# Homeless in the U.K (Spec. London)



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

As many here know, I hold many "socialist" viewpoints and live in a country that, while a direct democracy, votes for many ideas that would be considered "beyond the pale" to many Americans. This includes treatment and housing for "junkies and addicts". Our homeless or "SDF" (sans domiciles fixe) are taken care of by the populace and I am more than willing to pay for such (although I hold no religious values telling me to do so). My recent trip to London reminded me of one of the problems I've always had with the area, which is mainly that there are many people that seem to be sleeping in doorways or "on the street". Out of ignorance, I am not certain why this is. Are there no programs that protect those in U.K. society from having to do so? While there are many people in Switzerland that have come here against "the law" and are not capable of asking for such benefits (i.e. various gypsy clans), I have yet to see such numerous people that have no assistance(even the gypsy clans can sleep in the civil service barracks during certain times). May I ask (without any means to insult), what the standard is in the U.K. when it comes down to social assistance?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

This is a complex issue but broadly, and from my jaundiced perspective -

The national programmes are operated, as one might expect, at local level. This leads to significant variance between implementation as practiced regionally.

There are many charitable organisations providing shelter, too.

In most situations those homeless without mental health or substance abuse issues are adequately catered for. However, the significant majority (if not all) of the mid to long term rough sleepers are malfunctioning human beings - they do not seek help nor are they sought out.

There are mobile soup kitchens which provide sustenance but the truth is that institutions, whether council or charitable, really do not wish to deal with truculent alcoholics/junkies.

Most rough sleepers spend their days either begging or grafting to obtain funds for drink/drugs - the prospect of spending days on end sitting around dealing with red tape (it is not easy to access such accomodation) really is not appealing.

Quite simply, we operate a system in the UK that makes it a more reasonable choice to sleep in a dumpster than to access the 'care' available.

.
.
.

.
.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I can't speak for London, but Switzerland has a population of ~8 million, no? GB has a population of ~60 million. With a small country, particularly one with somewhat restrictive immigration rules, might it be that's it's just easier and less costly? 

Now extrapolate this to the U.S. with a population of ~350 million. I think scale, economic and social diversity and immigration policy has a lot to do with it. Just a thought.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I can't speak for London, but Switzerland has a population of ~8 million, no? GB has a population of ~60 million. With a small country, particularly one with somewhat restrictive immigration rules, might it be that's it's just easier and less costly?
> 
> Now extrapolate this to the U.S. with a population of ~350 million. I think scale, economic and social diversity and immigration policy has a lot to do with it. Just a thought.


No doubt that size & cost plays a part in these issues globally. Again, I'm not looking for a debate versus perhaps information. While Swiss immigration rules are, as you mention, "strict", they do take in quite a few refugees, and both of these are different issues altogether (they take in about the same amount of refugees as the U.S. per year but are a bit more restrictive as to immigration due to size/space alone). Cost is of course an issue but if we were to look at x amount of benefits per 8 million people, would it be the same? Again, these are just questions and I fully undersatnd that there are different viewpoints when it comes to different societies.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> This is a complex issue but broadly, and from my jaundiced perspective -
> 
> The national programmes are operated, as one might expect, at local level. This leads to significant variance between implementation as practiced regionally.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info Shaver. I always find it a pity when the bureaucracy overrules common sense and prevents the aid that was originally intended. We often see the same issues with aid to 3rd world countries. The money and supplies are supposedly available but the delivery becomes the problem. Again, nothing against the U.K. Many of it's social systems are to my knowledge beyond belief but I am one of those "unfortunate" souls that has a hard time enjoying myself when I see the misery of others. A 1£ coin isn't going to do much for the guy I see (other than perhaps helping him avoid alocohol withdrawal [which is the only deadly withdrawal]) but as a collective, all those £1 coins can add up to an actual social service that can help the individual either "survive" or even become an active member of society once again.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

There are a variety of reasons for this situation. However, whatever the reasons, the numbers have significantly increased in recent years. The alcoholics and other addicts have always been there, but the numbers of those who are homeless for other reasons are far more numerous than ever before, in the last few decades at least. Whereas one might have known where the derelicts, for want of a better word, might be in any town or city, now there are homeless people huddled in doorways where once there weren't any.
As Shaver suggests, some of these unfortunates have always been there and often through choice, but there are many who are there because they think they have nowhere else to go, and government spending cuts have meant that the places where they could once have gone for guidance and help no longer exist in many towns. Seeing increasing numbers of hopeless faces, especially the young, in shop doorways at night is a profoundly depressing experience, and reminds me too much of the precariousness of our existences, as well as what I saw in places like Dublin, Palermo, Bombay and Calcutta. "There but for the Grace of God.....".


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

It's rather pointless drawing comparisons between Switzerland and the UK, or more specifically London - obviously they are entirely different in many ways.

There is a shortage of housing in the southern half of England and especially London. One reason for this has been uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe and elsewhere over the last 10 years or so. Apparently there are now over 1 million Poles living here. 

Homelessness is, as Shaver pointed out, a complex issue and there is no easy remedy. The people you see sleeping in shop doorways can be very difficult to help - on the whole they are not just everyday normal people who are down on their luck.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> It's rather pointless drawing comparisons between Switzerland and the UK, or more specifically London - obviously they are entirely different in many ways.
> 
> There is a shortage of housing in the southern half of England and especially London. One reason for this has been uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe and elsewhere over the last 10 years or so. Apparently there are now over 1 million Poles living here.
> 
> Homelessness is, as Shaver pointed out, a complex issue and there is no easy remedy. The people you see sleeping in shop doorways can be very difficult to help - on the whole they are not just everyday normal people who are down on their luck.


My point was not to directly compare Switzerland and the U.K. Should you have thought so, I apologize. It was more of a concern as to what I have observed. I never mentioned a soloution or a better way out. I understand that there are those that cannot be helped and have no desire to obtain it. I also understand that the situation is perhaps more compley than what modern society can understand. My concern was more as to if it was obtainable. I must however disagree with your linking of general housing for the public to housing for the "homeless" as they are quite different topics overall.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I think some of this may stem from what the definition of "homelessness" really is. Different governments define homelessness differently:

A homeless individual is defined in section 330(h)(4)(A) as "an individual who lacks housing (without regard to whether the individual is a member of a family), including an individual whose primary residence during the night is a supervised public or private facility (e.g., shelters) that provides temporary living accommodations, and an individual who is a resident in transitional housing." A homeless person is an individual without permanent housing who may live on the streets; stay in a shelter, mission, single room occupancy facilities, abandoned building or vehicle; or in any other unstable or non-permanent situation. [Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C., 254b)]

and this:

An individual may be considered to be homeless if that person is "doubled up," a term that refers to a situation where individuals are unable to maintain their housing situation and are forced to stay with a series of friends and/or extended family members. In addition, previously homeless individuals who are to be released from a prison or a hospital may be considered homeless if they do not have a stable housing situation to which they can return. A recognition of the instability of an individual's living arrangements is critical to the definition of homelessness. (HRSA/Bureau of Primary Health Care, Program Assistance Letter 99-12, Health Care for the Homeless Principles of Practice)

In the U.K., they use the term "Rough Sleepers":

"Rough sleepers are defined for the purposes of rough sleeping counts and estimates as:


people sleeping, about to bed down (sitting on/in or standing next to their bedding) or actually bedded down in the open air (such as on the streets, in tents, doorways, parks, bus shelters or encampments)
people in buildings or other places not designed for habitation (such as stairwells, barns, sheds, car parks, cars, derelict boats, stations, or 'bashes').
The definition does not include people in hostels or shelters, people in campsites or other sites used for recreational purposes or organised protest, squatters or travellers.
Bedded down is taken to mean either lying down or sleeping. About to bed down includes those who are sitting in/on or near a sleeping bag or other bedding."

Two different governments with two different methods of calculating and defining what "homelessness". However, if we look just at statistics, we miss this.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

One thing I forgot to say, Justonemore - when I was living in Geneva, three years ago, I saw quite a few homeless people. There was one man, who was actually Tibetan, living on a bench in the garden courtyard of my block of flats, which was in quite a nice part of the old town overlooking the lake. He had two shopping trolleys of possessions but where he ate was always a mystery to me. He kept getting aggro from the marauding Romanian vagabonds who seemed to hang out near the railway station.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> My point was not to directly compare Switzerland and the U.K. Should you have thought so, I apologize. It was more of a concern as to what I have observed. I never mentioned a soloution or a better way out. I understand that there are those that cannot be helped and have no desire to obtain it. I also understand that the situation is perhaps more compley than what modern society can understand. My concern was more as to if it was obtainable. I must however disagree with your linking of general housing for the public to housing for the "homeless" as they are quite different topics overall.


