The Tea Party will change America back to the days of Thomas Jefferson

[Dr.Who]

nope

as of 2009 DoD 18% social stuff 38%

I am not aware of a measure of corporate welfare (it is mostly hidden after all) and DOD is not the same.

But just the same a quick search indicates that the amount the gov acknowledges as direct and indirect subsidies to business is 92 billion.

Welfare 262 billion.

 

[Dr.Who]

I disagree. Govt spending does not stop poverty. The govt is spending more on poverty programs than every before and it's not working. Same with the school system....we spend more and things get worse. I don't know what it's gonna take to convince some of you on the left. Govt spending does not help.

Obama increased spending on welfare by 42%

 

[Openmind]

It would be wrong to kill just to protect candy. But it would not be wrong to pursue a criminal even if all he stole was candy. The principal is that we try to catch and convict criminals no matter what it is that proves they are criminals. If the policeman who is trying to catch that man ends up shooting him for a variety of valid reasons then that is unfortunate but it is just.

The first time a responsible person sins he has earned the wages of his actions. It does not matter what that first sin was. It might be as simple as picking an apple.

I also think that God does view some sins as worse than others. Some people might be surprised that His priorities are not the same as ours: touching the ark - big; selling goods in the temple - big; being ungrateful - big; being a bad host and failing to personally give to the poor - big. Murdering an Egyptian foreman but repenting - small; becoming a prostitute - small; having gay thoughts - not even mentioned in the bible.

Are you planning to suggest that the poor person who steals candy or bread has done no wrong but the wealthy person who has him thrown in jail has done wrong? That just may be true looking at the small picture. But if we started ignoring crimes every time they were committed by the poor the crime rate would sky rocket. People would understand that there is no rule of law. And it would not be just the poor who were stealing. Without respect for the rules then there are no rules.

We were not talking about "legal pursuit" or "jail time," (which wouldn't happen for a candy anyway . . .especially as 99.9 % of children are then "criminals!"
We were talking about using guns. . . that crazy idea that it is just fine to own and USE a gun to protect ANY of one's possession. . .or none!

There are obviously a LOT of abuse there. But then again, the laws were made by the elite to protect their own possessions, so it is not a surprise.

 

[Openmind]

Obama increased spending on welfare by 42%

Factual link please?

 

[dogtowner]

I am not aware of a measure of corporate welfare (it is mostly hidden after all) and DOD is not the same.

But just the same a quick search indicates that the amount the gov acknowledges as direct and indirect subsidies to business is 92 billion.

Welfare 262 billion.

my mistake. yes corp welfare is a drop in the bucket as evidenced by the =/ 5 bil for oil that so trouble lefties. still pretty striking even compared to the hated DoD.

 

[dogtowner]

We were talking about using guns. . . that crazy idea that it is just fine to own and USE a gun to protect ANY of one's possession. . .or none!

you mean those Constitutionally protected guns ?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Obama increased spending on welfare by 42%

you don't think a ****ty econ had anything to do with that? its alot cheaper to help the poor when they have money and don't qualify...then of course the banks fell, the housing fell, the econ fell......

 

[Openmind]

you mean those Constitutionally protected guns ?

Exactly! I don't give a damn about what people THINK they read in the Constitution. I am personally convinced that our forefathers NEVER intended to spread machine guns all over the streets of our cities.

But, since it is the law, I (reluctantly) accept it.

However, If I thought I had a chance, I would fight to impose great limitation on the meaning of "right to bear arms!" . . .maybe even go back to the LITERAL word of our forefathers, and allow the "right to bear the same arms that existed when that right was granted!"

You obviously will think this is crazy. . .and it probably is, in this time of craziness!
But. . .it is far less crazy than interpreting a "right" granted so long before the development of WMD as a RIGHT to bear a small nuclear weapon. . . which we will probably end up thinking of as "our right to protect our home against terrorists!

Well, in my book, anyone with a gun who is ready to kill my child if my child steals candy from his home is worse than a terrorist!

 

[Dr.Who]

We were not talking about "legal pursuit" or "jail time," (which wouldn't happen for a candy anyway . . .especially as 99.9 % of children are then "criminals!"
We were talking about using guns. . . that crazy idea that it is just fine to own and USE a gun to protect ANY of one's possession. . .or none!

