What pisses you off about what is going on?

ginwilly said:

you continually lump "the right" as an entity in your disparaging remarks and bemoan if you get labelled. They give on average twice what "the left" gives to charities. Maybe if "the left" would put their money where their mouths were charities could handle more of the problem. And if you guys were as pure and generous as you claim you should far exceed let alone equal.

It's hypocrisy, you are only generous with Other people's money. Take it from them!

I believe those that worship at the alter of the government have issues with individual responsibilities.

Click to expand...

The Right is the evil cousin of the Left, they scratch each others backs in a mad orgy.

canndo said:

We are not talking about foreign aid. We are talking about what the right calls entitlements. Again, if we are a Christian nation then this nation should act as such and support the poor.

Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=2

"Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates."

"A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals."

"Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent."

Johnny Retro said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=2

"Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates."

"A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals."

"Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent."

Click to expand...

Yet, none of these conservatives neglect to deduct those charitable contributions.


But you still aren't getting the point here, I must not be saying it clearly enough.


If we are a Christian nation than we should act like a Christian nation and, as a nation, as a government, contribute to helping poor people.

canndo said:

Yet, none of these conservatives neglect to deduct those charitable contributions.


But you still aren't getting the point here, I must not be saying it clearly enough.


If we are a Christian nation than we should act like a Christian nation and, as a nation, as a government, contribute to helping poor people.

Click to expand...

Charity under force is no longer charity. I admire your belief that helping others is good. Which kinds of charitable acts do you personally do?

Christ seemed like a cool guy, but the cult that rose up after his death, meh not so much.

canndo said:

Yet, none of these conservatives neglect to deduct those charitable contributions.


But you still aren't getting the point here, I must not be saying it clearly enough.


If we are a Christian nation than we should act like a Christian nation and, as a nation, as a government, contribute to helping poor people.

Click to expand...

Advocating for a christian government is beyond even most conservatives. You a Palin fan?

Rob Roy said:

Charity under force is no longer charity. I admire your belief that helping others is good. Which kinds of charitable acts do you personally do?

Christ seemed like a cool guy, but the cult that rose up after his death, meh not so much.

Click to expand...

I contribute to the arts. You are correct, forced charity is not charity but it is contribution to the cause of order. If you do not believe this is a Christian nation then we have no argument between us.

ginwilly said:

Advocating for a christian government is beyond even most conservatives. You a Palin fan?

Click to expand...

"beyond most conservatives?" hardly. They argue that creationsim should be taught in schools, that prayer should be led there, that religious icons should be llowed to be placed in the public square and that the founders werer all Christians who implanted that Christianity into our origins. I am a big Palin fan actually.

canndo said:

We are not talking about foreign aid. We are talking about what the right calls entitlements. Again, if we are a Christian nation then this nation should act as such and support the poor.

Click to expand...

What's the difference between giving entitlements such as pensions to government employees, and giving entitlements such as health care to the "poor" who can't afford it? Absolutely nothing. The money is still coming from someone else.

There is only a difference between the two, in the mind of one who connects with some delusional foundation of ignorance.

Supporting the poor is the same thing as supporting the rich. The only difference is one has a higher/lower quantity of paper. To take money off the back of anyone, in order to give to another, based solely on their financial status is unethical conduct, period.


Secondly, we are not a Christian nation, we are a free nation. While religion is a free choice, it's ultimately a facade for those who abuse it's intent, and it's intent is abused when people like you, use the justification of forced charity, on the premise of religion. There is absolutely no higher level of hypocrisy, than one who embodies religion and it's "righteousness" in attempting to justify forced charity upon another human being. It's a complete fallacy, and empitomizes why religion is such a destructive force.

canndo said:

I contribute to the arts. You are correct, forced charity is not charity but it is contribution to the cause of order. If you do not believe this is a Christian nation then we have no argument between us.

Click to expand...

Ok, so forced charity isn't charity, but if it contributes to the cause of order, it's completely justified... you've got to be kidding me right?

A forced monetary obligation for order, can also be classified as extortion. Where are you trying to go with this? I honestly see your point, but it really is complete hypocrisy. Just look at what you said... no really, look.

