September 27, 2012
-
Romney’s 47% and Welfare Mom
I want to tackle a few issues at once.
Romney’s 47% Comment:
The left seems to be having a spazfit over Romney’s comment about 47% of the people in the US having a victim mentality. I don’t know whether or not it will really hurt him. Among conservative voters it will not, and among die hard Republican voters it will not. In spite of all the hype, there is really nothing at all contraversial about what he said.
“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% of the people who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who they believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That’s an entitlement. And the government will give it to them. And they will vote for the president no matter what.”–Romney said in the recording.
So basically all he did was call attention to the elephant in the room. The fact that entitlement spending and the amount of people on government aid is growing is a huge problem, and one which cannot be sustained over the long term. Eventually the economy has to bust completely, and there are going to be riots just like there were in jolly old England. Also, those people will never vote for Romney, they will vote for the man who is more likely to give them free stuff, which is Obama. But putting that aside, there is a large constituency for the Dems that can never be won by any Republican no matter what. The Republicans need to realize that and just put up real conservative candidates from now on, not more neo-cons.
Of course Obama’s response about how he is everyone’s president is asinine, and it is probably the biggest lie since the snake told Eve it was OK eat the forbidden fruit, or at least one of them. The fact is Obama represents and caters to his constituency. If he were my president then he would have less time to appear on irrelevant shows like “David Letterman” and “The View” and more time to meet with Netanyahu. He would also never have passed NDAA. He would also not continually suck up to Islam, and he would not call that child molesting bastard who started Islam a prophet. Those are just a few things. No, he’s the candidate for an entirely different group of people which I am not at all by any means a part of.
Welfare Mom:
Cindy Nerger, 28, who relies on food stamps to feed her family, said she was brought to tears after being embarrassed by a manager at a Kroger store in Warner Robbins, Ga.
“He said, ‘Excuse me for working for a living and not relying on food stamps like you,’” Nerger said the manager told her.
The man’s comment came after Nerger and two other store employees disagreed over whether her total purchase was eligible for food stamps – the employees had insisted that roughly $10 of her bill was not covered. She said the manager ultimately told the employees to “just give it to her.”
After Nerger then stressed that she had been right all along, the man made his “working for a living” remark, she said.
It’s no coincidence that an article would come out about someone on government aid after Romney’s comment, and in light of the smear campaign the liberal media is running against him for free. The article is about a 28 year old woman who is married and who has a daughter, but is also on foodstamps. The purpose of the article is to make people pity people those who live off the government and to make Romney look as though he is mean or spiteful, because he wants to cut funding to people like this, supposedly.
To that end, it’s worth noting that they picked a white female who suffers from a medical condition, and who is actually married. They did not want to pick a stereotypical welfare-mom or someone who looks like they could be an immigrant.
Nerger said the reason she and her family – she is married with a daughter – must rely on food stamps is because her husband’s carpentry business isn’t profitable enough to support the family.
Meanwhile, Nerger must devote 12 hours every night to a dialysis treatment to combat her kidney disease, which she’s struggled with since the age of 11. She’s been on a kidney transplant list for five years and hopes that someday, after a successful transplant, she can become a working member of society. She would like to attend college to major in child psychology.
If they picked a healthy woman who was unmarried and knocked up then there would be a good deal less sympathy. The sad thing is that many unthoughtful people will be taken in by this, and an article like this will actually influence the outcome of the election, even if only by a small degree. But let us be analytical.
Here is the woman with her child:
Even though the picture is carefully angled (a tactic which fat women often use when they post pictures online), and no doubt carefully chosen, it is still easy to tell that this woman is considerably overweight, probably obese, which is consistent with what I have seen of women on foodstamps and WIC (more on that shortly). The fact is that whether her need is serious or not, she has managed to get very fat, which indicated excess. If she’s really hard up for money she should eat smaller portions and share with her daughter.
Second, knowing that they were not doing well financially she should never have had a child. Wait until you can afford a kid then have one. If you can’t feed them don’t breed them. Seriously. If we are going to have welfare then the government should make abstinance or sterilization a pre-requisite for receiving aid. Otherwise a large dependent class is bred which just drains the productive sectors of society. Part of the reason the number of people living off the tit has grown so much is because the government pays them to breed. If you incentivise a behavior you will get more of it.
My third point about this couple, is that if her husband’s business is not taking off, then it’s time to do something else. The manager at the grocery store is managing to get by, maybe this guy should go and do that. It’s negligent of this man to keep waiting for this thing to take off IF he cannot afford to feed his family.
The medical condition she has is unfortunate, but this woman is still fat, she still had a child, and her husband is still not doing his job to support them.
