The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='MSI Magus']/nod thats another fact that I did not take in to consideration. Many churches besides doing work that mostly benefits their congregation also tend to proselytize in the process. It is rarely charity for charities sake.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is not charity for charity's sake. Maybe for the shrill pro-life demonstrators or folks that like to bitch about the alleged war on xmas.

However I'm sure the religious folks manning the soup kitchens or setting up hospital wards have an altruistic streak, I've done it before and it is not fun. I am loath to criticize the Christians who do bona fide charity work, it is actually one of the things I admire about true Christians. Besides, if you have an ounce of empathy in your body it's hard to be an American-style conservative after you've been face-to-face with the homeless on the streets.
 
[quote name='camoor']I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is not charity for charity's sake. Maybe for the shrill pro-life demonstrators or folks that like to bitch about the alleged war on xmas.

However I'm sure the religious folks manning the soup kitchens or setting up hospital wards have an altruistic streak, I've done it before and it is not fun. I am loath to criticize the Christians who do bona fide charity work, it is actually one of the things I admire about true Christians. Besides, if you have an ounce of empathy in your body it's hard to be an American-style conservative after you've been face-to-face with the homeless on the streets.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. If you look throughout my posts I have said numerous positive things about Christians doing charity work. I am sure Knoell will just think its a bunch of liberals criticizing Christians and the good work they do as always. But I believe all of us have said Christians do a lot of good charity work and most often for the right reasons. We have just also pointed out other truths that most conservatives like to ignore like the fact that their work is a drop in the bucket and that their voting history historically has made more charity cases. Basically with one hand they are taking their hand and trying to swat water out of a sinking ship, but with their other hand they are pouring a bucket of water in to the boat. At the end of the day though they want to believe they only did good.
 
[quote name='camoor']It sounds like you need to sit down and think about it a little more. You need to know what your position is before you can begin to criticize others.[/QUOTE]

Somehow I figured being genuine would do nothing but provoke condescension.

[quote name='camoor']I would draw the line based on three factors:
1) stage of biological development
2) differentiantion from other mammals at that stage
3) degree to which the organism is sentient[/QUOTE]

Give this standard to legislators and you'll end up with a different abortion statute in every state. I'll try to make my point more clearly since I think we're going in circles: Law needs a clear standard regarding when to recognize human beings as "alive," because living humans have a rights under the 14th Amendment. That standard will inevitably be forced to recognize a person as such because it is either a) actually living or b) has the potential to be alive. If based on (a), I don't see any rational legal standard besides at live birth (i.e. the one we've always had), since anything else will inevitably delve into metaphysics at some level and can't possibly support a legal argument. If based on (b), I don't see any besides at conception, since as far as I know there's no way to tell that a human being, once conceived, definitely will not be capable of live birth.
 
[quote name='docvinh']To be fair, I think a lot of liberal christians do charity work too. I would bet they do just as much as the conservative ones.[/QUOTE]

If we are talking about conservative christian charities... I am not all that impressed by organizations that will raise money to do good (after taking their cut) and then support politicians who would cut off programs that would help about a thousand times more.
 
Meh I just put him back on ignore. Took him off a few months ago and iv tried hard to talk to him a few times...but unlike people like uncle bob or thrust that I may not always agree with...there is just no debating with him. Bob may twist things some of the time but he at least attempts to put forth SOME kind of debate....Knoell just ignores points, facts and statistics to focus on twisted logic. I really wish everyone else here would put him on ignore too. I think we would be better off not just as a board but as a nation if we learned hard to try and find a middle ground and discuss issues civilly....but then ignore the people that prove they have no interest in facts or logic the way we would a child.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Agreed. If you look throughout my posts I have said numerous positive things about Christians doing charity work. I am sure Knoell will just think its a bunch of liberals criticizing Christians and the good work they do as always. But I believe all of us have said Christians do a lot of good charity work and most often for the right reasons. We have just also pointed out other truths that most conservatives like to ignore like the fact that their work is a drop in the bucket and that their voting history historically has made more charity cases. Basically with one hand they are taking their hand and trying to swat water out of a sinking ship, but with their other hand they are pouring a bucket of water in to the boat. At the end of the day though they want to believe they only did good.[/QUOTE]

Good point, I was talking about liberal Christians. I think you are quite generous when evaluating conservative Chrsitians, I don't even know that conservative Christians care about charity. Take for example the self-identified Christian Walton family:

Until recently, however, they gave away little of their fortune. As Sam Walton explained in his 1992 autobiography, Made in America, he didn't believe in giving "any undeserving stranger a free ride." ...
Much of Wal-Mart's philanthropy (as well as that of the Walton family) has been directed toward promoting anti-government politics, whether by lobbying against high taxes for the rich or contributing to Republican candidates, conservative think tanks and efforts to privatize education.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/2005-06/charity.php

They sound like delightful people.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Somehow I figured being genuine would do nothing but provoke condescension.



