WiggO said:

We can all get along, but I find that a lot of pollies that spout all that God stuff seem to have very big problems with the "Ten Commandments".

Sure they seem to follow the 1st 2 without problems and the 4th and 5th seem fairly safe too (though I could be proved wrong), but the other 6 seem to be optional and the 7th seems to be a "must break".

Sorry people, but I find a majority of these types of pollies are just plain hypocrites in the end.

I Looked UP WiggO in The Dictionary. 'It' defined WiggO as: A Perfect Person.

NOt Sure 'if' at Da mOment while Perusing said Dictionary, I was in 'this' Brane.

Man 'O Live.

Mike Huckabee in '16. HE 'IS' The MAN.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

"CLYDE" wrote:

ATHEISTIC MASS MURDERER'S: Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-un...

Hitler was disdainful of religion, but was not Atheist.

Mao Zedong had no religious affiliation, but was not Atheist, and the same goes for Kim Jong-un. Merely having no religion is not the same as Atheism.

I find Intolerant Anti-Religious people are the Real Fanatic's.

I tend to agree. It would also be nice if people would stop lumping all the non-religious with Atheism, then pointing at the terrible things a few have done and blame it on godlessness.

NOTE: STILL a Tolerant Atheist.

Me too.

"Guy" wrote:

Pol Pot was an atheist.
Benito Mussolini was an atheist.

There is no evidence to support the claim that Pol Pot was an Atheist.

Benito Mussolini also had no religious affiliation, but was not an Atheist.

Why is it that out of all the bloodshed in the name of god is defended by the religious, but the moment a non-religious person kills, all the religious insist it was because of godlessness? Is it because killing in the name of god is emotionally justified by invoking the name of god, but not having any religious affiliation automatically means that no god = bad for all humanity?

Major, you stated,

He racked up more in donations to charity in most years than he paid in Tax to the government.

I ask charity or his church? I don't necessarly consider them to be the same, do you? Yes I know the tax code does but the tax code is the result of politics.

---

Major, you stated,

He racked up more in donations to charity in most years than he paid in Tax to the government.

I ask charity or his church? I don't necessarly consider them to be the same, do you? Yes I know the tax code does but the tax code is the result of politics.

As you say, the tax code does. And *most* (though not all) 'Churches' do spend a lot of what was donated to them on charitable work.

That said, I do not count what I donate to churches as charity. Nor do I keep track of exactly what I donate where. On my taxes, I just 'Yeah...Whatever' and take the 'Standard Deduction'. What I give to charity, I give to help others, not to help myself.

So, I give Mr. Romney and others the courtesy of not judging them when it comes to their charitable giving. They donate where they think it will do the most good. As do I. Thats the thing about giving to charity. Unlike with 'taxes', with charity each person gets to give to the cause(s) that is/are most important to THEM. instead of having a long list of a whole lot of crap rammed down their throat (that they might not support and may even be against their beliefs/religion) by the Government when the Tax Man cometh.


I repeat. I do not think the Government is best when it comes to helping the poor. But that does NOT mean that I do not wish the poor to BE helped.

I happen to think that other organizations can do a MUCH better job of it. Organizations that are much more local in nature. More in tune with their local communities than some skanky corrupt politician down at the capital is.

As you say, the tax code does. And *most* (though not all) 'Churches' do spend a lot of what was donated to them on charitable work.

And that is the fallacy, most donations to organizations including churches are spent on keeping the oranization up and the admiistrators going in what ever life style they can get rather that towards their stated goals.

---

betreger said:

And that is the fallacy, most donations to organizations including churches are spent on keeping the oranization up and the admiistrators going in what ever life style they can get rather that towards their stated goals.

Yep, And Wee Thee PeeOple Elected dA ChAnge AgEnt Twice(HE Wants Thrice)fO da Hope of ChAnging 'it'. Yes, IMPLIED in HIS ThOusands of Election Speeches are Explicit LIES to The Changes WE ALL HOPED fO.

sO sO sO Disappointed are THOSE dat PUlled da LEvEr fO HIM.

