Go to Ask.com


enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Eh?
by Urgelt
+1/-1 Reply

True to form, I'm struggling to grasp this evangelical's point of view, and losing.

Republicans are the YOYO party. Their understanding of the social contract is "You're On Your Own." Government can kill people, spy on them, imprison them, torture them, but it ought not to help them. Social programs and regulations to protect consumers are despised in Republican circles as an assault on the Free Market.

Welfare for the rich, though, that's ok. Bailouts for companies which engaged in risky financial scams, sure, why not? Tax cuts targeted at the wealthiest 1%. Remind me again what Jesus thought of the idea that charity begins, and ends, at the corporation. Because that's exactly what the Republicans stand for.

Once upon a time, the ideological driving force behind laissez-faire markets was "competition." A competitive market, it was thought, would always outperform a government monopoly. But this idea has been wearing thin lately among Americans. Deregulation has let to consolidation, not more competition. It's a trend towards monopolization. We see it in practically every industry: banking, health care, media, energy, telecommunications, real estate, you name it. Corporations are gobbling each other up until only a few giant players are still standing. Deregulation starts to look like corruption when it raises prices, unsafe products are liberally permitted, and politicians walk away with fat checks.

Where government does have social programs competing against private industry, as with Medicare, it wins hands down with lower overhead and lower costs - just as it does in every other advanced industrial nation, every one of which has socialized medicine. Remind me again what the appeal of privatization is to evangelicals, will you?

On the moral front, the holier-than-thou rhetoric of the Republican Party continues firing on all cylinders; morality is not a matter between citizen and God but between citizen and State. To Republicans, morality is not a choice, it's a law. Do evangelicals really think Republicans are paving the way to heaven for American citizens by legislating morality and enforcing it with prison terms?

America has about 1/4th of the world's prisoners locked up in barely post-medieval conditions, and we're not finished. The Republican administration hired Halliburton to build emergency prison camps and just recently signed a contract with Blackwater to staff them, enough for hundreds of thousands of people. There aren't enough terrorists in the entire world to fill those camps, even if we could catch them all. Just who do you think they're for, hmm?

Such tremendous Republican victories as the SCOTUS decision that "Bong Hits for Jesus" is unprotected speech because "it's nonsensical" ought to give young evangelicals pause - SCOTUS is saying that speech, by default, is unprotected unless government decides it's both meaningful and fits within an authorized exception. What's authorized is morphing every year. Do I really need to remind evangelicals that when anyone's right to self-expression is lost, everyone's is?

If it's true - and I'm not arguing the point either way - that young evangelicals are expressing a gentler, humbler version of Christianity and a desire to ease suffering and do social good, I can't quite fathom why they would continue to cling to YOYO. Unless they expect YOYO to create the climate of fear, helplessness and misery that will bring people flocking to their congregations, looking for help? Does evangelical Christianity like the idea of the Constitution shredded? A permanent underclass of disadvantaged citizens? Monopolies extracting wealth? Endless war? Suppression of dissent?

Democrats have their problems with corruption, too. But the Republicans, with the erratic exception of Ron Paul, have immersed themselves in a moral cesspool cloaked with self-righteousness. It's about time the followers of Jesus' teachings called them on it.

Re: Eh?
by San

"Social programs and regulations to protect consumers are despised in Republican circles as an assault on the Free Market."

The Constitution requires the Federal government to have a Defense.

It does not say that it should be taking money from the rich and redistributing it via social programs.

So way to go.

You proved you are an idiot withou ta clue.

also proves they are socialist, maybe
by thegolfer
communist, and pretty much despise capitalism.
p.s. which basically equates to
by thegolfer
being an idiot.
Man, you are one simple son of a bitch,
by predicto

aren't you.

You don't understand why Christians would balk at supporting murder and Marxism.

There is nothing stopping you dumbowits to all band together and stop global warming, figure out your belly-buttons and work diligently toward whirled peas and prose parity. In America you have the freedom to do that. Just leave me out of your panty-waist bally-hoo.

Socialism kills souls. It has obviously killed yours,and with it your brain. Some perfesser had it for brunch, obviously.

Dd

Re: Eh?
by jbnixon
Let's see... in order, the respondents to the initial post have countered the arguments by referring to the author as an idiot, socialist, communist, idiot (again), simple son of a bitch, and a dumbowits (?). Not a single cogent counter-argument. Have you lost the ability to reason? Or do you have to leave rationality at the door of the church? I'll prefer to stay outside thank you.
Re: Eh?
by San

Jbnixon, you honestly think you respond to such slander and conspiracy theory as this: "Their understanding of the social contract is "You're On Your Own." Government can kill people, spy on them, imprison them, torture them, but it ought not to help them. Social programs and regulations to protect consumers are despised in Republican circles as an assault on the Free Market."

The top post is trollbait, and trollbait intends to cause people to debate the topic. Instead, by insulting the top post, the trollbait is defused.

Re: Eh?
by San

And look, there are a lot of lies in his post:

"Where government does have social programs competing against private industry, as with Medicare, it wins hands down with lower overhead and lower costs - just as it does in every other advanced industrial nation, every one of which has socialized medicine. Remind me again what the appeal of privatization is to evangelicals, will you?"

