Snoopy: hahahahaha............but we must remember it isnt all his fault, he didn't force her to have sex surely?

Bernice: Yeah, the little twerp is on an allowance!  That will really help him.  Of course, at 13 he has no clue.  He's not even through puberty yet!  His voice hasn't changed. 

Bernice: what made me laugh was when the reporter asked what he was going to do financially
and the bratt said whats finance

Snoopy: yep that is the one ROFL..........


AD.......I agree with you....what is he going to be like when he grows up ROFL

Bernice: is this the lad and lass from the UK
from i gather the only help they get will be child benift but the grandmother has to claim that has the child cant has she to young

Bernice:Parents.  Individual responsibility.  Not the governments problem.  Then kick the kid in the choochoos and send his butt to his room for 10 years.  Horney little twerp. 

who should pay for the care of this child....

Father is 13years old and Mother is 15years old.

should it be the kids themselves, his parents, her parents, the Govt......who?

Vikings: OMG....another novel to read........I think we have all left it to Czuch......thanks mate

Mousetrap:
 

The Usurper: this reads like the stimulus package

Artful Dodger: So did I

The Usurper: not sure where to begin here....

You seem to tell us that conservatives are wrong somehow because we dont take into account changes like evil corporations and the federal reserve, in our society since our countries founding, but you dont seem to explain in what way we dont take them into account, nor do you explain in what way liberals have taken them into account in a better way?

You make it sound as if liberals are just a more modern thinking conservative, that you have taken conservatism to a new and higher and better level?


As for the "simplistic" part..... we dont say that if you dont work you shouldnt eat... we say its just not the responsibility of the federal government to feed you!

Conservatives also do not deny any child education or health care, no matter their parents situation....

Some post are too long.

Czuch:

I want to respond to your post, because it is thoughtful and articulate. It puts the best face on Conservatism and deserves a considered response. That you are not a Bible-thumper is a mark in your favor, in that you are more likely to be both compassionate (in my opinion) & open to other points of view. Nevertheless, I find the Conservatism you defend to be flawed, for the following reasons: 1. it is Antiquated; 2. it is Simplistic; 3. it is a Double Standard; and 4. it is Inadequate. I will try to prove each point, if briefly, in the remainder of this post. As to your opinion that “bible thumpers give far more to charitable concerns than you and your socialist friends ever thought about giving,” this is perhaps true and perhaps not. I can understand how you would believe it so, since Christians do stress private charity, and that is a mark in their favor. If it is true, then it is an indication to me that, on both sides of the aisle, there is room for self-assessment and growth. Now to the points.

1. The Conservative view is Antiquated.

I say it is antiquated because it does not take into account the changes in our country, and in our world, since the founding of our nation. In an agrarian society, where (1) opportunity really was more or less equal, (2) great forces were not arrayed against the common man, and (3) governments had less power to influence our lives economically, then private charities might indeed have been the best answer to alleviate the suffering of the poor. By “great forces,” which Conservatives fail to take into account, I mean primarily the rise of the modern Corporation & the establishment of a Central Bank (the Federal Reserve), coupled with astronomic advances in technology.

The modern Corporation, for example, has the legal powers of a private citizen, as ruled by the Supreme Court in the early part of the last century. But its advantages are manifold: it does not die of old age, it is allowed to trade overseas, it has far more wealth than a typical private citizen, and therefore it has better means to influence governmental policy. It also has the right to privacy of a citizen, which means its records, its meetings, its decisions, its policies, are concealed from the public, even though it is the public those decisions & policies most effect. It is the common man, the industrial worker, the small business man, who loses in the bargain. He cannot prevent his job from being moved overseas, or his small business from being undermined through the monopolistic forces & collusion of big business. He cannot prevent his wages being reduced, with only his company’s “word” that it is necessary. He has little or no recourse to the “justice system” if this Corporate “citizen” breaks the law. Finally, if the Corporation is a legal citizen, it is necessarily a psychopathic one. By this, I mean it is entirely (and admittedly), out for itself. It’s bottom line goal is to make a profit at any cost, i.e., the goal of self-preservation through continual growth. It has no higher values as a citizen, by its very nature. So it is competitive by nature, rather than cooperative, and only cooperative to the extent that it calculates such is strategically necessary to maintain its strength for future competition. Thus, if the modern Corporation is a citizen, it is a calculating little devil of a citizen who, for the betterment of society, ought to be severely restricted in its actions & powers. But the laws of the land, many written by the corporations themselves & merely signed off on by members of Congress, protect & support this devil, and increasingly enlarge its powers, to the detriment of the common man.

