a great quote from Shrpton's speech last night

[Flasch186]

He drew one of the biggest responses when he said: "The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not be eating in the kitchen."


The man does know how to speak....if nothing else.

[Fritz]

I hear al is big with queer black homeless demographic

[stevew]

Sharpton is a race-baiting poverty pimp.

[CamEdwards]

the government will feed me? kick ass!

[NoMyths]

I dug the (paraphrased) 'we never got our forty acres and a mule. so now we're going to ride this donkey as far as it'll take us' bit near the end. While I don't agree with his stance on reparations (which preceded the comment), I thought it was a nice bit of speechifying.

[stevew]

the government will feed me? kick ass!

pssst.

If you work it right, they will also get you a place to live.

[Ben E Lou]

He drew one of the biggest responses when he said: "The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not be eating in the kitchen."


The man does know how to speak....if nothing else.I wonder if those who gave him the big response really believe that feeding people is a proper function of government.

[Senator]

They do.

[Easy Mac]

Jesus would say so.

[Ben E Lou]

Jesus would say so.No, He'd say it is a proper function of the Church.

[CamEdwards]

I would like to announce if I'm elected, I will introduce the "Spoon and Fork Assistance Program", which will offer help to those who have trouble feeding themselves. We'll set up classrooms across America and train people in the proper use of spoons and forks.

This will be followed by my next bill, the "Asswiping Assistance Act of 2005", which will also help those unable to perform that vital function.

[Easy Mac]

No, He'd say it is a proper function of the Church.
no, no, I talked to him about it last night... we were chilling on the couch watching Quintuplets.

[The Afoci]

Masturbatory lessons for all women will be held at my house. Unless your fat. Then you can go to Sharpton and sue him for feeding you to damn much that someone won't teach you to masturbate properly. Tell him twinkies are like your crack and that you may have one in your crack now, but you don't have a crane to turn your fat ass around to check it out.

I got nothing.

[Fritz]

I would like to announce if I'm elected, I will introduce the "Spoon and Fork Assistance Program", which will offer help to those who have trouble feeding themselves. We'll set up classrooms across America and train people in the proper use of spoons and forks.


for a $10,000,000 grant I will develop a technology I call SPORK (spoon + fork - get it?), which will save the taxpayers something substantial. I think each govt provided spork (manufactured by buffworks) should cost about $121.00. A RAND study commissioned by my company estimates the cost of bring the spork to the people will have total per unit cost of $342.00. A big savings of the $413.00 per set cost of providing a separate fork and spoon, not to mention replacement costs when one utensil is lost or destroyed.

[SlapBone]

No, He'd say it is a proper function of the Church.

He basically DID say that.

[albionmoonlight]

What about the first part of the quote. We were made free, sovereign men by our God. We have voluntarily chosen to partially abdicate that divine freedom and sovereignty to form our government (do not underestimate the three words from which every aspect of American government flows: We The People). Did we really do that in order to have the power to control the sexual behavior of consenting adults?

Sharpton set these two things up as opposites when they are not an either/or proposition by any means, and that was disingenuous on his part. One can easily be against the wasteful aspects of the modern welfare state AND against the police having the right to enter your house and arrest you because they have probable cause to believe that you are having sex in a non-sanctioned manner.

However, given a choice between a government that will incarcerate people for having sex in a non-socially approved way or a government that will establish programs to feed the hungry, I would have to go with the latter.

[Flasch186]

I do find it Ironic that the Right uses Christianity as a major column of their platform but then throws many of the implications of the good book out the window when it comes to social services. Im not saying that I agree with Al but Im certainly not in the rigfht's ballpark either.

[Flasch186]

I do find it Ironic that the Right uses Christianity as a major column of their platform but then throws many of the implications of the good book out the window when it comes to social services. Im not saying that I agree with Al but Im certainly not in the right's ballpark either.

[Fritz]

how do they throw it out the window?

[Flasch186]

http://netbible.bible.org/


when you have some time.

[GrantDawg]

no, no, I talked to him about it last night... we were chilling on the couch watching Quintuplets.

I'm an expert in the field, and feel completely confident in telling you there is no way Jesus was watching Quintuplets with you last night. Jesus does not watch Fox. :)

[GrantDawg]

http://netbible.bible.org/


when you have some time.

2 Timothy 3:10 3:10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this command: “If anyone is not willing to work, neither should he eat.”



Is that the verse you're talking about? Oh right, you were talking about the verse saying the government should feed you. Hmmmm...can't find that one.

[Fritz]

without stopping to read the netbible, did they revise the everliving fuck out of it to list the duties of the government?

[Fritz]

dola - while the religious right may be slim on government welfare, most church folks I know practice many forms of charity.

[Ksyrup]

I do find it Ironic that the Right uses Christianity as a major column of their platform but then throws many of the implications of the good book out the window when it comes to social services. Im not saying that I agree with Al but Im certainly not in the right's ballpark either.
And I find it ironic that you and Al seem to be suggesting that religious teachings should guide the way we run our government (i.e., the Bible says feed the poor, so that's what we should do). Given the current liberal philosophy, there's not much worse you could stand for in their eyes (at least openly, anyway).

It seems to me the distinction you are failing to draw is who should provide those services. One can surely aspire to the standards set in the Bible through non-governmental means.

