagination, but socially we're far more conservative than most countries. I mean our political parties are Republicans, obviously anti-liberal, and Democrats, pseudo-liberals. Any real liberal minds in the Democratic party seem to be squelched by people who are too weak to do any good and too conservative to represent the liberal ideals.
[QUOTE=Sasquatch]Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
How about -- how bad off is the situation right now? How bad will it get and when? What will the proposals that exist to fix SS actaully do? do they actually make sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
and there actaully are two proposals out there. One is the bush personal accounts, and the other is to raise the cap (there's a cap on the contributions where after a certain point even if you make more money, you pay no more SS tax). What I wish the press would do is examine each proposal and figure out which one would work, and what SS would look like under each proposal 10, 20, and 50 years out.
You don't want to know *why* the gas prices have raised over $0.50 a gallon in a year? Is it the Saudis? the oil companies? I think we ought to know why the price raised that much, and what could be done with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Talking heads talking about the war gets coverage, not the actual war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I don't think it would all make the US look wonderful. A lot of it would, but some would make the US look bad too. The suicide bombings if they were all reported, would probably make the effort look worse than it does now (as though the situation was chaotic). The fact that the us is rebuilding the country (building schools and so on) would make the US look better. So it would probably be a mixed bag, but we would at least have a real sense of what is actually happening.
The minutemen need coverage because no one knows the number of people trying to cross the border at night. Kind of important to know how many people are crossing, who the hell they are, and what they do once they get here. Are there any criminals? Do they get jobs? Go on welfare? More important than MJ's court shinanagans in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
My point here is that there's a lot of stuff going on in the world that we just simply neve hear about. That wasn't probably the best example, but the point is that international news is very rarely reported in the US. The events in the rest of the world will eventually affect us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
There are examples of Conservative Bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505190008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412200001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407060009
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407270003
And at least one liberal bias study has proven to be less than 100% accurate.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505110005
At any rate, if the media were as liberal as conservatives say it is, then why are liberals calling the media conservative?
At any rate, my biggest concern about the press as it is right now is that they rarely go in depth on anything.
Pet peeve of the day. IMHO, there is a real difference between being a left-wing extreamist, and being a liberal. Banning all mention of religion, for example, is not in line with most liberal values. The problem is that the word "liberal" has been twisted out of recognition by extreamists and demonized by the Right.
Gas prices have skyrocketed because global demand has nearly reached global supply. No matter how much oil is left on earth, the total refinery capacity can only produce a finite amount of oil. The only ways to increase the total amount of oil available at any given time are these:
a) refineries increase their production to nearly full capacity. even OPEC has already done this.
b) build more refineries. this takes years to accomplish.
Basically, as world population grows and industrialization spreads further and further, the global demand of oil is reaching the point where it will exceed the available supply. That makes the price go up. Other than using less oil, or releasing some oil from the US strategic reserve (which isn't a great idea), there's not much we can do about it.
If you don't l;ike paying so much for gas, drive less. Drive a more fuel efficient car. Get rid of you SUV and get a Honda civic. Ride a bike. Move to Alaska and travel by dogsled.
Thank you. I'd also like to add "find alternative fuels". Really, it aint that hard.Quote:
If you don't l;ike paying so much for gas, drive less. Drive a more fuel efficient car. Get rid of you SUV and get a Honda civic. Ride a bike. Move to Alaska and travel by dogsled.
How is the race or sexual orientation of the victim relate to the media being liberal or conservative? Can't a black homosexual be conservative? Can't a white heterosexual be liberal? I don't see your point. I don't see why race/sexual preference and political orientation are related.Quote:
Like I mentioned in the post Sasquatch linked to, try checking "Matthew Shepard" vs. "Jesse Dirkhising" or "Jeffry Curley" and see which event the media thinks is more important--a homosexual brutally murdered by two heterosexuals or a heterosexual brutally murdered by two homosexuals. I guarantee that Shepard got more coverage than Jesse or Jeffry combined.
Then try checking "James Byrd" vs. "Ken Tillery" to see the same bias in racial matters.
I don't see why "left-wing extremists" plan to ban all mention of religion. I have met many left-wing extremists that do not wish to ban religion. Even though most of the left-wing extremists I have met do wish for that, but well, it's not always like that.Quote:
IMHO, there is a real difference between being a left-wing extreamist, and being a liberal. Banning all mention of religion, for example, is not in line with most liberal values.
First, an anti-conservative organization isn't exactly an objective source--and MediaMatters in particulary is well-known for, well, sucking.Quote:
here are examples of Conservative Bias.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505190008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412200001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407060009
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407270003
And at least one liberal bias study has proven to be less than 100% accurate.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505110005
At any rate, if the media were as liberal as conservatives say it is, then why are liberals calling the media conservative?
Second, MediaMatters notes--in order--Novak, a conservative columnist (note that Novak almost certainly meant the Deficit rather than National Debt--since the deficit as a percentage of GDP is lower... but either way, he's not a journalist, he's a columnist); a piece that also has the correction acknowledging it was incorrect at the bottom; an unreported poll which, not being able to see the poll myself, I can't say said or did not say what they claim it does (although the law of averages suggests it didn't), that came from someone giving them 4 days to report it and then running the critique; a writer pissed that CNN didn't report a "Bush Flip-flop" that the New York Times reported--a perusal of the NYT article shows that the "flip-flop" doesn't exist; and a piece that claims Stossel relied upon one study to find a result when there were actually several such. Six non-exmples out of six "examples"--not a very good record.
Likewise, the piece claims that people were labeled "conservative" more than six times as often as folks were labeled "liberal" because there are that many conservatives and liberals out there--logic a fourth-grader could pierce, they call it. Which makes sense, because the rebuttal sounds like something a fourth-grader would try.
Actually, the political views of the victims are indeed a non-issue. However, it's liberals, not conservatives, presenting a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals can't go outside for fear of being lynched--and the media publicizes events that uphold that view while ignoring events that would downplay it.Quote:
How is the race or sexual orientation of the victim relate to the media being liberal or conservative? Can't a black homosexual be conservative? Can't a white heterosexual be liberal? I don't see your point. I don't see why race/sexual preference and political orientation are related.
*shrug* There's not a real answer to this question because there are innumerable facts that tell you innumerable things, and everyone is going to slant them in favor of their argument. Every reporter on the planet is biased because they're human just like you. If you don't think you're getting accurate information, find another media outlet, it isn't like you don't have options.
Out of curiosity, if the names of Ken Tillery and Jesse Dirkhising AND Jeffry Curley are so very absent from the media, how exactly do you expect anyone to find out anything about them? Doubly curious is why you expect no one else to have heard of them, because I have and while I do have a substantial interest in the news, I am by no means a media fiend.
Just curious.
They are? And conservatives present a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals go outside to lynch and rape? Or the conservatives tell the truth and the liberals are liars?Quote:
However, it's liberals, not conservatives, presenting a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals can't go outside for fear of being lynched
Once again, Shadow Nexus has nailed it.Quote:
They are? And conservatives present a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals go outside to lynch and rape? Or the conservatives tell the truth and the liberals are liars?
The first one probably is a columnist, I'm not really familiar with his work specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
But why would the "law of averages" automatically point to bias if they don't report the poll the way conservatives have spun the story. The party line of Republicans says that it was "values" that won the election. It might not have actually been that way.
And I've never seen any studies that proved that doctors order more tests specifically because of lawsuits, which is the gist of the claim.
he sites HHS as doing a study, but the only similar "study" was one done in 2003, and all they did was site a poll from a group dedicated to ending a "lawsuit culture". That is not unbiased. A poll funded by people opposed to trial lawyers will find that trial lawyers are causing problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stossel
You didn't read it very carefully. They said that there were more people labelled conservative because there were more conservatives making news. That makes perfect sense, as right now conservatives hold most seats in congress and the presidency. So it makes sense that 1.) they talk to more conservatives. This includes people labeling themselves as conservative commentators. How else would you label an Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity if he's commenting on a news story? 2.) They do label liberals, they name people as "former clinton advisor". There's no way that a person with an IQ above room temperature can't figure out that a person who worked for Bill Clinton is a liberal, nor is there any way that a person labeled as "former Bush advisor" is going to be mistaken for a liberal. Just because they don't use the actual word liberal does not mean that a person has not in fact been labelled as such.Quote:
Likewise, the piece claims that people were labeled "conservative" more than six times as often as folks were labeled "liberal" because there are that many conservatives and liberals out there--logic a fourth-grader could pierce, they call it. Which makes sense, because the rebuttal sounds like something a fourth-grader would try.
Actually, the political views of the victims are indeed a non-issue. However, it's liberals, not conservatives, presenting a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals can't go outside for fear of being lynched--and the media publicizes events that uphold that view while ignoring events that would downplay it.[/QUOTE]Quote:
How is the race or sexual orientation of the victim relate to the media being liberal or conservative? Can't a black homosexual be conservative? Can't a white heterosexual be liberal? I don't see your point. I don't see why race/sexual preference and political orientation are related.
But republicans gain from people being afraid of crime too. If people are afraid of criminals, they'll favor harsher punishments for criminals, concealed carry, more money for police. All things conservatives favor.
No, but we don't try to pretend there are race wars going on out there. Racism is certainly out there, but it's not an epidemic and it's not some problem requiring more government intervention.Quote:
They are? And conservatives present a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals go outside to lynch and rape?
Well... basically, yeah.Quote:
Or the conservatives tell the truth and the liberals are liars?
The "law of averages" refers to MediaMatters' track record--more likely than not, their info is going to be false, because it almost always is.Quote:
But why would the "law of averages" automatically point to bias if they don't report the poll the way conservatives have spun the story. The party line of Republicans says that it was "values" that won the election. It might not have actually been that way.
The problem is, that's not the only study. Footnote 42 of the HHS report cites a Florida study of 1573 doctors that got the same results--66% confirmed it. So why would they claim Stossel 'relied' on one study, when there was obviously more than one cited right there in the report?Quote:
he sites HHS as doing a study, but the only similar "study" was one done in 2003, and all they did was site a poll from a group dedicated to ending a "lawsuit culture". That is not unbiased.
Because there aren't any liberals making war protests, or filibustering, or slandering Bush like they have been for the last few years, or chipping in about any of the various issues people are concerned about? But assuming that conservatives are "making news" more--6 times more?Quote:
You didn't read it very carefully. They said that there were more people labelled conservative because there were more conservatives making news. That makes perfect sense, as right now conservatives hold most seats in congress and the presidency.
Actually, ABC News chose George Stephanopoulos and David Gergen for their opposing analysts of the 2000 election. Both of whom worked for Mr. Fluffy Bunny.Quote:
There's no way that a person with an IQ above room temperature can't figure out that a person who worked for Bill Clinton is a liberal, nor is there any way that a person labeled as "former Bush advisor" is going to be mistaken for a liberal
OK, I get it. Wow, liberals really are evil. However, in a conservative biased media, there would be no other bias than the golden and shiny truth.Quote:
Well... basically, yeah.
Yes, because conservatives are all good Christian people who follow biblical values, and therefore never lie, kill, steal, ect. and liberals are just evil liars and black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
There isn't much coverage of war protests. though. The only "protest" coverage I've seen (not counting c-span) is a guy who put up a soldier hung in effigy on his house. That's really it. They don't show anti-war protests anywhere in the US. If the media was liberal, i'd expect them to show the war protests. It would make it seem that the people of the US oppose the war. According to you, that's what the liberal media wants you to think, right?Quote:
Quote:
You didn't read it very carefully. They said that there were more people labelled conservative because there were more conservatives making news. That makes perfect sense, as right now conservatives hold most seats in congress and the presidency.
Because there aren't any liberals making war protests, or filibustering, or slandering Bush like they have been for the last few years, or chipping in about any of the various issues people are concerned about? But assuming that conservatives are "making news" more--6 times more?
And if you want to talk about "slandering" presidents, if the media was liberal, why did all the charges by Republicans about Bill Clinton get so much coverage? They investigated Whitewater for years, and it was reported heavily by the press, yet they never actually found anything.
Other than the memo CBS thing, there hasn't been any slander of Bush by the media. One story that was big for maybe two weeks vs 3-4 years of reporting on the investigations on Bill Clinton (Which included rape charges from Arkansas btw). I just don't see a lot of Bush slander.
They "NEVER ACTUALLY FOUND ANYTHING"?!? Are you serious? They found that he was having the AK State Patrol bring women to a hotel room to trade sexual favors for jobs! Where the hell did you pull that they "never actually found anything"? Or are you intentionally ignoring bad things that liberals do?
Kind of like you guys ignore or rationalize the bad things conservatives do? *gasp*Quote:
Or are you intentionally ignoring bad things that liberals do?
That's a long way to drive, all the way from Alaska.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
That wasn't whitewater. Whitewater was a land deal of some kind that was investigated and reported on four at least 6 years, even though they could never find any wrongdoing. That's why the conservatives decided to impeach the president for having an affair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
which pisses me off everytime some dumb conservative says that all christains are conservatives.I'm a christain and I'm liberal at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
Bush does have some kind of Neo-Conservative movement thats hiding behind christainity and when religion gets mixed up with politics like that.Nothing but evil will come from it.We live in dangerous times.
Wrong on both counts. 14 of Clinton's associates were convicted, although he let them take the fall for himself.Quote:
That wasn't whitewater. Whitewater was a land deal of some kind that was investigated and reported on four at least 6 years, even though they could never find any wrongdoing. That's why the conservatives decided to impeach the president for having an affair.
And Clinton was not impeached for having an affair either. He was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice.
Maybe it's just that we have a hard time seeing how a Christian would support a faction so blatantly hostile towards Christians and Christianity.Quote:
which pisses me off everytime some dumb conservative says that all christains are conservatives.I'm a christain and I'm liberal at that.
So much coverage? Hell, the friends of Gray Davis accusing Schwartzenegger of groping got more coverage than Mr. Fluffy Bunny's accusers--including CBS deliberately sitting on the credible rape accusation still standing against him. The LA Times brags that it had 9 reporters in Little Rock--but it had 27 on the groping 'story'.Quote:
And if you want to talk about "slandering" presidents, if the media was liberal, why did all the charges by Republicans about Bill Clinton get so much coverage?
And the other AWOL stories, and the Harken stories, and the attempts to link him to Enron, accusations that he was "rolling back" policy by delaying one of Clinton's last-day executive orders, claims that Bush's cousin 'won' Florida for him by accurately calling the state for Bush 5 hours after the polls were closed, etc., etc., etc.Quote:
Other than the memo CBS thing, there hasn't been any slander of Bush by the media.
WEll I'm a black baptist and really most people at my church are democrats at that.When it comes to politics racial backgorund plays a big role.The Democratic party appears more beneficial towards teh african americna comunity and the jewish community and the hispanic community no matter what religion you are.Thats the thing I know a blakc republican thats a christain.But when i mostly see a conservative thats a christain they're usually white.Make of note of this.Make a note of the seperation within christianity in the USA.When I was at the YMCA the other day some 30 year old white woman ask me if I was a repub.I said no.Then asked if i was a chrstain.I said yes.Then say how can i not be a repub. but be a christain.I think there is some kind of neo conservative movement thats splitting the christain church further apart.Quote:
Maybe it's just that we have a hard time seeing how a Christian would support a faction so blatantly hostile towards Christians and Christianity.
Yeah, because we know killing sinners and hating people for being gay or having a child born out of wedlock is what christianity is all about eh? Equal treatment and tolerance...what? Jesus never wanted any of those things, no. Infact when Jesus disagreed with people, he whipped out the most destructive weapon he was allowed to own and killed the bastards!Quote:
Maybe it's just that we have a hard time seeing how a Christian would support a faction so blatantly hostile towards Christians and Christianity.
Yep, that's the Christianity I know.
How are their hostile, may I ask?Quote:
Maybe it's just that we have a hard time seeing how a Christian would support a faction so blatantly hostile towards Christians and Christianity.
Consider Jesse Jackson blaming the Christian Coalition for the Holocaust (Literally--"The Christian Coalition was a strong force in Germany"... nevermind the fact that it was formed in 1989), but Jesse Jackson calling himself a reverend is enough offense to Christianity already. Among other liberals noting their views are Ted Turner "I had no use for organized religion", director Marshall Brickman "It's the big issue, isn't it, in the last 2,000 years, whether organized religion has really been a good thing.", actor Rupert Evertt "I think Jesus has been completely manupulated and used by organized religion", Rachel Hunter "I'm no fan of organized religion". Today host Katie Cuouric attributed the death of Janes Byrd to a climate created by Christianity. The Washington Post refers to Christians as "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command." One liberal left his media job to found People for the American Way (imagine the uproar if a conservative named his group as representing "The American way") just to combat Christianity. The New York Times spent years trying to draw associations between Christianity and Nazis. When Jesse Ventura made his comments about "a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers," Newsweek called him "beguiling, blunt, a maverick. Time prased his "authenticity", saying "Today's political culture craves authenticity but bristles when it actually gets some." The Washington Post devoted an entire column to praising Ventura, in which he describes Christians thus: "Their views are so retrograde, their thinking so inexplicable... that it is simply asking too much to accord them the respect normally due religious leaders. Barbara Walters on 20/20 call it a "little mistake" and then asked, "Do you think that a totally honest man can be president of the United States?". The New York Times praised him for givign a "lift" to "stultifying campaign culture". Milly Ivins praised Ventura for his courage, asking "when was the last time y ou heard a politician take on the religious right?" (That's the most offensive part about it--they bash Christianity day in, day out, non-stop, and then expect us to help them pretend that they were slaying dragons...) Christianity's response? Flowers. 300 long-stemmed red roses with a card from the "churches, ministries and individual Christians of the Twin Cities who wish simply to bless you and extend to you our prayers for you to have a wonderful Christmas." New York Times columnists called Catholics offended at "The Holy Virgin Mary" (and please note which side of the aisle is supporting the virgin Mary with elephant crap smeared on her chest and "Piss Christ"...) "tone-deaf self-righteousness". I could go on for hours and hours.Quote:
How are their hostile, may I ask?
It's lberalism, not conservatives, who have a 'devil term' that essentially comes down to accusing your opponent of being a Christian.
I never understood why tht was, but I'll bet that most of your family is considerably more conservative than the Democrats your supporting. (as for the Democrats being more beneficial towards the black and the Jewish community... where does that leave Al Sharpton?). But as a black baptist, how do you reconcile your party's endorsement of religion? As a black person, who oppose abortion and homosexual marriage by something like 65% and 85%, how do you accept the Democrats embrasure of both concept? How to black folks, who have similiarily high support of school vouchers, put up with the Democrats deciding that's not what they really want? And if you get the chance sometime, you ought to look the statements of Margaret Sanger regarding abortion--it's no accident that America's first abortion mill was set up in Harlem.Quote:
WEll I'm a black baptist and really most people at my church are democrats at that.When it comes to politics racial backgorund plays a big role.
I'll bite. How is the church being split further apart, and which "neo-conservatives" are involved?Quote:
I think there is some kind of neo conservative movement thats splitting the christain church further apart.
Yeah--when you can't see us we're running around lynching people, and we hate everybody. but I suppose killing babies, praising sinners, hating people for being successful, being homosexual, and having kids out of wedlock is what Christianity's really about, huh? All that "Christ the Redeemer" stuff is just for us fundies.Quote:
Yeah, because we know killing sinners and hating people for being gay or having a child born out of wedlock is what christianity is all about eh?
As if liberalism has anything to do with equal treatment or tolerance?Quote:
Equal treatment and tolerance...what? Jesus never wanted any of those things, no.
.......................................Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
I'm not even arguing with someone who's taking what I said completely out of context.
A) When did I say such a thing?Quote:
As if liberalism has anything to do with equal treatment or tolerance?
B) What the hell is "Liberalism"?
Has it ever occured to you that rampant stereotyping of "liberals" based on the actions of a few in the public eye might not actually be correct?
Anybody who gives what you posted even the most cursory examination will easily see that it was not in the slightest taken out of context--if you don't have a leg to stand on then by all means take your ball and go home, but there's no need to slander me while you're at it.Quote:
I'm not even arguing with someone who's taking what I said completely out of context.
The actions of a few in the public eye? Alright, let's hear it, then--which liberals are supportive of Christianity?Quote:
Has it ever occured to you that rampant stereotyping of "liberals" based on the actions of a few in the public eye might not actually be correct?