Of course judging by the picture of this person it is hard for me to believe that that is the case. In fact, getting back to what I said earlier, obecity is quite common among those who rely on foodstamps and WIC. I know this from first hand experience because I spent a summer working at a grocery store as a cashier back when I was in my teens, and yes, I know it was only one summer, but so many of these people came in. I averaged at about three or four a day. Most of them were fat, some of them were grossly obese. What they would do is have a handful of bare essential items which they would use their foodstamps or WIC to buy, because only certain items can be bought with those programs, then there would be a basket stuffed full of food that they would by with their own money. So if the were responsible they would buy the small handful of essential items with their own money in place of some of that other junk, and get off the government tit. I saw only one woman on WIC who was actually thin, and I saw only a handful of food stamp recipients who were, and they were all in the same family. The family was from some country in Eastern Europe, or maybe Russia, but as foreigners and immigrants they should not even be elligible for foodstamps or any kind of government assistance.
So the issue is not whether Romney is mean, or how bad the situations of government recipients might be, but the issue at hand is deciding what the role of government is, and whether the government is a government or a charity. The left insists that poverty can be solved by throwing more money at it, but in the meantime we just end up with more poverty, which goes back to my comment about incentivising behaviors. If you incentivise a particular behavior or lifestyle then you will get more of it. To me, all the left wing talk about “helping the poor” rings hollow, because the traditional means for supporting the down and out are religious organizations and family, which are two institutions the left is continually attacking and trying to undermine.
If someone was struggling in the 1800′s, or the early 1900′s they could count on their families for help. Women could count on their husbands, and young women were not usually having children outside of wedlock, they were having children with their husbands and staying with them. Widows could also count on their families for help, because usually they had children, or if they were young enough they could remarry and get help from their parents in the meantime. If none of those factors applied, the widows could still get help from their church. This whole concept of government feeding people is relatively new. Traditionally when it came to food the government usually took it away from people, or let them keep it at most, but never have we had a situation prior to the 1900′s where a government tried to be everyone’s sugar momma.
I am firmly convinced that the left wing leadership, and some of the left wing followers as well, want to create a permanent underclass so that they can have a reliable voter-base that will come out for them every election.
Comments (25)
Brilliant post with so many good points raised. I could not agree more. Thank you for writing on xanga, I really enjoy reading it.
Also, I had never heard of PJTV before. That was a great news clip. I just subscribed to them on youtube. (:
@DrummingMediocrity - Thanks, I’m glad I can help. Although to be fair probably about 60% of what I do here is angry ranting, but I’m also trying to get people’s heads up out of the sand. You know, it’s just a stereotype that all conservatives are rich. There are lots of us who are barely scraping by, but who are still conservatives in spite of our poverty because we understand economics. Not everyone wants to live off of government assistance. It’s better if the government lets more money stay in the economy so that employers can hire more people. I am firmly convinced that they are trying to perpetuate poverty, and that our country has been targetted for dysgenics by socialist globalist elites.
There are lots of good people with PJTV, I have been watching them for years. Alfonzo Rachel was the first one of them I saw, and he and Steven Crowder are my favorites. Andrew Claven is also really good, but actually all of them are good.
Actually the bit you left out of the quote was what people were actually offended by:
“And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince
them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their
lives.”
Writing off half the country as lazy and not worth being concerned about IS a big deal for a presidential candidate, especially when that 47% is hurting a lot more than the top 53%
But you’re right, it won’t make much difference to conservatives like you who don’t incorporate objective facts into your view and just go with spin and emotion.
“The family was from some country in Eastern Europe, or maybe Russia, but as foreigners and immigrants they should not even be elligible for foodstamps or any kind of government assistance.”
why not, if they’re citizens?
“If you incentivise a particular behavior or lifestyle then you will get more of it. To me, all the left wing talk about “helping the poor” rings hollow, because the traditional means for supporting the down and out are religious organizations and family, which are two institutions the left is continually attacking and trying to undermine. “
not everyone has family capable of supporting them, or a religious community they identify with. should those people be left to die in times of need?
@agnophilo - This is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black. You know that you would never vote for Romney regardless of what he said. Similarly I would never vote for a Democrat regardless of what he says. The fact is that the ideological basis of their party is diametrically opposed to my values and beliefs. How could I vote for them? Obama’s not trying to get votes from me, Romney’s not trying to get votes from you, neither candidate is wasting time trying to get votes from people who will never vote for them. That’s reality.