Sorry, I may have misunderstood your purpose.

Emergency accommodation is available, I believe, but how it is allocated is a mystery to me. At one time there were dedicated hostels for 'tramps' and other homeless, as documented by George Orwell, but not now.

The general housing problem - the high cost of rent, especially in London - has no doubt made accommodation much more of a problem for everyone than hitherto was the case.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

justonemore said:


> I always find it a pity when the bureaucracy overrules common sense ...


Curious comment from an avowed socialist. I've yet to encounter a government bureaucracy that does not overrule common sense; that's one of the major reasons I tend toward a libertarian viewpoint. Nonetheless, the prevalence of homeless folk has to be a concern to any person who isn't a sociopath. As others have elucidated here, it's not a simple problem to solve.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> Curious comment from an avowed socialist. I've yet to encounter a government bureaucracy that does not overrule common sense; that's one of the major reasons I tend toward a libertarian viewpoint. Nonetheless, the prevalence of homeless folk has to be a concern to any person who isn't a sociopath. As others have elucidated here, it's not a simple problem to solve.


Ah. well we all define things to suit our own needs. You can call it whatever you want. I desire only that which is good for mankind. I am not an "avowede socialist" versus having socialist viewpoints. There is a very determined difference. I seek only a higher truth wherever it may be. Socialism and bureaucracy need not go hand in hand if it is handled correctly. Given the failures of both the democartes and republicans, I do understand that Americans may consider otherwise. I understand that x amount will always need to go to "the system" but if handled correctly, x amount cumulated by society is much better than y amount given by the individual. I never said that the system works versus the thought that thew system should work. The main problem with communism was human intervention and this still remains. I cannot rely on you and you cannot rely on me to handle social issues that are beyond our means. If I remember correctly this is considered a "free rider" problem... You may not want a park but the majority of society does. Do we let you pay nothing? or do we tax you to contribute a share? No, it's not an easy solution. I prefer to spend my money on myself as well. Does that mean I should leave you, your children, your grandchildren, etc, to die in the gutter? I don't believe so. You might. I want what is best not for me, not for you, but for those that may suffer otherwise. I have never said we should do away with the "free market" but I will always say that no one deserves to die in the Streets because we as a society have failed them. I know it's hard for Americans to undersatnd such but I wouldn't want your kids to sdie for lack of support anymore than I would want mine. I obviously have enough to support myself for things that go beyond what the average can experience. Am I really wrong for advocating that others can at least eat and have a place to live? Again, I don't mean to be a jerk about it but...If society has allowed you to be a success, what is wrong in giving back to those that have not been able to to? Why give $500 out of every $1000 to kill others overseas versus the same amount to save those within your own society? Perhaps I am indeed an idiot but I don't agree. If you child were tzo be dying in the Streets and you couldn't afford to help them, then why shouldn't I? Why should I be willing to die in military combat for the rich assholes to make more money on oïl and ignore your alcoholic grandchild that needs help? If your brother needs surgewry should I really think that my money should go to killing others versus saving your brother? Again... These are what I desire for society. I know it's not reality but the only reason it's not is because we refuse to make it so. People call me "anti-american" but I'm not. People call me Anit. democatic" but I'm not (in fact I support direct democracy versus a fake vote for 1 or the other democracy). If you were dying on the Streets I would support saving your life. Do you not support the same? Why? Because it might cost you a few more à$$$? Seriously? Why not support a system that helps all when it comes to education and health? Is there any real excuse other than "cost" and maintaining social advantage? Seriously. Why should we not make certain future generations can make it? I'm set. My kids are set. Their kids are set. If you haven't paid attention, I buy* do, & go where I want. I am not advocating direct transfer of my fortune compared to sharing a "small portion" to make certain tbat systems exist in case issues arrise. When you hit 90 (should you do so thanks to socialist mefical systems), should you be the one caring for the great-great grand kid that has addiction issues or can we state that society can pick up the slack should your kids be unable to do so?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Ah. well we all define things to suit our own needs. You can call it whatever you want. I desire only that which is good for mankind. I am not an "avowede socialist" versus having socialist viewpoints. There is a very determined difference. I seek only a higher truth wherever it may be. Socialism and bureaucracy need not go hand in hand if it is handled correctly. Given the failures of both the democartes and republicans, I do understand that Americans may consider otherwise. I understand that x amount will always need to go to "the system" but if handled correctly, x amount cumulated by society is much better than y amount given by the individual. I never said that the system works versus the thought that thew system should work. The main problem with communism was human intervention and this still remains. I cannot rely on you and you cannot rely on me to handle social issues that are beyond our means. If I remember correctly this is considered a "free rider" problem... You may not want a park but the majority of society does. Do we let you pay nothing? or do we tax you to contribute a share? No, it's not an easy solution. I prefer to spend my money on myself as well. Does that mean I should leave you, your children, your grandchildren, etc, to die in the gutter? I don't believe so. You might. I want what is best not for me, not for you, but for those that may suffer otherwise. I have never said we should do away with the "free market" but I will always say that no one deserves to die in the Streets because we as a society have failed them. I know it's hard for Americans to undersatnd such but I wouldn't want your kids to sdie for lack of support anymore than I would want mine. I obviously have enough to support myself for things that go beyond what the average can experience. Am I really wrong for advocating that others can at least eat and have a place to live? Again, I don't mean to be a jerk about it but...If society has allowed you to be a success, what is wrong in giving back to those that have not been able to to? Why give $500 out of every $1000 to kill others overseas versus the same amount to save those within your own society? Perhaps I am indeed an idiot but I don't agree. If you child were tzo be dying in the Streets and you couldn't afford to help them, then why shouldn't I? Why should I be willing to die in military combat for the rich assholes to make more money on oïl and ignore your alcoholic grandchild that needs help? If your brother needs surgewry should I really think that my money should go to killing others versus saving your brother? Again... These are what I desire for society. I know it's not reality but the only reason it's not is because we refuse to make it so. People call me "anti-american" but I'm not. People call me Anit. democatic" but I'm not (in fact I support direct democracy versus a fake vote for 1 or the other democracy). If you were dying on the Streets I would support saving your life. Do you not support the same? Why? Because it might cost you a few more à$$$? Seriously? Why not support a system that helps all when it comes to education and health? Is there any real excuse other than "cost" and maintaining social advantage? Seriously. Why should we not make certain future generations can make it? I'm set. My kids are set. Their kids are set. If you haven't paid attention, I buy* do, & go where I want. I am not advocating direct transfer of my fortune compared to sharing a "small portion" to make certain tbat systems exist in case issues arrise. When you hit 90 (should you do so thanks to socialist mefical systems), should you be the one caring for the great-great grand kid that has addiction issues or can we state that society can pick up the slack should your kids be unable to do so?


Very well said. As a socialist writer once put it, "A fat man eating quails whilst children are begging for bread is a disgusting sight....." (George Orwell). One can get used to it by hardening one's heart and by pretending not to notice the figures in the doorways, and I have done so in places like Calcutta, but it isn't something that I want to do in Britain.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> There are a variety of reasons for this situation. However, whatever the reasons, the numbers have significantly increased in recent years. The alcoholics and other addicts have always been there, but the numbers of those who are homeless for other reasons are far more numerous than ever before, in the last few decades at least. Whereas one might have known where the derelicts, for want of a better word, might be in any town or city, now there are homeless people huddled in doorways where once there weren't any.
> As Shaver suggests, some of these unfortunates have always been there and often through choice, but there are many who are there because they think they have nowhere else to go,
> 
> and government spending cuts have meant that the places where they could once have gone for guidance and help no longer exist in many towns.


1) Is the number of children born without the benefit of marriage grown to nearly 50% like it has in the US??

2) Adequate funding does not repair families or souls.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ The government here has various policies whose purpose would seem to be the discouragement of matrimony.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

justonemore said:


> Socialism and bureaucracy need not go hand in hand if it is handled correctly.


