Republicans: Do you believe that there are individuals who cannot help themselves?

[Mac1958]

.

Wow, I'm seeing a wide range of reasons why many conservatives feel that Americans should be allowed to live in abject squalor while others enjoy the fruits of, well, pretty much everything. The most unfortunate in our society should be allowed to rot until we get around to helping them through charities, assuming that ever actually happens. But who cares. As long as the government does absolutely nothing to help, we'll keep our "freedom" and "liberty".

That's their vision of America, the richest country in world. And plenty of examples on this thread to choose from.

Okay, your call. No way in hell I'll be able to change your mind, I get it.

Plus, I admit I just don't know what else to say at this point.

.

liar

That certainly is a comprehensive and well-reasoned response, but perhaps you could elaborate, just a bit.

What, precisely, should be done about those who are barely making it, people who have lost everything due to bad luck, medical bills, mental deficiencies, some combination therein? The 82-year old woman with health conditions who makes just enough to not qualify for aid, but who lives in squalor every single day of her life?

Your answer appears to be, "let's get them some charity". Is that your answer? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Then great, show me how that would work with the millions who need help. Let's dig down a bit and get clear, shall we? Tell me how this is going to be done your way.

When you're done there, perhaps you can tell me how providing a stronger safety net for your fellow Americans, residents of the richest country on the planet, is a detriment to your "freedom" and "liberty". I'm sure that will be easy, because this appears to be all about YOU.

Enough of the simplistic, shallow (if predictable) denials. Get into the specifics of how this works and back it up. Be responsible for your words and your opinions.

Is America better than this, or are we not?

.

 

[boilermaker55]

As some of you know, I work with the Developmentally Disabled. I am not a Republican, but I was up until 2008, when the GOP took that last turn towards insanity.

So yes, I do believe we have an obligation as a society to take care of our weakest and most vulnerable.

To KosherGirl... you have not a single clue as to what you speak. Walk a mile in a parent's shoes that has an irrational, inconsolable and violent child who has developmental disabilities before you get on your "holier than thou" kick. Then extend that to adulthood. That adult child will never work, will require 24/7 supervision, and will get to be stronger than you can handle.

There was a gentleman that I worked with some years ago. His left arm and leg were atrophied to the point that the arm was unusable and the leg would drag behind when the guy hobbled. I was young at the time and thought that the man had had a stroke or something, because he was an older gentleman. I was informed that when this man lived at home with his family, they became so desperate and didn't know what to do with this guy that they chained him to the support beam in their basement and threw food at him because they were afraid to go near him.

Isn't it just like a CONSERVATIVE Christian(note the emphasis on the word CONSERVATIVE) to pass judgment without placing yourself in another persons' situation.

You have an obligation NOT the federal government.

Translating E PLURIBUS UNUM

The general meaning of each Latin word is clear:
Pluribus is related to the English word: "plural."
Unum is related to the English word: "unit."

E Pluribus Unum describes an action: Many uniting into one. An accurate translation of the motto is "Out of many, one" – a phrase that elegantly captures the symbolism on the shield.

The meaning of this motto is better understood when seen in its original classical context.

 

[rightwinger]

"Let them die" is the progressive mantra, not the christian/conservative one.

We know what we do for others. We have no fear that people will die if entitlement programs are modified because we know we'll be there.

But you are missing the point

We are talking about members of society who are capable of working but won't. You are just replying that Christian ministries will pay for them when the government won't. Isn't that the same thing?

At what point do you cut people off and throw them into the streets?

 

[DiamondDave]

"Let them die" is the progressive mantra, not the christian/conservative one.

We know what we do for others. We have no fear that people will die if entitlement programs are modified because we know we'll be there.

But you are missing the point

We are talking about members of society who are capable of working but won't. You are just replying that Christian ministries will pay for them when the government won't. Isn't that the same thing?

At what point do you cut people off and throw them into the streets?

THEY throw themselves in the street or whatever...

This is the crucial difference in thinking between normal people and pandering liberals...

YOU bring the consequences of your actions... It is not someone else 'doing this to you'

 

[rightwinger]

You don't get a free ride for being a jerk... sorry...

The alternative?? Personal responsibility...

