Surprisingly, my last post, in which I merely copied and pasted something I received in my e-mail received a lot of comments. It featured several quotes by Hillary Clinton that appear to be paraphrased quotes from Marx and Engles' "Communist Manifesto" , and would suggest by these quotations that Hillary is a Communist. I began to add another comment but chose instead to just create another post to explain what I believe to be Hillary's real agenda.
I don't know how any of us can really know what Hillary thinks for real. Everything she says, or does, is calculated specifically to get herself elected. She says what she believes the majority of people want to hear.
We (and she) can easily see how much class envy effects people emotionally. Hillary recognizes how many people have class envy, and she exploits it. So do most Democrats. She is just particularly good at manipulating the people most severely effected.
For those of you in Rio Linda, Class envy is a pejorative term sometimes used to describe resentment of the rich and powerful by the poor and less powerful. The basis of class envy is a perception that the wealthy don't deserve to have the money they have earned, and that they have oppressed the poor to expand their power and influence. This resentment is usually not deserved.
Sometimes there are indeed people who would step on their own grandmothers to achieve success, and some who were born into wealth, but the majority of the wealthy came by their wealth through honest hard work and perseverance through difficulties.
This is to be envied but not resented.
When Hillary says, "We must take from the [evil] rich to help the poor children", she likely doesn't mean that. She probably wouldn't give up a penny of her own money to help a poor person. She just understands how to get votes.
Target the people who have class envy. Make them think she will help each of them have as much wealth as those they envy, or that she will make the wealthy as poor as they are. That's her formula for success.
Another issue she exploits is the issue of affordable health care. Everyone wants good health and no one wants to have to pay ridiculously high prices for health care. It's no-brainer for Hillary. Tell the people that you will fix the health care system so everyone can get health care free, and you will get votes from the people who don't consider how she intends to pay for these changes.
And then there's "the children". This isn't only Hillary's idea. Democrats have been using that phrase effectively for decades. They know if they can convince the people that whatever program they are pushing will help our nation's children somehow, they will get votes from voters who don't thoroughly research the issues. Tell the people your social programs are "for the children", and you get votes.
She probably isn't a Socialist at all. I would say she most likely fits the description of an opportunist. She will not allow an opportunity to get herself elected president get by her.
Only after she becomes the leader of the free world will we know what she really thinks.
56 comments:
"Only after she becomes the leader of the free world will we know what she really thinks."
And By then it could very well be too late.
Personally, I believe she is more Communist then Socialist. But either way, that could spell the end of America.
No, she's a Socialist, Communist, Leftist... It's all the same thing.
But she is also an Opportunist.
She is counting on the stupidity of her supporters to get her elected, and then she will steer this country as far to the left as she is able.
You do have a valid point, however, in that she says whatever she thinks her audience at the moment wants to hear, so no one can ever be sure that what she promises will be what she actually does.
So even if you think you agree with her, how do you REALLY KNOW?
The basis of class envy is a perception that the wealthy don't deserve to have the money they have earned, and that they have oppressed the poor to expand their power and influence.
I can simplify this statement for you... (For those of us who are of the Christian persuasion, anyway...)
The basis of Class Envy is the Sin of Coveteousness.
And the answer to the inequalities in our Society is more Capitalism, not more Socialism.
To quote Benjamin Franklin... "I believe in doing good to the poor, and I believe that the greatest good I can do them is not to make them comfortable in their poverty, but to lead, or force them from it."
Hillary, and her supporters believe in making the successful miserable in their success, rather than forcing the poor from their poverty.
She is a dangerous person with dangerous ideas, and she MUST be kept from the White House.
There's but a hairs' breadth of difference between the two... either would be disastrous for America.
Personally, I believe she is more Communist then Socialist. But either way, that could spell the end of America.
So, what will you do when she or one of her more "liberal" opponents win the election? There just ain't a way that any of these Republicans can win, it seems safe to say (even if the Dems DO give the Republicans the benefit of running their lamest candidate - Clinton).
So, I'm wondering, what will y'all doomsday types do when the inevitable happens?
And what happens if she doesn't "turn us" communist and turns out to be surprisingly capitalist? Apologize? Retract your statements? Admit you were wrong?