I have no idea how socialism can exist without massive bureaucracy in a nation as large as Great Britain, let alone the USA. Even large corporations are bureaucratic. You can't manage a large enterprise without a bureaucracy so far as I can determine. How do you propose that such a circumstance could be achieved?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Is the number of children born without the benefit of marriage grown to nearly 50% like it has in the US??
> 
> 2) Adequate funding does not repair families or souls.


1) I don't know. However, whether or not a child is born to a married couple, or to an unmarried couple doesn't really matter as long as the partnership is stable, and I would suggest that whether or not the parents are married has a limited significance, given the very high divorce rate.
2) No, it doesn't, but where young people have become homeless the immediate need is their physical well being more than that of their soul. On the other hand, there is no connection necessarily between a homeless person and a damaged soul. I would argue however, that a homeless young person who isn't cared for, however, will quickly become a damaged soul.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Chouan said:


> ... whether or not a child is born to a married couple, or to an unmarried couple doesn't really matter ...


You're quite mistaken on this one.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> You're quite mistaken on this one.


Only if taken out of context, as you've done here. The complete sentence is fully valid.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Chouan said:


> Only if taken out of context, as you've done here. The complete sentence is fully valid.


I'd recommend you re-check your statistics before you repeat what you've claimed.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Originally Posted by *justonemore*https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1548435#post1548435_Socialism and bureaucracy need not go hand in hand if it is handled correctly.

_Actually the bureaucracy is the point of socialism. The purpose being to make it easier for the unaccountable government functionaries to reach one hand in your pocket while shielding your eyes with the other. ( Can you say corporate tax? ) And the terribly unfortunate will really believe that somehow this all adds up to 'giving'.

_ what is wrong in giving back to those that have not been able to to? 
_
Firstly 'giving' has nothing to do with what is actually being proposed. Giving by definition cannot happen under coercion. The notion is based one the 'if you tell a big enough lie' people will believe it. People being people it is often effective. Secondly the premise is false. Conservative views always support giving, in contrast to the implication. Socialist views take by force whatever the current tyranny desires.

So what is'' _wrong in giving back_' is that there is no truth in the premise. 'Giving' as used means just the opposite, it means taking.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Socialism could not exist without a bureaucracy to support it. It is the oxygen which keeps it alive. 

The very essence of socialism demands it; it relies on central planning and the gathering of resources to it for eventual redistribution. 

Eventually, the bureaucracy, in the name of efficiency, starts to dictate not just the production and distribution of resources, but also the distribution and allocation of labor in order to produce the goods and services meant for distribution.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

https://mises.org/Books/bureaucracy.pdf

"The inevitable final triumph of socialism will abolish not only capitalism but bureaucratism also". LUDWIG VON MISES 1944


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Most governments, socialist and otherwise, have a tendency to enlarge the apparatus of the state. I suspect the phenomenon may account for the downfall of Rome.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Langham said:


> Most governments, socialist and otherwise, have a tendency to enlarge the apparatus of the state. I suspect the phenomenon may account for the downfall of Rome.


Men either listen to God or attempt to displace Him.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Men either listen to God or attempt to displace Him.


What god is it that you speak of? I suppose the same one that allows these problems? The same problems many religious find to be not "their problems" but that for "someone else" to handle (just as long as that someone else is also paying, hey :thumbs-up? The problems that must be caused by the "devil" devil:.boooo. boooo)? The god that overtakes basic science such as evolution? The god that thinks that only married (straight) people can raise a child?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> What god is it that you speak of? I suppose the same one that allows these problems? The same problems many religious find to be not "their problems" but that of "someone else"? The problems that must be caused by the "devil"?


The question of God and suffering has been thoroughly vetted by theologians and thinkers far more profound than most of us on this forum. As for the existence of evil and the causes of evil, I will refer you to Aquinas.

As for people's indifference, we're all fallible. Our frailties do not change or alter the objective truth. Rather, it's a reflection of our failing to recognize that truth.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The question of God and suffering has been thoroughly vetted by theologians and thinkers far more profound than most of us on this forum. As for the existence of evil and the causes of evil, I will refer you to Aquinas.
> 
> As for people's indifference, we're all fallible. Our frailties do not change or alter the objective truth. Rather, it's a reflection of our failing to recognize that truth.


Again.. To which god do you refer? That of the christians? the jews? the muslims? there are so so many and other each attracting extremist "followers", all of them seem to be quite impotent. was a particulkar on "vetted" by all these highly intellectual theologians ? oh, what theologian is likely to admit that they have been taking the wrong view of things all their life?

Funny. that said indifference seems to fit into the republicans/religious righties theory on life much more often than from those godlesss lefties


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

justonemore said:


> What god is it that you speak of? I suppose the same one that allows these problems? The same problems many religious find to be not "their problems" but that for "someone else" to handle (just as long as that someone else is also paying, hey :thumbs-up? The problems that must be caused by the "devil" devil:.boooo. boooo)? The god that overtakes basic science such as evolution? The god that thinks that only married (straight) people can raise a child?


The God you hate so much ,of course.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Hitch said:


> The God you hate so much ,of course.


Could you possibly explain to me how one can hold emotions for something that does not, in their thoughts, exist? I assure you that I am quite emotionless whenever people mention leprechauns, gnomes, boogy men, or god. Should I need to decide on the best BS story, I will take greek mythology over any of modern day hooha.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Again.. To which god do you refer? That of the christians? the jews? the muslims? there are so so many and other each attracting extremist "followers", all of them seem to be quite impotent. was a particulkar on "vetted" by all these highly intellectual theologians ? oh, what theologian is likely to admit that they have been taking the wrong view of things all their life?
> 
> Funny. that said indifference seems to fit into the republicans/religious righties theory on life much more often than from those godlesss lefties


Mao and Stalin were godless lefties who probably killed more people combined in the 20th century than in wars in the 19 centuries before that. I'm not even throwing in Pol Pot, and Che (he of graphic t-shirt fame).

I suppose your comments are in line with leftist thinking. It's an axiom of leftist thinking that history has begun with them. Nothing else before that mattered and was essentially wrong. I think Hayek called it "The Fatal Conceit".


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Mao and Stalin were godless lefties who probably killed more people combined in the 20th century than in wars in the 19 centuries before that. I'm not even throwing in Pol Pot, and Che (he of graphic t-shirt fame).
> 
> I suppose your comments are in line with leftist thinking. It's an axiom of leftist thinking that history has begun with them. Nothing else before that mattered and was essentially wrong. I think Hayek called it "The Fatal Conceit".


Please. Religion has claimed more lives throughout history than a few idiots' concepts of athiesm. Hesk, the saying "kill them all let god sort them out" was from a catholic priest.

Aren't the muslims pretty much in a "holy war" against christians and jews (and vice-versa)?

Religious types usually like to think that their versions of things will get them a place with god and therefore they can do whatever they please and blame it on a forgiving god that supports them (and the horrors they commit in the name of said god). That was Bushy jr.s thing wasn't it? God said so, and he obeyed at the expense of the american people & the 1st admendment?

Your reponse fails to mention which god was vetted as"god".. Which one was righteous, most powerful and deserves worship? I don't suppose by any chance that it happened to be the christian version, now was it?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Please. Religion has claimed more lives throughout history than a few idiots' concepts of athiesm. Hesk, the saying "kill them all let god sort them out" was from a catholic priest.
> 
> Aren't the muslims pretty much in a "holy war" against christians and jews?
> 
> Religious types usually like to think that their versions of things will get them a place with god and therefore they can do whatever they please and blame it on a forgiving god that supports them (and the horrors they commit in the name of said god).


You've certainly mastered the art of the straw man! It really doesn't matter what "religious types" do. People are free to choose actions freely. Again, there is an objective truth and human action, inaction or adulteration of that truth does not change the substance of the truth. Why? Because the truth is the truth. Our efforts in this world are but an imperfect effort to understand that.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Could you possibly explain to me how one can hold emotions for something that does not, in their thoughts, exist?


Absurd isnt it?But quite common.What springs to mind is the fortune of money and manpower to old Soviet Union spent on a non existent enemy, heh heh.


> I assure you that I am quite emotionless whenever people mention leprechauns, gnomes, boogy men, or god. Should I need to decide on the best BS story, I will take greek mythology over any of modern day hooha.


 Good for you, however you are emotional and have often demonstrated your deep seated hatred of God. So its best you ask yourself the first question.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Most governments, socialist and otherwise, have a tendency to enlarge the apparatus of the state. I suspect the phenomenon may account for the downfall of Rome.


