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

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...

You have descended into the absurd
 
Yes, liberals have been reduced to the cartoon posts we see here on this forum,

everything is conspiracy, fantasy and anger
Either they get a grip or we may have special health care plans for dillusional behavior before the next 8 years is up

It's like the Wizard of OZ has lept off the screen and the flying monkeys are chasing them

lololololo
 
cawacko said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself, but I already said unequivocally the government should tax us all so poor people can eat. So that dude can take his stealth lingual argument elsewhere.
 
I Love America said:
You have descended into the absurd
Click to expand...

I disagree. Air and sun are no more needed than water and food. I succeeded as I intended by demonstrating how absurd not paying a pittance so poor people can enjoy free water and a bag of potatoes with some chicken and peas is. Thanks for getting the point.
 
Micawber said:
I can only speak for myself, but I already said unequivocally the government should tax us all so poor people can eat. So that dude can take his stealth lingual argument elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I am sure saying that makes you feel good inside and qualifies for compassion.

But let's get into some details about this

Eat what? Should they be allowed to have lobster? Filet? Or just the basics?

What percentage of your money are you willing to pay? How much?
 
GazzaQueen said:
This idea worked well in Venezuela.
Click to expand...

And we are not citgoistan, Zimbabwe or India. We have the food and a smallish population to get it done without infringing on your chateau Margaux gran cru allotment. Or should we go from the biggest military over the next 13 countries combined to the top 40 of them instead?
 
I Love America said:
I am sure saying that makes you feel good inside and qualifies for compassion.

But let's get into some details about this

Eat what? Should they be allowed to have lobster? Filet? Or just the basics?

What percentage of your money are you willing to pay? How much?
Click to expand...

I already said. Look around, keep up...
 
Micawber said:
And we are not citgoistan, Zimbabwe or India. We have the food and a smallish population to get it done without infringing on your chateau Margaux gran cru allotment.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting about all the other entitlements you owe me.

I have the sniffles give me 50 bucks.

I need to pay my rent. Pay my landlord $800.

My children don't have a lunch. $7.50 for all six of them, buddy.

Water bill's due. Electricity was high this month, I hope you have enough to cover it.

ad infinitum.
 
Micawber said:
And we are not citgoistan, Zimbabwe or India. We have the food and a smallish population to get it done without infringing on your chateau Margaux gran cru allotment. Or should we go from the biggest military over the next 13 countries combined to the top 40 of them instead?
Click to expand...

But you guys want us to keep defending Europe.
 
GazzaQueen said:
You're forgetting about all the other entitlements you owe me.

I have the sniffles give me 50 bucks.

I need to pay my rent. Pay my landlord $800.

My children don't have a lunch. $7.50 for all six of them, buddy.

Water bill's due. Electricity was high this month, I hope you have enough to cover it.

ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

Well at least you are playing on the playing field now. Yes, we must prioritize, not spend stupidly and not inflict excess hardship trying to solve problems and have a government that actually does good. How many hungry, how much food, and cost. These are knowables. I do t want to make you stop eating to feed somebody. But the idea that feeding people in this country is impracticable? That is absurd. Will some grifters and neerdowells get some free food? Yep. We should work that problem too. But the utter immorality of the right on poverty is stark. Hoe much does school lunches for all the kids cost me in my property tax of 1 percent? Msybe a twentieth of that? I'm happy to do it even without a public school kid.
 
Micawber said:
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.
Click to expand...

so if they wanted to beat children that would be OK?

remember the right says it harms people to help them.


so its OK for churches to harm people


the right KNOWS its a lie that helping people hurts those people


heres a clue


NO ONE FORCES YOU TO BE AN AMERICAN EITHER
 
Micawber said:
Well at least you are playing on the playing field now. Yes, we must prioritize, not spend stupidly and not inflict excess hardship trying to solve problems and have a government that actually does good. How many hungry, how much food, and cost. These are knowables. I do t want to make you stop eating to feed somebody. But the idea that feeding people in this country is impracticable? That is absurd. Will some grifters and neerdowells get some free food? Yep. We should work that problem too. But the utter immorality of the right on poverty is stark. Hoe much does school lunches for all the kids cost me in my property tax of 1 percent? Msybe a twentieth of that? I'm happy to do it even without a public school kid.
Click to expand...

There is no "we" about it. YOU want everyone else to do what you won't do yourself.

They say they won't do it, either.

That's no entitlement at all.
 
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
 
GazzaQueen said:
There is no "we" about it. YOU want everyone else to do what you won't do yourself.

They say they won't do it, either.

That's no entitlement at all.
Click to expand...

No, I said I'd pay my tax and that is me doing it. I also did it when buzz aldrin claimed the moon for the USA. That was all of us doing it.

Ask not includes paying taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top