We have already determined that assholes do not have personal responsibility. If a guy can't hold a job because he has a temper and can't go two weeks without cussing out his boss, and his temper flareups have destroyed his relationship with his family and friends......who takes care of him?

Is the answer to throw him out in the streets and knock on your door begging for food? Will you feed him?

Again... YOU are YOUR responsibility...

If you will not do what it takes, you have to live with the consequences of your actions...

You are not owed support because you're a fucking jerk

If that jerk has to approach charities (if the jerk behavior will help him in that is another story), so be it.... if that jerk has to beg, so be it... if that jerk has to work odd jobs where they do not interact with people, so be it... if that person has to become a hermit in a cabin and live off the land, so be it....

OK...that was what I was looking for

A "let him die" society has social castoffs. People we have given up on and thrown aside. We draw a line of who deserves support and who doesn't and those who don't get to beg, rummage through trashcans and sleep in the gutter

We model our social programs after Calcutta

 

[rightwinger]

"Let them die" is the progressive mantra, not the christian/conservative one.

We know what we do for others. We have no fear that people will die if entitlement programs are modified because we know we'll be there.

But you are missing the point

We are talking about members of society who are capable of working but won't. You are just replying that Christian ministries will pay for them when the government won't. Isn't that the same thing?

At what point do you cut people off and throw them into the streets?

THEY throw themselves in the street or whatever...

This is the crucial difference in thinking between normal people and pandering liberals...

YOU bring the consequences of your actions... It is not someone else 'doing this to you'

No question there are consequences.....but how bad does a society let those consequences become?

Do we allow people to beg door to door? That is how it was handled before the 1930s.
How do we handle our sick, who because of poor decisions do not have healthcare? Do you walk down the sidewalk on Main Street and watch people spit up blood?

Where is your line?

 

[kwc57]

So I take that as your answer being....Let him die

It reminds me of the GOP debate where Dr Paul was asked a hypothetical about a young professional who chose not to pay for healthcare and is now in a coma. Dr Paul's response was it was his decision, let him pay the price for it

As we become a "let him die" society, what are the parameters for letting those who made bad choices die? I don't want young children have to watch people suffering and keeling over in our streets......that is distasteful

Do we set up special shelters where people are taken to hack out their last breath out of sight and out of mind? Are people in "let him die" shelters provided with food or does that fly in the face of the let him die philosophy?

What is it exactly that you don't understand about personal responsibility? My sister used to hold her breath when she got mad and my mom asked the doctor what she should do? He told my mom to let her hold her breath until she passes out and she'll start breathing again and will think twice about doing it again. If someone who is able bodied refuses to provide for themself, they have made a choice and it is not incumbent on me to give into their tantrum.

If your sister chose not to buy health insurance because she didn't feel sick and instead spent her money on cheap perfume and trampy clothes what should we do with her if she comes down with cancer?

It was her poor personal responsibility that lead to her not having insurance. When we let her die, do we just leave her to die or can the taxpayer provide her with basic comforts?

Wow, you really don't understand the concept of personal responsibility or voluntary charity do you? Which government agency comes and wipes your ass for you every time you take a crap? Do you have to prearrange it and hold it or do they arrive on demand?

 

[DiamondDave]

But you are missing the point

We are talking about members of society who are capable of working but won't. You are just replying that Christian ministries will pay for them when the government won't. Isn't that the same thing?

At what point do you cut people off and throw them into the streets?

THEY throw themselves in the street or whatever...

This is the crucial difference in thinking between normal people and pandering liberals...

YOU bring the consequences of your actions... It is not someone else 'doing this to you'

No question there are consequences.....but how bad does a society let those consequences become?

Do we allow people to beg door to door? That is how it was handled before the 1930s.
How do we handle our sick, who because of poor decisions do not have healthcare? Do you walk down the sidewalk on Main Street and watch people spit up blood?

Where is your line?

Again... it is not 'society' letting this happen... it is the fucking individual doing this to themselves

idiot

You have the freedom to fail that goes hand in hand with the freedom to succeed... you have the freedom to fail to the point that you want to put a fucking bullet thru the roof of your mouth (and maybe you fucking do it)... you have the freedom to succeed to the level that you want to squee with glee like a little girl... and everything in between

You make your own line, motherfucker

 

[kwc57]

.

