Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoaitsZ
ace. Can you define the type of charity you are claiming reds outdo blues?
|
Others emphasize one group outdoing another - or one group simply being selfish, I don't. I generally think that all humans care about the condition of others regardless of political affiliation. I think people desire to employ various methods based on political affiliation.
Quote:
|
Paying tithes or giving money to church isn't charity. It's a Christian's way of selling their guilt and giving into the biggest socialist movement of all time.
|
And paying taxes is what? If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. They will arrest you armed with weapons. I prefer the voluntary method and for those who need to be motivated by religious guilt it is still better that being forced at gun point.
Quote:
|
When I say most conservatives care about self more than others I am including churches.
|
I am not a church going person - in my experience is that they are run more like businesses than religious organizations - we actually may agree on this point - perhaps for different reasons.
Quote:
Now hear this: I know for a fact that a lot of Christians do help people. Local churches have helped me several times when sick or when I needed a vehicle.
I am not putting down people like this and I don't believe libs are better than reds. I do believe that when it comes to helping people not in the know that libs care far more than cons.
|
Think about it this way:
My sister is a single parent. If she needs help, I can help her right now - no conditions, no questions asked. Her being my sister, she can't b.s. me.
If she needs help from the government, it can take months of dealing with a bureaucracy looking for a reason to say NO every step of the way.
If I give $1 to my sister she gets $1. If I give $1 to government to help my sister, a portion of that goes to support government bureaucracy, what the ratio is I don't know, but it could be like $.50. Which is more efficient?
Our government rules are ridiculous. If I give a $1 to help my sister, it is a gift to her. If I give $1 to a 501(C)3 charity, I get a tax deduction. That charity then hands out less than $1 in services to people in need.
I could go on and on - but to me it is clear - government hinders helping those in need. So, in my mind if the government allowed people to hold on to more of their own money, more people can be helped in more efficient ways. i think there are a few exceptions, like in the case of a national military being able to do good in the world. People should be required or forced as I would put it, to support a national military. Or another example would be the availability of local fire and rescue, etc, etc.
---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
That's not my point. I didn't think it was your point either.
|
Are we going to leave it a mystery? My initial question to you was if your original post on this issue was sarcasm, I still don't know.
As the question relates to Libya, I think honest and charitable people can be against supporting the rebels and still be humanitarian. What is your position on this point?