The most important question which nobody is asking

[P@triot]

You're too stupid to keep up. That's the path we're bending toward. Hypermilitarization, cannibalizing our society. You're deflecting the tear down, cuz ya got caught in your own web.

LMAO!!! You're the one advocating for a federal government yielding unlimited power. You're the one saying "fuck the Constitution and fuck the law". That's what Saddam Hussein said as well. And every other dictator in history. I can't tell if you are really this dumb or if you are just so desperate you're tying to make stuff up now.

You don't need my participation in this. You just make up something I "said", and argue against that, K? That's all you do on here anyway. Carry on. This is too unhealthy to participate in, you're not well.

Says the person who screamed "fuck the U.S. Constitution" followed by "tear down the entire system - I prefer the North Korean model". You are seriously unstable. I think because I keep proving how absurd your position is you're simply getting more and more desperate and trying to back track now. If that's not the case, then you are in desperate need of a mental health professional.

Remember, not only did you say these outrageous things, but then you followed them up with another post which stated "I stand by what I said". So don't try to pretend like you meant something else now.

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches

New York Times anyone? There is no denying this LW....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

 

[daws101]

Why not have a combination of private and government support of the needy?
That is what we have been doing for 70 years

Finally. A half way decent question from a liberal. I salute you here LW.

Why? Well for one, it's just not necessary. Research shows that conservatives are exponentially more generous with charity. If all of the liberals who claim to care so much were to do their work through foundations rather than charity, we could solve all the problems (and we would no longer have a reason to clash, which would be a great thing for America). But more importantly, at the federal level (where far too much of this stuff is going on), it is illegal. The states delegated 18 enumerated powers to the federal government, and for them to involve themselves in anything beyond those 18 enumerated powers is highly illegal.

If you must insist on government interaction (and I can't imagine why since foundations solve everyone's problem and insures Constitutional government), at least demand that it be stripped from the federal government and entrusted to the state government (where it may not be illegal depending on what it is and what that states constitution says).

OK where to start?
Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches.
Damage from hurricanes is more than individual homes being knocked down. It is roads, bridges, schools, infrastructure, hospitals. Whole communities need to be rebuilt
States cannot handle catastrophic damage of that magnitude. Louisiana and Mississippi were economically incapable of recovering from Katrina without help from other states

Well now you're moving the goal posts. Initially you said "fires" - not "hurricanes".

As far as "roads, bridges, schools, etc." that has always been the responsibility of local government. Who is arguing that now? Certainly not me.

Finally, you were doing so well. Don't start making stuff up now. Conservatives give WAY more to charity than liberals.

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

False!
Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?

 

[rightwinger]

Why not have a combination of private and government support of the needy?
That is what we have been doing for 70 years

Finally. A half way decent question from a liberal. I salute you here LW.

Why? Well for one, it's just not necessary. Research shows that conservatives are exponentially more generous with charity. If all of the liberals who claim to care so much were to do their work through foundations rather than charity, we could solve all the problems (and we would no longer have a reason to clash, which would be a great thing for America). But more importantly, at the federal level (where far too much of this stuff is going on), it is illegal. The states delegated 18 enumerated powers to the federal government, and for them to involve themselves in anything beyond those 18 enumerated powers is highly illegal.

If you must insist on government interaction (and I can't imagine why since foundations solve everyone's problem and insures Constitutional government), at least demand that it be stripped from the federal government and entrusted to the state government (where it may not be illegal depending on what it is and what that states constitution says).

OK where to start?
Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches.
Damage from hurricanes is more than individual homes being knocked down. It is roads, bridges, schools, infrastructure, hospitals. Whole communities need to be rebuilt
States cannot handle catastrophic damage of that magnitude. Louisiana and Mississippi were economically incapable of recovering from Katrina without help from other states

Well now you're moving the goal posts. Initially you said "fires" - not "hurricanes".

As far as "roads, bridges, schools, etc." that has always been the responsibility of local government. Who is arguing that now? Certainly not me.

Finally, you were doing so well. Don't start making stuff up now. Conservatives give WAY more to charity than liberals.

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

Take your pick......rampant wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves

 

[P@triot]

Why not have a combination of private and government support of the needy?
That is what we have been doing for 70 years

Finally. A half way decent question from a liberal. I salute you here LW.

Why? Well for one, it's just not necessary. Research shows that conservatives are exponentially more generous with charity. If all of the liberals who claim to care so much were to do their work through foundations rather than charity, we could solve all the problems (and we would no longer have a reason to clash, which would be a great thing for America). But more importantly, at the federal level (where far too much of this stuff is going on), it is illegal. The states delegated 18 enumerated powers to the federal government, and for them to involve themselves in anything beyond those 18 enumerated powers is highly illegal.

