That is so true. Dems demonize so much they lose focus on whatever platform or message they're trying to get across. I think it hurt them in the last election.
Oh please give me a break Fox News built an entire channel on attacking anything that's not far right conservative.
I'm not saying that Fox doesn't have a right wing slant...but this sentiment has become so commonplace from the left that I have to wonder how much of the Fox programming each individual has watched and how much are they just parroting what others from the left have had to say.
Ive watched it a lot. Unless there's a hot issue like Trent Lott, they fill air time attacking anybody who's not a Republican. Tell you what Refman, Ill buy you a beer, we'll sit down at a bar and watch 1 evening of Fox News keeping a scoresheet.
I expected nothing of the sort. It's impossible for you to take seriously any non-conservative viewpoint. Hence my choice to dispense with any pleasantries and pretense of decorum. Now that is the kind of intelligent response I did expect from you.
Not true...just ask people like Batman Jones. No...I think you made that choice because you're an angry little **** and this is the only place you CAN say things like that without fear. I'm sure you must feel really tough right about now. Merry Christmas.
hamachi, I really don't think that ref or even Trader_J are disingenously propagating their 'conservative' positions. I think they believe it. Its not that they are putting 'spin' out, its just that they're wrong.
Ref, What's with the allusions to physical violence with hamachi? That kinda suprises me, and just because you're 6-5 or whatever doesn't mean a liberal can't knock you on your ass.
Since America is ~50% Dems, and since we all know how much the Dems care about the huddled masses, I don't think providing for the poor in the private sector should be a problem. Surely good leftist people like hamachi would give whatever they could to ensure a minimum level of comfort to those less fortunate. So, what the Democrat platform that proclaims a cataclysm for the poor without government assistance is really saying, is that we don't want to give unless everyone else is forced to as well.
So, what the Democrat platform that proclaims a cataclysm for the poor without government assistance is really saying, is that we don't want to give unless everyone else is forced to as well. Actually, what it is saying is that there needs to be a centralized form of providing assistance that people can rely on and turn to, funded by the government because people need the most help when times are the worst (and thus giving is the worst). I can't create my own welfare system efficiently to spread my money to the people that need it - nor can any charity, because they don't have access to tax records or other confidential information necessary to distribute said welfare. Not only that, but Democrats feel that, since society as a whole benefits from these programs, society as a whole should pay for them. Good try in distorting other people's views, though. Merry Christmas!
Refman is absolutely capable of being reasonable and fair. In fact, I've said before that I think he's closer to the left than the right on everything but taxes. I've also said that I believe his ideas re: taxes are misguided given his other positions. Regardless, he's not a right wing drone as hamachi suggested. Even so, when I read his line about believing in the generosity of his fellow man or whatever, I cringed badly for exactly the reasons hamachi posted. First, the idea that conservatives are just more optimistic about their fellow man suggests that liberals are more cynical about their fellow man. That's a disingenous response to the basic debate; it demeans a sincere difference of opinion and I personally find it a little insulting. Second, there's the double standard hamachi pointed out. Conservatives are optimistic about their fellow man when he's doing just fine and cynical about those in need of assistance. Compassionate conservatism, backed by nothing more than a thousand points of light retread, is not only worthless, it's gross. The ideas in hamachi's posts in this thread have been smart, eloquent and deserving of better response than he's gotten. His last few though have also been abrasive and that sort of style never wins here. To his credit, he anticipated the response and he got it. It takes time to learn how to have a useful debate on these boards, and I'm confident he'll be a great contributor in the future. I hope you guys get past this and eventually get along. I think you're both good posters.
The people that need charity can ask for it. The places that I have volunteered have never turned away anyone that came in, nor demanded proof of poverty. It is pretty lame to say that we need tax records to provide food and shelter for those who need it. How does society benefit from these programs exactly. I think helping the poor is a nice thing to do, and it is good for the soul, but I don't think that helping a poor person directly helps me. It is so great that the Democrats feel best qualified to determine where my hard earned money goes though. I don't know what I would possibly do if it were up to me to decide where it is best spent.
