RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined

RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 7:40:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Would people be so quick to wish to get rid of the "nanny state" if suddenly embezzlement statutes were seen as such and wiped from the books, for example? After all, buyer, or in this case, investor/business beware. Ok, now this is just a dumb argument. Laws that get described as being reflective of a nanny state mentality are those that seek to protect people from themselves. Fraud and theft are crimes against others. I know, based on your long posting history, that you are smarter than that.

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 7:48:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Would people be so quick to wish to get rid of the "nanny state" if suddenly embezzlement statutes were seen as such and wiped from the books, for example? After all, buyer, or in this case, investor/business beware. Ok, now this is just a dumb argument. Laws that get described as being reflective of a nanny state mentality are those that seek to protect people from themselves. Fraud and theft are crimes against others. I know, based on your long posting history, that you are smarter than that. Ah so the fraud and theft of the housing bubble is not a nanny state. How many people are homeless as a result of that bubble?

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 7:51:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I believe we have already gone over my thoughts on how the religious right gets exploited and manipulated by the Republicans, only to see the proposed laws never make it past the legislative floor, or get tossed by the courts right quick when they do. Not a snark here, just a respectful disagreement. I feel that the Republican party is exploited by the Religious Right. Yes, most of their proposed laws never make it past the floor or get tossed by the courts but some of them slip through. Slowly but steadily, the Religious Right is eroding the separation of church and state and the only way they can do it is by coopting the Republican Party. Do they care that they are destroying the GOP in the process? NO is my guess. They don't care what they destroy as long as they can cram their agenda down the throats of the rest of the country. To the Fundies, the GOP is a tool to be used and then discarded when they finally wear it out. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then, Hill. As for erosion of the First Amendment in the relationship between church and state, I do believe it was President Obama who most recently had his hand properly slapped in the matter.

searching4mysir -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 7:56:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub . [image]local://upfiles/633062/CD3117C461AB414399559BA3EBB1CE4E.jpg[/image] The difference is that I see this as an individual mandate, not really a collective one. Jesus didn't tell people to petition Rome to increase their taxes so that the government could care for the poor. That is the role of the Church (since that is who He was talking to...His flock). He told us, individually, to love the poor and serve the needy. A government can't love anyone. It is wholly incapable of doing so. As a Christian, the mandate is to be Christ to the needy...to be His hands in caring for the poor. The government already has a God complex, let's not make it worse.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 7:58:02 AM)
I get your point, but, I think that the problem is that we have come to think of the government as one huge entity, when it is, in fact, made up of individuals, who can make a difference if they try.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 8:06:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ah so the fraud and theft of the housing bubble is not a nanny state. How many people are homeless as a result of that bubble? Well, the bubble certainly got its start from the nanny state notion that the government should see to it that more people owned their own homes, which in itself is a nice example of the good intentions road leading to a hell of unintended consequences, but again, fraud and theft are crimes against others.

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 8:36:01 AM)
The difference between fraud/theft and capitalism is the amount in the perps bank account.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 9:10:13 AM)
Just to touch base a little on the seat belt thing. The problem with those laws, or at least all the individual ones I'm aware of, is they make no exception for times when it is a very reasonable decision not to wear one. There is a damn good reason we went from the original lap belts, to the lap and shoulder belts that are the new norm. Chance fracture From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A Chance fracture is a flexion injury of the spine[1], first described by GQ Chance in 1948.[2] It consists of a compression injury to the anterior portion of the vertebral body and a transverse fracture through the posterior elements of the vertebra and the posterior portion of the vertebral body. It is caused by violent forward flexion, causing distraction injury to the posterior elements. The most common site at which Chance fractures occur is the thoracolumbar junction (T12-L2) and midlumbar region in pediatric population[3]. This fracture initially became known as a "seat belt injury" due to its association with the sudden forward flexion that occurs when one is involved in a head-on automobile collision while being restrained by a lap belt. With the advent of both lap and shoulder belts in the 1980s, Chance fractures have become less common especially now that lap-belt-only seat belts are have been almost entirely phased out. Up to 50% of Chance fractures have associated intraabdominal injuries. Injuries associated with Chance fractures include fractures of the pancreas; contusions or lacerations of the duodenum; and mesenteric contusions or lacerations. This was well known and understood when the seat belt laws were passed, but those pushing the laws made a statistical calculation about the greater good. If you happened to be on the wrong side of those statistics, well too damn bad for you. Some years ago, I was involved in a nasty frontal crash, and walked away from the wreckage. I had an old Ford pick-up at the time, with lap belts that I never wore around town precisely because I was aware of the risk they posed. Had I been in compliance with the law that morning, at best I would have had a far longer time to heal, or I could have easily been crippled for life in the accident. You are almost always better off wearing a seat belt in a crash, but there are exceptions the laws don't take into account. Telling people they cannot make an informed choice in a legitimate and proven matter of their own personal risk? Yeah. That's a good example of the nanny state mentality at work. We know what's best for you, even if it isn't.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 10:55:56 AM)
quote: I don't think he's a Christian, Boi. Rather, I think he's leaping to an assumption that I am (because there is a religious right, all the right must be religious), and trying to use "my" religion to show some sort of hypocrisy that only exists in his head. My posting of Jesus's remarks were not meant to be taken as an ad hominum attack against you. You are way to sensitive. I was merely trying to point out that there is a long established philosophy in the Western world that prompts us to care for the less fortunate.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:01:58 AM)
Bullshit, Vincent. Unless you are advocating for theocracy, which I'm sure you're not, you took the scriptures as a source for your response, because you assigned values to my argument that only existed in your head.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:04:06 AM)
quote: The difference is that I see this as an individual mandate, not really a collective one. Jesus didn't tell people to petition Rome to increase their taxes so that the government could care for the poor. That is the role of the Church (since that is who He was talking to...His flock). He told us, individually, to love the poor and serve the needy. A government can't love anyone. It is wholly incapable of doing so. As a Christian, the mandate is to be Christ to the needy...to be His hands in caring for the poor. The government already has a God complex, let's not make it worse Jesus did not live in a nation of 300 million people. Is there any place where individual charity has been successful in giving aid to the poor and needy on so large a scale?