[Bee]

He was great in Big Mamma's House

[Franklinnoble]

I do find it Ironic that the Right uses Christianity as a major column of their platform but then throws many of the implications of the good book out the window when it comes to social services. Im not saying that I agree with Al but Im certainly not in the right's ballpark either.
Yeah, because Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the like are sooo good about sticking to Biblical standards regarding lies, theft, and fornication. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[stevew]

Which Church is Sharpton a minister at anyways?

[gstelmack]

I do find it Ironic that the Right uses Christianity as a major column of their platform but then throws many of the implications of the good book out the window when it comes to social services. Im not saying that I agree with Al but Im certainly not in the right's ballpark either.
I think the problem is in the definition of "needy". I think those on the Left (of this particular issue) have a broader definition than those on the Right (of this issue). I have no particular problem helping people that truly can't feed themselves, but I do have a problem helping people who won't help themselves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Which Church is Sharpton a minister at anyways?

I believe that would be at
The Church of the Self-Serving Sack O' Shit

[Arles]

He drew one of the biggest responses when he said: "The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom."
I didn't know marriage was required in order for people to have sex. Although, if that's how Al feels, I hope he takes that message on the stump.

[stevew]

If the black community is still in a sad state of affairs, why do they still latch on to the Democratic Party? After 50 years of the Donkey promising everything and delivering nothing, one would think that the republicans would be a viable option. But 90% voted for Gore.

[Franklinnoble]

I didn't know marriage was required in order for people to have sex. Although, if that's how Al feels, I hope he takes that message on the stump.
I think most married people will agree that marriage hardly improves your sex life.

[Flasch186]

I think that EVERYONE would agree that if someone isnt willing to work than they should be left in the dust (Darwin) however its the extreme way the Administration at hand has done so much to pull the plugs on sooo many social services, spanning such a wide array of issues, that just goes to show...you can still go to church and be greedy, and not go to church and be needy. It IS ironic that a pillar of the platform is biblical and then they do not follow it in their ends. When you set your argument to defend/attack the extreme of course youll be right, but there is a median that we are fighting for. There are some people that need help, that need YOUR tax dollars, that NEED the wealthy's taxes so that perhaps this year they wont be able to buy that 3rd home. OR as Bill put it we can vote for the current state of affairs and run the largest deficit ever, have more increasing crime rates [especially hen the assult weapons ban expires], and more kids left behind [ironically in the schools that need the help the most]. Ill be voting for a change.


EDIT: and we can spend more money debating and trying to get the CONSTITUTION changed to exclude more people based on something that has nothing to do with anyone else other than the person having to choose (remember we came here cuz we were persecuted) now we do the same, the circle of progress.

[panerd]

Doesn't everyone understand? The United States is not a charity state! We are not here to help feed the lazy & ignorant hungry people of this country! They don't have health care? Well they should have done a better job in school! Schools? They are terrible, let's take more money away from them, that will make them better! You see this is the taxpayer's money and we are the party that wants to give you the taxpayer your money back!

Oh by the way, do you have another couple billion dollars? We are fighting a war over in a foreign country because we care about their starving children and what their oppressive leaders have done with their health care and schools. How can you not care about the poor and oppressed people of the middle East?

[Desnudo]

Don't think too hard on a quote from Al Sharpton.

[Fritz]

they don't need my tax dollars.

[MJ4H]

without stopping to read the netbible, did they revise the everliving fuck out of it to list the duties of the government?

Great now I need a new laptop. This one is covered in fruity pebbles.

[Ksyrup]

I think that EVERYONE would agree that if someone isnt willing to work than they should be left in the dust (Darwin) however its the extreme way the Administration at hand has done so much to pull the plugs on sooo many social services, spanning such a wide array of issues, that just goes to show...you can still go to church and be greedy, and not go to church and be needy. It IS ironic that a pillar of the platform is biblical and then they do not follow it in their ends. When you set your argument to defend/attack the extreme of course youll be right, but there is a median that we are fighting for. There are some people that need help, that need YOUR tax dollars, that NEED the wealthy's taxes so that perhaps this year they wont be able to buy that 3rd home. OR as Bill put it we can vote for the current state of affairs and run the largest deficit ever, have more increasing crime rates [especially hen the assult weapons ban expires], and more kids left behind [ironically in the schools that need the help the most]. Ill be voting for a change.
This is simply scaring thinking. People do not NEED tax dollars. Period. Once you begin from your flawed premise, you've missed the point.

I think you either misunderstood or ignored altogether the comments from above. Charity can be provided by churches, but those who receive don't have to go to church to get charity. You seem to be suggesting that there are poor people who don't go to church, but who need services. They can benefit from those services regardless of whether they attend church.

[Flasch186]

spend spend spend, the Credit card budget, go fight a war and dont fund it. Claim to improve the schools, and dont fund the ones needing it the most but pumping money into the ones that just so happen to be funded already in the first place. I find this absolutely halarious, I dare any of you to run your household on this philosophy for 2 years, and see what happens.