Except that the "downfall" of Rome was more a product of the expansion of the Army and the tendency of that Army, in whichever region, to raise their own particular commander to the purple (especially as each elevation led to a "donative" of about a year's pay), and that the vast size of the Army demanded dramatic increases in taxation, wghich led to a dramatic increase in the means of raising such a tax, such that the administration became both bigger and more controlling.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Absurd isnt it?But quite common. Good for you, however you are emotional and have often demonstrated your deep seated hatred of God. So its best you ask yourself the first question.


Please show me any post where I have "often demonstrated your deep seated hatred of God".. I don't know what you define as "often, but perhaps you can start with 1 (out of my 1310) and then build from there? Just because I state that your are biased due to your belief in a "being" that has not been proven to exist (let alone bothers to actually play any part in daily life), hardly means that I have some type of "deep seated hatred". Again, start with 1 post and then show me "often".


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^^ (Post 36) Why 'except that'? Isn't what you go on to describe the very thing I myself had made reference to - enlargement of the state?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Please show me any post where I have "often demonstrated your deep seated hatred of God".. I don't know what you define as "often, but perhaps you can start with 1 (out of my 1310) and then build from there? Just because I state that your are biased due to a "being" that has not been proven to exist hardly means that I have a "deep seated hatred". Again, start with 1 post and then show me "often".


Your hatred of God is plain in the majority of your posts on the Interchange, so take your pick. Realistically reading your posts once is above and beyond.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Langham said:


> ^^ (Post 36) Why 'except that'? Isn't what you go on to describe the very thing I myself had made reference to - enlargement of the state?


 As if thats not what you had planned?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Your hatred of God is plain in the majority of your posts on the Interchange, so take your pick. Realistically reading your posts once is above and beyond.


Actually it's because you can't. I know it's hard to lose, but you just did. In fact, I have never mentioned religion (god) first in any thread. However, I will defend my point of view the same as you. If you want to look at this thread alone, between the 2 of us, you derailed into religion first Hitch. Yep. It was you with the pseudo-christian nonsense that only children born into marriage could be "normal" and you stated such thoughts on post 26 when you told others to "listen to god or attempt to replace him". If any one is showing bias to "their beliefs" (and contempt for the beliefs of others), it is obviously you versus me....


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Actually it's because you can't. I know it's hard to lose, but you just did. In fact, I have never mentioned religion (god) first in any thread.


 Im not aware of anyone saying you had mentioned religion first, of course that is important to you for reasons unknown


> However, I will defend my point of view the same as you. If you want to look at this thread alone, between the 2 of us, you derailed into religion first Hitch. Yep. It was you with the pseudo-christian nonsense that only children born into marriage could be "normal"


 Hmmmm I cant remember that post could you copy and paste?/


> and you stated such thoughts on post 26 when you told others to "listen to god or attempt to replace him".


 LOL I didnt post that you need to look a little closer


> If any one is showing bias to "their beliefs" (and contempt for the beliefs of others), it is obviously you versus me....


 Now this one you got half right I hold you in utter contempt.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Hitch said:


> As if thats not what you had planned?


I hadn't planned anything at all. My musings about the decline and fall of Rome had no ulterior purpose beyond lending support to my views about the tendency of all governments to gradually expand.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Hitch;1549708Now this one you got half right I hold you in utter contempt.[/QUOTE said:


> The feeling is certainly mutual.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

justonemore said:


> The feeling is certainly mutual.


Puts me is some fine company


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Mao and Stalin were godless lefties who probably killed more people combined in the 20th century than in wars in the 19 centuries before that. I'm not even throwing in Pol Pot, and Che (he of graphic t-shirt fame).
> 
> I suppose your comments are in line with leftist thinking. It's an axiom of leftist thinking that history has begun with them. Nothing else before that mattered and was essentially wrong. I think Hayek called it "The Fatal Conceit".


 I really enjoyed the justonemore patented sidestep response to this one. But its hardly unrealistic to note that Uncle Joe and the Chairman killed their millions in the name of religion.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Hitch said:


> I really enjoyed the justonemore patented sidestep response to this one. But its hardly unrealistic to note that Uncle Joe and the Chairman killed their millions in the name of religion.


When one becomes the arbiter of the morality of his/her own actions, then anything is possible. When one doesn't believe that he or she is answerable to anyone, or anything, in this or any other existence, only then do we witness true horrors.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> When one becomes the arbiter of the morality of his/her own actions, then anything is possible. When one doesn't believe that he or she is answerable to anyone, or anything, in this or any other existence, only then do we witness true horrors.


 Stateism in a nutshell.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Only if taken out of context, as you've done here. The complete sentence is fully valid.


The complete sentence is valid.
My children were born to an unmarried couple. My wife and I have since been married, but we're still the same couple and our children are the same children.
Stability is key.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Odradek said:


> The complete sentence is valid.
> My children were born to an unmarried couple. My wife and I have since been married, but we're still the same couple and our children are the same children.
> Stability is key.


I don't mean to diminish the importance of stability in the parental relationship; it's clearly critical. (And in fact it's the single most-important determinant in child welfare outcomes, statistically.) But there remain differences in child welfare outcomes in formalized marriage settings. It's one of the reasons gay Americans wish to promote single-sex marriage, since the benefits of such status when the couple become parents are so significant to the children.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^^ (Post 36) Why 'except that'? Isn't what you go on to describe the very thing I myself had made reference to - enlargement of the state?


Because you were suggesting that it was the enlargement of government that led to Rome's downfall. I was suggesting that it was the self-interest of the army that led to Rome's downfall.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> The complete sentence is valid.
> My children were born to an unmarried couple. My wife and I have since been married, but we're still the same couple and our children are the same children.
> Stability is key.


Quite. Stability is the absolute necessity. Being married doesn't make any difference whatsoever.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

There is a case for saying that marriage does make a difference, especially to the children. A failure of the parents to marry, to formalise a legal commitment to one another, can be suggestive of a more temporary arrangement. Not that a lot of marriages don't go west anyway.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> There is a case for saying that marriage does make a difference, especially to the children. A failure of the parents to marry, to formalise a legal commitment to one another, can be suggestive of a more temporary arrangement. Not that a lot of marriages don't go west anyway.


Modern thought (not based on "religious" préférences), seems to state otherwise. A child will only "believe" in marriage if parents preach the matter. My children know me as papa and my wife as mama. We are not husband and wife to them. I am also happy enough to teach my children that everything should be considered temporary versus permanent. Would it not be worse to have a child raised to believe that their parents marriage is infaillible (thanks to god's blessing), just to have it fall apart a few years later? Santa, fairies, princesses (other than the social elite types), mickey, and all other imaginary creatures do not "exist" in my household (nor does the boogyman, monsters, ghosts, etc). Both of their parents believe in respect. Both of their parents love them. Both of their parents belive in education. Both of their parents believe in helping others through established means. Both of their parents believe in being polite when out in public. Both of their parents believe in working hard and enjoying the benefits of doing so. Marriage itself is almost never mentioned. My children do not come home from school speaking of hubands and wives versus mamas and papas as explained by their schoolmates (which was as explained by their schoolmates versus them alone). No where outside of religion has it been shown that marriage is beneficial to children and in the cases of the religious, it may be true as that is what their children have been incorrectly lead to believe (same with sex before mariage, dancing, drinking, smoking, the "7 Deadly sins", not wearing veils, etc)


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Modern thought not based on "religious" préférences seems to state otherwise. A child will only "believe" in marriage if parents preach the matter. My children know me as papa and my wife as mama. We are not husband and wife to them. I am also happy enough to teach my children that everything should be considered temporary versus permanent. Would it not be worse to have a child raised to believe that their parents marriage is infaillible (thanks to god's blessing), just to have it fall apart a few years later? Santa, fairies, princesses (other than the social elite types), mickey, and all other imaginary creatures do not "exist" in my household (nor does the boogyman, monsters, ghosts, etc).


I perhaps should have added that without a genuine commitment, a marriage would be a hollow and pointless business, although I think that much is obvious. Children do need security and some sense of permanence for their emotional wellbeing - I cannot see the value of teaching them that everything should be considered temporary. My personal view (without wishing to cast any aspersions on other people's arrangements) is that it is unfair on both the mother and the children to refrain from marriage.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> I perhaps should have added that without a genuine commitment, a marriage would be a hollow and pointless business, although I think that much is obvious. Children do need security and some sense of permanence for their emotional wellbeing - I cannot see the value of teaching them that everything should be considered temporary. My personal view (without wishing to cast any aspersions on other people's arrangements) is that it is unfair on both the mother and the children to refrain from marriage.


