Night Strike wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:a REAL liberal means that you believes that people and individuals are more important than any institution. It means that becuase individuals have the right to their own ideas, tolerance is important for things not harmful to others. Liberals believe that the government is necessary for some things, but that it should only be relied upon for the minimum. However, that minimum should be structured at truly helping people, not simply appeasing those who are powerful, and certainly should not be used as a tool to keep people from protesting or moving up through a cycle of dependence. (sadly, of late the conservative have liked to destroy true liberal institutions, then step back and claim it was a bad liberal idea that cuased the problem.. be it destruction of unions, defunding of training and food programs, etc.).
That definition sounds EXACTLY like what the Tea Party and real conservatives are espousing, not the liberals of the Democratic party.
It is NOT what they are espousing. It is absolutely not what will result from the policies they are, in truth, putting forward. If you want to keep watching the wizard on the wall instead of the guy behind the curtain, go ahead. I DO agree that the Democratic party is not liberal.
Night Strike wrote: Conservatives believe that each individual is much more important than the institution of government.
and that corporations get he full rights of people, which pretty much negates all the previous
Night Strike wrote:Today's liberals believe that government is the solution to every ill and will trample over any individual who disagrees with them. Today's liberals look for every single opportunity to grow the government, not to make it as small as possible.
No, but that IS the conservative "straw man" argument.
Night Strike wrote:Just look at the liberal uproar over just asking that the government only spend the money that they take in. Liberals were about to shut down the entire government over a paltry $60 billion in budget cuts (that didn't even end up being cuts). And you think that's a group of people who want a minimal government?
Nice try, it was NOT the liberals who wanted that or fought for that.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:The one I believe you are thinking about is the one where the slave master gives workers talents. One saves his, one invests them, etc. The one who gained more is given more, etc.
Right, the master rewarded he who wisely invested his money. He did not reward those who hid our squandered their money. Today, it's the liberals who reward those who waste their money on drugs, alcohol, and anything else that doesn't better their lives.
No, again, that is how conservatives wish to paint it up. In fact, what liberals want are more job training, better education, and local food buying.
Do want to know the REAL reason, just to name one example, why all vegetables, even potatoes and onions have to be refrigerated??? Think a minute before answering. (I shrank my answer to hide it)
The REAL reason is that it means local food tasts the same as food trucked from Timbuktu. The biggest advantage of buying truly local is that it has not been refrigerated
It was actually conservatives who wanted our current food program structured the way it is, have made sure its not truly modified. Why? Food stamps cash just fine! I used to shop in an area that had a very high unemployment and therefore welfare rate (also part Indian reservation.. pre casino, that is). Guess what happened the last week of every month, when Welfare checks arrived? Prices went UP. That is technically illegal, but its pretty hard to prove. Unless you went out of your way to shop at different times, you would never know.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:HOWEVER, there is another story. That is about the man who is about to be fired (basically, though different terms were used in that day). He took and as the agent of his master went around forgiving the loans, erasing the record of their debts. His master's loans,that is. So, when he was dismissed he found welcome in amongst the population.
Seriously, what story are you referring to? What book, chapter, and verse? Because the only similar story that I can recall is one where, if that's what you were referring to, you completely cut out half the story. I know there's the story where a rich man forgave the debt that was owed him, but then that debtor refused to forgive the debt of the person who owed him. That story had absolutely nothing to do about politics and all to do about making sure you do unto others as you have been treated.
No, that is yet another story.. but an appropriate one for this thread, none-the -less. It is not an often cited text, because it is a difficult one. The only reason I know of it is that our pastor did a sermon on it a few months ago. I will try to find it.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Then again.. it is a COMMAND to take care of the "widows and orphans". and note that this is an idea, not just a definition. In that day, widows were the ones recognized not to be able to support themselves without help. Today, that list is far greater because our times have changed a LOT.
You're right, that is the command. Except, you missed one VERY IMPORTANT DETAIL. That command is to Christians to take care of the widows and orphans, not for the government to do so. In fact, it even says that the Christians are supposed to do so because the government and others cannot be relied upon to do so.
You will have to show where that is specified in a way that means the government should not be tasked with this at all.
Night Strike wrote:Liberals completely distort this command to individuals to somehow claim that it's the government's job. It's not.
Having a Democracy changes some things. Even so, the government's job is minimal. It still is there, however.
Night Strike wrote:Individuals will ALWAYS be better protectors of the widows, orphans, and poor than the government. We see it every time natural disasters happen, and we also see if on a daily basis for those in need.
No, actually you don't, though nice how you combine modern FEMA with the more general taking care of the poor. I have another thread on FEMA, so I will leave that bit lie. Its nothing to do with this. (not as you imply, anyway)
Per the poor? Efficient? No, what you see is multiple groups doing exactly the same thing grouped in bigger cities while rural areas go largely without. Its anything BUT efficient. If you think it is, you have little direct experience with any breadth. There are individual groups that do a good job, but as the whole, its a lot of waste.
By contrast, the government's school lunch programs works very well. Every parent gets a form at the beginning of the year, which they can fill out. Each child already has a meal card. The kids don't know, cafeteria staff don't know, who is getting free and who is getting paid meals. Even the food surplus program, while I object to it as a whole, has a reasonable distribution system attached.
Night Strike wrote:If liberals and the government were such great helpers of the poor, we wouldn't see the utter lack of living in inner cities (the ones that only elect Democrats) that we do. It's individuals that make a difference in the lives of people, not a faceless government.
LOL... what does having poor in the inner cities have to do with liberals? You will have to explain that one!
The poor are grouped into ghettos for a lot of reasons, but mostly not to do with liberalism.. One part that you have correct is that some liberals did buy into the idea that to shift people to what began as decent apartments, housing, would provide some benefit. It was an idea, a dream that failed.. utterly. That something fails is not indicative that no one cares. It means sometimes the best of intentions go wrong, that that was one. Evne so, I would argue that the REAL thrust of that was not the liberals, it was the big contractors who saw dollar signs from being able to build them.. and who quickly found ways to cut corners, etc.
