Obama: "We're responsible for each other". Really? Since when?

"Volunteerism" is a synonym for "Freedom".

So, in your own words, freedom failed? Because if something isn't voluntary, then it becomes mandatory. And if things start becoming mandatory, we are no longer free.

So how left wingism has historically turned into tyrannical governments like those seen in the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Burma, etc, etct????

So if I refuse to "volunteer" my income to pay for the bad decisions of others, then you feel the government must take my income by force to be given to those people?

In what land of the inbred dictionary is volunteerism a synonym for freedom?

The United States could not exist as a nation if we let everyone opt out of paying the shares of their taxes that go to things they don't like. For starters, a good deal of people would say they didn't like anything, and opt out of paying any taxes.

And your beloved military would all but cease to exist.

Happy now?
funny-pictures-yez-im-pawsitiv.jpg


Fail on a monstrous scale.

You assume the government is the United States. Incorrect. The PEOPLE are the United States. The government is the aparatus which they use to function more smoothly and create the framework of a society. Currently the government has become a cancerous byzantine thing that MUST be cut back to the bone as originally intended by the framers.

Without states having the threat of opting out (which was destroyed in 1864) the government began to expand and violate it's own constitutional bounds because there were no consequences for when it DID violate it's own rules. The government SHOULD be forced to privatize ohhhh about 60% of the services it currently supplies and get back to it's specifically enumerated powers.

You like to focus on the "preamble" as a justification for all the totalitarian excesses of a rogue national government. That invalidates any constitutional basis for your argument because if you had presented the same attitude back in those days to the signers and the colonies, you'd have been thrown out of the statehouse and thrashed as a tory trying to recreate a monarchy or new nobility. What you advocate is nothing short of a totalitarian state that bases it's power on 'we can do anything we feel is in the best interest of the public.'

No sane person would sign into such a compact. But then again, I don't consider you sane, so don't let that trouble you.

I didn't advocate anything in the post. I merely pointed out the insanity of the other poster thinking that all taxes should be voluntary.
 
If volunteerism worked, the People would have never had reason to turn to the government.

Volunteerism is not supposed to "work" YOU ARE...

Volunteerism and charity are supposed to be possible boosts out of the voluntary goodness of the heart of the person with extra supplies/money/food/time/etc

You should learn to read. You're really a mess.
 
If volunteerism worked, the People would have never had reason to turn to the government.

Perhaps during the Depression of the 30's or the late 19th C., though most people never needed the government for housing or food, though they doubled/tripled up and shared what they had.

SOME people prefer the government, for the most part they've been able to keep what is given on the dole, without change. Volunteer services tend to address the root cause of the problem, pushing solutions. That usually means a change of behavior.
 
lol...that woman was not an indication of the general sentiments of those that supported Obama...I believe she was sincere, but completely misguided....and the right capitalized on one rogue individual.

However, I have no doubt that the Obama agenda is designed to ensure a democratic majority for generations to come. The more they play on the class warfare thing and the more they get people to enjoy the advantages of entitlements, and the more people they get to capitalize on those entitlements and come to depend on those entitlements, the more they will be able to talk down the GOP ideas.

At least you're honest which is more than I can say about Sigdickhead

You righties like to see entitlements (only to individuals, not corporations) as hindering someones will to succeed. Thats phoney. If you broke your leg and I gave you a crutch...I'm not making you less motived to walk. I'm giving you help until you can.

Shit, maybe we should just call entitlements "subsidies" then maybe the right will stop shitting all over the lowest rungs of society. Cause subsidies are cool, entitlements not cool.

That "buying" votes thing is so old it collects Social Security. You dont consider for ONE SECOND that maybe....just maybe people agree with Dem POLICIES. Isnt that even POSSIBLE?

Horse shit....

A majority of the 'righties' or conservatives especially, are against entitlements whether they be corporate or individual

but nice try

Sure they do, they just oppose it really really quietly and most likely after they attack ppl on welfare, climate change, abortion and a few others but I'm sooooo sure they do:doubt:
 
I'm not a Christian, so why should I accept that horseshit?

It's just an excuse to get your hands on what other people have earned.

Because we all, Christian or not, have a moral obligation.[/QUOTE]

Really? Why?
 
I am my brother's keeper.

This is a basic Christian philosophy.

This is what Jesus teached, preached and lived.

Sadly, for liberals and their limited understanding of English, this does NOT mean we are responsible for other people. It means that we are responsible to God for OUR actions regarding other people. And sometimes, the most responsible action we can take toward other people is to let them be responsible for their own actions.

