NEVER believe a Democrat. Remember, this is the "do as I say, not as I do" crowd. They SAY they are champions of the poor, but when it comes to charity, they are as tight-fisted as an old miser. They SAY they want to save the children, but they abort 1.2 million children a year. They SAY they are the party of civil rights, but every piece of legislation ever passed by Democrats has only contributed to the further misery of minorities.
--The Lone Ranger
...Are Rarely Spoken.
76 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is that all Democrat politicians or simply all Democrats? Is that all Democrats ever or just living Democrats?
Or are you just engaging in hyperbole?
I might suggest that this sort of hyperbole (or demonization/stereotyping) is not especially helpful to our nation, or the world beyond our nation. We are brothers and sisters, like it or not. Fellow humans, fellow Christians in some cases, fellow citizens.
Why would we want to engage in this sort of demonization? Don't you think it tends to make the speaker sound a bit daft?
Shall we review your rather tepid criticism of Jeremiah Wright's hyperbole?
If Wright's hyperbole reached the level of crime, it was a misdemeanor. While too many pastors committed the felony of turning too blind an eye to - or even supported! - criminally immoral policy here at home.
Absurdly, you have defended Wright as a "Man of God", and you invoked Matthew 5 to suggest that he's facing criticism because of his obedience to Christ.
Shall we further review what language you yourself employed against those who have been more critical of Wright's slander and who have questioned Obama's judgment for attending such a church for literally decades?
You accused us of a "digital lynching" and accused us of "crucifying" Wright.
Your concern about villification and the use of hyperbole is -- as with so many principles to which you supposedly cling -- inconsistent, conveniently invoked, and ultimately hypocritical.
Why would we engage in this sort of demonization? Don't you think it makes the speaker sound a bit daft?
If you want to email me (since this attack is about me and not about Eric's post) and let me know where I've engaged in this sort of demonization - accusing a whole group of people of being untrustworthy - please let me know and you'll have saved me from my hypocrisy.
If you can't do so, then accusing me of hypocrisy that does not exist is not especially impressive. Changing the subject and making ad hominem attacks are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
You accuse us of a "digital lynching," but that's wholly irrelevant to this discussion because that isn't a precise and exact analogue of "accusing a whole group of people of being untrustworthy"?
Why would we want to engage in this sort of demonization? Don't you think it tends to make the speaker sound a bit daft? (by Dan)
Since you have beaten up on me severely because I dare to disagree with you, Dan.....I just have to shake my head and roll my eyes when I see this post. You not only have treated me unnecessarily harsh, you have allowed your buddies to join in the street fight. I would love to meet you in person and let you see the "monster" that you think I am. Even though I have no agreement with you, I do not hate you or even get angry with you. That is why I leave the scene when you go on one of your rampages and then I am called a "drive-by" because I think to argue or resort to your rhetoric is foolish. Mom2
And remains still... I can't speak for anyone else, but as for myself, I say it's time you changed your MO. If the bulk of your debating skill lie only in demanding answers to question you already know you won't like, why do you bother?
Might I suggest you take this tack?
..::Prove through skillful debate and whatever facts you can find that the premise of the post is inaccurate::..
Bubba does this quite well. You, sadly....
So let's engage these three suppositions:
1) Democrats on average are less "charitable" than Republicans
2) Because of Democrats 1.2 million children are aborted each year
3) Because of Democrats and their manipulation of social welfare the black family has been all but destroyed
I'm not entertaining your tiresome demands for answers to questions. See if you can debate the claims without your usual...
"Oh, really! Well whaddaya got to say about________? Huh? Why can't you answer a simple question?"
Well, turning that around, why can't you actually debate the merits, or lack thereof, of the issue?
Seems simple enough to me
in Arthur C. Brooks book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism; Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters the following facts are gleaned:
--Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
--Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
--Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
--Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
--In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
--People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Arthur Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
It is Democrats that push abortion, and the Party is supported by the abortion industry lobby.
Abortion, according the Liberalism and Democrats by and large, is a Constitutional right, even though the word "abortion" doesn't appear anywhere within the Constitution (just as "homosexuality is a damnable sin" is not expressly found in the bible).
Barack Obama, as the Democratic poster-child for progressivism not only voted against Partial-Birth Abortion as a member of the Illinois state legislature, he also voted against the Born Alive Victims Protection Act. Furthermore, as a black man, Barack should at least be cognizant of the fact that more abortions are performed, by far, on black women than on white... a holocaust of sorts on the Black Race. Yet he supports abortion. Even late-term abortion. On top of this, he's supposedly a Christian.
Eric, the premise of this post is preposterous and no sane person would believe it.
The premise is, and I quote, "NEVER believe a Democrat." THAT is the premise of the post.
All I have to do to disprove this nutty premise is to show one Democrat that is believable. Trustworthy.
I could point to myself, as I think I am entirely believable, but I doubt that you would accept that. I could point to my father or some of my conservative pastors, youth ministers, etc, I had growing up.
It is an innately goofy claim to make to suggest that ALL of ANY one group is not believable. I can't really believe that anyone here even believes it. I expect the statement was made for hyperbolic reasons, but it just makes you sound, well, unbelievable.
You, personally, when you say such a thing - NOT all Republicans.
As to the rest of LR's claims, I can point to my church as a whole and say, "Here is a crowd that puts their money where their mouths are. They DO as they say. I expect that you would have a hard time finding a more financially giving church.
And when we give, we don't just give to ourselves (as in giving a tithe to the church, which is going for one's own edification) but rather we give to feed children, to stop injustice, to tend God's creation.
And we DO work to save children's lives. In many ways, not just one.
We DO work for civil rights and have for 120 years. In real tangible ways. In ways that work in the real world.
Right now, our city is closing down the public swimming pools in several of our urban (read "minority-filled) neighborhoods) in order to have money to give millions of dollars to a big out-of-state firm supposedly to revitalize our downtown.
Our church has been on the front lines to stop this injustice.
Right now, budgets are being cut to house homeless families. My wife runs a Christian homeless shelter that has among its (too many) residents two little sisters who BOTH have cancer. The budget cuts may mean that families like this will become homeless. My wife and others like her are leading the challenge to find money so that these little girls don't end up on the streets. To challenge the gov't to have moral budgets, rather than ones that give away corporate welfare but let the poorest die on the streets.