I agree with most of your viewpoint and I appreciate you being one of the few to take the time to write a proper counterpoint versus a taking the "that's the way it is" stance...But...While I agree that "some sense of permanence" is needed, perhaps my disagreement comes from our differing viewpoints as to what constitutes "permanence". While my older daughter is aware that she will continure to go to school duing the school year, she is also aware that the schools will change. That the daycare she has attended the last several years, will now say goodbye to her as well. The schools were temporary yet the schedule retains permanence. Would you truely deny telling a child the reality of life verus protecting permanence?

While I and my wife will always love our children (and this is the preached permanence in our household), there is no set idea in life that mama or papa will even be alive tomorrow. Due to business schedules, many couples (married or not) spend alot of time apart. As such, I find the ideology of the "parents" to be much more important, than the less important( to children) concept of "the husband and wife".

I do have to take a bit of exception to your assertation that father's rights are not as equal to that of the mother. I myself find such bias as shown in the courts (my knowledge os more particularly of U.S. cases) to be revolting at best. A mother is no better parent than a father and in many cases worse.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> I agree with most of your viewpoint and I appreciate you being one of the few to take the time to write a proper counterpoint versus a taking the "that's the way it is" stance...But...While I agree that "some sense of permanence" is needed, perhaps my disagreement comes from our differing viewpoints as to what constitutes "permanence". While my older daughter is aware that she will continure to go to school duing the school year, she is also aware that the schools will change. That the daycare she has attended the last several years, will now say goodbye to her as well. The schools were temporary yet the schedule retains permanence. Would you truely deny telling a child the reality of life verus protecting permanence?
> 
> While I and my wife will always love our children (and this is the preached permanence in our household), there is no set idea in life that mama or papa will even be alive tomorrow. Due to business schedules, many couples (married or not) spend alot of time apart. As such, I find the ideology of the "parents" to be much more important, than the less important( to children) concept of "the husband and wife".
> 
> I do have to take a bit of exception to your assertation that father's rights are not as equal to that of the mother. I myself find such bias as shown in the courts (my knowledge os more particularly of U.S. cases) to be revolting at best. A mother is no better parent than a father and in many cases worse.


It is the sense of feeling they have a permanent attachment with their parents, rather than schools or other things, that I mean is important, and which can be undermined if they have reason to suspect that one or other parent may not be around for long - for whatever reason.

I don't believe the father's rights to be inferior to those of the mother, but they are certainly different. Their roles are perhaps complementary rather than equivalent, but it is part of the generally accepted order of things that, especially when children are young, the maternal bond tends to be stronger - that is just something the courts assume to be the case, rightly or wrongly. As seen by society generally, the mother's commitment is the greater; perhaps this is supported by the unfortunate fact that more fathers than mothers abandon their families.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Err Hitch... have you ever read the Bible? 

Jesus was a Socialist. :thumbs-up:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don't think Jesus advocated for the state inserting itself into matters of faith and one's personal fidelity to religious virtue....."Render unto Caesar....".

I give to charitable causes willingly; an act of Christian virtue. The state confiscates my wealth and distributes it how it sees fit, often dispensing of it on the basis of political expediency vs. true need; that's socialism.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I don't think Jesus advocated for the state inserting itself into matters of faith and one's personal fidelity to religious virtue....."Render unto Caesar....".
> 
> I give to charitable causes willingly; an act of Christian virtue. *The state confiscates my wealth and distributes it how it sees fit, often dispensing of it on the basis of political expediency vs. true need; that's socialism*.


_*It is!?

*_Cor blimey, I have been believing something utterly different all these years.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

It's fascinating how the pejorative term "socialist" has been applied to liberal Democrat politicians in the US by conservative critics who ought to know better. Barack Obama is clearly not a socialist, or he wouldn't have insisted on selling GM shares back to the public once the bailout was over.

BTW, Shaver, I have no idea on what basis you claim Jesus to have been a socialist. I don't recall his ever arguing that the State take over production of goods.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Err Hitch... have you ever read the Bible?
> 
> Jesus was a Socialist. :thumbs-up:


Like Dave was a Philistine .


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Returning to the OP, one fact I learned recently is that one in four of the homeless are former servicemen, unable to adjust or fit into civilian life. This seems a shocking statistic and points perhaps to some shortcoming in the military system of reintegrating retiring servicemen. It may also reflect the extreme experiences some of these young men have undergone.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> It's fascinating how the pejorative term "socialist" has been applied to liberal Democrat politicians in the US by conservative critics who ought to know better. Barack Obama is clearly not a socialist, or he wouldn't have insisted on selling GM shares back to the public once the bailout was over.
> 
> BTW, Shaver, I have no idea on what basis you claim Jesus to have been a socialist. I don't recall his ever arguing that the State take over production of goods.


Matthew 25: 41 - 46

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

John 3: 17

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

And so on and so forth.......


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> _*It is!?
> 
> *_Cor blimey, I have been believing something utterly different all these years.


Yes, but you've been doing it with impeccable style! :biggrin:


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Matthew 25: 41 - 46
> 
> Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
> I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
> ...


Perhaps you'll share how your chosen passages translate into Socialism.

*24 *Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
*25 *And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
*26 *His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
*27 *Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
*28 *Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
*29 *For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The above biblical references all refer to individual actions. 

Please find a passage that directs the actions of government toward these ends.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Perhaps you'll share how your chosen passages translate into Socialism.
> 
> *24 *Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
> *25 *And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
> ...


^ Am I expected to magically imbue every single word in the Gospels with a Socialist cast?

This is an easy one though so - this parable speaks of personal responsibility to thrive by employing the talents (pun intended) that God has given us. En precis - From each according to his ability to each according to his need. The very essence of Socialism.

Fancy another try? :thumbs-up:

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> ^ Am I expected to magically imbue every single word in the Gospels with a Socialist cast?
> 
> This is an easy one though so - this parable speaks of personal responsibility to thrive by employing the talents (pun intended) that God has given us. En precis - From each according to his ability to each according to his need. The very essence of Socialism.
> 
> Fancy another try? :thumbs-up:


Personal responsibility! That's the key. The U.S. is the most generous nation when it comes to charitable giving, of both material wealth as well as giving of one's talents. There's nothing antithetical between the accumulation of wealth and being a good Christian.

I find it an irony that the essence of a socialist state has it's roots in Christian ideals. Shall we organize the state so that it is inline with the full measure of Christian belief?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Personal responsibility! That's the key. The U.S. is the most generous nation when it comes to charitable giving, of both material wealth as well as giving of one's talents. There's nothing antithetical between the accumulation of wealth and being a good Christian.
> 
> I find it an irony that the essence of a socialist state has it's roots in Christian ideals. Shall we organize the state so that it is inline with the full measure of Christian belief?


What exactly is it that you believe Socialism to be? :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> What exactly is it that you believe Socialism to be? :icon_scratch:


If I choose to freely give to a charity, or commit my time to help my fellow human being, then that's not socialism. The state is not compelling me; my conscience is.

If I work hard, accumulate wealth and then use that wealth to create opportunity for others, am I not also helping my fellow man? By giving someone else an opportunity at a better life through my hard work, is that not an act of charity?

Why does the state need to insert itself into this.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Wow! Some of you American fellows have a jaundiced view of Socialism. Never quite got over the Cold War it seems.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Matthew 25: 41 - 46
> 
> Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
> I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
> ...


None of that has sweet FA to do with socialism. It has to do with charity and compassion, qualities available to anyone of any political stripe.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Available to?

Well, of course, every man might choose to behave according to these qualities despite his political persuasions.

They are* central *to Socialism, though.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> ^ Available to?
> 
> Well, of course, every man might choose to behave according to these qualities despite his political persuasions.
> 
> They are* central *to Socialism, though.


I would argue that individuals acting on these themes have been more successful than have socialist governments.

Another tenet of socialism that socialists are not willing to discuss; the individual is not to be trusted. It is through the state that the imperfect shall be made perfect.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I would argue that individuals acting on these themes have been more successful than have socialist governments.
> 
> Another tenet of socialism that socialists are not willing to discuss; the individual is not to be trusted. It is through the state that the imperfect shall be made perfect.