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:10:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Bullshit, Vincent. Unless you are advocating for theocracy, which I'm sure you're not, you took the scriptures as a source for your response, because you assigned values to my argument that only existed in your head. I don't understand why that should upset you. If you don't want the government involved in helping the homeless and needy because it promotes dependency over self reliance as you stated in the OP then what values have I erroniously assigned to your argument?

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:13:56 AM)
quote: I don't understand why that should upset you. If you don't want the government involved in helping the homeless and needy because it promotes dependency over self reliance as you stated in the OP then what values have I erroniously assigned to your argument? But corporate welfare is perfectly acceptable. I guess its the hypocrisy of the positions that gets to me. Corporations will fight tooth and nail, even in court, to prevent the loss of their "benefits". Yet those who support that kind of welfare are opposed to the welfare of those who have no recourse besides the government in looking after their interests in the ways corporations have lawyers and lobbiests to look after theirs. Can you, or anyone, explain to me the difference?

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:34:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I don't understand why that should upset you. If you don't want the government involved in helping the homeless and needy because it promotes dependency over self reliance as you stated in the OP then what values have I erroniously assigned to your argument? But corporate welfare is perfectly acceptable. I guess its the hypocrisy of the positions that gets to me. Corporations will fight tooth and nail, even in court, to prevent the loss of their "benefits". Yet those who support that kind of welfare are opposed to the welfare of those who have no recourse besides the government in looking after their interests in the ways corporations have lawyers and lobbiests to look after theirs. Can you, or anyone, explain to me the difference? I think your question contains its answer. Every four years we choose between two rich guys to be president, and they have rich friends because the cost of campaigning has become so great. The recent SCOTUS Decision that allows for money to be a form of free political speech has only exacerbated the advantage of the wealthy to have their say in our civic affairs. Even more of an impact is due to the need for campaign money by Congressman and Senators. Yasee, the poor have nothing to contribute and so cannot buy themselves a Senator.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:34:59 AM)
Sure. You just happened to quote scripture at me, because you thought that was the most reasoned argument... Where did I say I didn't want the government to help the needy? I said quite the opposite to begin with, had you bothered to read the first post. How we go about providing the assistance, and guard against the dangers is the question. Not "what would Jesus do."

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:53:01 AM)
quote: I say, on a pretty regular basis, that it is right and proper for a country like the USA to have a safety net, but we must avoid allowing it to become a hammock. From your OP. I get the impression that you're okay with some assistance but not too much assistance. And then you ask if the government is about to become a burdensome nanny. Clearly, to me and to others your use of the word "nanny" reveals an anti-government bias in your presentation. Do I have those wrong? How so? Additionally, when has it become poor form on these Boards to quote Scripture? And for thishereboi, true I am not a Christian, but that doesn't mean I cannot subscribe to a philosophy of assistance to the poor instead of to Multinational Corporations. The poor are poor in this era of global capitalism for any number of reasons often beyond their control. The Multinationals take our tax dollars in the form of subsidies and then export their production facilities to foreign lands.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 12:11:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML From your OP. I get the impression that you're okay with some assistance but not too much assistance. And then you ask if the government is about to become a burdensome nanny. Clearly, to me and to others your use of the word "nanny" reveals an anti-government bias in your presentation. Do I have those wrong? How so? Now this is interesting, Vincent. I raise a question of the relationship of the people to the government, you see that as an anti-government bias. Government has many legitimate functions, and rightly requires the power to carry those out. Sometimes, that might even require a level of nanny state intrusion, as in the need to include drug testing in the welfare-to-work programs. It's a balancing act, and a question of where we draw lines, not whether lines should exist at all.

Musicmystery -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 12:41:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Love to see the stats on this. What stats do you mean, Muse? How shall we quantify a creeping malaise to your satisfaction? Ah. Love to see the stats on that too. Opinion as fact. Assumptions as reality. Reactions as Established Study. The talk show world walks.

Owner59 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 1:10:43 PM)
And when you`re arguing with folks who spend more energy avoiding defining anything or who use weasel words to avoid being pinned down to a definition.....the debate kinda dies. The latest con-spin-term/phrase? Replacing "the haves and the have nots".........you know.......reality,with: "the haves and the will haves"........you know,........self-serving-avoid-the-subject-word-game-code-word stupidity.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 1:15:40 PM)
I shudder to think what this country would be like if the government had limited itself to these roles. Talk about a gulf between the haves and have nots! Part of the general welfare is such things as environmental regulations. Water, soil and air pollution are not things the marketplace would have protected. In any case, I like to think of us has a country with some values. One of those values are that we don't allow people to starve to death in the streets. Walking through Denver should not be like walking through the slums of Mumbai. quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I think that the role of the government is military, civic amenities, education, and justice. I think that our current government is a costly and burdensome nanny-state.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875