Our Obligation.

[Katzndogz]

According to Nancy Pelosi, we are supposed to pay people who don't want to work but intend to follow their passions instead.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

What about disabled VETS, the elderly, homeless children, the handicapped, and those with some type of disability aside from our VETS?

They will apprecviate your contributions too.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

False equivalence.

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

National defense is part of the constitutional mandate of the federal government. Giving checks to lazy people is not.

defense is followed by promote the general welfare

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

False equivalence.

Color me shocked

Rabbi gets his head handed to him and he replies fail

 

[Sonny Clark]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

What about disabled VETS, the elderly, homeless children, the handicapped, and those with some type of disability aside from our VETS?

They will apprecviate your contributions too.

I'm sure they will. And, I don't mind helping them. It's the humane thing to do. I have a heart.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

What about disabled VETS, the elderly, homeless children, the handicapped, and those with some type of disability aside from our VETS?

They will apprecviate your contributions too.

I'm sure they will. And, I don't mind helping them. It's the humane thing to do. I have a heart.

You're a fine American. Be sure to post how much you sent and to whom you sent it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

False equivalence.

Color me shocked

Rabbi gets his head handed to him and he replies fail

You fallacies and I have my hand handed to me? Dream on.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

What about disabled VETS, the elderly, homeless children, the handicapped, and those with some type of disability aside from our VETS?

They will apprecviate your contributions too.

I'm sure they will. And, I don't mind helping them. It's the humane thing to do. I have a heart.

You're a fine American. Be sure to post how much you sent and to whom you sent it.

Why should I post that information? What difference would it make if I did post it? Does it really matter? Besides, I pay my taxes, which also helps through government sponsored assistance programs. Basically, we all pay through our taxes. No shame in that. We're a civil and humane people.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

False equivalence.

Color me shocked

Rabbi gets his head handed to him and he replies fail

Hence his choice of avatar.

 

[hortysir]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

National defense is part of the constitutional mandate of the federal government. Giving checks to lazy people is not.

defense is followed by promote the general welfare

Promote =/= Provide

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

False equivalence.

Color me shocked

Rabbi gets his head handed to him and he replies fail

You fallacies and I have my hand handed to me? Dream on.

I noticed you did not manage to work up a rebuttal

Rabbi 101

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

National defense is part of the constitutional mandate of the federal government. Giving checks to lazy people is not.

defense is followed by promote the general welfare

Promote =/= Provide

And?

You can initiate programs to promote without outright providing

 

[Moonglow]

According to Nancy Pelosi, we are supposed to pay people who don't want to work but intend to follow their passions instead.

Sounds ok to me....

 

[Claudette]

I have no interest in bankrolling someones life for em.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that one group of people should support another group of people.

Thats what charities are there to support certainly not the taxpayers of America.

And it certainly isn't the "obligation" of anyone to take care of another bills for em.

 

[Jarhead]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a fuck up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a fuck-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be fucking ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Some take advantage of it, but even those who use it without malice still get caught up in the simple fact that we pay for bad choices in life, and we don't call people out on it. You screw up and have a kid out of wedlock without a viable means of support, and we give you MORE MONEY if you do it again....

Yes, people make bad choices in life, that goes without saying.

And the best way to learn from them and avoid them in the future is to suffer the consequences of those bad choices.

 

[Jarhead]

According to Nancy Pelosi, we are supposed to pay people who don't want to work but intend to follow their passions instead.

Sounds ok to me....

There is no reason one can not pursue their passion WHILE doing what needs to be done to earn a living.

If we followed Pelosis idea, in 100 years we will be a nation of very comfortable horrible poets and untalented artists.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a fuck up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a fuck-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be fucking ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Some take advantage of it, but even those who use it without malice still get caught up in the simple fact that we pay for bad choices in life, and we don't call people out on it. You screw up and have a kid out of wedlock without a viable means of support, and we give you MORE MONEY if you do it again....

Yes, people make bad choices in life, that goes without saying.

And the best way to learn from them and avoid them in the future is to suffer the consequences of those bad choices.

So, punishing innocent children will teach people not to make mistakes?

Bet most of the people who feel this way call themselves "christians".

 

[Claudette]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

National defense is part of the constitutional mandate of the federal government. Giving checks to lazy people is not.

defense is followed by promote the general welfare

Promote, not provide.

 

[Jarhead]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

This ^^^

There are some so-called "christians" here who would help a stray dog but want children to go hungry but we're human beings. As human beings, we have the capacity for compassion and caring for our fellow human being.

Gandhi said there's enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.

Good grief.
Not the "hate children" shit again.
Faith-based charities give more than government-mandated charity

And they would give even more if the government wasn't taking from their donators.