The Left and One Party Rule

Bassman said:
Folks, I have a couple of questions I would like to throw at you.

1) Do Liberals really think that by eliminating the Conservative voice in America, that everything would be fine?

2) Where would Conservatives fit in modern America?

I qualify that last question as I think that to be a Conservative, you cannot adopt the so-called "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" copout.
Click to expand...

I would absolutely be against an end to two party rule. In fact I would like to see more parties. How about an environmental party? how about a big business party? How about a transportation party? The possibilities are endless. The British do very well with coalition politics.

Conservatives have behaved like children, plundering the middle class for the sake of building an aristocratic society for the 1%. Throughout history, people have been trying to get rid of some form of upper class. Fine, let the conservatives start their own party. I don't think it will work. They don't work well with anyone. It is always their way or the high way. I say get them down, and keep them down. Conservatives are self-serving, and greedy. They do not contribute to innovation or progress. We need to keep them off our backs.

We do not need to nationalize every industry, but any company with more than 250 employees should have two members of the Board of Directors appointed by POTUS for as long as the president is in office. You can not trust the righties, we have to monitor their activities every day from the inside organizations.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
When you finally decide to bring up something of revelance to the US, please let everyone know.
Click to expand...

It is relevant to the US, or rather, relevant to you and this conversation. You keep referring to the lazy people who don't want to work and I'm showing you a social program that could solve the problem. Send a person for a job and determine if they are, indeed, lazy. Simple, efficient solution.
 
apple0154 said:
It's only insanity when people are dying by the truck load every day from hunger and disease when we can help them.
Click to expand...
Better if they got off their lazy ass before it came to that!!

FYI that isn't happening here in the USA, greatest nation on earth!
 
apple0154 said:
It is relevant to the US, or rather, relevant to you and this conversation. You keep referring to the lazy people who don't want to work and I'm showing you a social program that could solve the problem. Send a person for a job and determine if they are, indeed, lazy. Simple, efficient solution.
Click to expand...
A fucking EUSSR program has no place in the civilized USA, Greatest nation on earth.
Your failed ideas didn't work in your backward countries , why do you wish to force them on the USA, Greatest nation on earth?
 
Shy Guy said:
Do you have any evidence of that occurring?
Click to expand...
Yup.
It's called welfare, EBT, section 8, foodstamps and all the rest.
You deny it?
We proved your retardation earlier, now it's your turn!!!!!
Come on retardo, show us how fucking retarded you are!
 
apple0154 said:
It is relevant to the US, or rather, relevant to you and this conversation. You keep referring to the lazy people who don't want to work and I'm showing you a social program that could solve the problem. Send a person for a job and determine if they are, indeed, lazy. Simple, efficient solution.
Click to expand...

That would require a change in laws, within the US; because welfare doesn't require that a person attempt to work.
 
007 said:
Better if they got off their lazy ass before it came to that!!

FYI that isn't happening here in the USA, greatest nation on earth!
Click to expand...

We are talking about the US AND "mutual aid"/social programs, in general. Your position is those things haven't worked so far so why try them again. My point is the way they were tried was the problem assuming they were tried at all. In most cases it was one tyrant taking over another and using that description/those words to gain leadership/followers.

Society advances by people supporting each other. Just as there are safeguards so people don't abuse unemployment insurance there is no reason similar safeguards can not be implemented regarding a guaranteed wage/welfare. If someone is suspected of being lazy give them a job and see what happens. What could be more simple?
 
apple0154 said:
We are talking about the US AND "mutual aid"/social programs, in general. Your position is those things haven't worked so far so why try them again. My point is the way they were tried was the problem assuming they were tried at all. In most cases it was one tyrant taking over another and using that description/those words to gain leadership/followers.

Society advances by people supporting each other. Just as there are safeguards so people don't abuse unemployment insurance there is no reason similar safeguards can not be implemented regarding a guaranteed wage/welfare. If someone is suspected of being lazy give them a job and see what happens. What could be more simple?
Click to expand...
If society advanced as you claim, explain why the Roman Empire collapsed?

