It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

page: 11
53
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Beanskinner
 



I do not think everybody is lazy and out to game the system, you didn't bother to

provide that distinction.


People who talk like this are a bigger part of the problem that the lifers themselves. You condone all out abuse in favor of "not screwing anyone over"

People are already getting screwed over. Tax payers. Through and through, all in the name of robbing people at gun point to give to others who simply refuse to earn for themselves.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Well

Hoorah for the fascist's in the thread

Government is the mother
Government is the father
Government is the educator
Government is God.
Government is robin hood
Government is the care giver

Government is the end all be all of the citizen's existence!


you got something against the government Neo?

well, at least we both dislike fascists

:-)

or, were you actually cheering for the fascists? I get confused sometimes



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Yeah i have something agianst government and fascists and social engineering that is nothing but totalitarian rule.

Second.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Progressives are Constitutionally illiterate. I'd even argue that many of them don't understand the basic premise and purpose of the Constitution. I think they think of it as just a fancy historic document or some kind of sister document to the Declaration of Independence, rather than valid and supreme law.
edit on 25-5-2012 by snusfanatic because: (no reason given)


The constitution is inferior to god given rights and it was written by masons. A document that was quite conservative to begin with and written in the 18th century should not be taken literally in the 21st century.

Too many things have changed FOR THE WORST!


What annoys me the most is that conservatives and libertarians keep thinking they have a god given monopoly in how to interpret the constitution and only make a big deal about it when it suits them to, otherwise they ignore it to death. It is the epitomy of hypocrisy. And I am not saying liberals or progressives don't do the same, but clearly the conservatives are far worse.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 





the question is, is it your place to worry about his goodness?


If the question is valid, then why is you've waited only until now to ask the question, and only ask it of me. Bleeep has been pointing fingers at so called "rulers" quite obviously questioning their goodness, but it did not even occur to you to ask this question then. Only now do you ask the question. It is a question rooted in double standards. Of course, you are aware of this double standard, so you justify your question with yet another question:



what makes it your personal crusade to analyze the goodness of someone who doesn't effect you... when others in power effect MANY.


The both of you reject my assertion that each of you possess personal power of untold force, naively pretending that this is not so and that your actions have no consequence, that your actions do not affect the many. It is a strange mixture of naive arrogance. Of course, arrogance is a presumption of knowledge, which is what makes the mixture of naivete and arrogance so strange. You presume to understand so much about these so called "rulers", willfully using language that has the effect of imposing the power of rule upon them, surrendering to them only so you can then point your finger and blame them for all of your woes.

Neither you nor bleeep can be held accountable for anything under your paradigm. Why, it's not your fault that the people you so revile are "rulers" because the both of you insist upon it. How can anyone with a good heart dare suggest that the two of you accept responsibility for their own actions when there exists an awesome and powerful force of an elite few who manipulate your every move, your very thoughts? Surely the good of heart must recognize that you are only helpless, and this helplessness demand that not only they - the "ruling elite" help you, but all the many, many, many, many other helpless souls who are apparently not nearly as helpless as you, and better off than you, and only helpless in that they are simply pawns to this "ruling elite" that are under an obligation to help you, which is to say their obligation is to make all the other helpless souls, not nearly as helpless as you, help you.

I suggest that you accept responsibility for your own personal power, and you turn this into a strawman insisting that power demands an exertion over others. It is, of course, more helplessness from you. You cannot possibly recognize your own power because you lack the power to accept responsibility for that power so instead you declare yourself "ethical" and just pretending you "choose" not to own up to your power because you are certain if you did you would use that power to subjugate others. Then you disingenuously demand the rest of us pretend that your passionate arguments insisting that the rest of us have an obligation to acquiesce to a powerful and massive government so that this ruling elite can take from the rest of us to help you.

Oh sure, not you, you will argue. It is not you who demands this help, even though you insist you are helpless. Why you mean all those truly helpless souls that are beneath you. They are who you passionately argue for insisting all must surrender to the state, while simultaneously insisting that your arguments, your support of this Leviathan state does not affect the many.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop
reply to post by Beanskinner
 



I do not think everybody is lazy and out to game the system, you didn't bother to

provide that distinction.