[Franklinnoble]

Great now I need a new laptop. This one is covered in fruity pebbles.
http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[CamEdwards]

I think that EVERYONE would agree that if someone isnt willing to work than they should be left in the dust (Darwin) however its the extreme way the Administration at hand has done so much to pull the plugs on sooo many social services, spanning such a wide array of issues, that just goes to show...you can still go to church and be greedy, and not go to church and be needy. It IS ironic that a pillar of the platform is biblical and then they do not follow it in their ends. When you set your argument to defend/attack the extreme of course youll be right, but there is a median that we are fighting for. There are some people that need help, that need YOUR tax dollars, that NEED the wealthy's taxes so that perhaps this year they wont be able to buy that 3rd home. OR as Bill put it we can vote for the current state of affairs and run the largest deficit ever, have more increasing crime rates [especially hen the assult weapons ban expires], and more kids left behind [ironically in the schools that need the help the most]. Ill be voting for a change.


EDIT: and we can spend more money debating and trying to get the CONSTITUTION changed to exclude more people based on something that has nothing to do with anyone else other than the person having to choose (remember we came here cuz we were persecuted) now we do the same, the circle of progress.



You should acknowledge that GrantDawg completely pwned you with his quote.

[Flasch186]

This is simply scaring thinking. People do not NEED tax dollars. Period. Once you begin from your flawed premise, you've missed the point.



ummm, yes some people do. If we were starting from a level playing field now I would tend to agree with you. but were not, never were. The downtrodden in this country have absolutely no way to have a fair shake at trying to change their lives. Im not saying that it must be exactly the same but to consistently take from them, put more obstacles in front of them while given yourself a 100% pay hike (Average CEO hike in the past 2 years), and claim to be charitable is ridiculous. Charity is easy to understand, giving to someone who doesnt want to work and intends to take advantage of the system is obviously not what we intend, but while the system isnt perfect to say that no one NEEDS tax dollars is ridiculous. I could list the people effected by saying that they dont need tax dollars but it would affect basically everyone outside of the tax bracket that pays the least percentage wise. Everyone from kids int he middle class who cant afford a higher education, to adults trying to re-train for those NEW jobs in those developing industries that W pulled the dollars from but still promises will replace the jobs he lost overseas, to the new born babies in hospitals where the doctors and staff are underfunded, to those who cant afford treatment from things as common as asthma, to kids who have to walk miles to school cuz the bus doesnt go that far, to the police dept. who cant get there on time, to the teachers who have classrooms packed wall to wall, to the kids who have nowhere to go after school since both the parents dont get home til god knows when, from their jobs. To claim that no one NEEDS tax dollars is 3rd world, ignorant, and stubborn. Some people do.

[IMetTrentGreen]

If anyone is not willing to work, neither should he eat

what does it say about people who can't work?

[Fritz]

If we were starting from a level playing field

good to see the ol' gal can still dance

[Flasch186]

Im jewish...GD, I dont believe in the bible...its filled with hipocrisy, I just find it ironic.....choose a page and pick what you want out of it, most people do anyways. I would gamble that within 5 - 10 pages of that one is something that defends another stance. Like not judging others, yet man shall not lie down with man......what should W do? hmmmm, lets judge!!

[GrantDawg]

what does it say about people who can't work?
James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

[IMetTrentGreen]

did anybody on this thread come from a low-income neighborhood? is anybody in here not middle class white guy? i really doubt any of you knuckleheads have any proper perspective on this

some people do need tax dollars. i don't think the govt. does a great job of handing them out, but some people do need it

the motto of the GOP should just be f the poor. why beat around the bush?

[GrantDawg]

Im jewish...GD, I dont believe in the bible...its filled with hipocrisy, I just find it ironic.....choose a page and pick what you want out of it, most people do anyways. I would gamble that within 5 - 10 pages of that one is something that defends another stance. Like not judging others, yet man shall not lie down with man......what should W do? hmmmm, lets judge!!

I'm not the one arguing the government should use the Bible as a basis for government programs.

[IMetTrentGreen]

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

there you go. if we're going to use the bible to keep gays from marrying, why can we ignore it as far as helping the poor?

[GrantDawg]

there you go. if we're going to use the bible to keep gays from marrying, why can we ignore it as far as helping the poor?

1) I'm not against gay marriage.

2) I was pointing out to Flash he had no idea what he was talking about.

3) You asked a question and I answered it. The Bible is pretty clear about indiviual responsibilty in helping those in need.

[CamEdwards]

ummm, yes some people do. If we were starting from a level playing field now I would tend to agree with you. but were not, never were. The downtrodden in this country have absolutely no way to have a fair shake at trying to change their lives. Im not saying that it must be exactly the same but to consistently take from them, put more obstacles in front of them while given yourself a 100% pay hike (Average CEO hike in the past 2 years), and claim to be charitable is ridiculous. Charity is easy to understand, giving to someone who doesnt want to work and intends to take advantage of the system is obviously not what we intend, but while the system isnt perfect to say that no one NEEDS tax dollars is ridiculous. I could list the people effected by saying that they dont need tax dollars but it would affect basically everyone outside of the tax bracket that pays the least percentage wise. Everyone from kids int he middle class who cant afford a higher education, to adults trying to re-train for those NEW jobs in those developing industries that W pulled the dollars from but still promises will replace the jobs he lost overseas, to the new born babies in hospitals where the doctors and staff are underfunded, to those who cant afford treatment from things as common as asthma, to kids who have to walk miles to school cuz the bus doesnt go that far, to the police dept. who cant get there on time, to the teachers who have classrooms packed wall to wall, to the kids who have nowhere to go after school since both the parents dont get home til god knows when, from their jobs. To claim that no one NEEDS tax dollars is 3rd world, ignorant, and stubborn. Some people do.

