Feminist 'War on Women' propaganda goes off the rails - i have no words for this video

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I don't see how you WEREN'T alluding to charity as an alternative to welfare.

Government welfare is simply bureaucratized charity. It's all charity. The difference is people like you who won't like a finger to help anyone, but demand that everyone else help.

A CIVILIZED society needs a structure that protects and helps its citizens. Social Darwinism has no place in the modern world...

Social Darwinism? You're the only one here introducing hyperbole. You have some pantywaist notion that someone who owns a firearm or watches a basketball game is some kind of cave man.

Meals, clothing, and bibles are only temporary fixes.

Your quaint Mother Teresa notions still do not discount the often majority private funding and efforts for many of those infrastructure items.

They need stability.

It's a good thing that people in my in-laws country don't share your disdain for family and religion. Their smaller government combined with the stability of less divorce, illegitimacy, etc. is much stronger than a place like the U.S.

We simply cannot rely on charity.

Government welfare is simply bureaucratized charity. It's been around for decades, but people are still poor.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Look, this 'argument' no longer interests me.

What argument is that? Just a discussion. What's the matter--getting tired? I would not expect that from somebody who said:

I've been arbitrarily banned from every conservative and religious forum I have ever posted on.

Pray tell, "pessimist," what exactly is it that brings you to this forum?

[PaulConventionWV]

I used the WORKING single mother as an example of someone who doesn't make enough money to support her child and needs government assistance to HELP. She is trying. She deserves SOCIETIES sympathy.

Can people in positions similar to hers RELY on a monthly payments and medical help and whatever else these 'handouts' provide from the 'good will' of the people on a consistent basis?

Many of these folks who get govt assistance may get to the point where they no longer need it.

Look I am not condoning irresponsible behavior if I didn't make that clear enough. However, the welfare system serves a purpose. It sucks that is abused, it sucks that there are so many terrible and idiotic people in this world.

We are approaching overload. This welfare system won't last and it is going to have devastating effect.

It still surprises me when I see people on this forum advocating for the welfare system. It's really quite simple: the welfare system is based on the theft of those who work hard. It doesn't matter who it's for because it's theft, plain and simple. What's more, society doesn't need government to force them to do good deeds. You can't make people have good will toward their fellow person who may be in a bad situation. If you want to help, then you should help. Charities make this easy. Just give money to the charity and you can keep people funded by funding the charities. There will always be poor people and there will always be people who are sympathetic to the cause of helping the poor. Helping the poor does not justify theft. If you don't think people are doing enough, then do more to raise awareness. Forcing your neighbor to help does not foster a society committed to the well-being of its fellow man. Instead, it centralizes the power of redistribution and gives the government unlimited power to take money from anyone it chooses, and that is the biggest injustice of all.

Anyone who doesn't understand this needs to go back and listen to Ron Paul speak because I think they're missing the essence of his message and came here under the false impression that their ideals were in tune with his.

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh for the love of God. WE CAN'T ALL DEVOTE OUR LIVES TO CHARITY. You are completely missing the point.

We live in a society, not in small tribal communities in the jungle where we only associate with our own tribes. We have infrastructure; schools, roadways, bridges, hospitals, police and fire departments, libraries, etc.

So most of us contribute to all this via taxes. We all rely on one another in some form. No man is completely self-sufficient. The proud hard working man with the stiff upper lip even relies on people to PROVIDE him work so he can earn a living. The system we have now is flawed, rigged, and bloated. It will not last in its current form- so many of you might get your wish. America: the third world nation.

Anyway, some of the heartless people in this thread are living proof as to why a welfare system needs to be put in place. You better hope you or any of your family members never run into a rough patch where you’ll need good old government assistance.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the welfare system became like this for a reason. If the system CAN be manipulated, then it WILL be manipulated by the freeloaders or whoever else. It doesn't matter what system you put in place because it's still controlled by government, and the government doesn't give a $#@! about people. Only people who truly care can provide quality help.

What you also seem to be forgetting is that people had most of the stuff you mentioned before it was all government subsidized. Roads, hospitals, bridges, schools were all built way before government built them. There is no service provided by government that couldn't be provided better without government. Your argument is that, somehow, since we live in a society, that means none of this stuff could be provided by private organizations and individuals. Why not? What prevents people from providing good schools, healthcare, charity and security way more efficiently and at lower costs? I'll tell you what prevents it: government!

[PaulConventionWV]

In the words of my ex: "oy!"

Look, this 'argument' no longer interests me. I feel like there is a communication barrier here. I am either misunderstanding you, being too vague or inarticulate or just rambling on assuming you know what the hell I am talking about.

I don't see how you WEREN'T alluding to charity as an alternative to welfare. I mean, if devoting ones time and resources to help others isn't charitable, then I don't know what is.

Secondly, charity is NOT a viable alternative for the COUNTLESS struggling people in this country. A person could give half their pay check to a humanitarian organization, spend most of their time being a big brother, or working in soup kitchens, and it still wouldn't make any overall difference.

Welfare when used properly is there to be a shield, a life preserver, a safety net. It is a RELIABLE means to help those who need it. People need to eat, support their families, and pay their bills. When life hands them a $#@!ty card, or they hit a bump in the road, they should be able to have a reliable support system (government) to help them get back on their feet. Note that I said help, not pamper.