I could go on and on, but all I have to do to disprove LR's nutty comment is offer one instance to show that it is a logically ridiculous claim to say "Never believe a Democrat."
There were no tricks in my questions. I was merely trying to clarify what you meant by this. Why does everything have to be a battle for you.
Exhibit 1:
The NAACP needs to get a clue
--by Star Parker
The History of the Democratic party is one of the greatest American repositories of racism.
If you factor out of that money that conservatives give, the money they give to their own churches (that ends up helping them – which is not a bad thing, but is a different sort of charity than actual assistance to those in need), I suspect that charitable giving would be comparable (or perhaps even show that liberals give more) between the two groups.
…[democrats are] less humane (in terms of abortion rights)…
Yes, Democrats tend to support abortion rights. That does not mean they’re less humane, just that they support abortion rights. This statement is akin to me saying that because Republicans support torture, they are less humane. That would be a caricature of the conservative position, not their actual position. Similarly here. Because Dems disagree with you on one topic does not make Dems less humane. It means they support abortion rights.
…and [democrats are] more racist and purveyors of class-envy.
Do you have any example or study to support this outlandish statement? Or is this just your hunch? If it’s your hunch, you’re welcome to it, but none of this supports your statements and none of them support the central premise: That Democrats can’t be trusted.
So, you’re not going to answer my questions? Whatever, it’s your blog. They seemed like legitimate questions and if you’re standing by LR’s premise, well, it is clear then that you’re choosing blind partisan demonization of the Other Party and it’s just a frankly ridiculous premise. But if it works for you, go for it.
claim 1: "in Arthur C. Brooks book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism; Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters the following facts are gleaned:" Have you read this book EL? Are you prepared to defend his arguments? I mean all I had to do was read some of the low-ranking Amazon.com reviews and saw that Mr. Brooks methodology is not rigorous enough to produce meaningful conclusions. A)He counts every penny given to religious organizations as conservative giving. B)The book also says that conservatives (whatever nebulous definition he has) are less likely than liberals to volunteer.
claim 2: Unwanted pregnancies are the problem. They are the cause of abortions and they are what has to be addressed to stop abortions. It is conservatives though who have locked onto the view that you just have to criminalize abortions and they will all somehow magically disappear. I have never heard a liberal blogger/writer/ politician/commenter say we need more abortions. If conservatives are serious about wanting to stop abortions then they should move from their position of zero tolerance and work with liberals to address the root cause of abortion. Funding for orphanages. More Social workers. Better after school programs. Comprehensive abstinence plus sex education. Those are bipartisan solutions that would address the problem of abortions. It is conservatives who consistently kill these initiatives. So the next time you try the crass "baby-killers" card throw it at the feet of your own party.
"it is clear then that you’re choosing blind partisan demonization of the Other Party"
My, what an incredible hypocrite you are!
Where have I demonized the Republican Party?
The answer is that I haven't. But you have, in claiming that ALL Democrats are not to be believed.
So, your own words testify against you, Eric. You're indicating that I have wrongly demonized the Republicans, indicating that you recognize that it is wrong to do so (right?), but you have done so with the Democrats. And I have shown you where you have done so.
Have I misunderstood you somehow? Do you mean something other than that all Democrats are not trustworthy or believable?
At least, I hope that's hyperbole.
I find this statement interesting:
As to the rest of LR's claims, I can point to my church as a whole and say, "Here is a crowd that puts their money where their mouths are. They DO as they say. I expect that you would have a hard time finding a more financially giving church.["]
It's interesting as a tacit admission of the political composition of Dan's congregation. His church is a counterexample to EL's claims only if it's made up primarily of Democrats and that Dan knows this composition.
It's also interesting as a display of possibly sinful pride. "I give more than anyone" is unbecoming any single Christian or any Christian about his particular congregation. Or is that instruction negotiable, about not letting one hand see what the other's doing?
But it's most interesting because of what Dan emphasizes and what he downplays.
He emphasizes political activism, which isn't a great instance of giving -- it is instead, persuading the government to coerce other citizens to pay for what Dan believes to be "moral budgets" -- and it isn't one of the primary Biblical functions of the Christian church.
And, on the other hand, he sneers at tithing as giving to yourself, "which is going for one's own edification."
Very unintentionally, Dan reinforces my concerns that, regarding his religious beliefs, he puts entirely too much focus on politics.
For what it's worth, my congregation is probably 95% Democrat or Green. So yes, we are a group mostly of so-called liberals who are generous (with our own money), sincere, honest, hard-working individuals. And that, as you note, proves the original premise wrong.
That's all I was saying.
As far as Dan's question goes, it is typical of him to attack a generalization in order to win points. Unfortunately, generalizations are more often than not, based on facts. Considering the leaders of the Democratic Party, the warning is a good one. Sure, I also know some honest and giving libs/Dems. It doesn't diminish the truth of the generality. I admit, however, that it makes Dan feel good. But since so many Dems speak out the sides of their mouths, if not their posteriors, it is a generalization of merit and the warning is the safer bet.
Supporting abortion "rights", particularly as steadfastly and so completely as does Barry Obama, is indeed inhumane. Supporting the use of torture in specific situations to prevent innocent deaths is not. If they Dems were really only concerned about the possibility of death to the mother, Dan might have a point. They do not. They care for the "right" they believe they have to determine when another is a person deserving of the same rights they demand for themselves, and when they they don't.
We ARE all brothers and sisters, Dan. It would not be very Christian to allow our misguided brothers and sisters to continue on in their self-delusions. And to demonize those who would keep them there is also a service we feel compelled to perform, not just for their own souls, but for the future of our nation. A truly noble service indeed.
Just as there are some manipulative, dishonest Republicans.
All I was objecting to was the partisan posturing of acting as if the Dems somehow are the only ones dishonest or even the main ones dishonest.
If actual arrest records, convictions and scandals are any indicator, the Republicans edge them out just by a bit. Which is not to say that all Republicans are dishonest, just that there's nothing to support the suggestion that the Dems are somehow more dishonest than the Republicans.
Yes, we realize that we all disagree with one another on one point or the other and we think those points are pretty serious. But depravity is common to humanity and not one party.
And Dan, "Depravity" is more inherent within the Liberal/Progressive ideology than that of the conservative. It resides in every human heart, but Liberalism gives it its way, and rarely seeks to restrain it.
Ben:
"The greatest danger to black american[sic] families is prison."