Eventually the liberal policies of dysgenics, immigration, and Keynesian economics will reach critical mass, and by that I mean the government will have to declare bankruptcy due to the debt, and the amount of non-producers will greatly outnumber the producers in this country. That means that there will be no more services for all those dependence minded people, which means that there will be mass rioting. Those of us who have guns (assuming the government does not take them) will be ready to defend our neighborhoods, but many of the urban areas will be doomed. The government will either lose complete control, or it might maintain some semblance of control through a police state, but the standard of living will never be the same again. Obama and his people will have succeeded in their goal to de-develop the US. At that point the best thing for the country will be for it to break up into smaller independent countries, but we’ll see what actually happens.
@flapper_femme_fatale - No one should be allowed to come here if they are going to be a net drain. We don’t need immigration like that. It used to be that immigrants came here for work, and they did well, but now we have a lot who just come here to get stuff for free. We already have enough people like that domestically, we don’t need to bring in more.
The government cannot be a charitable institution because it does not generate wealth, it redistributes wealth, and the government has no business taking one persons money and giving it to someone else for any reason. But as for your question, it used to be that there were many private charities all around the country which would take care of down and outers. There are still quite a few today although Christianity in the US is hardly what it used to be. My church participates in this thing called Rescue Atlanta, and it is my understanding that there is a homeless shelter they work with down there. When I was in St. Louis my church was connected with a large metro ministry/homeless shelter founded by a guy named Larry Rice. He not only took the homeless people in but also worked to provide them with job opportunities and skills. That is the sort of thing that is good and right, not government delving into someone’s pockets to give the money to someone else.
Of course being female you have another option. If you’re a good looking female, and I assume you are based on your profile pic, you can marry into wealth. A good looking woman can come into success without education or having to work simply by attracting a man with money. The top priority for most men is looks, and they care more about a woman having looks than having education or a good job. You MIGHT have to marry someone who is a little older than you, but you would have financial security and a family, and if he dies first then he still has a trust fund and savings. For added security you can bear his children, and when they grow up they can be an additional support base for you. If you marry into wealth you won’t even have to work. You can stay home and mind the children, or you can goof off if you want and pursue hobbies. I don’t think the second option if right, but a lot of rich people will do that. They let their wives goof off and then they hire nannies to mind the kids.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - I’d vote for romney if I thought he was the better candidate, and any president, democratic or republican who says they don’t give a shit about anyone who doesn’t vote for them is not going to get my vote unless the alternative is somehow even worse.
As for your overly simplistic view of economics, the stimulus (which I assume you’re referring to) is pretty much the only debt spending from the democrat’s side, virtually all of the deficit comes from republican policies, wars, tax cuts and other un-funded programs. To pretend the stimulus caused the deficit, the recession, high unemployment etc is just delusional.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex -
“No one should be allowed to come here if they are going to be a net drain. ”
so how do you plan to determine an immigrant’s usefulness prior to allowing them in the country? and should such usefulness be applied to people born in the US?
“The government cannot be a charitable institution because it does not generate wealth, it redistributes wealth”
as do charities. that’s why they have non-profit status.
“There are still quite a few today although Christianity in the US is hardly what it used to be. ”
i’m agnostic. with all due respect, i won’t accept charity from a group who thinks i’m going to burn in Hell for who i am. why should i trust Christians to help me without attempting to convert me? i’d rather receive help from a more secular source.
“ If you’re a good looking female, and I assume you are based on your profile pic, you can marry into wealth.”
pass. i love the man i’m with, wealthy or poor. and i plan to work because i will enjoy my career.
@agnophilo - So when was the last time you voted for a Republican? Anyways, you would not have voted for Romney regardless of whether or not he made that comment, so you shouldn’t pretend as though his comment were some sort of ground breaking or deal breaking statement. You were decided well before the election, just like I was well decided about Obama. For me, the only difference Obama’s bumbling words make is that it gives me more fuel to criticize him over. You and I have vastly different views and values, but we are similarly intractable in our respective positions.
Not just that, but the foreign aid and entitlement spending. You can criticize the wars and the deficit of the Bush era, but if Obama continues those policies then he is complicit in them, and if he adds more drains on top of that then he is a bigger drain. He is a drain, he and his party operate under Keynesian economics, which lacks long term sustainability. Tax cuts are good for the economy, and they can easily be compensated for by spending cuts. But hey, if you object to tax cuts then the option exists for you to voluntarily donate money to the government. You know there is a section for voluntary donations in the tax form. You can donate some extra money since you think they are so good with money and should have more of it. Practice what you preach man. I for one think they are bumblers and crooks, so you won’t catch me donating any money to them other than what they scrape out of my paycheck without my consent.
@flapper_femme_fatale - There are a variety of ways this can be done. You can look at their education and skills, and weigh them against the current condition of economic need. But if they would also change the policy to make it impossible for non-natural citizens to ever receive government aid then the quality and quantity of immigrants would be drastically reduced.
