A great example of why socialism is better than "charity"

[hadit]

You're a supporter of killing innocent life.

Wanting to keep more of what you earned isn't selfish. Stupid involves thinking someone owes you something because you aren't willing to earn it.

That’s your greedy and or ignorant way of looking at it.

Our way worked better. New deal to Bill Clinton. You get from bush to now. How are the masses doing?

The greedy way is thinking what someone else earned belongs to you.

I don't give a shit how you're doing. The only people I'm concerned with is me and my family. If you and yours go without, you should try harder and do better. You're not my concern nor should you be.

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

 

[Conservative65]

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

Which means you're supposed to do for yourself with the opportunities you have. If you don't use them, no one is responsible for you.

 

[hadit]

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Ever notice when the socialist types claim something is a right it involves someone else paying the bill?

And that's the difference. A right is something that doesn't require anyone else to do anything for you to have and exercise. A right to free speech means you can speak, but no one has to buy you a microphone. A "right" to healthcare, OTOH, requires someone to build you a hospital, go to medical school, and buy medical supplies for you.

 

[Conservative65]

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Ever notice when the socialist types claim something is a right it involves someone else paying the bill?

And that's the difference. A right is something that doesn't require anyone else to do anything for you to have and exercise. A right to free speech means you can speak, but no one has to buy you a microphone. A "right" to healthcare, OTOH, requires someone to build you a hospital, go to medical school, and buy medical supplies for you.

To the socialist type, a right is something you deserve and expect someone else to pay for because you believe the reason you don't have it is because the someone else you demand pay for it took it from you.

 

[danielpalos]

in right wing fantasy, you Always win.

We have a Constitution that expresses the general welfare not the general warfare.

It has nothing to do with left or right you are simply wrong.

the Constitution does not support your argument.

yes, it does; want to argue about it?

No it does not and we already did argue it and you were proven wrong and got owned

we have a general welfare clause; i must be right even though i am on the left.

It proves you wrong because ti has nothing to do with socialism

welfare has everything to with socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

 

[danielpalos]

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Ever notice when the socialist types claim something is a right it involves someone else paying the bill?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[danielpalos]

That’s your greedy and or ignorant way of looking at it.

Our way worked better. New deal to Bill Clinton. You get from bush to now. How are the masses doing?

The greedy way is thinking what someone else earned belongs to you.

I don't give a shit how you're doing. The only people I'm concerned with is me and my family. If you and yours go without, you should try harder and do better. You're not my concern nor should you be.

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

 

[Dekster]

Christian homeless shelter defends decision to turn away trans woman

A Christian homeless shelter in Alaska has defended turning away a homeless transgender woman on a cold January evening.

The Downtown Hope Center shelter in Anchorage, Alaska, is under investigation from the city’s Equal Rights Commission after a vulnerable homeless trans woman with nowhere to sleep was denied access into the women’s shelter.
Police had dropped the unnamed woman, identified as Jessie Doe, at the overnight shelter in January 2018—but twice in two days she was turned away by staff.

The average overnight January temperature in Anchorage, Alaska, is -12° Celsius (9° Fahrenheit).

Here is a "charity" that picks those it helps by criteria other than need. The US needs more socialism so that less people freeze on Winters nights. So does the UK for that matter. .

Perhaps if Alaska did not practice the form of socialism that gives checks to people just for being, they could afford homeless shelters instead of relying on Christian charity to fill the gap.

 

[danielpalos]

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

Which means you're supposed to do for yourself with the opportunities you have. If you don't use them, no one is responsible for you.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right. Our welfare clause is general not specific to right wing interpretations.

 

[Conservative65]

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

 

[Conservative65]

The greedy way is thinking what someone else earned belongs to you.

I don't give a shit how you're doing. The only people I'm concerned with is me and my family. If you and yours go without, you should try harder and do better. You're not my concern nor should you be.

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

That bitch is a dumbass.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

 

[Conservative65]

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

Which means you're supposed to do for yourself with the opportunities you have. If you don't use them, no one is responsible for you.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right. Our welfare clause is general not specific to right wing interpretations.

Hopefully you'll starve, it will be lingering, and you'll suffer the entire time. That, or start doing for yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

That bitch is a dumbass.

"insist on the SimCity version which can be scaled to size. "

 

[Conservative65]

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

You don't have a right to someone else's money, son. If you think you do, get off your ass and try to personally take it.

 

[Conservative65]

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

That bitch is a dumbass.

"insist on the SimCity version which can be scaled to size. "

Because the bitch is a dumbass, anything she says is automatically irrelevant.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

Which means you're supposed to do for yourself with the opportunities you have. If you don't use them, no one is responsible for you.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right. Our welfare clause is general not specific to right wing interpretations.

Hopefully you'll starve, it will be lingering, and you'll suffer the entire time. That, or start doing for yourself.

only the right wing, never gets it. there is no power to provide for your right wing, general malfare; Only the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

You don't have a right to someone else's money, son. If you think you do, get off your ass and try to personally take it.

I don't. Congress does.

 

[danielpalos]

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

That bitch is a dumbass.

"insist on the SimCity version which can be scaled to size. "

Because the bitch is a dumbass, anything she says is automatically irrelevant.

insist on a spot on the QA committee!