So?  The founders explicitly expected states and local communities to be able to do just this.

The 1st amendment states "CONGRESS shall make now law.."  The meaning of that is that the federal government will not establish a religion or decide what can and can't be said.

The matter would be explicitly left up to states and local communities to decide.  This was because the various colonies at the time had radically different (from their perspective) religious views.  A person in Virgnia might feel the people in Massachusets was a heathen and didn't want them being able to tell them what they could and couldn't do in their schools and communities.

Allowing an individual to talk about God or whatever is their right.

You make the mistake in assuming that I'm okay with it because it's Christian. Let me be clear: I think all of you people who believe in magical super beings based on 2,000 year old books are silly. Some girl or group talking about Jesus means the same to me as some Star Trek zealot talking about Spock. 

But I believe that people should have the freedom to express their religious views without interference from the federal government. Let states and local communities deal with it as was intended.  

Let me point out the dangerous line of thinking you're taking here:

To me, liberalism is as much of a religion as christiainity. Both believe in a magical, all powerful super entity (the Government or God depending on which group we're talking about).

They both have blind faith that their beliefs are backed by reality despite ample evidence to the contrary.

The difference is that the religion of liberalism is constantly proselytized at me and my children every day.  The mantra "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" is constantly shoved down our throats in a far more obnoxious way than any traditional religion pushes their beliefs on me.

I'd far rather sit through a graduation listening to a valedictoriam talking about God in her life than having to sit through the guest speaker's rant about the need for us to provide universal health care.

liberals want to legislate morality. you cannot do that.

So you are saying that if we didn't have any compassionate policies, all families could afford for one parent to stay home with their children?

No more complaining about the budget deficit for me! I'm going to start a charity! "Give some money for the government, ma'am?"

Your example at the end provides the way to undermine your idea. I would hope everyone who's interested in thinking and not just sneering realizes the "chicken-hawk" idea is stupid. It's ad hominem and it denies civilians a voice in policy. Moreover, if we tried to fight a war based on voluntary contributions from the people who support it, we'd surely lose. Every volunteer who signs up gives more people an excuse to free ride, since it makes it more likely they can share in the fruits of victory even if they don't sign up for the risks of combat.

If the economics of children's health insurance is the same as the economics of war, it would be foolish to try to solve the problem with charity instead of government. Even if everybody agreed children's health care would cost them $5 but benefit them $10, the only way to get them all to contribute without free-riding is to force them into a compact that says, "I will pay $5, but only if someone makes sure everyone else contributes their $5 too."

Now there are liberals who view the government as a charitable enterprise that can force other people to donate to it, and they should just start charities. I'm approaching this from the perspective of those who support government programs because they think their benefit to society is greater than their cost.

Leonard Nimoy is the man who played Spock. Jesus is the man who played the Messiah.  People don't worship Jesus because he was a real person. They worship him because they think he was the son of God, the messiah.

I'm saying no such thing.  As long as people choose materialism over their children you will have both people working.

But if working families weren't having their earnings looted from them to give over to the parasitic class, then more of those families would earn enough money to reach the material threshold they want to live at that would allow one of the parents to stay at home.

There is no black and white position on this.

For instance, if we only paid for government programs that we supported, government would be OVERWHELMINGLY conservative in policy. 

According to the data I provided earlier (from CNN), people who vote for Republicans (who tend to be conservatives) pay 70% of the taxes.

Conservatives tend to be the ones who favor the military, law and order, private schools, private health care.

Democrats, who pay 30% of the taxes, tend to be the ones who favor taking money from one person to give to another. And liberals pay less, even taking % of income into account, donate less to charities.

LIberals aren't compassionate. They're posers.

No, you walk by knowing that they have a choice of a good life and they reject it utterly. They want to suffer on the streets, so why waste your money on them, a person who wilfully rejects everything their society offers them? If they want to be on their own, they can, and there's no good reason for you to support them with private donations.

It's not like they're entertaining you or providing some service you appreciate.



Sure. It might encourage them to go the press, the place they should have gone in the first place, and get their treatment subsidised properly (cos presumably they're begging on the streets because they've got something obscure that Medicare doesn't account for).

A few bucks isn't going to pay for a 500k treatment plan (cost enforced by US drug companies), although it might end up funding a trip to India to have it treated with vastly cheaper and chemically identical generic drugs, so maybe that would be a good idea. So on second thought I'd probably ask them what they're raising money for, and make a decision accordingly.

Are you conservative Gideon? And even if you are I'll rephrase, why don't conservatives care about other people's children?

I am a fiscal conservative, yes. I do NOT believe in stealing people's money to take care of people who were irresponsible.

You stating that conservatives don't care about other people's children proves your ignorance, Loca. In helping others through the years (the main reason that I'm not wealthy is because I've spent a large portion of my money through the years on other people), I have NEVER found a conservative unwilling to give when presented with a need. These conservatives that you claim don't care about other peoples' children have let me use vehicles to deliver things to these families, have donated NICE furniture, food, gas, you name it. I can tell you literally hundreds of stories outlining the overwhelming generosity of the conservatives you cast as "uncaring".

When I was 20 years old, my wardrobe was probably worth $5-6,000, yet I was making $6.50 an hour. Because these conservatives you loathe did a great deal to make sure I was always well fed, well clothed, and had adequate shelter. Their personal investment in me probably had much to do with why I did not adopt the welfare mentality that has all but crippled my family.

No person ever goes away from my door hungry, Loca. But you're right, I don't care, because to you, caring means spending someone ELSE's money. Next time someone comes to my door, I'll tell 'em to step off and get their butts to the welfare office, k?

sorry guys i have to agree here.

the majority of the people living on the streets are there because they want to be.

the only reason that most of them are begging IS to get a bottle. they already of food and shelter if they want it. i will not give money to anyone on the street but if so moved i will buy them a hamburger or a tank of gas.