The Federal Reserve is a bigger enemy to the common man than the corporation. This Bank is federal only in name. It is a private bank whose shareholders remain undisclosed. Yet it has two awesome powers which render it deadly. The first is the power to tax. I am speaking of the Income Tax, which is strictly unconstitutional, since the primary definition of “income,” when the Constitution was written, was “profits from capital,” not “wages from labor;” and since the Constitution stipulates that other taxes must be equally proportioned among the people. As we know, the Income Tax is not equally proportioned, but different tax rates now apply to different individuals, depending on their wealth. However these tax rates are applied, they are simply robbing the common man of the fruit of his labor. I think you may even agree with that. And this is to the common man’s disadvantage in his struggle against poverty. An interesting point to make is that no federal law exists establishing the legality of the Income Tax. It is simply done, and enforced by the IRS, which is the policing arm of the Federal Reserve, a private bank whose shareholders are secret & unanswerable to the public.

The second awesome power of the Federal Reserve is the power to create currency out of thin air. And this is what it does, partly to regulate interest rates, but mostly to lend to the government for debt spending. In this way the government can borrow and spend as much as it pleases, by handing over the money to Corporations, again, primarily those within the network of the Military-Industrial-Complex, who supply oil & equipment to the armed forces and the secret service agencies. Now, the key to understanding how printing money out of thin air (no gold standard) robs the common man is that, for every dollar thus created, the dollar in your wallet is devalued by that much. This is because the increase is not based on capital, i.e., actual material goods. Most of you notice that inflation gives you less bang for your buck. You can’t buy what you previously could, with the same amount of money. What many of you don’t understand is that inflation is no blind “market force,” but a direct and calculated result of printing money out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, i.e., by private bankers to lend to the U.S. Government, which bankers therefore profit, FREELY, when the debts come due, because the printing of currency has cost them essentially nothing. In 1913, when the Federal Reserve was established, 4 cents on a dollar had the buying power of a whole dollar today. So that is how much the money in your wallet has been deflated through inflation. And though wages do increase incrementally over time, I think most people are fully aware that they lag far behind the costs of goods & services, in terms of real money. Furthermore, though the common man has less real wealth as a result, this does not mean that there is less real wealth in the world. It simply means the ownership of this real wealth is being transferred (clandestinely, if you will), from the common man to the mega-rich. And this is essentially why the rich man gets richer: it is not because he works harder or longer hours, or really even that he works smarter; rather, it is because he takes advantage of a system designed precisely to transfer your wealth, the fruits of your labor, into his bank account.

As to technology, I will pass this point by, except to say that it obviously increases the power of those already in power, militarily & otherwise. And That, along with the secretive (thus, anti-democratic) operations of clandestine governmental organizations such as the CIA, NSA, CPC, NSC, and DIA, all of which serve to further the interests of Corporate leaders & private bankers (under the guise of calling it the “National Interest”), provides devastating means of economic warfare against the common man that the writers of our Constitution could scarcely have dreamed of.