But people give voluntarily to Charitees, and if they don’t like the ideological basis behind the charity then they don’t have to support it. I could donate money to an Islamic charity, but there is no way on Earth I would ever voluntarily do such a thing. The same is not true of government. I hate most of what the government does. I hate it how they use our tax money to teach evolution to our kids, I hate it how they donate our tax money to Islamic countries, and yet I still have to pay taxes to support those things. There is no compulsion in charity, by definition, but if I don’t pay my taxes then the government will come for me, take my stuff, and put me in jail. If I tell them that I disagree with how they use my money and therefore should not have to pay taxes then they still don’t care. If some charity comes to me and begs me for money then I can tell them to bugger off and they can’t do anything about it. That is the difference.
It’s fine to refuse help on ideological grounds, but when you do then you must own the consequences of your actions. Maybe there is an atheistic charity you can go to, but probably not. If not then you need to stop and think long and hard about why that is. Going to the government for help makes you a thief, because you are taking someone else’s hard earned money against their will and giving nothing in exchange. It’s interesting how you won’t accept free aid, but you will accept free loot that is taken from someone else against their will. So you have a problem with Christianity, but not theft apparently.
That’s fine. My girlfriend is also in love with a poor guy and I’m thankful to her for giving me a chance. But you know what it is you’re doing, so if you end up destitute then you need to own the consequences of your choices, and not go begging to the government for money. Similarly, if you choose to not have any kids, and you end up old and destitute with no support base then you need to accept the consequences of your action. IF you screw up (not saying that you will) then you don’t have the right to demand that other people own the consequences of your mistake. Just like if you jump off a bridge and kill yourself it’s your own fault for dying.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex -
“So when was the last time you voted for a
Republican?”
There hasn’t been a republican presidential candidate since I’ve been of voting age that didn’t base their platform on simply smearing the other guy, so never. There are some republicans who, if they ran I might vote for them, but I’ve never found one that had the courage to stand up to their party even a little bit on anything and had the slightest hope of being elected.
“Anyways, you would not have voted for Romney regardless of
whether or not he made that comment, so you shouldn’t pretend as though
his comment were some sort of ground breaking or deal breaking
statement.”
No, you shouldn’t put words in my mouth I never said. I criticized the statement, I didn’t characterize it as the one reason I won’t vote for him. Stop being dishonest.
“You were decided well before the election, just like I was
well decided about Obama. For me, the only difference Obama’s bumbling
words make is that it gives me more fuel to criticize him over. You and
I have vastly different views and values, but we are similarly
intractable in our respective positions.”
This is just white noise. My opinions are based on logic and evidence, not bias or media spin.
“Not just that, but the
foreign aid and entitlement spending. You can criticize the wars and
the deficit of the Bush era, but if Obama continues those policies then
he is complicit in them,”
He already ended one war, does that get him any credit with you? No. So don’t pretend you give a shit about war spending. And romney criticized him for ending the war in iraq, so by your logic romney’s worse. But will you follow your own logic to reach an opposite conclusion? No.
“and if he adds more drains on top of that then
he is a bigger drain.”
And if he works to fix the problems that created the deficit in the first place like getting the expanding cost of healthcare under control, reducing the cost of medicaid, ending one of the two wars and helping end the recession more quickly, what is he then?
“He is a drain, he and his party operate under
Keynesian economics, which lacks long term sustainability.”
The ideas you’re referring to are not meant for the long term.
“Tax cuts are
good for the economy, and they can easily be compensated for by
spending cuts.”
Obama passed the largest tax cut in US history, so by your logic the economy is great and he’s a good president.
“But hey, if you object to tax cuts then the option
exists for you to voluntarily donate money to the government. You know
there is a section for voluntary donations in the tax form. You can
donate some extra money since you think they are so good with money and
should have more of it. Practice what you preach man. I for one think
they are bumblers and crooks, so you won’t catch me donating any money
to them other than what they scrape out of my paycheck without my
consent.”
One, we live in a representative democracy where you can influence policy, so nothing is truly against your will or without your consent. And two, how can you say obama is a bad president because of the deficit and ignore the effect of unaffordable tax cuts, wars and other republican spending on the deficit? As a matter of mathematical fact almost all of the deficit actually came from republican policies.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Yes, poverty and not having children is a choice. People are never just not able to have kids and never get their savings wiped out by theft, fluctuations in the stock market, losing their pension, sudden medical expenses, fires, floods, tornadoes, lawsuits or dozens of other things – it’s always a result of consciously and deliberately choosing to be lazy.