There just ain't a way that any of these Republicans can win...
Dan, do you remember the 2000 election?
The 2004 Election? ("There just ain't a way that George W. Bush can win a second term...)
There just wasn't any way that Ronald Reagan could win...
The Democrats haven't learned a thing.
They are once again going to run an opportunistic slime-ball, and count on the American people to be so outraged over the War that they would vote for ANYTHING, as long as it "ain't no Republican."
And we all have seen how well that strategy has worked for them....
All of us who are not Democrats, anyway...
The Clintons have shown they will lie even when they don't have to. Did you know Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary -- six years before he climbed Mr. Everest? And the Clintons are secretly raising a child that they adopted during Bill's reelection campaign. They must be, because they told the nation that they were thinking about adopting a baby and nobody has seen or heard anything about it since Bill was reelected.
I not only wouldn't believe everything she says, I wouldn't believe anything she says.
One thing is sure though, she will raise taxes to the point where it will bring the economy to a screeching halt.
Although every time, EVERY time taxes are cut, tax revenues dramatically increase, Liberals have it in their head that increasing taxes is the solution to paying for more stuff. She's a socialist.
Oh, and Hillary doesn't have to "turn us" Communist.
Thanks to fifty-odd years of Democrat Social Engineering, we're already there.
And there really isn't a "Capitalist" running on either side.
Both sides are searching for ways to siphon money off the top of the economy, and use it to buy themselves power.
If any candidate from either party turned out to be "surprisingly Capitalist", I would be thrilled.
Thanks to fifty-odd years of Democrat Social Engineering, we're already there.
And there really isn't a "Capitalist" running on either side.
Well, now, there you have it folk: Both the Dems and the Republicans have been overtaken by communists. And they're under your bed and putting "fluoride" (commie-juice) in your water, too.
And so I ask you again: What do y'all plan on doing since we only have communists running for office? Time for a coup? Just moan and whine?
I'm just curious.
As to this bit of nonsense:
Liberals have it in their head that increasing taxes is the solution to paying for more stuff. She's a socialist.
Well, then, I suppose that Reagan/Bush and Bush must all be commies (Tug was right!), since the government grew (ie, we spent more) under all three of those presidencies and it grew less (ie, we spent less) under the flawed Clinton presidency.
Can you all add and subtract and read the paper?
Sorry for the dig but you're all sounding like conspiracy nuts, here. No offense intended.
No WAR for OIL!!!
LOL! This is too rich! A Socialist AND a war-monger!
With all the new entitlements she's proposing she'll have to raise taxes, thereby bleeding the drive to be successful right out of the American spirit.
Let's see...
1. Free Healthcare
2. 5k education fund at birth
3. 1k in matching funds to MY 401k
(a good thing since I'll have to reduce my % to support myself after she bleeds my paycheck dry)
4. Extending the Family Medical Leave Act
5. What's next?
6. Did I leave anything out?
I hesitate calling anyone evil. Honestly. But the ideology she promotes is most certainly not based on good, moral, ethics.
As a preface Tug said: "Thanks to fifty-odd years of Democrat Social Engineering..."
True. A major plank in the Communist Manifesto is controlling education, and Democrats have managed that one nicely. We have become a nation of cultural idiots, intellectual morons, and moral bankrupts.
Concluding with: "...we're already there."
Not quite. Close, but no cigar. There's an iceberg up ahead to be sure, and Hillary may well be at the Helm sooner than any of us would like, but we are not anywhere near what Soviet Russia WAS. I'm not saying we can't get there from here-- we most certainly can! But we aren't there yet. There's still time to avoid that iceberg. Any Democrat would be bad for America at this point, but not any Republican would be good.
Here's a handy chart that shows how the national debt has increased greatly under the last 3 republican presidencies (and increased slightly under Nixon before them) and DECREASED under the last four Democratic presidencies.
Who are the big gov't spenders? T'ain't the last few Dems, I can tell ya that.
You have to go ALL the way back to the last decent Republican president - Eisenhower - to find one that a Republican presidency that significantly reduced the Nat'l Debt.
Or look at this:
Dems 1978-2005
Fed Spending 9.9%+ Fed debt 4.2%+
Republicans 1978-2005
Fed Spending 12.3%+ Fed Debt 36.6%+
But don't let me confuse you with facts.