And why is that? The break-up of the black family in poverty stricken areas... no fathers... Thank-you Democrats.
"...which party is the party of criminal punishment and mandatory minimum sentences?"
That would be the Republican party. Democrats are weak on crime. Weak. Weaker than Republicans on the whole. Republicans believe that crime should be punished. Ben seems to imply that Democrats do not. But you can't blame Republicans for destroying the black family which is the root cause of so many blacks entering prison. Don't believe me? Ask Bill Cosby. Or is he not black enough?
"all I had to do was read some of the low-ranking Amazon.com reviews and saw that Mr. Brooks methodology is not rigorous enough to produce meaningful conclusions."
Wow! All I had to do was read this comment to see that your methodology is not rigorous enough to glean any meaningful conclusion about the Mr. Brooks' conclusions? Taking the word of a commenter at Amazon as proof positive that Brooks' book is worthless? or Suspect at best? Not very scientific of you Ben.
"If conservatives are serious about wanting to stop abortions then they should move from their position of zero tolerance and work with liberals to address the root cause of abortion. Funding for orphanages. More Social workers. Better after school programs. Comprehensive abstinence plus sex education. Those are bipartisan solutions that would address the problem of abortions. It is conservatives who consistently kill these initiatives."
The root cause of abortion? The lack of funding for orphanages causes abortions? The lack of social workers causes abortion? The lack of quality after-school programs causes abortion? The lack of comprehensive abstinence programs coupled with sex education causes abortions? None of these cause abortion. Conservatives kill these issues [assuming you're correct in this assumption] because they don't address the problem of "Abortion," just as you failed to do just now. All you've tried to do is throw money at the problem, and money won't stop abortion. All money does is pay the Butcher's bill, and insures he keeps scraping life out of every underprivileged womb in the hood.
Liberals, however, aren't concerned with slowing [let alone stopping out-right] the abortion rate in America. If they were they wouldn't seek to kill every issue that seeks to curtail abortion, let alone ban it outright. They're also against abstinence-only education because it stresses 'morality and consequence,' which are NOT Democratic strong-points [especially in the 'Crime & Punishment' area]. What Democrats ARE for [and supporting with American taxpayer dollars] is Planned Parenthood: Butchers extraordinaire.
Democrats support "baby-killers," which is ironic in that many of the Democrats of today, are of the same stripe that spat upon Vietnam vets and called them "baby-killers." Funny thing is, Democrats are responsible for the deaths of far, far, more babies than ANY number of Vietnam vets.
Your kung-fu is not strong. Would you care to try again?
Having just seen "KungFu Panda" with my daughter (very funny), I found the above particularly amusing.
Dan,
Don't buy me flowers just yet. I think the Dem philosophy is dishonest. That's the point of Kemo Sabe's rant. Their actions don't fit their words.
And your proof of this is found... where?
Not in the Bible.
Not in the arrest records of politicians.
Not in the conviction rate of politicians.
Not in the scandal rate of politicians.
A study? Research?
Or, is this just your best guess based on what you would like to believe?
(And, once again, I ask questions for clarification purposes. Not as some trick. Not to be mean. In the case above, the questions, answered honestly, help show that your opinion is just based on your hunch. You have nothing to back that up. Which is fine, you are more than welcome to an opinion.
But not all opinions are created equally. Some have less evidence to support them. You are free to think that your boogers taste like sweet buttered popcorn candy, but I would suspect that actual tests would not support that position.)
And what, exactly, is the Dem philosophy and how is it dishonest?
What I think you all are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you find the Dem position on a few issues especially disagreeable and therefore, you don't like them.
But if that's all you're saying, we all can play that game.
"The Republicans SAY they are for small gov't, but they're the ones who have increased the size of gov't EVERY TIME in the last several administrations."
"The Republicans SAY they care about the poor, and that is why their policies help create so many of them!"
"The Republicans SAY they are against war except for defensive reasons, but then they build history's largest military machine and have our military gallavanting all over the world."
"Therefore, they are utterly dishonest. Bald faced liars. There's not a shred of truth in the Republican philosophy. Don't trust any of them!!"
I could argue and demonize that same way. But to what end?
By all means, disagree with policy that you disagree with. That is what I do.
In fact, in my "Republicans do this..." statement above, that IS the kind of thing I say at my blog. I have no problem with disagreeing over policy. We ought to do that, it is a good thing.
Where I part ways with you is in my final line above ("Therefore, they are utterly dishonest. Bald faced liars. There's not a shred of truth in the Republican philosophy. Don't trust any of them!!")
That is where you cross the line from disagreeing with/criticizing policy over to demonization.
THAT is why I asked you those first questions. WHY the demonization.
In fact, this is NOT something I do at my blog and that is why what I am asking here is not hypocritical.
Do you understand the difference? The difference between critiquing - which is a good thing - and the demonization, which is, well, diabolical, as well as counterproductive and harmful and just plain wrong?
It is also worth noting the demonization you employed in attacking Wright's critics:
"Digital lynching." "Crucifying."
Was this behavior of yours "diabolical, as well as counterproductive and harmful and just plain wrong"? If not, why not?
You wrote, earlier:
It's interesting how much y'all seem to want to discuss Dan but can't answer simple questions.
For me, it's not that I "can't" answer your questions. (Is your implication that we're unable not also counterproductive and just plain wrong?)
It's that I won't. At least, in answering your questions, I'm not going to pretend any longer that I believe your questions are being asked in good faith.
So I checked the General Social Survey, one of his sources, to see if the raw data do indeed fit his thesis. What a surprise, they don't. In nearly every case, the GSS data show that liberals contribute more and volunteer more than do conservatives. There are exceptions of course (for example, conservatives donate far more to religious organizations, which do some charitable work but are otherwise just social clubs), and there are many, many cases in which the data is ambiguous. But the general trend is that liberals are more generous than conservatives.
I rather suspect that Brooks' conclusions are suspect. I'd have to see more than one small study to believe his conclusion (conservatives give more than liberals) is a consistently and logically sound one. Nothing against Brooks, but one study does not science make.
"The Republicans SAY they are for small gov't, but they're the ones who have increased the size of gov't EVERY TIME in the last several administrations."
Small government is a matter of what duties the government sees fit to involve itself, not how much is spent on any of those activities. The lack of Republican wins in the 06 midterms shows how rightwing voters feel about over spending. Thus, your quote above is false and fails to make your point.