@agnophilo - What do you think Obama did? His whole campaign was based on how he wasn’t Bush, and how McCain was, and there were even liberals who were calling him “McSame.” I don’t see why that should be a problem with you methodologically.
But let me ask you this. Do you like John McCain? Because he was one of the main guys behind NDAA, which Obama and the Democrats signed into law. What about the Republicans who helped push through Obamacare? Anyways it doesn’t matter. I’m sure if they put up a guy who was conspicuously more socialist than the Democrats you would consider voting for him, but my guess is that the media would also have to be on his side as well.
You said, “and any president, democratic or republican who says they don’t give a shit about anyone who doesn’t vote for them is not going to get my vote unless the alternative is somehow even worse.”
That is why I mentioned that his comment was not really a factor for you because you had already made up your mind not to vote for him to begin with.
The fact is you want the most socialist and globalist candidate possible, and you know that the Democrats are closer to that, hence you vote for them.
The wars are only one criterion, and even if Obama ended them all I would still not vote for him, because he is opposed to my values and way of life. Anyways, he got into a needless war in Libya and is trying to start something in Syria, so I don’t really care to take his side.
He is not getting spending under control he is spending more. Also, I don’t want his “fix” for healthcare, which is going to end up costing me more money no matter how you spin it.
But Democrats have been using them for a long time and continue to use them with no end in sight.
You can’t cut taxes to people who aren’t paying them. Obama gave out money to buy votes.
If there is a Democrat president, Democrat Congress, and liberal Supreme Court then I have no representation or influence. You know full well that that is the case. I can say he’s a bad president because he has quadrupled the deficit, and continues to do so. I can say he is a bad president because he gives money to people who hate us. I can say he is a bad president because he apologizes to our enemies rather than protect our rights. I can say he is a bad president because he violates the Constitution by holding a UN office. I can say he is a bad president because he’s too busy to meet with Netanyahu but somehow has time to go on David Letterman and The View. I could go on and on but I think that’s enough.
@agnophilo - You know that that is not the case with most of these people, and exceptions do not invalidate generalizations. Also, that is what charities are for. Go and read my comment to flapper and you will see that I gave a full explanation of my position to her.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex -
“But people give voluntarily to Charitees, and if they don’t like the ideological basis behind the charity then they don’t have to support it. ”
i am of the opinion that you voluntarily pay your taxes by agreeing to live in this country and follow the law. if you don’t like it, move elsewhere. according to Forbes, the nation with the best tax system is India.
or, if you really believe that it’s so much easier to be poor and on welfare, you could opt for that. it’s far easier to become poor than it is to become wealthy, after all.
“I hate it how they use our tax money to teach evolution to our kids, I hate it how they donate our tax money to Islamic countries, and yet I still have to pay taxes to support those things.”
i hate plenty of things the government does too: oil subsidies, aid to Israel while they continue to build illegal settlements, non-profit statuses for religious organizations that participate in politics, etc. who gets to decide which ideology is allowed? you can’t make everyone happy. if you have the right to refuse to pay taxes because they could go to welfare, i have the right to refuse to pay taxes because they could go to any of the above.
“IF you screw up (not saying that you will) then you don’t have the right to demand that other people own the consequences of your mistake. ”
you are a very shitty Christian. i just realized that.
@flapper_femme_fatale - I might actually move elsewhere, mainly for economic reasons, but I could say the same to you since your side is actively trying to turn things away from what the founders intended. No no, tax is always compulsory. No one gives voluntarily. Even liberals, the biggest tax advocates, do not donate money to the Federal government willingly, which you should if you really believe in what you say. You should opt for giving more money, which you can do on your tax returns.
A real man does not want to be on welfare for anything. I would rather be run over by an 18 wheeler and dragged a little before I die than become a burden to tax payers.
Ah yes, I forgot about your anti-semitism. Who says the settlements are illegal? Also, if Muslims get their own countries than why not Jews? But all of this just underscores the need for secession. We have two different people’s in the US, your people and mine, and we cannot live together. Eventually it’s going to reach critical mass, and then we’ll see what happens. Are you even paying taxes? Anyways I would be fine with eliminating the Federal Income Tax for everyone.
Maybe so. In any case I’m not one of the spiritual ones, but putting that aside, the Bible never teaches that you have the right to demand support from complete strangers if you screw up. It does emphasize the value of family and giving voluntary giving. To me, it looks like you want to do whatever you want and have other people be forced to pay for it. You have the right to make your own personal choices, but not the right to demand compensation from others when your ideas don’t pan out the way you hoped. I find it hypocritical how you liberals talk the most about charity and helping the poor but actually do the least to help them. Most of the charitable giving in the US comes from the religious right, which is why we don’t hear about any atheist run charities. Also, how much do you give regularly from each paycheck? I give 10% of each of my paychecks, but I’m a poor guy. My dad gives a good deal more than most people bring in in a year from his income.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex -
“You should opt for giving more money, which you can do on your tax returns. ”
if i could direct my taxes that way, i would. but i DO always vote for local tax increases if they involve one of the following: education, infrastructure, health care. i pay taxes and like to see them go to things i support.