So wait a minute, clinton is still guilty even though we found evidence of "associates" doing things. Look had there been any way that clinton was involved in criminal activity, any one of these associates would have gladly taken a plea deal to testify against clinton. Or is he a Sith lord brainwashing them to the point where they are willing to spend years in jail rather than testify to clinton's guilt? I really don't think Clinton knows the jedi mind trick.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
We don't do guilt by association in this country.
Democrats aren't hostile to religion. They support some things Christians disagree with and some they agree with. heck most Catholics vote Democrat (at least here in St Louis), and probaby 85% or more of Democrats attend church on a regular basis.Quote:
Maybe it's just that we have a hard time seeing how a Christian would support a faction so blatantly hostile towards Christians and Christianity.Quote:
which pisses me off everytime some dumb conservative says that all christains are conservatives.I'm a christain and I'm liberal at that.
Even the Ventura quotes mentioned by others. Saying that you don't believe in Christianity is not anti-christian any more than saying that I don't believe that Muhammad is a prophet somehow automatically makes me hostile to Islam. No, it makes me not a muslim to say I don't believe in Muhammad. Further, reporting that someone said something anti-muslim is not anti-muslim. It's doing you job. If you interview somebody and he says something about religion (esp. in the case of Ventura, something he was asked by Playboy, who was doing the interview), then you pretty much have to print the answer. Even if the answer is going to offend you. As far as Ventura, the authenticity thing may have been from other parts of his campaign. He had a reputation at the time of "shooting from the hip", saying what he really thought (about lots of things, not just religion). He was anti-death-penalty, and anti-jailtime for nonviolent drug abusers. In fact this is what ventura said about drugs
So at least some of the "blunt, maverick" comments could have been on other issues.Quote:
Nobody's ever been able to explain to me why we waste prison cells on drug addicts.
Which is why Jennifer Flowers is a household name.Quote:
So much coverage? Hell, the friends of Gray Davis accusing Schwartzenegger of groping got more coverage than Mr. Fluffy Bunny's accusers--including CBS deliberately sitting on the credible rape accusation still standing against him. The LA Times brags that it had 9 reporters in Little Rock--but it had 27 on the groping 'story'.Quote:
And if you want to talk about "slandering" presidents, if the media was liberal, why did all the charges by Republicans about Bill Clinton get so much coverage?
The "groping thing" lasted maybe a week. Clinton's accusations went on for probably at least 8 months.
[/quote]Quote:
And the other AWOL stories, and the Harken stories, and the attempts to link him to Enron, accusations that he was "rolling back" policy by delaying one of Clinton's last-day executive orders, claims that Bush's cousin 'won' Florida for him by accurately calling the state for Bush 5 hours after the polls were closed, etc., etc., etc.Quote:
Other than the memo CBS thing, there hasn't been any slander of Bush by the media.
Amazingly I've never heard any of these charges. You must be reading some pretty far-left papers.
Myself, for one. You see, a vast majority of people in the United States, both liberal and conservative, are Christian. Being liberal is generally in support of social progressivism, whereas being conservative is in support of social traditionalism. Many Christians differ on certain opinions, but that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Christians. Most liberals actually are very much in support of religion, it's merely the influence of Christianity in government that troubles them, as the government should be a secular state. It's just the extremist talking heads that are anti-Christian, and you really only see the extremists on both sides in popular culture. Most Americans are fairly centrist and tolerant/apathetic.
Redneck, you can throw as many data as you wish, that still dosen't proove any point. "Liberalism" as a whole contemplates a wide range of ways of thinking. The same way you start quoting people - most of whom I have never heard about, I guess it's North American journalists or politicians - I could anwser you with a thousand more quotes from other liberals defending religion. For example, I am Spanish, I have Leonard Cohen on my sig. I could tell you thirty names of people in Spain that love Leonard Cohen. Does that proove Spain loves Leonard Cohen? In fact, I could be considered a liberal (I never use that term to refer to myself, though)...does that mean liberals love Cohen too?
And I have nothing against Christians. I don't like the concept of organized religion, the same way I detest the concept of pre-fabricated ideologies and political dogma. But I have never been hostile to someone because of their religion. Does that mean I am not a liberal?
I don't know about the poor and uneducated thing, but the "easy to command" is definetly the truth. (As the Republicans have proved over these past two elections)Quote:
The Washington Post refers to Christians as "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."
Hahaha! Oh man, that's the best joke i've heard all week!! :lol:Quote:
As if liberalism has anything to do with equal treatment or tolerance?
I am.Quote:
The actions of a few in the public eye? Alright, let's hear it, then--which liberals are supportive of Christianity?
No, it was taken out of context. That isn't arguable. He said that it isn't very Christian to hate people for not following christian values. And that is just what Christians tend to do. Hate people, and then hide behind the Bible and use it as an excuse. Again, this is not arguable, because anybody who has grown up around christians and thier culture (and has half a brain) realizes this is true. (Although, not ALL christians do this. A good portion of them do though.)Quote:
Anybody who gives what you posted even the most cursory examination will easily see that it was not in the slightest taken out of context--if you don't have a leg to stand on then by all means take your ball and go home, but there's no need to slander me while you're at it.
Yes we do.Quote:
We don't do guilt by association in this country.
I am not sure what my stance on religion is at the moment. I am still trying to figure out what I believe. I however, do believe in alot of christian ideals. This is why I can't stand republicans. Everything they do (except for the gay marriage an abortion thing) tends to be anti christian. I must ask why all of these so called "christian" republicans support the death penalty? (Does "He who has not sinned may cast the first stone" ring a bell?) I realize that war isn't necessarily a republican thing, but how come so many republicans seem to support war so much? The Bible does not condone homosexuality, but it never once says that it is okay for christians to judge them. In fact, it says just the opposite. "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself" (I don't know if that is word for word or not) So then, why is it that so many christian republicans are so hateful when it comes to gays?
People just use the Bible as an excuse to bash people. They use the Bible to try and hide behind absurd and cruel ideals. They use the Bible to excuse themselves for voting republican. By doing so, they contradict themselves a thousand times over, but it's not like half of them have even read the bible, right?
nik0tine said it pretty well. The death penalty is something that has always made me wonder how they are pro life. Doesn't make sense. Then there is the war and the huge spending on miltary and arms that republicans do. That money could be used to do the Christian thing and help your fellow man. But wait. That would be evil socialism.
Most Christians that don't care about gay marriage realize that it isn't under God that these people would be married. It is under the state and it is for equal benifits. Abortion is a whole other battle entirely that will probably never be won by either side.
That's not slander. Give it a rest, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Do you really think liberals are opposed to Christianity by their very nature? If you do, then all the counter examples in the world won't make any difference. There are overwhelming numbers of Christians who practice Christianity to varying degrees of devotion. I am friends with many myself. Just to name one politician in the news currently, what about Senate minority leader Harry Reid? He's even pro-life.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Well one thing about abortion is I support it due to the fact that really people who don't want kids shouldn't have and raise one.The kid will go through too much mess if the parent is too irresponsible.And rather a mother to be gets an abortion is what determines rather they want a kid or not when they are pregnant.Really I'm pro choice for it simply put I have respect for what others wish to do with their lives and I don't tell them how to live there life and make choices.Yes as a christain my job is to spread teh word but Once I tell them the good news and invit ethem to come to a service.If they do not want to come you can't force them to come which is why I'm pro life for the same reasons.IF they don't want a kid they don't deserve it and if a kid is to be saved from abortion then really its up to god.Quote:
never understood why tht was, but I'll bet that most of your family is considerably more conservative than the Democrats your supporting. (as for the Democrats being more beneficial towards the black and the Jewish community... where does that leave Al Sharpton?). But as a black baptist, how do you reconcile your party's endorsement of religion? As a black person, who oppose abortion and homosexual marriage by something like 65% and 85%, how do you accept the Democrats embrasure of both concept? How to black folks, who have similiarily high support of school vouchers, put up with the Democrats deciding that's not what they really want? And if you get the chance sometime, you ought to look the statements of Margaret Sanger regarding abortion--it's no accident that America's first abortion mill was set up in Harlem.
With homosexual marriage personally I think its wrong but thats a persons choice and not the gov. choice.And what ever that person chooses to do is really between themselves and god.The government shouldn't interven on that.And really I'm 17 trying to bust my ass studying for two standardise test and I really don't get much time to do some research.Right now I need to finish this english work I have.I will read up on Margaret.
I am.Quote:
The actions of a few in the public eye? Alright, let's hear it, then--which liberals are supportive of Christianity?
I dislike the actions of some who use christianity as an excuse, but I have no real problems with the religion.
I agree with this. Christianity is truly a great thing. However, the way it is twisted today, and the way that the important parts are just plain ignored, makes me not very supportive of the christians, most of which seem to be christian by name alone.Quote:
I dislike the actions of some who use christianity as an excuse, but I have no real problems with the religion.
Got a quote you might like.Quote:
I agree with this. Christianity is truly a great thing. However, the way it is twisted today, and the way that the important parts are just plain ignored, makes me not very supportive of the christians, most of which seem to be christian by name alone.
Playwright George Bernard Shaw, on Christianity-
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :DQuote:
"I don't know; it might work if anyone ever tried it".
lets see the african american community thats democrats and especially in the south there are rarely anime african americans that dont have a religion or isnt in the christain fate.There are people and its really for there personal views not from who said what to whom and how they said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Most christain republicans are white to tell you the truth heck most republicans are white.There are minorities that are republicans but not as many as there are white republicans.And for those whom are confused with what is racism blah blah blah blah blah.I'm not being racist I'm just stating a few facts/observations.Since Racism is the expression of hatred towards a group of people.I'm not racist for saying african american or white.jsut because i said it.And there are a few 16 year old suburban kids who come on here and will call me a racist because i said what i said in this post so to keep those idiots room saying that I went ahead and said it in advance.Oh yeah there will be one smart guy who thinks it will be funny to say racist anyway well it will kinda.lol.
The point I'm trying to make is that the Republicans have less christain values than the democratic party.I mean the Republicans are against social programs.Stuff that helps people.Because you think someone on welfare is just a dead beat.I mean wtf?No scripture in the bible has ever said you get to choose the ones you help.You pay the tax and get over it because there may be a single parent whose soul provider left her and has to raise 4 children on her own and can only get a job that pays $4.50 a week and she may work multiple times but that welfare helps a great deal for people whom are in that situation..(A message to all republicans that are christains from a fellow democratic christain).
No, but he knows how to issue pardons. And look up Web Hubbel's $400,000 payoff sometime.Quote:
So wait a minute, clinton is still guilty even though we found evidence of "associates" doing things. Look had there been any way that clinton was involved in criminal activity, any one of these associates would have gladly taken a plea deal to testify against clinton. Or is he a Sith lord brainwashing them to the point where they are willing to spend years in jail rather than testify to clinton's guilt? I really don't think Clinton knows the jedi mind trick
Tell that to Bush and Big Oil (boooo! Hissss!)Quote:
We don't do guilt by association in this country.
The problem being that Ventura did not say he doesn't believe in Christianity. He said it's a "crutch for weak-minded people".Quote:
Even the Ventura quotes mentioned by others. Saying that you don't believe in Christianity is not anti-christian any more than saying that I don't believe that Muhammad is a prophet somehow automatically makes me hostile to Islam
The 'groping thing' lasted significantly longer than a week. Clinton's accusations, on the other hand, went on for such a long time because he spent a few years obstructing justice. When you refuse to answer subpoenas, it delays the process a bit.Quote:
Which is why Jennifer Flowers is a household name.
The "groping thing" lasted maybe a week. Clinton's accusations went on for probably at least 8 months.
Well, they were in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times... so in otherwords--yeah, pretty much.Quote:
Amazingly I've never heard any of these charges. You must be reading some pretty far-left papers.
I'll keep that in mind.Quote:
Redneck, you can throw as many data as you wish, that still dosen't proove any point.
Which is why you believe...Quote:
I am.Quote:
The actions of a few in the public eye? Alright, let's hear it, then--which liberals are supportive of Christianity?
andQuote:
don't know about the poor and uneducated thing, but the "easy to command" is definetly the truth. (As the Republicans have proved over these past two elections)
With friends like this, who needs enemies?Quote:
And that is just what Christians tend to do. Hate people, and then hide behind the Bible and use it as an excuse.
Let's review: Lordblazer said that he gets offended when people think Christians should be conservative. I replied that maybe this is because it's hard to concieve of a Christian supporting a faction so hostile to Christianity (being liberalism). DMKA commented that "Yeah, because we know killing sinners and hating people for being gay or having a child born out of wedlock is what christianity is all about eh?" This is probably going to give me a headache, but I'll bite: So he was just adding his comment to a back-and-forth about liberalism vs. conservatism as it concerns religion by making general commentary on nothing in particular?Quote:
No, it was taken out of context. That isn't arguable.
Oh, I agree. But the answer isn't to kill off the kids, the answer is to excersize a little personal responsibility. It's not impossible to not have sex, even in today's society.Quote:
really people who don't want kids shouldn't have and raise one.
I can definitely understand that. The ghist of it is that Sanger pushed abortion for the reason that it would help "control the Negro population". Not being exactly enlightened, Ms. Sanger figured having less black folks around was a good thing, and abortion was a good way to make it happen. That's why not just the first, but the first several abortion clinics were set up in Harlem and other black neighborhoods.Quote:
And really I'm 17 trying to bust my ass studying for two standardise test and I really don't get much time to do some research.Right now I need to finish this english work I have.I will read up on Margaret.
Naw, that's cool. That ~is~ the situation. However, the number of minority Republicans is growing--politically, the Democrat party has been taking them for granted. Like I mentioned, look at three of the biggest issues of the black community--homosexual marriage, abortion, school vouchers. The Democratic party told more than 60% of them "Too bad--hell, we know you're gonna vote for us anyway, so screw you." There's only so much longer that "You're gonna get lynched if they actually get control of the country" is gonna work.Quote:
Most christain republicans are white to tell you the truth heck most republicans are white.There are minorities that are republicans but not as many as there are white republicans.And for those whom are confused with what is racism blah blah blah blah blah.I'm not being racist I'm just stating a few facts/observations.Since Racism is the expression of hatred towards a group of people.I'm not racist for saying african american or white.jsut because i said it.
This isn't exactly the case. Republicans are fine with helping people. Hell, I spent a summer working with the Chattahootchie Baptist Association (if you wanna look it up, just check "Georgia Baptist Associations" because I just know I absolutely butchered the spelling of Chattahootchie"....), and that's what we did all week--handed out food, vouchers to pay for furniture or car repairs, gave rides... (I also got some free food; some of the stuff that Publix was givin' way. Nothin' quite like having Ramen for dinner, with gourmet hand-baked French Bread on the side.) Taking our money and using it to help people is absolutely great. Our problem is with someone else taking away money, wasting the great majority of it, and throwing the rest in the general direction of someone who may or may not need it.Quote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the Republicans have less christain values than the democratic party.I mean the Republicans are against social programs.Stuff that helps people.
Moreover, I've worked in a grocery store before, when I was struggling my way through college. I've seen people on welfare, and the vast majority of them ate a lot better than I do. Nothing like watching someone use your money to buy T-Bone steaks and Ben & Jerry's ice cream, then use their own money to get a few cases of beer, then pile it into their brand-new car... then finish up your shift, go home to a trailer that costs less than most of those cars, and have macaroni and cheese for dinner. (Mac & Cheese, a can of Cream of Mushroom soup, and a can of cheap tuna--dinner for less than $1.50, and that's what I ate just about every night back then. I've never had Ben & Jerry's ice cream; I can't afford it. Not for myself, at least...)
There's also no scripture in the Bible that names someone righteous for stealing someone else's money and using it for a good cause.
I expected you to reply to that message in the way that you did. As usual, you took something that you find to be offensive, and tried to turn it into something anti christian. Sorry, but im not about to let that tactic work against me.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Christianity and Christians are two different things. The "easy to control" thing works with any religious person. Actually, a more appropriate term would be idiot. A religious person may not be easy to control or decieve, but a religious idiot most certainly is. Seeing as how most people are idiots, it would be logical to assume that most religious people are idiots. Go into a religious setting, and hey! what do you know?! It's surround with idiots! A religious idiot is particularily easy to control because all you have to do is use the word "bible" (or well, anything he or she associates with thier religion.) And they tend to back whatever the issue is, one hundred percent, with no thought whatsoever. Religion is manipulated so that leaders can get the people to follow blindly. (More often than not, what the leader is trying to accomplish is anything but religious)
Now, this seems pretty insulting if you are a christian. (Well, if you're a stupid Christian, that is) However, it in no way is offensive to Christianity. In fact, nothing about the religion was brought up, aside from the fact that a good portion of it's followers are stupid. (And that doesn't have anything to do with the faith anyway)
Again, in what way is this offensive in regards to christianity? Christians, like most people, are hateful bigots. Not because they are christian, but simply because they are hateful bigots. In our society, however, being a hateful bigot is not okay. If they try to hide behind the Bible, they can feel some sense of justification, and not feel as if they were a hateful bigot. (BeQuote:
And that is just what Christians tend to do. Hate people, and then hide behind the Bible and use it as an excuse.
cause nobody wants to be the badguy)
Again, nothing I have said is offensive to the christian faith, it's just offensive to the morons who abuse that faith. (And it was intended to be offensive to those people)
Then what are you saying? That you lack common knowledge of what you claim to support? That you've never heard of that thing called the death penalty?ZODKMSGOGMSGPSGMGPMP!~!~Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
And again, you need to pickup your dictonary...you need to look up liberal and you also need to look up slander (which is what you've done to me every single time you've ever quoted me from what I can recall).
I don't get how people like you can just throw every single last person who happens to be a free thinker and not agree with you into a big bucket and stamp "antichristian liberals" across it. You yell at liberals for supporting abortion because it's killing and you're "pro-life", then you turn around and support the death penalty and shooting people dead. You yell at them for being supposedly "anti-christian" when infact most of them ARE christians and then you're basically anti every other religion, and you can't say you aren't when you're setting there putting your religious beliefs into political issues which in turn ends up pressing your religious values upon everyone else and then all the other faiths are just pushed off to the side and ignored.
Just because someone isn't Christian and doesn't agree with it thus wanting things that conflict with it hardly makes them anti-Christian. It's like saying every white person hates black people. And again, if half the people who are conservative that claim to be Christian actually knew what Christianity was, they wouldn't be conservative.
But like I said, I'm not arguing any futher with you, because you seem to lack any thought other than "OMG I AM RIGHT AND ALL YOU DIRTY STUPID LIBERALS ARE JUST ALL THE SAME STUPIDS!"...so whatever.
DMKA, give it up, you're outdone.
This all boils down to what can be considered Christianity. A lot of people will say they're Christian, hell maybe even go to church once a week. But liberalism and support of Biblical values are contradictory, as The Redneck has pointed out. Homosexual marriage, abortion, school vouchers, "welfare" (i.e. stealing my money to give to somebody that isn't much worse off than I am, and it's their own damn fault anyway), and more and more. (By the way, I support welfare, but only for the people that need it--it's not our responsibility to support poor people, it's theirs, we might just need to help 'em out...and by the way, a very large percentage of people on welfare are there because they turned to drugs and/or alcohol, or simply were too damn lazy to make anything of themselves. Not because thier husband left them with four children she can't support. Just like--and this may surprise you too--the majority of strippers really aren't just trying to support their young children and working their way through college.)
Anyway, like I was saying, it depends on what people would consider "Christian". If I say I'm a communist, but don't support any Communist ideals or principles, am I really a Communist? If I say I'm a liberal, but support only conservative policies, am I really a liberal? Is somebody who says they're Christian, but doesn't let any Christian beliefs show in their voting or support, really a Christian, or are they just hiding behind religion, doing the same thing they accuse others of doing? And should these people be grouped in with the rest of "Christianity" or the "religious right"? (How come we don't hear about the "religious left"?)
nik0tine, you started off by saying you're a liberal "Christian", then went on to badmouth Christians, saying we're easy to control and that we hate people and hide behind the Bible. While it is not my place to question your faith, and that's not what I'm doing, you are a prime example of the people that lead people to think Christianity is not a partisan religion. If anybody truly believed the Bible--and no, I'm not talking about hiding behind it, I'm talking about believing it--they would go nowhere near modern liberalism.
Sasquatch, did you even read what nik0tine wrote? He said that Christians are idiots to the same degree that all people are idiots. He said that those idiots that happen to be Christian are easy to control because they will swallow whatever lies you tell them as long as you couch them in biblical rhetoric. That's not a denunciation of Christianity, it's a denunciation of those who would manipulate Christianity for their own personal and irreligious aims. There's a huge difference.