"The Republicans SAY they care about the poor, and that is why their policies help create so many of them!"
This is not even close to true. Poverty is more a result of the decisions of the individual, but if there are any policies that keep people down, it's the welfare/entitlement mentality promoted by lib policy.
"The Republicans SAY they are against war except for defensive reasons, but then they build history's largest military machine and have our military gallavanting all over the world."
Most lefties are so awash in peace-at-any-price mentality that they can't see the logic in being the strongest dog in the pack. Gallavanting is a terribly slanted word to use to describe the policy of lending military aid to those in need or to nip a problem in the bud. Nice try.
Your examples actually do more for supporting the proposition that the left is dishonest as you frame your statements in the least honest manner basing them on your emotions, rather than, as we do, looking at the results of the policies and comparing those with the rhetoric that was used to sell those policies.
I'm not going to pretend any longer that I believe your questions are being asked in good faith.
Among other personal ad hominem attacks. Feel free to write me if you want more answers.
The truth is, you have no good reason not to believe me. I've never been anything but honest with you all. I ask questions when I want to help clarify a point or position. That you are unwilling to answer them for whatever reason is about you, not about me.
My name is Dan Trabue, I have hidden nothing. My address and phone number are easily found on the web. I attend the church I've said I attend, I am who I say I am. I hold the positions I hold because that is what my faith system and best logic dictate to me.
You may disagree with me but you have no reason at all to suspect that I'm somehow dishonest. Well, no reason other than an attempt to distract from the reality that you can't/won't answer basic honest clarifying questions.
I say "Can't" not because I think you physically can't, but rather, because oftentimes if you DID answer them, they would tend to show the lack of consistent morality or logic in your position.
As the first questions asked here: "Do you truly think that all Democrats should not be believed?"
If one answers YES to that question, it indicates a shallow partisan reasoning which is not based on anything in reality. So, you "can't" answer thusly without exposing goofy reasoning.
Now, one COULD answer NO, what I meant was .... and that would be reasonable, but you all don't seem to want to go that route.
Now enough talking about Dan. Let's talk about topics and write Dan if you want to talk about Dan. I mean, it's flattering and all how much y'all ponder me, but you're embarrassing me and my wife is getting a bit jealous...
I believe almost exactly the same thing, but in reverse. Except that I don't say that "The Republicans" have forsaken true Christian (or American) values in order to get votes, in an attempt to paint all Republicans with one stroke. But some have. Too many. As have too many Dems.
And take it from someone who spent too many years registered as first a Republican and now as a Dem. They are both flawed parties. But one does not have a lock on being Supremely corrupt.
Certainly there are men and women of good intent and character striving for positive gov't in the US in both parties. And sometimes, they get it wrong and sometimes, even worse, they get corrupted and become beholden to special moneyed interests. And that's a shame.
But the record shows that can happen in both parties (although, again, the Republicans have a lead in the corruption department, based on convictions, arrests and scandals).
There, that's it. The last time I
am stating the obvious for this post.
Demonize away.
I'm not interested in writing you privately so we can continue a public charade that you argue in good faith, when you clearly do not.
My name is Dan Trabue, I have hidden nothing. My address and phone number are easily found on the web. I attend the church I've said I attend, I am who I say I am. I hold the positions I hold because that is what my faith system and best logic dictate to me.
Where you have been less than forthright is the simple question of the "faith system" from which your positions are supposedly derived.
You obfuscate about what you really believe. For instance, while you dodged the question by saying the two are "of a piece", you have never clearly stated whether you believe the forgiveness of our sin is causally related to Christ's death.
You are selective in the principles and authorities to which you appeal. You're quick to remind us that we're brothers and sisters in order to denounce EL's comments, but not so much when it comes to Jeremiah Wright's slander or your own vile rhetoric in attacking Wright's critics. You're quick to invoke the Founding Father's stirring words about liberty to argue against a large military, but concerns about liberty evaporate in the face of your pet causes that require massive government regulation. And your abuse of the Bible is frankly disgusting, invoking one OT passage as proof that our armies should be small, while dismissing surrounding passages as literal atrocities.
What is the source of your principles? It certainly isn't the Bible itself, since you routinely dismiss and disparage difficult and inconvenient passages as atrocities, errors, and irrelevancies.
What is your North Star? You've never been clear about what really guides you, so your use of other sets of principles comes off as quite mercenary.
"Westward into Kentucky the Journal of Daniel Trabue"
Daniel Trabue is an ancestor of mine whose journal has been published. And it is my real name, always has been.
Eric, I am very sorry that these posts turn into commentary (mostly easily verified false witness) about Dan. I don't know what the fascination is, but I won't continue to comment on these ad hominem attacks and thereby try to discourage it.
In the scope of two sentences, you apologize for other people's comments, accuse us of bearing false witness, and repeat the charge that other people are making ad hominem attacks. It's apparently fine for you to accuse me of lying, but not the reverse.
We're not at your blog, where you're now fairly heavily exercising your ability to delete as "spam" comments you don't like. But it now appears that a change of venue won't affect your fundamental dishonesty in your doing all you can to pretend that your comments are made in a vaccuum, ahistorically. You want us to take serious your calls to treat others with civility, never mind your own vicious rhetoric. You want us to consider the political implications of the Bible passages you like, never mind the deep contempt you hold for the rest of God's Word. It goes on and on, the princples you want to invoke only when convenient, and the history you want us to ignore in the process.
To hell with such willful amnesia, Dan. The only way you're going to get people like me to treat you as if you're consistent in your beliefs is if you display consistent principles. If you don't exhibit true fidelity to your beliefs -- and something approximating opennes about those beliefs -- I will not pretend that you are anything but dishonest in your rhetoric.
"Republicans believe that crime should be punished. Ben seems to imply that Democrats do not." I'm all for productive punishment. I just want it to be cost effective and conservatives don't support policies that actually reduce crime. They don't support drug treatment programs. They don't support mental health counseling for prisoners. They don't support job training and education programs. All of these REDUCE crime. I don't need the emotional joy of seeing someone else punished.
"Taking the word of a commenter at Amazon as proof positive that Brooks' book is worthless?" Actually I read all the reviews. I'm not going to spend the money to buy his book. I'll probably check it out at a bookstore someday. Have you read his book? Do you know anymore about his claims than what you've gotten at partisan websites?
