That's funny. I had a Houston charity call me a couple of weeks ago to solicit money. They provided shelter and food for needy kids and the guy was explaining that help was especially important in the summer time because the kids weren't being fed in school then.
why aren't they getting a free lunch pilfered from my wallet in the summer time? I guess that is just one of the biggest evils in the world. The school lunch for poor kids. How have we gotten to the point in America or at least Texas or Alabamawhere we have self proclaimed Christians who are so selfish that begrudge kids a school lunch? Can anyone explain this to me?
I hope we aren't anywhere near that point. I've been reading bama's post in an attempt to figure out if he was trying to say something else, and just worded his post poorly. No luck so far....
Some people have more than just an economic outlook dude. A lot of people vote Republican just because of the emphasis on morality and the family. Philosophically, I don't see how any well read hippy could be a liberal. But alas, I get mad when people try to force morality on others. It is something that comes from one's reason being in harmony with revelation. It can only come from the individual's own free will. Man cannot force other men to love. I think both sides are flawed on this issue, however, I think the govt. should promote morality, and I feel the Republican party is more in tune with this message. The economy will go up and down, but our souls shouldn't have to.
I think that this is a really awful idea. Who gets to decide the morality? Personally, I think it would be a great stride if our elected officials promoted ethical behavior.
Hi Mrs. V, It's exceedingly cool that you work and volunteer in these programs, and I don't think many of us would dispute that republican voters do many wonderful things with their time. What I think the poster meant, however, is that in general Republican political leadership over the last 25 years or so has tended to cut federal funding for such programs given the chance. The statistics on Reagan's cuts to social program, for instance, are particularly eye-opening. And they're mostly available with hindsight, compared to the present. I'll refer you to the facts presented in Howard Zinn's book, A People's History of te United States. While he has his own political leanings, I've yet to seen anyone dispute the historical facts he presents.
I know that in NY many kids do get free lunch programs year round. They actually show up to school during a 2 1/2 hour period each day in order to eat that free lunch. It might be that the summer lunch program is paid for out of state budget or city, but either way it doesn't end when school ends. Many shcools in LA including the one where I teach, is actually year round. That does include federal funding, and every single student in the school comes from low income families. They all get get free lunches, and breakfasts. So it is being pilfered from your wallet during the summer too.
Dude I hate to tell you this but ethics lead to morality... and God decides morality-- however, he also promotes forgiveness, mercy, and true love....things which can't really be legislated... There also has to be a reason and a purpose to morality and ethics... is it just to keep peace? Why can't we just get the smartest man on earth to enslave us all so that we don't fight? Why? Because that takes away freedom... People these days have lost the meaning of peace, they have made the idea weak and effiminate, but peace, in the ancient understanding, is queitude or rest.... an understanding of truth, of that which is... I think govt should go a step further and not just keep the peace. However, I think liberals have really good hearts, a lot of them, they just lack prudential skills, and most importantly I think they impede on the freedom of the individual. We're all getting turned into diversified unified happy robots concerned with improving technology. We are only concerned with safety and self-sufficiency, but you know what, those things end. We all must face death, and when you die, revelation is true, or it isn't. All or nothing. Those are the only two choices. Didn't mean to turn this thread into a metaphysics thread but I just got a worthless liberal arts degree in politcal philosophy and english and I thought I would put it to use and try to sound smart. Oh by the way do we have any D.C. posters that want to give me a job up there? peace-
I don't know how it will go because I didn't think Bush#1 could be defeated. But history shows that propaganda influences the minds of the masses and money buys propaganda. The Bushys are sitting on a quarter of a billion dollars now, and can still go to big business for more. Pushing such hot button issues as THE WAR ON TERROR! might just keep people from looking too deeply at domestic issues. And they can still say we've cut taxes, improvment is forthcoming
If you are from a Judeo Christian background then there's only one God. If your not, then you should probably look into it, its good stuff, but I'm not going to sit here and type out Summa Theologica Part I from Thomas Aquinas for you. God to Adam and Eve- Don't eat off that tree. God to Moses-- Here are some commandments. Jesus (Catholic Jesus that is)-- Here is how I see things as I give this sermon on the mount. Some people view morality as a set of rules. That is not what it is. Its not, oh you do xy and z you can be saved now. Morality provides a way for man to be connected to the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity (love) to the best of his nature, to make him rise above what he is and ultimately love God, and love his fellow man with all his heart. So when you say that your God doesn't provide morality then you must be praying to some (g)od of a pine tree or something who just doesn't really care. If your "god" does not provide morality, then what would make love greater than hate? Is it just something we decided on? Ancient Bablyonian 1 to Ancient Babylonian 2-- "Well, I don't like it when people fight so lets just create this other thing called love." Well thats not love thats just civic piety, civic piece... The Word created the world and the Word was love. That's morality. That's what we're called to live up to in this world, but often we don't, but that's why we have God's love for us. However, we must learn to love him, life, the flowers and the trees, every blade of grass exactly as he does....
