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 10:13:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 pointless and empty. Thanks for that synopsis of your entire contribution to the discussion, Owner59.

Owner59 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 10:20:37 PM)
Can`t find your own words? We know.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 10:38:07 PM)
Sorry. In trimming the quote, I caused it to look like that statement was Heretics. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet 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. That's an interesting way to handle the quote boxes, Iamsemisweet. While I may agree with some of what Aylee said in principle, those are not my words, despite your edit to place them in stereo.

Owner59 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 10:48:18 PM)
Not to worry,apparently,editing what people say is within "the rules".[sm=dunno.gif]

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 10:49:07 PM)
Suddenly many things are in the rules that once were not.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:01:42 PM)
In this case, it was an honest mistake.

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:12:56 PM)
I have no doubt it was, Iamsemi. That wasnt what I was referring too. Im sorry if I gave you that impression.

Edwynn -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:13:57 PM)
They were speaking of someone else's intentional re-wording and dishonest distortion of what another says, not the honest quote trimming mistakes you are speaking of. I've done the quote trim miscalculation myself plenty of times. As I'm sure some of us have noticed, there are some who seem to use the quote function almost exclusively in place of both reply or edit functions and situate their reply within the quotes.

erieangel -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/12/2012 11:38:06 PM)
I didn't read this entire thread, just the first page and the last two pages. So, to get things back to the OP--those rules have pretty much always been there. I've mentioned before that I work residential for a community mental health organization. One of the mandates of the program for which I work is to prevent homelessness among young men. There are basically two criteria a young man has to meet in order to be considered for the program. The first is that he have a serious mental illness. The second that he be in imminent danger of homelessness. Even if a young man meets the second, but does not have a documented case of even clinical depression, he will not be considered for housing.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/13/2012 5:15:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic 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. Another example of demeaning the dignity of the needy and helpless while pandering to Right Wing mythology. Gov Scott of Florida instituted drug testing of assistance recipients claiming that people on welfare have a higher rate of drug use than the general population. Subsequent results have shown that welfare recipients in Florida tested positive at a rate of 2% while a study showed that 8.13 % of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs. With respect to drawing lines on government largess and fears of growing beauracracy why don't we start with eliminating subsidies to Large Corporations and Agribusinesses? Let us be done with plutocracy and return to an unpurchased democratic republic of which the founders dreamt.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/13/2012 5:33:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML 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? I believe in the principle of subsidiarity, where the closer you are to the problem, the better equipped you more likely are to really solve it. Why does it have to be on a large scale? Why not work within your own community first? You start with the family and broaden out from there to the neighborhood, then the city, then the county, then the state. Rarely do you EVER really need to go as far as the feds, particularly when more often than not they waste money and fuck things up because they are so far removed from the actual problems. I have applied the bold print above to another right wing myth. Subsidiarity is what we have for the actual giving of local assistance. The Federal Government provides financial grants to school districts and State Governments which then apply the funds locally. The notion that assistance can be provided from the bottom up is quaint but has never worked to scale. I asked you to give me an example and you provide me with an agrarian philosophy from the 19th Century. It is interesting that despite the availability of Federal funds the States' agencies have been unable to ameliorate the condition of the impoverished or of the woeful state of education. The States continue to fail their people but continue to clamour for their Tenth Amendment Rights.

thishereboi -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/13/2012 5:37:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML 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. You still didn't answer my question, although Heritic said you were not a christian and you didn't dispute it. So now I have to wonder. Do you usually use the bible to make your points?

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/13/2012 5:55:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML 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. You still didn't answer my question, although Heritic said you were not a christian and you didn't dispute it. So now I have to wonder. Do you usually use the bible to make your points? "And what does that have to do with the government acting like a nanny?" Answered several times throughout this thread. The biblical philosophy quoted [and not unique to the christian bible] is an honored social phiosophy for which the Federal Government reallocates [:D] resources in our stead. So, not acting like a nanny state when striving for the general welfare. Is a nanny state when providing subsidies to multinationals and agribusinesses. "Nanny state": right wing anti-gummit code. Do I usually use the bible to make my points? Sometimes I do and sometimes not. Are the words therein for use by christians only?

thishereboi -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/13/2012 6:08:44 AM)
quote: Do I usually use the bible to make my points? Sometimes I do and sometimes not. Are the words therein for use by christians only? Of course not. I just found it odd that someone who didn't believe in a book would pull it out to prove their point.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/13/2012 6:52:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Another example of demeaning the dignity of the needy and helpless while pandering to Right Wing mythology. Gov Scott of Florida instituted drug testing of assistance recipients claiming that people on welfare have a higher rate of drug use than the general population. Subsequent results have shown that welfare recipients in Florida tested positive at a rate of 2% while a study showed that 8.13 % of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs. Apples and oranges, Vincent. One is the result of physical testing, the other the result of a study by other means (unless NIDA has been piss testing the general population, and the civil libertarians were all off at an Obama rally and missed it in the news). Drug testing, at least at the pre-employment level, is the norm in the American workplace. If welfare is supposed to be about moving people from poverty into employment, failing to test those classified as eligible to work is a gaping hole in the job-training. I really don't care if they are using or not, but for the millions of productive, contributing to society, potheads in our workforce, knowing how to beat the test is a critical job skill. Failing to make that reality part of the program, fails the people we are trying to help.

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/13/2012 9:07:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: Do I usually use the bible to make my points? Sometimes I do and sometimes not. Are the words therein for use by christians only? Of course not. I just found it odd that someone who didn't believe in a book would pull it out to prove their point. I dont believe in the book... its a beautifully written story. Yet I have quoted it before myself. If someone utilizes religion to prove his point, there is no reason why that book, which is the "manual" for that religon, can not be used in rebuttal.