"The root cause of abortion? The lack of funding for orphanages causes abortions? The lack of social workers causes abortion?" You apparently missed the first two sentences in that paragraph. "Unwanted pregnancies are the problem. They are the cause of abortions and they are what has to be addressed to stop abortions."
This post was originally twice as long and about twice as hot. I trimmed it after my anger cooled. How about you do the same and stop portraying me as a butcher and Machiavellian terrorist?
If he can keep commenting to accuse others of lying, principle dictates that he should substantiate the accusation.
...
"Broken families are caused by fathers/sons being sent to prison, not by social welfare causing families to break up."
Today. But that's not how it began, and that's not what got the ball rolling. We are where we are today BECAUSE of the Welfare system as it existed in the beginning. For two generations it destroyed the "nuclear makeup" of the black family. Children grew up without enough parental direction to stand strong in spite of their circumstances, leading to a moral decline that over the years only exacerbated the problem of being "fatherless". Welfare became "Entitlements" pandered by the Democrats as "their right," and the Republican party that wanted more accountability before monies were just strewn about willy-nilly were vilified by the Democratic party.
Yes. Today the breakup and sad state of the poor black-American (white-American as well) family is caused in no small part by black-crime, and prison terms. But YOU fail to see the root cause. You can't cure disease without first addressing the underlying cause. And there's a lot more to that cause than just "prisons." Yes, you can save a man from gangrene by cutting off his limb, but unless the underlying cause is addressed you'll only end up chopping off more and more. THAT is what Democratic "entitlements" have caused.
"I don't need the emotional joy of seeing someone else punished."
This is just sick, and I won't respond to it.
I understand the difference between just punishment and excessive punishment. Example: The case of two teenage black men tried as adults the next county over-- They robbed, beat, tied-up, and threatened to kill, a senior couple. These two young men received 200+ year sentences each for NOT killing an elderly couple. Where's the justice in that? Do they deserve long sentences? I'm not a lawyer, but my conscience says 10-20 would have been sufficient. Is the District Attorney a Republican? I think he is, but I also know (from his own lips) that he doesn't hold blacks in very high regard. But punishment is required by law, and not just man's law. God's law demands it.
And yes I did read the first two sentences: "Unwanted pregnancies are the problem. They are the cause of abortions and they are what has to be addressed to stop abortions."
And you're wrong again. The problem is the moral decline not only in the broken home, but in every home across America. Even the Christian home fails in some respect. And you can attribute that failure again, in no small part, to the break up of the family.
Abortions can be greatly reduced if children are taught to respect themselves enough to not spread their legs for someone they're a) not married to, or b) financially unable or adequately prepared to raise. Lives are ruined because of these two things alone. Abortion is murder; stacking one bad choice on top of another. There's no sense of responsibility attached to it.
The Democrat party was the party of slavery, and still is though the bonds are subtly concealed in government programs that do not engender anything other than a sense of entitlement. There are of course exceptions, but they are not the norm.
Well, now, we know that's not where it began. The breakdown of black families began in this country because, for 200 years they were torn apart from each to be sold as slaves.
Two hundred years of breaking up (and sometimes not allowing) families except for breeding or raping purposes, followed by 100 years of oppressive civil rights violations can manage to do harm to family traditions, too, if you can imagine.
Black families were more intact in the generation following slavery than they are now. They were more intact during Jim Crow than they are now.
I'd frankly appreciate a retraction of the charge of bearing false witness if you're not going to substantiate the repeated accusation, Dan. But if you are going to move to other subjects as if you never accused me of lying, the least you could do is marshall a few facts to lend some credibility to your weighing-in on other subjects.
Anyone who wishes to talk to me off-topic, may email me.
(Now like you always say, I'm joking.) (Really)
Your mantra qualifies as "spam" at least much as any comment you've recently deleted on your blog, and this is hardly an example of Christian charity, to repeat a smear and refuse to retract it or substantiate it.
It's bad enough that you want people to flush down the Memory Hole inconvenient statements that demonstrate your absence of any clear principles: now you want to repeat those statements, over and over again, and still have them flushed down the Memory Hole immediately afterwards. Your attitude is as petulant as the behavior you now exhibit.
Do I think that the Lone Ranger believes that he can NEVER trust a Democrat? Can he not trust a Democrat to fix his car? Or tend to the health needs of his cat? Come on, let's get real. What is the Lone Ranger really saying here?
I can't speak for him, but I personally don't trust Democrats to effectively run our government. I don't trust them with Social Security, Welfare, Court Appointees, the Homosexual lobby and its agenda, Abortion, TAXES... HEALTH CARE... hell, they can't even manage their own restaurant! In short (as far as I'm concerned) NEVER trust the Democrat with ANY lever on the apparatus of government. They can't even understand the plain English of our Constitution, let alone understand the apparatus of freedom. They're all about making people dependent upon government... slaves. Government-- Democrat style --is too intrusive, and a cock-sure thief. We can do better, MUCH better than the Democrat/Liberal social agenda.
Well, I don't know. It IS what he said, but that's why I asked the questions (the ones you have chastised me for asking) - so I can get a better understanding.
You know, sometimes questions are asked simply because people are trying to understand. It's not especially helpful to refuse to answer questions, to get annoyed with people for asking questions and THEN to be perturbed when we didn't fully understand the point being made.
I can't speak for him, but I personally don't trust Democrats to effectively run our government.
Okay, well, again, this is why I asked the questions. Thanks, that helps me to understand.
You don't trust Dems in office very much, THAT I understand. Given the positions of many/most current Republican politicians, I have a hard time trusting them in office, too.
But that's not the same as saying, "No one should trust Republicans." Period. That is a point I would disagree with strongly.
Hence, my questions.
....
Now, if you want to go back to American Slavery? Okay, let's do that. Surely you're aware that it was Democrats who opposed freeing the slaves? The Republican Party was created to stand AGAINST slavery. And Democrats have fought tooth and nail against it ever since. Even today they want to keep their slaves on the welfare plantation. Every program they propose to institute-- universal health care, for instance --is designed to keep voters voting Democrat. Democrats typically scare the poor with the lie that Republicans want to take away their welfare check... They scare seniors with the lie that Republicans want to take away their social security... And they'll scare people who can't afford health care into believing that Republicans want to deny them basic/life-saving medical care. Nothing could be further from the truth, but Democrats don't care about the truth. What they care about is power, and keeping the voters on the plantation.