HE, The AnnOited One, Insidiously Insinuated in ThOusands of Speeches dat HE WAS Going tO Beat The Beltway Malaise and CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE 'it'.

sO in '14 in '16 WE Will Have anOther Change.

Huckabee Beez 'it' in '16

fO shO

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

As you say, the tax code does. And *most* (though not all) 'Churches' do spend a lot of what was donated to them on charitable work.

And that is the fallacy, most donations to organizations including churches are spent on keeping the oranization up and the admiistrators going in what ever life style they can get rather that towards their stated goals.

Well, if you can't trust the preachers/priests/rabbis/mullahs/whatevertheyarecalled to get it right when they have commandments against lying, cheating, and stealing... Then would you please tell me how in the bloody name of (insert prophet's name of your choice here) do you think you can trust a politician to get it right when it is part of the politician's job description to lie, cheat, and steal??? hmm???

You do have some point on the churches not always spending their money on what they perhaps should. However, that problem is *usually* at the National or International level. Most churches on the local level usually have a 'help the poor fund' or a 'food bank/pantry' to help feed the poor starving people (especially the children of parents down on their luck). It is perhaps not as widely known as it should be, but you *can* make your donations directly to those if that is your wish. If they misuse those funds... well, jail can be a possibility.

Of course, on the local level they *do* need at least some donations to the general fund, because they have to keep the utilities on at the church building, pay the preacher, occasionally buy new books to replace old ones that wore out, etc, etc, etc...

Most all of the preachers I know do *NOT* live like kings. Most all of them live (including a bunch of those I am related to) rather simply.

So, I give Mr. Romney and others the courtesy of not judging them when it comes to their charitable giving. They donate where they think it will do the most good. As do I. Thats the thing about giving to charity. Unlike with 'taxes', with charity each person gets to give to the cause(s) that is/are most important to THEM. instead of having a long list of a whole lot of crap rammed down their throat (that they might not support and may even be against their beliefs/religion) by the Government when the Tax Man cometh.

I do not judge Romney on his charitable work. Honestly, he came over like a nice guy. But, when he is running for President of the United States, his private person no longer matters, it is his public person that matters, and that public person came over as privileged without ever realizing the extend of his privilege.

I repeat. I do not think the Government is best when it comes to helping the poor. But that does NOT mean that I do not wish the poor to BE helped.

I happen to think that other organizations can do a MUCH better job of it. Organizations that are much more local in nature. More in tune with their local communities than some skanky corrupt politician down at the capital is.

I disagree. Poverty is a systemic, country wide problem. Even if a charity is capable of changing the local conditions to such a degree that they can actually solve poverty (which I doubt, given how expensive it is), because charities are often local you get a patch work of charities combating poverty with varying degrees of success. On the whole, that is much more expensive and far less effective than having one organization combat poverty on a state or nation wide level.

Furthermore, poverty is caused by certain conditions and more often than not those conditions are not local. Local charities therefor cannot actually solve the problem, just prevent people from starving. Government on the other hand, is so many levels above that and wields so much more power, they can actually do something about some of those conditions. And, especially in the United States, government caused poverty when it started the whole Ayn Rand worshiping economic policies of the past 35 years, it is government who can fix that by changing its economic policies again.

Major prior to the new deal during the great depression what you are advocating was the way things were. Can you cite a time period when it worked well? I can't.

---

Why is it that out of all the bloodshed in the name of god is defended by the religious, but the moment a non-religious person kills, all the religious insist it was because of godlessness? Is it because killing in the name of god is emotionally justified by invoking the name of god, but not having any religious affiliation automatically means that no god = bad for all humanity?

Why is it that the bloodshed in the name of Ideology is defended? A POX on both.

Agreed. I just wanted to highlight the issue because I take exception with people like Guy's view that belief in a god is required for a society to be 'good', and that somehow godlessness leads to Bad Things(tm). I don't see how there can be tolerance if the religious rightwing believes such things and apply them generally.

Like Michiel said earlier in this thread, just because they had no religious affiliation, doesn't mean they killed because of a lack of belief in a god. There's plenty of evidence that belief in a god does not prevent killing of people.

when it is part of the politician's job description to lie, cheat, and steal??? hmm???

