What is our obligation to the poor?

[danielpalos]

Only because the right wing, is usually just, clueless and Causeless.

lol, no. Just hard working Americans who believe in limited government; especially in regard to free enterprise; who have loyalty to God, Country and Family; who own land; have wealth; own guns; and are trained in their use.

I am advocating ending our exorbitantly expensive and useless, War on Drugs. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It's your cumulative advocacy that worries me and the fact that they all require more laws by our government.

no, dear; that is just your right wing, projection, like usual. I am advocating lowering our Tax burden, by simplifying Government.

I see. What do you propose?

ending our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, to end our income tax.

 

[ding]

lol, no. Just hard working Americans who believe in limited government; especially in regard to free enterprise; who have loyalty to God, Country and Family; who own land; have wealth; own guns; and are trained in their use.

I am advocating ending our exorbitantly expensive and useless, War on Drugs. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It's your cumulative advocacy that worries me and the fact that they all require more laws by our government.

no, dear; that is just your right wing, projection, like usual. I am advocating lowering our Tax burden, by simplifying Government.

I see. What do you propose?

ending our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, to end our income tax.

Why didn't you say so sooner. Consider it done.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

ending our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, to end our income tax.

white collar will be the first to go it's in the White House ... the rest will take a while, you should know few pay income taxes property taxes are the real burden.

 

[danielpalos]

.

ending our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, to end our income tax.

white collar will be the first to go it's in the White House ... the rest will take a while, you should know few pay income taxes property taxes are the real burden.

yet, the right wing would have us believe, that the wealthiest are paying the most in personal income taxes.

 

[ding]

.

ending our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, to end our income tax.

white collar will be the first to go it's in the White House ... the rest will take a while, you should know few pay income taxes property taxes are the real burden.

yet, the right wing would have us believe, that the wealthiest are paying the most in personal income taxes.

The right wing is good enough to have social morals for free.

 

[ding]

lol, no. Just hard working Americans who believe in limited government; especially in regard to free enterprise; who have loyalty to God, Country and Family; who own land; have wealth; own guns; and are trained in their use.

I am advocating ending our exorbitantly expensive and useless, War on Drugs. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It's your cumulative advocacy that worries me and the fact that they all require more laws by our government.

no, dear; that is just your right wing, projection, like usual. I am advocating lowering our Tax burden, by simplifying Government.

I see. What do you propose?

ending our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, to end our income tax.

Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. They must pay for it.

 

[danielpalos]

.

ending our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, to end our income tax.

white collar will be the first to go it's in the White House ... the rest will take a while, you should know few pay income taxes property taxes are the real burden.

yet, the right wing would have us believe, that the wealthiest are paying the most in personal income taxes.

The right wing is good enough to have social morals for free.

doesn't seem like it. the right seems to prefer situational ethics or capital morals for a price.

 

[danielpalos]

I am advocating ending our exorbitantly expensive and useless, War on Drugs. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It's your cumulative advocacy that worries me and the fact that they all require more laws by our government.

no, dear; that is just your right wing, projection, like usual. I am advocating lowering our Tax burden, by simplifying Government.

I see. What do you propose?

ending our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, to end our income tax.

Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. They must pay for it.

"punished by lucre"?

 

[ding]

doesn't seem like it. the right seems to prefer situational ethics or capital morals for a price.

Market friendly morals and market friendly pricing, yes, yes, yes, yes. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. Thy must pay for it.

"punished by lucre"?

Yes, socialists do not have market friendly pricing or market friendly morals and will never will never be good enough to have social morals for free and are punished by lucre.

 

[Bonzi]

don't enable the poor to continue to be poor
provide tools for their success, then, sink or swim

should we provide them with "probationary wives" to help them with their capital probity, so they won't have to stay poor?

No. I believe you should take by force the wealth of the wealthy and redistribute it. How does that sound?

promoting the general welfare, may mean just that.

Promoting the general welfare means giving people the tools and opportunity to WORK.
The general welfare is helped by enabling people to help themselves.....

 

[danielpalos]

doesn't seem like it. the right seems to prefer situational ethics or capital morals for a price.

Market friendly morals and market friendly pricing, yes, yes, yes, yes. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. Thy must pay for it.

"punished by lucre"?

Yes, socialists do not have market friendly pricing or market friendly morals and will never will never be good enough to have social morals for free and are punished by lucre.

Jesus the Christ is alleged to have, "paid" for that.

 

[danielpalos]

don't enable the poor to continue to be poor
provide tools for their success, then, sink or swim

should we provide them with "probationary wives" to help them with their capital probity, so they won't have to stay poor?

No. I believe you should take by force the wealth of the wealthy and redistribute it. How does that sound?

promoting the general welfare, may mean just that.

Promoting the general welfare means giving people the tools and opportunity to WORK.
The general welfare is helped by enabling people to help themselves.....

The law is, employment at the will of either party, not forced labor for lucre.