Good lord. Let's take things one at a time.

1- Kids in the middle class. They "need" our tax dollars so they can go to college. No. They need student loans.

2- job training. Despite what you might want the government to be, it is NOT the job of the government to train people to work for a living.

3- doctors and hospitals are underfunded. Want to know an easier way to fund the docs? Don't raise taxes. Limit lawsuits to economic damages. Bring down the cost of malpractice insurance. Some doctors in Cleveland are paying over 200k a year in insurance. THAT's why there's a shortage.

4- those who can't afford treatment for asthma. Again, it might be coldhearted, but it's the truth. It's not the job of the government to provide your medical care.

5- police department who can't get there on time. Crime is at a 37-year low. Beyond that, it is not the job of the federal government to pay for state and local police forces.

6- teachers who have classrooms packed wall to wall. See point 5. It's not the federal government's job to pay for locally controlled schools (although if you want to look at local control, where the Detroit public schools are in massive debt. They just laid off 3,200 workers. Yet before the layoffs it employed 23,870 workers. That's 1700 more than 1996. During that same time period Detroit's student enrollment decreased by more than 35,000. Instead of taxing more and spending more... how about we spend more wisely?)

7- kids who have nowhere else to go. You want the government to pay for afterschool programs and become your babysitter? Again: that is not the government's job. There's just no other way around it.


You seem to be suggesting that we pay our money into the government so the government can take care of us from birth to death. Now Flasch, if you think the government can do a better job of taking care of you than you yourself can... commit a crime and go to jail for the rest of your life. I myself think I can do a better job of handling my life.

[CamEdwards]

did anybody on this thread come from a low-income neighborhood? is anybody in here not middle class white guy? i really doubt any of you knuckleheads have any proper perspective on this

some people do need tax dollars. i don't think the govt. does a great job of handing them out, but some people do need it

the motto of the GOP should just be f the poor. why beat around the bush?

Let's see, when I was first married I was raising a family of four on a salary of $23,000 a year. That's not exactly middle class. We had one car, we had a three bedroom apartment in a crappy neighborhood.

And yet somehow we managed to do it. Heck, I didn't even take part in the free or reduced lunch program for the kids.

So yes, to answer your question... I've been there. I'm not there any more, but that's due to my working my ass off, not the government taking good care of me.

[Flasch186]

I'm not the one arguing the government should use the Bible as a basis for government programs.


good, then we have something in common....god deeds should come from the heart not because a book tells you to. Unfortunately, I dont think the right (the admin) does good deeds, with or without a book.

[Flasch186]

I'm not the one arguing the government should use the Bible as a basis for government programs.


good, then we have something in common....good deeds should come from the heart not because a book tells you to. Unfortunately, I dont think the right (the admin) does good deeds, with or without a book.

[GrantDawg]

good, then we have something in common.....
Nothing like that line to make me rethink my position.

[timmynausea]

You guys are right. Someone should feed the poor. The church or something, who gives a shit. The point is the government shouldn't feed the poor. Why? Because I don't want to pay for it.
See, the government is supposed to be the place where the policy of a society is determined. Things such as "We shouldn't let people fucking starve to death." And other things too, like "The rich shouldn't pay any taxes."
It's hilarious to me that there are people who are so afraid that if we pass laws to allow gay marriage everything will collapse because God will be angry at our society, but they are completely against our public providing anyone in need with anything. I guess God did say "Let the poor drink the piss that trickles down. Like I really give a shit."

[GrantDawg]

You guys are right. Someone should feed the poor. The church or something, who gives a shit. The point is the government shouldn't feed the poor. Why? Because I don't want to pay for it.
See, the government is supposed to be the place where the policy of a society is determined. Things such as "We shouldn't let people fucking starve to death." And other things too, like "The rich shouldn't pay any taxes."
It's hilarious to me that there are people who are so afraid that if we pass laws to allow gay marriage everything will collapse because God will be angry at our society, but they are completely against our public providing anyone in need with anything. I guess God did say "Let the poor drink the piss that trickles down. Like I really give a shit."
What I think is sad is the supposed enlightened, educated liberal elite really are stupid enough to believe that people think this way.

[Ksyrup]

I guess God did say "Let the poor drink the piss that trickles down. Like I really give a shit."
Scrptr psg pls k thx

[albionmoonlight]

It's not the job of the government to . . .
Cam--

In general, I agree somewhat and disagree somewhat with you over the proper role of government. Probably more disagree than agree, but I don't think that either of us is going to change the other's mind today and this thread is getting a bit bogged down for my taste anyway.

I wanted to point out, however, that your argument is a bit circular in that your premise (it is not the government's job . . .) is the same as your conclusion (therefore, the government should not provide . . .).

It seems that the heart of this whole debate is what is or is not the government's job. As I stated above, we all gave up a bit of our freedom to join a society. What that society does is up to us. There is no proper or improper role for the government per se (leaving aside extreme examples like government sponsored genocide, etc.).