Thank you. I love the way you can justify being cold hearted. You must be Republican.
 
A healthy Self-interest is my only obligation to the world. I will take care of me, mine, and my interests with an utter devotion and zeal.

If everyone followed suit, the world would actually be a nice place to live. By extension, people would have nice homes, nice neighborhoods, a nice work place and so forth. People would be striving for betterment at work, home and country.

Without a healthy self interest you have Democrat ghettos where other people are burdened with other people's problems, like crime, poverty, foreclosures, unemployment, drug abuse and gov't run abortions.


PS I have no obligation to anyone. Anyone that tells you different is a buffoon.
 
I have an obligation to myself and my family. I honorably served this great country. I've provided well paying jobs with benefits to many people through the years. My family is financially taken care of for at least the next generation, most likely beyond. I've always paid my taxes. Have never been late on even one payment of a bill. Have zero dings on my credit history. I owe nobody else ANYTHING. We contribute to charity as we deem necessary. It's not up to my wife and I to contribute to freeloaders and the abjectly lazy.....We owe them absolutely nothing. It's their fucking problem.....We've more than done our part for this great country. It's now time for us to enjoy the fruits of our labor through the years, and keep it out of the hands of the liberals and their whiney utopian fantasies of aiding and abetting the freeloading lazy fucks that the liberals coddle too and encourage.
 
I'm not a Christian, so why should I accept that horseshit?

It's just an excuse to get your hands on what other people have earned.

Really? Why?


Because we are members of the human race.

.
And? Your point is?

This does not denote any moral or ethical responsibility for the actions, lives or outcomes of another person's choice.

This is not social or ethical Darwinism, so don't try that equivalency. It has a fail already. If you listen to the atheists, we're just animals doing what we do naturally. If you listen to the moral relativists, nobody has the authority to determine what IS morality, except the individual (which is funny because they're usually collectivist herd animals) If you listen to religionists, you must ask which religion are you going to follow in this melting pot.

So, your point is moot until you take a stand for something absolute and universal. Otherwise, you're just whistling Dixie off key.
 
A healthy Self-interest is my only obligation to the world. I will take care of me, mine, and my interests with an utter devotion and zeal.

If everyone followed suit, the world would actually be a nice place to live. By extension, people would have nice homes, nice neighborhoods, a nice work place and so forth. People would be striving for betterment at work, home and country.

Without a healthy self interest you have Democrat ghettos where other people are burdened with other people's problems, like crime, poverty, foreclosures, unemployment, drug abuse and gov't run abortions.


PS I have no obligation to anyone. Anyone that tells you different is a buffoon.

I know you won't understand this, but a "health community" is better, because that means everyone is healthy.
 
"Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself... by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another" --John Locke; from Second Treatise on Civil Government
 
A healthy Self-interest is my only obligation to the world. I will take care of me, mine, and my interests with an utter devotion and zeal.

If everyone followed suit, the world would actually be a nice place to live. By extension, people would have nice homes, nice neighborhoods, a nice work place and so forth. People would be striving for betterment at work, home and country.

Without a healthy self interest you have Democrat ghettos where other people are burdened with other people's problems, like crime, poverty, foreclosures, unemployment, drug abuse and gov't run abortions.


PS I have no obligation to anyone. Anyone that tells you different is a buffoon.

I know you won't understand this, but a "health community" is better, because that means everyone is healthy.

And that was my point. That if we are truly responsible for each other, then I expect the left to stop telling me I cannot be judgemental, and stop telling me I must be tolerant. If I'm responsible for everyone else's well being, well, then theres gonna be some changes around here:

1- No more fat asses. You'll work out, eat a sensible diet, and lose fucking fat.
2- No more unprotected sex. I'm tired of people having babies they can't afford, and I'm tired of gay men spreading STD's due to lack of condoms. Wrap it up or be celebant.
3- No more lottery tickets. The ghetto wastes millions on that shit. If you can't afford to buy food, then you aren't gambling either.
4- No more alcohol if you do not work a full-time job. Yep. You must have a license to drink alcohol. That license depends on full-time employment.
5- Drug testing for all people who recieve subsidized housing, food, medical aid, education or welfare checks.




I have a lot more to list. Tolerance is over. If I'm responsible for everyone else, then everyone else is gonna start living up to our standards right?
 
A normally functioning member of society has BOTH healthy self interest AND a sense of civic responsibility.

Why?

Because mankind is a social animal, of course.
 

Forum List

Back
Top