Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Every so often, an op-ed piece comes along that perfectly nails how I feel. <a href="http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/tea-party-protest-2010-031610" target="_blank">http://www.esquire.com/the-sid...0-031610</a> A little excerpt (but read the whole piece): >>Here's another lie that we are being fed these days: the idea that the real America is a place where freedom is the only value, where each rugged individual should rely on himself alone. This is the idea behind the cries of socialism. It is the idea behind the claims that the American Constitution gives the government no authority to regulate health care, an argument that has spread from fringe revolutionaries in the "Patriot" militias to the Wall Street Journal. It is the idea behind Glenn Beck's spectacularly bizarre attack on Christianity itself last week, when he told his viewers that the words "social justice" were code for communism and Nazism — never mind all that corny stuff in the Bible like "what you have done for the least of my brethren, you have done it for me" and "one who is gracious to the poor man lends to the Lord." But in fact, selfishness is not the American Way, and never has been. Way back in colonial times, Americans spent between "10 and 35 percent of all municipal funds" on what was then called "relief," according to Walter I. Trattner's standard textbook on the subject, From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America. Aid to the poor and sick was the largest single government expense<<
Originally Posted By pecos bill Common decency toward the less fortunate, what a concept! Sadly, a feeling most republicans have no grasp of. For me, it's hard to engage in conversation with people of this ilk, after five minutes of their ceaseless rantings I find myself wanting to spit in their faces.
Originally Posted By utahjosh It's the "forced" charity that is the problem, not charity itself with these people.
Originally Posted By mele I guess Glenn Beck is okay with "forced" charity if it's "celestial law" and enforced by a church instead of the government.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Right, because you need to be there so they can thank you.> NO. Sorry, try again.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <I guess Glenn Beck is okay with "forced" charity if it's "celestial law" and enforced by a church instead of the government.> Being a member of a church is completely voluntary. Beyond that, participating in the program is completely voluntary. Allowing the agency to choose is a major part of our beliefs.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo That's what elections and propositions should be for. Humans are savages, sometimes enforced collectivity is the only way forward. Otherwise, we would live in anarchy.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> It's the "forced" charity that is the problem, not charity itself with these people. << Elaborate please. Within the context of this thread, "forced charity" may be referring to taxes for providing services to the poor, sick and elderly. That's a problem? That's "socialism"?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That's a problem? That's "socialism"?<< Yes. Eisenhower was a socialist. That's precisely what Josh means.
