Nebraska Republican agrees food is ‘essential’ — but won’t say Americans are ‘entitle

evince said:
why is the help churches give not RUINING people ?

only when the government helps is it RUINING people according to the right



its bullshit lies


if you believed helping others destroyed others you would be screaming at churches for helping people
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between charity and taxation.
 
why isn't the republican Party hating on churches for helping others like they hate on government for helping others



because even they don't believe that evil meme
 
ZappasGuitar said:
The Declaration of Independence states we are all entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Since you need food to survive and you will DIE without food, you are entitled to food.
Click to expand...

Hell without water it's only about three days. I can't believe they argue (if only by obvious inference) that basic life essential benefits should be sacrificed at the alter of liberty. Groan. That places the posters here at the farthest extreme in political thought.
 
As I suspected the cabal of Zipperhead, Bucky and Deshtard don't disappoint.

I guess they don't think the Obama years were all that great if we have all this poverty and starvation
 
Micawber said:
Hell without water it's only about three days. I can't believe they argue (if only by obvious inference) that basic life essential benefits should be sacrificed at the alter of liberty. Groan. That places the posters here at the farthest extreme in political thought.
Click to expand...

Heaven forbid.

Pay for your own water.

Or bring a few gallons. Time to water the garden.
 
they know its an evil lie meme so they can give wealthy people tax cuts



if they really believed feeding hungry children RUINED those children they would be making laws against churches feeding hungry children
 
evince said:
why isn't the republican Party hating on churches for helping others like they hate on government for helping others



because even they don't believe that evil meme
Click to expand...

It's because they are members who attend those churches and it is a exclusive social clique for them. Social cohesion of their group which enjoys an advantage. Why would they want to give that up? If those temples were taxed they would not exist, unless they started to include golf courses and liquor service.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
The Declaration of Independence states we are all entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Since you need food to survive and you will DIE without food, you are entitled to food.
Click to expand...

Quoting from the John Cochrane article I posted:


Notice the progressive-passive voice. "Is every American entitled to eat?" Just who does what to whom?

The direct answer to the question, as posed, is, "Yes. Every American is entitled to eat. And on just what planet do you live that you think there are laws prohibiting Americans from eating?"

Since the question as posed is nonsense, we know it must have a hidden meaning. The hidden subject of the sentence, is given the food-stamp context, the federal government. What Scott means is, "Is every American entitled to have the Federal government tax other citizens to pay for his or her food?"

Stop and savor the power of the subject-free sentence, the difference between the stated question and its real meaning.

Even to that one the answer has to be no. There is no such law, right, or entitlement. That is a simple matter of fact. Scott knows that too. So, what Scott really means is, "Don't you think the Federal government should establish an entitlement that every American can have the Federal government pay for his or her food, from funds raised by taxation?"

On the third time, he almost actually said what he meant, with "is food stamps something that ought to be that ultimate guarantor?" Though "food stamps" is a pretty wimpy subject of a sentence. "Should the federal taxpayer be the ultimate guarantor through the food stamp program" is more accurate.
 
Micawber said:
Or we can play the ball where it lays, and not pretend either that what I said is not true, or that you have no point about coercion versus giving and economic principles of value added or some people who indulge in sloth. Instead we can know that there is a world we are born into which is not fair, and a good deal more unfair for the things man has selfishly done in pursuit of individual concerns and carelessness towards the group or society at large. As to essential things that are very cheap, like basic food and water, there should be little resistance, and yet you resist even that. When all or nearly every square inch of our country of any monetary value is owned, then people certainly are not free in the very most basic physical sense. It is here where the battle lines should be drawn, so can your social darwinism arguments due to the fact that a sandwich is not free, and I'll stop with the notion that we live on the utopian Starship enterprise and property has been eliminated.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. Make a stupid posit, and I'll eat your lunch. Bank it.
Click to expand...

Yet your side never gives of themselves

There is nothing compassionate about saying the government should do X

For one thing the gobblement has no money unless they take it from its citizens

Period. If your conscience is such that you feel required to help those in need then feel free to do so. But if someone doesn't want to why should they be forced to to satisfy your conscience?

Is someone else's needs greater than an individuals right to say no?
 
GazzaQueen said:
Heaven forbid.

Pay for your own water.

Or bring a few gallons. Time to water the garden.
Click to expand...

Why stop there? Why not air? Shouldn't we privatize air supply and charge? How about sunlight? Bartertown inc could own the sunlight and bill us.

Here is the answer: because it's not yet feasible. If it was, it would have been done. Wouldn't that be great! Then the poor could asphyxiate and decrease the surplus population post haste! You'd love that?
 
Micawber said:
Why stop there? Why not air? Shouldn't we privatize air supply and charge? How about sunlight? Bartertown inc could own the sunlight and bill us.

Here is the answer: because it's not yet feasible. If it was, it would have been done. Wouldn't that be great! Then the poor could asphyxiate and decrease the surplus population post haste! You'd love that?
Click to expand...

Then provide it, sheesh. You want others to do what you yourself won't.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You're entitled to food, NOT to have it delivered.

You want a sandwich, get off your fat ass and go where they make sandwiches.
Click to expand...

So if you are entitled to food and it is a right as you claim does that mean that you can walk into a Subway and demand a sandwich without paying for it?

If not why not?

You said go to a place where they make sandwiches? Can we send you the bill? You are willing to keep people from starving right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top