If you say, "I'm opposed to welfare" and the person you're talking to says "you're a bigot" or "you hate black people" well then yes, you're talking to a caricature. Probably invented. Out of whole cloth. Because conversations don't progress like that in the real world.

Now on the off-hand that this really happened, I'm sorry to say that Americans that self-identify as liberals include almost as many ignorant people as identify as conservatives. But considering the fact that I'm a liberal and have not called anyone here a racist (to the best of my knowledge - I've called OccultHawk a bigot, after he proudly stated he was one), I'm happy to have a debate regarding the efficacy of welfare. I'll even start us off with a logic argument (we can wade into sourced numbers later if you want).

I support a moderate welfare system. America's GDP was just under 18 trillion in 2015. We have a population of 320 million people. Using super unscientific rounding and bad economics, let's imagine we split that money among every American citizen, young and old. We'd all get around $55,000. Obviously this isn't how GDP works but for the sake of argument, we, as a country, "make" enough for every individual to live 400% above the poverty line.

With this in mind, I think it's perfectly justifiable to use say, $1,000 of every persons $55,000 to ensure that the less fortunate don't starve, have access to job training, can sleep under a roof, etc. A common response to pro-welfare arguments is that it removes the incentive to find work. There are certainly examples of this. But the majority of people and families that go on welfare do so for under 6 months. There are chronic welfare "families", but they are the exception, not the rule. It's simply 'social' insurance. I'd rather pay a small price for something I likely will never need, but could save me from disaster if things go wrong, then run the opposite risk. But the thing about welfare is I'm not just making this choice for me, the choice is applied to my neighborhood, my state, my country. I think we're better off and I think the incredible increase in health, wealth, and longevity amongst the poorest classes of Americans is a testament to the social virtue of a welfare safety net.

Now you go.

I didn't go "Old Testament" in this thread. You just plain daft for saying that.

This. It is more a travesty to be called one than to recognize the impact of racism.

You are literally less funny than me, which by default makes you the least funny member on the forum. Congratulations. Your trophy will be in the mail in six to eight weeks. Once again, congratulations. :clap:

Not as long as I'm alive it doesn't.

This. ^

lol

This is nothing to do with race though.

I thought that was quite funny tbh :eek:

You wish. Neap is probably the funniest member here.

Question: If recruitment to islamic terrorist organizations is only due to western abuse of power in the ME, why are muslims who haved lived all their lives in Europe, and therefore have no legitimate reason to hate the west, being radicalized and recruited to islamic extremism?
Their only potential risk factor would seem to be being muslim, merely. How do you explain this as anything other than an inherent problem with the ideology of Islam?