Dan, are you trying to reinforce my point, or refute it?
Thats so dumb
So, are there no reasoned responses or is this just a delay due to Mark?
Lacking any response, allow me to rehash what we've learned from the last couple of posts.
WE AGREE:
1. That taxation is not the same as stealing. No one here is opposed to all taxation, just what we spend it on. But since we agree that it's not stealing, there's no need to ever call it such again, except perhaps in a metaphorical way.
2. That the Bible clearly provides for state-required assistance of the poor (and foreigners - let's not forget that) from those who have the resources to give. Further, we know that Jesus said in so many words that paying taxes is not unreasonable - even to an oppressive gov't like Rome! So, there's no need to suggest that taxation is unbiblical, either.
3. We've noted that one place in the Bible that we have warnings from God about taxation is when a gov't uses it to build up a large army. Duly noted, and at least some of us won't, therefore, advocate an excessively large military.
4. That words have meanings, and therefore, that Democrats and Republicans (who believe in a capitalist system and don't want state ownership of stuff) are not the same thing as socialists.
5. That, therefore, it is wrong on our part to hyperbolize and demonize those Dems and Republicans as "commies" when we merely mean that they want to spend tax dollars in different ways than WE want them to.
6. That it's okay to vehemently disagree with that spending, but it would behoove us as adults to avoid name-calling.
7. And since it behooves us to avoid name-calling, I'm sure those who've done so here and acted belligerently towards others (childishly calling them names and erroneously misrepresenting their positions) would like to apologize.
8. Apologies accepted all around.
====
Now, look at all those areas we agree, if we want to be reasonable. It's okay to disagree on how to spend tax dollars (You want to spend ~$1 trillion a year on a military, I think it fiscally responsible to spend ~$25 billion a year on welfare), but there's no need to misrepresent one another's position.
Peace out, bros.
Oh, I forgot: We agree that FACTUALLY, based upon actual spending over the last three decades, it is the Republicans who have been the Big Gov't spenders moreso than the Dems.
And what, praytell, am I supporting there, Tug? That Republicans are socialists?
You have not answered my question about spending money TAKEN FROM CITIZENS to pay for a big military: Do you support it or oppose it?
I'm relatively certain that you're not an anarchist who doesn't want any money spent by the gov't, but feel free to answer and clarify.
Here we go around this Mulberry Bush again, huh?
Okay.
No. I don't support excessive Taxation for the purpose of building an overlarge Offensive Military just for the sake of having one.
But we haven't done that, Dan.
And when you get right down to it, the Constitution provides for maintaining the Military.
Dan, we live in a World governed by the agressive use of force.
That's a fact.
And while there is a large Military ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, then we had BETTER have one as well.
Maybe someday, when the whole World has been converted to Christianity, and Government Wealth Redistribution Programs have made all of the Citizens of the World completely equal in every way, we won't need a Military, and we can all sit around and hold hands and sing all day.
But that day has not yet come.
So, since we live today, instead of then, while there is inequality and injustice and Murderous Terrorist Thuggery, and jealousy and hatred, and poverty, and disease, and War in the World... and I have to pay taxes anyway... I have no problem with MY Country having the best Military in the World.
As a matter of fact, I prefer it that way.
I'm sorry that you don't agree.
Maybe you should move to Canada, Dan.
Plenty of Socilaism to go around, free Healthcare, and no Military spending at all (to speak of.)
Let me know if you need help packing...
Hey, and why don't you take ER with you!
And Dan, we all accept your apology for your condescending, snotty, know-it-all attitude.
Really. That's the role of federal government: to protect the citizenry. Need a strong military for that. And it benefits everyone equally in the exact same way. Unless the military turns mercenary and hires themselves out, it's taxes that pay them. Money well spent. Heck, Dan. We know YOU won't defend us.
Maybe you should move to Canada, Dan.
But if all the Christians move to Canada because the US isn't perfect (and neither is Canada), then who'd be here to stop the US from becoming even more oppressive? Besides, I don't believe in geographic cures.
Brighten the day where you are.
And Dan, we all accept your apology for your condescending, snotty, know-it-all attitude.
