Yet anyone, even you, may need to be taken care of at some point by the state. Not likely, but possible under certain circumstances. And you'd accept that help, despite any current insistance you wouldn't. Or maybe you wouldn't... maybe you'd let your family suffer or die rather than receive that assistance, unlike the man in my example: a Republican with a decent income... who, after losing his job, applied for and received food-stamps ...while simultaneously condemning the government for doing it. What I didn't mention before was that, despite his insistance that there was no need for the government to provide welfare, that the community would see to anyone's need... despite that, when he went to the community for assistance in paying his bills they said no for the most part... one church did grant him $75 (he needed $250)... his mother the rest. He was wrong to believe the government has no business providing relief for the poor, and he was wrong to believe his community had his best interests in mind. How could they? The former conflicts with the latter. If you don't believe in the government providing assistance, why in the World would you expect your community to make an exception for yourself when you are in need? And that's one of the issues I have with that type of mentality... the winner-take-all-too-bad-for-you-you-should work-harder attitude ...that even the believers fail to follow their beliefs when they themselves are in need. Hypocrites, one and all.
Perhaps the solution is for everyone to just stop working and let the government pay for everything they need. I'm talking about every worker just setting his hammer down or turning his computer off and refusing to work even one more minute. Without income, all these (former) employees will most assuredly be "in need". That is, unless the state steps in to help them. Will the state let them starve? Or go without shelter? Or deny them healthcare?
If you mean to say I am in love with communism... once again, you are incorrect. I also disagree that "each is set on the other's elimination". But I can agree that some still think that way, and some in Russia would agree with you (they hate you with a passion and want to eliminate you just as much as you want to eliminate them). Thankfully, that "us -vs- them" mentality, the desire to eliminate the other side, thankfully, that is becoming more and more a minority mentality among people. Do I dislike our system (of government)? It would be fairer to ask if there are elements I dislike in our system of government, rather than the government as a whole, since your questione can be answered both ways (yes and no) and be true. I can say I don't like how our Congress has control over itself, that there is nothing keeping Congress in check. Supposedly the Judicial and Executive branches are there to bring balance to Congress... and on paper it appears reasonable... but in practise, all three branches are subject to partisanship and corruption that can't be controlled by either of the other two branches alone or together since they themselves are partisan and corrupted. I'd like to see voting in America be compulsory for not only local, state, and federal elections but for rules Congress must abide by to pass laws. As an easy example: Congress wants a raise. Let the people vote on whether they have deserved one. In effect, American citizens would then conceivably be able to restore it's stature as the governing body, rather than letting the corruption continue unimpeded. I also have an issue with lobbyists and the money they give to politicians. It's corruption. I hate it. The freedom to say that and not get imprisoned or killed is one reason I like America. There are more reasons, but my focus is more on the problems with America and the possible solutions to those problems. The stuff they got right allows me to do that.
Nope. That's chaos. Anarchy, disease, death. More of that then what we now have under the principals you uphold.
But, don't you think the government should take care of everyone in need regardless of the circumstances that placed them in that situation?
And if everyone did stop working, do you believe the government would survive long enough to mail the first paycheck? Do you think there'd even be much more than a foundation left where your local post office was if the check somehow was mailed? Not me. It'd be a bloody, civil war, neighbor literally against neighbor fighting for resources... general chaos, death, disease. So no, there wouldn't be a government under your extreme scenario... which is kin to the end-of-days scenario. So should no one at all be taken care of? Should it be survival of the fittest then? Be careful what you wish for, because that scenario looks very similar to the one you proposed.
There is a major difference between giving a bit of help in need and supporting for live or supplying with drug money. When you can eliminate the latter, I have no problem with the former.
I take it you wouldn't support the decriminalization of marijuana then? It's classed as a much more harmful drug than it's supposed to be, given what it's effects are on the body, and at the very least that classification should be changed. There really is no doubt on that. What about medical marijuana law? Would you support or oppose the federal legalization of medical-marijuana, given that many states now legally allow it ...in opposition to federal law? I'm assuming that your support for mandatory drug testing while receiving assistance would still apply for marijuana users who had no medical need for the drug... but would it still apply if the federal law allowed the use of medical marijuana and the person had proof of need?