2. The Conservative view is Simplistic.

I have already indicated how it is simplistic, in terms of not taking into account the rise of the modern Corporation, the Federal Reserve, and technological advances. In short, there is a disconnect in the Conservative viewpoint caused by its misunderstanding of the complexity of the modern world, and its somewhat starry-eyed (yet understandable) nostalgia for the old world. Yet, it is also simplistic in two other, less pardonable ways. In the first place, conservatives argue (and rightly so) that private charity, much less public welfare, ought not to be extended to those who don’t deserve it. This is a main point of their thesis, that those who won’t work shouldn’t eat. It is emphasized & oft-repeated by talk show pundits such as O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Boorz, etc. As far as this argument goes, I agree. Yet it stops at first base, so to speak. Nor does it exist in a vacuum. For the sake of argument, let us take 10 poor families, of 5 members each. Let us say that 50% of those households (that is 5 out of 10, an unrealistically high number in my estimation) have parents “too lazy to work.” Where does that leave us? It means that, to argue against public welfare based on the fact that even as high a number as half the adults in question would abuse it, is to deny aid to the other half of the adults, who need it & won’t abuse it. Further, it is to deny aid to the children of both sets of adults. And the children of even the irresponsible adults are citizens, and do not carry the guilt of their parents. So, in effect, this position would, and does, deny needed food, shelter, health care, schooling, to children who are guiltless. And these children need the food, shelter, health care & schooling so that they can grow to be healthy, well-informed citizens upon which our nation depends. In effect, because of the laziness of 10 citizens, 40 other non-lazy citizens are required to suffer the consequences. Now, one might argue here that it’s “too bad” for those children, especially those of the irresponsible parents; that “it’s a tough world, get used to it.” But in doing so, one surrenders one’s right to be considered a “compassionate conservative.”

In the second place, the Conservative viewpoint has a simplistic, or rather one-sided, recognition of the Sources of Evil in our society. It rightly recognizes that the lazy poor man is evil. But it fails to acknowledge the existence, or negative socio-economic impact, of the evil rich man. Yet the evil rich man has a far greater influence on the general economy, as already alluded to, than the evil poor man. And while the evil poor man’s irresponsible behavior effects mostly himself and his immediate family, the evil rich man’s selfishness has a negative economic impact on many poor families, even the ones headed by responsible adults. Nevertheless, conservatives rarely if ever admonish the evil rich man, or better yet, seek to alter the social system so as to decrease the evil rich’s man influence & impact on the poor & middle-class. To the contrary, they invariably side with the rich man, never considering him to be “evil” in any case, but rather to be an “American success,” almost by definition. Whereas they always stand against the evil poor man, notwithstanding that in doing so they group, if not intentionally, certainly in Effect, the evil poor man & the honest, hardworking poor man into a single composite entity. And in doing this, they turn a blind eye to the real needs of their fellow countrymen, many of whom are children who can in no wise fend for themselves.

So the net result of this overly simplistic view is that Conservatives, again not necessarily intentionally, but nevertheless truly, support the oppressors of the poor, rather than the poor themselves. And this in fact harms the poor, resulting in the malnutrition & deaths of children, along with other comparatively lesser evils. When examined closely, it is hard to argue with a straight face (it would seem to me) that Conservatives can deservedly bear the label, “compassionate.” This is not to say that they are physiologically or psychologically incapable of experiencing the whole gamut of human feelings & sentiments. And, even by natural instinct, a feeling of pity towards some unfortunate might arise in a conservative heart under certain circumstances. This is true of us all, or of at least most of us. Yet the Conservative mind is not, by & large, sufficiently driven by a profound pity for real human suffering, enough to cause it to expand the scope of its worldview, and take into account very relevant factors which contribute to, and in many cases even cause, this suffering. The Conservative man does not consider the alleviation of human suffering to be one of his top priorities, or even to be, strictly speaking, his responsibility. His highest moral mandate is individuality, i.e., personal choice. He therefore may, or may not, choose to extend private charity, at his own discretion. In no case can it be demanded of him. And he does not acknowledge, or perhaps even recognize, the higher moral imperative, that of altruism: that we truly are, and must be, our brother’s keeper. Such a moral law the so-called “compassionate conservative” will not be constrained by.

He will of course reiterate his argument that, surely he IS constrained by this moral law, and accepts its mandate, but only privately. It does not belong in the public sphere. I will continue my argument against this position in my next post on this subject, because I do not have time or space here to get to my last two main points, as mentioned in the opening paragraph. I will only say here that such a stance insinuates, in my estimation, a false dichotomy of thinking, a false choice or preference, if you will, which results in the de facto neglect of the poor. And this very fact, that the poor are neglected indeed, reveals that behind this false preference lies an element of hypocrisy – perhaps unconscious hypocrisy in some, yet it is conscious in others. In other words, it is a stance which masks, whether intentionally or accidentally, a fundamental lack of empathy for others who suffer. But this is an argument I will develop more fully in the second half of this essay.