Actually, only one Socialized Medicine program is "efficient" and that is France's. They have Nuclear Plants that provide most of their power, and they use all of their extra money on health care. Yes, its incredibly expensive.

The countries without France's benefit, like Canada, have horrible health care. They have to ration it, have long lines, etc. England is no better.

And guess what? They all cost less than the US's. The reason why our health care seems to cost more, is that people add in unnecessary treatments, like viagra and cialis, to the costs. Those drugs are VERY expensive. They are also not needed.

Re: Eh?
by jbnixon

By all means, let's not debate the topic. Better to simply agree that the author is an... idiot I believe is how you chose to "defuse".

I was simply hoping that an evangelical could point out ANY social program which could be deemed meritorious for us, as a nation, to support. It just seems that would be a cogent answer to the "dumowit".

Re: Eh?
by San

"Social Program"? Don't try to full us. This isn't promoting reading or something innocent. This is taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don't.

Its a socialism programs.

Re: Eh?
by Adrasteia

Provide for the General Welfare, San. Hope you don't drive on highways or fly because you're benefiting from the redistribution of wealth.

Jesus said render unto Cesar. Quit bitching about redistribution of wealth and start rendering. It would require to you to actually have a job to render anything other than your pathetic vitriol to anyone.

You proved you can't read and are a nasty person too. I see you are posting in religion hoping they will be nicer to you than old warriors are.

Re: Eh?
by San
"Hope you don't drive on highways or fly because you're benefiting from the redistribution of wealth.

Jesus said render unto Cesar. Quit bitching about redistribution of wealth and start rendering. It would require to you to actually have a job to render anything other than your pathetic vitriol to anyone.

You proved you can't read and are a nasty person too. I see you are posting in religion hoping they will be nicer to you than old warriors are."

1. Most highway funding come from general taxes (which I pay) and from tolls (which I pay). They aren't a redistribution of wealth, because a redistribution helps individuals, not the whole society. The society as a whole benefit from roads, since they are used for transportation or defense.

2. Jesus said to pay taxes, he didn't say how much you had to pay. So I have the right to say I don't have to pay as much.

3. And -I- can't read? The fact that you come in here and spew that nonsense shows that you can't even think. Lay off the drugs.

Re: Eh?
by Adrasteia

1. Society as a whole benefits when people have food to eat and are educated. Every child that doesn't get a decent meal is a drag on society. Every kid that doesn't get a decent education is a drag on society. So what redistribution of wealth do you object to? How about the one that gives huge tax breaks to corporations who gouge you on the price of neccessities? What you refer to as redistribution of wealth is for many people simply how a society works in order to ensure the general welfare.

2. Jesus didn't say a lot of stuff. He didn't say not to bugger little kids either. We do not follow what Jesus didn't say but what he said. You have the right to say any damn thing you want no matter how stupid and pathetic. You prove it here everyday. That does not mean what you say is of value to anyone.

3. No, you obviously cannot read because you do not know the charge the writers of the Constitution gave to this country. Our government regardless of any religion has a duty to provide for the general welfare.

Re: Eh?
by San

"Society as a whole benefits when people have food to eat and are educated. Every child that doesn't get a decent meal is a drag on society. Every kid that doesn't get a decent education is a drag on society. So what redistribution of wealth do you object to? How about the one that gives huge tax breaks to corporations who gouge you on the price of neccessities? What you refer to as redistribution of wealth is for many people simply how a society works in order to ensure the general welfare."

Prove it.

I can prove you are wrong.

My child benefits when your child starves. My child has smaller class sizes. Less competition.

My family benefits when your family starves. There are more resources for me. More land for me. Less having to deal with other people.

Simple fact is that overpopulation harms people. Even Malthus showed that.

"2. Jesus didn't say a lot of stuff. He didn't say not to bugger little kids either. We do not follow what Jesus didn't say but what he said. You have the right to say any damn thing you want no matter how stupid and pathetic. You prove it here everyday. That does not mean what you say is of value to anyone."

Jesus said not to fornicate. "buggering" little kids falls under that. So way to go. You just made an idiot of yourself.

"3. No, you obviously cannot read because you do not know the charge the writers of the Constitution gave to this country. Our government regardless of any religion has a duty to provide for the general welfare."

General welfare does not mean what you think it does you retard.

They had to pass an amendment just to have a right to put an income tax in. Socialism was not what the government is intended for.

The founders believed in private property and taking care of yourself. Why do you think they fought a revolution over taxes! Did you never read the Declaration of Independence, you moron?

Re: Eh?
by Adrasteia

Truly san's most ignorant post yet.

1. Your child does not benefit when another child starves. You can't prove that statement. When a child starves in this country they do not become productive members who pay taxes, therefore you child does not benefit. Starving children tend to end up stealing and selling drugs. Tell me how that benefits your child unless he/she buys stolen property or uses drugs.

But first you would have to find a woman of indescribably low standards to willingly fuck you and have your child.

2. Jesus never said not to fornicate. Find a quotation of Jesus where he used the word fornicate.

3. Since you obviously cannot tell me what "provide for the general welfare" means. then I must be right.

4. Fought a revolution over taxes? You really are shamefully ignorant. What part of "All men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." don't you understand. It wasn't taxes, you idiot, it was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

How you can continue to post on not be completely and fundamentally humiliated is truly a puzzle.

View as RSS news feed in XML