No, not "know it all" - not by a long distance. But apparently I was one of the few here who knew:
1. That the bible is not opposed to taxation
2. That the Bible provides for "taking" some people's stuff to help others.
3. That the bible warns about overly large militaries.
4. That the Republicans have the worst spending record over the last 30+ years.
5. The meaning of the word "socialist" and that our Dems and Republicans ain't.
So, no, nowhere near "know it all." But perhaps "know a little." And perhaps, even, "know a little bit more 'n Tug..."
And while there is a large Military ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, then we had BETTER have one as well.
And, as we have seen, that's not what God told Israel, nor is it what Jesus told us.
For the believers in the audience.
That's the role of federal government: to protect the citizenry. Need a strong military for that.
That’s ONE role of the federal gov’t. Not the only role. The federal gov’t is what We, the People decide it is, so thank you very much, we won’t rely upon only your opinion.
And do we really need to spend more on the military than very nearly the whole rest of the world COMBINED?? THAT’s what passes for fiscal responsibility here?
Talk about creating policy based on emotions and fear!
And it benefits everyone equally in the exact same way. Unless the military turns mercenary and hires themselves out, it's taxes that pay them. Money well spent.
At least MA here appears to agree that taxation is not theft, nor is it socialism. Which some people here still don’t seem to get. Although, I would not be surprised at all to find MA turn tail here and say, “But…but…but…YOUR taxation proposals ARE stealing!!”
Words have meaning. Taxation in a democratic republic means when we, the people, elect to use some of our common money for the common good.
The difference between how I’m proposing we decide what to spend and what it appears anyone else here is proposing is that I’m saying we should spend wisely and frugally – spending where necessary to responsibly run our common nation – not spending emotionally (“but what if we don’t have enough bombs to blow up the world 12 times! Someone might hurt us then and that’s scary!”), but spending based upon what’s logical and what saves money over all.
Fiscal responsibility is not socialism, nor is it theft.
Words have meanings. Use ‘em.
Which verse in the Bible commands Christians to go out and insult people?
I KNOW it must be in there somewhere, I just can't find it.
It must be near the verse where we are told to turn over our charitable responsibilities to a nameless, faceless Government Bureaucracy, and to come up with schemes by which the work of the Church can be done with funding from unwilling donors, in Jesus' name.
Or maybe it is near the verse where it says that anyone who disagrees with Dan Trabue is an "unbeliever"...
Tell me Dan, does the Bible mention you by name, or do we have to read you into it somehow?
I'm glad that you're so smart and knowledgable, Dan, I really am.
And so humble!
Truly a role model for all of us uneducated, knuckle-dragging "unbelievers" in the room...
Which verse in the Bible commands Christians to go out and insult people?
This is rich, Tug, coming from the group that has called me all manner of names, questioned or outright rejected my Christianity, who in this post here are demonizing Dems and the Left as socialists (meaning "fascist" as in the USSR).
But again, if you'd like a Bible verse wherein you see some rough language used towards religious hypocrites, look no further than Jesus.
"You brood of snakes! You blind guides!..."
Or the prophets.
There's plenty of examples of verbal rough housing in the Bible.
Now, having said that, I would like to apologize, because I have been rough on you all. I'm a bit impatient with this demonization of those fellow believers and fellow citizens, telling them to leave the country and calling them socialists etc. And so I returned some insolence for insolence instead of turning the other cheek.
Sometimes it's hard to know when to rebuke and when to take the slap. If I was too harsh, I apologize.
Well, let's see now...
Here's basically what you just said, Dan:
"I'm the real victim here, and even Jesus Christ or the prophets would probably have reacted the same way that I did...
However, I will apologize to you bunch of Hypocrites and Vipers, you sightless guides, for losing my patience and sinking to your level.
Sometimes it is hard to know when to straighten you people out, and when to simply humor you and let your errors go in order to display my piety and righteousness..."
I know it didn't sound like that to you when you wrote it, Dan, but, honestly, that's how you come off.
I'm not sure I'm going to accept that particular apology right now. I'm going to have to think about it for a while.
Most of what you have posted in this particular thread is all wet, and is the type of rhetoric that, if followed to it's logical and eventual conclusive result, would cause us ALL to lose our Freedom to Worship God openly and in our own way.