People who talk like this are a bigger part of the problem tRfhat the lifers themselves. You condone all out abuse in favor of "not screwing anyone over"

People are already getting screwed over. Tax payers. Throughand through, all in the name of robbing people at gun point to give to others who simply refuse to earn for themselves.


I was referring to retarded people, accident victims, crippled people,

People who have suffered brain injury, severed spinal chords and the

Small army of people it takes to care for them 24 hours a day.

The government robs me at gun point to blow up villagers and

Tribal forces, they rob me for Three times as much money. So

You should get your priorities straight.Condon spending to nourish

But ignore spending to slaughter, such a moral high ground.


edit on 26-5-2012 by Beanskinner because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



the general welfare means the general standard of living of the people.


No it doesn't

General Welfare means the well being of the Government not people,


It is people like you who cannot comprehend what the government is and/or what it is supposed to be.

If conservatives had a direct connection to god, as they claim to be religious, then the telepathy would not allow them to spout nonsense. The government and big business have become siamese twins because people either fear the government OR business.

I see people who are agnostic(not religious kooks) to be much more sensible in debate!



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 





That is absurd man. You're questioning my ethics, because I can see evil for what it is? It's not like I'm saying I'm the holiest person on Earth, I'm just saying I would not do what it took to take care of the problem. There are lengths I will not go to.


What is absurd is to insist that you will not do what is necessary to take care of a problem. You expect others to buy that fixing problems can include being problematic. The absurdity is to believe that problems can be fixed by creating different problems. That's absurd, man.




Let me put it into perspective for you: There is a card house and inside are umm... 90 tables. At each of those tables people are playing a different card game and they range from the least unethical to the most unethical. Lets just say lying on up to murder. Now to be allowed in the back room to play where the 1%ers are, you have to at least have earned a large enough chip set to be be let in but to do that you have to play through all the other 89 tables.


Can you not even see the absurd irony in this? How could you possibly offer up perspective on "back room" poker games when you ask us all to believe you've never, nor would you ever play that kind of game. Would you like to now give us your perspective on the edge of the universe? Perhaps you could illuminate us with your perspective on the invisibility you see everywhere.

What is tragic about this, is that all the while you keep pointing to these others, absolutely refusing to address you and your ethics in terms of how your actions affect others. That perspective we all would have to trust because it is a perspective of which you own, and yet would rather the rest of us believe you have perspective on things you know nothing about.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Government is the biggest acceptable form of religion there is it is a myth the problem are those people who think government is there to save the day.

Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of Fascism.

Mussolini

Welfare is another religion that has been proven to be a false prophet.


edit on 26-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   


The constitution is inferior to god given rights and it was written by masons. A document that was quite conservative to begin with and written in the 18th century should not be taken literally in the 21st century.


Oh now where have i heard that?

Hmmmm oh yeah now i remember sounds like that that guy who said, " the constitution is a censored piece of paper".

edit on 26-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Actually it does because that military is built of technology that changes faster than cell phones and what people forget and condemn the military to become a walmart version paid for at bargain prices that do nothing more than get people killed pretty easy to say screw the military and yet they are the only reason people can sit there and trash talk them and say free crap is more important.


What you fail to comprehend is that the USA military has had a technological superiority ever since the end of world war 2. We have stealth aircraft and aircraft carriers that are many times more what we actually need cause we have nuclear weapons and half a million paid serviceman.

Why the hell have technology that is fifty years ahead of what most people can comprehend, when people are being laid off work due to offshoring and automation? There is a direct and absurd amount of conflict of interest between the people of the USA and the corpo-masonic government that hoardes military assets and technology for itself.







ike other posts have proven, you love spending as long as it fits into your agenda.


oh sounds familiar like how free crap suits your agenda.


Nothing is free. The tax payer pays for it or the government borrows!,





I would much rather feed people than waste good money on bombs that blow up, kill and have no potential to grow in positive ways.


Giving over 120 trillion dollars to people for doing nothing is the biggest waste of good money there has ever been but hey give those people a slow death so you can claim the moral high ground.

