Republicans really need a black candidate because

[lazs2]

yarbles.. in all seriousness.. we are not the same countries..

as you and other limeys have said.. london is not england..  also.. you had no murders before your gun control.. you gave up your rights for nothing.

Now. back to the subject (no pun intended)...  we are not like you.  or.. more to the point, our countries are not the same.  what works for you can't work for us.. what works for us would collapse your country.

Do you agree?   Lets look at it.    In your country.. socialism works to a large extent.   you people are happy with it and your politicians have come to some sort of unwritten agreement that they hold power only if they don't screw you over too badly and... lets face it.. you guys know your place and, because of tradition and a population with (london aside) no real diversity...   you all think the same because it is bred into you.

In America.. socialism does not work.. there is no government program here that works.. everyone here knows it.  It only gets a foothold due to greed.. not compassion..greed.. the voters wanting something for nothing.

No government program works here and no one likes the government.. congress has an approval rating of single didgets.  We have a population that is so diverse that you could not even imagine it unless you lived here.. there is no first world country like it..  certainly none in your "happy white" country list.

murders.. a small fraction of our minority population commits over half of them and most of the violent crime.  In our country (not saying yours) the more freedom we allow our people to have guns.. the more the crimes go down.

simply put.. what works in your country would not work in ours and vice versa.

lazs

[alskahawk]

 
It would be very difficult for the Republicans to get a candidate of color. Take a look at the last Republican convention. Couple of tokens on stage. The crowd was 99% white at the Republican convention. Compare that to the Democratic convention. If the Dem's were smart they would move towards the middle, philosophically speaking. The Republican party is increasingly a party of exclusion not inclusion.

 

[Baitman]

My government is not a charity organization; that's what churches and, yes, charity organizations are for.  It is immoral for any government to forcibly compell any citizen to contribute to any charity.  Philanthropy is for philanthropists, not politicians.

 

The US government gives away hundreds of millions of dollars to the disadvantaged peoples of the world (south Africa for starters). All of that money comes out of your pocket and you have no choice. All governments around the world do this, Charity in large scale no one wants to see.

US also likes to Bail out large banks and bussiness, a form of charity I would be thinking.

I go off in a rant every time Canada gives away money to some other country because of this issue.

Churchs should be the only ones giving money away, therefore if you don't belong you can opt out of the charity.

[Angus]

Lazs...another one about guns?
It's simple, your solution about gun problems (which is ANY idiot packing up like dirty Harry) is more guns.
I wish you'd stop bashing the Brits about this, since their bad crime is much lower than yours while their gun ownage is also very much lower. Their murders are lower, their armed robberies are lower, and their rapes are lower, - this goes roughly on a rate 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, in a country that is vastly more densely populated than the USA.
And as for government tyranny, - I'd take Britain as a safe-haven any day....but again, their solutions wouldn't work in the USA?

[lazs2]

angus.. as I have said.. it always was low.. guns or not..  in fact..it has gone up some since they had their last round of gun grabbing.   ours has gone down with concealed carry..  like I said.. different countries but..  I am correct.. not bashing.. in saying that they gave up their rights for nothing.. they got no gain out of it..  now, they may not have held much store in that particular right but.. I am glad I was not a gun owning "subject" at the time they confiscated everyones firearms.   

As for their crime?  they have half their burglaries (which are high) done while the poor helpless homeowner is hiding and cowering under his bed hoping he won't get hurt too bad...  I don't want to.. won't.. live like that.

See?  we are different peoples.. the solution for us will not work for them and their solution will not work for us..  just as I said if you had bothered to try to understand and not got so hung up on the gun example.

lazs

[Timofei]

there is no government program here that works.. everyone here knows it.  It only gets a foothold due to greed.. not compassion..greed.. the voters wanting something for nothing.