And please, do not try to jump back on the bandwagon of stating that taxes can't be extortionary practices. In regards to what's stated above, that is how and why a tax can essentially be a form of extortion. Hard to imagine? Must be.

Just because the government doesn't lock itself in a cage, or fine itself, for the crimes that it commits, doesn't mean that they were not crimes. Forced charity is extortion, and extortion is a crime, regardless of a piece of paper or absence of, that doesn't classify the government's conduct as extortion, and as such doesn't classify their conduct as an official crime.

canndo said:

"beyond most conservatives?" hardly. They argue that creationsim should be taught in schools, that prayer should be led there, that religious icons should be llowed to be placed in the public square and that the founders werer all Christians who implanted that Christianity into our origins. I am a big Palin fan actually.

Click to expand...

You make a good argument for private schools. Why would any person want to be forced to pay for an indoctrination they don't believe in ? Letting people choose which school they will support or not allows everybody to get what they want and none to be forced to pay for that which they don't want or don't use.

canndo said:

I am a big Palin fan actually.

Click to expand...

I take it you're being sarcastic?

She's one of the biggest fucking ignoramuses I've ever witnessed.

It would be a cold day in hell, before she ever broke an IQ of 65.

InCognition said:

What's the difference between giving entitlements such as pensions to government employees, and giving entitlements such as health care to the "poor" who can't afford it? Absolutely nothing. The money is still coming from someone else.

There is only a difference between the two, in the mind of one who connects with some delusional foundation of ignorance.

Supporting the poor is the same thing as supporting the rich. The only difference is one has a higher/lower quantity of paper. To take money off the back of anyone, in order to give to another, based solely on their financial status is unethical conduct, period.


Secondly, we are not a Christian nation, we are a free nation. While religion is a free choice, it's ultimately a facade for those who abuse it's intent, and it's intent is abused when people like you, use the justification of forced charity, on the premise of religion. There is absolutely no higher level of hypocrisy, than one who embodies religion and it's "righteousness" in attempting to justify forced charity upon another human being. It's a complete fallacy, and empitomizes why religion is such a destructive force.

Click to expand...

You view pensions? a previous agreement between employee and employer that a portion of payment for work performed is to be defered until after the employer is no longer workinig as an "entitlement"? Is a 401k an entitlement in your mind as well? how about a lunch break or 2 weeks vacation?

Money ALWAYS comes "from someone else" so long as we earn at different rates and pay different amounts in taxes - all taxation is redistribution.

InCognition said:

Ok, so forced charity isn't charity, but if it contributes to the cause of order, it's completely justified... you've got to be kidding me right?

A forced monetary obligation for order, can also be classified as extortion. Where are you trying to go with this? I honestly see your point, but it really is complete hypocrisy. Just look at what you said... no really, look.

And please, do not try to jump back on the bandwagon of stating that taxes can't be extortionary practices. In regards to what's stated above, that is how and why a tax can essentially be a form of extortion. Hard to imagine? Must be.

Just because the government doesn't lock itself in a cage, or fine itself, for the crimes that it commits, doesn't mean that they were not crimes. Forced charity is extortion, and extortion is a crime, regardless of a piece of paper or absence of, that doesn't classify the government's conduct as extortion, and as such doesn't classify their conduct as an official crime.

Click to expand...

If it contributes to the cause of order then it contributes directly to each and every citizen as all citizens profit from order in a society. If I force you to contribute to the defense of this country, is that extortion? If I force you to pay for services redered it is not extortion any more than your monthly electric bill is extortion.

Of course governments commit crimes, lots of them actually, some discovered and "punished" most not but that has no bearing on your claim that taxes are unethical.

Rob Roy said:

You make a good argument for private schools. Why would any person want to be forced to pay for an indoctrination they don't believe in ? Letting people choose which school they will support or not allows everybody to get what they want and none to be forced to pay for that which they don't want or don't use.

Click to expand...

Sure, why should person A be forced to pay to learn english? Indoctrination in your words is a byproduct of learning the fundamentals. One would hope that you don't believe those fundamentals are relative and that if I don't believe 8 + 2 = 10 then I should find a school that teaches otherwise.

InCognition said:

I take it you're being sarcastic?

She's one of the biggest fucking ignoramuses I've ever witnessed.

It would be a cold day in hell, before she ever broke an IQ of 65.