Well your voting record doesn't show you are christian either and nor do your beliefs. Support of the death penalty, wars, the intolorance of others beliefs, the flat tax and other things(I admit I am streaching this one but if we are suppose to give up riches and possesions in order to help those less fotunate then we should sky rocket the tax on the rich).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I streached that last one just like the right streaches gay marriage. They are not being married under God so it isn't a true marriage they way it is being thought about. Instead it is discriminating against your fellow man. You are denying them rights that other couples have. No one is saying they need to be married under God. Just let them be married under the state.
If anybody truly believed the Bible--and no, I'm not talking about hiding behind it, I'm talking about believing it--they would go nowhere near modern conservatism.
In the real end though...niether side is good so to claim other wise is just turning the other way. Hear no evil.
I haven't heard of any religious left, but I have heard of the "Teología de la liberación" (Theology of liberation) wich is a modern theological movement, mixing some marxist principles with other political beliefs and Christianity. It started off in 1968 in Colombia, and the most famous manifesto is "Historia, Política y Salvación de Una Teología de Liberación" (History, Politics and Salvation of a Theology of Liberation) written in Peru by the priest Gustavo Gutiérrez in 1973.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
The Theology of Liberation is more or less faith turned into praxis, attempt to create a civitas Dei on earth by fighting the "structures of sin" that seem to mantain the current misery and poverty in the world.
Of course, this also brings problems, because it is a marxist sector of the church, and this has risen a lot of criticism from the conservative sectors. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope, wrote in 1998 quite an interesting article critizizing the Theology of Liberation. I don't agree with him, but I must admit he does bring very good points, and presents quite a knowledge in the current philosophical panorama.
Oh, and it's not the only left sector of the church, but it's a good example.
There is a religious left, it just likes to keep to itself and practice religion and politics separately, rather than trying to dress up secular ambition in the Christian cloth.
I dont understand why some christains support the death penalty either.ITs really a human thing.Revenge in my opinion.Especially whe the murderer kiled somebody they knew.Beucase the death penalty goes against the christain faith.Since innocent people die under the death penalty every year.Jesus died under teh death penalty and he broke no laws.Revenge makes people do crazy things but in the end once revenge has been done.Emptyness is left.
And reall nik0 thank you for clearing that up.You said christains were easy t control i was thinking "are you calling me guillible you b-word!".But then when oyu said religious idiots well yeah religious fools are guillible and easy to control.If the controller hides behind a religion to manipulate that fool.*cough*Bush*cough*
and SAS are you saying that I'm not religious and that because I'm a liberal me being baptised and me studying the bible and me doing all this is in vain because i'm not a conservative?Theres a reason why politics should be seperate from religion.So people like hitler won't ocme into power.So events like the crusades won't happen again.So genocide won't happen.But SAS whaterever yeah even though im a christain but because im a liberal that means i dunno i forget what im gonna say because this whole thing irritates me.
I mean I'm tired of having to deal with the fact that I'm christain that im put as a conservative. I'M A FREAKING LIBERAL!!! and don't say that is't very christainy of you.Man i hate it when atheist say that it pisses me off due to the fact that they do it to mock you and blah blah blah whatever my head hurts now.
a liberal post that i haven't posted in yet. tis a rare thing. mainly because i'm very outspoken on this matter.
so where are we...... christainity and liberalism being opposites i see.
i'm an ex-christain but still know the teachings very well.
sasquatch you seem to forget mary magdalane. is she the poor you talk of? the pregnant teen drug user? and tell me what jesus did when he say a prostitute about to being stoned did he rmark to her "and it's their own damn fault anyway" no he didn't.
did jesus talk about sharing the wealth? yes. did he talk about redeeming the sinner? yes. did he tear down the temple full of gold? yes. did he touch the unclean (leper)? yes. did he feed the hungry? yes. was he selfish enough to leave this earth without helping his fellow man with the idea that "it's mine and i wanna keep it". no he taught people with the most selfless act.
look at the taxman story (i can't remember his name) where he takes all the money. the hides in a tree. jesus told him to come down and welcomed him. did he then keep his money? no he shared it.
modern liberalism is the true emergence of the new testament. would jesus have said that welfare was theft? there is no question there really is there. a man who believed in the sharing of welath. a man for equality and an end to greed.
was jesus a liberal? yes
9/11 is a prime example of that.Quote:
A religious idiot is particularily easy to control because all you have to do is use the word "bible" (or well, anything he or she associates with thier religion.) And they tend to back whatever the issue is, one hundred percent, with no thought whatsoever. Religion is manipulated so that leaders can get the people to follow blindly. (More often than not, what the leader is trying to accomplish is anything but religious)
I've been wanting to use this quote for quite some time, and I just got an opening.Quote:
(How come we don't hear about the "religious left"?)
Really, though. By the standards of his time, Jesus was a liberal.Quote:
The religious left died on a cross two-thousand years ago.
I honestly wonder sometimes if anyone in here pays attention to their own arguments. You can't argue that all conservatives behave in a certain way or all liberals behave in a certain way or all Christians behave a certain way. I think that a lot of people need to get out from under their pre-constructed views of how the people function in the real world and actually go out to meet people around you.
And I'll say it again, media slant is influenced only by the type of media you choose to observe. Using all these examples of liberal media institutions or conservative media institutions doesn't prove a damn thing, it just means that there DO exist institutions that DO have a certain bias. But that's true in ALL cases.
With an industry as varied and huge as the media industry is, it is impossible to say anything about 100% verifiably true about it.
Fire-of-avalon : point taken, and well said.
Fire of Avalon: Well, DUUUUH! :Oo:
If it's so obvious then explain to me why you all continue to argue about it like it matters?
Something that I find to be offensive? Well, I did, but note that you were explicitly referring to Christians with both those comments--there was no need to "turn" it into something anti-Christian. Sorry, but it already worked--and you did the work on it.Quote:
I expected you to reply to that message in the way that you did. As usual, you took something that you find to be offensive, and tried to turn it into something anti christian. Sorry, but im not about to let that tactic work against me.
And this has what to do with whether or not your quote was taken out of context?Quote:
Then what are you saying? That you lack common knowledge of what you claim to support? That you've never heard of that thing called the death penalty?ZODKMSGOGMSGPSGMGPMP!~!~
Examples? Proof? Some shred of something resembling evidence?Quote:
And again, you need to pickup your dictonary...you need to look up liberal and you also need to look up slander (which is what you've done to me every single time you've ever quoted me from what I can recall).
That's because it doesn't happen--well there are probably other reasons you can't understand it, but I'm not allowed to mention them on this forum. Note that I'm actually bringing forth evidence of these antichristian liberals--quotes from them and such. Or did you miss that part?Quote:
I don't get how people like you can just throw every single last person who happens to be a free thinker and not agree with you into a big bucket and stamp "antichristian liberals" across it
I would hope that you can see the difference between putting convicted murderers to death and killing infants because they'd be an inconvenience. If not, don't worry--there are folks who can.Quote:
You yell at liberals for supporting abortion because it's killing and you're "pro-life", then you turn around and support the death penalty and shooting people dead.
Supposedly? "a crutch for weak-minded people" is supposedly anti-Christian? Have you even been reading this post?Quote:
You yell at them for being supposedly "anti-christian"
See above.Quote:
Just because someone isn't Christian and doesn't agree with it thus wanting things that conflict with it hardly makes them anti-Christian.
Support of the flat tax is against christianity? Strange, I seem to remember the Bible being against theft....Quote:
Well your voting record doesn't show you are christian either and nor do your beliefs. Support of the death penalty, wars, the intolorance of others beliefs, the flat tax and other things(I admit I am streaching this one but if we are suppose to give up riches and possesions in order to help those less fotunate then we should sky rocket the tax on the rich).
I remember something about "go your way and sin no more"--and I don't remember anything about it being their fault that she was poor. In fact, I don't remember anything at all about her being poor, so I don't see why you're bringing it into play here.Quote:
sasquatch you seem to forget mary magdalane. is she the poor you talk of? the pregnant teen drug user? and tell me what jesus did when he say a prostitute about to being stoned did he rmark to her "and it's their own damn fault anyway" no he didn't.
But He didn't talk about stealing the guy's wealth and sharing it on his behalf.Quote:
did jesus talk about sharing the wealth? yes.
But He didn't talk about welcoming the sin.Quote:
did he talk about redeeming the sinner? yes.
No. He drove moneylenders out of the temple, not tore it down.Quote:
did he tear down the temple full of gold? yes.
Because conservatives don't ever touch lepers....Quote:
did he touch the unclean (leper)? yes.
But not with stolen money.Quote:
did he feed the hungry? yes.
Modern liberalism is antithetical to everything in the New Testament--which is why it's so hostile to it.Quote:
modern liberalism is the true emergence of the new testament.
You take money away from someone by force, spend most of it on yourself, and throw a few scraps someone else's way.... yes, He would.Quote:
would jesus have said that welfare was theft?
Not at all.Quote:
there is no question there really is there.
And how come being against forcing us to recognize an illicit relationship as a legitimate marriage means we want to "impose religion on you", but forcing someone to give money away isn't "imposing" anything?
And actually, that's fine. There are many people--including myself--who say that when you spend so much time observing events, you can't help but form opinions (often strong opinions) on what you see. The problem is that if you're bearing a bias, you need to admit it, rather than pretending you're delivering an objective, non-biased observation.Quote:
And I'll say it again, media slant is influenced only by the type of media you choose to observe. Using all these examples of liberal media institutions or conservative media institutions doesn't prove a damn thing, it just means that there DO exist institutions that DO have a certain bias. But that's true in ALL cases.
Um.. because "illicit relationship" is a religious judgement. Civil marriage, on the other hand, is not a religious issue.Quote:
And how come being against forcing us to recognize an illicit relationship as a legitimate marriage means we want to "impose religion on you",
Because argueing is fun...at least to me it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
jesus tore down a temple upon his death as well.
how is liberalism opposed to christianity? what manifesto declares this? liberalism is a politcal idea not a religious one. it thinks without judgement from or against religion.
the point with mary magdalane was that it was her fault. but she was forgiven, redeemed and taken in. the same should be done with people that you claim deserve their poverty.
if you want a controversial comment about the death penalty and abortion being similar. wouldn't abortion simply be the death penalty for the original sin?
there are two quote from the bible that most christains forget the most yet are the most important "take the plank out of your own eye before you point out the splinter in another's" and "when i man slaps you, turn the other cheek" i know they are not direct quotes.
politics should always always always be not influenced by religion at all. it should be done for the good of mankind not for any kind of religious pressure groups or beliefs. you cannot go round trying to please all the christians all the time. you cannot base poltics on religion. it should go beyond that while still holding the upmost of morality.
Heh heh. I'm gonna have to use that one.Quote:
if you want a controversial comment about the death penalty and abortion being similar. wouldn't abortion simply be the death penalty for the original sin?
And the chapter and verse describing this event would be.....?Quote:
jesus tore down a temple upon his death as well.
Funny you should word it like that... The first Manifesto defining liberalism advocates the abolishment of Christianity.Quote:
how is liberalism opposed to christianity? what manifesto declares this?
Wierd--and it looked to me like He stopped them from killing her and told her to quit sinning.Quote:
the point with mary magdalane was that it was her fault. but she was forgiven, redeemed and taken in.
You do see the difference between "Hey, don't kill her" and "you must give up what you own to support her whether or not she wants to work--oh, and you have to let Me handle the money, too, and can't whine if about three-quarters of it comes up missing," right? Please tell me you see the difference, there....Quote:
the same should be done with people that you claim deserve their poverty.
I always preferred calling the more obvious forms of infanticide a "fourth-trimester abortion".Quote:
if you want a controversial comment about the death penalty and abortion being similar.
Which means, of course, that we can't ever speak about what someone else does, right?Quote:
there are two quote from the bible that most christains forget the most yet are the most important "take the plank out of your own eye before you point out the splinter in another's"
Yeah, because religious beliefs don't have anything to do with the good of mankind or any of that happy fuzzy stuff. So influence by the most wierd-ass political theory you can think of is apparently fine, but if you check the Bible before deciding how to vote you're screwing up politics? Your bias is showin', there....Quote:
politics should always always always be not influenced by religion at all. it should be done for the good of mankind not for any kind of religious pressure groups or beliefs.
Polticis rednecka nd politicians both liberal and conservatives.Shouldn't have too much religious influence to the point where they start hiding behind a religion to control the masses.
1.Politicians should never be trusted.
2.Especially when they always use the religious card.
3.Liberal or conservative.doesnt matter you can still be in a religion and pratice politics seperate form religion(were it should be).
Onc eoyu understand that then you see how corrupt the world is.Thats why Jesus couldn't create a kingdom of earth because a kingdom of earth would become corrupt and fall one day.While a Kingdom Of Heaven will last forever.
That's a load of crock. Most liberals couldn't care less about Christianity, or any religion for that matter, so long as it stays out of government, as well it should. Only the extremists want to abolish Christianity, and they're more fascist than anything else.Quote:
Funny you should word it like that... The first Manifesto defining liberalism advocates the abolishment of Christianity.
andQuote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
AlsoQuote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
as well asQuote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
I am certian that I got enough definitions to assume that all that "liberal" means is that one is open minded and willing to accept change. AlsoQuote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
"Liberalism[:] A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology," sure doesn't sound like it is trying to tear down christianity.
What the problem is, is that people claim to be liberal when they truely are not... it is the same with Christianity and almost any other label.
Sasquach.Explain how if a christain goes near modern liberalism then explain to me how thats anti-christain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I'm a christian btw and really i dont see how
1.advancement in society
2.social programs
3.and BTW there will always be mothers who was left iwth 4 kids who depends on welfare.MY cousin was one of them.Her husband was crazy he jsut does all this stuff ro her then leaves.LEaves her with 4 kids.But yeah that never happens liek you said,
And your jsut bad mouthing christains yourself by saying christain values and views on the poor is
"its your own damn fault"
Thats a damn insult and that contradicts christainity if anything the leaders int eh republican party is evvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.
Liberalism falls closer towards christainity .,
To add to that all protestants could be considered, by definition, "liberal" because theirs is a church that broke from the original Roman Catholic church.Quote:
What the problem is, is that people claim to be liberal when they truely are not... it is the same with Christianity and almost any other label.
liberals cannot abolish christainity. noone can. no much as we can abolish milk or the common cold. how would you abolish it? suddenly tell people it no longer exists so they can stop going to church?
are people who are against tax and saying that it is theft honstly telling me that if they weren't taxed they would give their money to chairty, the poor and good causes? or would you keep it for a nice new tv? would all people do what the bible tells you and share what you have? i seriously doubt it.
another bible quote which should come into people's view on abortion and homosexuality are "judge lest ye be judged" "let the man with no sin cast the first stone" as well as the others i gave.
not having ready access to a bible i don't know the chapter and verse of the destruction and rebuilding of the jewish temple in 3 days up on jesus's death.
jesus did tell magdalane to stop sinning but he took her in all the way through his life and was there at his death. she was a sinner who many people could claim "deserved it" but was forgiven by the holiest man. the man without the plank in his eye.
it is unwise for a christain to judge a person. it is not your duty. there is no law but god's law and no judge but him. don't be the man to cast the first stone on homosexuals or abortionists.
christainity does not need to be used for a moral argument. morality exists beyond christainity. you can be highly moral and even more so than a christain with some other religion or being atheist. all other religions when it comes down to it preach the same moral code. christianity should not be the alpha and omega of morality. and so is not required for politics.
And why so? Should Christianity be the most important thing in your life, but be cast aside when it's time to stand up on the floor of Congress or go to the polls?Quote:
3.Liberal or conservative.doesnt matter you can still be in a religion and pratice politics seperate form religion(were it should be).
Which is why they can't mention it without cursing and are trying to outlaw any non-obscene mention of it. Now I understand...Quote:
That's a load of crock. Most liberals couldn't care less about Christianity, or any religion for that matter, so long as it stays out of government, as well it should.
Really? Well, I'm trying to change abortion law, the current attitude of government towards Christianity, the existence of the National Endowment for the Arts, and our entire tax system--help me!Quote:
I am certian that I got enough definitions to assume that all that "liberal" means is that one is open minded and willing to accept change.
If you don't know the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" as political groups, then just ask--there's no need to play semantics.
Nobody's saying that spending money on good things is bad. Our problem is spendin someone else's money on things we think are good. If I take a gun and steal your paycheck, then buy my neighbor a few groceries with it, then I didn't do a good thing--and you aren't doing a bad thing by reporting my butt and having it thrown in jail.Quote:
1.advancement in society
2.social programs
First, I've seen a lot of welfare recipients--like I've mentioned, when I was in college I worked at a grocery store and watched these people pay with their WIC vouchers or their EBT cards--and the vast majority of them are not some poor girl that got abandoned with four kids. The majority of them live better than I do; they have better clothes, eat better food, drink more beer, and drive better cars.Quote:
3.and BTW there will always be mothers who was left iwth 4 kids who depends on welfare.MY cousin was one of them.Her husband was crazy he jsut does all this stuff ro her then leaves.LEaves her with 4 kids.But yeah that never happens liek you said,
Second, there's nowhere else your cousin can go? Her church can't help her out? Her family? Her neighbors? No charities anywhere around? If she's a Baptist--or even if she isn't--tell her to go to the local Baptist Association. I volunteered with them for a summer and I know firsthand that they'll help you out--money, vouchers for stuff, food, medicine, transportation--be you white, black, yellow, red; Baptist, Catholic, atheist, wiccan, whatever.
Did the trick fairly well in Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam...Quote:
liberals cannot abolish christainity. noone can. no much as we can abolish milk or the common cold. how would you abolish it? suddenly tell people it no longer exists so they can stop going to church?
Fortunately, we have experience to tell us about it. During the 1980's, when taxes lowered, charitable contributions rose at a faster rate than the two and a half decades beforehand.Quote:
are people who are against tax and saying that it is theft honstly telling me that if they weren't taxed they would give their money to chairty, the poor and good causes? or would you keep it for a nice new tv? would all people do what the bible tells you and share what you have? i seriously doubt it.
Or for the short version--yes.
There is no verse upon the destruction of a Jewish temple. Jesus once said "Tear down this temple and in three days it will rise again" in reference to His own death and resurrection, but not only is there no actual building being torn down, it certainly wasn't torn down for the "crime" of having gold in it.Quote:
not having ready access to a bible i don't know the chapter and verse of the destruction and rebuilding of the jewish temple in 3 days up on jesus's death.
And did He steal someone else's money to give to her?Quote:
jesus did tell magdalane to stop sinning but he took her in all the way through his life and was there at his death. she was a sinner who many people could claim "deserved it" but was forgiven by the holiest man. the man without the plank in his eye.
You seem to be confused here. I'm not casting stones--or throwing fake blood (like is sometimes done to wearers of fur coats), or firing bullets, or whatever else. I'm simply saying that a) we shouldn't be forced to pretend it's right, and b) murder shouldn't be legal.Quote:
it is unwise for a christain to judge a person. it is not your duty. there is no law but god's law and no judge but him. don't be the man to cast the first stone on homosexuals or abortionists.
False. Completely false, in fact--I suggest you look up a few different religions and note the differences therein.Quote:
all other religions when it comes down to it preach the same moral code.
Put in account that those people most likely got those form a friend thats most likely poor our bought it from smugglers.Quote:
First, I've seen a lot of welfare recipients--like I've mentioned, when I was in college I worked at a grocery store and watched these people pay with their WIC vouchers or their EBT cards--and the vast majority of them are not some poor girl that got abandoned with four kids. The majority of them live better than I do; they have better clothes, eat better food, drink more beer, and drive better cars.
And the fact that your saying ii'm casting it aside hell no F that.I dont to sit here and let you say that.It doesn't leave but when it comes to looking at these policticians and how they are acting.They dont even think of god.even when they sosay so.The polls or speaking on congress floors even when your not a congress has nothing to do with throwing your christains values aside for htat momen.tYou know Iwhat I meant hwen i said politics and religion should stay seperate.
YOu know what politics is.Politics has never been for the greater good of people even when it hides behind a religion.Why because humans practice politics and when they get behind the religion to pratice there politics only corruption shows.So don't ever play dumb like that with me!!! why because I'm freaking 17 an dyour like twice my age and oyu definately know it if i know it.
oh and BTW China still has christains.Yeah so what that they are being prosecuted no christain church here does anything to help them you notice that?
And our out of your right mind to think that taxes "steal" money.TO goto someone oyu think is waaaaaay better off than you do.