Give this standard to legislators and you'll end up with a different abortion statute in every state. I'll try to make my point more clearly since I think we're going in circles: Law needs a clear standard regarding when to recognize human beings as "alive," because living humans have a rights under the 14th Amendment. That standard will inevitably be forced to recognize a person as such because it is either a) actually living or b) has the potential to be alive. If based on (a), I don't see any rational legal standard besides at live birth (i.e. the one we've always had), since anything else will inevitably delve into metaphysics at some level and can't possibly support a legal argument. If based on (b), I don't see any besides at conception, since as far as I know there's no way to tell that a human being, once conceived, definitely will not be capable of live birth.[/QUOTE]

I was being genuine too. If you want me to be frank, you come off as a complete buffoon when you don't have a firmly held opion on abortion but you criticize others as hypocrites. If you don't ascribe to one side or the other just say you're still considering the issue - no shame in that.

And what's wrong with letting states interpret. Conservatives love to crow about states rights until it's not convenient. Abortion is a complex and nuanced issue with passionately held beliefs across the nation, why not let the states decide.
 
[quote name='Knoell']wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone.[/QUOTE]

Mocking a guy who is being honest about the ups and downs in his life, what a Christian attitude.

Is that what Jesus would do?
 
[quote name='camoor']I was being genuine too. If you want me to be frank, you come off as a complete buffoon when you don't have a firmly held opion on abortion but you criticize others as hypocrites. If you don't ascribe to one side or the other just say you're still considering the issue - no shame in that.[/QUOTE]

I can accept that. But I wasn't trying to criticize, I merely meant to highlight that the law is (or at least has the capacity to be) more absolutist on the issue of abortion than you were letting on.

[quote name='camoor']And what's wrong with letting states interpret. Conservatives love to crow about states rights until it's not convenient. Abortion is a complex and nuanced issue with passionately held beliefs across the nation, why not let the states decide.[/QUOTE]

Because we're generally not in the business of letting state legislatures decide what due process, at a minimum, requires. The 14th Amendment would be a dead letter were that the case.

Or, for a more practical appeal, would you really want the status of abortion to return to what it was pre-1973?
 
[quote name='camoor']Mocking a guy who is being honest about the ups and downs in his life, what a Christian attitude.

Is that what Jesus would do?[/QUOTE]

I thought that you would be the first to call him out that his experience with christians is anecdotal evidence.

Anyways it was all I could say in the thirty seconds I had before I had to run to work.

I admit I spoke too soon when I said conservative christians, when I wrote that I had all christians in my head and was only quoting the term someone used.

Regardless, my point was that he criticized christians for being for smaller government and against abortion by saying they support legislation that only burdens the low income impoverished people, while eliminating programs that help them. What I was saying is that christians care for the poor and do ALOT of charity and donating so I don't believe painting them to be ignorant of low income people is accurate.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']So in other words you pull a theory out of your ass and then ask the rest of us to do the work to prove your theory. Yep sounds like a Knoell post.

But hey lets enter Knoell world for a minute(just a foot in to your world though, dont want to catch the crazy). Lets say your right. Lets say that Christians, hell lets take it a step farther and say all of religion combined does more good then all government and non profit organizations combined. Do you think they alone can meet the needs of the impoverished masses? Do you think they alone can feed the hungry, clothe the poor, give shots to those in third world countries and clean their water supplies?

Even if we pretended that every last freaking religious person in the world was the good hearted soul you naively believe them to be it would not be enough.

As it stands though your world is a sham that you build to back your beliefs. The reality is that not all churches do charity, those that do charity do not do so every week or even month.....yet charity is needed every day in massive amounts.

So I am sorry but it changes nothing. Most conservatives are anti abortion while at the same time pro small government. You do believe in cutting welfare programs, international aid and other vital programs. You may go and work a soup kitchen or most likely handle charity like my mother in laws church who does charity that directly benefit church members not the unwashed masses. But if you then go to the voting booth and vote to cut federal funding to these vital programs it means your a pro life Christian 2 or 3 days a month.[/QUOTE]

As for this mess of a post that is full of insults, which is why I retaliated besides being on my way out.

Anyways, I admit I spoke too soon when I said conservative christians, when I wrote that I had all christians in my head and was only quoting the term someone used.