As an aside: Another Democrat lie-- The Constitution is racist because of the "three-fifths" clause. The truth?
"The notorious three-fifths clause of the constitution, the central exhibit in the claim that the document is racist, in fact reflects no denial of the equal worth of African Americans. Indeed the three-fifths clause has nothing to say about the intrinsic worth of any individual or group. It arose in the context of a debate between the northern and southern states over the issue of political representation.
It turns out that the South wanted to count blacks as whole persons in order to increase its political power. The North wanted to count blacks as nothing, not for the purpose of rejecting their humanity, but in order to preserve and strengthen the anti-slavery majority in Congress. It was not a pro-slavery southerner but an anti-slavery northerner, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who proposed the three-fifths compromise.
The effect of the compromise was to limit the south’s political representation and thus its ability to protect the institution of slavery. Frederick Douglass, the great black abolitionist, understood this. He praised the three-fifths clause “a downright disability laid upon the slave-holding states” depriving them of “two-fifths of their natural basis of representation.” So the notion that the three-fifths clause demonstrates the racism of the Constitution is both wrong and unfair"
That's right, Democrats wanted to count all their slaves-- who had no rights whatsoever under the Constitution save those few their masters allowed-- as whole citizens to gain the most representatives they could in Congress. How is that for shameful?
Democrats (as a Party) didn't even want to adopt the 1960's Civil Rights Act. It took Republicans to push it through. But guess who gets all the credit for civil Rights? Democrats. Why?
"Tell a lie often enough, and people will belief it for truth"
The decline of the black family began when the federal government took the place of the wage earning father.
I am also pretty sure that Albert Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights bill.
"Why Are There Poor People?"
(NPR Commentary)
By Dinesh D'Souza
'Why are there poor people?' This question was recently posed to me by a woman who had just visited my native country, India. She had seen the slums of Bombay, filled with shriveled people and squalid huts. And she was horrified. Why, she asked, do people have to live this way? And why does poverty persist even in rich countries like the United States?
These questions typically have a left-wing answer and a right-wing answer. The left-wing view is that poor people are the victims of unjust social structures. Historically this view is sound. Slavery, colonialism—these were oppressive institutions that prevented people from exercising their freedom and rising in society.
The left-wing argument is also an accurate description of the situation in much of the Third World today. If you take a train through the Indian countryside you will see farmers beating their pickaxes into the ground, frail women wobbling under heavy loads, children carrying stones. These people are working incredibly hard, yet they are getting nowhere. The reason is that institutional structures are set up in such a way that creativity and effort don't bring due reward. No wonder the people in these countries are fatalistic.
But the left-wing view fails is in its effort to explain the persistence of poverty in the modern West. Here in America, where are the "institutional structures" that are keeping the poor down today? The truth is: they don't exist. Indeed the two institutions that drive Western economies are capitalism and scientific technology. These institutions haven't really taken root in Third World cultures, where people continue to eke out a subsistence living and have not figured out how to control the vicissitudes of nature. But in the West capitalism and technology have worked together to lift the vast majority of the population out of deprivation and up to a level of affluence that, in the words of novelist Tom Wolfe, would "make the Sun King blink."
So what about the underclass, the inner-city poor that we hear so much about? I agree: it is terrible to grow up in many parts of the Bronx, New York, or Anacostia, Washington DC, or South Central Los Angeles. But that’s not because of material poverty. Rather, it’s because of the shocking moral behavior of the residents. High crime rates, the crack trade, and the absence of stable families all work together to destroy the cultural ecosystem and make normal productive life so difficult in these communities.
This is where the right-wing argument gathers force. Conservatives contend that the bourgeois virtues of family stability, the work ethic, the respect for education and law are essential for individuals and groups to advance, and where those are jlacking, chaos is the predictable result.
The solution is to recognize that prosperity does not come naturally, and that both institutional structures and social values must be favorable in order for poverty to be eradicated. If people in Barbados, Bombay and the Bronx want to be prosperous they should establish free market institutions, embrace modern technology, and cultivate the bourgeois virtues. This is easier said than done, but if it is done, then perhaps there won't be any more poor people left in the world."
Yet, with so many stories of those who came from Third World situations and made good here, the claim that institutional factors rings hollow. Some might say that the poor in this country are still somehow manifestations of past institutions, but again, too many have transcended their humble beginnings for that to be true, either.
...is what I meant to say.
Today in Alabama almost 12,000 seniors go hungry each month. Without the help of social programs and local charity organizations those people would be in much worse straits.
The VA says there are at any one time over 40,000 homeless veterans in America. Are those men and women homeless because they lack drive and willingness? Or perhaps America's social structures have failed them?
Dinesh D'Souza is well spoken and eloquent, but his premise is still wrong.
I'm guessing he's a lot brighter than you are.
Noone can save you from your hypocrisy, Dan, but yourself.
I have witnessed you on numerous occasions demonizing Christian fundamentalists as a group.
And PUH-LEEZE! Don't ask me to prove it by spending my precious time digging it up from the archives. It just ain't worth my time.
Others here who have long endured your hypocritical demonizations will back me up.
That's enough for me. It should be enopugh for you as well!
I'm guessing he's a lot brighter than you are."
If you can't counter my argument just say "touché". Insulting me personally isn't going to distract. We were discussing American poverty and the decline of the black family structure.
Sometimes my niece thinks she can win and close an argument by calling someone a "poopyhead". Doesn't work for her either.
Didn't you have a full-ride to Oxford? And turned it down? why? Worried that you didn't have money for living expenses while there? Hello! They speak English; I'm sure you could have found a job.
So. You refused college. D'Souza went. He's got more education than you. Ergo, in many regards he's brighter than you. And me. And where are you now? Making peanuts like me in backwater Alabama. Where's D'Souza? Taking better advantage of the American dream than either of us.
If anything, you insulted D'Souza far worse than I insulted you... assuming what I said was an insult and not the truth.
You haven't earned a Touché.
Now let's tear apart a portion of your comment; the one you feel deserved a touché. Your reason for calling D'Souza an idiot:
"Comparing American poverty to Indian poverty is like comparing someone with heart disease to someone with cancer. The problems causing Indian poverty aren't the same as those causing American poverty."
Where's your proof for this? Nevermind, I'll give you my rebuttal. Let's start at the end...
"The problems causing Indian poverty aren't the same as those causing American poverty."