Taxes goes into a lot of things and if you were truly a christain wouldn't you speak out against the death penalty and speak out against how prisons recieve more fundings form tax dollars than schools do?
"They" meaning all liberals? Give me a break. That's the extremist minority.Quote:
Which is why they can't mention it without cursing and are trying to outlaw any non-obscene mention of it. Now I understand...
Those would be despots, not liberals. There's quite a difference.Quote:
Did the trick fairly well in Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam...
I'll read the rest and address it later when it's not 2:30 AM.
okay lets think about what would happen if we got rid of these taxes which people count as theft.
upon doing this. where does your army that defends you get it's money? the school to educate you and your children? the roads which you drive on? the water that you drink? the hositals that treat you? rubbish collection? the pension that you get? your politicians and diplomats? the police on your street? customs and security? the orphangage and social services? nasa?
britain didn't have a welfare state 100 years ago and i studied the development of it. the immense difference it meant. this liassez fair attitude that america currently had is dead in this country. you cannot leave these things to churches and private groups to do. you need something solid that will always be there for someone to fall back on. next people will be telling me that the work houses were a great idea.
yep the whole world would be better without those damn taxes. all the money i would have. yeah but when i got sick or assualted or when i want to go to uni or when i'm old o every tuesday when my rubbih gets collected or need a drink or want to drive that isn't invaded or in anarchy. then i'll be less happy.
lordblazer beat me to the point about not being to abolish a religion. and in fact that is banning it or outlawing it.
of course charity money will rise faster if people have more to money to flash around. but not all of it so some was kept for that nice new thing you just couldn't afford. it would be the same now. but that was not the question. would if that nasty government stopped stealing your money wouyld you follow the bible's teachings and share it out? would all others do the same?
and yes you should pretend it's right. it's not your duty on this earth to say it isn't. if it is a sin then justice will be done by your god not by you. if god is the ultimate judge let him judge do not do it by proxy.
abortion could be debate endlessly. but if it was outlawed and mothers did not want their children then possibly abuse deaths would rise. neglect would rise. abortion would just be carried out after the fact. yes adoption is possible. but care homes are stretched enough as it is. yes they could be alot better with funding but then people would only whine on about taxes. no matter what age, country or condition there is no way to force a woman to be a mother.
And that friend managed to get their own name on it?Quote:
Put in account that those people most likely got those form a friend thats most likely poor our bought it from smugglers.
In that case, what you have is a dishonest politician. The answer to that is better, unfettered media to report such things, not demanding that people keep the most important thing in their lives out of an issue.Quote:
And the fact that your saying ii'm casting it aside hell no F that.I dont to sit here and let you say that.It doesn't leave but when it comes to looking at these policticians and how they are acting.They dont even think of god.even when they sosay so
Politics is a method. It's the method that brought us the "War on Poverty", free needles, abortion, and a whole other host of ills--but it's also brought us tax cuts, removal of various regulations, and our Constitution and Bill of Rights itself.Quote:
YOu know what politics is.Politics has never been for the greater good of people even when it hides behind a religion.
Stuck in slave-labor camps for the crime of being Christian. "so what"?Quote:
oh and BTW China still has christains.Yeah so what that they are being prosecuted
http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.phpQuote:
no christain church here does anything to help them you notice that?
http://persecution.com/
http://www.christianpersecution.info/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_pers.htm (and a display of their evenhandedness and "tolerance" by blaming persecution of Christians on "followers of majority religions")
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/003/6.46.html
And I could as easily list three dozen more. In other words, before you accuse someone of something you should have some clue what the hell you're talking about--and you clearly don't. Maybe you and Cloud 9 should discuss how Chinese persecution of Christians ties in with the US's genocide in Africa?
Actually I'm displaying the simple facts of the matter. Either you pay it or someone comes to your house with a gun to get it. That's a form of theft.Quote:
And our out of your right mind to think that taxes "steal" money.
Actually, to first have about three-quarters of it lost in the works. Then to go to someone I know is way better off than me.Quote:
TO goto someone oyu think is waaaaaay better off than you do.
Yup. Welfare, the National Endowment for the Arts, the IRS, midnight basketball, pork-barrel projects of every size and description--that's one of the reasons they're bad.Quote:
Taxes goes into a lot of things
Because real Christians want to see repeat-murders.Quote:
and if you were truly a christain wouldn't you speak out against the death penalty
Actually, I do. Prisons get far more money than they should--Cable TV, weight rooms, free college... I could have gotten a better college education by robbing a bank than I did by joining the Army.Quote:
and speak out against how prisons recieve more fundings form tax dollars than schools do?
On the other hand, I don't think schools should get a dime from the government. For the government to indoctrinate our kids is bad enough, but to do it with our money is adding insult to injury.
And where is your justification that "if I was truly a Christian" I'd advocate going light on criminals and government indoctrination for our kids?
The New York Times is an extremist minority? Jesse Jackson? Time Magazine? NewsweekQuote:
"They" meaning all liberals? Give me a break. That's the extremist minority.
First, they were not just despots, they were Communists (yes, real Communists). And liberalism is simply watered-down communism.Quote:
Those would be despots, not liberals. There's quite a difference.
Second, I was pointing out that it was possible, not who's doing it.
Including the explosion of prosperity once everyone actually has a right to what they earn?Quote:
okay lets think about what would happen if we got rid of these taxes which people count as theft.
Herein, it may be necessary to explain further. While taxes are, by their very nature, theft, there are indeed times when it's necessary--i.e., to carry out those functions which the government actually has the duty and the right to carry out. A military is one of those--although the federal government has overstepped its bounds by federalizing each state's National Guard.Quote:
upon doing this. where does your army that defends you get it's money?
The one that's being left in the dust by private and charter schools that have a lot less money to operate with? Public education is a neat idea, but after seeing public housing, I think I'll pass.Quote:
he school to educate you and your children?
Another of the functions which government is actually responsible for--despite this, in many area gas taxes (which, in theory, pay for the roads) are abysmal, and the roads absolutely blow.Quote:
the roads which you drive on?
We don't get these from the government. And seeing how well the government does things, I hope they stay out of the business.Quote:
the water that you drink? the hositals that treat you? rubbish collection?
Nor do pensions come from the government. Unless your speaking of Social Security, and if you're claiming a system so flawed it's guaranteed to fail before any of us get a dime from it as one of the government's accomplishments, then you're really reachin'.Quote:
the pension that you get?
What a horrible thought, that we might end up with less of those...Quote:
your politicians and diplomats?
A third--but not paid for by federal taxes. The town, county, or state covers these.Quote:
the police on your street?
These are for collecting taxes, not paid for by them.Quote:
customs and security?
Orphanages are paid for by charitable organizations, not the government. Same with social services--those that the government does pay for are invariably wasteful, bloated, and unnecessary.Quote:
he orphangage and social services?
Its job is being done by private companies already.Quote:
nasa?
That's why America is blowing your country out of the water.Quote:
this liassez fair attitude that america currently had is dead in this country.
Because when you want somebody you can depend on, then forget about God--go to a politician.Quote:
you cannot leave these things to churches and private groups to do. you need something solid that will always be there for someone to fall back on.
Yeah, because the government needs more than half of what you make to provide all those services that it doesn't provide anyway.Quote:
ep the whole world would be better without those damn taxes. all the money i would have. yeah but when i got sick or assualted or when i want to go to uni or when i'm old o every tuesday when my rubbih gets collected or need a drink or want to drive that isn't invaded or in anarchy.
You mean some of these people would actually spend some of the money they earn on themselves? Oh, we can't have that!Quote:
of course charity money will rise faster if people have more to money to flash around. but not all of it so some was kept for that nice new thing you just couldn't afford.
Actually, the question was "are people who are against tax and saying that it is theft honstly telling me that if they weren't taxed they would give their money to chairty, the poor and good causes?"--which is why I answered by noting that when they were taxed less, they gave more to charity. Or in other words--yes. I've explained this already.Quote:
but that was not the question.
You're serious, aren't you?Quote:
and yes you should pretend it's right.
And, of course, speaking of God's judgement is oh-so-awful, because instead He should just open up the clouds and shout "Suck the ****, lose the kingdom!" When the rain comes, can I say "it's raining", or would that be "judging" the weather?Quote:
it's not your duty on this earth to say it isn't. if it is a sin then justice will be done by your god not by you. if god is the ultimate judge let him judge do not do it by proxy.
These children might be hurt or even killed later in life--so let's just squikk 'em now, and save 'em from all that.Quote:
abortion could be debate endlessly. but if it was outlawed and mothers did not want their children then possibly abuse deaths would rise. neglect would rise.
Because nobody but the government takes care of kids....Quote:
yes adoption is possible. but care homes are stretched enough as it is. yes they could be alot better with funding but then people would only whine on about taxes.
Well, it's a good thing you feel that way.Quote:
no matter what age, country or condition there is no way to force a woman to be a mother.
Now, if we could get back to the subject at hand for a moment, nobody's forcing anyone to become a mother. I'm talking about preventing a mother from killing her kids.
But if we're ever struck by a plague, and the government passes a law that for the continuation of the human race every woman has to have at least three kids, then at least we know your feelings on the matter.
Jesse Jackson is very extremist. As far as the New York Times, Time Magazine, and Newsweek, I've not seen anything in any of those respective publications to support your claim.Quote:
The New York Times is an extremist minority? Jesse Jackson? Time Magazine? Newsweek
No, it's not. Liberals can be communists and communists can be liberals, the two are not intertwined. As has been stated countless times before, a "liberal" is a social progressive, whereas a "conservative" is a social traditionalist. There are many things that we associate with liberals and conservatives but really its all just a bunch of stereotypes and misconceptions spawned from the minds of an unaccepting society that refuses to actually examine anything they disagree with.Quote:
First, they were not just despots, they were Communists (yes, real Communists). And liberalism is simply watered-down communism.
Second, I was pointing out that it was possible, not who's doing it.
Check page of this thread and you'll see a few quotes.Quote:
As far as the New York Times, Time Magazine, and Newsweek, I've not seen anything in any of those respective publications to support your claim.
In that case, then pick a platform of communism, as listed in the Communist manifesto, water it down slightly, and take a look at it--you'll be looking at a liberal platform.Quote:
No, it's not. Liberals can be communists and communists can be liberals, the two are not intertwined.
You know how close I was to just spurting out a string of profanity?
Come now. Without public schooling most people in my area would be uneducated... including myself. Several of my freinds have to work 8+ hours a day, plus whenever the manager/boss calls them just so that my freinds can help their parents support their family!
I seriousally doubt they have the money neccesary for private schooling. And anyways what I have seen and heard of public schools in my general area... well lets just say this... my school isn't the only one that out performs them. And this is, overall, a poor area. The people with money send them to the Private school. Oh yes did I forget to mention that the private schools in this area have more money then many of the public schools. Yet all I hear is carping.
Rural public schools are not bad at all, and let me tell you they aren't a waste of your tax money. The problem with schooling is when you get too many pupils per teacher, and/or bad teachers.
So yeah.. sure tose out those who's families are less off and can't afford private schools.
As for the other services. They need fixing.. not neccesarily complete removal. They are good ideas, just not utilized correctly.
Now I am not sure about prisons per se.. but I have been to our local correctional facility which acts as a holding/transfer bay for the prisons in our area. They on occasion hold dangerous fellons up to 6 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Anyways. They have no weight room and no cable tv. though they did have the tv at one point it was taken away because the head saw no reason for it.. that and some of the prisoners wouuld occasionally break a tv. So they just got rid of the tv. The Jail does have a recreation area.. mainly for stuff like basketball, jogging, etc. Depending on their behaviour they'll lose it... as it is I think even min security gets only 4 hours max a day(though I could be wrong on that instance.. didn't really care at the time.. how often they got out). Also I had a freind there... and lets leave it this way... the amount of food you get is bare minimum... and it is almost always beans. Worse then school food I was told.
Now as for the college things... I believe that is there so that they can become productive members of society after they are released... though the jail only offers the GED(if I recall correctly).
however I don't know how effective that is... who wants to hire a known felon? unless the government bribes you into it of course.
Blah.. I could go on forever.. but I will say this. This jail is supposedly unique... or so the warden guy tells us.. and so do our teachers.
Ah but quotes do not an entire news medium make.Quote:
Check page of this thread and you'll see a few quotes.
I admit Democrats tend to be more socialist than Republicans but I've already said Democrats aren't exactly liberals. Liberalism and Conservatism are both social constructs, economics are another thing entirely.Quote:
In that case, then pick a platform of communism, as listed in the Communist manifesto, water it down slightly, and take a look at it--you'll be looking at a liberal platform.
in short my perspective of the two groups which will really seem immature.
Jedi Order=Liberals
The Dark Side=Conservatives.
wellt hats my last post *prepares for the stones*
eest has covered for my butt already. Read his post regarding this.Quote:
nik0tine, you started off by saying you're a liberal "Christian", then went on to badmouth Christians, saying we're easy to control and that we hate people and hide behind the Bible. While it is not my place to question your faith, and that's not what I'm doing, you are a prime example of the people that lead people to think Christianity is not a partisan religion. If anybody truly believed the Bible--and no, I'm not talking about hiding behind it, I'm talking about believing it--they would go nowhere near modern liberalism.
Did I? Before you answer that question, go back and read through my statement. If you come up with an answer aside from "no" you don't understand my point.Quote:
Something that I find to be offensive? Well, I did, but note that you were explicitly referring to Christians with both those comments--there was no need to "turn" it into something anti-Christian. Sorry, but it already worked--and you did the work on it.
You're Christian, so that difference is irrelevant. Supporting war and supporting the death penalty directly contradict Christian values. The fact that you could support any of this and still call yourself a Christian makes you a hypocrit. You claim to believe one thing, and then support something else. It's as if you're taking aQuote:
I would hope that you can see the difference between putting convicted murderers to death and killing infants because they'd be an inconvenience. If not, don't worry--there are folks who can.
on the bible.
I must ask you this, why aren't you opposed to all forms of taxation? After all, it's theft, is it not?Quote:
But He didn't talk about stealing the guy's wealth and sharing it on his behalf.
His point was that generally Republicans aren't out to help anybody but themselves.Quote:
Because conservatives don't ever touch lepers....
How so? Because they support taxation? The only anti christian things I can think of are abortion and gay marriage. It's understandable for a christian to oppose those things, but to believe that the whole of liberalism is antithetical to christianity is a joke. (Well, it's only a joke when you believe that modern conservatism relates to christianity in any way other than thier anti abortion stance)Quote:
Modern liberalism is antithetical to everything in the New Testament--which is why it's so hostile to it.
I agree that welfare needs revision, but let me ask you this: What would happen to the poor if there was no welfare? They would get NO support. Nobody would help them. The reason welfare exists is because people refuse to help the poor. There is simply not enough kind hearted people out there to get the job done. Now, if the Christians would truly live a christian life, we wouldn't have that problem. But you quoted somebody who said it best. "Christianity is a crutch for the weak minded". While this certainly does not apply to all, it applies to many. The weak minded don't care about anyone but themseleves.Quote:
You take money away from someone by force, spend most of it on yourself, and throw a few scraps someone else's way.... yes, He would.
The modern christian has no room in thier hearts for 'forgiveness'.Quote:
the point with mary magdalane was that it was her fault. but she was forgiven, redeemed and taken in. the same should be done with people that you claim deserve their poverty.
He did, and that's what made Jesus great. However, most christians wouldn;t even bother to go even that far.Quote:
Wierd--and it looked to me like He stopped them from killing her and told her to quit sinning.
You can, but you should first try to remedy your own hipocrasies first, which most christians don't even try to do.Quote:
Which means, of course, that we can't ever speak about what someone else does, right?
But that means less power!!!! :whine:Quote:
3.Liberal or conservative.doesnt matter you can still be in a religion and pratice politics seperate form religion(were it should be).
But... but... but how are we going to get out hatred fix?? :whine:Quote:
don't be the man to cast the first stone on homosexuals or abortionists.
Nothing you have said is true. While there have been some instances where people have gone over the line in regards to christianity, nobody is trying to put a ban on the mention of christianity. Also, the vast majority of us don't go cursing and throwing a fit when christianity is mentioned. We may, however, not agree with you one hundred percent (and have valid, logical reasons not to). I can understand that you don't like that, but maybe you are confusing that with the cursing?Quote:
Which is why they can't mention it without cursing and are trying to outlaw any non-obscene mention of it. Now I understand...
I honestly cannot comment on China, Cambodia, Cuba, or Vietnam, but I can ASSURE you, Christianity was not abolished in Russia. Proof of that can be seen today (Where Christianity exists)Quote:
Did the trick fairly well in Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam...
There is no need to answer this, just think about it. When it comes to homosexuals, what do you feel? Just something for you to think about.Quote:
You seem to be confused here. I'm not casting stones--or throwing fake blood (like is sometimes done to wearers of fur coats), or firing bullets, or whatever else. I'm simply saying that a) we shouldn't be forced to pretend it's right, and b) murder shouldn't be legal.
Allow me to answer this question for the majority of Christians in this world (And I'll do so with tremendous accuracy) No.Quote:
would if that nasty government stopped stealing your money wouyld you follow the bible's teachings and share it out? would all others do the same?
Wait! Don't forget to include the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs"Quote:
Politics is a method. It's the method that brought us the "War on Poverty", free needles, abortion, and a whole other host of ills--
And conservativism is simply watered-down fascism.Quote:
First, they were not just despots, they were Communists (yes, real Communists). And liberalism is simply watered-down communism.
Because fake Christians thrive off of hate.Quote:
Because real Christians want to see repeat-murders.
And so how do you expect to get educated? If it wasn't for the government funding education nobody would get educated.Quote:
On the other hand, I don't think schools should get a dime from the government. For the government to indoctrinate our kids is bad enough, but to do it with our money is adding insult to injury.
Hahaha. So "going light on criminals" is not killing them?Quote:
And where is your justification that "if I was truly a Christian" I'd advocate going light on criminals and government indoctrination for our kids?
Please tell me you don't really believe this nonsense. Is the abscenes of schools, roads, a military, plumming systems, law enforcement, food, easily accesible drinking water as well as a load of other things an "explosion of prosperity"?Quote:
Including the explosion of prosperity once everyone actually has a right to what they earn?
But is the amount of charity even remotely proprtional to welfare?Quote:
which is why I answered by noting that when they were taxed less, they gave more to charity.
The Bible itself says not to judge. You can believe in Gods judgement, but you shouldn't be the one passing judgement.Quote:
And, of course, speaking of God's judgement is oh-so-awful, because instead He should just open up the clouds and shout "Suck the ****, lose the kingdom!"
Oh please... You know damn well what the Bible meant. This hardly merits a response and you know it.Quote:
When the rain comes, can I say "it's raining", or would that be "judging" the weather?
You might want to specify the page you are talking about.Quote:
Check page of this thread and you'll see a few quotes.
Oh but who cares about you anyway. You're poor. /republicanQuote:
I seriousally doubt they have the money neccesary for private schooling.
Not a hundred percent sure what you are talking about, but if you mean that public schools outperfom private schools, well, you are wrong. Public schools suck major balls. In fact, it's an attrocity that public schools are in the state that they are. It's a crime against our society, in my opinion.Quote:
And anyways what I have seen and heard of public schools in my general area... well lets just say this... my school isn't the only one that out performs them. And this is, overall, a poor area. The people with money send them to the Private school. Oh yes did I forget to mention that the private schools in this area have more money then many of the public schools. Yet all I hear is carping.
Yes they are, and I know this from personal experiance. Public schools are bad news. The problem is not just too many students per teacher and bad teachers, everything is problematic with them. In fact, after having attended both private and public schools, I am convinced that somebody is intentionally trying to make us stupid.Quote:
Rural public schools are not bad at all, and let me tell you they aren't a waste of your tax money. The problem with schooling is when you get too many pupils per teacher, and/or bad teachers.
Mmmm...I can comment on Cuba. And as far as I know, it was never abolished. However, Christmas wasn't officially celebrated until 1998. Officially celebrated dosen't mean it couldn't be celebrated privately, it just meant the goverment didn't consider it a special day.Quote:
I honestly cannot comment on China, Cambodia, Cuba, or Vietnam
As for Cuba, well, when I was there I saw churches, I saw people praying, I saw crucifixes inside some houses, etc.
And as for those countries, hardly could you consider those people "liberal". They were absolute authoritarians. Left in economical policies, but politically authoritarian. The less authoritarian of the list may be Cuba, and it still has several rigid laws and death penalty. The liberal left would never abolish Christianity. The most far thewy could go is to reduce the public money the church recives.