Here is another thing, what conservative christian wants to eliminate all government programs? What conservative christian thinks they alone can help everyone? They are usually grateful for whatever help they can get. Another wrong assumption.

We are 2 for 2 in BS.

I never said all christians a true hearted. If I did, please quote me. So quit being a damn liar and assuming things. I am not sure what this even has to do with anything besides your simpleton hate for hypocritical christians. Possible stemming from noone asking you if you needed help. I think there is even a quote of me somewhere on this forum saying that the country is 75% people claiming to be christians but I don't believe anywhere near that number is the amount of true christians.

3 for 3 in BS.

Churches do more than drives, events, and soup kitchens. They consistantly stretch out to help anyone who comes to them for help. If they run out of money, they appeal to the congregation to donate to a special cause. However you are right, this isn't enough, but it is an indication that christians who are conservative or liberal want to help the community. Reducing social programs is not a matter of hurting the poor it is a matter of spending money more effectively. If the social programs that exist were at all effective more people would be for them.

So I will give that one to you even though you have no idea what conservative christians are really for. 3 for 4 in BS.

Lastly, I have never heard of a church that runs a soup kitchen for its congregation. But okie dokie, those bastard churches are just helping their own!

4 for 5 in BS.

[quote name='MSI Magus']/nod thats another fact that I did not take in to consideration. Many churches besides doing work that mostly benefits their congregation also tend to proselytize in the process. It is rarely charity for charities sake.

My mother in law that is out twice a month for her churches breast cancer walks and fairs(which started when a member of the churchs sister got breast cancer)pitched a fit and then refused to toss my wife a Bridal shower when she said we didnt want gifts, we wanted people to donate to charity. When at Christmas we said we didnt want to get gifts and again asked for charity donations we had the same reaction(the following year we stopped celebrating Christmas).

I am not saying I think this is the typical Christian, I certainly dont...but I think its much more common then Knoell would ever admit.[/QUOTE]

More bias BS. How often do people donate to causes that affect them directly? I know a number of people who have had loved ones with cancer or have died from various cancers who donate for a cure. Does this somehow negate the donation to the cause? Come on man be reasonable, it is common sense for people to be more appreciative of causes that affect them than not. Regardless of that people are still charitable without being affected personally. How many churches sent help down to haiti? How many people donated to the cause in haiti? japan?

Regardless of your personal stories of how your mother in law is so greedy, I can give you 10 times that in stories of churches I have seen being selfless. It is all conjecture. Go and find a church you actually like, and you will see what they do. (You do have to find one you like, as there are a lot of bad ones, but thats just me being naive isn't it? ;))

[quote name='MSI Magus']
Meh I just put him back on ignore. Took him off a few months ago and iv tried hard to talk to him a few times...but unlike people like uncle bob or thrust that I may not always agree with...there is just no debating with him. Bob may twist things some of the time but he at least attempts to put forth SOME kind of debate....Knoell just ignores points, facts and statistics to focus on twisted logic. I really wish everyone else here would put him on ignore too. I think we would be better off not just as a board but as a nation if we learned hard to try and find a middle ground and discuss issues civilly....but then ignore the people that prove they have no interest in facts or logic the way we would a child.
[/QUOTE]

I am not sure which facts, or statistics that I am ignoring in your posts but feel free to point them out to me. So sorry I am not "debating" with you on your terms of complete and utter bull shit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']I thought that you would be the first to call him out that his experience with christians is anecdotal evidence.
...
What I was saying is that christians care for the poor and do ALOT of charity and donating so I don't believe painting them to be ignorant of low income people is accurate.[/QUOTE]

He had anecdotes of Christians behaving badly, you have offered nothing but worthless conjecture. If I was going to call anyone out it would be you.

If conservative Christians care so much about the poor, how do you explain the candidates they routinely support?
 
[quote name='camoor']If conservative Christians care so much about the poor, how do you explain the candidates they routinely support?[/QUOTE]

banning abortion is more important in their view
 
The institute of Medicine recommended today that health care insurers should under the new health care laws provide birth control for free through insurance. Anti abortion groups have already announced opposition. This again goes with what I was saying earlier about the "pro life" crowd not caring about the well being of families and the already born and instead just with people having as many babies as possible.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']The institute of Medicine recommended today that health care insurers should under the new health care laws provide birth control for free through insurance. Anti abortion groups have already announced opposition. This again goes with what I was saying earlier about the "pro life" crowd not caring about the well being of families and the already born and instead just with people having as many babies as possible.[/QUOTE]

They care about protecting what they consider life. It goes beyond forcing people to do anything, they are protecting life.

