It might have only been official policy since 1954, but the idea has been fostered by the nation since before 1776. It was an idea expressed strongly on multiple occasions by many of those who had a hand in this country's founding.
Also, might I refer you to the 4th verse of our national anthem

Honestly, who the hell knows the fourth verse of that song?

I'm not at all against learning languages. I've even dipped into some french myself. Was actually one of my favorite classes in high school. I just expect these immigrants to be considerate of their hosts and learn to communicate with them. You say that we should learn foreign languages(which i agree with), but don't think others should be held to that standard? How hypocritcal.

XKCD, on national language:

I second this notion. Everyone learn Cherokee or another NATIVE language or GTFO.

Gayo tsi woni tsalagi.

No health care for poor people? No food and housing whatsoever? "We were founded without a decent seperation of church and state"? COMMON SENSE????

Not to mention the non-sequiturs in 6, 11 (making something better doesn't mean you're "changing the history" any more than abolishing slavery was "ruining a rich and prosperous heritage for your citizens") and the contradiction in 4...if you're not charitable about food I'm not sure how much value your "charity" has since the people who need it most would be dead...:whatthe;

Oh yeah, and about the language issue...Stangmar, I don't think it's as simple as calling Ialie hypocritical because she -encourages- learning of foreign languages as a good idea for the people who do so and the country in general, but doesn't want to enforce it on, say, asylum seekers from Arabic nations who are already well into adulthood. It is kind of awkward when people don't even speak enough English to get by though.

It's not that I don't want the poor to be helped, it's just that I oppose mandatory government welfare. This country was founded on choice. The freedom to do what you want with your money. I am all for helping the poor. I have given money here and there when I can afford to, and I love to give service, but government welfare creates a sense of entitlement. "You guys have to give me money, not because I did anything to earn it, but because I also happen to be breathing." If we are going to be stuck with welfare, it should be TEMPORARY. I can't stress that enough. TEMPORARY. If you don't have a job, it's usually(not always) because you don't have the will to go out there and get a job. I understand that there are situations where you can't work(such as a crippling disability). In situations such as that, then I wouldn't oppose SOME level of aid. However, It would be better off if that were done through private charity. I also recognize that if you have been laid-off, that you might need some help until you get another job, and I'm okay with helping, as long as you stay off your and look hard for another job. What irritates me is when people stick their hands out to the government and keep demanding more and more, yet refuse to do anything to earn it. Don't fool yourselves, there are a LOT of these people out there. I encounter them on a near daily basis. I don't care if you make $10 a year, or $500,000 a year, you still earned it. I am not going to go to a job and work to support myself + whoever else decides they don't want to work, or comes up with a lame excuse not to work, such as my neighbor who has been on a welfare check for 20 years, and hasn't held 1 job, citing back pain as his excuse. He can sit in a worn out recliner all day, but I guess he can't sit at a computer?

The generalization that just because we oppose government welfare means we oppose the poor is childish. Conservatives have been shown to give more of their personal money to charity than liberals, while liberals propose more redistribution of wealth. I guess it's easy to help the poor when it's not your money you're using.


The struggle by liberals to eliminate any mention of God from our heritage is only going to create more contention, and they know it full well. The founding fathers would be disgusted. If you are offended by the mention and idea of a person who many consider to be a loving and merciful fatherly being, so be it. I don't think the Founding Fathers were trying so much to push their beliefs on us, as to create a sense of unity and love through mention of a well known deity that many can identify with, even if they don't believe in him. You might not believe in God, but you can identify with the concepts of love, compassion, service, and morality that are associated with Him. That is all I ask at least.

Vis: the poor. A private charity should not be responsible for that sort of thing any more than it should be responsible for your education or your military. The fact that people "abuse" it, depending on where you set the line, is not a reason to remove it entirely for the people who do need it legitimately.
The random attack on liberals who don't donate is irrelevant to the point, since it's not about comparing the virtues of liberals or conservatives.

Regardless of whether the founding fathers would be disgusted, which is a random and unfounded emotional appeal that has no bearing on what's right, plus from what I understand they founded your country under the ideal of seperation of church and state anyway, if it's -really- about love, compassion, service and morality then you can promote all those values without also promoting a controversial fictional figure that many take issue with as representing things like prejudice, oppression, bigotry and so on and so forth - and regardless of whether that interpretation of him is valid, it's not necessarily uncommon among reasonable people whose opinions shouldn't be discounted.

Again, the liberal vs conservative thing is relevant in the fact that generally, liberals are the ones screaming and wailing about how we need to redistribute wealth to the poor, and conservatives are the ones urging people to have some personal responsibility. I don't buy this :censor: about how everybody who is low income NEEDS welfare to push themselves up. My dad grew up on a farm in the middle of BFE. His choice for dinner was corn or bread. They didn't hardly have anything, but they never took handouts from the government, and my dad is now self-employed, has invested in half a dozen houses, and has supported my mother, myself, and my little sister, and never complained once about it. I've talked to multiple people who have immigrated here(legally) with nothing, and are now living very comfortably in nice suburban neighborhoods, ei, living the american dream. And it was all built by hard work and acceptance of their responsibility to support themselves. To propose that anybody making over X dollar amount is inherently corrupt and evil and needs to face 'social and economic justice' is laughable. There are many rich philantrophers. The rich are also the ones who have put their ass and their $$ on the line to grow a business(a business which creates jobs and tax revenue, for those who think with their emotions rather than their brains). Do I think that a CEO(read glorified pencil pusher) deserves a multi-million dollar salary? Hell no, and this bail-out that has given these men golden parachutes absolutely disgusts me. So if you don't want blanket treatment of the poor, then don't do the same to the rich. My family knows at least half a dozen small-business owners that will be laying off employees, or maybe closing up shop, if Obama gets his tax plans through congress. 67% tax rates are looking to become a reality. Main street will be punished and closed down, resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs, all in the sake of 'social justice' and 'fairness'.