Wrong. And I'll tell you why. Heart disease and cancer are not at all dissimilar in that BOTH are the product of poor eating habits, give or take some small measure of genetic predisposition. The old adage, 'garbage in, garbage out' applies. The human body-- like any society --needs to be fed proper nutrition... GOD-made nutrition. The human body, just like human society, has not changed in the 5-6,000 years of human history. No organ is vestigial; everything has a purpose for being where it is, and every bit of it needs the proper balance of nutrition. If the body required whole, fresh, unprocessed foods to live long productive lives 6,000 years ago, the same is true today.
Has anyone bothered to wonder about all the chemicals pumped into, or sprayed onto our food supply? Sure it lasts longer on the shelf, but it's not healthy food. Cancer is caused by poor diet. Heart Disease is caused by poor diet. Poverty is caused by poorly operating societies.
Comparing American poverty to Indian poverty is very illustrative. It shows just how different Indian culture and society are to American culture and society. OUR society is better structured to care for the poor. Is it perfect? Of course not. But American culture and society are fed on whole nutritious foods; ideas like...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
...and a government and set of laws that insure a far greater measure of justice than 99% of the entire world. India included.
That the poverty of America is far less severe than the abject poverty of rural India, is only due to our founding ideals, our laws, and the moral strength of our society. There's your American Exceptionalism.
People do fall through the cracks, but in America there are resources for them. No one HAS to live on a steam-grate in America. And yes, there should be more programs, but only in the sense that those which already exist are given what they need to reach more, feed more, clothe more, house more.... TEACH and HELP more to rise above their circumstances. The quality of our society makes poverty in America a mere shadow of what poverty in India is.
But India is changing; thanks to science and technology. One hundred years from now the poverty of India may very well be markedly improved, assuming intellectual honesty and compassion continue to be among other hallmarks of the awakening Indian society.
But you, for no other reason than you disagree, reject out of hand D'Souza's assessment despite that you've never been to India (let alone England) or so closely studied its strengths and weaknesses (as D'Souza has)... and called him an "idiot"
Touché, Ben. I guess you got the intellectual better of us all.
My argument is that Dinesh was wrong to say that oppressive social structures of the past are gone so the fact of enduring levels of poverty in America can only be caused by individual and group failings of morality. He doesn't recognize that there are new social structures that cause poverty in our population. Dinesh says that those remaining in poverty in the West are partially self-inflicted, people and groups who haven't embraced the morales to remove themselves from poverty. I disagree with that view strongly.
I know personally and have seen the statistical numbers that most of America's poverty and homelessness are caused by an inadequate social support structure. If someone's home burns down, do they get a tax break? If you lose your job, how do you pay for medical insurance for the next six months? Half of all bankruptcies in America are caused by a medical or personal catastrophe. Not people who were frivolous with a credit card. No half of all bankruptcies are caused by a medial catastrophe. A lost job. A spouse's death. A car accident. Nothing that is anyone's fault, but our society treats these people as if they were at fault.
------------
Personally you got my story wrong. I didn't receive a full-ride scholarship to Oxford. It was only a 1/3 ride. My portion of the tuition for each year would have been upwards of $65,000. I went to banks, and wealthy individuals all over the area to plead my case. No t one of those rich and respected people were willing to support me. In the end I had to let the scholarship go. When next you talk about how productive the well-off are and how they improve society think about my story. There are no government programs to support foreign tuitions and scholarships in the U.S.
I may be smarter then Dinesh D'Souza or maybe not. The fact that he went to college says nothing. His shoddy premise for his article tells me much about his intellect. You know me. How well do you know Dinesh D'Souza that you can compare and contrast our intelligence?
"He doesn't recognize that there are new social structures that cause poverty in our population."
Such as? You point to the unexpected that occurs in the lives of some people. I respond by saying that it is essential that people consider such possibilities when planning out their lives. But how many of us truly plan out our lives? How are any social structures to blame for such things? It is almost a cliche to say that we each should have on hand enough money to handle six months worth of bills and needs in the case of an emergency, such as the loss of one's job. How much do most people have on the side? Most have nothing. They say life is too expensive to save. More likely, they have acquired too many things before they had the means to keep them. This would include children (though abortion is not the answer--it is abstainance), cars, vacations, flat screen TVs, and any number of other doodads with which we encumber ourselves.
All the while, our society has many sources of financial help for those who don't get it done. What passes for poverty in this country is often livng large for the impoverished of other countries. There is no excuse for such poverty in this country and there is no excuse for so many being in need. It still comes down to choices and common sense. Help is available for those who truly need it. The question is how many are truly needy.
And how many really want help? Not everyone who is poor wants help... if they did poverty in America [for the most part "living large" compared to the poor of other nations] would be less of a problem than it is.
Poverty in America is largely a personal choice. No one born in America HAS to live in poverty [accept children, of course]. Everyone has a choice to make. Do I want to clutter my life with things while I'm young? Or do I want to have security when I'm old.
Ben spoke of blacks and prison somewhere back, and that Republicans were, in a sense, "evil" because all they desire is more prisons and no programs. Without going back to that argument people in prison, be they black or white, are there by and large because of choices they've made... another one of those questions each person has to ask h(im/er)self. Do I want to have what I want regardless of who it hurts, including myself? Or do I want to live free?
Children have to ask themselves these same questions, but rarely do, but parents today [by and large] don't instill this kind of personal inquisitiveness into their children. Every child should be asking h(im/er)self, "Is this person my friend?" And that question has to be founded upon a set of principles-- Respect, being most primary. "Does this person respect me?" And more importantly, "Do I respect myself?"
For the former, "If he respected me he wouldn't get into my car with 30 grams of crack stuffed down his pants." For the latter, "If I respect myself, I won't associate with anyone I know is not just a bad influence on ME, but doesn't even respect himself enough to ask these very same questions I'm asking."
Poverty in America is no different. Most bankruptcies are cased by medical disasters and loss of jobs? Okay. I'll accept that premise for now. And in light of the premise, how many of these individuals asked themselves the same questions I've outlined? Did they sacrifice today's pleasures for tomorrow's securities? Or did they fill their lives with "things" and fail to prepare for disasters that ALWAYS come. Did they respect themselves enough to see to their future needs prior to their present wants?
Dave Ramsey expresses it this way:
Live like no one else today [frugally] so you can live like no one else later.