The individual is not to be trusted? How very bleak.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The very essence of socialism relies on the fact that individuals acting in their own interests and an economy organized along individual effort cannot be trusted to produce fair and equitable allocation of labor and resources.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

*It does!?

*Cor blimey, I have been believing something utterly different all these years.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

MaxBuck said:


> None of that has sweet FA to do with socialism. It has to do with charity and compassion, qualities available to anyone of any political stripe.





Shaver said:


> ^ Available to?
> 
> Well, of course, every man might choose to behave according to these qualities despite his political persuasions.
> 
> They are* central *to Socialism, though.


How practice does deviate from theory, eh? Unless those in government choose to behave in the charitable, compassionate manner, then we end up with Stalinism. Which is neither compassionate nor charitable in the least.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Some here may well be dyed-in-the-wool socialists, although I suspect there is an element of winding-up involved, and I find the asserted link of politics with religion tenuous and suspect in the extreme.

A historian may say the socialists were given free rein in the UK long ago - or as I ardently hope, just about enough rope to hang themselves. In fact socialism in the UK, in all likelihood, met its nemesis exactly 30 years ago, in scenes I remember very clearly. A whole gang of thuggish-looking miners attempted to hold the country to ransom, mounting a murderous and unprovoked assault on policemen who were armed only with truncheons and riot gear. When the mounted police tried to ride through, some of these hooligans blatantly obstructed them, actually trying to trip up the horses by getting in the way.


----------



## Larry Poppins (Jan 14, 2014)

Langham said:


> Some here may well be dyed-in-the-wool socialists, although I suspect there is an element of winding-up involved, and I find the asserted link of politics with religion tenuous and suspect in the extreme.


Agreed. The real link is between economics and religion, as in; "That which cannot be solved by the free market is best left up to God."


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ^ Am I expected to magically imbue every single word in the Gospels with a Socialist cast?
> 
> This is an easy one though so - this parable speaks of personal responsibility to thrive by employing the talents (pun intended) that God has given us. En precis - From each according to his ability to each according to his need. The very essence of Socialism.
> 
> ...


You're a gas when you get stretched , this is one for the books.

_Am I expected to magically imbue every single word in the Gospels with a Socialist cast? 

Well only in the sense that this magic is required to build the Socialist Christ you proclaimed. Shouldnt it be expected that this important part of His message regularly appear in various forms and teachings? _


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> The above biblical references all refer to individual actions.
> 
> Please find a passage that directs the actions of government toward these ends.


Biblical charity by sets sets giver and receiver face to face and is always personal .


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> *It does!?
> 
> *Cor blimey, I have been believing something utterly different all these years.


If you can define 'giving' especially as in the quotes you posted from Christ as the taking of property by force you've spent a lifetime in the dark, learning magic I suppose.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Some here may well be dyed-in-the-wool socialists, although I suspect there is an element of winding-up involved, and I find the asserted link of politics with religion tenuous and suspect in the extreme.
> 
> A historian may say the socialists were given free rein in the UK long ago - or as I ardently hope, just about enough rope to hang themselves. In fact socialism in the UK, in all likelihood, met its nemesis exactly 30 years ago, in scenes I remember very clearly. A whole gang of thuggish-looking miners attempted to hold the country to ransom, mounting a murderous and unprovoked assault on policemen who were armed only with truncheons and riot gear. When the mounted police tried to ride through, some of these hooligans blatantly obstructed them, actually trying to trip up the horses by getting in the way.


There is nothing that gives me greater pleasure than such perfect Swiftian satire.

Well played Sir. :icon_hailthee:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> If you can define 'giving' especially as in the quotes you posted from Christ as the taking of property by force *you've spent a lifetime in the dark, learning magic *I suppose.


The less said about that the better.

Ave Satanas.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> You're a gas when you get stretched , this is one for the books.
> 
> _Am I expected to magically imbue every single word in the Gospels with a Socialist cast?
> 
> Well only in the sense that this magic is required to build the Socialist Christ you proclaimed. Shouldnt it be expected that this important part of His message regularly appear in various forms and teachings? _


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> There is nothing that gives me greater pleasure than such perfect Swiftian satire.
> 
> Well played Sir. :icon_hailthee:


My pleasure, Shaver.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


>


Masterful!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Masterful!


Hardly! Had Christ used his supernatural powers to commandeer the local Roman legion to exact a tax to feed the masses then that would have been socialism.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Socialism is a point of view (a credo, if you will) that may, or may not, be translated into government.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ Socialism is a point of view (a credo, if you will) that may, or may not, be translated into government.


Ah. Well many people here aren't capable of distinguishing "socialist" policies over 'communism" & as communism is former russian & chinese policy, then it all must be bad (because the russians were bad not only under policy but as a people too). The Ukraine situation has brought out the cold war victims & they are proclaiming putin worse than some of the monsters that preceded him (while ignoring the daily growing u.s. murder count). It is of course ok for wealthy Americans (& israelis, europeans, middle easterns) to control u.s. policy but the rich russians shouldn't. A wealthy Ukrainian president having a nice house is an abomination when compared to McCain's 6 houses of the same sort.It's ok for Romney to rob the u s. Public out of taxes in favor of his chosen religious group but should anyone support putting the same money into education it would be communist. Companies that use our resources shouldn't have to pay tax as long as they hire a few people at minimum wage (what a commmie idea). Please steal all our resources for your personal gain, pollute our environment, and give nothing to the people you have exploited.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> ^ Socialism is a point of view (a credo, if you will) that may, or may not, be translated into government.


If that's the case, we're all socialists!!!

What a wonderful notion. Let's all practice it. In fact, we should be compelled to as it is so good.

Hmmm, how should we? I know, let's assign someone, or better yet, a group of wise men to teach us how.

Just think how wonderful and better off we would all be!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Ah. Well many people here aren't capable of distinguishing "socialist" policies over 'communism" & as communism is former russian & chinese policy, then it all must be bad (because the russians were bad not only under policy but as a people too). The Ukraine situation has brought out the cold war victims & they are proclaiming putin worse than some of the monsters that preceded him (while ignoring the daily growing u.s. murder count). It is of course ok for wealthy Americans (& israelis, europeans, middle easterns) to control u.s. policy but the rich russians shouldn't. A wealthy Ukrainian president having a nice house is an abomination when compared to McCain's 6 houses of the same sort.It's ok for Romney to rob the u s. Public out of taxes in favor of his chosen religious group but should anyone support putting the same money into education it would be communist. Companies that use our resources shouldn't have to pay tax as long as they hire a few people at minimum wage (what a commmie idea). Please steal all our resources for your personal gain, pollute our environment, and give nothing to the people you have exploited.


Indeed. According to Amnesty International, since 1990, the U.S is second only to Iran in the amount of juvenile offenders it has executed (despite this being prohibited by International law).

Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/executions-juvenile-offenders


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> If that's the case, we're all socialists!!!
> 
> What a wonderful notion. Let's all practice it. In fact, we should be compelled to as it is so good.
> 
> ...


Hmm You'd probably have no problem with it as long as it was the group of " wisemen" that "vetted" your version of god.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Hmm You'd probably have no problem with it as long as it was the group of " wisemen" that "vetted" your version of god.


On the contrary my friend. It is for the individual to determine his relationship with god. Not the state.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Here's a few other "socialist" ideas that I hope aren't used by those opposed to socialism...Roads. Parks. Public transport (to include air travel), museums, education, hospitals, police, sports venues, farms (food production). All of these have been supported by the poplulace for the "common good". Not only do these people not want to pay extra in food costs, entertainment, protection, education, etc. They won't want to pay when others will need emergency assistance ( i fully understand that the u.s. welfare system is as broken as its other systems but this is more internal politics over reality).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

May I remind you gentleman that God requires a capital 'G'. 

Oooh this is my 5,500th post. Quick! Erudite reference off the top of my head... errr....erm... oh yes. 5,500 - the mean surface temperature of our Sun, in celsius.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> May I remind you gentleman that God requires a capital 'G'.
> 
> Oooh this is my 5,500th post. Quick! Erudite reference off the top of my head... errr....erm... oh yes. 5,500 - the mean surface temperature of our Sun, in celsius.