Thank you for reading this far. :o)

Mousetrap: I agree with both those statements ROFLMBO

Which reminds me of that saying.
"God helps those who help themselves but God help those who get caught helping themselves"

Bernice: If they dont want to help themselves there is not a lot anyone else can do about it.

Czuch: ....well Im pleased if you are pleased.

People have to get up, get out and HELP THEMSELVES.

Czuch: 

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/11/27/wife-beating-in-islam/


***we have plenty of help for abused spouses***

About 1 mile from my home an old motel was turned into studio apartments just before Xmas....this was for abused wives, is security patrolled and husbands can't go near it.


Bwild I agree with you as well, that just as many husbands as wives suffer at the hands of their spouses.

Artful Dodger:

There's a psychology behind it and for many women, it's like being caught in a trap. It seems easy to outsiders that escape is a logical choice. But it's like having one's legs in a cement bucket. You can't move



AD, you are sounding much like one of those liberals too

Bernice:

I don't judge them I just won't give any sympathy when they choose to stay and get beaten.......you make your bed, you lie in it.......

Bernice, you are starting to sound like a good American Conservative...

Bwild: yes there was an issue with the muslims....they were complaining a few years ago because they werent allowed to wear their headdress in public schools (the reason being they couldnt be checked for explosives etc) so they built their own schools and then refused entry to non muslims - even tho it was built with public money,,,is this what you are thinking about?

I will do a check and see if I can find anything else.

anastasia: my mum told me once that it took her 18 years to build up my self *** --sorry I read that wrong....I thought you were referring to your mother.......

My self esteem was never *killed* as you put it because I left the next morning.

**Once upon a time**...Im lost on this one - sorry.

I never said it was the womans fault for staying, i said you have to have strength (Intestinal fortitude)to leave. You know what is wrong and how to fix it therefore - fix it.

Im sorry you had to keep going through it *shrugs* did you leave? or are you still in an abusive relationship.

You havn't had your head cut off, but then that could be better than being there, forever


***edited for spelling mistakes***
when will we get a spell-check.?

Bwild:I"m not sure about the Australia thing.  Bernice might know tho.

Artful Dodger:some cultures are not as evolved as others.....
on another note...same subject.....wasnt there an issue in Australia over the muslims?

Bwild:  I think I kinda brought it up with my posts on honor killings.  The forum is for politics and issues.  Everything seems to filter through politics eventually.  In my post below, the wife of a prominent business man was beheaded when she filed for divorce.  He is a Muslim and his mission in life was counter violent image of Muslims.  I'd say chopping off his wife's head didn't really help eliminate that negative image. 

if they stay...its their choice...get over it.
many men are abused dailey by woman...maybe not physically..but verbally and mentally....same difference in my opinion.   what does this have to do with politics??

Bernice: my mother was never beaten by my father,he never ever raised a hand to her..where you got that impression,I have no clue..
You sit there...they made their bed,so lie in it...you have been there,you KNOW it isn't that easy..I also made the choice...if ya wanna kill me,kill me,GOTTA be better then THIS,for sure...HOW you can sit there tho after LIVING through it and KNOWING how they kill ANY self esteem you had...once apon a time and judge that it is the womans fault for staying is just beyond me

anastasia: I did my dear.I seen my mother beat.Do you call that judging. That's a FACT.

anastasia: I CAN JUDGE AND WILL....................why???
because I have been there, same as you and your mother....she didnt leave and you were brought up in that sort of violent situation and you accept it as norm.....let me tell you ....when I had my head stomped, arms slashed with knives, punched in face until black and blue, only to wake up the next morning to hear..."I'm sorry".....yeah well mate so am I.....I'm outta here.....
I heard the "You leave and I will find you and I will kill you and the 2 kids".....great, then do it.

Know what?????................they are gutless when they are in front of other people......on their own they are the strongest, because they can beat a woman half to death. GUTLESS.

Now don't you tell me not to judge, I have been there and done that.....IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN ....to me.

