NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush was on television expounding the values of "charity" and gluttony. Rush Limbaugh put on a similair spectacle today. Rush Limbaugh lives in a 25 million dollar house. For a man with 15 bathrooms he is still full of shit. Just like his texan contemporary who spends months on his million dollar estate.
What do these men know of charity? Haven't their lives been spent shrouded in luxury? And aren't they against welfare programs that benifet the poor, and the disabled.

The trouble with being a moron is that one is ignorant of it.

The trouble with being a moron is that one is ignorant of it.

Yes, a true idiot is one who can't recognize his own insignifigance in the grander spectrum. Like the pompous asshole, Rush Limbaugh.

Bush was on television expounding the values of "charity" and gluttony. Rush Limbaugh put on a similair spectacle today. Rush Limbaugh lives in a 25 million dollar house. For a man with 15 bathrooms he is still full of shit. Just like his texan contemporary who spends months on his million dollar estate.
What do these men know of charity? Haven't their lives been spent shrouded in luxury? And aren't they against welfare programs that benifet the poor, and the disabled.

You're an idiot. Just because they have all these nice things doesn't mean they don't give to charities. Jesus Christ, what the hell do you expect them to do, give out all their wordly possessions to the homeless, go out on the streets, give the clothes on their backs to people so they can be homeless, too? No. If you had wonderful things, I'd expect you to enjoy them, and donate generously to charity. Shutup and go play in some traffic.

You mean...a public figure is living in a nice house!?
HOW DARE HE!
Ready the lynch mob! Find some farm impliments! Get some torches!
Does anybody have an effigy we could burn?

You're an idiot. Just because they have all these nice things doesn't mean they don't give to charities. Jesus Christ, what the hell do you expect them to do, give out all their wordly possessions to the homeless, go out on the streets, give the clothes on their backs to people so they can be homeless, too? No. If you had wonderful things, I'd expect you to enjoy them, and donate generously to charity. Shutup and go play in some traffic.

I suppose you support that fat, hypocritical, pill popping, serial marrying tub of shit?

Even on drugs, Rush is wrong. :D

Hey, I just think that if Pres. Bush wants to flaunts his Christianity everywhere, then maybe he should take more liberties with donating to charity from his own coffers. I thought that everything was paid for in the White House anyway.

Anyone can say that he or she supports charity, but the evidence comes primarily from attitudes toward government benefits for the poor and unfortunate.

Regardless of what words you say about charity and its merits, working against social programs is evidence that you hold charity in the highest contempt.

Anyone who extolls charity and assaults social programs is a palpable liar.

Those asshole mods IP banned me. Too bad they have no idea who they're dealing with. The expert Unix-cryptographer IE me.

Those asshole mods IP banned me. Too bad they have no idea who they're dealing with. The expert Unix-cryptographer IE me.
Just so you know, you don't have to use Unix (although you should) or cryptography to get around I.P. banning. It's actually pretty easy if you know what the hell you're doing.

Anyone who extolls charity and assaults social programs is a palpable liar.

I do. I often give money to charitable organizations, homeless people, etc., yet I adamantly oppose social welfare programs.

Just so you know, you don't have to use Unix (although you should) or cryptography to get around I.P. banning. It's actually pretty easy if you know what the hell you're doing.

Yeah you can do it on windows. But this one site was really serious, so I booted up BSD, and bam they couldn't stop me.

Anyone who extolls charity and assaults social programs is a palpable liar.

How exactly is forcing people to give money to the government charitable?

How exactly is forcing people to give money to the government charitable?
That's called "taxation". You should look into it sometime.

That's called "taxation". You should look into it sometime.

That does not explain why it is charitable.

*Runs into thread*

wait...where am i??? Daddy, is that you?

Anyone can say that he or she supports charity, but the evidence comes primarily from attitudes toward government benefits for the poor and unfortunate.

Regardless of what words you say about charity and its merits, working against social programs is evidence that you hold charity in the highest contempt.

Anyone who extolls charity and assaults social programs is a palpable liar.

You couldn't be more wrong. Encouraging government welfare programs discourages charity. It promotes the idea that the government is taking care of people, so that the populace doesn't need to worry about it. It also wastes money that would go to charities, via government inefficiency (if all the tax monies spent on government administration of welfare programs were instead distributed to more efficient private charities, think how much more would actually go to where it's needed, instead of going into the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats). Plus, due to the forceful nature involved (government can only take your tax money by threat of force), it causes people to resent welfare programs, and thus those in need.

That does not explain why it is charitable.
Touché, sir. Sirs. (Though the correct plural of bandit(to) is banditti if you want to be Italian about it. And, I forget the poet, but he used "los bandidos". With a "d" if I recall correctly.)

Taxation is not really charitable, you are right. But it is the basis of government. Government must have power to do anything. Money is power. Thus, in order for government to exist, it must recieve money. Since most people will nto just donate money to government, taxes must be imposed. Though they must be willing as well, but that's getting into a whole other topic involving governmental theory. So taxation really is more generous than donating to charities or whatever, since there is no product from humans without government (I'll ignore anarchy for the moment), though ants have their own form of collective government more like the old Japanese Tennō, who wielded power (sometimes), but was often bankrupt. Which means that taxation is not always necessary. But since we live in a capitalist society, it does, and is thus charitable.

Christ, I jump all over the place in my rants. ;) I hope someone can make some sense of that. I'm not even sure I can.

Touché, sir. Sirs. (Though the correct plural of bandit(to) is banditti if you want to be Italian about it. And, I forget the poet, but he used "los bandidos". With a "d" if I recall correctly.)