There wouldnt be as much against this if they limited it to birth control that does not cause early abortions. Regardless it is not the institure of medicines job to decide whether or not abortion is wrong, so free birth control would make sense to them.
 
[quote name='camoor']He had anecdotes of Christians behaving badly, you have offered nothing but worthless conjecture. If I was going to call anyone out it would be you.

[/QUOTE]

Do you really think I don't have the same but opposite anecdotes? This part of the argument is ridiculous, useless, and really shows how bias you are towards opposing views, and the lack of criticism you have for your own.

Because here is what you said while discussing it with him -

I am loath to criticize the Christians who do bona fide charity work, it is actually one of the things I admire about true Christians.

However if MSI Magus says he has examples of bad christians then Knoell couldn't possibly be right in saying there are a whole lot of christians who do charity even if it completely goes against what I just said.

[quote name='camoor']If conservative Christians care so much about the poor, how do you explain the candidates they routinely support?[/Quote]

I already explained to you that most people do not believe the current social programs are at all efficient. Obviously you disagree with conservative ideology so you are not going to support conservative candidates or think they are remotely right. I can say the same thing about Liberal candidates. If you care about the economy, life, prosecution of criminals etc how do you explain your support for particular liberal candidates?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']They care about protecting what they consider life. It goes beyond forcing people to do anything, they are protecting life.

There wouldnt be as much against this if they limited it to birth control that does not cause early abortions. Regardless it is not the institure of medicines job to decide whether or not abortion is wrong, so free birth control would make sense to them.[/QUOTE]
Gotta protect those unborn babies, but once they're out of the womb those little fuckers better get jobs, right? You all love to act holier than thou when it comes to "protecting life" but as soon as the umbilical cord is cut you'd just as soon let the kid starve in the street as help it's family. Hypocrites of the highest order.
 
[quote name='Clak']Gotta protect those unborn babies, but once they're out of the womb those little fuckers better get jobs, right? You all love to act holier than thou when it comes to "protecting life" but as soon as the umbilical cord is cut you'd just as soon let the kid starve in the street as help it's family. Hypocrites of the highest order.[/QUOTE]


You do realize that you can have it both ways. You can get rid of abortion and give the poor all the money you can possibly want. Right?

But even if liberals were to enact the best care for the poor the world has ever seen, you would still not get rid of aboriton. Hypocrites of the highest order indeed.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Do you really think I don't have the same but opposite anecdotes? This part of the argument is ridiculous, useless, and really shows how bias you are towards opposing views, and the lack of criticism you have for your own.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that what he said is irrefutable, but you get on here and offer up conjecture with no factual basis whatsoever and then act dumbfounded when we call you out on your bullshit. Your act is getting stale, bro.

[quote name='Knoell']Because here is what you said while discussing it with him -



However if MSI Magus says he has examples of bad christians then Knoell couldn't possibly be right in saying there are a whole lot of christians who do charity even if it completely goes against what I just said.



I already explained to you that most people do not believe the current social programs are at all efficient. Obviously you disagree with conservative ideology so you are not going to support conservative candidates or think they are remotely right. I can say the same thing about Liberal candidates. If you care about the economy, life, prosecution of criminals etc how do you explain your support for particular liberal candidates?[/QUOTE]

Wow - first time I heard that your issue is with the efficiency of social programs. Then why don't you propose social programs that are more efficient instead of characterizing the users of social programs as lazy and unmotivated?

You're such a coward, you're always backtracking, and it's funny to see you collapse whenever someone points out that your viewpoint is completely unChristian.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You do realize that you can have it both ways. You can get rid of abortion and give the poor all the money you can possibly want. Right?

But even if liberals were to enact the best care for the poor the world has ever seen, you would still not get rid of aboriton. Hypocrites of the highest order indeed.[/QUOTE]

Why is that hypocritical? If we don't believe that the zygote is a human being then why should it be protected as if it were a baby? The circumstances awaiting a fictional baby are irrelevant.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why is that hypocritical? If we don't believe that the zygote is a human being then why should it be protected as if it were a baby? The circumstances awaiting a fictional baby are irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

While I have Knoell blocked I can still see posts of his you guys quote(which is again why I wish others would just ignore him and stop wasting time). Because of that I could see that last response. I must say that it was a rather big assumption to make on his part and for you to also speak for all liberals.

Personally I can not stand the issue of abortion. Its one that I am totally on the fence about as I feel most Americans are. its an issue we tend to despise because its very philosophical and its very difficult for people to pin point how they feel much of the time. So while many conservatives and liberals see the issue as black and white .....id bet at least a third of the nation if not a majority see it more grey.