Click to expand...

I am not being sarcastic, I am indeed a Palin fan. I marvel at how she has gotten to where she has, I marvel at her ideas and ideology and I am a big fan of dominionists in general - that I am a big fan does not mean I take them seriously or that I would ever consider voting for them.

canndo said:

If it contributes to the cause of order then it contributes directly to each and every citizen as all citizens profit from order in a society. If I force you to contribute to the defense of this country, is that extortion? If I force you to pay for services redered it is not extortion any more than your monthly electric bill is extortion.

Of course governments commit crimes, lots of them actually, some discovered and "punished" most not but that has no bearing on your claim that taxes are unethical.

Click to expand...

Here we go again. A "SERVICE" implies choice, the freedom to partake or not to partake ABSENT any threat of harm.

So I go buff your car while you're away. You didn't want your car buffed, didn't ask me to buff the car and hate my guts, but the fact remains I buffed your car and demand payment for my "service". You okay with that? Do you owe me any money ?

canndo said:

Sure, why should person A be forced to pay to learn english? Indoctrination in your words is a byproduct of learning the fundamentals. One would hope that you don't believe those fundamentals are relative and that if I don't believe 8 + 2 = 10 then I should find a school that teaches otherwise.

Click to expand...

You are confusing the curriculum offered with the option of choosing whether or not it is acceptable to force others to partake in something they may not want.

canndo said:

You view pensions? a previous agreement between employee and employer that a portion of payment for work performed is to be defered until after the employer is no longer workinig as an "entitlement"? Is a 401k an entitlement in your mind as well? how about a lunch break or 2 weeks vacation?

Money ALWAYS comes "from someone else" so long as we earn at different rates and pay different amounts in taxes - all taxation is redistribution.

Click to expand...

A private company has every right to offer pensions. The government does not have this right, as the money they are offering is tax money, thus it's not their right in providing such ridiculous compensations.

A 401k in a private company is not an entitlement, it's just a company incentive/benefit.

A 401k that is offered on behalf of the government, is an entitlement to some degree, but can also be viewed as a form of reasonable, additional salary. Typically 401ks are capped out in regards to what they will match from the employees deposits, so it's not as bad as it could be, were these caps non-existent. Over-all I do not agree with government-employee 401k's, but I'm not entirely opposed to them if their salary is low to begin with. Salaries are of course discretionary though.

A government pension is not comparable to that of a 401k, because the equivalent salary from a pension program would equate to absolutely absurd salaries, if you were to eliminate government-pensions, and factor that pension into the salaries the workers earned throughout their career. An 80k government job, would all the sudden be more like a 150K+ government job. Some government employees receive 150% pensions, which if they are retired for longer than they work, it basically 2.5X's their salary. That's the government and their employees lining their pockets for ya... all through bogus entitlement programs.

Everyone deserves a time to have a lunch break and possibly vacation. It really depends on what the requirements of the job are regarding vacations. Vacation time is can either be viewed a unpaid work, or just a incentive in regards to being "payed more for less". I just view it as an incentive, but not that of ridiculous, over-compensation, such as pensions.

Rob Roy said:

Here we go again. A "SERVICE" implies choice, the freedom to partake or not to partake ABSENT any threat of harm.

So I go buff your car while you're away. You didn't want your car buffed, didn't ask me to buff the car and hate my guts, but the fact remains I buffed your car and demand payment for my "service". You okay with that? Do you owe me any money ?

Click to expand...

A service does not necessarily imply choice when the service is provided to an entire community. A Service may well be the fact that if your house ever begins to burn a fire department, at no extra cost to you, will attempt to put the fire out. Now why do they do that? Part of it is because your house buring down is a bad thing, but just as importantly, if your house catches fire, your neighbor's house may burn as well, or perhaps every house on your street may burn. So you are required to pay for that service, not necessarily so they will put YOUR fire out but so they will reduce the chances that your house will catch fire in the first place.

Community.

Rob Roy said:

You are confusing the curriculum offered with the option of choosing whether or not it is acceptable to force others to partake in something they may not want.

Click to expand...

Unless you can completely divorce yourself from the rest of the community, you will be paying for things you may not want. I believe that schools should teach the concept of community - as curriculum.