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

ZappasGuitar said:
First, I state my political beliefs all the time...in this case, that the rich need to be paying more in taxes to help out the poorest.

Secondly, I share opinions all the time.
Click to expand...

I asked what you thought was helping the poor. We pay huge taxes in San Francisco and in California yet have a massive homeless problem. Simply paying more in taxes hasn't made the problem go away or even get markedly better. It's why I asked your opinion on what you thought was helping.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I cheerfully pay my taxes with a smile on my face each and every year.

I'm not another selfish GOP crybaby-I WANT to help the poor.
Click to expand...

We all pay taxes, fool...ITS THE LAW .....you seriously want to help the poor, then you should do more than what EVERYONE else does.....
 
Quote Originally Posted by Buckly J. Ewer View Post
Quackoh believes it's more important to give billionaires a handout than it is to feed babies.


You're 60 years old and this is your argument? Props for the strawman but that's pathetic
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You just refuse to acknowledge the truth, don't you?

Micawber clearly stated he has NO PROBLEM being taxed to pay for feeding the poor , yet you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Pitiful...
Click to expand...

If Micawber truly cared for the poor, he would provide for them without being taxed.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I cheerfully pay my taxes with a smile on my face each and every year.

I'm not another selfish GOP crybaby-I WANT to help the poor.
Click to expand...

If you truly wanted to help the poor, you wouldn't wait to pay taxes. You'd provide for them NOW with your own money.
 
cawacko said:
Is there only one way to help the poor that is not greedy and that's how you believe it should be done?
Click to expand...

There's only one way the poor should be helped. It shouldn't be done by mandated taxes. It should be done voluntarily by those meeting a need when they determine it's a need.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
IHA can see he's losing another debate, so here come the usual litany of distractions to derail the thread.
Click to expand...

Explain how it is a distraction?

It has been claimed by the left that

A) eating food is a right
B) someone not being able to eat is immoral.

These are the claims of the left. If I have misrepresented them then please elaborate.

Let me ask the question this way.

Are there limitations on how someone can exercise that right to eat?
 
cawacko said:
I asked what you thought was helping the poor. We pay huge taxes in San Francisco and in California yet have a massive homeless problem. Simply paying more in taxes hasn't made the problem go away or even get markedly better. It's why I asked your opinion on what you thought was helping.
Click to expand...

When the cause of the problem isn't because of lack of money, putting more money into it trying to solve the problem won't do a damn thing.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And now PMP follows IHA right along into the absurd.
Click to expand...

Why is it absurd?

You are claiming a right to not starve. Where does that right begin?

Is that right only valid if the government takes it from someone to give to another?

I completely understand if you haven't thought your beliefs through.
 
can the government require a license for someone to fish? a license to hunt? a license to grow a garden in your yard? prohibitions of gardens in your front yard?
 
CFM said:
There's only one way the poor should be helped. It shouldn't be done by mandated taxes. It should be done voluntarily by those meeting a need when they determine it's a need.
Click to expand...

How much would you give if the needy family were black?
Never mind... that was a rhetorical question...
We already know the answer, racist...
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
How much would you give if the needy family were black?
Never mind... that was a rhetorical question...
We already know the answer, racist...
Click to expand...

How much would all of you that say you have no problem paying taxes to help those in need if the process was voluntary instead of mandated?

Never mind . . that was a rhetorical question

I know the answer. If you cared as much as you claimed, you wouldn't wait on taxes to be paid. You'd care for them on your own.
 
CFM said:
How much would all of you that say you have no problem paying taxes to help those in need if the process was voluntary instead of mandated?

Never mind . . that was a rhetorical question

I know the answer. If you cared as much as you claimed, you wouldn't wait on taxes to be paid. You'd care for them on your own.
Click to expand...

ROFL!!

"If you cared as much as you claimed..."

And how do Y-O-U know "how much we care"?

That's right, unless you are The Amazing Kreskin, you CAN'T know.

IOW...its just the same nonsensical bullshit CFM is always spouting.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
ROFL!!

"If you cared as much as you claimed..."

And how do Y-O-U know "how much we care"?

That's right, unless you are The Amazing Kreskin, you CAN'T know.

IOW...its just the same nonsensical bullshit CFM is always spouting.
Click to expand...

CFM's ignorant response reminded me of a story.

Once, when I was younger, I broke my ankle.

As I was resting it, my father, a gigantic moron like CFM said: "your ankle isn't broken. If it were broken, it would hurt more..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top