And I offer no apology for that observation.
When you learn to make your points without hiding underneath the Robes of Jesus so that you can attack from a position of Righteous Unassailability, then I will stop "rebuking" you (for lack of a better term.)
Jesus is not a tool for you to use, Dan, and it is offensive when you attempt to use Him to prop up your political positions.
Vote your own conscience for your own reasons, by all means, Dan.
But don't tell me ever again that Jesus said that I should agree with you.
Keep that tripe to yourself.
When you apologize for doing THAT, and STOP DOING IT, that is the apology that I will accept from you.
LOL
Re, "Hey, and why don't you take ER with you!"
Bless you, Tug. I'm not even part of this'un. I'm flattered that you thought of me. I'm not yer enemy.
Neither am I your's, ER.
Nor Dan's, for that matter.
I mainly said that as a rib... (You have to admit, it was kinda funny...)
It's okay with me if you stay in the United States.
Most of what you have posted in this particular thread is all wet, and is the type of rhetoric that, if followed to it's logical and eventual conclusive result, would cause us ALL to lose our Freedom to Worship God openly and in our own way.
Then by all means, point out why behaving as I've described it (which seems fiscally and personally responsible to me) is wrong.
Pay for things as you go - you think that's wrong?
Pay real costs for things and quit subsidizing negative behaviors - you think that's wrong?
Use correct terms for people instead of demonizing them (the Dems, for instance) by calling them "socialists" - especially when you mean Fascist oppressors by that term - you think that's wrong?
Acknowledge that taxation is NOT stealing - it's taxation - you think that's wrong?
Tug, by all means explain your position. Help us come to some mutual understanding.
Just don't say that I'm a socialist. I'm not.
Just don't say that I'm using Jesus "as a tool" - I'm not. I'm following Jesus Christ my Lord as I understand His teachings.
Just don't suggest the Bible calls taxation "theft" - it doesn't.
And try to realize the irony of you and your pals making these accusations towards me.
Acknowledge that taxation is NOT stealing - it's taxation - you think that's wrong?
Dan, the problem we are having is that you make no distinction between "Taxation", and "Wealth Redistribution".
Everyone paying taxes for the purpose of building a road, a sewer system or for maintaining the Military is acceptable.
Taxing the "Rich" in order to provide Healthcare "for the chuuldren" is not.
Maintaining a Military and building infrastructure is the Constitutionally mandated job of the Government.
Saving "the Poor" is the job of the Church.
Now, when the Church begins to assemble an Army, I will stand right alongside of you to oppose that. That's not what God commanded His Church to do.
Neither did He command us to make a "church" out of our Government, so that when we pass the offering plate (for the chuuldren...), everyone is forced to contribute, and as much as we tell each other to, or go to jail.
Everyone else here gets that but YOU, Dan...
Maybe I have been able to help you get up to speed.
Sheesh!
And while we are speaking frankly, You came here looking for a fight, Dan. (The Pacifist.)
Stop complaining that you got hit.
You are every bit as guilty of "demonization" and "name calling" as any of us, and you repeatedly misrepresent the views of anyone who opposes you.
Poor mouthing and whining about our "accusations" makes you look petty and immature.
"Just don't suggest the Bible calls taxation "theft" - it doesn't."
Nor do we. We call you taking my money to give to someone else, without asking for my permission theft. We call you deciding how much, how often, and to whom our money should go, fascism. We call your call for a redistribution of wealth, socialism. We call sending money for the benefit of maintaining the best, most efficient and state-of-the-art military, plain and simple common sense. A no brainer. Not rocket-science. A four year old could understand it kinda thing.
BTW, I don't stutter. Nothing you've ever said has aroused a level of emotion that would enable a stutter if I did. I do, however, shake my head and chuckle at the goofiness of your comments.
But reread the above and you'll see the difference between taxing to support and maintain the government, and taxation for purposes not the responsibility of the feds. You tread in the area of the latter. It is then that taxation becomes theft, as it forces some to pay for what others believe is a worthy charitable destination for tax money, whether all agree or not. Charity is a subjective issue. You speak of the proper management of our money, and we disagree with your notion of it.