“Ah yes, I forgot about your anti-semitism. ”
and i forgot that, to you, any sign of disagreement with Israel is anti-Semitism. i don’t think that everything Israel does is sacrosanct. they’re just as likely to commit human rights violations as anyone else.
“Who says the settlements are illegal?”
the Israeli supreme court, for one. they ruled that any settlements in Palestine could be for military purposes only, and could not be considered permanent.
“Are you even paying taxes? ”
yup, roughly 14%. i made maybe $19k last year.
“The Bible never teaches that you have the right to demand support from complete strangers if you screw up.”
the Bible says a lot of things that conservatives don’t advocate. if you want a nation ruled by Christian theology, you’re in the wrong place. of course, you could always put your money where your faith is and give up all your worldly possessions.
“To me, it looks like you want to do whatever you want and have other people be forced to pay for it.”
and what, pray tell, is it that i want to do that others would have to pay for?
“You have the right to make your own personal choices, but not the right to demand compensation from others when your ideas don’t pan out the way you hoped. ”
i’m not the least bit disappointed with my life, or my choices. any mistakes i’ve made are in the past, and i can’t do much about them now. the only “welfare” i’ve ever benefited from are student loans. it’s sad that you need to judge me incorrectly in order to preserve your ideology. but it’s also not very surprising. first, i’m an anti-Semite because i don’t think Israel is infallible. then, i MUST be an irresponsible tax-dodger because i support welfare. and people wonder why i think “conservative Christian” is an oxymoron.
“Also, how much do you give regularly from each paycheck? I give 10% of each of my paychecks, but I’m a poor guy. “
i probably do about 10% as well, although i give more when i receive cash for my birthday and Xmas. most of them are animal-related. i also volunteer, since usually charities need manpower far more than cash.
@flapper_femme_fatale - Let’s see: Jews on one side, Muslims on the other. Is there really any contest? What do you have against the Jewish people having their own country?
Even if that’s true our Supreme Court has also made some ridiculous rulings that were bad for our country, and which go against it’s laws, such as the upholding of Obamacare, a.k.a. the nothing tax.
The fact is the US was founded based on Christian and Biblical principles, and the founders knew that if that ever wavered then the country would be lost. Today we are lost. Although to be honest I’m not really a statist of any kind. I would rather have a government that performs a bare bones type of function, which means roads, military, and space exploration. Everything else can be cut.
The Bible does not require everyone to give up all possessions, and in my case that wouldnt be much considering that I don’t make much more than you do. What I would like is for the government to stop wrecking things so that I could get a better job, or at the very least for them to ease off so that the company I’m working for now can survive.
I’m just drawing conclusions based on what you said. You said you don’t have a family that can help you, and you don’t want help from private charitees because of the Christian component. The only two possible conclusions to get from that are that you either do not need help at all, or that you would rather have it from the government. That is why I came to the conclusion that you want the government to bail you out, which means that you have no problem with administrative or systemic theft. As far as Christianity goes, liberalism is based on a moral inversion of Biblical values.
“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”–Genesis 3:19, one of the first commands. You live by your own labor, not by someone else’s. It is true that the Bible instructs believers to help out others, especially fellow believers, and we do, but that is VOLUNTARY help, which is quite different than theft. The Bible never says that anyone other than God and the family I am supporting (when I have one) have a RIGHT to what I earned. Also, maybe you do not mind the government taking your money, but you have to realize that if the government let you keep it all then you would be free to spend it and donate it as you choose. You have to recognize that that is better than having the government dig into each of your paychecks and rip out out a chunk.
Animal related?
“If you can’t feed them don’t breed them”
Seriously.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex -
“Let’s see: Jews on one side, Muslims on the other. Is there really any contest? What do you have against the Jewish people having their own country?”
1. the existence of the state of Israel isn’t my issue. having your own state has nothing to do with building illegal civilian settlements on territory that is defined as occupied, rather than owned. i’ll think more highly of Israel when it stops that process.
2. why should i care about Jews more than Muslims? i’m not religious. i have the same level of respect for both groups. and i couldn’t care less about who owns the territory.
“Even if that’s true our Supreme Court has also made some ridiculous rulings that were bad for our country, and which go against it’s laws, such as the upholding of Obamacare, a.k.a. the nothing tax.”
so that means Israel is a hypocritical nation. why should i respect them, then?
