Sweep!

[Charlie V]

The thing is, is that I don't really give a rats behind what the Democrats call for, I give a rats behind about what they DO, and what they DO, is raise taxes across the board, for programs that are useless.

Bologna.

Are the Republicans better? Maybe, maybe not, but at least I know they're against social entitlements, and so I'll vote against those every time.

An entitlement simply means you're entitled to something.

Let me give you an example: Social security.

From the day I was able to work, they've been putting my money aside for my future retirement. It's my money. I'm entitled to it.

What you're really saying when you say "I'm against entitlements" is, "I'm against people recieving that which they are entitled."

In other words -- the Republicans (the rich ones with political power, that is) are in favor of taking the money that that the people are entitled to, keeping it for themselves, and giving the people nothing in return.

The first entitlement program was the Bill of Rights. We are entitled to free speech, we are entitled to free press. The only entitlement the right wing favors is the entitlement to guns.

Charlie

 

[KCDAD]

Bologna.



An entitlement simply means you're entitled to something.

Wrong again, oh great bleeding one...

...entitlement means some politician decided to make something sound like you are entitled to something. Calling something an entitlement is like calling something a right. IN the case of government, entitlements are only given to those who might vote for the politician giving them out. They "entitle" the politician to be re-elected. Why is someone "entitled" to have someone else pay their bills and put food on their table. Why am I not entitled to spend my earned money anyway I want?

 

[Charlie V]

Wrong again, oh great bleeding one...

If you think calling me "oh great bleeding one" hurts my feelings -- I think it puts me in the same catagory as Christ, who shed his blood for all of us. So, thanks.

...entitlement means some politician decided to make something sound like you are entitled to something.

No, opposition to entitlement makes it sound as though we're not entitled to anything -- yet we have been entitled from Creation, and our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that for all generations to come.

Calling something an entitlement is like calling something a right. IN the case of government, entitlements are only given to those who might vote for the politician giving them out. They "entitle" the politician to be re-elected.

Bologna. Social security is our money and we are entitled to it.

Why is someone "entitled" to have someone else pay their bills and put food on their table. Why am I not entitled to spend my earned money anyway I want?

Because seniors have been paying into Social Security all our lives, and we are all entitled to the return of our money. Why should you get to steal their money?

Do you think our seniors, having spent their lives building this country and paying into social security, should starve to death because you want the multi-billionaire Republican leaders to stop social security and keep all the money?

It's people who want to take away the senior's social security which is why Al Gore's lockbox plan should be enacted. And as soon as possible.

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

Why is someone "entitled" to have someone else pay their bills and put food on their table. Why am I not entitled to spend my earned money anyway I want?

This is why I'm proud to be a Democrat, proud to be a liberal..

and proud to be dancing.

This is the attitude of the right wing. Why should I care if there's food on someone else's table? What do I get? Me, me, me! It's my money!

They're so greedy, they're blinded to the fact that they go to a 8 - to 5 job every day (used to be 9 - to - 5, but whatever) and so do their wives (used to be just 1 person doing it, but whatever) so that they can struggle and struggle to pay their bills, and their employers, the big corporations who fund the political campaigns and get the bulk of the tax breaks are getting richer, richer, richer on their work (their work = their money) and then, a few dimes of that money goes to the poor, and they scream their heads off, "Why should they have food on their table?"

The first answer is because Christ commanded it. That should always be the first answer.

Second, it's better for the whole economy for everyone to get the chance to move up. People starving, increasing poverty, these things increase crime, increase abortion, increase violence.

Third, your anger is misdirected. As I've pointed out, the vast majority of your money is going up to the rich, not down to the poor.

Fourth, because frankly, screaming "Me, Me, Me! What do I get? Why should they eat?" is just undignified, and unbecoming.

Charlie

 

[The Lone Gunmen]

The first answer is because Christ commanded it. That should always be the first answer.

Yes, because extortion is just so Christ-like isn't it.

 

[Charlie V]

Yes, because extortion is just so Christ-like isn't it.

I don't know who your ex is or how Christ like she is, but I, myself, have never been married to tortion.

Nevertheless, it's the rich Republicans who are extorting with their reverse-Robin Hood policies.

Charlie

 

[The Lone Gunmen]

I don't know who your ex is or how Christ like she is, but I, myself, have never been married to tortion.

Charlie

You do know what extortion is right?

 

[Charlie V]

You do know what extortion is right?

Yes, it's what the rich Republicans do on a daily basis.

You do know what a pun is, don't you?

Charlie

 

[elanor]

Dang it, Charlie! You have to stop posting this stuff. The system won't let me rep you again!

What he said!!

 

[utdbear]

What I want to know is how many of us conservatives are able to help feed the poor and homeless and don't need a tax code to do it. That would truly be amazing to know.