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/13/2012 9:11:48 AM)
quote: Drug testing, at least at the pre-employment level, is the norm in the American workplace. If welfare is supposed to be about moving people from poverty into employment, failing to test those classified as eligible to work is a gaping hole in the job-training. If drug testing is the norm, why did the Supreme Court strike down the same law for politicians? quote: "However well-meant," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court, "the candidate drug test Georgia has devised diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake." The court ruled that the unique Georgia law -- covering the governor, lieutenant governor, other top officials, judges and legislators -- was not enacted in response to any reported illegal drug use among politicians. Ginsburg said "nothing in the record hints that the hazards respondents [state of Georgia] broadly describe are real and not simply hypothetical for Georgia's polity." Ginsburg added that Georgia's program is not even effectively designed to identify candidates who use illegal drugs, saying, "the test date is picked by the candidate, so all but the uncontrollably addicted could escape detection." 2% in Florida belies the accusations that welfare recipients are the big drug users politicians claim them to be.

popeye1250 -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/13/2012 9:33:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: It's the big question for this thread. Is it the role of government to be the dedicated servant of the people, or the costly and burdensome nanny? "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'" (Matthew 25.35-40 ESV) Are we a Christian nation only when it is convenient? Vincent, that's all well and good but we can't have generation after generation demanding that we.... "feed them." "The Lord helps them who help themselves." And I welcome "strangers" but not illegal aliens who sneak into our country and break our laws. They are not "strangers," we know who they are and why they sneak into our country. Now, one can't be using the bible to make an argument everytime they don't get their way. Can you imagine atheist lefties trying to do that? lol "Woah, woah,....it says right in the fuckin' bible that you guys have to keep feeding us and like,.....let us stay on welfare,...right Cletus?" Everytime someone quotes the bible to make a point another can quote the bible to negate their point. Ever watch that guy who's always quoting the bible and his wife with the REALLY bad hair, "Rexella?" "It says so in Mathew 52, Rocco 70 and Nunzio 16!" I've worked in a homeless shelter and soup kitchen before. (volunteer.) Many homeless people just will not give up the drugs and booze. But,....they'll use Christianity when it's convenient for them. You have to want to help yourself to get off the booze and drugs. Otherwise we're just enabling them . Give them a place to stay and meals so that they can continue to go out and rob and steal to get money for drugs and booze. Now, I wonder what the big guy would say about people taking advantage of the charity of others?

Edwynn -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/13/2012 2:03:03 PM)
~FR~ The religious texts of various faiths were a (among other things) a record of various codes of morality and ethics that existed long before and at the time they were written. The assorted social rules that existed for centuries before any formal pantheism or monotheism would understandably be invoked in such oral traditions and later the written texts. It should also not be surprising that some element of these religious beliefs would claim that their God(s) 'invented' these ethic and moral codes to render greater legitimacy to that particular faith. A non-believer's use of such texts to convey or explain some moral aspect of society is not out of bounds, it is merely alluding to some social understanding that has been around for a very long time that some of these good books did so well at explaining and codifying.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/14/2012 5:05:45 AM)
quote: Vincent, that's all well and good but we can't have generation after generation demanding that we.... "feed them." "The Lord helps them who help themselves." And I welcome "strangers" but not illegal aliens who sneak into our country and break our laws. They are not "strangers," we know who they are and why they sneak into our country. Now, one can't be using the bible to make an argument everytime they don't get their way. Can you imagine atheist lefties trying to do that? lol "Woah, woah,....it says right in the fuckin' bible that you guys have to keep feeding us and like,.....let us stay on welfare,...right Cletus?" Everytime someone quotes the bible to make a point another can quote the bible to negate their point. Ever watch that guy who's always quoting the bible and his wife with the REALLY bad hair, "Rexella?" "It says so in Mathew 52, Rocco 70 and Nunzio 16!" I've worked in a homeless shelter and soup kitchen before. (volunteer.) Many homeless people just will not give up the drugs and booze. But,....they'll use Christianity when it's convenient for them. You have to want to help yourself to get off the booze and drugs. Otherwise we're just enabling them . Give them a place to stay and meals so that they can continue to go out and rob and steal to get money for drugs and booze. Now, I wonder what the big guy would say about people taking advantage of the charity of others? Popeye; Your volunteer work is commendable but it does not permit you to generalize from a limited experience. What you are doing here is perpetuating several myths and lies of the Right. The TANF Act does not allow generational welfare. The "T" in TANF stands for TEMPORARY. There are time limits and work/education requirements. Illegal aliens are not eligible for werfare assistance. And most people on welfare are not hopeless boozers and drug addicts. The ranks of the needy have increased considerably as a direct result of the recent economic recession. A goodly number of recipients are people who have recently lost their jobs for reasons beyond their control. You turn a blind eye to the job losses and home foreclosures that have been occuring in America. I quoted the New Testament reports of Jesus' words to make a point: those who beat the drums loudly in proclaiming this a christian nation since the founding [erroniously] are resistant to the commands of the god they worship. Quoting from some other source hardly supports the hypocracy and irony that I see in the suspicion and condemnation from those who war upon the poor. I am speaking to a broad group here and not to the OP who took it personal. And to him I apologize for not being clear about that, although it is only half an apology [the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh [:D]] because I did ask: Are we a christian nation only when it is convenient? The irony of my question was lost. Can I imagine leftist atheist quoting from the Bible? Well yeh, dude, I can cuz I am and I did just that.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625