ski2bfree said:
No hard feelings, just the old right vs. left wing debate.
NONE TAKEN AT ALL! I LOVE TO DEBATE! :eusa_ange
You're making statements to the effect that a WANT is equal to a NEED. Yeah, I WANT to **** Natalie Portman, but I don't NEED to. I would want the government to give me a house and a nice car and the whole nine yards, but I certainly don't need it. The government has a responsibility to make sure the needs of the people are met, not the wants. Fulfilling those needs does not equate to communism. Speaking of which, check a textbook, cause you're confusing communism with socialism.
The point you make about the wants and the needs is a valid point, and I will concede that to you, HOWEVER, it is irrelevent because again I point to the Constitution and say there is nothing in there that says the people are entitled to wants, needs, or ANYTHING directly from the governement EXCEPT what is clearly defined in the Constitution via it's ammendments. The Preamble says it best:
- establish Justice: Establish Courts
- insure domestic Tranquility: Establish Police
- provide for the common defence: Establish an Armed Forces
- promote the general Welfare: PROMOTE not PROVIDE the general welfare - build roads, bridges, and things that help EVERYONE not specific groups
- and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity: Make sure each generation after us has the same opportunities we had
Further, the Ammendents define exactly what we are to expect from our governement, and there is NOTHING that says the government is obliged to provide to the NEEDS of the people. And to those who say it is a "Living, Breathing Document" that can be "Changed to suit the times", I say HORSE ****! It is CONCRETE, and clearly defines the powers of the governement. It is FLEXIBLE, and allows for change, but it clearly states how to add an Ammendment, or change a current one. To say it is "living and breathing" is just another way of saying, "We can make it say whatever we want it to say!"
Communism, as defined by
www.dictionar.com:
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which
all goods are equally shared by the people.
Socialism, as defined by
www.dictionary.com:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of
producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
It goes on further to say:
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved
So, Socialism is
COMMUNISM LIGHT. I am a Capitalist, not a Socialist enroute to eventual Commuism.
And by the way, when I refer to the lucky sperm club, I mean the people who have the ability to help those who need it but are devoid of the moral fiber to do so.
And who are you, God? Who are you, or ANYONE except maybe a priest, rabbi, or other religous leader, to tell me who I should or shouldn't help? What gives YOU the right to judge people? I am a Christian, I donate because I know it is the right thing to do. I am not naive to think that people like you mentioned do not exist, but I will leave it up to GOD to punish them as he sees fit. It is not your place, my place, or the government's place to tell anyone that they MUST help others.
Money is a possesion. It does not matter how someone aquires it, so long as they aquire it legally. If it is their possestion, it is their possestion. It is THEIRS, not yours, and they may do with it as they see fit. I am not attacking you, but do you see how dangerous this can get? Do you see what you saying? You are saying that the governement has the right to take away something of yours and give it to someone else. That is just wrong, and VERY dangerous!
Oh, and another thing, don't lecture me about tax law. I know enough about it and I've been ****ed over by taxes enough to write a novel on the subject. I was just stating that you can get some of your donation money back by writing it off as a tax deduction.
No, you did not say "some", you said "It's tax-deductable" and the implecation was that I would get it back anyway. You should have said what you just said the first time.
However, since you feel the need to be such a philanthropist, donating your time is much more valuable than donating your money. Anyone can write a check, but helping to build a house for Habitat is free and much more gratifying.
I have a Priest to worry about my soul friend, I do not need you or the government telling me what I should or should not do with my free time, or what is the best way to donate my charity, be it money or time. Again, what gives you the right to judge others? What makes you think that you know what is best for me and my family?
Maybe if my property taxes were not so high, and maybe if my mortgage payment was not so high, I would not have to work as hard and as often as I do. Maybe then I would have more free time. But while you are off building houses for strangers, I have to worry about providing for my wife and kids, making sure there is food on the table and clothes on their back, because I have a job, so I get diddly squat from the government. Now, if you would come with your friend Jimmy Carter, and build me a house that I did not have to pay for, maybe I would have more free time.....
Also, saying that affirmative action is preventing whites from employment by methods of reverse descrimination is an immature stance. It's very easy to blame these practices of fulfilling quotas when you're unable to get the job you want. In some instances, it does happen. But when you make the claim that it is the responsibility of others to better themselves and then blame affirmative action in a search for employment, you're ignoring that responsibility with yourself.
I am not speaking out of my **** about affirmative action friend, I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. To get promoted to a manger on my job, you need to take a test. The last promotion, they needed to promote a specific number of African Americans to fill a quota. The "passing" grade was lowered to 55. An African American who scored a 55 was promoted, while hundreds of CAUCASIANS (and frankly, many other people) who scored higher, were not. That African American now makes 20% more than I do, has a supervisory position, and works less than all the people who scored higher than him. So please Sir, do not lecture me when I say AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION. I have earned the right to say that.
I once read a joke about Affirmative Action, and it went something like this:
A daughter in college often argued with her father about AA. He was against it, she was for it.
The daughter had a friend in college with her, who partied all the time, and never studied. The daughter did not go out to parties, but instead spent hours studying while her friend was out having a great time. Well, it paid off, the daughter got a 4.0 GPA, while her friend only got a 2.0.
The daughter was home for the holidays, and she was showing her report card to her father, who was very proud. He asked her how her friend did, and she told him that she only got a 2.0 GPA because she was always out partying and having a good time, instead of sacrificing and studying to get better grades.
Her father said, "OK honey. I want you to go to the Dean tomorrow and give your friend 1 of your GPA, so you both have a 3.0. A 3.0 is still very good, and you will still get a good job, and you can help your friend out in the process."
The daughter looked at her father and said, "Dad, are you crazy!? I worked for that 4.0! I EARNED IT! I am not going to give it to her! If she wants it, let her earn it!"
Her father smiled, and said, "EXACTLY! Now you know why I am against Affirmative Action!"