Personally if people like Knoell could step up and act like...well like Christians and take care of the poor then id be ok with MUCH stricter abortion laws. If we actually took care of the sick, the infirm, the homeless and the hungry I would be comfortable with the idea of banning abortions in all cases not relating to rape, incest or a health risk to the mother.

But hey this goes outside the black and white world knoell lives in so I am sure he will ignore the crux of this post to focus on one part(Im guessing the fact that id allow abortions for extreme cases and thus I am some kind of crazy pro abortion liberal).
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']While I have Knoell blocked I can still see posts of his you guys quote(which is again why I wish others would just ignore him and stop wasting time). Because of that I could see that last response. I must say that it was a rather big assumption to make on his part and for you to also speak for all liberals.

Personally I can not stand the issue of abortion. Its one that I am totally on the fence about as I feel most Americans are. its an issue we tend to despise because its very philosophical and its very difficult for people to pin point how they feel much of the time. So while many conservatives and liberals see the issue as black and white .....id bet at least a third of the nation if not a majority see it more grey.

Personally if people like Knoell could step up and act like...well like Christians and take care of the poor then id be ok with MUCH stricter abortion laws. If we actually took care of the sick, the infirm, the homeless and the hungry I would be comfortable with the idea of banning abortions in all cases not relating to rape, incest or a health risk to the mother.

But hey this goes outside the black and white world knoell lives in so I am sure he will ignore the crux of this post to focus on one part(Im guessing the fact that id allow abortions for extreme cases and thus I am some kind of crazy pro abortion liberal).[/QUOTE]

I suppose but then I wouldn't classify your position as pro-choice. You're not interested in protecting a woman's right to choose, you're really more interested in whatever policy will cause the least amount of suffering.

As much as I disagree with anyone who would advocate restricting a woman's right to choose under any circumstances (on principal, as stated in my last post), I do respect your compassion.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']While I have Knoell blocked I can still see posts of his you guys quote(which is again why I wish others would just ignore him and stop wasting time). Because of that I could see that last response. I must say that it was a rather big assumption to make on his part and for you to also speak for all liberals.

Personally I can not stand the issue of abortion. Its one that I am totally on the fence about as I feel most Americans are. its an issue we tend to despise because its very philosophical and its very difficult for people to pin point how they feel much of the time. So while many conservatives and liberals see the issue as black and white .....id bet at least a third of the nation if not a majority see it more grey.

Personally if people like Knoell could step up and act like...well like Christians and take care of the poor then id be ok with MUCH stricter abortion laws. If we actually took care of the sick, the infirm, the homeless and the hungry I would be comfortable with the idea of banning abortions in all cases not relating to rape, incest or a health risk to the mother.

But hey this goes outside the black and white world knoell lives in so I am sure he will ignore the crux of this post to focus on one part(Im guessing the fact that id allow abortions for extreme cases and thus I am some kind of crazy pro abortion liberal).[/QUOTE]

If you knew anything about me, I have said I would make exceptions for extreme cases as well. But here we are, you accusing me of living in a black and white world of which you completely and utterly put upon everybody else who disagrees with you.

Also your argument that there are not enough social programs for the poor is not a capable argument when you are discussing what you to believe to be a human life. If you really believe the unborn are to be protected then you should be for banning abortion and better social programs, not on the fence about abortion and for better social programs. Not existing is not more compassionate than being poor.

Your argument could fit very well with killing infants as well. "Hey if the mother says she cannot afford another baby then why should she have to keep it? Until we have social programs capable of feeding that baby, then I would support laws against killing it."

But alas you won't hear this because I won't listen to all the FACTS and STATISTICS that you are so proudly exhibiting in this thread of which there are none.
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm not saying that what he said is irrefutable, but you get on here and offer up conjecture with no factual basis whatsoever and then act dumbfounded when we call you out on your bullshit. Your act is getting stale, bro.



Wow - first time I heard that your issue is with the efficiency of social programs. Then why don't you propose social programs that are more efficient instead of characterizing the users of social programs as lazy and unmotivated?

You're such a coward, you're always backtracking, and it's funny to see you collapse whenever someone points out that your viewpoint is completely unChristian.[/QUOTE]

I am the coward? You are the god damn coward. I have consistantly said the problem people have with social programs is their efficiency not what they are trying to accomplish. I have said this multiple times in multiple threads, some of them were even in direct response TO YOU. I am starting to get sick of you constantly making things up.