If you must insist on government interaction (and I can't imagine why since foundations solve everyone's problem and insures Constitutional government), at least demand that it be stripped from the federal government and entrusted to the state government (where it may not be illegal depending on what it is and what that states constitution says).

OK where to start?
Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches.
Damage from hurricanes is more than individual homes being knocked down. It is roads, bridges, schools, infrastructure, hospitals. Whole communities need to be rebuilt
States cannot handle catastrophic damage of that magnitude. Louisiana and Mississippi were economically incapable of recovering from Katrina without help from other states

Well now you're moving the goal posts. Initially you said "fires" - not "hurricanes".

As far as "roads, bridges, schools, etc." that has always been the responsibility of local government. Who is arguing that now? Certainly not me.

Finally, you were doing so well. Don't start making stuff up now. Conservatives give WAY more to charity than liberals.

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

Take your pick......rampant wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves

Again....all of those are covered by insurance policies. Won't cost the homeowner a dime. Won't cost the local government a dime. Shouldn't cost the federal government a dime no matter what.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Liberals will tell you all day about how they are angels sent from Heaven. They weep for the less fortunate. Their heart beats only for those in need. They will tell you that God created liberals because... sometimes... even actual angels themselves need angels. And that is why a liberal exists.

Just one small problem. If they care so much - why don't they achieve all of their goals legally through foundations rather than illegally through government? George Soros is a radical left-wing billionaire. Mark Zuckerberg is a hard-core liberal billionaire. Bill Gates is a moderate liberal billionaire who has long been the wealthiest man in the world (recently relegated to #2). Warren Buffet is a very generous billionaire who is the third wealthiest man in the world. So what is the problem? Habitat for Humanity has been doing it for many years. They don't mandate that government provide people with a home. They go out and build them themselves.

Liberals get so angry when conservatives oppose them. But no conservative would oppose liberals creating a foundation which provides health insurance policies to those that don't have any. In fact, conservatives would join them in that effort. Everybody would be a winner. Same with food. Transportation. Housing. Liberals would get all of the social assistance they claim to desire, conservatives would get all of the liberty and Constitutional government that they desire, and both sides would come together in harmony.

The fact that liberals refuse to do this legally through private foundations (where conservatives wouldn't have any case to oppose them) kind of proves that their agenda and their ideology has nothing to do with "helping" people. It is exclusively about control. Exerting power over other people. Stripping you of your rights and liberties so that they can feel "powerful".

Why is tyroneweaver so good lookin?

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches

New York Times anyone? There is no denying this LW....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Opinion piece in the Times
Even admits that conservative charity tends to go to churches. That new church organ does nothing to feed the homeless

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches

New York Times anyone? There is no denying this LW....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Opinion piece in the Times
Even admits that conservative charity tends to go to churches. That new church organ does nothing to feed the homeless

I've posted other links as well. It's just a fact. Conservatives give considerably more to charity than liberals.

 

[initforme]

Yes we hive a ton to churches...but if we are founded upon christian values as a country we are an EPIC FAILURE in following them. Christian evangelicals of which I am one, ate the biggest hypocrites in this nation today.

 

[P@triot]

Why is tyroneweaver so good lookin?

Who is John Gault?

 

[rightwinger]

Why not have a combination of private and government support of the needy?
That is what we have been doing for 70 years

Finally. A half way decent question from a liberal. I salute you here LW.

Why? Well for one, it's just not necessary. Research shows that conservatives are exponentially more generous with charity. If all of the liberals who claim to care so much were to do their work through foundations rather than charity, we could solve all the problems (and we would no longer have a reason to clash, which would be a great thing for America). But more importantly, at the federal level (where far too much of this stuff is going on), it is illegal. The states delegated 18 enumerated powers to the federal government, and for them to involve themselves in anything beyond those 18 enumerated powers is highly illegal.

If you must insist on government interaction (and I can't imagine why since foundations solve everyone's problem and insures Constitutional government), at least demand that it be stripped from the federal government and entrusted to the state government (where it may not be illegal depending on what it is and what that states constitution says).

OK where to start?
Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches.
Damage from hurricanes is more than individual homes being knocked down. It is roads, bridges, schools, infrastructure, hospitals. Whole communities need to be rebuilt
States cannot handle catastrophic damage of that magnitude. Louisiana and Mississippi were economically incapable of recovering from Katrina without help from other states

Well now you're moving the goal posts. Initially you said "fires" - not "hurricanes".