Might as well set that fiat money on fire because it has never returned what the military has a place and a country where we all can run our mouths til we are content.

edit on 25-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


120 trillion dollars for doing nothing? Where in the world did you come up with these figures


The government spends more money brainwashing folks each and every day that capitalism equals "freedom and liberty" and exports that "freedom and liberty" by GUN POINT to every nation, than the money that goes to general welfare.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner
 





f you want to bring up Neo Con, you are the person who claims to be conservative and also champions the military industrial complex and war spending. Which some would say is the markings of a Neo Conservative. Talking about poverty is logical because we are talking about poverty. Poverty manifests itself the same way where ever you find it, we are not yet Mexico City, but we could be and I doubt you would like it more than this current manifestation of America.


Actually the US constitution clearly defines by law providing for the common defense of this country after all

All that free food,free homes,free educations free everything did not stop Pearl Harbor and the first world trade center attack or the attack on the Uss Cole or 9-11 and it sure as hell did not win the cold war.


9-11 was an inside job. Even the trees know it by now.

Go to the 9-11 forumns to find out the truth or visit a truther site. Trillions wasted for DHS, TSA and two wars(afghanistan and iraq) when the enemy was here at home. Donald Rumsfeld said $2.3 trillion was unaccounted for on 9-10-2001 and then the attacks happened the next day. Not to mention the drills in NYC by Fema. Just all coincidences??



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

All that free food,free homes,free educations free everything did not stop Pearl Harbor and the first world trade center attack or the attack on the Uss Cole or 9-11 and it sure as hell did not win the cold war.


Our excessively bloated military didn't do any of those things, either...



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Government is the biggest acceptable form of religion there is it is a myth the problem are those people who think government is there to save the day.


By that statement, one gets the idea you are either super-conservative or an anarchist.

Of course government is NOT there to save the day. They are there to save corporations and the wealthy!

Maybe you should read some marxist literature to help you expand your limited knowledge base.


Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of Fascism.

Mussolini


Mussolini feared state capitalism, which is exactly what we have in america, and which america feels compelled to export to every nation on earth via gunpoint and/or big banks choking socialism.

To call corporatism facism means you have been brainwashed by the zionist media. I feel pitty for you and the many millions of americans who have fallen victim to their evil protocols of the learned elders of zion.


Welfare is another religion that has been proven to be a false prophet.


edit on 26-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


That is absurd. Religion is a form of controlling the masses.

"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes". Karl Marx in german

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD BECAUSE OF RELIGION than any other reason. Even racism is minor compared to religion!
edit on 5/26/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


(heaven help me...)


Having a good heart is not enough. Life requires more.


like what Jean Paul?

oh, and: :-)


Here on Earth, those in Heaven would like to see you help yourself. They in Heaven will do what they can to guide you, but ultimately God helps those who help themselves. Of course, many will take such a remark and insist the only way they can help themselves is through unethical means. I remember a silent film I saw years ago, either Chaplin or Keaton, but the story was a pauper who hadn't eaten in some time. He is sitting against a wall next to a bakery, tired and hungry when he hears the baker set some pies along the ledge of an open window (t might not have been a bakery and instead the home where maybe a woman sets a pie on a window ledge, I remember less the details than the joke). So, the pauper stands up and eyes the pie greedily. He is unsure what to do but approaches the window ledge where inside he sees an embroidered sign that reads: "Thou shall not steal", and defeated the pauper looks down at the ground dejectedly.

When he looks back up he notices another and different embroidered sign on the wall that reads: "God helps those who help themselves". The joke is obvious and I laughed then and still smile at the joke now, but this either or scenario is to set up a joke, not inform ones philosophy. God does help those who help themselves and God doesn't want us stealing from others. There is no ethical dilemma between these two thoughts and only the thief would interpret "help thyself" as meaning he should steal.