I think you all have misread what Jesus had to say about taxes. He most certainly said "Render unto Caesar..." but that is hardly a wholesale endorsement of taxation. The Roman provincial system was corrupt and I can't believe that Christ would have supported, or supports now, ANYTHING corrupt. Instead, Jesus accepted the reality of the current system-- His time not yet come. Besides which, Publicans (tax-collectors) were thoroughly despised by the Jews of the day. But Jesus looked beyond what Matthew did for a living and called him away from his position with the Romans, to be a disciple of Christ... a fisher of men rather than an agent of Graft.
God doesn't sanction any unrighteousness, and taxation is certainly that. Why? Because it misses the mark, so to speak. Taxation is evil because it is compulsory... not a donation based on love of ones neighbor, which would be a fulfillment of the Law.
Furthermore, just to set the record straight, tithes are NOT taxes. No one will force you to put money in the plate.
[rolls eyes.]
ELAshley,
To be clear, you're referring to taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution, are you not? Some taxation is necessary, and not all is "unrighteousness". Would you not agree?
To be clear, you're referring to taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution, are you not?
Read what I've written. Have I EVER advocated wealth redistribution?
No. In fact, I am opposed to such. Taking my money and giving it to road builders to subsidize motorists, the oil industry, the auto industry. Taking my money and subsidizing agribusiness, the military industrial complex, polluters.
Opposed to it all.
What I AM in favor of, and what I have said, is that I'm in favor of spending our money wisely (ie, so that it SAVES taxpayer/citizen dollars).
So, that being the case, I'm in favor of programs that pay for prisoner education and rehabilitation, because it costs society LESS in the long run.
I'm in favor of programs to help decrease homelessness and educate our citizens, because it saves society money in the long run.
Not many are advocating just handing out cash willy nilly to poor people because they're poor and not much of that happens (especially as compared to how much we hand out willy nilly to subsidize motorists, agribusiness, etc, etc). But some wise gov't types support programs and systems and policies that reduce the loss of citizen dollars.
Again, I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't agree with me on this. It's just a logical, fiscally sound idea to support.
Let's forget "WELFARE" for a second and just look at one type of program. Prisoner education programs.
They have PROVEN in study after study that such programs reduce prisoner recidivism and increase ex-con productivity and therefore pay for themselves and then some, SAVING taxpayer dollars.
That being the case, is anyone really opposed to this sort of program?
Eric is not opposes to such programs. But is opposed to programs that offer government taxpayer paid-for health care for people who can afford to buy it themselves.
I am opposed to politicians who say things like, and I paraphrase, 'some people need to have things taken away from them....' or 'we'll take the oil company profits...'
That is theft.
Yes, Marshall, I agree that some taxation IS necessary. But this graduated income-- graft --tax is not the best solution.
Also, someone said somewhere, on this post or another, that it is the Church's job to care for the poor. This is not true. We are to relieve the oppressed and the poor but not to the exclusion of seeing to the body of Christ first. We should clothe the naked, feed the hungry, champion the fatherless and widow, we should visit the sick and imprisoned, all this is part of our ministry of leading men and women to Christ, but it is not our function as the Church. We are to worship God; praise Him in word, song; lift up His name among the nations. The poor will ALWAYS be with us. Some by choice and some by sheer circumstance beyond their control or ability TO control.
So who do we help? 2 Thessalonians says "...if any would not work, neither should he eat." There is, therefore a measure of responsibility meted out to the poor. We must show compassion, but we must not allow that compassion to be used of those who are ungrateful of that compassion.
As with taxing the citizenry for the purpose of providing programs for the poor, the widow, the fatherless, the sick, and the prisoner. Dan may not advocate stealing from Paul to support Peter's abandoned wife and children, but there are plenty of Democrats and Liberals who do. As a compassionate nation we DO support Paul's abandoned wife and children, but again, there has to be some measure of responsibility for both Paul AND his abandoned wife and kids. There is no such thing as a free lunch... Salvation yes, but not lunch ;-)
I hate to sound cynical here, but truth of the matter is, much of Liberalism expresses quite a bit of cynicism on its own... to say nothing of personal power for politicians of ALL stripes, but Liberals seem to think it their honor-bound duty to take from the rich and support the poor with little or no pressure toward personal responsibility...
