Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals?

Your "definition" is how right-wing nuts define it. You think "bleeding heart" is an insult when it should be Step One. It has nothing to do with "failing to understand." It's about empathy. Your "understanding" is just grasping for excuses to do nothing. What?Don't the reparations go to the opposite end of the economic spectrum from the tax breaks? That would be the fault of the arms-makers and the arms-sellers, wouldn't it?

Nobody is.I can't force you to be a decent person. All governments collect taxes. Roads, schools, etc....

I can remember when people used to say that competition was a good thing. The CCP or Trump? Are those the only alternatives you can think of? That's crazy. The in-group is you. Here's another anecdote for you:

Pop quiz: "Who said, "Go ye into all the world...?"Is there nothing Jesus said that you won't spit on?

It really isn't. That's your fundamental mistake. Every argument you make against the "etcetera" is also an argument against the roads and schools. But you're not the dictator. You don't get to decide all by yourself. You don't get to build a road from your house to Safeway and to hell with everybody else. You're really not, though, are you? You're in favor if helping yourself and to hell with the homeless. I thought the Blacks and Indians were people too. You're clearly NOT in favor of "spreading the wealth equally". You're in favor of grabbing as much as you can for yourself - and you're oblivious to the fact that the rich are grabbing from you as well as from the Blacks, Indians and other non-people. I can't decide whether that statement is more hatreful or more stupid. Somebody else has already pointed out that without overseas investment, you would have nothing to stock your shelves. Somebody is investing overseas. What's so bad about the US reaping some of the benefits from overseas investments? Money in your pocket. Haven't you heard that money has no morals and no politics?

The disciples also thought so. The lady with two mites thought so. The early Church thought so. The lady who fed Elijah thought so. Stop lying. I have told you many, many times that I do NOT advocate any such thing. And yet YOU are the one who denies everything Jesus said. YOU are the antiChrist.

Jesus taught that traditional culture was the source of oppression in His world. Clearly not. Like only the ones who need it?

It was Jesus who brayed on about the "least of these". I only quote Him. You're being dishonest. You're trying to pull the old switcheroo. You're palming the pea. You post videos of organized crime and dishonestly conflate that with people who ARE victims of a racist society. You might as well post videos of the Holocaust and claim that I condone that. They're idiotic rants. Racism is another form of idiocy that you exhibit. And nobody has suggested that. You're swallowing hook, line and sinker what your right-wing handlers are telling you we think. And you're ignoring what WE tell you we think. "Lawless atheistic" is an oxymoron. It's pretty clear that atheists have a moral compass that's equal to or better than Christians'.

You're the one who's doing that.

Not really. It's like the old complaint: "How can I get hired without experience and how can I get experience without getting hired?""How can I keep my job without seniority and how can I get seniority without a job?" To borrow a thought from FDR: Fear of polarization may be worse than polarization itself. I watch none of those. And I religiously avoid YouTube. The last thing I remember watching on YouTube was The Abominable Dr. Phibes ten years ago or so. You feed your confirmation bias. You're like a creationist skimming through scientific articles looking for quotes that "prove" evolution is impossible. You're being understood all too well. That's a cute catch phrase. You'd need a pretty wide bumper for it though.So, what else do governments have to throw besides money?

If you're going to respond to my posts, why don't you respond to something I said?

That doesn't answer the question. What do you expect governments to do besides spend money?

I didn't ask what you expect the people to do. I asked you what you expect the government to do. That doesn't answer the question either.Let's try again: You said in Message 408:

quote:

---

I feel as if I am not being understood. One cannot simply throw money at a problem and fix it.

---

Hoe can you be understood if you won't tell us what alternatives you propose?So, what else do you expect governments to do besides throw money?Edited by ringo, : Spelling.

I didn't ask what the government "should" do. I asked you what YOU, one individual, EXPECT the government to do besides throw money. You claim that problems can't be solved by throwing money; tell us what YOU think the alternatives are. I didn't ask you about public opinion or beliefs. See above. I didn't ask how well the problems are understood and I didn't ask about consensus. I asked for a list of alternatives to throwing money.Maybe an analogy will get through to you: Your claim is the equivalent of saying a pitcher can't win a baseball game by throwing the ball. I'm asking for a list of alternatives. What else can he do? So you admit that they CAN solve problems by throwing money. You just don't like where they're throwing it.So, what kind of "return" are you suggesting? Throw the money at fat cats like Donald Trump and hope they can steal enough so that something trickles down? That's the "conservative" plan that you're supporting.And how do you expect anybody to be productive, lift themselves out of poverty and get educated unless you support them first? How can you teach a man to fish without feeding him and his family while he's in fishing school? For god's sake, BUY A MIRROR!

As usual, you didn't answer the question.Yes, OF COURSE I would support my drug-addicted son. I would not watch him starve.But you're trying to palm the pea again: You went from poverty to drug addiction. Poverty is considerably easier to cure than drug addiction.The question was, "how do you expect anybody to be productive, lift themselves out of poverty and get educated unless you support them first?"
The key word there is FIRST. How can you do ANYTHING else for somebody unless you feed them first? How can you teach a man to fish without feeding him and his family while he's in fishing school?