That is fundamentally wrong and you know it. Just because some or many do, does not make it right, or be the acceptable norm.

Chris S:

They ALL are corrupted, eventually. No, it is not right, but it is the way things are.

CLYDE wrote the following:

KWSN – MajorKong:

The New Deal, during the Great Depression, did save the Country and Capitalism. Of course there were great excesses, and let's try to fix them. Please, let's not get into a discussion of this, and why the Country slipped back into a Depression in 1936. (WWII got us out of the Depression of 1936, not 1929)

Hi CLYDE:

well said.

I agree with you.

I'm almost eighty years old now.

my father volunteered and Served in the Canadian Army 1939 to 1945.

my Grand father in Canadian Navy 1939 to 1945 - Battle of the North Atlantic

On September 10, 1939 our Parliament of Canada declared war on Hitler.

then everyone in Canada had a Job.

Best Wishes
Byron

How do you limit the inherently 'Evil of Power', and still have this Power (Government) do what is necessary?

Clyde, Sweeden, Norway and Denmark seem to that do quite well as does New Zealand.

---

But there IS a history of this nation allowing people to worship as they please, or not to worship at all, without fear of government oppression/tyranny. For many years, people lived their lives and either tolerated what they did not like or moved somewhere else where the local customs/traditions/beliefs more aligned with their own.

Yes, people were allowed to worship as they like. However, you were ostracized if you said you didn't believe, and many here in the U.S. are still ostracized for the same thing. What was the result if you refused to swear into testimony on the Holy Bible in 1865? 1965? What legal action could a non-believer take against a community that intended on driving out non-believers by any means necessary, including death threats and vandalism? What if the Sherriff knew of or took part in these actions and refused to apply the law evenly? I can come up with several other examples of how the law isn't applied evenly in various other situations where it should be. This also doesn't apply just to belief/non-believer, but sexual orientation and race as well.

No, non-believers had/have to hide their non-belief for fear of repercussion, both legal and social. This is what needs to change.

In recent years, there has been an all out attack against the believers... as if the non-believers have been attacked and an appropriate response is being returned and we are now in the middle of a melee. Who started it? Both sides say the other. Who really started it? Look towards our benevolent government/judicial branch.

That's the problem with the issue. Non-believers simply want Church and State separated for good reasons. Believers see this as an attack on their belief system and assert that God must be included in the laws, which automatically creates a bias in the laws in favor of religion when executing or writing those laws. These are biases that do not allow for a peaceful co-existence with non-believers. All non-believers want is more neutrality by keeping personal beliefs in God out of the laws and out of tax dollar spending.

There is no attack on religion. There is only a push for more equality.

Yes, I would argue that religion helps keep humanity civlized. I've explained this in detail in previous posts. Not going to bother repeating myself. Didn't do any good then, won't do any good now.

I understand that's how you believe; I've read your posts in the past. Not sure if you read or understood my responses. My argument is that religion is not necessary to keep humanity civilized, and using non-religious dictators as a representative sample is not a + for your argument anymore than pointing out all the wars and bloodshed in God's name makes all believers bad people.

Never said it was required. Quit putting words in my mouth.

So if it isn't required, I hope you'll join me and others in pushing for more separation of church and state.

I don't see how there can be tolerance when a minority of non-believers are *successfully* forcing their opinion on a majority of believers.

Because it isn't about majority/minority. It is about equal rights. Everyone in this country has a right to their voice in how they are represented and how their money is spent in the form of tax dollars. Our Constitution was setup so that there would be a separation of Church and State, and as time has passed, we've learned to become more tolerant of others and listen to their views. Non-believers are simply making the argument that personal belief in God does not have a place in the creation and execution of the laws.

Blame religion on the world's history of wars? Keep trying to force religion out and let's see what happens.

I would never try to push religion out of people's lives. People are more than welcome to worship as they please. It must be taken out of the State if there's going to be an equitable execution of the laws of the land.

IMO a rather simplistic viewpoint.