Roll your eyes all you want Dan. I'm unfazed by it. I know I'm right in this. And nothing you or any number of godless politicians can convince me otherwise. And before you get your knickers in a twist, I am not calling you 'godless'.
Dan give it up. Conservatives are idealogicaly opposed to giving their money to programs that will not directly benefit themselves. That's why none are arguing against interstate maintenance and military spending. Those taxes directly benefit the taxee. But ask a conservative to pay taxes that might benefit someone else, and hear the screams. Charity is only the purview of the church! No welfare! It's their own responsibility! Conservatives think from the point of personal benefit. They don't understand the concept of social good.
So now, I have to debate the pro's and con's of prison education programs, huh?
Let me ask you this...
Out of all of that Republican Government spending that you were complaining about, did any of that go to prison education programs?
How much of it went into funding studies of the effectiveness of prison education programs?
But never mind all that. This is another attempt by you to redirect an argument because you are losing your point.
Now, stay with me here, Dan...
Once you surrender your tax money, you no longer have any direct control over what it is spent on.
So the taxes that you would rather were spent on prison education programs gets spent on building the Military Industrial Complex, and to Corporate Welfare and Agribusiness and subsidizing Energy Companies.
Now, Dan, would you say that Jesus supports subsidies to Energy Companies, Agribusiness, Road Builders, and a bloated, massive, offensive Military?
He must...
He said "render unto Ceasar", and all that.
Your argument, not mine...
They have PROVEN in study after study that such programs reduce prisoner recidivism and increase ex-con productivity and therefore pay for themselves and then some, SAVING taxpayer dollars.
That being the case, is anyone really opposed to this sort of program? quote from Dan's post.
Unfortunately yes, Dan. The liberal Americans for Separation of Church and State with the help of the ACLU sued Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship ministry and forced them to spend millions defending themselves for a ministry that is helping to rehabilitate prisoners and help keep them from being repeat offenders and prisoners.
Those're some amusing generalizations BenT.. false, but funny nonetheless.
Just since Dan brought it up, I'm against educational programs for prisoners. That is, I oppose any programs for which the prisoners aren't paying for themselves. As citizens, those who are, they have already been offered free education. Why must they receive job training when the rest of us must pay, or convince an employer we're worth it for the employer to pay? So if you can figure out how to get the prisoners to pay for this second chance, go for it.
I asked one simple question: IF programs such as these work and thereby SAVE tax dollars, would you then support such programs.
NO ONE can answer this simple question except mom2, who, if I understand her answer, would rather spend MORE tax dollars and NOT assist prisoners because Chuck Colson was sued by the ACLU???
I'm not sure what one has to do with the other, but there you go.
So, as long as we understand one another - you all seem to be saying that (for whatever reason) that you care less about fiscal responsibility, a better society and small gov't than you do punishing people or something.
Do you understand how your brand of "conservatism" doesn't really make much sense to regular people interested in a relatively logical and moral and responsible approach to gov't?
Why must they receive job training when the rest of us must pay, or convince an employer we're worth it for the employer to pay?
Why?? Are you all missing the point?
Because it's fiscally responsible, that's why! It's not something we do so much for the prisoners as it is something we do for ourselves.
I'd much rather pay $1 million to educate a group of prisoners than pay $2 million to imprison them when they return to prison. PLUS, when they return to prison, they are not out there being responsible tax-paying citizens, costing us even more! PLUS, the costs to society of their cumulative crimes.
Do you not understand that for each prisoner that gets rehabilitated and doesn't return to prison, that's another working citizen paying taxes (and therefore "paying back" what we "gave" him for his rehabilitation).
Marshall, do you really believe in cutting off your nose to spite your face?
If this is what you all believe, you make absolutely no sense to I think most of us. Yours is an emotion-based, "let 'em rot - I'll gladly pay for them to sit in prison just so they don't get coddled!" sort of big gov't ANTI-TRUE Conservatism point of view and leans more towards a sort of goofy Big brother world.
Lord have mercy, no wonder we butt heads so often.
Mark, you are usually at least a little reasonable and practical: Surely you don't go along with this whiny nonsense?
Because no one has said that, Dan.
Prison Education Programs are a band-aid.
Conservatives would rather cure the real problem.