One could argue (as you do) that the government should not provide free health care because 1.) it provides disincentives for people to be productive, 2.) It encourages overconsumption of health care, 3.) The government is very inefficient, etc. That's a reasonable position. I just want to clarify that in my mind there is nothing inherent about being a government that makes it wrong to provide healthcare (BTW--just using that as an example of social welfare programs generally; not trying to play the "sick baby" sympathy card). It just may not be the best decision to do it.

There are lots of things that governments provide (roads, schools, utilities, trash collection, foreign aid, national defense, tax breaks to facilitate the purchase of new equipment, etc., etc., etc.). Depending on where one falls on the libertarian/socialist spectrum, one may believe that none, some, or all of those are the "job" of government. However, that conclusion is just that, a conclusion--not a premise.

[Ben E Lou]

did anybody on this thread come from a low-income neighborhood?{Raises hand} is anybody in here not middle class white guy?{Raises hand again}

[albionmoonlight]

{Raises hand} {Raises hand again}
*Tickles SkyDog under the arms and runs away giggling like a schoolgirl*

[Franklinnoble]

I'm a middle-class white guy, but I got there under my own steam, thankyouverymuch.

I left home at 17, dropped out of college at 19, and lived in a low-income neighborhood making minimum wage until I was about 22. Don't assume that just because someone's middle class that they didn't earn it.

[Fritz]

{Raises hand} {Raises hand again}

tugs skydogs ample star spangles speedos to the floor and runs away like a tittering schoolgirl.

[Fritz]

is anybody in here not middle class white guy? i really doubt any of you knuckleheads have any proper perspective on this

Saying I don't have any perspective because I am knuckleheaded middle class white guy is uttlerly jackassish, not to mention devoid of any original thought.

I'll tell you what gives me perspective - a 40% tax bracket.

[gstelmack]

I left home at 17, dropped out of college at 19, and lived in a low-income neighborhood making minimum wage until I was about 22. Don't assume that just because someone's middle class that they didn't earn it.
Ding ding ding ding ding! I have to go find those statistics again that pointed out how much movement up/down the economic scale there really is in this country. Sure, some people start in poverty and end up in poverty, and some people are living off daddy's money, but a fairly significant chunk of people follow the American Dream both up and down the economic food chain. Sure, the absolute number of poor may not appear to change, but many of those poor (or children of those poor) pull themselves up to a higher status, while many of those in a higher status manage to slide down. That's the beauty of our system.

It's those that expect the government to pull them up out of poverty and hand them a middle-class living environment that I don't agree with.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Thanks Cam, you saved me a lot of typing up there :)

You also covered the ground well enough that I can safely leave this thread now.
Considering Fritz just pantsed SD, I don't know if I want to stick around any longer than I have to :)

[Ksyrup]

tugs skydogs ample star spangles speedos to the floor and runs away like a tittering schoolgirl.
no pcs pls k thx

[Qwikshot]

This is so over my head, but I have to ask:

What is the function of our government, if it is not meant to aid us?

Is it simply to provide security, to create and debate laws which affect our citizens, and provide a judicial court to enforce those laws?

Please don't slam me, maybe I'm just a naive unenlightened man.

But from the arguments here, it seems most are vehemently against social programs. Or at least frivilous spending in social programs?

[duckman]

I heart Cam. :)

Does making less than 700 a month and living with relatives count as poverty?

[Fritz]

I heart Cam. :)

Does making less than 700 a month and living with relatives count as poverty?

did they buy you a bitchin Camero?

[duckman]

did they buy you a bitchin Camero?
Nope. I got a rusty old 89 Ford Tempo. Smokin'!

[Bee]

This is so over my head, but I have to ask:

What is the function of our government, if it is not meant to aid us?



To tax you until you bleed. (and then tax your blood)

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is so over my head, but I have to ask:

What is the function of our government, if it is not meant to aid us?

Is it simply to provide security, to create and debate laws which affect our citizens, and provide a judicial court to enforce those laws?

Sing it like you mean it :)

We the people
In order to form a more perfect union,
Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
Provide for the common defense,
Promote the general welfare and
Secure the blessings of liberty
To ourselves and our posterity
Do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7316/Prea.html

[Fritz]

Nope. I got a rusty old 89 Ford Tempo. Smokin'!
chx dig tempos

[rkmsuf]

He drew one of the biggest responses when he said: "The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not be eating in the kitchen."


The man does know how to speak....if nothing else.

I was kind of partial to this part:

"He rescued Jonah-ah from the whale-ah! He rescued Daniel-ah from the Lion's Den-ah! He got Gilligaaaaan-ah off the Island!"

[Bee]

Sing it like you mean it :)

We the people
In order to form a more perfect union,
Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
Provide for the common defense,
Promote the general welfare and
Secure the blessings of liberty
To ourselves and our posterity
Do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7316/Prea.html

You left out the tax you until you bleed part.

[Qwikshot]

So what exactly is general welfare then?

[Ksyrup]

Promote the welfare state
Well, there you go!

[Huckleberry]

What does "promote the general welfare" mean? And "provide for the...general welfare" (Article I, Section 8)?

[Fritz]

So what exactly is general welfare then?

something your promote, not provide.

I think of it like this: the govt should make a poster that promotes teeth brushing. they shouldn't have a guy come by and do it for me.

