[tlj009]

So, to put this in the analogy. You took the government birdfeeder away and put in a church bird feeder and the birds did what?

The birds danced around and sung pretty songs.

Since the birds are, in this case, people; and since you suggest taking their food away, how do you plan on eating?

How do I plan on eating? One bite at a time. How do I expect the needy to get fed? By taking Church contributions and distributing them. But then I could easily just say that the Church should take care of its own first and not feel to bad about it. (Since it is the Church's own congregation that is making the contributions.) But that just opens up something else you can argue about.

I hope you didn't send this over a government-subsidized internet, on government regulated power, over lines that go on governmental land, with a computer delivered over a government-owned street... because that would just be hypocracy.

Really. And here I thought that welfare was different that government roads, government land, and the internet. I simply didn't realize that they were the exact same thing. I make a three sentence post and somehow I get accused of hypocrisy. You could at least ask me to elaborate so that you could pick it apart and try to find a real reason for the accusation.

Just because I think the government should not have a specific resposibility does not mean that I don't think the government should have any responsibilities. The government provides services for its people. These services include subsidizing the internet, building and maintaining roads, and apparently owning land (the land is used to provide a service at least on the majority of government owned land). Another service the government provides is welfare. The welfare is provided in many different ways. So I am not even suggesting that the government quit all welfare. All that said, I do think that it would be better for the Church to provide for the needy. Will it work? It would take some drastic change to our society. So no that one change will not currently work.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by Godslilrosebud

Now lets see...our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen. Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands.

Social democracy isn't causing illegal immigration to the US, and taking it away won't make the illegal immigrants go away, my dear.

Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services;

The US still spends a lot more of its GDP on defence. If we want to point fingers at portfolios...

small apartments are housing 5 families:

How is that affecting you?

you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor:

I don't buy it. That doesn't even happen in Canada.

you child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English:

I don't buy that either, and I'd like to see some kind of proof.

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box;

So the government is supposed to ban bilingual packaging? Then the right would complain about government interference in private enterprise.

I have to press "one" to hear my bank talk to me in English,

But you're getting service in English, right? Again, what's the big deal? If the bank wants to offer service in Spanish as well as English, that's their prerogative.

and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

People waving flags other than Old Glory have been squawking and screaming for more rights and liberties for as long as the US has existed. Irish immigrants in the 1840s, Chinese in the 1880s, Italians in the early 1900s, and Native Americans since, well, the beginning.

Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

What do you think that would accomplish, other than making life hard for everybody but the rich? Social democracy isn't the cause of illegal immigration. Canada is much more socially-oriented than the US, but we don't have an illegal immigration problem. If the illegals were just out to get a free ride, why would the stay in the US when they could drive north and get government-funded everything? I'm sorry, but the analogy is utter rubbish. Illegal immigration is a socio-economic issue that's much more complicated than just "free stuff here."

[JerryLove]

How do I plan on eating? One bite at a time. How do I expect the needy to get fed? By taking Church contributions and distributing them. But then I could easily just say that the Church should take care of its own first and not feel to bad about it. (Since it is the Church's own congregation that is making the contributions.) But that just opens up something else you can argue about.

So then the birds are still there, and still eating. The prch is still covered in poop and birds nests.. but now the feeder was prvided by someone else so it's somehow different?

Really. And here I thought that welfare was different that government roads, government land, and the internet. I simply didn't realize that they were the exact same thing. I make a three sentence post and somehow I get accused of hypocrisy. You could at least ask me to elaborate so that you could pick it apart and try to find a real reason for the accusation.

Actually, I accused your post of being hypocritical.

The government takes money in taxes, spends it on goods, and then sets the goods for use by some portion of the population. That's valid for either orads or food stamps.

Just because I think the government should not have a specific resposibility does not mean that I don't think the government should have any responsibilities. The government provides services for its people. These services include subsidizing the internet, building and maintaining roads, and apparently owning land (the land is used to provide a service at least on the majority of government owned land). Another service the government provides is welfare. The welfare is provided in many different ways. So I am not even suggesting that the government quit all welfare.

That's fine. We both agree that there are some things the government should do, and others that it should not do; and we likely mostly agree on what.

The argument you had responded to was "against government handouts". I apologogize if I read more into what you were saying than you meant. I suspect the reality of your post comes somewhere between what you intended and what I percieved.

All that said, I do think that it would be better for the Church to provide for the needy. Will it work? It would take some drastic change to our society. So no that one change will not currently work.

I suppose I think it depends on what need we are providing for.... but it's another discussion in and of itself.