---

Hustlin'Hussein Ginnin' UP vOtes wif IncOmE InEquality measures. Wat Else has HE gOt?

Feckless Leader

Poll Numbers Tankin'

GOPTers Whackin' DEM/LIbs in Elections

Lousy Follow Through with Golf Swing and Promises Promises Promises

Goes On "Shows" and Sits Between Ferns to WOW da Youngins to OBlabby Care and the POlls.

Vorld Laughin' at HIM.

Pitiful POtus is NOw Officially Pitiful.

fO shO

HUCKABEE in '16

Da Hustler to Private LIfe Obscurity in '17.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

I disagree. Poverty is a systemic, country wide problem. Even if a charity is capable of changing the local conditions to such a degree that they can actually solve poverty (which I doubt, given how expensive it is), because charities are often local you get a patch work of charities combating poverty with varying degrees of success. On the whole, that is much more expensive and far less effective than having one organization combat poverty on a state or nation wide level.

Furthermore, poverty is caused by certain conditions and more often than not those conditions are not local. Local charities therefor cannot actually solve the problem, just prevent people from starving. Government on the other hand, is so many levels above that and wields so much more power, they can actually do something about some of those conditions. And, especially in the United States, government caused poverty when it started the whole Ayn Rand worshiping economic policies of the past 35 years, it is government who can fix that by changing its economic policies again.

Мишель:

I disagree. You seem to consider 'poverty' as a problem that can be solved by some outside agency of sorts (charity, government, whatever). It cannot be.

Poverty exists due to a wide variety of reasons. Some are relatively short-term (for instance your home, or the building where you work blew up or burned down, so you are temporarily homeless or unemployed, or perhaps the river flooded and wiped out your crops for the year). Charity excels at helping with this type. A helping hand feeding, sheltering, and clothing you and your family until you can get back on your feet.

Other reasons for poverty are somewhat longer term in nature. Things like mismatches in your skills with what is in demand. Also, a poor work-ethic (the lazy bums). Now, by no means are all of the poor 'lazy bums', or even very many of them at all. But they do exist. While charity and government programs can help keep them alive, a true solution to this sort of poverty must come from the individual, and the individual alone. They have to be willing to do what it takes to improve themselves.

The last major cause of poverty is lack of opportunity. In this one government isn't the solution, it is the PROBLEM. Over-regulation, excessive taxation, and micro-management of business activity due to central planning by the government. All of these have a drag effect on business activity. This is the ONE sort of poverty the Government can actually fix, by getting out of the way of business.

If Government WAS able to solve the entire problem of poverty, after spending untold Trillions of US$ on it starting at the beginning of the Progressive era (1890ish) until today, especially considering FDR's 'New Deal' and LBJ's 'Great Society' with their MASSIVE expenditures, continuing through Bush the Younger's NCLB and Medicare Part D, right on up through Obama's current agenda(s) today, don't you think that Government would have ALREADY solved it?

As far as helping out the poor goes, each area has a different set of problems, needing different solutions. And next year, the problem in one area might be different than they are this year. No 'national authority' can do a 'one size fits all' solution on the entire country and expect any kind of efficiency. Helping the poor is BEST done on the local level. And charities are almost always able to adapt to changing needs much FASTER than Government.

And, especially in the United States, Government has CAUSED a lot of poverty when it started adopting Statist economic policies over the last 120 years. Government can fix a lot of things by abandoning them.

Major prior to the new deal during the great depression what you are advocating was the way things were. Can you cite a time period when it worked well? I can't.

Oh, a couple thousand BCE to the present.

Мишель:

I disagree. You seem to consider 'poverty' as a problem that can be solved by some outside agency of sorts (charity, government, whatever). It cannot be.

Poverty exists due to a wide variety of reasons. Some are relatively short-term (for instance your home, or the building where you work blew up or burned down, so you are temporarily homeless or unemployed, or perhaps the river flooded and wiped out your crops for the year). Charity excels at helping with this type. A helping hand feeding, sheltering, and clothing you and your family until you can get back on your feet.