“The fact is the US was founded based on Christian and Biblical principles”
if that were true, i’m pretty sure that Jesus would be mentioned in the Constitution. at best, the US was founded on Deist principles. and i find it interesting that you consider such things as slavery and the devalue of women to be Biblical principles. not surprising, but interesting. and i think it’s a perfect example of why secular trumps religious any day of the week.
“ You said you don’t have a family that can help you, and you don’t want help from private charitees because of the Christian component.”
if you read closely, i never said that about myself. i simply know tons of people out there who fit the definition of family-less and religion-less. while i am irreligious, i do in fact receive financial help from my parents (mainly, health insurance and student loan payments).
@flapper_femme_fatale - 1) Except that the “”Palestinians” are squatters to begin with. They are nothing but Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians, and each of those peoples have their own country. The Jews just want a tiny piece of land, the Mooslimes want the world.
2) Even if I was “not religious” I would still support Israel for pragmatic reasons. I have no religious reason for supporting Ethiopia over Somalia, or India over Pakistan, but I do. Why? Because their enemy is also my enemy. You, and all the other oikophobic white liberals, need to wake up about Islam. There are no flappers in Islam. You let them in, and they are going to put you in a burka, and if you go on facebook and boast about how you’re “not religious” or even if you say something like “all religions are dumb” then you can expect them to come busting down the doors of your house. If you’re a guy you would get beaten down at the police station and held without bail, but since you’re a woman you can probably expect rape to occur somewhere in the process.
3) The Constitution is not the founding statement for the country, the Declaration of Independence is, and you need to check it. If you want to make claims about what I said about slavery or that I devalued women you need to quote me, because otherwise those comments just look like unfounded ad hominem attacks. It is true that I make no secret of my distaste for feminism. Feminism is a vehemently anti-male ideology, just like Islam is a vehemently anti-female ideology. But feel free to argue how that makes me anti-woman, or if you want feel free to pick something else I said that runs along those lines.
So then come over to our side.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex -
“ 1) Except that the “”Palestinians” are squatters to begin with. They are nothing but Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians, and each of those peoples have their own country. “
history doesn’t exactly back you up on that one. the population was not 100% Jewish in 1917, when the British Mandate created the territory of Palestine. the area has never been, and still is not, purely Jewish.
“There are no flappers in Islam. “
nor are there in conservative Christianity. you seem to keep forgetting that my experience with YOUR religion has been far worse than anything Islam has ever done to me.
“You let them in, and they are going to put you in a burka, and if you go on facebook and boast about how you’re “not religious” or even if you say something like “all religions are dumb” then you can expect them to come busting down the doors of your house.”
1. learn to spell: burqa.2. name one Islamic nation that requires, by law, women to wear any form of head covering.3. historically, Islam has been far more tolerant of other religions than Christianity or Judaism. unlike those two religions, Islam sees the other Abrahamic faiths as “People of the Book” as opposed to “kafir” (infidels). the US is more tolerant in spite of its Christian background, not because of it (see: Salem witch trials).
“The Constitution is not the founding statement for the country, the Declaration of Independence is, and you need to check it.”
i did… also doesn’t mention Jesus. in fact, it only mentions a higher power twice: “Nature’s God” (sounds pretty pagan), and “Creator”.
“ If you want to make claims about what I said about slavery or that I devalued women you need to quote me, because otherwise those comments just look like unfounded ad hominem attacks.”
i’m treating you with the same respect you’ve shown me.
“So then come over to our side. “
you’ve represented your side as being bigoted, intolerant, and uneducated. i’d rather burn in Hell, frankly.
@flapper_femme_fatale - That’s fine, and there also used to be lots of Jews in Yemen, as well as Jews in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but now people are separating and that’s a good thing because both groups are incompatible with one another. Israel is still the Jewish homeland.
OK, and I have gotten a lot more crap from atheists than I have Muslims, but that’s only because I haven’t been around Muslims as much. But even so, I still learned about them and their ideology. You need to do the same. My guess is you haven’t been beaten, tortured, or raped, and all of these things are daily occurrences in Islam. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the worst thing that ever happened to you was that someone said something mean, and while that I agree that that isn’t nice, it’s also not really that weighty.
There are no flappers in Christianity but at the same time we aren’t going to kill you for doing your thing, or rape you, or force you to convert.
I can name 2 off the top of my head: Iran and Saudi Arapia (intentional misspelling). Of course there are other Islamic countries where the hijab and burka are not legally required, but not wearing one entails a good deal of personal risk. As for your comment about Islam being tolerant, that’s just silly, and it shows a gross misunderstanding of history. Here is a crash course for you.