Five bucks says you'd get away with it.Quote:
You know how close I was to just spurting out a string of profanity?
You do realize that public schooling requires tax money? That money doesn't just flow out of the government... well, it does, but it comes from somewhere else first. You get rid of the public schools and give the money back to the people paying it, so they can educate their children.Quote:
Come now. Without public schooling most people in my area would be uneducated... including myself. Several of my freinds have to work 8+ hours a day, plus whenever the manager/boss calls them just so that my freinds can help their parents support their family!
And the best way to fix them--to utilize them correctly--is to let the private sector do it before the government can screw it up.Quote:
As for the other services. They need fixing.. not neccesarily complete removal. They are good ideas, just not utilized correctly.
Because you can't be a productive member of society unless you have a college education. You can't flip burgers or work construction or something until you're done with college?Quote:
Now as for the college things... I believe that is there so that they can become productive members of society after they are released...
Hell, we made one president.Quote:
however I don't know how effective that is... who wants to hire a known felon?
So this is what they say, but it's not really what they say?Quote:
Ah but quotes do not an entire news medium make.
Come to the Dark Side.... I promise you great power....Quote:
Jedi Order=Liberals
The Dark Side=Conservatives.
wellt hats my last post *prepares for the stones*
Because Christians, apparently, aren't allowed to look at the world around them.Quote:
You're Christian, so that difference is irrelevant.
Because Jesus said "thou shalt let the terrorists blow thy butt up, and toss serial murderers in jail where they can be out in a few years to murder you again."Quote:
Supporting war and supporting the death penalty directly contradict Christian values.
2nd Opinions, chapter 4, verse 6
Keep in mind--"moron" is bad. Who wants to bet you'll see nothing for "you're a hypocrite" and "you're taking a **** on the Bible"? Any takers?Quote:
The fact that you could support any of this and still call yourself a Christian makes you a hypocrit. You claim to believe one thing, and then support something else. It's as if you're taking a on the bible.
Yes, it is. However, there are some purposes which make it necessary. Therefore, it only makes sense that the purposes for which tax money is stolen should be as few and as necessary as possible.Quote:
I must ask you this, why aren't you opposed to all forms of taxation? After all, it's theft, is it not?
Which is obviously false, but if he can go around what he's saying I can to. Just because I usually abhor tact doesn't mean it ain't fun to play with sometimes.Quote:
His point was that generally Republicans aren't out to help anybody but themselves.
Because their statements show their hatred of Christianity. Because liberal judges make outrageous judgements against Christianity, and liberal organizations push for more such judgements. And may I note that you are liberal and in this post alone you've made your hatred of Christianity quite evident?Quote:
How so? Because they support taxation?
Because churches and charities don't actually help anybody. Hell, it sounds like you actually believe the BS you're spouting about Christianity here--can you at least give American synagogues the benefit of the doubt?Quote:
agree that welfare needs revision, but let me ask you this: What would happen to the poor if there was no welfare? They would get NO support. Nobody would help them.
First, the reason welfare exists is because LBJ wanted to buy some votes.Quote:
The reason welfare exists is because people refuse to help the poor.
Second, if its purpose was to help the poor, why didn't it work? Welfare spending rose exponentially, and the number of poor rose. Simple common sense--if you want to see more of something, subsidize it.
Because Christians approve of vigilante action--is there some Christian version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion that you've been reading and I haven't heard about yet?Quote:
He did, and that's what made Jesus great. However, most christians wouldn;t even bother to go even that far.
Because protecting innocent people is hypocrisy? Is this some new definition of hypocrisy, like that "closed-minded" pulp?Quote:
You can, but you should first try to remedy your own hipocrasies first, which most christians don't even try to do.
"Well, it's only a joke when you believe that modern conservatism relates to christianity in any way other than thier anti abortion stance"Quote:
Also, the vast majority of us don't go cursing and throwing a fit when christianity is mentioned.
"But you quoted somebody who said it best. "Christianity is a crutch for the weak minded"."
"The modern christian has no room in thier hearts for 'forgiveness'."
"He did, and that's what made Jesus great. However, most christians wouldn;t even bother to go even that far."
"You can, but you should first try to remedy your own hipocrasies first, which most christians don't even try to do."
"Allow me to answer this question for the majority of Christians in this world (And I'll do so with tremendous accuracy) No."
No cursing allowed on these forums, but you've certainly managed to throw a fit....
Now that the Communists are gone. Before then you could get shot for it.Quote:
I honestly cannot comment on China, Cambodia, Cuba, or Vietnam, but I can ASSURE you, Christianity was not abolished in Russia. Proof of that can be seen today (Where Christianity exists)
Sad. There are people out there with a sexual disorder who need help, and some SOB is out there telling them that instead of getting the help they need they should flaunt their problem. Hell, I care more about 'em than you do, or you'd be tryin' to help them too.Quote:
There is no need to answer this, just think about it. When it comes to homosexuals, what do you feel? Just something for you to think about.
And let me note that I've already proven otherwise. Answered? Yes. Accuracy? No.Quote:
Allow me to answer this question for the majority of Christians in this world (And I'll do so with tremendous accuracy) No.
Because it would be so much kinder to just turn Muslim, start stoning our women to death, and let them murder Jews.Quote:
Wait! Don't forget to include the "War on Terror".
You see, there's more to this 'debate' thing than making a name and labelling your opponent with it. For example--as I've already noted, but apparently you weren't paying attention--pick a tenet--any tenet--of communism. Weaken it (i.e., water it down), and you have a tenet of liberalism. Go ahead--try it!Quote:
And conservativism is simply watered-down fascism.
Because there's no such thing as private schools, religious schools, or charter schools. Please tell me you weren't being serious when you said that--because if you are we're going to have to stop debating until we both live in the same reality.Quote:
And so how do you expect to get educated? If it wasn't for the government funding education nobody would get educated.
I've noted the necessity of roads, military, and law enforcement--although the government manages to screw those up too. The government doesn't provide food, plumbing, or drinking water, and while it provides schooling, it shouldn't--and does an abysmal job with the schooling it does provide.Quote:
Please tell me you don't really believe this nonsense. Is the abscenes of schools, roads, a military, plumming systems, law enforcement, food, easily accesible drinking water as well as a load of other things an "explosion of prosperity"?
It was enough to do the job before LBJ.Quote:
But is the amount of charity even remotely proprtional to welfare?
Uh, God's already made the judgement. Wanna see the verses?Quote:
The Bible itself says not to judge. You can believe in Gods judgement, but you shouldn't be the one passing judgement.
Yes, I do. And there's no clause in the Bible that says you can't note an existing condition. If you don't see the allegory inherent, that ain't my problem.Quote:
Oh please... You know damn well what the Bible meant. This hardly merits a response and you know it.
You could actually look for it--but to make it easier, page 2, post #36. And that was only a small selection of them.Quote:
You might want to specify the page you are talking about.
Naw, they just throw you in prison or shoot you for it, but it's not actually abolished. *sigh* It's such a relief to know I was wrong.Quote:
Mmmm...I can comment on Cuba. And as far as I know, it was never abolished.
Nik there is a reason I was saying my area as often as possible. Here almost all of the rural public schools fare well educationally.. though sometimes they have to shut down sports or musical programs due to lack of money. In fact I believe one rural school had to shut down busing.. but educationally they still aren't too bad.
I don't know if you have gone ot a rural public school but.. lets put it this way. I was in a large class. there were 34 or so of of us. the class of 2005. the next class has 28 I believe. Our teacher per student ratio is about 5-15 students sometimes less or larger depending on the class subject.. though we had a boom a while back so that may soon change.
And trust me... if you heard about our local private school.. you'd
K? Our building may be falling down around our ears.. we have a poor heating system(still have to wear sweaters in many classes) and no cooling system(try studying at 90-100+ degrees.. ain't fun(thank goodness it didn't get that hot this year)). Oh yes our water comes out rust colored, and our floors are warped.. the steps are shrunken and warped, and many of our lockers have seen better days. But you know what.. we still learn. and we learn fast. Our teachers will pay for trips out of thier own pockets.
Public schools while in dismal shape are not as pathetic as some seem to make them.. or at least they aren't in my area.. all of our local schools(particually rural schools) fare nice(though some worse then others).
Disclaimer my village is lucky if it has 2000 ppl in it.. and that is mostly made up of old couples who have lived here much of thier lives. Our entire highschool(also houses jr. high) is smaller then some schools grad class.(entire high school is at most 200 ppl... which gives you a max average class size of 34 people.. which is close to right since mr. boom class is our 7th grade class).
Disclamer 2- while we are one of the smaller schools.. we are not the smallest.
missed some
well even if the moderators let me get away with it.. it wouldn't rest well on my consiounce(and I just butchered that spelling)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Hmm.. but does that tax refund(just from the school mind) come anywhere near the cost of the private school. I'll use our local private school since it is the one I konw most about. I believe it is 3k to 4k a year to attend(as much as our local college(which is why I remembered the numbers). However that does not include the clothes. One must where khakis and dress shirts everyday. Not sure what that comes to.. but I know our local store sells khakis at more then the amount of bluejeans... and I already spend a hell of a lot on Blue jeans alone.. not to mention dress shirts are fairly expensive(20-30$ a shirt, easily).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
So lets just say about 4k-5k a year(including all expenses, cause lunch is not included in the tuition). now I seriousally doubt we would get anywhere near that amount back.. considering dad makes as little as he does.. that is at the least 1/6 of his pay(completely untaxed pay) take in grocieries.. and such and we barely break even now.. actually we dont' break even if you think we should have 3 meals a day.. we eat once maybe twice a day(if we are lucky) when school is out.
Anyways... basically I much prefer our area's public schools to private schools and so does my dad(and he went to a private school).
first of all regarding the death sentence. it is writenn in the ten commandments. "thou shall not kill". that is the end of it. it applies to everyone. no matter who wants to play god. "there is no god but the one true god"
basicly those opposed to taxes are only opposed to the taxes they don't use. it's the old "it's mine" thing. so the army and roads are okay but helping poor folk out. that's a big no no.
the rich man will always dislike helping the poor, educating them, feeding them whe it is required, housing them.
tut tut tut redneck. there would be no explosion in prosperirty. you said yourself charitable donations should rise. and if all things being equal and fair then noone would be better off because they were spening it on charity and on all the things they would need to buy because the government doesn't do it any more. you know like being educated and literate and all that non essential stuff.
redneck we can tell you are a rich man. privately educated, privately nursed, never needed the welfare state. which explains why you cannot see the benefit of the welfare state.
and in my country all of those listed are paid for by the government. should i ever need it i am looked after from the cradle to the grave. water, nhs, rubbish collection, pensions, (customs and security protect your border and prevent smuggling), orphanges here are paid for publcly we got out of that old dicken's like habit 100 years ago.
america is not blowing my country out of the water. it is bigger and more powerful but the economy is weak and falling.
i cannot ask god and the church to treat me i ask the state to do that. i could try asking god. but i some what doubt that some define intervention would cure me. i don't need that opiate.
i was taught in a state school, received nhs treatment for all that ailed me, free dental, optical and prescriptions. in spetember i'll be going to university for free courtesy of my government. i'll be living in subsidised accomadation, using a subsidised gym, buying subsidised books, using the free libary and computers. while i'm there i will need support as i am disabled. so that will all be paid for as well. where would i have been without all the government aid? well i would be in a private school, the closest one is 50 miles away. i would have had to pay for every time i went to the doctor, had my eyes and teeth checked and treated and for all the prescriptions. my family would not have been able to afford to send me to uni. i would have left school in my 4th year of secondary education and been in a dead end job.
and look at my country's rail system if you want to see what happens when you privatize something. what happened during the two great wars? everything was taken over by the government. why? because it needed to be more effecient for a war economy.
people have no right to complain to me about the welfare state. because lets face it. with a degree i will make more money. so i will pay for their pensions, that hip replacement, that glucoma treatment, funeral costs. i earn more i pay a bigger amount. and help the next generation too and hopefully they will get the chances i have got. and so we go around and around.
the only people that do not appreciate the welfare state are those that are too rich to use it. yes redneck that's you. if you were taught in a private school, received private hospital treatment. you are a far richer man than i am.
yes i am serious redneck. you cannot play judge if you believe there is a superior one to you. it is not god's judgement it is your own. god's judgement is not for you to talk upon. it is done when people go to hell. you cannot judge lest you be judged. and you cannot throw the first stone. leave it to god and saint peter.
have you ever wondered what would happen if you forced a mother to have a child by preventing abortion? would she love it? take care of it? not neglect it?
redneck do not be hypocritical. in previous posts you talked about "burger flippers" negatively. now do not turn them into some great career for those who have sinned.
let me explain the water down communism thing. there exists two wings in politics. the left and right. there is extreme and modrate of each. extreme left would be communism. extreme right would be fasicism. you come down a little from each extreme you come to the more moderate ideas. come down ever further and you hit the centre. it's a sliding scale on both sides.
goto a public school in Chicago and no not the suburbs my friend go to the inner city schools and then come back tome and say that we make it seem too pathetic.Quote:
dismal shape are not as pathetic as some seem to make them
well i went to school in a state school. i live in area with the poorest growth and highest unemployment in my country. i got support for my disability there. i come out with grades in my 5th year to get me into the best university here for my course. that is not a poor system.
if you want proof that state schooling works. look at cuba's literacy rates. look at the doctors they produce. providing everyone in that country with exemplery education for free is why it has the highest literacy rate in the world.
I did put in that little bit on the end did I not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Oh, yes, it's sooooooo caring of you to dictate MY personal life.Quote:
Hell, I care more about 'em than you do, or you'd be tryin' to help them too.
Speaking of religious intolerance...Quote:
Because it would be so much kinder to just turn Muslim, start stoning our women to death, and let them murder Jews.
Cloud 9 whenever youc ome to the USA go visit a project and then go to a school in the projects jsut visit by no biggy.Then tell me if you've seen it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
The federal government alone pays schools from 4 to 12 thousand dollars per student, per year. (the 12, of course, is an extreme, in the Washington DC area... home to some of the worst schools in the nation. They once tried to drum up support for their schools by painting a van with the slogan: "DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS--IT A BLAST!" (sic) )Quote:
Hmm.. but does that tax refund(just from the school mind) come anywhere near the cost of the private school. I'll use our local private school since it is the one I konw most about. I believe it is 3k to 4k a year to attend(as much as our local college(which is why I remembered the numbers).
And the last time I needed a pair of khakhis pants, I got 'em at Wal-Mart for 12 bucks.
Have you read the statements of the terrorists we're at war with?Quote:
Speaking of religious intolerance...
If these guys aren't practicing "true islam", then why is criticizing them religious intolerance?
I don't remember dictating your personal life, but thanks for letting us know how you stand on the issue.Quote:
Oh, yes, it's sooooooo caring of you to dictate MY personal life.
What I said is that these people need someone to help them, not use them.
And now, the fun part....
God also makes it clear that this doesn't apply to legal punishments. As a matter of fact--do you know what the punishment for killing is in the Old Testament?Quote:
first of all regarding the death sentence. it is writenn in the ten commandments. "thou shall not kill". that is the end of it. it applies to everyone.
Whoa--you mean us SOB's don't want our money stolen and thrown away? For SHAME!Quote:
Basicly those opposed to taxes are only opposed to the taxes they don't use. it's the old "it's mine" thing. so the army and roads are okay but helping poor folk out. that's a big no no.
Meanwhile, I believe I've made it very clear that helping poor folks out is a good thing. However, having our money stolen by a bloated and wasteful beaurocracy for the supposed purpose of helping poor folk out is a different matter. I have just as much compassion as you do--more so, in fact--so you're wasting your time trying to work that angle.
Because we all know that it's far more efficient to let the government do everything. Ask any Russian.Quote:
tut tut tut redneck. there would be no explosion in prosperirty. you said yourself charitable donations should rise. and if all things being equal and fair then noone would be better off because they were spening it on charity and on all the things they would need to buy because the government doesn't do it any more. you know like being educated and literate and all that non essential stuff.
To which it gives me great joy to reply--You Wish.Quote:
america is not blowing my country out of the water. it is bigger and more powerful but the economy is weak and falling.
Do you understand the law of supply and demand? Look it up.Quote:
where would i have been without all the government aid? well i would be in a private school, the closest one is 50 miles away
You mean you'd have to pay for what you get? For SHAME!Quote:
i would have had to pay for every time i went to the doctor, had my eyes and teeth checked and treated and for all the prescriptions.
Because if someone else doesn't send you to college, then you just can't go.Quote:
my family would not have been able to afford to send me to uni. i would have left school in my 4th year of secondary education and been in a dead end job.
Why did Britain privatize it, if public management was such a great thing?Quote:
and look at my country's rail system if you want to see what happens when you privatize something.
And take a look at my country's rail system if you want to see what happens when you don't privatize something.
I was afraid of that. Is that tinfoil hat obscuring your vision?Quote:
yes i am serious redneck.
Wanna see the verses? Trust me, if I'd written the Bible, it would include something about forcing Massechussetts to secede.Quote:
it is not god's judgement it is your own.
Hopefully. If not, there's other options--including adoption. We've got so many more adoptive parents than kids here in America that parents are going to other countries trying to find babies to adopt. (Mind you, this is cool--both for the childless couple being able to adopt and the child who not only has a family now but has one in America--and I don't mean this to in any way be an indictment of the procedure. I'm simply noting that if there was such an overload of babies here in America waiting to be adopted then parents wouldn't be going elsewhere for them.)Quote:
have you ever wondered what would happen if you forced a mother to have a child by preventing abortion? would she love it? take care of it? not neglect it?
Wrong. In previous posts I talked about "burger flipping" as a career negatively. I've worked burger-flipping jobs as a kid and getting through college. If you're trying to support a family on a "burger-flipping" job, however, you've made the wrong decisions.Quote:
redneck do not be hypocritical. in previous posts you talked about "burger flippers" negatively. now do not turn them into some great career for those who have sinned.
Let me repeat myself. Take any tenet of communism. Weaken it (i.e., water it down). You now have a tenet of liberalism. Despite your attempts to link fascism with conservatives, facism does not 'water down' to conservatism. Nice try, though.Quote:
let me explain the water down communism thing. there exists two wings in politics. the left and right. there is extreme and modrate of each. extreme left would be communism. extreme right would be fasicism.
That says a lot, right there.Quote:
i cannot ask god and the church to treat me i ask the state to do that.
Cure you? I suppose you figure the state will produce a miracle for you instead? Meanwhile, I suppose some of the people in the church (yes, churches have people in them. Religious people, if you can imagine that. Whole hives of us!) wouldn't help you?Quote:
but i some what doubt that some define intervention would cure me.
No, you need the nanny state to take care of your every need with stolen money. Hell, if you had any guts you'd get yourself a gun and go steal the money yourself--but no, you've got people to hide behind. But your taking the time to reference one of the most abysmal idiots and losers in history was good for a quick laugh.Quote:
i don't need that opiate.
And this I couldn't wait for....
Quote:
redneck we can tell you are a rich man. privately educated, privately nursed, never needed the welfare state. which explains why you cannot see the benefit of the welfare state.
Normally, I don't think much of the "my life's worse than yours" line. We live in the Land of Opportunity over here, after all, and some of the world's most successful people as well as some of the world's biggest losers have come from the poorest beginnings imaginable as well as some of the richest. But since you seem to have the impression that how much money I had as a child is a vital factor in this debate....Quote:
the only people that do not appreciate the welfare state are those that are too rich to use it. yes redneck that's you.
My father was in the Army when I was born, in Ft. Carson. This was before the Montgomery GI Bill was such a huge thing, and before Reagan raised military pay-rates. He made an abysmal salary, despite reaching the rank of Sergeant in three years. It was from Pa that I learned how to float a check, because quite often that's how they managed to get groceries (basically, if you need groceries and payday's a ways off, then you write a check for the groceries. Two days later you write another check. Cash that check and then go to the bank and deposit the money. Your bank account will now read $100 (as an arbitrary figure) because the cash you handed them was entered into your account right away while the check you cashed will take a few days to clear. Now, when the check from the grocery store comes in your account will have the money in it, so your check doesn't bounce. Two days later you do it again, and again, and again if necessary, until payday. I don't know if it was then, but it's illegal now--in other words: don't try this at home, kids.). After his time in the Army was up, Pa took a job as a garbageman. And another job, and sometimes a third, to support his family. He's in his late 40's and has yet to own a new car--among my memories is blowing an engine on the interstate in December on the outskirts of Chicago, and helping Pa put together pretty nearly an entire exhaust system for a Pinto out of bean-cans and worm-clamps. He had a mortgage on a house, but lost it when I was 9 and we had to move to Alabama where he was offered a job managing a cleaning-crew at the mall--and again, at least one other job. We moved back to Illinois after a year (horrible place; I can't stand Illinois), where I remember more than once everybody sleeping in the same room with every sleeping-bag and blanket in the house because we couldn't afford the gas bill. We lived off of Ramen noodles and Macaroni and Cheese. Rarely did I have clothing that was even new, much less brand-name, and I remember taking a lot of flack for it at school.