So far I agree

Other reasons for poverty are somewhat longer term in nature. Things like mismatches in your skills with what is in demand. Also, a poor work-ethic (the lazy bums). Now, by no means are all of the poor 'lazy bums', or even very many of them at all. But they do exist. While charity and government programs can help keep them alive, a true solution to this sort of poverty must come from the individual, and the individual alone. They have to be willing to do what it takes to improve themselves.

The lazy bum category is negligible.

And while it is easy to lay the responsibility of solving this form of poverty with the individual, I do believe government can play a role in this. If your skills mismatch with what is needed on the job market, its the government that can help you learn a new skill set. Its easy to say that this is the responsibility of the individual, but if the individual lacks the means or requires help, government can play a positive role.

The last major cause of poverty is lack of opportunity. In this one government isn't the solution, it is the PROBLEM. Over-regulation, excessive taxation, and micro-management of business activity due to central planning by the government. All of these have a drag effect on business activity. This is the ONE sort of poverty the Government can actually fix, by getting out of the way of business.

All those regulations exist for a reason. Yeah, its much easier to start a business in a place where there are no rules on how much you must pay your workers or where there are no safety and health standards. But without minimum wage the majority of people would still be poor and they would live in unhealthy and unsafe environments. And those taxes are necessary to run a wide range of public services that people need, especially if you want them to have the best opportunities. Generally, less rules and less taxation only benefits the people that run the factory, not the people that work in the factory.

And there are more forms of opportunity that you conviniently skip over and in which the government plays a vital role. Conservatives may have declared that racism is no longer a thing in the United States, but I think you will find that to be utter nonsense when you talk to non white people in the United States. Ethnic minorities still do not have the same opportunities as their white counter parts, and for a large degree that is the result of systemic racism. It will require heavy handed approaches enforced by the government to remove this racism. The same goes for gender equality. There is still a pay gap and women still have a much harder time getting the same opportunities as their male counter parts. Again, its the government that can enact and enforce rules that force equality and give women the same opportunities as men.

Then there is of course also the debt problem. In todays world you kinda miss out on a lot of opportunities if you didn't do something after high school. Yet if it costs a small fortune to go to college, you essentially ensure that poor people do not have the same degree of access to college and therefor to the same opportunities who were born in rich families. The problem then becomes that poverty is turned into a cycle. Poor people are not rich enough to go to college, therefor they do not get the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty, they get kids, they can't afford to send their kids to college, so their kids do not get the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. Government could interfere here, through subsidies making college far more accessible to everyone.

If Government WAS able to solve the entire problem of poverty, after spending untold Trillions of US$ on it starting at the beginning of the Progressive era (1890ish) until today, especially considering FDR's 'New Deal' and LBJ's 'Great Society' with their MASSIVE expenditures, continuing through Bush the Younger's NCLB and Medicare Part D, right on up through Obama's current agenda(s) today, don't you think that Government would have ALREADY solved it?

Yeah, just one problem with that assertion. Ever since the 80's the government went full libertarian in its approach to poverty. Trickle down economics, cutting regulation, cutting taxes, etc. And what happened? The rich got extremely rich, while the lower and middle classes did not see their income increase. Poverty got worse, thanks to the same measures you suggest to give more people more opportunities to get a job.

As far as helping out the poor goes, each area has a different set of problems, needing different solutions. And next year, the problem in one area might be different than they are this year. No 'national authority' can do a 'one size fits all' solution on the entire country and expect any kind of efficiency. Helping the poor is BEST done on the local level. And charities are almost always able to adapt to changing needs much FASTER than Government.

It depends on the problem. Racism and gender equality are problems that can be fairly easily tackled on at least state level. Access to education is again something that can be easily solved on a state or national level. Really, structural poverty is caused by structural problems that require a political solution that charities simply cannot provide.

And, especially in the United States, Government has CAUSED a lot of poverty when it started adopting Statist economic policies over the last 120 years. Government can fix a lot of things by abandoning them.

Actually, the US government was well on its way of eradicating poverty starting during WW2 and going on until the 70's, exactly because of its statist economic policies. Things went wrong after Reagan took over and the whole 'free market everywhere' political religion was born.