Why don't you back up the bullshit you are toting about liberal christians giving more, and helping the poor more than conservative christians. I will be waiting, although you will do one of two things - avoid it by insulting me, or avoid it by claiming I don't have to provide proof for the statement I recanted so why should you have to provide proof for the statement you openly got away with because you are all a bunch of buddies on this site.

Heres another challenge, quote me saying we don't need social programs. I bet you won't and can't.

Coward.
 
[quote name='Knoell']we don't need social programs.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, was too easy ;)

But I will agree with Knoell on this one point. When you hear many so-called Christian Conservative politicians talk about cutting social programs, they do quite often say that they believe that the goals can be better met by the private sector. Anyone is free to disagree with this belief, but to insinuate that they simply dont feel that social programs need to exist is a gross misinterpretation of thier position.

They state that they see a need for social programs, they just dont think that government (particularly Federal Government) should be running said programs.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Sorry, was too easy ;)

But I will agree with Knoell on this one point. When you hear many so-called Christian Conservative politicians talk about cutting social programs, they do quite often say that they believe that the goals can be better met by the private sector. Anyone is free to disagree with this belief, but to insinuate that they simply dont feel that social programs need to exist is a gross misinterpretation of thier position.

They state that they see a need for social programs, they just dont think that government (particularly Federal Government) should be running said programs.[/QUOTE]
Which is ridiculous because we can't force the private sector to do shit. Conservatives think the private sector would do a better job, great, so how are you going to make them do it?
 
@ Clak - On the thought of restricting a woman's rights. The thing is I cant wrap my head behind the science and I think even if I could I still would just have this gut feeling that its wrong. That said I feel its equally wrong to force a woman to have a baby when she is not prepared to do so(unwed single mother that is poor). If society had good orphanages and plenty of them as well as welfare programs that truely helped people, then I could understand restricting abortion further. Either way I appreciate you respecting my position. Its amazing how the "pro choice crowd" can respect disagreement when its done from a reasonable basis.

@hosty1l - Me and others have already smashed Knoells little theory on the private sector taking care of charity but you might have missed it. Here is the question do you really think the private sector can take care of every last bit of charity that needs to be done? Do you think they can feed and clothe every last poor person? Do you think they can handle giving the multitude of shots that are needed across the globe? Do you think that they can do the numerous reparative surgeries kids across the worlds need? I have volunterred at a lot of charities through church, through school and on my own...and from first hand experience I can vouch that these places are SWAMPED.

People like Knoell who propose its not the government job like to pretend that the private sector can handle it, truth is that even with current government assistance its not enough. If you believe that it is simply not governments job to help out the poor, the hungry etc etc fine you have that right. But to deny that it means those people suffer is just another conservative fairy tale(I think we liberals need to start telling fairy tales, maybe thats how we convince people like Knoell). Again the issue is not believing in what government should or should not do, the issue is with the myth that we have debunked time and time again that the private sector can handle it.

Edit - Whats crazy too is sitting here the last few mins I keep thinking, the druggies and the drunks, the burn victoms, those that need plastic surgery from serious accidents etc etc. There are just so many damn forms of charity that need assistance. Its beyond insane to think the private sector can take care of them all. There is also the issue that people in the private sector tend to support things that directly effect them or people they know meaning things like third world charities suffer.
 
People seem to forget that the goal of private companies is to make money. That's it. Whenever a public service is privatized, you get less service for more money. Healthcare, prisons, mercenaries are huge offenders. I don't know how anyone can support this. The goal should be to provide services foremost, not eke every penny you can from the system.
 
When he says the private sector I do not think many people mean private companies. Yes companies do charity too, but I think the emphasis is on groups like Drs without Borders or The American Red Cross.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']@ Clak - On the thought of restricting a woman's rights. The thing is I cant wrap my head behind the science and I think even if I could I still would just have this gut feeling that its wrong. That said I feel its equally wrong to force a woman to have a baby when she is not prepared to do so(unwed single mother that is poor). If society had good orphanages and plenty of them as well as welfare programs that truely helped people, then I could understand restricting abortion further. Either way I appreciate you respecting my position. Its amazing how the "pro choice crowd" can respect disagreement when its done from a reasonable basis.

@hosty1l - Me and others have already smashed Knoells little theory on the private sector taking care of charity but you might have missed it. Here is the question do you really think the private sector can take care of every last bit of charity that needs to be done? Do you think they can feed and clothe every last poor person? Do you think they can handle giving the multitude of shots that are needed across the globe? Do you think that they can do the numerous reparative surgeries kids across the worlds need? I have volunterred at a lot of charities through church, through school and on my own...and from first hand experience I can vouch that these places are SWAMPED.