Artistic license allows the author to disobey various rules when trying to make certain points or to emphasize a matter. I will most often use lower case in the mentioned example but may decide otherwise depending on who I am responding to. While I admit to allowing mistakes to go unchecked while on my mobile phone, the case mentioned is not usually accidental or directly related to typing & viewing text on a small area (although out of respect for others I usually try to avoid longer posts until I can get on a desk top).

Ohhh. Congrats on the 5'500 post. Aren't you already at the highest member level or does a better "rating" await you at 6'000?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> On the contrary my friend. It is for the individual to determine his relationship with god. Not the state.


Yet the republicans seem to constantly support legal limitations on topics that are considered based on christianity & in fact is a major supporter of the " evolution should be excluded from school textbooks' crowd. Most abortion laws are biased towards christianity. Sex ed? Unchristian. Your views as a follower of religion ignore a system that pretty much forces christianity.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Yet the republicans seem to constantly support legal limitations on topics that are considered based on christianity & in fact is a major supporter of the " evolution should be excluded from school textbooks' crowd.


As though every republican thinks the same way?

Your arguments would be far more convincing if they followed logic.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Artistic license allows the author to disobey various rules when trying to make certain points or to emphasize a matter. I will most often use lower case in the mentioned example but may decide otherwise depending on who I am responding to. While I admit to allowing mistakes to go unchecked while on my mobile phone, the case mentioned is not usually accidental or directly related to typing & viewing text on a small area (although out of respect for others I usually try to avoid longer posts until I can get on a desk top).
> 
> Ohhh. Congrats on the 5'500 post. Aren't you already at the highest member level or does a better "rating" await you at 6'000?


When I reach 6,000 posts I am promoted to moderator. Probably.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> As though every republican thinks the same way?
> 
> Your arguments would be far more convincing if they followed logic.


The republicans as a group are different than republicans as individuals but one votes for the republican party over an individual republican. A republican politician that fails to follow the party line will find himself short of funding & no longer a politician. Same applies to the democraps. It's a 2 party problem.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


>


Tell me which tax program funded this feeding program and who was required by law to participate?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> The republicans as a group are different than republicans as individuals but one votes for the republican party over an individual republican. A republican politician that fails to follow the party line will find himself short of funding & no longer a politician. Same applies to the democraps. It's a 2 party problem.


Parties are comprised of individuals with many different interests. It's not a problem with the 2 party system as it would be the same with a 10 party system, in fact probably worse as their is much less room for error in a parliamentary system when someone goes off the reservation. It's politics.

However, you're trying to deflect from your earlier comments about what Republicans think. You're generalizing and I'm afraid your arguments are far from convincing.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Parties are comprised of individuals with many different interests. It's not a problem with the 2 party system as it would be the same with a 10 party system, in fact probably worse as their is much less room for error in a parliamentary system when someone goes off the reservation. It's politics.
> 
> However, you're trying to deflect from your earlier comments about what Republicans think. You're generalizing and I'm afraid your arguments are far from convincing.


Sorry. What comments am I trying to deflect from? If you'd be kind enough to remind me I'll try to directly address them asap.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Tell me which tax program funded this feeding program and who was required by law to participate?


You don't pay taxes then, Hitch?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Sorry. What comments am I trying to deflect from? If you'd be kind enough to remind me I'll try to directly address them asap.


Broad generalizations about the republican party.

"Yet the republicans seem to constantly support legal limitations on topics that are considered based on christianity & in fact is a major supporter of the " evolution should be excluded from school textbooks' crowd."


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Broad generalizations about the republican party.
> 
> "Yet the republicans seem to constantly support legal limitations on topics that are considered based on christianity & in fact is a major supporter of the " evolution should be excluded from school textbooks' crowd."


I thought I responded to that issue in post #103 by stating that the republican party is different than individual republicans. If I have to vote for a party that demands that certain beliefs must be a given in order to fullfil candidacy requirements, than I am not voting for an individual and his/her ideologies versus a political party and "their" ideologies. It is probelmatic in a 2 party "democracy". If 51% of the republican think evolution shouldn't be taught, then by default, 49% of republicans will need to support the party line (agreed upon or not) or risk having to change to the democrats (again, this is very rare especially being based off of 1 Policy that might be highly disagreeed upon).

Odd that you would most likely support having the choice of 100 different car companies & 100 different breakfast cereals (all which can be chosen for their advatages or disadvantages), yet think a choice of 2 BS political parties sufficient. The fact is that the republican party assumes certain "ethical stances", the same with the democrats. While I agree with many thoughts from both parties, neither as a whole is acceptable to me. What choice do I have? If I like the republican's views on 2nd ad. rights, but despise their general stance on foreign policy, what can I do? My only other choice would be to vote for the party that disagrees with many of my viewpoints. If I happen to dislike foreign Policy from both parties, my choice is nil.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> You don't pay taxes then, Hitch?


Well at the very least he seems the type to deny responsibilty to do so (other than for military operations of course).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Well at the very least he seems the type to deny responsibilty to do so (other than for military operations of course).


Wesley Swift? :devil:


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> You don't pay taxes then, Hitch?


Poor Shaver ,cant answer the question LOL .


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Poor Shaver ,cant answer the question LOL .


To be chagrined in this fashion by our most elusive question swerver is something of a plaudit. :thumbs-up:


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

justonemore said:


> Here's a few other "socialist" ideas that I hope aren't used by those opposed to socialism...Roads. Parks. Public transport (to include air travel), museums, education, hospitals, police, sports venues, farms (food production).


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> To be chagrined in this fashion by our most elusive question swerver is something of a plaudit. :thumbs-up:


The question had two parts . Perhaps you'll do better if you try one part at a time.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> The question had two parts . Perhaps you'll do better if you try one part at a time.


Do you think so? That's very kind of you to encourage me in this manner. I appreciate your support.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

What about homelessness in the U.S.?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Howard said:


> What about homelessness in the U.S.?


Unless they are found by an individual or private organization willing to donate time and money to the homeless person, they are pretty much expected to die in the streets Howard. Anything else is considered "Socialism". The U.S. gives out more $$$ in welfare checks to Israel and its 8 million Citizens every year than it pays out for the 22 million AMERICAN CHILDREN that need food assistance. Actually the total expenditures of all welfare programs for American citizens is about the same as to what we give Israel (figures vary by year of course). Of course there are many countries on the U.S. welfare system but to a much lesser extent. Should you think that the 22 million children in your backyard are a priority over 8 million Israelis in the middle east, then you are obviously a socialist anti-semite whose opinion as a U.S. Citizen tax payer shouldn't matter. While 1/5-1/4 of your neighbors need social assistance (because capitalism is so great), it would be much better to support a "homeland" for the minority of a religious group that feels past discrimination should over rule current U.S. economic problems.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

No one and I mean NO ONE sleeps in the street in Sweden if they don't want to. Anyone sleeping outdoors in Sweden is there by choice. Sweden is much like Switzerland in many respects. There are sufficient places indoors in refuges for all homeless people in Sweden. That said EVERY person in Sweden has a registered address. It is illegal to evict people in Sweden if they don't have somewhere else to go.


The homeless situation in the UK is outrageous

Bottom line: it all comes down to political will, new legislation and earmarking funds. Government and the private sector could solve the homeless issue in a week if they wanted to. 

But the will isn't there to do it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> As many here know, I hold many "socialist" viewpoints and live in a country that, while a direct democracy, votes for many ideas that would be considered "beyond the pale" to many Americans. This includes treatment and housing for "junkies and addicts". Our homeless or "SDF" (sans domiciles fixe) are taken care of by the populace and I am more than willing to pay for such (although I hold no religious values telling me to do so). My recent trip to London reminded me of one of the problems I've always had with the area, which is mainly that there are many people that seem to be sleeping in doorways or "on the street". Out of ignorance, I am not certain why this is. Are there no programs that protect those in U.K. society from having to do so? While there are many people in Switzerland that have come here against "the law" and are not capable of asking for such benefits (i.e. various gypsy clans), I have yet to see such numerous people that have no assistance(even the gypsy clans can sleep in the civil service barracks during certain times). May I ask (without any means to insult), what the standard is in the U.K. when it comes down to social assistance?


Very well said. I also hold many socialist views and Christian values. And much of what you say about CH is also true for Sweden.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Very well said. As a socialist writer once put it, "A fat man eating quails whilst children are begging for bread is a disgusting sight....." (George Orwell). One can get used to it by hardening one's heart and by pretending not to notice the figures in the doorways, and I have done so in places like Calcutta, but it isn't something that I want to do in Britain.