Taxation is not really charitable, you are right. But it is the basis of government. Government must have power to do anything. Money is power. Thus, in order for government to exist, it must recieve money. Since most people will nto just donate money to government, taxes must be imposed. Though they must be willing as well, but that's getting into a whole other topic involving governmental theory. So taxation really is more generous than donating to charities or whatever, since there is no product from humans without government (I'll ignore anarchy for the moment), though ants have their own form of collective government more like the old Japanese Tennō, who wielded power (sometimes), but was often bankrupt. Which means that taxation is not always necessary. But since we live in a capitalist society, it does, and is thus charitable.

Christ, I jump all over the place in my rants. ;) I hope someone can make some sense of that. I'm not even sure I can.

I suppose I can see your point. I myself would prefer to give my money to a non-porfit organization than the government. I would feel that my money would go further that way. And a lot of people do not understand that a lot of the big capitalist give lots of money to charity. Bill Gates gives millions to AIDS research.

Oh, and by the way, there is only one of us.

Yup, and John Kerry talks about the inequality between the rich and the poor, when he's the wealthiest man to have ever run for President.

John Edwards has over 50 million (not 100% sure about that figure, so don't shoot me if it's not right. I know he IS very wealthy though), and he spouts off the same message.

They were the other choice, hypocrisy you say? YES!

Anywho, in general (I know shitall about Rush, so I won't comment on that), giving to charity is a RIGHT WING idea. The left wants everyone to be FORCED to give money to the government, which after much mismanagement and wastefulness goes off and uses that money to help a few deserving people and a whole lot of lazy assholes.

The concept of private charity is VOLUNTARILY giving money to a GOOD cause, such as helping the truly deserving and truly unfortunate, and telling that idiot who became a drug addict in high school and is now a crackwhore to take a hike.

Bush was on television expounding the values of "charity" and gluttony. Rush Limbaugh put on a similair spectacle today. Rush Limbaugh lives in a 25 million dollar house. For a man with 15 bathrooms he is still full of shit. Just like his texan contemporary who spends months on his million dollar estate.
What do these men know of charity? Haven't their lives been spent shrouded in luxury? And aren't they against welfare programs that benifet the poor, and the disabled.
And this makes them different from the marry-for-money Kerry how???

You're an idiot. Just because they have all these nice things doesn't mean they don't give to charities. Jesus Christ, what the hell do you expect them to do, give out all their wordly possessions to the homeless, go out on the streets, give the clothes on their backs to people so they can be homeless, too? No. If you had wonderful things, I'd expect you to enjoy them, and donate generously to charity. Shutup and go play in some traffic.
I agree with you but do you have to be viscous you are being no better than them when you do that....

Just look at Bushs' tax returns as compared to Kerrys' (even if you can find his). Then see who is the true charitable person. God wants all of us to have work to do. Whether it's toiling in the fields or being a carpenter it doesn't matter as long as it is work. He does not like sloth. These homeless and people on welfare need to work, and honestly the government programs out there are not nearly as effective as private charities. When has the government really done anything that benefitted the poor in this country? I seriously doubt they have. We still have homeless people in this country?

(if all the tax monies spent on government administration of welfare programs were instead distributed to more efficient private charities, think how much more would actually go to where it's needed, instead of going into the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats)That would be true, except that the government can get a much cheaper price for food and clothes and other essentials than private organisations can.

Plus, human nature is selfish. Most people, if given the choice, would rather none of their money went to those less fortunate than themselves. Taxation is civilisation's way of making sure people pay their dues.

All attemps to ban alansysts seems futile.

I find that funny.

Taxation is civilisation's way of making sure people pay their dues.

Oh, please. So little of the tax money actually goes to the programs it is intended to it's disgusting. In fact, nowadays a lot of the money is going to pay for COLA's. Do you know what a COLA is? "Cost of Living Allowance." In other words, it's a euphorism for a pay raise for members of Congress. They want more money, and who pays for it? The same people who thought they were paying for new school textbooks. The same people who voted for more rehab centers so the money would go to help people. And yes, I am indeed speaking from fact, and not just out of my ass; I had a nice little discussion with a woman who works for the Virginia government (what we call it) who told me exactly where the money is going. She knows because she writes the checks. I'm all for charity, but when it's merely for profit (as everything in this country is), then it doesn't count as "an act of human kindness."

In other words, it's a euphorism for a pay raise for members of Congress.You're American. Your president lives in a huge glorious white building with pillars and domes, and spends more time on holiday than not. I'm British. Our PM lives in a terraced house. I'm not saying our government is innocent of corruption (far from it), but it is less of a problem here than there. Besides, while I am loath to trust our politicians with anything, I trust them more than I trust the rich in general, because you don't get rich by being generous...

In fact, nowadays a lot of the money is going to pay for COLA's. Do you know what a COLA is? "Cost of Living Allowance." In other words, it's a euphorism for a pay raise for members of Congress.
That and pork. It's true, but that is certainly not where most tax money goes. And I think you mean a euphemism. I have no idea what a euphorism is...perhaps euphoria? Any takers?

Anywho, in general (I know shitall about Rush, so I won't comment on that), giving to charity is a RIGHT WING idea.
Yes, and it relies on human altruism. Seriously, who's going to give much money to charity willingly? Not many, unless there is some type of return that is more advantageous to the giver. And feeling good doesn't count, because that's obviously not going to work. Giving up money for no immediate return must either be compulsory or rely on human greed to work. I have no idea how to do the latter, so the former is the way to go as far as I'm concerned.