I know that at least my church doesn't preach 'bigotry' or 'prejudice', nor condone oppression. Never have I heard anything at church, or spoken by any authorities in the church, that contradicts the savior's teachings of love, charity, and compassion. The fact that people of all faiths have sometimes been known to interpret that incorrectly and use it as a means to oppress or harm others sickens me as much as it does you, but let's not paint all christians with the same brush.

1. A bunch of tangential rant in there, but addressing your actual point: not everyone can do what your dad apparently did.

2. Even if your church didn't teach bigotry or prejudice in exactly those words, those things are a part of their practices. You can argue all day about what they -should- be doing, but what they -are- doing is something controversial to a lot of people and as such if you really want those moral values to be represented a figure that isn't seen variously as a socially destructive figment of the imagination, a dubious western interpretation of a "true" other god of some kind, a real figure representing horrendous values OR a real figure whose good values are not preached or practiced by his followers is not the ideal choice, and it isn't reasonable to be offended when this is pointed out. It's not a matter of "painting all christians" with the same brush and there's no reason to believe there aren't many Christians with sound moral values.

EDIT: Plus it would be reasonable to look for a more neutral figure even IF the above were all corrected.

QFT

Also, in addendum to point 1. : Not all people have lived on a farm, stangmar.

First, I'd like to respectfully disagree with this, though only a little. Going from a farm to owning some property is not really outside anyone's abilities, only pretty extreme circumstance will push such an accomplishment outside the ability of anyone who is truly willing to work for things.

On the other hand..



I find it poor form when people with your particular belief structures are so adamantly against the idea of welfare, when you in essence accept it yourself. That it was your father and not your government was fortuitous, and not necessarily any indication that your beliefs are superior to those of anyone else.

In essence, you need support and received it. Some aren't so lucky as to have fathers/family members/etc able or willing to provide that support. I know I wasn't that lucky, and I've had to rely on institutionalized help from time to time. Of course, those that do nothing BUT live on it, that's another thing and one topic on which you and I agree.

You have to start with a farm (which you likely inherited) to go from a farm to owning some property...

Okay, the farm thing really got to me.

Stangmar, your point was only to a narrow group. Some people need the government help, believe it or not. My mother did.

2 bedroom apartment in NYC. No hot water or heat. Me, four sisters, and my brother. My mother had no high school degree. At the time, none of my family members did. She had three part time jobs, and my brother and sister -- able to work due to their age -- did have jobs. Illegal ones because no one would hire them.

My family still didn't make enough money. And even with welfare and foodstamps, there wasn't enough food for us all to eat.

Believe it or not, some families DO NEED WELFARE and DO NEED GOVERNMENT HELP.

/rant

Not necessarily, though it helps. Some of the richest people I've ever studied never spent a dime on frivolous things, and moved from positions ranging from farmhand to mailboy to become CEO's and playboys.

Not exactly a level of obsessiveness I'm willing to delve into, but certainly possible to do.

Edit: Frivolous things being things like...fancy (non-Ramen noodles) food, beds, vehicles, dates, etc.

So minors who live with their parents can't be against welfare?

I like this part, cause considering how much these points clash with how things work in our country and have been working in our country (stupid or not).

The desire of this article is basically to change that very thing, to something considered less stupid.

So it's just kind of a funny little contradiction, if one should not have that right, then this article should not have the right to go against what it is right now.

Silly, perhaps.


That's not to say I don't think things should change, of course. Just something I picked up a bit randomly and found kind of amusing.

I'm really impressed that your dad's family was able to sustain themselves on a corn farm without taking any government subsidies at all. I was under the impression that corn farmers simply couldn't survive without them; granted I've not once studied the subject.

Stangmar this is the only thing I have to strongly disagree with you on and there is a damn good reason. Other people's health affects the health of YOU and your love ones directly.

Briefly (extremely) America is a globalized nation. We have a large quantity of international travelers that enter our borders ever day and interact with us physically. Every single one of us could be a vector or incubator for a nasty pathogen or disease. Attending to the health of the population, especially those most susceptible to infection and disease can halt the opportunity for new diseases to emerge and block their transmission from susceptible group to susceptible group.

You have to understand, disease causing agents, viruses in particular ARE NOT static entities. They mutate very f :blackeye:ing rapidly, in some cases.

Consider Stangmar the threat of H5N1 influenza virus and West Nile. Yes I know West Nile's reservoir is primarily in birds but that doesn't mean if it infects an individual who is marginalized, it has a better chance to survive and mutate if their immune system is compromised. Public health care (to an extent) ameliorates this.

This is the reason I'm very strongly pro legal immigration. Legal immigrants are medically screened. Illegals are not... and there are many emerge diseases (Dengue for one) that can come from South America. I'm not sure if our Medical Students are trained to identify the symptoms if something exotic does show up.

So, paying for a poor person's healthcare... is simple insurance for your own life.

The point about the anthem having a reference to a god is laughable at best. Washington was long dead when the original was written, nevermind when it was put to a tune.

If you would like to know how our Founding Fathers felt about religion, here's a nice assortment of quotes for you:

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

"The religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds." - Thomas Paine

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." - John Adams

"It is not to be understood that I am with in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." - Thomas Jefferson

So...yeah. And this is just a handful of quotes I could put together said by the people themselves in a couple minutes. This is completely excluding, say, the legion of people talking about George Washington who were happy to point out that he was not a Christian, even though he was notoriously silent on the issue himself.