Maybe a society without thousands of homeless people roaming the streets is a better and more just society. Just a thought. I think Ref's idea that conservatives are 'more optimistic' is a tired old cliche that all you guys use to justify your position. As that pesky old history shows us, private charity has *never* fulfilled the needs of the entire poverty-stricken population, especially in urban industrialised societies. Not in the US, not anywhere. You can be as 'optimistic' as you like, but it's a pipe dream. Happy Boxing Day, folks!
Hi dimsie, Hope you had a good Christmas. I wish to make known that public charity has *never* fulfilled the needs of the entire poverty-stricken population either even in urban industrialized societies as well...If you disagree, please give a sound example. A wonderful world may be all of a pipe dream but having *choice* is the best way to dream in a evil world... USA #1!...
Major pain...I'll agree with your implication the government (us) should institute an assistance program, I'll give up part of my hard earned check but on one swirvy condition...That any assistance requires hard, earned labor! sweat for sweat, eye for eye, tooth for tooth...What's that some people can't do this or that?,...I understand some people like to talk about *can't*, but I like to talk about can...I have a belief that every person who is homeless, in dire need, disabled, whatever CAN contribute somehow! This is the American spirit... I propose free jobs for funding assistance to any true American with the will...It doesn't matter if it's digging ditches or going to commercial and residential areas to pick up leaves and trash or even digging a hole and filling it back up again or sitting in a chair assembling crayons into boxes, or reading to kids, or going to your place of business to spray Lysol...People CAN do it! I will call this ROXRAN's Federal Labors of America...complete with a medical network, and of course, taxes would be withheld to pay for social services such as what these people are involved in... Unemployment should be 0%...life is good!
Why is their this interpretation that Republicans are against any form or degree of public assistance? Isn't that a tad bit of an erroneous generalization? Thanks, <b>roxran</b>, for pointing this up.
The people that need charity can ask for it. The places that I have volunteered have never turned away anyone that came in, nor demanded proof of poverty. It is pretty lame to say that we need tax records to provide food and shelter for those who need it. That's nice, but I'm talking about long-term welfare assistance. Thousands of dollars per year. You're only eligible if you have limited income in our society. Do you propose that charities give away that type of money to anyone who asks? How does society benefit from these programs exactly. I think helping the poor is a nice thing to do, and it is good for the soul, but I don't think that helping a poor person directly helps me. Well, for starters, less people in poverty creates a larger market for you to sell your goods and services and thus spurs the economy. At the very, very minimum, having a larger lower-class weakens the economy. Beyond that, there's a clear link between poverty and crime rates, so unless you like having high crime, fighting poverty is in your best interests there as well. It is so great that the Democrats feel best qualified to determine where my hard earned money goes though. I don't know what I would possibly do if it were up to me to decide where it is best spent. Yes, and only Democrats do that. I was consulted when Republicans decide to spend my money on defense or corporate subsidies. I propose free jobs for funding assistance to any true American with the will...It doesn't matter if it's digging ditches or going to commercial and residential areas to pick up leaves and trash or even digging a hole and filling it back up again or sitting in a chair assembling crayons into boxes, or reading to kids, or going to your place of business to spray Lysol...People CAN do it! ROXRAN - I have no particular problem with this. I think welfare should require labor as long as said labor is made available. It's much more difficult to accept the gov't saying people MUST work when there are no jobs available, though (as is the case in recessions and depressions). Keep in mind there also may need to be exceptions for the physically or mentally disabled, although there are probably job options there as well.
Hrm. Sounds suspiciously like 'from each according to ability, to each according to need' to me. Isn't that, um, part of the *communist* theory of government? All well and good, but I'm sure you'd want to make women raising children do it too, right? Isn't raising children already a full time job? (At least, that's what they say about middle class women... poor women, apparently, aren't doing anything but collecting cheques when they raise their kids.) By the way ROXRAN, your argument that public assistance has never covered all the needs of the poverty-stricken population may be true - but again, it's a damn sight better than private charity has ever done, or ever will do. As I keep repeating. Over and over. (Incidentally, what on earth does 'USA#1!' have to do with your argument? It's as if I signed my posts with 'kia kaha, Aotearoa!' Bizarre...)