 

[noparty]

What I want to know is how many of us conservatives are able to help feed the poor and homeless and don't need a tax code to do it. That would truly be amazing to know.

Most conservatives and liberals in the US are able to help feed the poor and homeless. Unfortunately, being able to do it and actually doing it arent the same thing. Hence the tax code you speak of.

 

[Charlie V]

Most conservatives and liberals in the US are able to help feed the poor and homeless. Unfortunately, being able to do it and actually doing it arent the same thing. Hence the tax code you speak of.

I don't know what's sadder about the radical right-wing..

That they scream out about helping the poor as though every dime and every nickel were a tooth and welfare was some evil dentist, pulling, pulling, putting them in excrusiating pain with every extraction..

Or that they casually throw billions of dollars into the cause of killing lots of Iraqi people without the slightest complaint.

Charlie

EDIT: What happened to the spirit of the 1960s-1970s? I want to quote some lyrics that just popped into my mind:

Feed the babies who don't have enough to eat
Shoe the children with no shoes on their feet
House the people living in the street
Whoa, whoa there's a solution

(Steve Miller Band, "Fly like an eagle")

 

[utdbear]

I don't know what's sadder about the radical right-wing..

That they scream out about helping the poor as though every dime and every nickel were a tooth and welfare was some evil dentist, pulling, pulling, putting them in excrusiating pain with every extraction..

Or that they casually throw billions of dollars into the cause of killing lots of Iraqi people without the slightest complaint.

Charlie

EDIT: What happened to the spirit of the 1960s-1970s? I want to quote some lyrics that just popped into my mind:

Feed the babies who don't have enough to eat
Shoe the children with no shoes on their feet
House the people living in the street
Whoa, whoa there's a solution

(Steve Miller Band, "Fly like an eagle")

Maybe we're actually smart enough to figure out that feeding the poor and homeless in Jesus' name comes from the heart, and not under threat of jailtime.

 

[noparty]

Maybe we're actually smart enough to figure out that feeding the poor and homeless in Jesus' name comes from the heart, and not under threat of jailtime.

I don't think it's a matter of being smart enough, but I think that if we were going to feed the poor and homeless of our own volition, we would've started doing it by now.

 

[Charlie V]

Maybe we're actually smart enough to figure out that feeding the poor and homeless in Jesus' name comes from the heart, and not under threat of jailtime.

Does killing people in Iraq come from the heart, or under the threat of jail time?

Charlie

 

[elanor]

There are wonderful people of all political stripes who reach out to help people struggling with poverty and homelessness. And on an individual level (or a congregational level), they do a good job.

But there are systematic problems that contribute to the intractable poverty-related issues this country faces, and those are so big that they can't be fixed by individuals or organizations. For example, the ever-increasing cost of health care leaves many people in a position where they make too much to get Medicaid and yet can't pay for their own insurance, and they may well work for an employer who doesn't offer that to them. One major illness can be devastating for them and plunge them into poverty. We need to focus on the causes of poverty and work to solve those. Just like the war in Iraq, I think we need options other than "stay the course" or "cut and run" when it comes to government involvement in this issue.

 

[utdbear]

The desire to protect our borders comes from our brain. Us Conservatives can use both.

 

[KCDAD]

Does killing people in Iraq come from the heart, or under the threat of jail time?

Charlie

It comes from strapping bombs to your childrens and wives bodies and walking them into a mosque or shopping center... ask them. They are the ones murdering hundreds of thousands of their own people...

 

[Ryder]

Matthew 26:6-13 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor." Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Well, apparently, just at face value, anyone or any government that claims to be able to eliminate poverty is just blowing smoke. Seems to me Jesus knew what He was saying when He said, "The poor you will always have with you..."

Does this mean we aren't to care about the poor? Of course not,

Deuteronomy 15:10-11 Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

God is calling YOU to help people He puts in your life without a grudging heart. Not to elect people who will take money from people richer than you to help people poorer than you. That's the easy, and insidious path.

 

[elanor]

God is calling YOU to help people He puts in your life without a grudging heart. Not to elect people who will take money from people richer than you to help people poorer than you. That's the easy, and insidious path.

Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Yes, yes, yes--we must get involved in helping on a personal level. I've worked for years with homeless people, and for more than 15 years teaching women with very low incomes to read and write so they can get a job or get a better job. But I also see that one way I can help is to elect leaders who will address the issues that are too big for me or you or my church or your denomination to solve. Some things will take a national effort to resolve. Of course we need to insist that the solution really DOES solve the problem, and if it's not then we have to change the approach. But when we have an opportunity to address poverty from a national level and we say we shouldn't, that's shirking our responsibility to help people who are poor just as surely as walking by and turning a blind eye to them.