[tlj009]

Actually, I accused your post of being hypocritical.

Wait a minute here. My post didn't put itself on the internet. It doesn't travel any government roads or use government lands. My post consists only of 3 sentences. I see no way possible that my post could be hypocritical since it does none of the things that could make it hypocritical. So my only conclusion is that you were accusing me.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Wait a minute here. My post didn't put itself on the internet. It doesn't travel any government roads or use government lands. My post consists only of 3 sentences. I see no way possible that my post could be hypocritical since it does none of the things that could make it hypocritical. So my only conclusion is that you were accusing me.

So you are calling me a liar?

[tlj009]

So you are calling me a liar?

Have you ever lied? If yes then you are a liar. Are you lying in this instance? Maybe, you tell me. You may just be mistaken or have come to think that there is some sort of distinction between calling my post hypocritical and calling me hypocritical. But since you have asked the question and brought it up, I am starting to lean more that way.

Adj. 1. hypocritical - professing feelings or virtues one does not have; "hypocritical praise"
insincere - lacking sincerity; "a charming but thoroughly insincere woman"; "their praise was extravagant and insincere"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocritical

Posts are professions. Professing something is a necessary step to be a hypocrite. So my post can't be hypocritical and I would have to be the one that adjective was addressed to.

Point being that you need to more careful about throwing attacks around without cause and with no evidence.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Have you ever lied? If yes then you are a liar. Are you lying in this instance? Maybe, you tell me. You may just be mistaken or have come to think that there is some sort of distinction between calling my post hypocritical and calling me hypocritical. But since you have asked the question and brought it up, I am starting to lean more that way.

Adj. 1. hypocritical - professing feelings or virtues one does not have; "hypocritical praise"
insincere - lacking sincerity; "a charming but thoroughly insincere woman"; "their praise was extravagant and insincere"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocritical

Posts are professions. Professing something is a necessary step to be a hypocrite. So my post can't be hypocritical and I would have to be the one that adjective was addressed to.

Point being that you need to more careful about throwing attacks around without cause and with no evidence.

this is getting silly.

[JerryLove]

Point being that you need to more careful about throwing attacks around without cause and with no evidence.

But ou just called me a liar. How's that log in your eye doing?

[Jfool]

There IS a diffrence between the gov feeding people, sustaining them, versus providing things like roads. roads are a classic designation by the founding fathers for government control.

Freedom to persue happiness was a given right, but there was no guarantee of everyone actually getting there. There is no contitutionial guarantee of food on the table.

I also agree with the churches idea. Look who used to build most of our hospitals, colleges, and numerous other positive institutions. The problem now is that it has slipped into gov hands and its a long up hill road back.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

There IS a diffrence between the gov feeding people, sustaining them, versus providing things like roads. roads are a classic designation by the founding fathers for government control.

Right. You need food to live, and roads are means of commerce.

Can you support "classic designation" claim?

Freedom to persue happiness was a given right, but there was no guarantee of everyone actually getting there. There is no contitutionial guarantee of food on the table.

"food" isn't "happiness"... that would be under "life", which is (technically) guarenteed.

Where are "roads" guarenteed?

I also agree with the churches idea. Look who used to build most of our hospitals, colleges, and numerous other positive institutions. The problem now is that it has slipped into gov hands and its a long up hill road back.

Really? I had the pleasure of visiting St.Jsephs recently. The waits were far longer than at Tampa General (we spent 5 hours in the ER before we saw a doctor), as they under-staff to make more money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of private charities. I just think your generalizaion about the government and about churches is wrong on the basis of being a generalization..

[Jfool]

Even the most capitalist society would designate government control for things like roads, for many reasons. I don't intend to "support" this statement.

No, life was a "right". you have a right to life. Not free stuff (even food).

I did not mean to compare hospitals. My hospital reference was merely to illustrate the power of the holy spirit when applied... I believe it is more powerful than the infamous motivation power of government employment. I will stand by that generalization.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Even the most capitalist society would designate government control for things like roads, for many reasons. I don't intend to "support" this statement.

That's because there are no purely capitalist societies.

No, life was a "right". you have a right to life. Not free stuff (even food).

Food is neccessairy to be alive.

I did not mean to compare hospitals. My hospital reference was merely to illustrate the power of the holy spirit when applied... I believe it is more powerful than the infamous motivation power of government employment. I will stand by that generalization.

But you did intend to compre that "power of the holy spirit" to the government and used hospitals as your example. I merely accepted your conditions and made the comparison.