Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
I brought religion into this discussion because, when considering the case of the poor, the Bible has a lot to say about it. Also, most Republicans are Bible-thumping Christians, are they not? So it applies. And one would think the Bible's teachings & sentiments on this subject would influence their attitudes, political as well as private. It would appear, however, that other Biblical themes (particularly the Mosaic ones) get most of their attention.
I don't even claim to be a Christian. I ought not to know more about the Bible than most of these fundamentalist-types. And I didn't write the Bible, so I can't take the blame for what it says. If Jesus and his disciples were bleeding hearts, or too lazy and irresponsible to work, as O'Reilly would have it, or not worthy of compassion, as Limbaugh suggests, or perhaps ought to be kicked around a bit, as Beck thinks....or if the poor, rather than being blessed or held in esteem, are the scum of the Earth which deserved to be washed away by Katrina because they didn't have enough sense to leave the city...well, I can't help it if the Bible you purport to believe in & abide by rather condemns your point of view.
But when did the "man of sorrows" ever catch a break?
my point to you again, is not that some may need the care from others, but where do you see in our constitution that it is the responsibility of the federal government to give this kind of care?
It comes down to democrats/socialists, who believe the federal government should be more and more responsible for the people, and take more and more of our money to do it or conservatives/libertarians, who believe that the federal government should have a very limited role in our lives.
There are many ways in which a society can and should take care of its poor and others that need caring for... but where is it written that society = federal government?
Also, like AD was trying to point out, it is more likely that the so called bible thumpers give far more to charitable concerns than you and your socialist friends ever thought about giving?
Just re reading some of your comments... it is clear that you have a complete misunderstanding of our (conservative if you will) views.... is it not possible for us to have compassion yet still believe that it is not the federal governments responsibility????
Its really that simple, we want to take care of the poor, we just dont want our federal government to be the solution!
Czuch: If all the bible thumpers & goverments of there own countrys.Would help there own.Then that would be a start to get this whole world working together.In stead of blowing all that money on BS
The Usurper: So I see lmbo! I dont know anything about American politics. Its very interesting reading this board though lol. I think goveraments are the same all over the world. Only some are more corrupt than others. It does,nt matter who gets in most look out for number one.