As far as "roads, bridges, schools, etc." that has always been the responsibility of local government. Who is arguing that now? Certainly not me.

Finally, you were doing so well. Don't start making stuff up now. Conservatives give WAY more to charity than liberals.

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

Take your pick......rampant wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves

Again....all of those are covered by insurance policies. Won't cost the homeowner a dime. Won't cost the local government a dime. Shouldn't cost the federal government a dime no matter what.

No they are not covered by insurance policy. If your town is demolished in a flood, insurance will pay for homes if they have extra flood coverage. Insurance does not pay for the town

 

[P@triot]

Yes we hive a ton to churches...but if we are founded upon christian values as a country we are an EPIC FAILURE in following them. Christian evangelicals of which I am one, ate the biggest hypocrites in this nation today.

We're not allowed to exhibit christian values. Liberals have outlawed it. Tried to strip every form of God from this country. And most of all, with the government chewing up over 60% of what I earn, how am I supposed to help more?

Once we get the government out of the charity business, all of us will have a lot more money in our pockets to help those in need.

 

[P@triot]

Finally. A half way decent question from a liberal. I salute you here LW.

Why? Well for one, it's just not necessary. Research shows that conservatives are exponentially more generous with charity. If all of the liberals who claim to care so much were to do their work through foundations rather than charity, we could solve all the problems (and we would no longer have a reason to clash, which would be a great thing for America). But more importantly, at the federal level (where far too much of this stuff is going on), it is illegal. The states delegated 18 enumerated powers to the federal government, and for them to involve themselves in anything beyond those 18 enumerated powers is highly illegal.

If you must insist on government interaction (and I can't imagine why since foundations solve everyone's problem and insures Constitutional government), at least demand that it be stripped from the federal government and entrusted to the state government (where it may not be illegal depending on what it is and what that states constitution says).

OK where to start?
Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches.
Damage from hurricanes is more than individual homes being knocked down. It is roads, bridges, schools, infrastructure, hospitals. Whole communities need to be rebuilt
States cannot handle catastrophic damage of that magnitude. Louisiana and Mississippi were economically incapable of recovering from Katrina without help from other states

Well now you're moving the goal posts. Initially you said "fires" - not "hurricanes".

As far as "roads, bridges, schools, etc." that has always been the responsibility of local government. Who is arguing that now? Certainly not me.

Finally, you were doing so well. Don't start making stuff up now. Conservatives give WAY more to charity than liberals.

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

Take your pick......rampant wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves

Again....all of those are covered by insurance policies. Won't cost the homeowner a dime. Won't cost the local government a dime. Shouldn't cost the federal government a dime no matter what.

No they are not covered by insurance policy. If your town is demolished in a flood, insurance will pay for homes if they have extra flood coverage. Insurance does not pay for the town

I understand that. That's what we were talking about - the homes.

Nobody has ever argued that streets, fire departments, water, etc. is not the responsibility of the government. We all know that. Nobody is arguing that. So why are you arguing for something that everybody already agrees with you on?

 

[initforme]

I font know where you live but I exhibit my Christian values when I want. Those pro life Christians are also hypocrites because they figure as soon as the baby is born....pro life is out the door. Pathetic folk they are.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches

New York Times anyone? There is no denying this LW....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Opinion piece in the Times
Even admits that conservative charity tends to go to churches. That new church organ does nothing to feed the homeless

I've posted other links as well. It's just a fact. Conservatives give considerably more to charity than liberals.

No they don't.

Only to churches which they belong to. Doesn't go to the poor

 

[P@triot]

I font know where you live but I exhibit my Christian values when I want. Those pro life Christians are also hypocrites because they figure as soon as the baby is born....pro life is out the door. Pathetic folk they are.

Really? Good for you! I'm envious. So to be clear.....you can deny services for a gay wedding where you live? Funny, I thought the Supreme Court unconstitutionally mandated across the entire United States that nobody could practice their faith in such a manner. Please....tell us all....what exactly is your secret?

 

[rightwinger]

OK where to start?
Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches.
Damage from hurricanes is more than individual homes being knocked down. It is roads, bridges, schools, infrastructure, hospitals. Whole communities need to be rebuilt
States cannot handle catastrophic damage of that magnitude. Louisiana and Mississippi were economically incapable of recovering from Katrina without help from other states

Well now you're moving the goal posts. Initially you said "fires" - not "hurricanes".

As far as "roads, bridges, schools, etc." that has always been the responsibility of local government. Who is arguing that now? Certainly not me.