What more than a good heart does life require? It requires thought! All creatures, great and small, all who have a heart, still must think in order to survive. Those who are thoughtless in their actions find it harder to survive than those who are skilled in critical thought. This is not to say the critical thinker with a good heart will find it easy to survive, but far easier than the thoughtless regardless of their good heart.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I believe that everyone of us seems to be overlooking what has become a very real and in my opinion quite clear point in this thread. There is truly no way for people to honestly desire progression as a whole or for that matter a more prosperous world by any fair definition that can be given to the word "prosperous." It seems that it would indeed be much better for this planet and all of those other lifeforms which inhabit it and far outnumber human beings, if the human race would just completely vanish or die off. You see, there is no other animal on this rock that has the capability of possessing so much hate as us humans do and most of us allow that hate to rule over us, hell most of us thrive on that hate. As an agnostic person who desires peace but has been observing the human species for over 24 years I am starting to fear that there is indeed no kind of just and caring deity because if one did exist would it not be a just maneuver to eliminate this pathetic lifeform known as the human being, a creature that will always prefer hate, violence, and chaos over all else...
edit on 26-5-2012 by doomedtoday because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by doomedtoday
 





It seems that it would indeed be much better for this planet and all of those other lifeforms which inhabit it and far outnumber human beings, if the human race would just completely vanish or die off.


On page 6, I made this argument regarding ethics:




There are actually some people who believe reducing the worlds population down to 500,000,000 people is ethical, and they honestly believe that this is the Greatest Good to the Greatest Amount.


In response to that observation, bleeep made this argument:




I think that the vernacular difference in moral, ethic, conscience, and goodwill are shades of darkness to these people. I would argue that their actions are, in large part, a conscious choice to ignore goodwill to all, before I would say it's their actual ethical code.

So basically, I think you are misjudging the amount of people who really believe that killing is ethical(as one would describe theirs by goodwill towards all).


I had, of course, never quantified how many these people were, only that some took this view, but I also never doubted for a single second that as long as this thread kept arguing over ethics, that at some point, some member would come in an make the argument I suggested, or worse the argument you've just made.




You see, there is no other animal on this rock that has the capability of possessing so much hate as us humans do and most of us allow that hate to rule over us, hell most of us thrive on that hate.


People who own cats would disagree and are continually asking the question why do their cats hate each other? The ASPCA offers an online "virtual pet behavioralist who offers this answer:


Some cats just won’t give peace a chance. There are several reasons that cats might not get along. The most common is undersocialization—a lack of pleasant experiences with other cats early in life. If your cat grew up as the only cat, with little or no contact with other felines, he may react strongly when he’s finally introduced to another cat because he’s afraid of the unknown, he lacks feline social skills, and he dislikes the disruption to his routine and environment. Cats tend to prefer consistency over change. This is especially true if the change involves a newcomer to your cat’s well-established territory. Cats are a territorial species. While some cats overlap their territories a great deal, others prefer to keep a good distance from their neighbors. Two unrelated males or two unrelated females may have a particularly hard time sharing space. Another cause of strife may be a feline personality clash. Cats usually don’t get to pick their housemates, and sometimes we humans just don’t select the right match. In some cases, however, cats get along just fine until something scary or unpleasant (like fireworks or the odor of the veterinary clinic) becomes associated with the other cat. In other cases, relationships change as the cats mature. If one cat reaches the age of one to three years old and then trouble brews, social maturation may be a factor.


Those links are, of course, just in relation to cats. I haven't taken the time to discover why roses hate tulips, or oranges hate apples, or homophobic dogs hate gay peacocks.


As an agnostic person who desires peace but has been observing the human species for over 24 years I am starting to fear that there is indeed no kind of just and caring deity because if one did exist would it not be a just maneuver to eliminate this pathetic lifeform known as the human being, a creature that will always prefer hate, violence, and chaos over all else...


The myth of Adam and Eve and the "Fall From Grace" or expulsion from the Garden of Eden tells of a serpent who enters the Garden to tell Eve that God doesn't want them eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil because God doesn't want them to know what God knows. People now call that desire to know good and evil "Original Sin".

Later, God told Noah to build an arc and cast a flood for 40 days and 40 nights upon humanity, only to express regret for doing so later. Some say it was arrogant of Adam and Eve to know what God knows, but here you are not only judging humanity, but God as well for not killing us all.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Eisenhower was trying to have it both ways:


A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.


A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

The base of that might was industrialization that has been felled to Government greed for power and control which has also been a double edged sword that created the welfare industrial complex.

Eisenhower warned of the people working for the support of the Military Industrial Complex but the truth is now they are working for the Welfare Industrial Complex.