People like Knoell who propose its not the government job like to pretend that the private sector can handle it, truth is that even with current government assistance its not enough. If you believe that it is simply not governments job to help out the poor, the hungry etc etc fine you have that right. But to deny that it means those people suffer is just another conservative fairy tale(I think we liberals need to start telling fairy tales, maybe thats how we convince people like Knoell). Again the issue is not believing in what government should or should not do, the issue is with the myth that we have debunked time and time again that the private sector can handle it.

Edit - Whats crazy too is sitting here the last few mins I keep thinking, the druggies and the drunks, the burn victoms, those that need plastic surgery from serious accidents etc etc. There are just so many damn forms of charity that need assistance. Its beyond insane to think the private sector can take care of them all. There is also the issue that people in the private sector tend to support things that directly effect them or people they know meaning things like third world charities suffer.[/QUOTE]

Edit - He respects your position because you agree with him currently, there shouldn't be a ban on abortion. If you ever change your mind let me know if he is so respectful. I think we kind of saw that with Magus0472. The moment you start getting in the way of his view, he snaps on you. Cuz you must be nuts to disagree with his sides view, they are obviously right.

What is crazy is that you think the government can handle such things 100%. They have failed miserably, despite growing such programs from

Edit: the links were backwards

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...ts=b&fy=fy12&local=undefined&state=US#usgs302


usgs_barcol.php


to

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...ts=b&fy=fy12&local=undefined&state=US#usgs302


usgs_barcol.php


over the last twenty years. Go ahead and pick any range of dates.

But yeah, we are most certainly gutting these programs, give me a break.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']What is crazy is that you think the government can handle such things 100%. They have failed miserably, despite growing such programs from

over the last twenty years. Go ahead and pick any range of dates.

But yeah, we are most certainly gutting these programs, give me a break.[/QUOTE]
Your source is fucked. Categories are overlapping. Try another one with LESS bias.
 
I know when I donate money to a non-profit it warms my heart knowing I'm helping to pay the CEO's possibly million dollar salary. Hell, at least we get to elect our overpaid politicians.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Your source is fucked. Categories are overlapping. Try another one with LESS bias.[/QUOTE]

Ha, care to be specific?
 
[quote name='hostyl1']When you hear many so-called Christian Conservative politicians talk about cutting social programs, they do quite often say that they believe that the goals can be better met by the private sector. Anyone is free to disagree with this belief, but to insinuate that they simply dont feel that social programs need to exist is a gross misinterpretation of thier position.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Clak']Which is ridiculous because we can't force the private sector to do shit. Conservatives think the private sector would do a better job, great, so how are you going to make them do it?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='MSI Magus']
@hosty1l - Me and others have already smashed Knoells little theory on the private sector taking care of charity but you might have missed it. Here is the question do you really think the private sector can take care of every last bit of charity that needs to be done? Do you think they can feed and clothe every last poor person? Do you think they can handle giving the multitude of shots that are needed across the globe? Do you think that they can do the numerous reparative surgeries kids across the worlds need? I have volunterred at a lot of charities through church, through school and on my own...and from first hand experience I can vouch that these places are SWAMPED. [/QUOTE]

[quote name='MSI Magus']When he says the private sector I do not think many people mean private companies. Yes companies do charity too, but I think the emphasis is on groups like Drs without Borders or The American Red Cross.[/QUOTE]

As I said in the bolded text, it's quite okay to disagree, to say that they are wrong, naive, misguided, etc. but y'all make it seem as though they simply disregard the social problems. There is a difference between proposing a solution that "doesnt work" and ignoring the problem completely.

And as MSI said, the current system with govenment taking a role is not working. So what is the proper solution? For government to do more? Or for the private sector to do more? If the government does more, is there not the real risk that the private sector will do less? Conversely, isnt there the possibility that if the government does less, the private sector could do more?

That's the argument that is being set up. You can make your own decision. I'm just saying that just because someone suggests a soultion that you think is "wrong" doesnt (necessarily) mean that they dont want to solve the problem.
 
My post doesn't disregard anything, it simply shines light on a problem with the idea. I rarely if ever see conservative politicians propose a solution that would take the place of welfare programs they'd like to cut. And assuming the "free market" will handle it isn't a solution. I don't place any faith in the private sector because I have no reason to. I didn't choose them, I didn't elect anyone working for them, why should I? I know conservatives hate government, but they're your elected officials. They're there because we put them there.
 
I'll take this one.

[quote name='hostyl1']As I said in the bolded text, it's quite okay to disagree, to say that they are wrong, naive, misguided, etc. but y'all make it seem as though they simply disregard the social problems. There is a difference between proposing a solution that "doesnt work" and ignoring the problem completely.