When I was sixteen, my Pa borrowed money to go to a trucking school and get his CDL. The money was a bit better, but the cost to it was seeing our father on weekends--sometimes--because otherwise he was anywhere from Pennsylvania to Idaho delivering freight. He borrowed more money to try and start his own business, and it failed miserably, leaving him saddled with debt. Not a rich man by any stretch of the imagination--but he never needed the government to provide for his family with stolen money.
When I got out of high school, I joined the Army. Some time in South Carolina, then off to Korea for a year ("Hey, Ma, it's me. I found out where I'm goin'." "Really? Where?" "Korea." "KOREA?!?" "It's this whole other country...." "That's not funny.") where I learned that some people eat jerked squid and that kim'chi is the vilest substance known to man (and that Mama-san will leave you alone if you ask does she have any daughters. I swear, you walk down the street and you have to pry that woman's hand off your arm...). After the Army I took a job driving a cement mixer. That was the summer it reached 115 degrees down here in Georgia, and I drove a truck with a black vinyl interior for 12-17 hours a day... a truck with a center of gravity about six inches over my head, with a liquid, constantly moving load, and bad breaks. DOT regulations say you can't drive more than 70 hours in 8 days. More times than I can count I drove more than 70 hours in 6 days.
After that, college, living in a trailer, in a trailer park where I was one of the only people who spoke English and working in a grocery store to make rent--and yet again living off of Ramen noodles and Macaroni and Cheese. During this time I saw plenty of people on welfare, using the WIC vouchers and EBT card for their purchases, and saw first-hand that these people live much, much better than I do. Got my Associate's degree, moved up to Dahlonega to be near the North Georgia College, and my truck broke down. About $500 to fix and three weeks out of work. Had to borrow money at a fairly exhorbitant rate to cover it, and two months after I finally finished payin' 'em off, it broke down again--for good, this time. Borrowed money for a car, then borrowed money to fix it. So five months later when the car crapped its transmission, I didn't have the money to fix or replace the thing, and couldn't borrow it. I had to quit my job (I'd been movin' up--had a job at a Wal-Mart by this time, for 9 bucks an hour) and pick one up deep-frying chicken--and riding a bicycle 7 miles each way to work.
Currently, I live in a trailer. I have one firearm (I had more when times were good, and had to pawn them to make my bills), an old 4-10 my Pa gave me. I work a job in construction, lugging 80-pound concrete forms in the hot sun, riding a shovel, and swinging a pick all day. I still have no car. I haven't been able to afford any alcohol for the last few months, and I'm stuck living with a roommate who is an inveterate loser pothead, a guy who lets his parents take care of his kid for him so he can put his entire paycheck to weed and continually makes juvenile attempts to cheat me out of money. This is a good thing--I'm getting out of debt, saving money, and getting ready to get back into college so I can finish up, get my Bachelor's degree, and begin my career.
And you're going to tell me that I'm rich? You, who have had everything you ever needed from medical care to college to your house to the gym you go to provided for you with stolen money, are going to claim that my "riches" insulate me from real life?
Get bent.
EDIT: One day I need to come back and read this post because you fascinate me, Mr. Redneck. Unfortunately, direct insults aimed at other members get you banned from this forum. -Murder
Give what up? I'm outdone? Outdone in what? I've achieved exactly what I wanted to achieve in this thread...you just don't see it apparently. But that's ok...that's how I like it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Likewise, if the so-called "christians" who many of us on this thread criticize are not representive of christianity, how is that religious intolerance? You didn't say "join the terrorists", you said "turn muslim". You can't have it both ways.Quote:
If these guys aren't practicing "true islam", then why is criticizing them religious intolerance?
I have yet to hear of a Christian you don't hate.Quote:
ikewise, if the so-called "christians" who many of us on this thread criticize are not representive of christianity,
Because that's what their demands are. Likely what they really want is for everyone in America to be the kind of muslim often referred to as "Islamofascists", but their demands are that America become a muslim nation. They also demand that we adopt Shari'ah law (which includes stoning women to death for adultery... and considers rape victims as adulteresses because willing or not they screwed someone other than their husbands. Iran's little twist on it judges the age of consent for females as 9 years old.), and quit helping Israel defend itself.Quote:
You didn't say "join the terrorists", you said "turn muslim".
Or in otherwords--turn muslim, stone women, and let them murder Jews.
What I don't understand is why Redneck thinks the Republicans are on his side.
Actually, it's because Jesus said "He who is without sin may cast the first stone"Quote:
Because Jesus said "thou shalt let the terrorists blow thy butt up, and toss serial murderers in jail where they can be out in a few years to murder you again."
2nd Opinions, chapter 4, verse 6
You're a hypocrit is different than "you're a moron". I also see nothing wrong with "taking aQuote:
Keep in mind--"moron" is bad. Who wants to bet you'll see nothing for "you're a hypocrite" and "you're taking a **** on the Bible"? Any takers?
Actually it's true.Quote:
Which is obviously false, but if he can go around what he's saying I can to. Just because I usually abhor tact doesn't mean it ain't fun to play with sometimes.
No, you are wrong. Unfrotunately you can't read this, but I feel that I need to say this anyway. I have made my hatred for stupid christians apparent. I hate morons who hide behind thier religion to justify thier BS. I said this earlier, but it really is like they are taking aQuote:
And may I note that you are liberal and in this post alone you've made your hatred of Christianity quite evident?
It's the truth. I have lived in and grown up around the Christian culture, and I therefore know from experiance that I am right. I realize that christians help, and thank god for that, but they do not do it in the volume that is required.Quote:
. Hell, it sounds like you actually believe the BS you're spouting about Christianity here--
If by 'throwing a fit' you mean arguing my point better than you can counter it, than yes. I guess I do 'throw a fit'Quote:
"Well, it's only a joke when you believe that modern conservatism relates to christianity in any way other than thier anti abortion stance"
"But you quoted somebody who said it best. "Christianity is a crutch for the weak minded"."
"The modern christian has no room in thier hearts for 'forgiveness'."
"He did, and that's what made Jesus great. However, most christians wouldn;t even bother to go even that far."
"You can, but you should first try to remedy your own hipocrasies first, which most christians don't even try to do."
"Allow me to answer this question for the majority of Christians in this world (And I'll do so with tremendous accuracy) No."
No cursing allowed on these forums, but you've certainly managed to throw a fit....
Not everybody can attend these, and if you believe they can... well... it doesn't matter, you can't read this post anyway.Quote:
Because there's no such thing as private schools, religious schools, or charter schools. Please tell me you weren't being serious when you said that--because if you are we're going to have to stop debating until we both live in the same reality.
Exactly.Quote:
I respect Christianity, and that is why so many Christians piss me off. They are living, breathing degradations of the faith.
lordblazer the fact that america is incapable of running these kinds of systems does not mean they cannot work. you think my country runs them because they don't work or they don't care? or the fact that since their introduction literacy and employment rates have risen? that when the nhs started deaths rates decreased? dental hygeiene went up (til that was stolen). they do and can work. look at cuba and tell me they don't. america is just incapable for whatever reason (lack of funding really) of making them work.
the new testament over-rules the old. that's why jesus contradicted it so much.
taxes are thrown away? my education is a wate of money to you? my health? this is throwing money away?
and redneck lets say tomorrow you no longer had to pay taxes (including vat) tell me what percentage would you give to social security? education? health care? or would you give none? take the money and say you need it for yourself?
and the american economy is falling. look at he strength of the dollar against the pound and euro in the last few years.
so redneck your saying i wold have to pay for my own health? every operation and scan i've ever had? the braces i had fitted? the optical care i require? life and health is not a car. it should not require money to maintain. it is not a commodity that should require cash in hand. it is a right. the state of your health should not be dictated by the size of your bank account? and what of me? when i was sick i wasn't old enough to get a job i was 13. so should what health i am entitled to be dictated to by my parents earnings? was that my fault? am i another one of those people that made bad decisions and should be punished? my parents could not have afforded what i have received. would you have let me die for not being able to afford it? life should not have a cost attached.
so yeah it would be a great shame if i had to pay for living.
and no redneck i ouldn't have went to uni witht he maount my parents earn. the tuition fees alone would have been out of their budget. so no i wouldn't be able to go to uni if my government didn't pay for it.
britain privatised the rail system because we were under the tories at the time who had a great fetish for such things. it failed miserably.
tinfoil hat? you see my vision isn't obscured by greed and hate as many people's vision is.
the bible and how you choose to interpt it is not god's judgement. it was not written by god or proof read by him. what is said at the fornt of the gates of heaven is judgement. if you want the honest truth the bible as the protestant church knows it was created by king james a few hundred years ago.
so the answer to my question was, no you cannot force a child on a mother. and even with adoption some women will not want to go through that. as there are more than one way to skin a cat there is more than one way to get rid of a unborn baby. it happens even now when abortion is legal.
now don't get me wrong i'm not all for abortion. i'm neither for or against it. but if it is to be done it needs to be done by someone who knows what he is doing. not with pennyroal tea or by some guy in a side alley surgey with bicycle parts.
and if you can water down communism and get liberalism. in the same way you can water down fascism and get conservatism. the right wing is the same as the left in this manner. it is a slding scale on both sides.
and no redneck i do not ask the state for a miracle cure. i asked them to perform a live saving operation. something i would not be too keen on trusting to god's will or letting the clergy perform. and if the church was to pay for all my medical tests and procedures as well as all others that asked then it would be pretty damn broke. unless of course evryone gave all that money from that new tax break to charity's and didn't just greedily buy what they wanted. yeah........
i kinda like my post-oliver twist society.
marx as well as being a philosopher not only predicted and influenced the greatest mass movement this world has ever seen. did not write about communism as we saw it. but i am glad you noticed the reference. to be honest nowadays the statement is not true. it would now be regarding tv, soaps and reality tv. but there you go. (sorry it was not relevant)
so redneck are you one of these people that in an other thread claimed have made bad decisions in life and deserve their poverty? from reading what you said. you borrowed alot of money. you could have saved. it's not that you don't have the money to save that amount of money becasue you paid it back and then some. you say you had alot of firearms which you pawned, i'll assume you pawned them for less money then you bought them for. this seems to me like a waste of money. for what reason did you require more than one firearm? surely it is common sense that if a firearm is needed one is needed, not a stock. if you can accept that you have made bad decisions in your life will you retract the idea that poverty is a deserved?
if you lived in a society like mine your father would have been helped through his life. you would have went to a free school. possibly received free meals there. he would have receieved support at the very minimum child tax credits. you would have been offered council accomadation when you lost the mortgage so not forcing you to move. you could have been able to pay that gas bill and had a more varied diet than ramen noodles at home.
and frankly if you think that saving my life was theft then you have lost what respect i had of you.
last point. do not insult or flame me. first of all it is not allowed in this forum. and i would not want to see that percentage on your signature drop below 50% because you cannot abide by the rules given to you. i'm not going to press that warn button because it seems del murder has had a word about it. (was there anything edited out here?) but for the sake of common descency please do not insult anyone on this forum. no matter what your views.
thank you.
Its not that america is incapable of running there public school systems properly its the fac tthat really they dont care due to the fact that tax money goes more into USA's prison systems than USA's school systems yet no one says anything about it.I did but igot a letter back saying that i'm not even 18 so shutup as they put it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Anyway cloud I haven't insulted you at all?have i?besides calling oyu a girl ont eh otehr thread which i actually though you were a chick but other than that i never insulted you.I jsut said.Goto america and goto a inner city school and then tell me if the system works well.
"I did but igot a letter back saying that i'm not even 18 so shutup as they put it."
sorry to be a little stupd here. but is this in reply to me? i just can't see what it's in reply to. sorry about that.
and lorblazer while i'm apoligizing the person who insulted me was redneck. (wasn't actually an insult unless del murder edited it out) it was more of a flame "get bent". okay hope we got that all cleared up.
while i'm here though. if education requires more money then it's gonna need more money, which comes from more taxes. then people are only gonna whine about helping someone else learn and stuff. because for some reason bringing up the next generation to learn to spell is seen as a bad thing by some. this being the generation with the money from which they make from a nice education will be paying for pensions and health care of the folk that are whining about taxes.
or you could drop the money in the prison system. it would help though if rehabilitation wasa bigger thing becasue then you wouldn't have to pay fro re-offenders coming back every year using more money. make a short term investment for long term gains. also i read in the paper that a man was just been released after serving 35 years in jail for the theft of a tv. that is just waste of money. you could have rehabilitated him within a year and educated him and he would have been a fraction of the cost.
the prison system needs to be reformed in america and better state schools given. otherwise therw will be this constant difference between them that people will bring up.
poor kids cannot be blamed for being poor. we need to give them the best start we can give them. so they don'r fall into the same trap as their parents. a good education is the way to do this. and in state education is where they will be. if you want to end the poverty cycle you need to deal with the problem of poor state schools. in the words of the grandfather of the welfare state. "the difference between liberalism and socialism is, socialism aims to bring down the rich, liberalism seeks to lift up the poor." is that not what we want from a society? where what your parents own does not influence the chances you recieve in life?
now state schools do work. the currently do not work in america due to problems with the system and funding. but they can work. my country is proof of this. look at our univeristy occupancy levels. this is because a. everyone rich and poor are now getting a better education than before. and b. everyone rich and poor is getting this better education up to univeristy level for 5 years irrelative of their social and economic status.
our universities are no longer reserved for the rich. they are reserved for the deserving. and this is how it should be.
Yeesh does it have to be like this?
What I'd do about welfare is essentially give people who get laid off a chance to go back and get retrained for a different skill, so as the person can get retrained and be a contributing member of society. The reason behind this seems pretty simple to me -- the job skills required change almost constantly. We just don't need as many telephone receptionists in America, because our call centers are in India now. Same kind of thing with manufacturing, those jobs are gone. So the people who had those jobs need to be trained to do something that will give them a decent paycheck, i.e. repairing PCs, network admins, or accountants or something.
The problem with straight up providing $0.00 in aid is that the person will have an income low enough that they'll probably still need assistance. The problem with generous aid is that it becomes too comfortable, in fact far more comfortable than if they were working.
So if a person were willing to work 20 hours a week for the government, then i think it is only fair to help them get trained to get a decent paying job.
You know, I've actually went through and read the entire thread (I was extremely bored)...and I'm very confused on that myself now. o_OQuote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
That was a refreshing read. I agree completely. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
in america people are too self centered now days.Especially americans.Selflessness is a rare thing.It comes natural to me and it took me awhile to see why people apreciated me being selfless.Even though my dad thinks im selfish(last time he saw me I was 6 of course i was a kid....he still thinks like that to yeah the father missing out on his oldest son growing up and trying to make it up through his youngest son(step brother))Quote:
while i'm here though. if education requires more money then it's gonna need more money, which comes from more taxes. then people are only gonna whine about helping someone else learn and stuff. because for some reason bringing up the next generation to learn to spell is seen as a bad thing by some. this being the generation with the money from which they make from a nice education will be paying for pensions and health care of the folk that are whining about taxes.
but yeah the sad hting is though in america prisons recieve a lot more of the peoples tax money than schools do.Which if schools recieved this tax money then prizons wouldn't need it at all.
It's not even that selfless, to be honest. Just practical. If you don't educate people with *real skills* guess what happens? You'll be paying for them every couple of years. So you can agree with my plan and still be a selfish *******.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
Well I gotta aggree with the teaching *real skills* part. We need to get more of that done in the required schooling. I mean I haven't really learned much of anything new since about 6th grade... Then again I do spend alot of time reading.. so perhaps I picked up the curriculum early.
Anyways.. we do need more college like classes at school, that way people will come out with better skills.
[edit] btw.. I think something from this lost couple posts got mixed up.. I lost it somewhere.. yet I think I do understand the overall topic... did someone take something wrongly.. or did I take somehting differently?
lol redneck hasn't seen the light yet lol.But seriously I am kinda confuse as well .How redneck explained his current situation.How are the republicans helping him?If redneck sees this please answer it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
Ever think that there are people out there who DON'T think "What can the government do for me" when they vote? No, The Redneck is not rich. Which means he's not one of those eeeevil rich people who hate poor people. The less money the government takes from us--in other words, the less we have to pay in taxes--is more money we keep for ourselves. More of our money. Republicans aren't against poor people in any way--they/we are for people who want to work for their money, instead of waiting for handouts. Instead of saying "You're evil because you worked for your money and disagree with it being redistributed to people that don't work as hard/long as you do", why don't you try "Why don't poor people try working a bit and getting off government assistance programs?" And don't try to tell me it can't be done, or it's too hard, or some people can't do it because America is racist or sexist or homophobic, or whatever excuse people want to make for them. And those people with serious disabilities have plenty of programs and opportunities for themselves, as well. This is the "Land of Opportunity". If you can't support yourself in America, you might as well just go ahead and kill yourself, because you don't deserve to go on.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
That logic does not make any sense. The government became very bloated with buracracy and more with Reagan thus requireing more money to run the government and it is happening yet again with Bush Jr. Homeland security and taking over the airports are a complete and insane waste of money. We have FBI, CIA, DOD, ATF, INS and a great variety of other agencies. To me it seems that if something gets through like 9-11 then they all utterly failed at their jobs and we don't need to add more buracracy to the process but work to reform the entire process instead.
All of that money could have gone towards education, environmental causes and a great variety of other things that we should be spending that money on.
I would also like to point out that it was under Clinton that welfare reform was done thus cutting out buracracy and making people less dependent on the government. To what degree all of this was done I am not as knowledgable about. What that all entailed I don't know. Correct and enlighten me to how all that worked.
what do people think of when they vote?
social security is for people who don't have a job. so lets for a minute take it away. you lose your job. you struggle getting a new one. now what? where does your money come from? what do your children eat?
or if you have an incoming-outgoing problem. for instance if your husband leaves you with 3 children to support. you suffer a debt problem. then what happens to these people? they need a safety net.
yes maybe the systemis abused more than it should be. but that is inevitable. but for people like me. government aid has got me to where i am today. it has done as the liberals promised and picked me up. i i believe more than any american live in a land of opportunity. where what i can acheive in life is not decided on the size of my or my parents bank account but purely by my merits.
ps. you last line sasquatch is hugely morally dubious. to say that if someone can't support themself for whatever reason isn't worth life is frankly disgusting and i would wish a retraction.
I thought Social Security are for those who don't have a job because they are retired instead of losing your job. Losing your job means you get unemployeement benifits(which is only if you are fired and even then you don't have to get it).
Social Security is for retired senoir citizens which i won't be able to see when I turn hmm 65 but anyway besides the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Another thing dubya did which is really recent was pass a bill allowing the destruction of national parks you know actually it lifted the ban on destroying national parks for resources.
sorry what does america call what the british call the dole? the thing unemployed get.
we say "on the dole" in America, but what we receive is called welfare.
So Brits say "on the dole" too, I thought that was just America! :D
Is the media liberal? Well, the media is basically a reflection of popular opinion. And if the majority of people are quite liberal; then that's going to be their opinion to get higher ratings/sell more papers. I tend to think that the media crafts their values to coincide with the majority. So, maybe they are getting more liberal, but isn't society as a whole getting more liberal?
I just call it unemployment just like everyone else.
On the Dole? Like Bob Dole? :laugh:
Horrible, HORRIBLE image.Quote:
On the Dole? Like Bob Dole?
Maybe, what's best for the country? What's best for the majority? What's morally right? What provides the most freedom, or most security? Novel idea, isn't it, that it's not the government's job to carry every sorry ass that can't support themselves? The Redneck doesn't want any help from the government--even if he could definitely use it--because he so rightly believes that it's not the responsibility of the government to redistribute the income of its citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Social Security is an extremely poor retirement fund. It's not any form of unemployment, it's for people who are retired and didn't set enough money aside through their entire working life (or don't have the pensions, etc.) to support them when they stop working. If any investment company set up a plan like Social Security, they would get shut down--but when the government does it, it's forced. Obviously you don't know much about Social Security, yet you still insist on making an attempt to discuss it. This is a not uncommon tactic for you, granted, but it's a bad habit.Quote:
social security is for people who don't have a job. so lets for a minute take it away. you lose your job. you struggle getting a new one. now what? where does your money come from? what do your children eat?