Too much welfare!

Keep trying the failed ideas, eventually they will work!!

Field Marshall Haigh told the lads, walk across no mans land, light your pipes , kick a football!
The Germans will offer no resistance!
The survivors never listened to that one again, instead They changed tactics locally.
Standing patrols, snipers, grenadiers, changed tactics, fire and manouver in section, fire team, pairs and individual format!
Keep running into machine gun fire is insane, walking with a soccer ball and pipe is still insane.
Liberal ideas are too insane!
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
http://www.crown.org/LIBRARY/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=586

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending
Click to expand...

Excerpts from first article.

(Excerpt) “Welfare at every level, from the inner city to the elderly, is in reality destroying the morale as well as the economic base of our nation.”(End)

Welfare for the elderly is destroying morale? There’s enough craziness right there for the normal individual to stop reading but being a glutton for punishment I continued on.

(Excerpt) “If the church would fully accept its responsibility to help and to supply assistance to those who are in need, there would be no need for “good Samaritan” organizations or government assistance. However, because the church has “dropped the ball,” the government has had to step in and provide the assistance needed.”(End)

The church dropped the ball? Is this a SNL skit?

(Excerpt) “It is important to understand that the existing welfare system in America is largely a failure. The federal government spends a tremendous amount of money on the poverty-stricken, and yet doesn't make any significant progress toward reducing the ranks of the poor.”(End)

That is the biggest lie or, shall we politely say, misconception ever uttered. Of course welfare programs have helped. The definition of poverty has changed. As society progresses not only does the definition of poverty change but the consequences, as well.

Fifty years ago students didn’t need a computer. Today, they do. One hundred years ago people didn’t require a lot of money for medication because there wasn’t a lot of medication. The rich and not so rich, assuming they had sufficient food, enjoyed similar longevity.

Poverty is not a set number. It is the relationship between people so as certain groups of people become extremely wealthy other groups of people will become extremely poor. It is the relationship between people that the authors are unable to grasp.

I’ll just comment on one excerpt from the second article as it sums up the mentality of those who oppose welfare.

(Excerpt) “Those who oppose replacing government welfare with private charity often argue that there will not be enough charitable giving to make up for the loss of government benefits. However, that assumes that private charity would simply recreate existing government programs. But the advantage of private and decentralized charity is that less expensive and more innovative ways of helping smaller groups of truly needy people would be developed.

If large amounts of aid continue to be needed, there is every reason to believe that charitable giving in the nation would increase in the absence of government welfare.” (End)

Stated another way if the people are left to starve charities will think of something. And if “something” is not found? No worry. They’re sure people will happily dig a little deeper in their pockets.

Where do these people come up with such crazy ideas? The first word that comes to mind is unbounded ignorance. History has shown us what happens when there are no government programs. History has shown us what happens when things are left to private charities. That’s why government programs were implemented.

They lay out a case as if the world started in the 1930s. The Lord rested on the seventh day and government created social programs on the eighth day. They conveniently forget the poverty people endured prior to 1930, prior to social programs, a time when churches and charities supposedly looked after the people.

Welfare/social programs may not work efficiently but we know that the alternative, no welfare/social programs result in unspeakable misery. I wonder if the authors of these and similar articles ever picked up a history book. It would appear not!
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
Excerpts from first article.

(Excerpt) “Welfare at every level, from the inner city to the elderly, is in reality destroying the morale as well as the economic base of our nation.”(End)

Welfare for the elderly is destroying morale? There’s enough craziness right there for the normal individual to stop reading but being a glutton for punishment I continued on.

(Excerpt) “If the church would fully accept its responsibility to help and to supply assistance to those who are in need, there would be no need for “good Samaritan” organizations or government assistance. However, because the church has “dropped the ball,” the government has had to step in and provide the assistance needed.”(End)

The church dropped the ball? Is this a SNL skit?