For those born into poverty, they have choices to make too. In school, they have to choose to apply themselves and learn, then graduate, work hard, and enter college. Because if they want to live like no one else tomorrow, they have to acquire the educations and means to prepare for it.
Every single day, sees hundreds of choices and decisions. For everyone. The rich, the poor, the living paycheck to paycheck. The old man in a soup line, and the young man shelling out $150 for a pair of kicks. A young girl choosing to spread her legs for a boy who doesn't respect her. A young man who chooses to try crack for the first time.
In America, because of the great wealth of freedom everyone enjoys here, people are poor, by and large, because they choose to be. People in sub-Saharan Africa have neither the opportunity nor the freedom to overcome their circumstances. And the same is true for many other countries.
The programs began by FDR, and perpetuated by Liberals and Republicans alike, were not intended to be a way of life. But rather a safety net... a "just in case," or "just until...". But today's poor have been so long on the government dole, they've come to see the dole as their right; they don't have to work because the government will take care of them. This is another choice. The choice to do nothing to change their circumstances. The choice to hold out their hand expecting it to be filled once or twice a month without fail.
D'Souza's premise is not shoddy. It's just that the paradigm under which you operate [and view the world] rejects D'Souza's premise. His premise isn't wrong, you're just not asking the right questions.
------
I apologize for misrepresenting your "ride." I obviously did not have all the details.
An ex-employee/co-worker of mine chose to live under a bridge (with a significant number of other people), he had access to a job, family, and a network of shelters and yet he chose to live under a bridge. In any city in the US you can find a significant number of the homeless who are homeless because they choose to be. (not withstanding other causes, significantly substance abuse/legal problems)
Finally, only in the US can you own or have access to; shelter, reliable transportation, food, clean water, medical treatment, communication (phone, internet, TV), and still be considered poor.
Take some time and look at global poverty. What passes for poverty in the US is aspirational in a place like Haiti.
Please don't assume that all people in poverty are there involuntarily.
There ARE some who choose to live "on the streets." In my anecdotal experience (and from numbers that I've read in case studies), they make up some 5-10% of the homeless (I forget the exact estimate, but it was something along those lines).
We can certainly acknowledge that reality. At the same time, we must recognize the other reality that there are some people who are striving the best they can to not be mired in poverty and yet who are stuck. Sometimes due to bad life choices they have made, sometimes due to life choices that their parents have made.
For instance, the children who live at my wife's homeless shelter do not wish to be there, mired in poverty. Not a single one of them. Nor do the dozens of children in other homeless family's the shelter has to turn away because there are TOO MANY homeless families for the shelter to help them all.
In fact, homeless children are increasing rapidly in this land of plenty. There was just a story about it in our local paper yesterday.
Another study I've read has pointed out that children who grow up homeless have an increased likelihood to be homeless adults. One's upbringing is a difficult thing to overcome.
Concerned, wise citizens - and certainly Christian and God-fearing citizens - would want to know why this is and see steps taken to ease the problem.
Those who prefer to blame the homeless for the problem will no doubt sleep well tonight, knowing that the blame has rightly been affixed.
That's unnecessarily harsh, Dan... and unfair. No one here has advocated doing nothing, only tempering the aid given in a vat of preconditioned terms-- it will make for harder mettle. Nothing in this life is free except the sunlight on our faces, the rain upon our fields, and the air we breathe. Just about everything else costs. No one here has advocated the "Rich Man's" approach to poverty [Luke 16:20].
There is just a plethora of "blame the poor" types out there who believe that the mythical welfare queen with her cadillac and widescreen TV represents the reality of today's poor and on behalf of my hard-working poverty edge friends, I find such characterizations offensive.
If you want to single out an individual living irresponsibly, that would be one thing - it certainly happens all too frequently.
But let's not characterize such behavior as the norm or use it as an excuse to bash the poor (which happens way too frequently, too). That was my point.
I DID take a (mild) broad shot at those out there who are blindly critical of "the poor," as if they are all welfare cheats and worthless bums. The language of attacks towards our brothers and sisters who are down on their luck is not part of Christ's work.
I criticized that graceless language of attacks. Or that was my intent. Apologies if I was misunderstood.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
I didn't think you needed to be told that, but........
Mom2
Twas not my intent. I was relating some facts and stories about homelessness and I was verifying that I have some experience from which to speak. I was making no assumptions about what anyone else around here does.
I will note, though, that in my experience, those who don't know poor folk - that is, who don't sit down to eat with them, spend time with them, go to church and school with them, etc - who don't know poor folk personally and intimately, those are the ones who tend to be harshest towards the poor in how they speak about them.
They visited the homeless shelters and sang and preached, they visited the shut-ins and widows, they delivered thanksgiving dinner to the poor, they reached out in to the poor neighborhood adjoining ours "on the other side of the tracks" (literally, in our case) all this and more in an effort to do unto the least of these.
And not just my church but EVERY traditional Baptist, Methodist, Church of God, and Nazarene church I ever knew growing up (those were the three traditions I was mainly familiar with) did these sorts of efforts with a sincere heart of love for the poor.
I would in no way suggest that the Religious Right does not try to reach out in their own way to the poor. Never have suggested and would not because I know it is not true. I was there.
If someone were to speak ill of the poor, some dear sainted white-haired mother of the church would say, "Ah, ah, ah! There but for the grace of God, go you!" and we would be properly chided and hushed.
Thanks for the gratuitous shot. I did not "blame the homeless" nor did I attempt to expand my anecdotal experiance any more broadly than my experience. I am simply responding to the broad brushing that "all" homelesness is caused by scociety/govt. This one size fits all approach that the left would like to apply simply won't work for "all". The children in your wife's shelter probably don't want to be there, but it is possible/likely that choices made by their parents put then there.
As to your "welfare queens" comment, I've inspected too many section 8 homes with items that I was brought up to believe are luxuries (50"+ flat screen for starters) to beleive that there aren't people gaming the system. The bottom line is that those people (no matter how few) suck resources from those who are in more need.
To paraphrase a response you made to me earlier, is this going to turn into a contest to see who has done the most for the________? (insert appropriate minority group)
I think the biggest difference between our views is that I see this as a problem best dealt with on an individual level, where you seem to think it is best solves at the group level. I also think that it blows your paradigm of conservatives when you are confronted with one who actually takes this kind of thing seriously and lives it. Sorry to be so difficult, but that's what I do.