No government program works here and no one likes the government.. murders.. a small fraction of our minority population commits over half of them and most of the violent crime.  In our country (not saying yours) the more freedom we allow our people to have guns.. the more the crimes go down.
lazs

You really are an anarchist.
Definition:
Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government, i.e. the state.

Or a communist:
"Every Communist must grasp the truth that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. "
—Mao Zedong or MaoTse-tung

[lazs2]

timo-fey..   No.. I am not an anarchist..  I am an individualist.. the fact that no government program works is no reason to not have one.

Protecting the country from invasion/raising an army.. It is a loser but it is needed.  No one could spend money and waste it as much as an army can.    The court system.. it is a waste too but needed.    You need a place where issues of unfairness against individual rights can be addressed with the force of law.

Other than that and a constitution that limits governments powers to a very few.. you don't need any more government than that.

Liberation and freedom as well as power comes from the barrel of a gun.   You need a court system (and some enforcement) to seperate what is freedom and what is a grab on individual rights.

You don't need to provide schools or health care or take money from one person and redistribute it to others...


Since you are so into rudimentary politics tho..   here is one for you  "from each according to his ability.. to each according to his needs."

Here is another... "the end justifies the means"

If you believe that either one of these makes any sense or is fair in any way then you are a scum bag socialist tool.

lazs

[Hazzer]

 I hear their are such places that have no health care, and  no Schools....and guns are essential!!!...I think their known as third world country's.

[lazs2]

hazzer... yes but...  they do have strong governments.   they have government controlling every aspect of their lives including taking their next breath.   They do not have fair courts or a constitution that protects individual rights...  Nice try tho.   

I never said you couldn't have schools..  I never said you couldn't have health care.   You simply don't need government to have such things...  only a scum bag socialist would think so.

I pay less a year for my grand daughters catholic school than is spent by the state for the crappy socialist version they foist on every one the students they screw up.

lazs

[BnZ]

I pay less a year for my grand daughters catholic school than is spent by the state for the crappy socialist version they foist on every one the students they screw up.

lazs

There you go! The free market provides a better product cheaper in this particular case.

Also, teachers in public schools are on average paid MORE than their counterparts in the free market. I cry for them, poor devils. They may get paid more per year teaching than I ever made in construction, but I guess they don't think its ENOUGH more.

[Timofei]

I never said you couldn't have schools..  I never said you couldn't have health care.   You simply don't need government to have such things...  only a scum bag socialist would think so.

If you are saying "the hell with the poor who cannot afford school or health care" , you are not indeed scum bag socialist.. but a scum bag psychopath.
Definition:
"Psychopath has antisocial traits for sure but they are coupled with and enhanced by callousness, ruthlessness, extreme lack of empathy"

You mentioned catholic school.

Jesus was the first socialist.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

No. Jesus was not a socialist at all. He said people were morally obligated to help those less fortunate. He never forced people to give their money or assets to help those less fortunate, nor did he say it was right to do so. There's a HUGE difference. Jesus said "give willingly", socialists say "we are taking it".

[Timofei]

No. Jesus was not a socialist at all. He said people were morally obligated to help those less fortunate.

Perhaps you are right. But as in practise there seem to be way too few people who feel "morally obligated", some kind of "socialism" (=government) is needed, to enforce peoples "moral obligation".

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Perhaps you are right. But as in practise there seem to be way too few people who feel "morally obligated", some kind of "socialism" (=government) is needed, to enforce peoples "moral obligation".

WRONG. One really BIG reason people do not "feel morally obligated" is that they've already been put upon by the government. You cannot "enforce moral obligation". People either feel obligated or they do not. And the government has no right to try.

Socialism was not "needed" until it was introduced. Our Founding Fathers understood that the government should not be in the "charity" business, and that the government could never do it  properly and efficiently anyway.

[Timofei]

WRONG. One really BIG reason people do not "feel morally obligated" is that they've already been put upon by the government.

That's an excuse, people don't feel obligated because(basically) they don't give a s**t of other people, government or no government.