Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A couple of exampes: the mentally retarded and disabled veterans.
In other words, is there anyone living in this country that NEEDS and DESERVES government assistance? If not, how do you deal with these individuals?
A couple of exampes: the mentally retarded and disabled veterans.
In other words, is there anyone living in this country that NEEDS and DESERVES government assistance? If not, how do you deal with these individuals?
As a conservative.
We should help those that can't help themselves.
Everyone else had better man the fuck up and get to work, even if the only thing you can find sucks the life out of you.
Our fore fathers did.
The individual not the federal (or state) government.
A couple of exampes: the mentally retarded and disabled veterans.
In other words, is there anyone living in this country that NEEDS and DESERVES government assistance? If not, how do you deal with these individuals?
Hey Bill,
I am extreme right to the right of Genghis Khan, but, to your question, we have a responsibility to the infirmed, all types. We need to help and provide. I work with handicap kids as a volunteer and for disabled elderly folks here in Las Cruces and they are soley dependent me and my cohorts who help them in all ways and the cost to pay for them as well. Sometimes I have to use my own money to get things for some of them. It's the way it is.
So, there is a requirement in our type of system, that, literally, one for all, all for one. Government must provide, we must pay for same.
Hope that is helpful and a very good question! Hat is tipped.
Robert
Kudos to you my friend.
I have no problem assisting those who are truly mentally or physically handicapped and in need of help.
My problem is with the able bodied out there who think nothing of cashing in on someone elses hard earned money.
Those folks can rot in hell for all I care.
Code:A couple of exampes: the mentally retarded and disabled veterans.
In other words, is there anyone living in this country that NEEDS and DESERVES government assistance? If not, how do you deal with these individuals?
More left wing prestidigitation. Use victims and the helpless as human shields to hide millions of murders and lazy people behind.
Rape and incest victims. The retarded and disabled.
You are absolutely shameless.
What's next, crippled puppies and lame ducks?
.
I volunteer with low-income seniors in my community. I would LOVE to have a hardcore right winger come along for the ride JUST FOR ONE DAY and explain away the abject squalor in which these people have to exist on A DAILY BASIS.
If bleeding heart neo-progressive liberals put their own money where there mouths were, there wouldnt be a needy, helpless, uncared for mouth to feed in the country...
Utopian hypocrites
.So, basically, fuck off.
Yikes. Standard vulgarity aside, evidently your point (you didn't really make one) is that charities have plenty of money and don't need any help. Is that it? And could you provide a civil, mature response? Thanks.
.
.
I volunteer with low-income seniors in my community. I would LOVE to have a hardcore right winger come along for the ride JUST FOR ONE DAY and explain away the abject squalor in which these people have to exist on A DAILY BASIS.
No need. I started a charitable organization where I live and have helped many hundreds of people get food, shelter, pay medical and utility bills and rent. We have supported cancer victims, the mentallly retarded, the disabled, crime victims, starving children of immigrants legal and illegal, and so forth.
I am also on the board of another organization which provides all the necessities for recovering addicts and alcoholic and domestic abuse victims to completely furnish their new living spaces.
So, basically, fuck off.
.So, basically, fuck off.
Yikes. Standard vulgarity aside, evidently your point (you didn't really make one) is that charities have plenty of money and don't need any help. Is that it? And could you provide a civil, mature response? Thanks.
.
I believe his response WAS civil, in that you insinuated that 'right wing conservatives' couldn't be bothered to do any charity work. Quite insulting, it was, and his response quite measured, considering...
Yikes. Standard vulgarity aside, evidently your point (you didn't really make one) is that charities have plenty of money and don't need any help. Is that it? And could you provide a civil, mature response? Thanks.
.
I believe his response WAS civil, in that you insinuated that 'right wing conservatives' couldn't be bothered to do any charity work. Quite insulting, it was, and his response quite measured, considering...
No, that was not my insinuation, but that was certainly the way he took it.
My point was and is that conservatives automatically revert to the notion that charities can do the job for the needy, and that the notion of a stronger safety net is somehow an attack on their freedom. Read the whole post.
I've seen the studies that indicate that conservatives contribute more to charities than do liberals, and I would not be terribly surprised by that. But it's not enough, and anyone who is hip deep in this issue should know that.
And we'll have to disagree on the thought that telling someone to "fuck off" is civil. Surely we can summon more civility than that. I think.
.
No, that was not my insinuation, but that was certainly the way he took it.
My point was and is that conservatives automatically revert to the notion that charities can do the job for the needy, and that the notion of a stronger safety net is somehow an attack on their freedom. Read the whole post.