And as MSI said, the current system with govenment taking a role is not working. So what is the proper solution? For government to do more?
[/QUOTE]
yes
[quote name='hostyl1']
Or for the private sector to do more?
[/QUOTE]
yes
[quote name='hostyl1']
If the government does more, is there not the real risk that the private sector will do less?
[/QUOTE]
no
[quote name='hostyl1']
Conversely, isnt there the possibility that if the government does less, the private sector could do more?
[/QUOTE]
no
 
[quote name='Knoell']Edit - He respects your position because you agree with him currently, there shouldn't be a ban on abortion. If you ever change your mind let me know if he is so respectful. I think we kind of saw that with Magus0472. The moment you start getting in the way of his view, he snaps on you. Cuz you must be nuts to disagree with his sides view, they are obviously right.[/QUOTE]

You are the one who said "Are you guys smoking crack". For all your complaining about being called crazy you sure dish it out.
 
If you actually came up with compelling reason for me to change my mind Knoell you just might succeed, or you can keeping whining about being picked on. For the record however, I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you wish to, but I don't have to respect what you believe.
 
[quote name='Clak']If you actually came up with compelling reason for me to change my mind Knoell you just might succeed, or you can keeping whining about being picked on. For the record however, I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you wish to, but I don't have to respect what you believe.[/QUOTE]

Whining about being picked on? What are you talking about? I am simply correcting your ignorant "black and white" view of what conservative christians want. None of you seem to know what you are talking about on this front. People want reduced and more efficient government spending, they do not want to abandon the poor.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Whining about being picked on? What are you talking about? I am simply correcting your ignorant "black and white" view of what conservative christians want. None of you seem to know what you are talking about on this front. People want reduced and more efficient government spending, they do not want to abandon the poor.[/QUOTE]

Enlighten us.

What innovative policies have Christian conservatives promoted to help the poor (let's not talk about the bs like elminating funding for condoms in high schools and needle exchange programs in inner cities)
 
[quote name='camoor']Enlighten us.

What innovative policies have Christian conservatives promoted to help the poor (let's not talk about the bs like elminating funding for condoms in high schools and needle exchange programs in inner cities)[/QUOTE]

Well it also ignores the fact that cutting spending does not equal offering better care. If someone truly believes that the problem is too much government then you should put reforms through and then whenever these programs have too much money cut them.

What conservative Christians propose doing is essentially like a manic depressive that thinks they are taking too much medicine and just cuts them cold turkey. It may seem like a good idea but it ends in ruin. Meanwhile if you were just responsible and went and talked to your Dr(the experts)you may be able to find some small cuts to start off with. As you cut your medicine you can then monitor if its truly needed or if your going to crash and burn without it.

Conservative Christians never propose anything like this, its never reform then cut its always cut then reform. They want the system gutted and believe the fairy tale that everything will keep functioning the same despite evidence to the contrary.

I am all for reforming the welfare, education and other systems within our government and I am totally ok with cutting waste...but first we should prove that there is truly too much money and not that these branches are underfunded AND wasteful(which is most likely the case).
 
[quote name='Knoell']Whining about being picked on? What are you talking about? I am simply correcting your ignorant "black and white" view of what conservative christians want. None of you seem to know what you are talking about on this front. People want reduced and more efficient government spending, they do not want to abandon the poor.[/QUOTE]
It isn't what you want that's the problem, it's how you want to go about it.
 
Magus, I think "reforming" entitlements is a major issue in this debt ceiling debacel. Democrats are the ones who take debates of such things off the table, and claim we are (lol) gutting them. But you know, you keep believing your BLACK AND WHITE picture of liberal democrats wanting to help everyone, and conservative christians wanting to eliminate any help for the poor.

Sometimes I think you guys should take your posts and apply them to yourselves.
 
[quote name='Clak']It isn't what you want that's the problem, it's how you want to go about it.[/QUOTE]

This is convieniently one of the posts that should be flipped around and applied to yourselves.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Magus, I think "reforming" entitlements is a major issue in this debt ceiling debacel. Democrats are the ones who take debates of such things off the table, and claim we are (lol) gutting them. But you know, you keep believing your BLACK AND WHITE picture of liberal democrats wanting to help everyone, and conservative christians wanting to eliminate any help for the poor.

Sometimes I think you guys should take your posts and apply them to yourselves.[/QUOTE]

You haven't been able to give me one example of an innovative policy to help the poor that Christian Conservatives have initiated.

So why do you put the word 'reforming' in double quotes? Is that fundie doublespeak for defunding?
 
bread's done
Back
Top