We would rather not encourage generation after generation of fatherless, poverty-stricken and Government Dependant children, which has been the result of the Government give-away programs that we oppose, and a universally recognized source of the crime that causes people to wind up in prison in the first place.
By "helping" the poor with tax-payer money, we destroy the family and create dependancy and an entitlement mentality, while discouraging personal responsibility, which depresses self respect, and destroys repect for others and for the Law.
Would it save more taxpayer money to educate prisoners, or to create a situation in which they would not wind up in prison to begin with?
No one here has any problem with spending tax money wisely, Dan.
You are just ignoring the big picture.
I would like to create an America in which EVERYONE can be successful on their own, without having to depend on the Government.
We would rather create Americans... Self sufficient, self reliant, FREE Americans, than SLAVES, Dan.
And when you take money from one man, and give it to another, you make slaves out of BOTH men.
The less the Government meddles in the affairs of the citizens, the better off we all are.
Dan, Prison Fellowship ministries is a volunteer program supported by contributions.
The best question to ask about things like Prison Fellowship ministries is that if it was an islamic organization, would you still defend it? If volunteers from a mosque were going into prisons, teaching literacy to prisoners by teaching them to read the koran, would that be okay with you? If it were a jewish organization teaching literacy through the torah? How passive would the proselytizing have to be before you would be happy with a competing religion ministering in a prison? For atheists and agnostics those reservations apply to all religions.
BenT, the fact is that MOST of the inmates who find religion in Prison DO become Muslim.
The problem is that people like YOU oppose "Christian Indoctrination", while turning a blind eye to the Religion of Islam in situations like Prisons.
Christians do not want to force religion on anyone, but rather feel that by sharing our faith with people, we offer them a gift. If they choose not to recieve it, that is their business.
Athiests and Agnostics would deny everyone the opportunity to be offered that gift in the first place, just to avoid having their closed-minded views challenged.
Seems a bit petty and selfish to me...
I'm just sayin'.
Where'd you learn that most inmate conversions are to Islam? Is this just a generalization you've come to, or have you actually read a factual report on this? It wouldn't surprise me greatly, but neither would finding most conversions are to christianity.
Conservative Christianity has taken the position of "Law and Order". So many conservatives take the position of lock-em-up and throw away the key. It wouldn't surprise me to learn prisoners to take a dim attitude to those beliefs. That's one of the drawbacks when a religion becomes so tightly identified with one political party.
When you tie religious proselytizing to help. You're not giving a gift, you're blackmailing those in need.
bent, That is a statistic that I have heard quoted (don't remember the exact source), but it was that there are more converts to the muslim religion than any other religion during imprisonment.
Where'd you learn that Christians tie religious proselytizing to help, BenT? Is this just a generalization you've come to, or have you actually read a factual report on this?
And what's all that "Law and Order" stuff?
Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, these are not exclusively Christian concepts...
But, it is common sense that those who are incarcerated because of their own "dim view" of Law and Order would look for someone else to blame for their situation, I guess.
Just last night there was a news story at the television station I work at. An area children's home was expanding. The executive director spoke and his words were something like "Well our first mission is to give them the gift of Christ and secondly we help them find a stable environment." This is not an uncommon sentiment in my area. I've worked with a woman who ran a christian food pantry. While I was building her website she described to me how she tries to make sure her help only goes to christian families. So in my direct experience I see it as blackmail when religions tie help or charity to religious proselytizing.
I've noticed that the welfare people know every source of available help, because they have used them all. Then there are the needy ones that will only take help when it comes their way and that being a Christian who senses a need and offers help.
Ben, would you accept annecdotal evidence from me, or Mark, or anyone else that you happened to be arguing with?
Or would you demand sources, and then dismiss the point out of hand?
It would certainly have to depend on the subject and the availability of information. I know of no research on religious charities and the priority they place on evangelizing.
Are you trying to say that religious charities place more emphasis on their charitable works rather than their evangelizing?
I formed my opinion based on direct experience with the subject. If my experiences were isolated incidents and you have surveys and polls to show otherwise I will modify my opinions to take in this new information. If on the other hand all you have are your own experiences to counter mine then you will not have such an easy time changing my opinion.
Post a Comment