A CIVILIZED society needs a structure that protects and helps its citizens. Social Darwinism has no place in the modern world (I realize that I am ideologically at odds with most people here).

As for the third world stuff. Look, all these humanitarian organizations, Christian missionaries, churches, etc., do wonderful things. However, what these people REALLY need is a functioning government and infrastructure. They need sanitation, sewage systems, running water, schools, roadways, electricity…the list goes on and on and on. Meals, clothing, and bibles are only temporary fixes. They need stability.

We simply cannot rely on charity.

This is such an ignorant statement. How do you know it wouldn't make a difference? It would make a difference to somebody, wouldn't it? How do you know there are not enough people willing to help to make up for society's ills? In fact, the government programs that offer "assistance" are so damn dysfunctional and inefficient BY DESIGN, that I wouldn't be surprised if charity could do ten times more than all of these dumb programs combined. These government programs and departments are run by people who don't give a rat's ass about helping the needy. They just signed up for a government job to get a paycheck, no word on the company policy or mission statement. Just "do this and you get your money." Charities are run by people who really care and ONLY by people who care. That means there aren't any lame ducks just mucking up the works.

How can you make such ignorant statements without any facts to back them up?

As for your third world nations: What they need is not government. What they need is to stop fighting for a second so they can get something done.

[Suzanimal]

[Deborah K]

ROFL!!!! Go girl.

"You shoulda had Kim Kardashian do dis one". LMAO! Listen to this commentary.

[Suzanimal]

That was great, I was laughing so hard tears came to my eyes - especially near the end when that boy in the dress came out. That's the same reaction I had when I saw the video the first time. LOL!

ROFL!!!! Go girl.

"You shoulda had Kim Kardashian do dis one". LMAO! Listen to this commentary.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Looks like pessimist took a self-imposed ban in that other thread. Only lasted two months. Maybe buttercup thought the task was going to be easier here?

It's a shame, too. I was looking forward to getting in touch with my feminine side.

[pessimist]

What you seem to be forgetting is that the welfare system became like this for a reason. If the system CAN be manipulated, then it WILL be manipulated by the freeloaders or whoever else.

That's with any system, though. Every system ever created is manipulated and exploited.

It doesn't matter what system you put in place because it's still controlled by government, and the government doesn't give a $#@! about people. Only people who truly care can provide quality help.

Charities can be just as corrupt as government. They are also less reliable.

What you also seem to be forgetting is that people had most of the stuff you mentioned before it was all government subsidized. Roads, hospitals, bridges, schools were all built way before government built them. There is no service provided by government that couldn't be provided better without government.

Give a single example as to where all that exists without a government?

Your argument is that, somehow, since we live in a society, that means none of this stuff could be provided by private organizations and individuals. Why not? What prevents people from providing good schools, healthcare, charity and security way more efficiently and at lower costs? I'll tell you what prevents it: government!

Theoretically? or realistically?

[pessimist]

This is such an ignorant statement. How do you know it wouldn't make a difference? It would make a difference to somebody, wouldn't it? How do you know there are not enough people willing to help to make up for society's ills? In fact, the government programs that offer "assistance" are so damn dysfunctional and inefficient BY DESIGN, that I wouldn't be surprised if charity could do ten times more than all of these dumb programs combined. These government programs and departments are run by people who don't give a rat's ass about helping the needy. They just signed up for a government job to get a paycheck, no word on the company policy or mission statement. Just "do this and you get your money." Charities are run by people who really care and ONLY by people who care. That means there aren't any lame ducks just mucking up the works.

Are you aware of the band Dystopia? They released an album back in the mid-90s titled Human = Garbage.

Charities can be corrupted. Many are corrupt. Your fantastical view of humanity is odd coming from someone with your intelligence.

[Deborah K]

Are you aware of the band Dystopia? They released an album back in the mid-90s titled Human = Garbage.

Charities can be corrupted. Many are corrupt. Your fantastical view of humanity is odd coming from someone with your intelligence.

I'd rather voluntarily donate to the charity of my choice, than have my money stolen through taxation and given to some inefficient government entity through no choice of my own.

[PaulConventionWV]

That's with any system, though. Every system ever created is manipulated and exploited.

Thus, proving my point that we should not rely on a system, but rather organic donations from individuals.

Charities can be just as corrupt as government. They are also less reliable.

Except charities can't force you to do things, like give them money. I would rather have a less reliable but quality organization than a government entity that reliably does a $#@! job of things.

Give a single example as to where all that exists without a government?

I didn't say without a government. I said it doesn't need government to exist. The government didn't build roads in the past and yet, somehow, they still got built. The government didn't run schools or hospitals and yet, somehow, we still had schools and hospitals.

Theoretically? or realistically?

Realistically, of course. We live in reality, don't we?

[PaulConventionWV]

Are you aware of the band Dystopia? They released an album back in the mid-90s titled Human = Garbage.

Charities can be corrupted. Many are corrupt. Your fantastical view of humanity is odd coming from someone with your intelligence.

The corrupt ones will be weeded out by the market. People who don't want their charity money going to corrupt charities (everyone), will give to other charities instead and the corrupt ones will cease to exist. Only good charities get supported in the free market.

[pessimist]

The corrupt ones will be weeded out by the market. People who don't want their charity money going to corrupt charities (everyone), will give to other charities instead and the corrupt ones will cease to exist. Only good charities get supported in the free market.

but they keep reproducing! they...won't....stop!