It would be silly to shoot someone over a candy bar. But it would not be ludicrous to shoot someone to stop them from taking your life saving medicine. It would also not be silly to shoot someone who has repeatedly broken into your house in order to enforce the principal that they cannot continue to do that (provided that you have exhausted other means)

And the courts have generally held that the use of force as a part of the means to defend property is legitimate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_property

There are obviously a LOT of abuse there. But then again, the laws were made by the elite to protect their own possessions, so it is not a surprise.

That's crazy talk. But if it were true, then aren't we lucky that those laws just happen to protect all property and not just property that is owned by the elite? What we need to counter any bias in which the property of the elite is protected more than the property of everyone is a healthy respect for property rights in general!!! Every time you dismiss the property rights of rich people you undermine the property rights of everyone.

 

[Openmind]

It would be silly to shoot someone over a candy bar. But it would not be ludicrous to shoot someone to stop them from taking your life saving medicine. It would also not be silly to shoot someone who has repeatedly broken into your house in order to enforce the principal that they cannot continue to do that (provided that you have exhausted other means)


That's crazy talk. But if it were true, then aren't we lucky that those laws just happen to protect all property and not just property that is owned by the elite? What we need to counter any bias in which the property of the elite is protected more than the property of everyone is a healthy respect for property rights in general!!! Every time you dismiss the property rights of rich people you undermine the property rights of everyone.

Are you familiar with the term "criminogenic situations?" That is what MANY of the laws accomplish: putting people who are disenfranchised into criminogenic situations, where they are basically driven to "crime," small crimes at first, but because of so many "laws" that are old enough to date from the time when stealing a loaf of bread sent a father to jail and his family to the poor house, a young kid having committed a non-violent crime, may be thrown in jail where he will LEARN to commit violent crimes.

I am not dismissing property rights of anyone. . .I am defending my opinion that, when one has nothing more to lose, when one has lost even the hope to make a honest living that is good enough to allow his family to survive, one will be more driven to desperate actions. And, unfortunately, it is often the other poor people who suffer from it. . .because the "rich" are so well protected in their gated communities.

Crime is a lot more common in poor neighborhood than it is in wealthy communities. . .so what are you talking about when you say that "I dismiss the property rights of the rich?"
I know I have nothing to fear. . .I have roaming security in my community 24/7. I have a sophisticated alarm system. . .no one is going to steal my TV!

But, If someone needed it more than I do. . .I sure would NOT shoot them! NOTHING, NO material possession is worth the life of a person.

 

[dogtowner]

However, If I thought I had a chance, I would fight to impose great limitation on the meaning of "right to bear arms!" . . .maybe even go back to the LITERAL word of our forefathers, and allow the "right to bear the same arms that existed when that right was granted!"

you can work to amend the Constitution. oh it does not say muskets, it says arms. and for a reason.

I don't think yoou are crazy, just badly misinformed.

 

[Openmind]

you can work to amend the Constitution. oh it does not say muskets, it says arms. and for a reason.

I don't think yoou are crazy, just badly misinformed.

We obviously have very different backgrounds. . .and in my background, I have witness that "arms" do not protect a person. . .arms kill. . .and often it kills the person (or his/her children) that "thought" he/she was protected by owning a gun!

But as I said. . .I accept that, in this country, it is a law. A stupid law in my opinion, but a law just the same.

However, when I know that one of my friend carries a gun in her purse, I refuse to go any place with her. And I have made it clear that NO ONE is welcome with a gun in my home.

 

[dogtowner]

We obviously have very different backgrounds. . .and in my background, I have witness that "arms" do not protect a person. . .arms kill. . .and often it kills the person (or his/her children) that "thought" he/she was protected by owning a gun!

I guess so. I've witnessed that they have on many occasions. Oh they also just incapacitate when used properly. Of course their ability to kill is part of the package and sometimes needed (if your attacker is on angel dust you can shoot his arm off and he will keep coming thanks to the dope).

I wonder, were your child under direct mortal threat, would you be ok with your pistol packin' mama friend shooting the threat ?

 

[GenSeneca]

NO material possession is worth the life of a person.

So why don't you sell off, or give away, all your material possessions so that money can be used to save the lives of people who need it?

NO ONE is welcome with a gun in my home.

Criminals do not obey laws and they certainly aren't going to ask permission to bring a gun along if they break into your home.

 

[Openmind]

So why don't you sell off, or give away, all your material possessions so that money can be used to save the lives of people who need it?

Kind of a childish remarks, isn't it?