(Excerpt) “It is important to understand that the existing welfare system in America is largely a failure. The federal government spends a tremendous amount of money on the poverty-stricken, and yet doesn't make any significant progress toward reducing the ranks of the poor.”(End)

That is the biggest lie or, shall we politely say, misconception ever uttered. Of course welfare programs have helped. The definition of poverty has changed. As society progresses not only does the definition of poverty change but the consequences, as well.

Fifty years ago students didn’t need a computer. Today, they do. One hundred years ago people didn’t require a lot of money for medication because there wasn’t a lot of medication. The rich and not so rich, assuming they had sufficient food, enjoyed similar longevity.

Poverty is not a set number. It is the relationship between people so as certain groups of people become extremely wealthy other groups of people will become extremely poor. It is the relationship between people that the authors are unable to grasp.

I’ll just comment on one excerpt from the second article as it sums up the mentality of those who oppose welfare.

(Excerpt) “Those who oppose replacing government welfare with private charity often argue that there will not be enough charitable giving to make up for the loss of government benefits. However, that assumes that private charity would simply recreate existing government programs. But the advantage of private and decentralized charity is that less expensive and more innovative ways of helping smaller groups of truly needy people would be developed.

If large amounts of aid continue to be needed, there is every reason to believe that charitable giving in the nation would increase in the absence of government welfare.” (End)

Stated another way if the people are left to starve charities will think of something. And if “something” is not found? No worry. They’re sure people will happily dig a little deeper in their pickets.

Where do these people come up with such crazy ideas? The first word that comes to mind is unbounded ignorance. History has shown us what happens when there are no government programs. History has shown us what happens when things are left to private charities. That’s why government programs were implemented.

They lay out a case as if the world started in the 1930s. The Lord rested on the seventh day and government created social programs on the eighth day. They conveniently forget the poverty people endured prior to 1930, prior to social programs, a time when churches and charities supposedly looked after the people.

Welfare/social programs may not work efficiently but we know that the alternative, no welfare/social programs result in unspeakable misery. I wonder if the authors of these and similar articles ever picked up a history book. It would appear not!
Click to expand...

Jeebus, you are patient, I remember the words of my good friend, Zoom, " I don't suffer fools". By the way, he is well and still going strong!
 
apple0154 said:
Excerpts from first article.

(Excerpt) “Welfare at every level, from the inner city to the elderly, is in reality destroying the morale as well as the economic base of our nation.”(End)

Welfare for the elderly is destroying morale? There’s enough craziness right there for the normal individual to stop reading but being a glutton for punishment I continued on.

(Excerpt) “If the church would fully accept its responsibility to help and to supply assistance to those who are in need, there would be no need for “good Samaritan” organizations or government assistance. However, because the church has “dropped the ball,” the government has had to step in and provide the assistance needed.”(End)

The church dropped the ball? Is this a SNL skit?

(Excerpt) “It is important to understand that the existing welfare system in America is largely a failure. The federal government spends a tremendous amount of money on the poverty-stricken, and yet doesn't make any significant progress toward reducing the ranks of the poor.”(End)

That is the biggest lie or, shall we politely say, misconception ever uttered. Of course welfare programs have helped. The definition of poverty has changed. As society progresses not only does the definition of poverty change but the consequences, as well.

Fifty years ago students didn’t need a computer. Today, they do. One hundred years ago people didn’t require a lot of money for medication because there wasn’t a lot of medication. The rich and not so rich, assuming they had sufficient food, enjoyed similar longevity.

Poverty is not a set number. It is the relationship between people so as certain groups of people become extremely wealthy other groups of people will become extremely poor. It is the relationship between people that the authors are unable to grasp.

I’ll just comment on one excerpt from the second article as it sums up the mentality of those who oppose welfare.

(Excerpt) “Those who oppose replacing government welfare with private charity often argue that there will not be enough charitable giving to make up for the loss of government benefits. However, that assumes that private charity would simply recreate existing government programs. But the advantage of private and decentralized charity is that less expensive and more innovative ways of helping smaller groups of truly needy people would be developed.