[duckman]

chx dig tempos
Yeah, the hookers seem to like it.

[Qwikshot]

something your promote, not provide.

I think of it like this: the govt should make a poster that promotes teeth brushing. they shouldn't have a guy come by and do it for me.
Well they put fluoride in the drinking water correct.

So would the majority simply remove welfare in general?
Would the majority be against a national health plan?
Would the majority want a less powerful central government, and more powerful state's rights?

To me general welfare is a very broad spectrum, and largely debate driven.

[cuervo72]

This thread is gettin me a hankerin for government cheese!!!

[Fritz]

qwikshot - seriously, I think you are looking at the word welfare with 20th century eyes.

in any case, its the preamble

[Easy Mac]

something your promote, not provide.

I think of it like this: the govt should make a poster that promotes teeth brushing. they shouldn't have a guy come by and do it for me.
I don't think they thought of promote as the we think of it now... i.e. as a Godzilla 2000 poster.

[Fritz]

I don't think they thought of promote as the we think of it now... i.e. as a Godzilla 2000 poster.

I was being flip. The founders were big on ideals and not so big on obligations. I would read promote as something non-obligatory where provide is obligatory.

[cuervo72]

qwikshot - seriously, I think you are looking at the word welfare with 20th century eyes.

in any case, its the preamble

Is he a 20th Century Boy?

[Franklinnoble]

Well they put fluoride in the drinking water correct.

Actually, I'm on well and septic, so, no.

For those on municipal water, that's managed at the local level. Oh, and you're still taxed for that service... (or you pay a water bill) it isn't free.

It's sort of like how the government requires fortification in bread and other foods... you still have to buy the damned food... they just make sure you get some basic essential vitamins with it.

A high school education is free in this country. With that, ANYBODY who's not seriously physically or mentally handicapped can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make something of themselves. The problem is, too many people fuck up the opportunities they have, and then all they want is for the government to feed their lazy asses.

[Qwikshot]

I guess I'm very naive. For that I truly apologize.

To me, Fritz your quote, "The founders were big on ideals and not so big on obligations." Well then to me it sounds like our forefathers were very much your typical politicians.

What is the change between a 20th Century view (which I doubt this was a 20th century view maybe earlier) and a 21st Century view on public welfare?

I guess I'd rather be a 20th Century boy than a 20th Century fox but what do I know.

How progressive is the United States then?

[Huckleberry]

something your promote, not provide.

I think of it like this: the govt should make a poster that promotes teeth brushing. they shouldn't have a guy come by and do it for me.

in any case, its the preamble

I was being flip. The founders were big on ideals and not so big on obligations. I would read promote as something non-obligatory where provide is obligatory.

Take a look at Article I, Section 8 as I noted above. The Constitution specifically states that it is within the scope of the Congress to provide for the general welfare. Provide, not promote. And not the preamble.

[Ksyrup]

This thread is gettin me a hankerin for government cheese!!!
Isn't that gub'ment?

[Vegas Vic]

The best Sharpton quote of the evening was his reference to the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

"If George Bush had appointed the Supreme Court in 1954, then Clarence Thomas would have never made it to law school."

That one had me rolling.

Say what you will about Sharpton, but I guarantee you that he's the only Democrat OR Republican that will speak from the heart at both conventions. Everyone else is too concerned with getting the 10% swing vote.

[CamEdwards]

Take a look at Article I, Section 8 as I noted above. The Constitution specifically states that it is within the scope of the Congress to provide for the general welfare. Provide, not promote. And not the preamble.

Take a look at the entire Section. The clauses specifically note what the taxes should be used for. I seem to be missing anything relating to healthcare, or food, or housing.

[robbgmaier]

As my dear friend Zia Mahmood once said, "There are those that are willing to work, and there are those that are willing to let them." Please don't make to much noise on your way out in the morning.

[Easy Mac]

Take a look at the entire Section. The clauses specifically note what the taxes should be used for. I seem to be missing anything relating to healthcare, or food, or housing.
There's a reason they used semicolons instead of a colon... it doesn't say x+y=z, it says x+y+z.... each clause is an entity upon itself.

[rexallllsc]

He drew one of the biggest responses when he said: "The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not be eating in the kitchen."

It is?

[Buccaneer]

If just a small percentage of us took time and money from our self-centered lives to care for those in need around us, there would be no need for govt welfare. Instead, we got lazy and expected the govt to do so. The consequence is that we gave up personal responsibilities and got more federal power instead - and there still is about the same percentage of those in the "poverty" level as when we spent our first trillion in redistribution.

[Dutch]

did anybody on this thread come from a low-income neighborhood? is anybody in here not middle class white guy? i really doubt any of you knuckleheads have any proper perspective on this

some people do need tax dollars. i don't think the govt. does a great job of handing them out, but some people do need it

the motto of the GOP should just be f the poor. why beat around the bush?

Let me try this one on you. If people who make 50k or more a year vote Republican, and people who make less than 40k a year vote Democrat.

Do Republicans want more rich people in America or less? Do the Democrats want more poor people in America or less? Think about it.