Support the job creators which has always been the private sector which has been ran out of this country and what is left are people blowing in the wind and their only option is a government paycheck.

In a nut shell the MIC is a myth that has created a slave class unlike that has ever been seen in this country and at it's most basic point:

With great power comes great responsibility well personal responsibility to pay for their own existence in this world.
edit on 26-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


S&F sir

the general welfare means the general standard of living of the people.

the only reason certain folks want to get rid of welfare is to use the money for something else
and that's trash like newt and Co. who already have plans in the wings.

your average rightwingconservatives posting here, INSANELY believe that all that freed up welfare money
is going to magically improve the economy and magically make more money appear in their pockets.

the fundamental problem is of course, the democratization of the republic,
brought about by the systematic corruption of the voter base which sells
their votes in exchange for benefits at all levels of government which has been promoting the entitlement paradigm [which originated with the baby boomers,by the way] in defiance of reality.


this is why i've always said that democracy can only be practiced by superior beings.

not even going to go into the social safety net and it's reduction of crime

those fantasizing they'll get a bigger cut if the poor are cut off,
are of course also fantasizing about violent [and mostly state-based] solutions to resolve any problems caused by the sudden elimination of welfare.

many of the middle states are already ahead
with their use of private prisons to house out of state criminals which have no vote, yet are registered with the census
in order for the state in question to get more federal funds than they normally should due to their sparse populations, said prisoners [mostly minorities] are of course working for peanuts: who said slavery was abolished in this country?

indeed sir, charity disappeared from the usa quite some time ago.

faith and hope were last seen at a soup kitchen which was recently closed



edit on 25-5-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



Unfortunately, this is not just a problem with US Debt. Michael Savage says in his new book, "Trickle Down Tyranny" on p 2 that total GDP of all nations is 60 trillion, and total word debt is 600 trillion.
edit: sorry had to adjust that statistic...

This has to be one of the most unsustainable ideas ever, for the US to continue borrowing from China to pay for Utopian ideals of feeding the entire world and giving subsidized health insurance etc to anyone struggling. Whoever said it was the responsibility of the US to pick up the tab for the rest of the world? That goes for military aid too. It's not in our Founding documents by any means.

edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


the system wouldn't be so bloated, if the gov't intervention didn't allow it to be. and healthcare is just one example of it. the more the gov't gets involved in higher education, the more bloated it gets, and the more the costs of education goes up!! about a decade ago, a story came in the newspaper covering an area of upstate ny. hud was paying a thousand dollars for a four bedroom apartment with rats and leaky sewage lines. only, anyone in upstate ny who actually had the income that would be needed to pay out that kind of rent would not be found living in that are of the city, wouldn't tolerate living in a place filled with rats or the leaky sewage lines. they would have been professionals, making good money, and probably would have a mortgage they were paying off!

ya, a universal system would be an improvement, but then we can all brace for the "you're costing us money", so we should control what you eat, drink, and on and on! you lose freedoms...

but, at this point, just cutting the money flowing in from the gov't would help! and it's kind of getting a bit extortionary to me. like they are holding everything over the heads of our elected representative...
if you don't give us more, we will stop playing with you, and there are so many people who would be affected if they stopped playing the representitives kind of feel they have no choice.

I'm kind of a crazy witch, on a personal level, I'd say heck with this, and I'd stop playing first. just to watch them scramble!!!



The bloating of government is subjective... I mean, at what point does it become "too" "bloated"? At the end of the day it's not about bloating, it's about WHAT our taxes are spent on and BALANCING the budget. Don't get me wrong, I'm an Anarchist, but that also provides me with a unique perspective from the outside- I feel that, so long as government exists at all, we might as well force it (if we can) to give us the best deal for our money/oppression, and use it to beat on other bullies (mafias, gangs, big business, authoritarian countries, etc.). The best thing governments can do is actually take care of people in need, no strings attached, no actual freedoms lost. If you wanna know what it's like to have universal health-care, research other countries that have very successfully implemented it (Canada, France, Germany, Scandinavian countries, etc.)... they've done this and many of them have done it WHILE balancing their budgets and providing MORE FREEDOM than America does. Whodathunkit?




top topics



 
53
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join