If large amounts of aid continue to be needed, there is every reason to believe that charitable giving in the nation would increase in the absence of government welfare.” (End)

Stated another way if the people are left to starve charities will think of something. And if “something” is not found? No worry. They’re sure people will happily dig a little deeper in their pickets.

Where do these people come up with such crazy ideas? The first word that comes to mind is unbounded ignorance. History has shown us what happens when there are no government programs. History has shown us what happens when things are left to private charities. That’s why government programs were implemented.

They lay out a case as if the world started in the 1930s. The Lord rested on the seventh day and government created social programs on the eighth day. They conveniently forget the poverty people endured prior to 1930, prior to social programs, a time when churches and charities supposedly looked after the people.

Welfare/social programs may not work efficiently but we know that the alternative, no welfare/social programs result in unspeakable misery. I wonder if the authors of these and similar articles ever picked up a history book. It would appear not!
Click to expand...
Bollocks, you hate America, you wish to see America bankrupted by welfare!!
It's called envy !
Now go back to your pathetic meaningless life of mediocrity !
Let Americans thrive!!
 
apple0154 said:
Excerpts from first article.

(Excerpt) “Welfare at every level, from the inner city to the elderly, is in reality destroying the morale as well as the economic base of our nation.”(End)

Welfare for the elderly is destroying morale? There’s enough craziness right there for the normal individual to stop reading but being a glutton for punishment I continued on.

(Excerpt) “If the church would fully accept its responsibility to help and to supply assistance to those who are in need, there would be no need for “good Samaritan” organizations or government assistance. However, because the church has “dropped the ball,” the government has had to step in and provide the assistance needed.”(End)

The church dropped the ball? Is this a SNL skit?

(Excerpt) “It is important to understand that the existing welfare system in America is largely a failure. The federal government spends a tremendous amount of money on the poverty-stricken, and yet doesn't make any significant progress toward reducing the ranks of the poor.”(End)

That is the biggest lie or, shall we politely say, misconception ever uttered. Of course welfare programs have helped. The definition of poverty has changed. As society progresses not only does the definition of poverty change but the consequences, as well.

Fifty years ago students didn’t need a computer. Today, they do. One hundred years ago people didn’t require a lot of money for medication because there wasn’t a lot of medication. The rich and not so rich, assuming they had sufficient food, enjoyed similar longevity.

Poverty is not a set number. It is the relationship between people so as certain groups of people become extremely wealthy other groups of people will become extremely poor. It is the relationship between people that the authors are unable to grasp.

I’ll just comment on one excerpt from the second article as it sums up the mentality of those who oppose welfare.

(Excerpt) “Those who oppose replacing government welfare with private charity often argue that there will not be enough charitable giving to make up for the loss of government benefits. However, that assumes that private charity would simply recreate existing government programs. But the advantage of private and decentralized charity is that less expensive and more innovative ways of helping smaller groups of truly needy people would be developed.

If large amounts of aid continue to be needed, there is every reason to believe that charitable giving in the nation would increase in the absence of government welfare.” (End)

Stated another way if the people are left to starve charities will think of something. And if “something” is not found? No worry. They’re sure people will happily dig a little deeper in their pickets.

Where do these people come up with such crazy ideas? The first word that comes to mind is unbounded ignorance. History has shown us what happens when there are no government programs. History has shown us what happens when things are left to private charities. That’s why government programs were implemented.

They lay out a case as if the world started in the 1930s. The Lord rested on the seventh day and government created social programs on the eighth day. They conveniently forget the poverty people endured prior to 1930, prior to social programs, a time when churches and charities supposedly looked after the people.

Welfare/social programs may not work efficiently but we know that the alternative, no welfare/social programs result in unspeakable misery. I wonder if the authors of these and similar articles ever picked up a history book. It would appear not!
Click to expand...

But you're someone who wants a society based on Star Trek, so your entire diatribe is dismissed.
 
Rana said:
Jeebus, you are patient, I remember the words of my good friend, Zoom, " I don't suffer fools". By the way, he is well and still going strong!
Click to expand...

Great news re: Zoom! It's been couple of months since I heard from him. He had a way of straightening people out. HA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top