[Noop]

I read this whole thread. I get the feeling when I read someone say they are to lazy to work I think this person meant to say these black people are to lazy to work. Funny thing is most of you whole came from rags to riches so to speak are white males. Meaning you had an easier time making to where you were/are today. Might seem narrow-minded but just like the other discussion about the way you talk.(You know if you talk like a 'thug' they won't hire and stuff like that) So just like that discussion where the way you talk is a factor much is your skin color one also... Also for the person who said blacks vote for Democrats over the right even though nothing has changed it is quite simply either way blacks vote they still won't get anything either they need to vote for a third party or rally all together so that their votes can be 100% in favor of one party and threaten for changes if they need them.

*Note Noop is not a racist just calling it how it is.... also all grammar or misspelling should be blamed on the teachers, media and the rapppers. Thank You.*

[GrantDawg]

I read this whole thread. I get the feeling when I read someone say they are to lazy to work I think this person meant to say these black people are to lazy to work.
That's part of the problem, Noop. You hear color when color is not mentioned. There are more white people who are too lazy to work than there are black people. There are more whites on the welfare roles than there are blacks. There are more whites below the poverty line than there are blacks. This has nothing at all to do with race, but it is a great way to silence a debate by calling "racism" when it is not involved.

[Arles]

Also for the person who said blacks vote for Democrats over the right even though nothing has changed it is quite simply either way blacks vote they still won't get anything either they need to vote for a third party or rally all together so that their votes can be 100% in favor of one party and threaten for changes if they need them.
How about Blacks vote closer to 50/50, with each person making an individual decision on which candidate better represents their interest?

[cuervo72]

I read this whole thread. I get the feeling when I read someone say they are to lazy to work I think this person meant to say these black people are to lazy to work. Funny thing is most of you whole came from rags to riches so to speak are white males. Meaning you had an easier time making to where you were/are today.

FWIW Noop, my aunt (on my mother's side) was too lazy to finish school, too lazy to hold onto even a job at Dunkin Donuts, and was content to sit her behind at my grandmother's house until my grandmother died. Oh, she's been plenty happy to collect welfare though (and later, child support I assume). My mother's other siblings...well, one brother has been in and out of jail for the past 30 years and has drug and alcohol problems, and the other brother died I think from a heart attack about a decade ago (he's the one who was once stabbed by a girlfriend of his). I fault them as much as anyone for not having any work ethic, not valuing education, and being all too willing to leech off of others. Somehow my mother escaped this (she tells a story of how she had to buy her own bedroom set as a teen) and was willing to work and valued an education (at least enough to finish school, and to stress the importance of school to me).

So I think of these examples as well when discussing this topic.

[timmynausea]

If just a small percentage of us took time and money from our self-centered lives to care for those in need around us, there would be no need for govt welfare. Instead, we got lazy and expected the govt to do so. The consequence is that we gave up personal responsibilities and got more federal power instead - and there still is about the same percentage of those in the "poverty" level as when we spent our first trillion in redistribution.

Some of us think that helping the people that need help is a high enough priority that we want to employ our government, which by definition in a democracy is the forum we utilize to decide our policies on a national level, to systematically ensure that people will not starve to death, that the mentally ill will get the help they need, that homeless people will have some place warm to sleep, etc.
To me it's not an issue of whether or not individuals are too lazy to give to charities and/or help the people around them. It's about making sure noone slips through the cracks. It's about preventing suffering because we care about the people around us.
I really think all the anti-government rhetoric exists because a smaller government and lower taxes serve corporate and other monied interests first and foremost.
Ideally, we are the government. I realize that we don't take part in a true democracy, but our votes go a long way toward shaping public policy. Our government exists to enforce the will of the public. The majority of it, anyway.
In spite of this, people insist on blaming the government and taxes for everything, and I don't buy it. The system has its flaws and corruptions, to be sure. The problem with our government, however, is not the government itself, and not all government spending, but the influence that big business has on it. All the people that rail against the government are going after the puppet instead of the puppeteer.
Getting back to the topic at hand, though, I found this Arianna Huffington quote that I think suits this discussion (in a different sense than the bulk of what I've said), and I'll leave it at that:

Which is the true political morality? Opposing gay rights and abortion or heeding the Biblical admonition, “We shall be judged by what we do for the least among us”?

[GrantDawg]

I really think all the anti-government rhetoric exists because a smaller government and lower taxes serve corporate and other monied interests first and foremost.


But the people here wanting smaller government are not either of those two things! Do you think that they just sold their brain functions to corporations? Or could it be possibily that they actually believe there is a better way to handle problems than running to Washington with them?

[timmynausea]

But the people here wanting smaller government are not either of those two things! Do you think that they just sold their brain functions to corporations? Or could it be possibily that they actually believe there is a better way to handle problems than running to Washington with them?

I merely said that I think that's why it exists. In other words, corporations and the wealthy came up with these ideologies. Obviously many people currently hold that view and they blame the government and government spending for everything when they should really blame the same monied interests that created the ideology they claim as their own.
As an example, and I don't have the actual stats handy, but since 1980 corporate profits have escalated ridiculously while middle class wages have stagnated or gone down when you adjust for inflation. Right now people are blaming Bush for their jobs being shipped overseas or Clinton for NAFTA causing the same. In both cases there is some blame to be directed at the politicians but look at who benefits instead of which party causes what. The government isn't inherently the problem. The influence these big businesses have is the source of all the corruption and all of the problems in Washington.
Aside from that I don't let petty ideologies get in the way of my belief that people in the richest country in the world should not starve to death and that laws should be passed and programs enabled that prevent this from ever happening.