Islam in the past:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WZYZ5CqT1Q&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSgpkG416oE&feature=plcp
Islam today:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVYCGxwobIE&list=PL68C5BE8ED300259C&index=79&feature=plpp_video (warning: disturbing imagery)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMWd7QnXY8E&list=PL68C5BE8ED300259C&index=58&feature=plpp_video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzlFPm7bymY&list=PL68C5BE8ED300259C&index=37&feature=plpp_video
It seems to me like you are a very typical oikophibic white liberal, eager to denounce Christianity and your own cultural heritage while putting our enemies on a pedestal. It’s a dhimmi sort of mentality, and BTW I was dead serious about how atheists were treated under Islam. If Islam takes over you liberals will be the first to go, either through conversion or death. Those of you who don’t convert will die because you will want to have your lifestyle and they will not let you have it.
I disagree. Christianity is what the concept of human rights and rule of law came from. In countries that were more pagan and Godless you don’t see the same level of regard placed on human life, and that goes for today, as well as back when the US was founded.
God is the God of nature as well as everything else.
Ah, so it was basically an attempt at being insulting. Anyways I never have tried to insult you. Typically I try to stay away from insults, but at the same time I also call things as they are, and I don’t really care if it hurts anyone’s feelings. I am a pragmatist.
Those are all just words, and the more you throw them around the more you cheapen their meaning. Actually I have been through college twice, so I am a bit more educated than the average person, but I am also un-brainwashed. Meaning, I went through college twice and through public high school without becoming a self hating liberal.
When it comes to my demeanor, I just tell it like it is. I’m not trying to offend anyone, but if I do then I don’t really care. People are offended by the truth quite often.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex -
“You need to do the same.”
i am. i’m currently taking a class on Islamic culture. that’s why i know you’re full of crap, because i’m being taught by someone who has an unbiased viewpoint. i doubt you’ve even bothered reading the Qu’ran.
“There are no flappers in Christianity but at the same time we aren’t going to kill you for doing your thing, or rape you, or force you to convert.”
now, perhaps. but if you can drag Islam’s past into the discussion, Christianity’s past is just as relevant.
“Iran and Saudi Arabia”
Iran and Saudi Arabia require the wearing of the hijab, not the burqa.
“ Here is a crash course for you.”
Youtube videos? really?
1. the first two lose any credibility with the use of the phrase “Islamic Crusades”2. abuse of women isn’t something restricted to Islamic countries alone. i don’t see why Islam should be blamed for it, when religion is normally not a factor in other instances of abuse. if Islam can be blamed, why not Christianity or Judaism?3. one instance of terrorism doesn’t condemn a whole group. by your logic, Judaism as a whole is to blame for the terrorist attacks committed by Irgun in the 1940s. or do you consider that violence to be more justified?4. *gasp* oh no! kids being indoctrinated by religion! /endsarcasm ever seen the pics of Westboro Baptist kids holding signs that say “God Hates Fags”? hell, when i was raised Christian, i was told that homosexuals and Jews were sub-human. what’s the difference? in my opinion, any religion that brainwashes children should be done away with. that includes Islam and yours.
“It seems to me like you are a very typical oikophibic white liberal, eager to denounce Christianity and your own cultural heritage while putting our enemies on a pedestal.”
i think i already addressed this. i don’t hold something in esteem simply because i was raised with it. our Western cultural heritage includes things like the Holocaust, the Sack of Jerusalem, witchcraft trials, legalized spousal rape, and slavery. i’m not convinced that all of the wonderful things Western civilization has done can ever make up for those atrocities.
if you think i’m placing Islam on a pedestal, you must be illiterate. i’ve been pretty clear that i hold all religions in the same general regard. i think religion is simply another divisive tool that causes hatred and bigotry, and i look forward to the day when all religions disappear. Jews, Christians, Muslims— to me, all of you are equally insane for letting your lives be determined by a non-existent being. on a personal level, i have more issues with Christianity because of my experiences. and my general point is that you’re a hypocrite for bashing Islam for things that Christianity has done and continues to do.
“Christianity is what the concept of human rights and rule of law came from. ”
the earliest law codes existed thousands of years before Christianity. so, you’re wrong on that one.
“Typically I try to stay away from insults, but at the same time I also call things as they are, and I don’t really care if it hurts anyone’s feelings.”
as do i. i see you as a xenophobic, narcissistic moron who is afraid of anyone with a different language, skin color or religion. the human race is lucky that people who think like you are slowly dying out.
“ctually I have been through college twice, so I am a bit more educated than the average person”
education has little to do with intelligence. the number of incorrect statements i’ve had to respond to demonstrates this quite well.