And the left was upset at Palin's targets. Try this one Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/12/12/unhinged-chris-matthews-shrieks-deadly-satanic-newt-gingrich-politic#ixzz1glfD9IwD
I'm sorry you react that way. But I don't see the connection between corruption and communism myself, that communism is kin to corruption. I do understand how deep the hatred for communism is in this country though, and why. I could try to explain why your mind is boggled but, to keep it simple, the term blind-hatred applies. I'm not attempting to anger you by saying this. What I hope for you to do is think for yourself, ask questions about yourself, and unlearn some of the truths we all learn as kids... that we later learn were not true. Fortunately for me, I was able to see that very, very young... but I know a lot of people will never be able to. Some call it soul-searching, and that's not a horrible term. I think of it as the ability to reason, to find a truth, despite the efforts of other people attempting to hide that truth from me. I get a lot of practical exercise here lol
Under my ideal, those that can work have a job, those that could work but can't 'cause of their general unhealth prevents that from happening would all be treated and made healthy enough to work the job that's waiting for them, those that can't work because of their health and nothing can be done to change that would be taken care of properly... they'd have the right foods, enough shelter and clothing, adequate medical care... for the rest of their lives. See any problems with my ideal? I do. Where are the jobs? They are not there. Where is the health care? Not there. Where is the compassion? Not there... at least on your side of the aisle. What you are suggesting is ridiculous. Try spending your time coming up with solutions that have a chance of actually working.
I presented the scenario as a hypothetical situation. You believe it's the government's responsibility to provide for those "in need", be it food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc.for the rest of their lives. I presented a "what if" and asked if the government could take care of every person if the need arose. Well, of course they couldn't since funds are not unlimited. But, if more and more people enter "in need" status, when does the scale tip? Rather, when does it become no longer feasible for the "haves" to support the "have-nots"? After all, the "haves" also have families to support and mouths to feed. There comes a time when available funds run too thin. Then what happens to the "have-nots"?
The governments of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China all spring to mind. Corruption ran/runs rampant in all of them. But naturally you see nothing wrong with a ruling party that keeps its people impoverished and living in fear of retribution over the smallest infraction? Of course not. You never rattle anyone's chains. Fortunately, I'm learning not to take much of what you say at face value--and this time is one of those times. I'm sorry that you've become a communist apologist. Have you ever lived under a communist regime? I remember my grandparents sending monthly CARE packages to Poland to help their families there get by, largely consisting of American blue jeans that they could sell on the black market and Polish hams, since they could never get any because they were exported instead of feeding the Polish population. Sounds like Heaven, doesn't it? No, but under a communist regime, it is a forbidden term. After all, isn't religion the opiate of the masses? The quote below doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of a soul, let alone it's subsequent searching. Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. -- Karl Marx Please, educate yourself. There is very little that is positive about communism, especially if you're not one of the leaders of the party.
MASSACRE AT FREDDY'S IN HARLEM: FIRE FUELED BY ANTI-SEMITISM KILLS 8 "Burn the Jew Store Down" By Hy Drusin "On Friday, December 8, at 10:12 a.m., Roland James Smith, Jr., 51, a Harlem resident with a criminal record going back 30 years, walked into Freddy's Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned clothing store at 272 West 125th Street, pulled out a gun, ordered all the black customers to leave, spilled paint thinner on several bins of clothing and set them on fire -- a fire that resulted in killing 8 people including Smith. Smith had been part of a group of picketers, led by Al Sharpton , head of the National Action Network and Morris Powell , leader of the 125th Street Vendor's Association, who had been protesting the Jewish owner of Freddy's." Google Crown Heights Riot - Sharpton led a three day riot where people were raped and murdered. The then Mayor Dinkins told the police hands off. That is why a republican was able to become a mayor in NYC later on and since then stayed as such. Google Sharpton and look into his history - He tried to get a police officer lynched for saying that he raped a black girl and covered her with poop. He stated that white people slept with dogs, meaning sex, and that they treat women of color as such since the time of slavery. The man was worse then any KKK and should have been imprisoned for years instead of the days that he got during that time period of hate and now he is on TV talking about right and wrong as if he is Gandi
The liberals give him money to say everyone on the right is racist and to find racism in every Republican policy. They give him the forum & coverage to get his "message" out.
What happens is war. Starving people, who view other people in the country as not caring if they live or die, have no reason to abide by the rules of law. Desperation for food will result in anarchy, the government will enforce its rule, and general chaos will be the norm. So it's similar to your senario.
Why is it that every topic you weigh in on always circles back to how it benefits you (at the expense of others)? Why do you think it should be anyone else's responsibility to take care of you?