[GrantDawg]

I merely said that I think that's why it exists. In other words, corporations and the wealthy came up with these ideologies. Obviously many people currently hold that view and they blame the government and government spending for everything when they should really blame the same monied interests that created the ideology they claim as their own.
As an example, and I don't have the actual stats handy, but since 1980 corporate profits have escalated ridiculously while middle class wages have stagnated or gone down when you adjust for inflation. Right now people are blaming Bush for their jobs being shipped overseas or Clinton for NAFTA causing the same. In both cases there is some blame to be directed at the politicians but look at who benefits instead of which party causes what. The government isn't inherently the problem. The influence these big businesses have is the source of all the corruption and all of the problems in Washington.
Aside from that I don't let petty ideologies get in the way of my belief that people in the richest country in the world should not starve to death and that laws should be passed and programs enabled that prevent this from ever happening.

You don't believe that people could have come up with the idea of less intrusive government without being influenced by "monied interests?"

Since we are talking about beliefs...my belief is that people in the richest country in world should not starve to death but the government is not the only/best solution to prevent it from happening.

[randal7]

I promise myself to stay out of these discussions, but sometimes I cannot help myself...


Which is the true political morality? Opposing gay rights and abortion or heeding the Biblical admonition, “We shall be judged by what we do for the least among us”?

Who better fits the description of "least among us" than an unborn child about to die because he/she is an inconvenience to his/her parents?

[Fritz]

noop, there is some strong credibility to your comments.

my question is then, who was Al Sharpton talking about? Was he saying the role of the government is to feed blacks?

----------
FWIW, I think that is exactly what he was saying.

[Francis_Cole]

nice speach writers he has then ;)

[Thomkal]

I try to stay out of these political threads, but Al Sharpton disgusts me. I lived in the town/area where the whole Tawana Bradley hoax took place, and we were friends with her ex-boyfriend who lived three houses down from us. The fact that Sharpton has never owned up to his role in the hoax should be enough for anyone not to vote for him. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[SFL Cat]

I merely said that I think that's why it exists. In other words, corporations and the wealthy came up with these ideologies.

Pure communist class warfare propoganda. If you check history, I think you'll find that a sizable number of the existing charities in this country were founded by "wealthy" people who wanted to give back to their communities. In my experience, wealthy people can be the most generous people I have met. Jim Moran (founder of Southeast Toyota) is one of the richest men in South Florida, he is also one of most gracious charitable givers I have ever seen. He donates untold millions out of his pocket each year to various charitable works in this community, and he does so because he feels an obligation to share his good fortune with others in the community.

I'm not trying to paint all rich folks as saints, but neither do I demonize them all like Democrats try to do. In my experience, if you're an SOB when you're a regular joe, you'll be a SOB when you're rich as well...and vice-versa...if you're a decent, giving, human being when you're a regular joe, you'll be a decent human being when you are rich.


Obviously many people currently hold that view and they blame the government and government spending for everything when they should really blame the same monied interests that created the ideology they claim as their own.
As an example, and I don't have the actual stats handy, but since 1980 corporate profits have escalated ridiculously while middle class wages have stagnated or gone down when you adjust for inflation. Right now people are blaming Bush for their jobs being shipped overseas or Clinton for NAFTA causing the same. In both cases there is some blame to be directed at the politicians but look at who benefits instead of which party causes what
The government isn't inherently the problem. The influence these big businesses have is the source of all the corruption and all of the problems in Washington.
I find it interesting that people who are rightly cautious toward the motives and actions of big business seem to be completely trusting of an equally monolithic and ,IMO, much less trustworthy government bureacracy.

Do you really think some government bean-counter in Washington, DC (who has probably never even heard of the place you live) the most qualified person to solve problems facing your community? In most cases, I would probably have to say no -- that is why local and state governments exist.

[Noop]

noop, there is some strong credibility to your comments.

my question is then, who was Al Sharpton talking about? Was he saying the role of the government is to feed blacks?

----------
FWIW, I think that is exactly what he was saying.
In my opinion people like Al Sharpton and Co. really slow down whatever movement that is being made for the minority in America. So what he said to me is all B.S. and means nothing other then to show the folks who he has been robbing that he has been making some moves for them. There comes a time when talking does nothing. I personally believe in this way of thinking, " I refuse to conform to a way of thinking, living and being just because it will keep things moving along at a snails pace." Now I know most will read this and think I am flawed in my thinking which maybe the case in the long run. Obama from Illinois has me re-thinking my views on "Uncle Tom" negros because when he spoke the other night I saw the future President of the USA who will not alienate those extreme racist people of this country. I am now researching his life in order to get a view of his road to glory. Hmm I am jumping off topic... anyway I don't like Al Sharpton and the snails pace he moves at...

GrantDawg - I didnt hear color I can read... but in mind it seems like the person meant to say blacks. Because most racist white people call black people lazy and what not...( I am not calling the person who said the comment racist)

Arles - It does not matter one bit. If all the blacks vote for Bush then what? Nothing. Keep voting the same way then what? Nothing. Can not gain anything because the supposed leadership is corrupt.