 

[Bonzi]

don't enable the poor to continue to be poor
provide tools for their success, then, sink or swim

should we provide them with "probationary wives" to help them with their capital probity, so they won't have to stay poor?

No. I believe you should take by force the wealth of the wealthy and redistribute it. How does that sound?

promoting the general welfare, may mean just that.

Promoting the general welfare means giving people the tools and opportunity to WORK.
The general welfare is helped by enabling people to help themselves.....

The law is, employment at the will of either party, not forced labor for lucre.

You don't have to work, but, those that do should not be forced to support those that choose not to.
That's really is not the intent .. but yes, that is how it is unfortunately.

 

[danielpalos]

should we provide them with "probationary wives" to help them with their capital probity, so they won't have to stay poor?

No. I believe you should take by force the wealth of the wealthy and redistribute it. How does that sound?

promoting the general welfare, may mean just that.

Promoting the general welfare means giving people the tools and opportunity to WORK.
The general welfare is helped by enabling people to help themselves.....

The law is, employment at the will of either party, not forced labor for lucre.

You don't have to work, but, those that do should not be forced to support those that choose not to.
That's really is not the intent .. but yes, that is how it is unfortunately.

Why do you believe what you do? Have you ever had children and applied it to them? No, why not? Socialism versus capitalism.

 

[Bonzi]

No. I believe you should take by force the wealth of the wealthy and redistribute it. How does that sound?

promoting the general welfare, may mean just that.

Promoting the general welfare means giving people the tools and opportunity to WORK.
The general welfare is helped by enabling people to help themselves.....

The law is, employment at the will of either party, not forced labor for lucre.

You don't have to work, but, those that do should not be forced to support those that choose not to.
That's really is not the intent .. but yes, that is how it is unfortunately.

Why do you believe what you do? Have you ever had children and applied it to them? No, why not? Socialism versus capitalism.

Sure. My kids are able bodied. Raising kids is a sink or swim proposition. It would be wrong for them to choose to be lazy and live for free off the government (which, in reality, is living off people who do work). Why is that fair?

 

[danielpalos]

promoting the general welfare, may mean just that.

Promoting the general welfare means giving people the tools and opportunity to WORK.
The general welfare is helped by enabling people to help themselves.....

The law is, employment at the will of either party, not forced labor for lucre.

You don't have to work, but, those that do should not be forced to support those that choose not to.
That's really is not the intent .. but yes, that is how it is unfortunately.

Why do you believe what you do? Have you ever had children and applied it to them? No, why not? Socialism versus capitalism.

Sure. My kids are able bodied. Raising kids is a sink or swim proposition. It would be wrong for them to choose to be lazy and live for free off the government (which, in reality, is living off people who do work). Why is that fair?

Because you don't have to work. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is a, fact of life. The law is, employment at the will of either party, not forced labor for lucre.

 

[ding]

doesn't seem like it. the right seems to prefer situational ethics or capital morals for a price.

Market friendly morals and market friendly pricing, yes, yes, yes, yes. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. Thy must pay for it.

"punished by lucre"?

Yes, socialists do not have market friendly pricing or market friendly morals and will never will never be good enough to have social morals for free and are punished by lucre.

Jesus the Christ is alleged to have, "paid" for that.

Only for the next life.... not this one. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. They must pay for it.

 

[danielpalos]

doesn't seem like it. the right seems to prefer situational ethics or capital morals for a price.

Market friendly morals and market friendly pricing, yes, yes, yes, yes. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. Thy must pay for it.

"punished by lucre"?

Yes, socialists do not have market friendly pricing or market friendly morals and will never will never be good enough to have social morals for free and are punished by lucre.

Jesus the Christ is alleged to have, "paid" for that.

Only for the next life.... not this one. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. They must pay for it.

that is why lucre, was invented.

 

[ding]

No. I believe you should take by force the wealth of the wealthy and redistribute it. How does that sound?

promoting the general welfare, may mean just that.

Promoting the general welfare means giving people the tools and opportunity to WORK.
The general welfare is helped by enabling people to help themselves.....

The law is, employment at the will of either party, not forced labor for lucre.

You don't have to work, but, those that do should not be forced to support those that choose not to.
That's really is not the intent .. but yes, that is how it is unfortunately.

Why do you believe what you do? Have you ever had children and applied it to them? No, why not? Socialism versus capitalism.

Because having market friendly morals and market friendly pricing has a higher probability than social morals for free.

 

[ding]

doesn't seem like it. the right seems to prefer situational ethics or capital morals for a price.

Market friendly morals and market friendly pricing, yes, yes, yes, yes. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. Thy must pay for it.

"punished by lucre"?

Yes, socialists do not have market friendly pricing or market friendly morals and will never will never be good enough to have social morals for free and are punished by lucre.

Jesus the Christ is alleged to have, "paid" for that.

Only for the next life.... not this one. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. They must pay for it.

that is why lucre, was invented.

No, the root cause of lucre is there is no such thing as social morals for free.