Well said!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No one and I mean NO ONE sleeps in the street in Sweden if they don't want to. Anyone sleeping outdoors in Sweden is there by choice. Sweden is much like Switzerland in many respects. There are sufficient places indoors in refuges for all homeless people in Sweden. That said EVERY person in Sweden has a registered address. It is illegal to evict people in Sweden if they don't have somewhere else to go.
> 
> The homeless situation in the UK is outrageous
> 
> ...


Thank you Earl. On this topic (and many others), Sweden is a country that others should look upon to emulate. There is no reason for anyone (other than self will) to have to sleep in the street. Socialism is nothing but a BS excuse to keep from paying for those much less fortunate. Anyone claiming to hold a "higher power" that accepts the starving and homeless as acceptable "casulaties of a free-market society" have not a leg to stand upon in my humble opinion.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Curious comment from an avowed socialist.I've yet to encounter a government bureaucracy that does not overrule common sense


Blimey, easy with that generalisation brush, how many govt bureaus have you encountered? And there's nothing curious at all about that statement coming from a socialist. In mainland Europe you see, it is the govt bureaus (authorities, agencies, civil service) that stand for common sense in society in the face of a private sector always looking for profit and in the face of the idiocies of political parties and politicians. And so when govt bureaucracy ignores comon sense it is a rare event in mainland Europe. I work for the Swedish Civil Service at a Swedish Ministry of Defence agency.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Welcome back Earl, I haven't read anything from you for ages!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Socialism is nothing but a BS excuse to keep from paying for those much less fortunate. Anyone claiming to hold a "higher power" that accepts the starving and homeless as acceptable "casulaties of a free-market society" have not a leg to stand upon in my humble opinion.


I fully agree. I've never understood the nightmarish fear that America has of social democracy, and why it accepts a form of "freedom" that is only "freedom" if you've got a job, a place to live and money.

But mein freund, you also have to understand that political terminology shifts sideways in the US.

As far as I can work out the following list of words seem to have the following meanings in the US:

Socialist - a communist
Social Democrat - a socialist
Labour/ workers party - socialist
Liberal - a social democrat/ possibly a socialist 
Democrat - a liberal or centre partist
Republican - right wing

Whereas for us in Europe (except for the UK, where social democrats are liberals) the following is generally the case:

Anarchist - anarchist 
Communist - communist
Socialist - socialist
Repubicans - left wing, socialist
Workers parties - social democrat, left wing
Social democrat - left wing
Labour - left wing
Liberal - liberal
Christian democrats - liberal, centre 
Greens - liberal, centre 
Centrists - centre, right wing
Folk party, populists - right wing
Moderates - right wing
Conservatives - right wing
Nationalists - extreme right wing
Anarchist - anarchist


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Welcome back Earl, I haven't read anything from you for ages!


Thanks, yea, various reasons, mainly to do with my mental health. Now on several tablets a day. Apart from diagnosed clinical depression and severe anxiety, I was a few months ago, after a 2 year neurpsychological study, diagnosed with Aspergers, ADD and developing DPD.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

justonemore said:


> Unless they are found by an individual or private organization willing to donate time and money to the homeless person, they are pretty much expected to die in the streets Howard. Anything else is considered "Socialism". The U.S. gives out more $$$ in welfare checks to Israel and its 8 million Citizens every year than it pays out for the 22 million AMERICAN CHILDREN that need food assistance. Actually the total expenditures of all welfare programs for American citizens is about the same as to what we give Israel (figures vary by year of course). Of course there are many countries on the U.S. welfare system but to a much lesser extent. Should you think that the 22 million children in your backyard are a priority over 8 million Israelis in the middle east, then you are obviously a socialist anti-semite whose opinion as a U.S. Citizen tax payer shouldn't matter. While 1/5-1/4 of your neighbors need social assistance (because capitalism is so great), it would be much better to support a "homeland" for the minority of a religious group that feels past discrimination should over rule current U.S. economic problems.


If someone would do something about these homeless people constantly asking for spare change near our supermarket or any other place that rich people shop at than there would be less of them on the streets. Any thoughts?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Howard said:


> If someone would do something about these homeless people constantly asking for spare change near our supermarket or any other place that rich people shop at than there would be less of them on the streets. Any thoughts?


Well Howard, the current popular theory seems to suggest that if we leave all those "rich shoppers" to decide, then they will help out all those poor homeless people that are left begging on t he doorstep. Has this not happened? Really? Why not? Government intervention would help all those that haven't been helped by all the soul bearing, gift giving few, but many Americans consider this as socialism. My suggestion is that you try to ask your government to help out but as you are only a poor grocery store clerk, you might not be listened to as much as the Koch brothers (that might even own your grocery store and demand that you vote in favor of their friends in exchange for continued employment) etc. Isn't your powerful grocery store union capable of competing with that of the Israelis (or naaacp, NRA, NAARP)?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Howard said:


> If someone would do something about these homeless people constantly asking for spare change near our supermarket or any other place that rich people shop at than there would be less of them on the streets. Any thoughts?


How did you make that paradoxical leap? If they don't ask for money from people they can't get money to improve their situation because mostly they are on the street asking for money due to the fact that presumably the social systems have in one, two or more ways ejected them i.e. they have ended up, due to whatever reason (illness, homlessness, unemployment, addiction, crime) "outside the system and its safeguards".


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Well Howard, the current popular theory seems to suggest that if we leave all those "rich shoppers" to decide, then they will help out all those poor homeless people that are left begging on t he doorstep. Has this not happened? Really? Why not? Government intervention would help all those that haven't been helped by all the soul bearing, gifting giving few, but many Americans consider this as socialism. My suggestion is that you try to ask your government to help out but as you are only a poor grocery store clerk, you might not be listened to as much as the Koch brothers (that might even own your grocery store and demand that you vote in favor of their friends in exchange for continued employment)


Exactly!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

justonemore said:


> Well Howard, the current popular theory seems to suggest that if we leave all those "rich shoppers" to decide, then they will help out all those poor homeless people that are left begging on t he doorstep. Has this not happened? Really? Why not? Government intervention would help all those that haven't been helped by all the soul bearing, gift giving few, but many Americans consider this as socialism. My suggestion is that you try to ask your government to help out but as you are only a poor grocery store clerk, you might not be listened to as much as the Koch brothers (that might even own your grocery store and demand that you vote in favor of their friends in exchange for continued employment) etc. Isn't your powerful grocery store union capable of competing with that of the Israelis (or naaacp, NRA, NAARP)?


I'm just saying that there should be less of them.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Howard said:


> I'm just saying that there should be less of them.


In fact Howard, there should be none. That anyone in U.S. society is homeless, starving, and needing to beg in order to live, is an insult to U.S. society. Unfortunate that there is no direct democracy that would allow the general populace to vote on mesuares protecting the weak versus politicians making laws to protect the strong. America is considered to be a Christian country and while the constitution states opposite of course, it's hard to think that Christians would ignore the words of their savior Jesus Christ. "that what you do to the least of my breathern, you do unto me as well". While society has the capabilty to solve such problems, it is their choice not to. The $millions in taxes that U.S. companies avoid could be spent on such poor souls but the government prefers to cater to the ceos of G.E. and Apple. The billions/trillions they make off of the U.S consumer (not to mention the natural resources they consume), are no reason to give the less fortunate food or a place to live. Begging outside your grocery store is much better in the thoughts of the U.S. ... Until of course they claim vagrancy and arrest such beggars at the cost of U.S. taxpayers. It's a hard situation and none of the rich really want to aid versus being aided.

Keep in mind that should your company decide that you cost too much, you will get "let go". After all your years of dedication to your job and your community, you will be left with nothing. You too will become a beggar outside mthe grocery store. Whilre I state that the community should aid you, many members here, such as SG and Hitch, will state that you deserve no benefits from society. Either you find a job, a benefactor (privately funded charities), or that you die in the street. Life is hard my friend.. The only people deserving of U.S. federal aid are obviously the welfare checkers out of Israel and other countries that have nothing to do with the welfare of our own populace. Good luck my friend. Stay healthy. Keep your job. Become politically active and never be afraid to call out your politicians when they allow basic rights to be ignored.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> In fact Howard, there should be none.


Exactly!


----------