I'm not gonna get into all the other stuff in here tonight cause I'm tired, but I did want to respond to one thing. Max: The way you feel about abortion... (And I'm not trying to derail or compare or turn this into a thread about some kind of comparison, just being sincere) The way you feel about abortion, deeply, morally, ethically, whatever, I respect that... That is how I feel about brutally murdering animals and eating their carcasses. And, like you do re: abortion, I deeply believe the eating of dead animal bodies will one day be considered reprehensible. Who should I vote for?
Thank you B-bob, that is what I meant. I just figured it was common knowledge that Republicans historically cut social programs. How is the Zinn book? I have read many reviews on it and have been wanting to pick it up.
honestly, i don't know. are there candidates who make that an issue? i've never heard it before. but, brother, if you feel that strongly about that, go get 'em. i don't begrudge you that opinion AT ALL. i've been giving that topic a lot of thought lately, too...
I'm not going to dispute that the Republican Party has fairly consistently voted to cut funding to federal programs that are aimed at helping children. What I am disputing is the notion that the reason they do so is because they don't really care about these kids. They do, or at least an awful lot of Republicans do. The reason many Republicans don't support these programs is that they don't think it is the best way to use money and resources to help the situation. It is not a debate between whether or not the children need help but rather between one way of helping and another way of helping. I do pay my taxes and acquiesce to that money going where it will. But comparing the dollar amount I personally contribute through taxes that goes to the programs to the value in time and money that I contribute directly to helping in many of the same areas, the latter far outways the former. Republicans could just as well ask, if Dems care so much about kids, why don't they stop wasting so much time trying to pay others to reach these children and start doing it themselves? BEFORE YOU ATTACK that last statement, I realize there are a lot of Democrats who do plenty of voluneteer work. My point is that it isn't fair to accuse Republicans of not caring simply because they are trying to handle the problem from a different angle.
You seem to have a mistaken notion. You seem to think that most Republicans care like you do. From what I see, they just don't want to give a "free lunch" (literally or figuratively) under any circumstances. I have no doubt that you are a good person who cares about the well being of the people around you. The problem is that you have swallowed the bull**** that the Republican leadership has fed you. They just don't want to pay for it because they are greedy, self-serving narcissists who think that the poor should have to fend entirely for themselves.
oh...thanks for letting us know this. and liberals are all liars who think cheating on their spouses is great...they all hate the military and everyone who serves in it...they hope that america blurs its boundaries so we can be part of a bigger one-world government community...they want to take away every liberty i have so that the government can control my life more fully...they're all tree-huggers who would sooner save an owl than a human being... These sterotypes are getting QUITE old. The demonization of the "other side" in politics is ridiculous..."but the problem is that you have swallowed the bull**** that the Democratic leadership has fed you." i'm sure Mrs. Valdez will be happy to know you think she's a good person, but that she's just flat-out stupid. talk about a back-handed compliment.
I'm not sure how best to reply to this. Let me make sure I understand your comment correctly. Are you trying to imply that you think I am naive and stupid? If so, how exactly do you expect me to receive such an implication? Are you trying to imply that liberals are inherently kinder and more compassionate that conservatives? What specific statistics do you have that read into the hearts of conservatives? Or liberals for that matter? Couldn't we just as easily conclude that the primary reason liberals like government programs is that it removes from the individual the burden of personal involvement with people in need? In otherwords, that liberals prefer to throw money at a problem rather than compassion? But I am going to give liberals the benefit of doubt on this one. It sounds like you're just throwing out meaningless insults. Please stop.
With your seeming hatred of the Republican leadership and the fact that you did not vote for Clinton in 1996 or Gore in 2000, who did you vote for? (I voted Dole and Bush so you can blame me for the ills of the country.) By the way, I know lots of Republicans and no one thinks the way you seem to think most Republicans think.