Finally, you were doing so well. Don't start making stuff up now. Conservatives give WAY more to charity than liberals.

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

Take your pick......rampant wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves

Again....all of those are covered by insurance policies. Won't cost the homeowner a dime. Won't cost the local government a dime. Shouldn't cost the federal government a dime no matter what.

No they are not covered by insurance policy. If your town is demolished in a flood, insurance will pay for homes if they have extra flood coverage. Insurance does not pay for the town

I understand that. That's what we were talking about - the homes.

Nobody has ever argued that streets, fire departments, water, etc. is not the responsibility of the government. We all know that. Nobody is arguing that. So why are you arguing for something that everybody already agrees with you on?

When a disaster hits a community, the damage is more than bricks and mortar. It is emergency shelter, water, food, medical care, communications. Government is best situated to provide that emergency relief

As to your home, insurance will cover that. If you don't have adequate insurance, you can qualify for low cost loans to rebuild. Government does not rebuild your home for you

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches

New York Times anyone? There is no denying this LW....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Opinion piece in the Times
Even admits that conservative charity tends to go to churches. That new church organ does nothing to feed the homeless

I've posted other links as well. It's just a fact. Conservatives give considerably more to charity than liberals.

No they don't.

Only to churches which they belong to. Doesn't go to the poor

That's a lie on top of a lie. Conservatives not only give a lot more to charity, but churches also make sure that a large portion of that goes to the poor. That's just a fact. Outside of the costs to run the church itself, they take the remaining money to feed the poor, help with housing, education, etc.

In fact, just saw a friend of mine posted on Facebook a few weeks ago that the annual bake sale that she runs through her church raised over $5,000 for the hungry. All done through the church. You're doing an awful lot of lying over the past 30 minutes or so here. Why?

 

[daws101]

Why not have a combination of private and government support of the needy?
That is what we have been doing for 70 years

Finally. A half way decent question from a liberal. I salute you here LW.

Why? Well for one, it's just not necessary. Research shows that conservatives are exponentially more generous with charity. If all of the liberals who claim to care so much were to do their work through foundations rather than charity, we could solve all the problems (and we would no longer have a reason to clash, which would be a great thing for America). But more importantly, at the federal level (where far too much of this stuff is going on), it is illegal. The states delegated 18 enumerated powers to the federal government, and for them to involve themselves in anything beyond those 18 enumerated powers is highly illegal.

If you must insist on government interaction (and I can't imagine why since foundations solve everyone's problem and insures Constitutional government), at least demand that it be stripped from the federal government and entrusted to the state government (where it may not be illegal depending on what it is and what that states constitution says).

OK where to start?
Conservatives do not give more to charity.....they give more to churches.
Damage from hurricanes is more than individual homes being knocked down. It is roads, bridges, schools, infrastructure, hospitals. Whole communities need to be rebuilt
States cannot handle catastrophic damage of that magnitude. Louisiana and Mississippi were economically incapable of recovering from Katrina without help from other states

Well now you're moving the goal posts. Initially you said "fires" - not "hurricanes".

As far as "roads, bridges, schools, etc." that has always been the responsibility of local government. Who is arguing that now? Certainly not me.

Finally, you were doing so well. Don't start making stuff up now. Conservatives give WAY more to charity than liberals.

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

Take your pick......rampant wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves

Again....all of those are covered by insurance policies. Won't cost the homeowner a dime. Won't cost the local government a dime. Shouldn't cost the federal government a dime no matter what.

false ! and no not all of those are covered by insurance .
ever hear the term act of god.

 

[Flash]

[

It's sad that you have to ask that since it was the first post made - and the entire premise behind the thread. But....here goes....

If liberals really care about helping people, why aren't they doing it through private foundations where it's not violating the law and where they will not receive any resistance from conservatives? In fact, conservatives would gladly come together and help liberals with that. And we would all come together as a nation instead of being so fiercely divided. Liberals would be happy because everyone would receive the help they need and conservatives would be happy because we'd still have liberty and republic.

The Bible teaches that charity should come from the heart, family and church.

When the government gets involved with the welfare state it is not really about helping people but establishing a dependent power base. It is about control over other people and it is destructive to an economy as we are seeing now with dismal economic growth because of the burden of the cost of government.

Then there is the moral issue. It is simply morally wrong for the government to use the police state power to force you to give your hard earned money to somebody else that didn't earn the money. That is thievery plain and simple and it is despicable.

Liberals are despicable greedy thieves masquerading under the mask of the common good. Disgusting, isn't it?