I've seen the studies that indicate that conservatives contribute more to charities than do liberals, and I would not be terribly surprised by that. But it's not enough, and anyone who is hip deep in this issue should know that.
And we'll have to disagree on the thought that telling someone to "fuck off" is civil. Surely we can summon more civility than that. I think.
.
No, that was not my insinuation, but that was certainly the way he took it.
My point was and is that conservatives automatically revert to the notion that charities can do the job for the needy, and that the notion of a stronger safety net is somehow an attack on their freedom. Read the whole post.
I've seen the studies that indicate that conservatives contribute more to charities than do liberals, and I would not be terribly surprised by that. But it's not enough, and anyone who is hip deep in this issue should know that.
And we'll have to disagree on the thought that telling someone to "fuck off" is civil. Surely we can summon more civility than that. I think.
.
Your view, of the general conservative, is in error. g500 and myself are examples of that error. We reach across the abyss, for real, to grasp the falling. Because we have the heart, guts and means to do so.
Careful, sir, for the abyss gazes also back at you.....
Consider.
Robert
It is not the duty or obligation of the government to provide services to the needy, even if they are TRULY needy. The government exists to ensure our rights and provide for the common defense of those SAME rights. PERIOD. The government wasn't designed to be the answer to all the problems of the nation/world. The PEOPLE are tasked with that job. People like you, GT, Robert and others who can and DO produce and provide solutions to those problems VOLUNTARILY.Okay, Robert, fair enough. There are always exceptions to every rule, especially when it comes to (what ends up being) partisan politics. The problem for the GOP is the ideological obligation to kneejerk away from taxes at absolutely every opportunity makes them vulnerable to looking heartless and simplistic. It makes them look even worse when they divert away from the point to act wounded.
So, in that light, I'm happy to amend the phrase to "too many conservatives". And I'm quite comfortable with the way I live my life, so the abyss does not scare me.
Now, back to the point, after an effective diversion. Is America better than this, or are we not? Are we supposed to be proud of the opulence in which so many live, while so many live in squalor? Is this a good thing?
.
Okay, Robert, fair enough. There are always exceptions to every rule, especially when it comes to (what ends up being) partisan politics. The problem for the GOP is the ideological obligation to kneejerk away from taxes at absolutely every opportunity makes them vulnerable to looking heartless and simplistic. It makes them look even worse when they divert away from the point to act wounded.
So, in that light, I'm happy to amend the phrase to "too many conservatives". And I'm quite comfortable with the way I live my life, so the abyss does not scare me.
Now, back to the point, after an effective diversion. Is America better than this, or are we not? Are we supposed to be proud of the opulence in which so many live, while so many live in squalor? Is this a good thing?
.
It is not the duty or obligation of the government to provide services to the needy, even if they are TRULY needy. The government exists to ensure our rights and provide for the common defense of those SAME rights. PERIOD. The government wasn't designed to be the answer to all the problems of the nation/world. The PEOPLE are tasked with that job. People like you, GT, Robert and others who can and DO produce and provide solutions to those problems VOLUNTARILY.
I'm guessing you do that because it's "the right thing to do." I know that's the reason I volunteer my time or $$$. If we don't have enough people 'doing the right thing', those in need are going to do without.
I think THAT problem has it's roots in the removal of religion and morality from the public square.
John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said. "[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."
Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary said, "[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence."
Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution. "[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."
Fisher Ames author of the final wording for the First Amendment wrote, "[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind."
John Jay, Original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court , "The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts."
James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."
Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary stated, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."
Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."
George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."
Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778
(Note that the above quotes are but a small sample of hundreds of quotes the Founding Fathers made in regards to the importance of a religious and moral people in a successful Republican Democracy.)
It seems that to the 'liberal mind' there is no God, no 'right and wrong', no absolutes. As Ted Nugent sang, "It's a free-for-all!" It was all supposed to be so 'liberating'. After 50 years of this mindset infiltrating our schools, our families and our national psyche, we find that we have ignored the very things our Founders were cautioning us NOT to ignore. The pitiful results are obvious. We now have more poverty, more violence, more animosity, more corruption, more hatred and more problems than EVER before, and to fix it the liberal yells "MORE GOVERNMENT!"I do not understand the point of this prolix repost of our framing words, in regards to helping someone, because we can, who is born with half a heart, or dying of cancer, or lying in the UofWashington Burn Center and so on.......
Explain your post, for us please.
Robert
A couple of exampes: the mentally retarded and disabled veterans.
In other words, is there anyone living in this country that NEEDS and DESERVES government assistance? If not, how do you deal with these individuals?
Do Deanie and TruthMatters count?