A safety net, yes. A hammock, no. Welfare (dole) was created as a safety net, but has developed into a hammock. By the way, of a husband leaves a wife with three kids, then there is always child support and alimony that's collected from the husband anyway, to help out his ex-wife. I don't think too many people on Social Security have to worry about their husbands leaving them with three children.Quote:
or if you have an incoming-outgoing problem. for instance if your husband leaves you with 3 children to support. you suffer a debt problem. then what happens to these people? they need a safety net.
Welfare is abused, yes, on an extreme scale. Social Security is abused on a large scale as well, but only by politicians. For instance, ever heard of the "Social Security Trust Fund" or "Lock Box"? It doesn't exist. The only way that can keep paying out SS benefits is to keep collecting SS funds (by force, of course) from America's working class. And no, it's not inevitable, it's preventable. The only problem is that anybody who crusades to end Welfare abuse is made out to be cruel and evil and unwilling to help those in need, while anybody who tries to help straighten out Social Security is labeled as somebody who hates or doesn't care if our old people starve. Mainly, typical labels for Republicans.Quote:
yes maybe the systemis abused more than it should be. but that is inevitable.
Congratulations. I am glad that you live in another country, because I agree with that last statement--where one goes in life should be determined by their merits and work ethic, and nothing else. Nothing else, like how much money they can suck off the government. Therefore, again, I am glad you live in another country, because that means that less of my tax dollars are going to support people who don't support themselves.Quote:
but for people like me. government aid has got me to where i am today. it has done as the liberals promised and picked me up. i i believe more than any american live in a land of opportunity. where what i can acheive in life is not decided on the size of my or my parents bank account but purely by my merits.
It's the truth. Sorry if you don't like it--seems to be another bad habit of yours--but that's the way it is. And it doesn't regard everybody that "can't support themself for whatever reason"--there are exceptions, which I pointed out in that post. Disabilities and handicaps, and the like--and no, that doesn't include "disabilities" like alcoholism.Quote:
ps. you last line sasquatch is hugely morally dubious. to say that if someone can't support themself for whatever reason isn't worth life is frankly disgusting and i would wish a retraction.
sasquatch i already said i mistakenly called the dole (or the brew as some call it) social security.
it was a mistake in americanisms. so we are talking about the dole here.
skipping on as alot of sasquatchs's post was base don mistake. we shall move to the last two paragraphs.
i'll tell you something. i have "sucked" alot of money from the government. i went to public school as my parents could not afford private. i received nhs treatment ALOT for various problems, i would hate to imagine the cost. it probably saved my life, it certainly saved my family from poverty. i'm going to a top univeristy. one that my parents could not afford. i'm going because i achieved good enough grades to get there. the rest of my life will hopefully be boosted for this. what i achieve will have been aided my government.
so sasquatch. i ask again. is my future? my education? even my actual existence and life, theft? would you rather me dead than having my fellow country men pay taxes? if i was in your country would you have me die to get back that cent in a dollar?
your last line on the seond graph is hypocrtical agsainst your first sentence of the post. what are you really concerned for? your country? your fellow country men? or your own money and taxes?
the defence of the idea that people who cannot support themselves deserve to die? that's a new low. my family could not have supported themself with the difficulties i had. would you shoot them? did they not work hard enough for you? would you put that gun against my head and pull the trigger for being a drain? it's sickening to think that you really care this much for your own pocket that you would go as far to say people deserve to die for it.
though your country exercises this at a rate of 1 every 3 second anyway. so i am not suprised.
there was another country in the past which believed in killing drains on society..... but i never realised sasquatch you would believe in Arbeit Macht Frei.
PRetty much Sas your basicly telling people that if they can't support themselves they dont deserve to live.WEll when my dad left my mom she had two kids me and my sis and we were dirt pooooor.MY mom was on welfare for a few years but once she was able to get her degreee she got out of poverty and that doesnt change the fact that she had to depend on welfare and work 4 jobs to take care of me and my sis.
People who never lived in poverty will always think its some random loser mooching off of welfare.Man please.......
BTW cloud what university are you going to?
I know what it's like to be on welfare, my mother and I were in a very long court battle now think my mother is a nurse she makes good money right? Well the court battle stripped us of everything we owned. Now this court battle was with another family member not like some malpractice case or anything like that. I had lived in the same house my entire life 7 years and we had to be on welfare for 2 people we were getting 64 dollars a month to live on. Almost impossible to have anything good at all. During the 5 years we were on it my mother kept trying to find nursing jobs but the area we were in there wasn't much at all in the way of jobs let alone nursing jobs. She finally got one and found us another house and finally got us off of welfare. Not everyone on welfare is on it because they won't work or they won't take care of themselves, they do it because they have no other choices sometimes so then what do you do still say their not worth living?
THANK YOU!!! I live with my grandma, and she worked full time (until she was injured) and got welfare. Think we were living in luxury?Quote:
Not everyone on welfare is on it because they won't work or they won't take care of themselves, they do it because they have no other choices sometimes so then what do you do still say their not worth living?
lb, i'm going to glasgow university to study computing science (will be software engineering in my 3rd year), maths (will be dropped after my first year), and philosophy (not usre if i'll take it beyond my 2nd year or not yet)
yeah that's really all i had to post because this topic seems to be reaching a concensus.
I will say again. It is my responsibility, and mine alone, to support me. It is your responsibility, and yours alone, to support you. If you have something you can't help--some types of health problems, disabilities, handicaps, etc.--then I believe it's the right thing to do, and should be done, to help you make it through and support yourself, and I'd be glad to chip in for that. If somebody makes good grades and such through school, there are plenty of scholarships and such that will help those people out. Good for you, you're going to a college. My parents aren't paying a damn thing towards my college either, so I have to pay for it all myself. But there's a difference in joining the military and getting deployed for a year, then coming back with enough money to start college, and deciding that you should have your college pay for and give no more back to the government. I'm giving them six (or more) years of my life, they're giving me an education, and we're both happy. I'm not a leech, I'm not sucking the government's (taxpayers') teat so I can get what I think I deserve. As I have said many times before, I don't have any problem with helping to support people who honestly can't make enough money to support their family. It's the people who choose not to work hard enough that I get pissed that I have to pay for.
However, also keep in mind, there's a difference between collecting welfare and collecting unemployment.
I feel the same way about my tax dollars going to the military, wars, ect...sucks not to have a choice eh? =/Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
why should i and peole like me get any less chances in life (as far as education goes) because of what my parents have or have not done in their life. lets say their are two equal people. both got equal grades in the same subjects. they were gooe dnough to get them into university but not quite good enough to get them a scholarship. boy a has rich parents. he can go to university because his parents will pay for it. he may have went to a private school, had private tuition, had more expensive books etc. he had a better education because his parents were rich. so lets look at boy b. he comes from a poor family. he went to a state school. his parents can't afford to send him to uni. his grades were the same as boy a but he can't go purely on the basis of the richness of his parents. he may have even worked harder. he may not have had private tuition, private school, he may not have been able to buy all those books for his exams. he may have overcame more difficulties. but he will not be getting into university because his parents cannot afford it.
in oder for boy b to get into university he will have had to have get better grades than boy a in order to gain a scholarship.
the lesson? the poor have to work harder than the rich to get the same oppurtunities even if they are equal or better than them.
why should boy b not be allowed to go to university?
and i am not leeching or sponging of the state. i am in the position of boy b thank you very much. and secondly. it is in fact a long term investment by the government. with a degree i will be able to get a better job, that earns more money, if i earn more money i will be paying more tax, which will pay back the government what i have used to get that far in my life, it will also pay for other people to get the same oppurtunites i have so they can do the same.
THANK YOU. VERY MUCH.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
And the idea that most liberals claim, upon hearing an honest fact, their usual philosophical "Well, you can't change it, no one can, we have no power, we humans are weak". It's nice to hear objective reality playing a part in life.
A. How did Boy A's parents get rich? Why is it that Boy A's parents planned for their future, and their child's future, and have enough money to send their boy to further education when he's old enough, while parents of Boy B didn't do what they needed to be financially secure enough to help out their kid? I'm sure if my parents had more money, they'd gladly help my siblings and me with our college (as most parents would), but because of some financial mistakes they made long ago, they don't have that opportunity--which is one reason I joined the Army, so that I'd have more money for college. I realize that I do and will have to work my ass off for my college education, and I accept that--I certainly don't expect the government to step in and say, "hey, you haven't done a damn thing to deserve this, but here, it's on us." I realize we don't deserve government handouts, don't expect them, and wouldn't accept them...apparently, Cloud 9, that's where we differ. I refuse to suck the state tit like a calf, and would rather work for and earn what I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
B. Boy B has to do what most everybody else does--get a damn job, and make enough money to work their way through college. The lady I'm interested in works 80+ hours a week so that come fall, she'll have enough money for her college. When she was still in college, she worked more than 40 hours a week.
C. Because Mommy and Daddy can't pay for it, that doesn't mean somebody should--it means we shouldn't have to rely on anybody but ourselves.
So what happens then in a society where, unless you're extremely lucky, you cannot get anywhere in life without the ability to produce capital of some sort, such as ours? Are you just screwed from birth then?Quote:
C. Because Mommy and Daddy can't pay for it, that doesn't mean somebody should--it means we shouldn't have to rely on anybody but ourselves.
so boy a deserves a better education because by luck he was born to richer parents? he acheives no more but benefits exclusively from what his parent has and with no judgement upon his own merits?
and thanks sasquatch but i have worked for what i have acheived in life. i didn't fall back on the fortune of my parents for a private education. i worked hard and gained what i have through my own ability's and merits.
there is no reason why i should be disadvantaged because of the family i was born into.
why should i have to work harder to prove myself equal?
When you say "ours", you must be referring to a society other than that of America, because that certainly isn't the case here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
Everybody in America has the ability to produce capital of some sort. Whether it's physical labor, flipping burgers, or filing paperwork, there is no reason short of a physical or mental handicap that anybody should be unable to support themselves.
And if somebody really does have some type of handicap or disability that keeps them from working, there are countless government programs to help them. Those programs, I support.
I admit that our government's done a good job, but there are still problems. Let's take the homeless situation for example. It's extremely difficult to get a job without a permanent residence, yet people are constantly driving away homeless tent cities and the like. What do these people do?
There are plenty of government programs to help out homeless, not to mention the fact that most churches would most likely be more than willing to help--even if it's just pointing them in direction to find more help.
I know that it's illegal to refuse to hire somebody simply because they were in prison, so I'd imagine there'd be some type of laws like that for homeless as well--as long as they're qualified, that is.
The major problem in this regard is that they're hard to contact because they have no permanent residences or phone numbers. Although I do believe there are shelters that provide such a thing, they don't seem able to serve a majority of the homeless.Quote:
I know that it's illegal to refuse to hire somebody simply because they were in prison, so I'd imagine there'd be some type of laws like that for homeless as well--as long as they're qualified, that is.
True, but I would imagine if they had a demand for it--as in, if all homeless people were to find shelters--then there would be a big push for increased funding and such for homeless shelters, and it wouldn't be a problem for too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
A good point. So you DO support governmental programs that give people a chance to make their way, and would fund them via taxes, am I correct?Quote:
True, but I would imagine if they had a demand for it--as in, if all homeless people were to find shelters--then there would be a big push for increased funding and such for homeless shelters, and it wouldn't be a problem for too long.
People that are physically (or mentally) unable to make their way themselves, yes, I fully support taxpayer-funded programs that help them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
but sasquatch before you said flipping burgers would be a mistake to make if you had to raise a kid.
so for some people what capital they can earn is not enough.
When?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I've said before that a McJob isn't what somebody needs to raise a kid, but it's definitely possible, if they work their ass off at it.
Work harder, longer, or smarter. That's the beauty of Capitalism.
flipping burgers isn't a job you can work harder at. you are giving shift times so yo can't work longer. and it certainly isn't a job that requires any kind of smartness.
Work your way up, as I did. I started at Taco Bell. Check your Wiki (I used to be Temple Knight) - I became one of the youngest managers in the company. I made more than enough for things. I know people around me making the same amount and raising kids. It's possible, if hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
And no one should ask "why do I have to work harder?". It sucks that I wasn't born in a rich family. But all people have to get wealth. Saying that the government needs to pay for it doesn't mean I magically get wealth. It comes from somewhere - or someone, rather. Someone needs to produce it. At the very least, I should carry my own weight economically. Otherwise, I force others to work for me. It's not too humane, really.
You can always work harder/faster, even flipping burgers. And you can always tell your boss you want to work more hours--if your boss doesn't give you more hours, get another job and work more hours there.
Hachifusa hit it on the head. Every time we mention "the government", think instead "we". Because that's what's going on--every cent a government spends is earned by its taxpayers. And every income redistribution program the government works on is funded by the people that make the money in this country.
so when i was 5 it was my responsiblitly to get a job and go out and work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
sas i hope you do know getting a job is a blessing my dad was unemplyed ast year and it took him forever to get a job and he's skilled in his field with a PHD.HE finally found one but it took him months and if his wife hadn't have a job then he would have never been able to support himself
(unemployement is 300 bucks thats just for gas money and lunch money while you look for a job.)
its tough to get a job in okc to tell you the truth its tough to get a job anwhere now.but some people do work multiple jobs and stilll can't support themselves.I understand your thing of dependence but then oy have to add in factors like relatives inherenting debt.Inherent they didn't put themselves to debt there dead beat mnother or father died with debt and passed it on to you!!! that crap is tough man life is tough but that welfare jsut helps really a little bit.No one can live off of welfare alone that what makes that program so good.They get people to try and get out of poverty.Then theres the military.
sasquatch i believe seems tohink that all people should work for what they have no matter what they're age. or inherit the problems of their family. in which case he would have had me working at 12 to fund my own operation or wait until my parenst saved enough to pay for it for me just in time before i died (hopefully). becasue of course life is not a right in the capatalist mind, it is a commodity that has to be bought and paid for, and if you can't afford to keep your own health then it's left to rot like a car is to rust.
ps. and due to eu laws it is illegal to work more than 48 hours a week.
Denouncing capitalism, which has given you this computer, among other things, is hardly what to start. Keep denouncing it and when we see the socialist regime return and you find that slave labor is preferrable (for the good of society, I'm sure) you can complain then. And seriously, you live in the EU, so it'll be soon, assuredly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Everyone has the right to life in a capitalistic (i.e. free) society. It is any other form of government or control where that right has to be paid for. You have been brainwashed by your socialistic teachers. Disregard the idea that you will fail without governmental money, please, and recognize the supremecy of the human spirit. (And I'm not just talking to Cloud No. 9 here).
In regards to your statements, Cloud, I can only apply reason.
Your health can be be kept in decent standards by you, but you will need medical care. But if YOU don't pay for it, who will? ---At whose expense? ---Whose dollars? ---Whose life is below yours?
Things do take money. Humans are traders. Why would anyone waste money on you to receive nothing in return?
Once again, attempts are made to interpret my beliefs...and once again, they become a miserable failure.
Obviously, there are age limits and child labor laws, and nobody is advocating that a minor or a child must work to support themself.
lordblazer--I'm not going to ask what field your father is in, because for one thing, it's not my business, and for another, I don't give a damn. However, I will point out that some fields have very little for demand--for instance, a Philosophy major in college will get somebody about nowhere. Just like there are some fields that will not only always have some demand, but currently have a very high demand--fields such as education and nursing. On that note, there are some fields that were in high demand for the last generation, and currently have very little demand at all, just as there are fields that are in high demand now that weren't even on the table in our parents' time.
As for inherited debt, they have a solution to that nowadays. This newfangled stuff called life insurance, I believe--it's remarkable stuff, it really is. See, what you do is pay a small amount every month for this stuff, and when you die, it gives the people you leave behind enough money to pay for your funeral costs, the debts you leave behind, and usually more. I myself have SGLI, which gives me a quarter million dollars when I die but costs only twenty bucks a month--and if I was sixty years old and smoked like a chimney, I could get the same thing. And even though that's through the military, there are plenty of other organizations out there that offer this stuff with decent rates. Or, there's always the option of, well, not racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt. But oh, we can't do that now, can we?
Also--along with unemployment, finding jobs, etc.--there's the idea of actually saving money, so when you fall upon hard times--get laid off, injured, acquire new expenses, etc.--you have money to fall back on, instead of living paycheck-to-paycheck. However, again, that might require working a little bit more, not spending so much on semi-luxuries, putting away a little nest egg, maybe planning ahead a little bit.
There's also this stuff--health insurance, they call it--where, just like life insurance, you pay a certain amount every month, then if you need to go to the doctor/hospital/etc., you pay a small amount instead of the entire bill. Having this stuff helps to protect against getting the sniffles and going flat broke paying your doctor bills. Again, by planning ahead and getting a decent career, or at least a full-time job, that provides benefits, sometimes the employer will provide a good deal for life insurance. If not, there are ways to independently get health insurance.
Of course life is a right, even to us eeeeevil Capitalists. However, a line must be drawn between the health of every citizen and the freedom of those citizens to keep the money they earn without having it confiscated by the government to provide services for those who are able but not responsible enough to find ways to provide their own health care.
i'm actually from a somewhat socialist (stateless) nation. and yeah it's working out fairly fine. we're not starving over here. i personally like the idea of not having to pay to ensure i don't die. i find it very selfish of people to refuse to help others. "this girls got leukimia can we get a cent in every dollar" "no cos i want a new SUV and i've been saving really hard" "but she's gonna die" "awww who cares it's my money i'll do what i want she can pay for it herself" "no she can't she can't afford that level of treatment" "well she would have worked harder" "she's 12" "that's her parents fault then that she's gonna die " *man then goes to buy his new suv*
and why in america is everything based around this stupid idea of insurance to actually pay for stuff if you are starving, dying or sick. yeah cos that's a great idea........... everyone benefits from state paid health care, education, wefare, pensions. you use some, i use some. i probably use the nhs more than most people (i'm actually a huge drain but meh, like i'm gonna die for someone's taxes), but then another person might need housing benefit, welfare, a state funeral. and who am i to complain? he paid part of my operations i made sure he wasn't homeless and didn't starve. he take a litle you give a little back. you don't greedily horde your money for yourself and that new tv.
life's a gamble and the welfare state takes care of this. it gives everyone an equal playing field rather than an inhrieted class.
and to think that someone's income tax is worth more than my life or anyone else's life hachifusa is not steady ground to stand on. to say it's to someone's expense to keep my a life and the above girl with leukhmia from dying at the age of 12 is frankly just a little selfish.
Before I begin, I would like to say that I did not mean to offend anyone.
We've said it before, and we'll say it again - You are confusing charity with stealing. There is no way around it. They do not beg we selfish capitalists for money. They rip it from our hands. We produce (we, the people) and the needy steal it, and if we don't like it they laugh at us and call us selfish and greedy. smurf that. And - for the record, the freest country in the world, America? We're doing better for you. We're feasting over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
No, you use your money to cover your own interests. If you have extra, you can use it on a number of things that are important to you. If someone wastes money on toys, let them use it on toys - when they need more money, they will have failed. You do not loot it for the benefit of society. That is not cool. That was his money that he made. Let him spend it as he wants.Quote:
and why in america is everything based around this stupid idea of insurance to actually pay for stuff if you are starving, dying or sick. yeah cos that's a great idea........... everyone benefits from state paid health care, education, wefare, pensions. you use some, i use some. i probably use the nhs more than most people (i'm actually a huge drain but meh, like i'm gonna die for someone's taxes), but then another person might need housing benefit, welfare, a state funeral. and who am i to complain? he paid part of my operations i made sure he wasn't homeless and didn't starve. he take a litle you give a little back. you don't greedily horde your money for yourself and that new tv.
I hear this from socalists all the time. All it translates to is "We humans are unable to deal with the ups and downs of life and therefore give the government the power to make the decisions for us. That way, no one is able to go beyond the power of the mediocre.Quote:
life's a gamble and the welfare state takes care of this. it gives everyone an equal playing field rather than an inhrieted class.
And there are no inherited classes in America, or any free society.