I got the horrible disease out of my system, and so can everybody else. If a person hasnt got the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be counted, then accept your lot, and stop complaining about it.

and here are my pom pom's

Bernice: when you have someone..CONSTANTLY telling you that you are worthless,that nobody will EVER love you,that you will be nothing without him,that if you leave,he WILL find you and he WILL kill you...a person hears that for so long,they WILL start to believe it...top that with being hit for no other reason but that HE had a bad day,the constant put downs and belittling...my mum told me once that it took her 18 years to build up my self esteem and took him less then one year to completely destroy it.
It is VERY easy for you to sit there and say,oh,just leave,oh there are places to go....you know what happened to me Bernice one night when I did try to leave?? do you KNOW!? well,he caught me outside of our apartment,grabbed my head and slammed it repeatedly into a friggin wall untill I almost passed out...thats what happed the first time I tried to leave Bernice...he told me if I did it again,he would kill me...wanna know sometime..I believed he would do it to.
You can sit there and you can judge all you want to but untill you KNOW,untill you have been through it,do NOT judge that woman

Artful Dodger: Yes I partially agree with you....it is the woman who stay for years putting up with the abuse. There is always something/someone to help. The salvation army for starters, and they DO NOT require you to join the church before they will help like a lot of the others do.

Anyway.....Happy Valentines day to those that are happy and/or in love....beaten or otherwise........

Im off out for a special treat

Bernice:There's a psychology behind it and for many women, it's like being caught in a trap.  It seems easy to outsiders that escape is a logical choice.  But it's like having one's legs in a cement bucket.  You can't move.  For many women, there's no place to go but perhaps the biggest deterrent is the fear factor.  Look at how many abusive men go after their ex's and do them harm even to the point of death.  It's easier to live with the abuse than it is the fear of what may happen if you leave.  I think that the abuser breaks their spirit and they have nothing left to help them flee the abusive relationship.   They are frozen like a deer in headlights.

Mousetrap....god help anybody that gets a beating thinking it is love....

Some women don't have the where-with-all or the brains to get out. They take repeated beatings because of "the kids"...what rubbish, don't they realise they are doing the kids harm by staying.

anastasia says....don't judge a woman for the choice she makes.....
I don't judge them I just won't give any sympathy when they choose to stay and get beaten.......you make your bed, you lie in it........

anastasia: I did not get the impression that Gerry was judging.

"GERRY": untill YOU have lived that...don't judge a woman for the choice she makes

Pedro Martínez: I hope not.

"GERRY": Fear or just plain madness. The madness being that they think it is love.

Mousetrap: The most important part of the article:

"The judgments of the courts have no basis in British law, and are therefore technically illegitimate - they are binding only in that those involved agree to comply."

And I add: and will never have and will always be.

Pedro Martínez: It is not so long ago since it was on tv and in the news about a woman who has ran away from her family to escape an honor killing here. It certainly does go on but is not the norm.

"GERRY": For the same reason women born in Peru and Australia do so.

Mousetrap: Why do women born in Canada & USA put up with beatings & say nothing?

Mousetrap: That is certainly not true.

But having said that it is not so long ago that the English court would cut off a child hand for stealing a loaf of bread. We seem to be going backwards not forward.

Artful Dodger: I think you're confusing two terms. Islam and Sharia. I believe most Muslims would condemn and do condemn such honor killings, and most Islamic countries have stopped pursuing the Sharia Law. Unfortunately, there are still lots of "conservative" and "traditionally" thinking people who think of those harsh punishments as the only way.

Artful Dodger: Yes it is the same here. Our goverment still decided to allow some parts of Sharia law to be practised though. It must be fear of having a Muslim uprising if they didnt.
I hope Sharia law never extends into our courts from Muslim parliament.

Mousetrap:Even in the US there have been many honor killings.  The women don't allow it.  But they don't have a lot of choice.  In the Eastern cultures, it's an oppressive situation and they either submit, or die.  There is no fighting back.  In the US, you have to be willing to break totally with your family and basically go into hiding.  CNN has done several stories on this issue and it's a serious problem that's not likely to go away anytime soon.