Let's say you're dying on the street.Quote:
and to think that someone's income tax is worth more than my life or anyone else's life hachifusa is not steady ground to stand on. to say it's to someone's expense to keep my a life and the above girl with leukhmia from dying at the age of 12 is frankly just a little selfish.
I have plenty of money, and I recognize that you are a good person who needs help. I have a extra money because we live in a free society and I am able to work the best of my ability. You have health insurance, which is cheap because other parasite nations don't exist - the world is equally free. However, you don't quite have enough. I recognize this and gladly pay off the rest, and hope for your well-being. In return, I get to see that someone gets to live, and it makes me feel better. Maybe you pay me back - maybe not - either way, I've recieved my payment.
Now let's say we live in a socialsitc world that is dying from everyone being each others' slave.
You're on the street, dying. I have no money, as I trudge to another job - I work eighty hours a week because the starving people of Malyasia (or France, or Sudan - it doesn't matter) need the help of the people and in the spirit of brotherhood we all are working twice as hard. You are going to recieve the second-rate, free medical care (that was paid for by everyone around you), but you are on a waiting list to get in. You scream in insolence that it is my duty to help you, that we are all our brothers' keepers, that I am selfish if I don't give you extra money while I have a starving child and wife at home. But I keep walking, because I have my own problem. Ignoring the basic premise of personal responsbility and freedom, I utter a horrific phrase, showing no conern for human life, "Let the State care for him. I have my own issues."
Sure, this is sensationalized. But I can't help but feel that selflessness is far worse than selfishness! I care too much -and expect too much -for the lives around me to go to a welfare state.
"and the needy steal it" that sums up my view of capitalism and it's followers. the needy steal it? why are the needy stealing it? the fact that you refuse to see the good in helping the needy is why people call it greedy.
and america is far from the freeist country in the world. the idea that america calls itslef the freeist society reminds me so much of oceania. (book reference, sorry). and yes america is feasting...... one of it's societies many problems. it is not something to be proud of. gluttony and waste are not plue point for a soceity were many live below the poverty line.
letting a man spend all of his money how he wants without thoight for the good of society as a whole is known as laiisez-faire. a political though that is dead and rightly so. it consisted of leaded bread, dung heaps in cities, cholera, deaths in factories, child labour and other evils. it was not a good time. certain amounts of peoples money needs to be spent aiding the society they are part of.
you inheriet a class in all class systems. this happens in two ways. first of all buy what your paents can afford dictates your standard of living from ages 0-18, your education, health care, etc. no value is taken into how good you are, your merits, your abilities. you could be a proidigy born into a slum ridden family. you will go to an underfunded state school, if you get ill you will need to get better slowly and naturally or your parents will get into debt. in a socialist soceity this doesn't happen.
you can inheriet a class in the class system manner which is seperate but totally unconnected but i will go into for completeness. i am upper lower class because my family is uppper lower class. if i perform well in life i could drop to middle lower class. i can not however ever become lower lower class (the underclass). it is a state of mind. if i perform well i could become as high as upper middle class. i could however never become upper class. i couldn't fit into the aristocracy. this class system is not based on money, it is a society grouo. for instance bill gates not upper class, he is still middle class. the queen is upper class, lords are upper class, lawyers and doctors are middle class. does that make sense to people who aren't used to the society class system?
also socialist society's do not mean poorer quality. look at cuba's education system and health care. superior to everything we have here. and everyone is entitled to it? isn't that what we should be aiming for? the pro's of cuban society? for absolutley everyone to be given the best chances in life as a birth right?
Did they teach you these things in school? o_O
well half my history education was british econimic. (the being german unification - 39)
Ok, well, might as well address this.
Please understand what I am arguing. This is really more than a political philosophy. You are advocating that the end justifies the means. The question is, no matter how much the poor might "need", say, Bill Gates' money, do they have the right to rip it from his "greedy", capitalist hands? Can stealing and murder and all manner of horrific ideas be justified?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
No. They cannot. Not for any so-called "noble" cause nor because of the state of the poor.
Please give me one country that grants more freedom to the individual, so that I can forsake America and move there.Quote:
and america is far from the freeist country in the world. the idea that america calls itslef the freeist society reminds me so much of oceania. (book reference, sorry). and yes america is feasting...... one of it's societies many problems. it is not something to be proud of. gluttony and waste are not plue point for a soceity were many live below the poverty line.
And the rest of the world can feast, too. Unfortuantely, the governments of those countries are robbing their people blind to "line their own damn pockets with gold" (sorry, game reference =P).
Lassiez-faire capitalism has never existed. The United States, at conception, got very close - but unfortunately, welfare-statist tactics got involved, loopholes with the Constitution were found, and now America is more or less the same as every other country in the world - a mixed economy. Granted, we're doing better because we lean closer to capitalism, but really that's going to fall, as sad as it is.Quote:
letting a man spend all of his money how he wants without thoight for the good of society as a whole is known as laiisez-faire. a political though that is dead and rightly so. it consisted of leaded bread, dung heaps in cities, cholera, deaths in factories, child labour and other evils. it was not a good time. certain amounts of peoples money needs to be spent aiding the society they are part of.
Do not cite those things and blame capitalism. It was all that the country could afford at the time. Free trade would not bring back those things, of course.
And certainly, taxation is necessary. However, when government has been brought down to where it belongs - as merely a retaliatory force - then the amount of taxation needn't be so high (not to mention that all other forms of taxes spare sales tax would be abolished). An "income tax" destroys America. Look at how we're going to hell today.
You're contradicting yourself. "Underfunded state school" is a product of socialism. If the government was at its natural level, "state schools" would be illegal. Notice how our school system is lower than it should be - this is because the State deals with it. Have you never heard about the people who rose out of poverty? That is only possible in America. Ask yourself if it is possible in a statist government. Prodigies are canned from the start.Quote:
you inheriet a class in all class systems. this happens in two ways. first of all buy what your paents can afford dictates your standard of living from ages 0-18, your education, health care, etc. no value is taken into how good you are, your merits, your abilities. you could be a proidigy born into a slum ridden family. you will go to an underfunded state school, if you get ill you will need to get better slowly and naturally or your parents will get into debt. in a socialist soceity this doesn't happen.
Sure it makes sense. But who in the hell cares? Free trade - and individual rights - destroys class system mentality.Quote:
you can inheriet a class in the class system manner which is seperate but totally unconnected but i will go into for completeness. i am upper lower class because my family is uppper lower class. if i perform well in life i could drop to middle lower class. i can not however ever become lower lower class (the underclass). it is a state of mind. if i perform well i could become as high as upper middle class. i could however never become upper class. i couldn't fit into the aristocracy. this class system is not based on money, it is a society grouo. for instance bill gates not upper class, he is still middle class. the queen is upper class, lords are upper class, lawyers and doctors are middle class. does that make sense to people who aren't used to the society class system?
Well, first off, Cuba's health care isn't superior to America's system.Quote:
also socialist society's do not mean poorer quality. look at cuba's education system and health care. superior to everything we have here. and everyone is entitled to it? isn't that what we should be aiming for? the pro's of cuban society? for absolutley everyone to be given the best chances in life as a birth right?
The only system that can give the "greatest good to the greatest number" is capitalism. Socialism can be seen at first as what one should aim for, but once you realize that it ultimately fails as seeing people as people and seeing people as a member of the collective, all of its fallacies appear. Everyone has the best chances in a free society. If I was born to a poor family, I could rise above it the best to my ability.
By and by, are you American?
Well all I got to say is without state funded schools my education would be nill. Which wouldn't make me very happy. And class does in fact exist in america. The Uppers Uppers the WASPs etc.. you know you gotta be born rich to be one of them? Of course after hearing some of them talk.. I don't think I want to be one of them. ever.
The problem isn't the programs. It is the fact that our government does such a god awful job running them. Our government is too hampered by buercracy and the like to run effeciently.
Also not all state schools are bad, meaning a state funded education that is competitive is perfectly possible... we just gotta fix what is wrong.
And as for the ends right the means. You do see how willing many rich are to "rob" the poor and keep them down? In a society where most people enjoyed helping others the system your propose would definately be best. In our system with people more worried about money they anything else... well people will screw each other over.
Actually I got a story that my teacher tells often due to the fact that as he put it, "I see this all the time." What is it he sees?
When in college he worked at a Deli as a delievery boy. Every time he went to a house that had money and where the people would lavishly spend, the owners would rarely tip and when they did it was a very poor one. One guy would even sit there and recount the change several times to make sure he got every penny back. Now when he delievered to the working class he on occasion would get 5-10$ tips. One person who constantly gave tips wished my teach good luck getting enough to get through college.
This is obviousally just one area... but it scares me that the working class seem to be more willing to help others, possibly cause they know it can be difficult to make it through certian times.. so if they have the extra money, why not help another?
We actually did even more indepth on that in our sociology class.. and it shocked me at the differences between america's social classes.. that is bit deeper then I originally thought. At least aren't a caste class system.
Yes, but in America class seems to be determined only by money. If you get enough of it, you move up. The thing is that in most societies, for the majority of people -- you stay the class that your parents did. There are exceptions, we aren't like India with a caste society, and an exceptional individual can climb the ranks. But if you take an average student in the inner city at random, chances are fairly good that 15 years later, they'll still be inner-city and working a blue-collar job. Same thing if you took an average student from a richer area. 15 years later chances are fairly good that the student will be working a white-collar job and living in the suburbs. So I'm not sure that it's exactly the "class system" that you're talking about.
If there is a class system, then that is not the product of a vile, evil capitalistic state (oh, the horror!), but humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
Like all things, people like that take basic premises that America (and any free, capitalistic state) lie on and pervert it. We have the right to pursue happiness, so they claim that happiness is theirs by right (which is obviously incorrect). They have the inalienable right to deal with whomever they wish -to decide between two people whether they want to work together- but then they claim that they should have a 9-5 job by right. The question is, "By what right?"
It's the same premise with the talks of class system. Yes, there is a class system in America, based on wealth. Fundamentally, rich people do not have more rights, but because of their wealth they are able to do more because they produce more. Don't like the rich - due to envy? Strive to become rich. Aim as high as you can. More than likely you could be a millionaire. If you're not, chances are you don't want to.
Like Gnostic Yeven said, we are not India's caste system. Bill Gates was born upper-middle class, and now he is the richest American alive. My dad was born to a family on welfare, a family of six in a one-bedroom apartment, and now we live in upper-middle class society. People have the options to go where they want.
At least, they do by rights - which means, that their rights are only possible in a free society.
actuslly cuba does have a better education system. first proof of this is the highest literacy rate in the world. and the doctors they produce for thier high quality health service.
laissez-faire existed in britain until about the 1880's when it statred to tail off. (liberals started the welfare state)
murder and theft can be justified be some people. so can torture if you take what people say on this forum. so yeah people will justify what they see fit.
you mention the government as purely intended for defence and war. this was actually the reason for the creation of the welafre state.....
sorry i need to give another lesson. back in the 19th century britian fough the crimean war. it found that alot of the conscripts were under-nourished, disease and flea ridden and were not acceptable to fight. this opened the eyes to some people that alot of people were very sick and dying and as such without them the country could not fight wars like it used to (urbanisation and industralisation also highlighted this). it saw that something was needed to keep the people healthy so they were fight enough to defend their country. the foundations of the welfare state were created by the liberals to combat this. and so things began to transform into what they are today.
to say that africa could feast right now is frankly disgusting.
an under funding only exists if the funding does not. make the funding exist (tax the beurgoise) and things will stop being so poor for the impoverished.
are you saying that if you want to be a millionaire and work hard enough you will become one? that's why so many are on the dole? because they don't want to become millionaires? they just want to live below the poverty line?
capitalism only reinforces the class system. look at where my country was 100 years ago and tell me that everyon was equal.
you can rise above your class and stature only with the right education. and you will not recieve this if you are in an impoverished family who cannot pay for private schooling. poor schools make poor results. invest more and you will get more out.
no i'm not american i'm scottish (hence why half my history course is based around britain).
class is ot based on wealth. no matter how much you earn you will not become a member of the aristocracy.
happiness is a right as a human being. to work is a right as well. to say people do not have a right to work and no right to be happy is what hitler said about the jews at nuremburg.
capitalism does not promise freedom and so does not promise rights.
(sorry the replies are a little chopped up and all over the place)
I checked into this. The United States has a 97% literacy rate. ...strangely enough, so does Cuba, the exact number. While I could argue a few things, and I'm sure you could too, this is almost a moot point by default, so we'll drop this, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
It wasn't laissez-faire because it wasn't entirely free. Just as in America it was the same. Besides, I'm more or less advocating for a free society around the charts. The British government clearly controls the people's freedom of press, among other things. It's true that Britain was very capitalistic, but it was never pure, uncontrolled laissez-faire capitalism.Quote:
laissez-faire existed in britain until about the 1880's when it statred to tail off. (liberals started the welfare state)
Does that make this right?Quote:
murder and theft can be justified be some people. so can torture if you take what people say on this forum. so yeah people will justify what they see fit.
I said the government exists as a means to protects the citizens' rights. If we lived in pure anarchy, a man could shoot any other man without retaliation. A government exists as a means to make sure the people's rights aren't being infringed.Quote:
you mention the government as purely intended for defence and war. this was actually the reason for the creation of the welafre state.....
sorry i need to give another lesson. back in the 19th century britian fough the crimean war. it found that alot of the conscripts were under-nourished, disease and flea ridden and were not acceptable to fight. this opened the eyes to some people that alot of people were very sick and dying and as such without them the country could not fight wars like it used to (urbanisation and industralisation also highlighted this). it saw that something was needed to keep the people healthy so they were fight enough to defend their country. the foundations of the welfare state were created by the liberals to combat this. and so things began to transform into what they are today.
First off, that is semi-propoganda. It is a proven fact that the more capitalistic a society is the more productive the people are, the higher the living standard, etc. Making it seems that the people of a capitalistic society are flea-ridden and sick is sort of ...debatable. And if you need the fact to be proven in a general sense, please recall the Cold War - and ask yourself who won and why.
I believe in only a free, voluntary army - a conscription bill is unconstitutional (I'm using American terms, here. In the general sense, it violates man's rights.)
I also want to point something out. Here in the United States, socialism is regarded as evil by nearly everyone. Even those that advocate socialistic changes try to avoid the word "socialism". Our problem, as a whole, is that people apologize for being so individualistic. I mean, I was getting a totally different history lesson. The teachers taught that free societies were beneficial, even if they grumble under their breath that people need some control. I just thought it's funny you were taught so... how do you say... negatively on capitalism.
I think it's quite disgusting you'd rather Africa to starve.Quote:
to say that africa could feast right now is frankly disgusting.
End justifies the means argument, again. Find another way. How about grant the poor the freedom they deserve and let them work for a living for their own personal wealth? Why reduce the poor to pawns for the State?Quote:
an under funding only exists if the funding does not. make the funding exist (tax the beurgoise) and things will stop being so poor for the impoverished.
...more or less, yeah. Or that they are being taught that it's evil to acquire wealth, that the rich man is poor in spirit?Quote:
are you saying that if you want to be a millionaire and work hard enough you will become one? that's why so many are on the dole? because they don't want to become millionaires? they just want to live below the poverty line?
It was barely capitalism and not free. Is everyone happy now, being taxed out of hell for the government?Quote:
capitalism only reinforces the class system. look at where my country was 100 years ago and tell me that everyon was equal.
Public schooling is statist. That's a whole 'nother argument.Quote:
you can rise above your class and stature only with the right education. and you will not recieve this if you are in an impoverished family who cannot pay for private schooling. poor schools make poor results. invest more and you will get more out.
America has no aristocracy. We don't have an old woman who throws a sword at people's shoulder to make them "better" human beings. That's clearly a violation of people's rights. All men are created equal.Quote:
class is ot based on wealth. no matter how much you earn you will not become a member of the aristocracy.
My family is Jewish, you know. They escaped to America because they recognized they had the most chance in this country where the pursuit of happiness and the pursuit of welath, as rights, are preserved.Quote:
happiness is a right as a human being. to work is a right as well. to say people do not have a right to work and no right to be happy is what hitler said about the jews at nuremburg.
Happiness cannot be a right. Define a "right". "I have the right to be happy!" is only a half-truth. "I have the right to pursue happiness," is. If you have the right to a 9-5 job, I ask you - by what standard? -at whose expense? Who will you force to pay you?
Capitalism is a free market. ...this is just a ridiculous argument, sorry, I don't even feel like addressing it.Quote:
capitalism does not promise freedom and so does not promise rights.
Quite all right.Quote:
(sorry the replies are a little chopped up and all over the place)
laissez-faire in britain was pretty much entirely free. it had no legislation at all. people were selling leaded bread, building thoroughly poor housing which consisted of a single blank room, cholera was rife, children worked in factories, there was no health and safety legislation. the government had no control of the media at the time. (they still don't to a degree like any country) things havce changed dramatically since then. but be assured the days of dung heaps in london city centre were the hay days of laissez-faire. it was hugely free back then.
and regarding my piece on 19th century britain. that is how it was. the rich owned the factories, the manors. while the poor lived in the city and caught cholera and died. they were not acceptible to the army becauase they wee not nurished enough. it is far from debatble the state of the people in 19th century, it is historical fact. and the system they operated under? laissez-faire capitalism.
i would not rather africa starve. in fact if you look at my posts of recent in here you will see i am the greatest advocate for savinmg the african people. do not get me started on africa.
as previously stated 100 years ago my country was hugely capitalist and laissez-faire free. where the government didn't care about the lead content of bread nor the deaths in the cities for cholera water poisining. and everyone is far happier than they were then. cos people are entitled by right to a better life.
i'll explain schooling here. if you are poor (or middle earning really) you go to a state school. if you are richer and your parents wish they will send you to a private school. which has the better teachers, the less ruly pupils (no underclass), the better equipment etc. they get a better education basicly, based on what their parents earn. no more no less. a better chance (the biggest step you will get) in life because of inherited wealth not individual value.
yes america has a watered down class system. yet it still has a struggling underclass stuck in the poverty cycle.
how to define a human right? it is a right into which the government nor anyone else shall intervere (unless it's not a great right like if killing kids makes you happy). this means that the government not anyone else has no right to prevent you performing anything which makes you happy. nor shall it add in things which hinder in it unless again it is required. the right to a job is concrete. and it costs noone. if you work for someone, they produce more and so create more money out of which they pay you. it's not an expense or anything that needs to be forced. it is to the benefit of the employee and employer.
a free market does not gurantee a free people. free market do not gurantee rights at all. they are seperate entities. i can have a perfectly capitalist country while persecuting anyone i please. i just get lovely contractors to do it for me and dispose of everything. the economic, humanitarian and poltical are seperate.
BBC makes out that Palastinians are killing Isrealis left right and centre, but statistics show that Isrealis have killed many more thousands of Palastinians than Palastinians have Isrealis. Plus Isrealis have bulldozed homes, destroyed schools and hospitals, and the BBC still tells us that this is for security reasons. BS!!
Agreed. Socialism is just and the ideal form of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
a child doesn't have the choice to telll there parents to get life insurance so they dont inherit debt heck a kid doesn't even know what life insurance is.A teen same thing a person in there 20s if a parent dies and leaves debt and stuff and doesn't have lif einsurance well its not hte person's fault that ther eparents were too much of a dead beat to get the insurance and htink aobut there dang kids welfare if something happened to them...see were I'm getting at dude.This crap happens to a lot of families and people every year and when you get caught in this vice its fustrating and tough to get out of man.Having inherited some debt it jsut made your lif emore of a hell hole lol..I mean its life but lets say someone inherits tehr eparents debt but its so much debt that heck they have to go homeless in order to pay for it.Now thats the easy way out its liek you said sas you can work three jobs for it but if it happens when your like wat 18 and a college student man you have to drop your whole dman future pay for thata nd go ahead and pay for oyur student loans.Beucase you won't have time for school if your too busy working to pay off a inherited debt lol.Quote:
As for inherited debt, they have a solution to that nowadays. This newfangled stuff called life insurance, I believe--it's remarkable stuff, it really is. See, what you do is pay a small amount every month for this stuff, and when you die, it gives the people you leave behind enough money to pay for your funeral costs, the debts you leave behind, and usually more. I myself have SGLI, which gives me a quarter million dollars when I die but costs only twenty bucks a month--and if I was sixty years old and smoked like a chimney, I could get the same thing. And even though that's through the military, there are plenty of other organizations out there that offer this stuff with decent rates. Or, there's always the option of, well, not racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt. But oh, we can't do that now, can we?