Wow, I'm seeing a wide range of reasons why many conservatives feel that Americans should be allowed to live in abject squalor while others enjoy the fruits of, well, pretty much everything. The most unfortunate in our society should be allowed to rot until we get around to helping them through charities, assuming that ever actually happens. But who cares. As long as the government does absolutely nothing to help, we'll keep our "freedom" and "liberty".

That's their vision of America, the richest country in world. And plenty of examples on this thread to choose from.

Okay, your call. No way in hell I'll be able to change your mind, I get it.

Plus, I admit I just don't know what else to say at this point.

.

liar

That certainly is a comprehensive and well-reasoned response, but perhaps you could elaborate, just a bit.

What, precisely, should be done about those who are barely making it, people who have lost everything due to bad luck, medical bills, mental deficiencies, some combination therein? The 82-year old woman with health conditions who makes just enough to not qualify for aid, but who lives in squalor every single day of her life?

Your answer appears to be, "let's get them some charity". Is that your answer? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Then great, show me how that would work with the millions who need help. Let's dig down a bit and get clear, shall we? Tell me how this is going to be done your way.

When you're done there, perhaps you can tell me how providing a stronger safety net for your fellow Americans, residents of the richest country on the planet, is a detriment to your "freedom" and "liberty". I'm sure that will be easy, because this appears to be all about YOU.

Enough of the simplistic, shallow (if predictable) denials. Get into the specifics of how this works and back it up. Be responsible for your words and your opinions.

Is America better than this, or are we not?

.

26 million plus hits

charitable assistance - Google Search

 

[Mac1958]

liar

That certainly is a comprehensive and well-reasoned response, but perhaps you could elaborate, just a bit.

What, precisely, should be done about those who are barely making it, people who have lost everything due to bad luck, medical bills, mental deficiencies, some combination therein? The 82-year old woman with health conditions who makes just enough to not qualify for aid, but who lives in squalor every single day of her life?

Your answer appears to be, "let's get them some charity". Is that your answer? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Then great, show me how that would work with the millions who need help. Let's dig down a bit and get clear, shall we? Tell me how this is going to be done your way.

When you're done there, perhaps you can tell me how providing a stronger safety net for your fellow Americans, residents of the richest country on the planet, is a detriment to your "freedom" and "liberty". I'm sure that will be easy, because this appears to be all about YOU.

Enough of the simplistic, shallow (if predictable) denials. Get into the specifics of how this works and back it up. Be responsible for your words and your opinions.

Is America better than this, or are we not?

.

26 million plus hits

charitable assistance - Google Search

So I was correct.

Why in the world didn't you just say so?

Strange.

.

 

[kwc57]

That certainly is a comprehensive and well-reasoned response, but perhaps you could elaborate, just a bit.

What, precisely, should be done about those who are barely making it, people who have lost everything due to bad luck, medical bills, mental deficiencies, some combination therein? The 82-year old woman with health conditions who makes just enough to not qualify for aid, but who lives in squalor every single day of her life?

Your answer appears to be, "let's get them some charity". Is that your answer? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Then great, show me how that would work with the millions who need help. Let's dig down a bit and get clear, shall we? Tell me how this is going to be done your way.

When you're done there, perhaps you can tell me how providing a stronger safety net for your fellow Americans, residents of the richest country on the planet, is a detriment to your "freedom" and "liberty". I'm sure that will be easy, because this appears to be all about YOU.

Enough of the simplistic, shallow (if predictable) denials. Get into the specifics of how this works and back it up. Be responsible for your words and your opinions.

Is America better than this, or are we not?

.

26 million plus hits

charitable assistance - Google Search

So I was correct.

Why in the world didn't you just say so?

Strange.

.

Are you of the opinion that there isn't a multitude of charitable organizations out there designed specifically to provide help to those in need and all one need do is ask for their help?

Are you also of the opinion that it is the constitutional responsibilty of the government to provide these services by forcibly taxing citizens (detrimental to their freedom and liberty) to provide service against their will?

If so, I find your opinions equally strange.

 

[Big Fitz]

2 Thessalonians 3:10

New International Version (NIV)
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

So I take that as your answer being....Let him die

It reminds me of the GOP debate where Dr Paul was asked a hypothetical about a young professional who chose not to pay for healthcare and is now in a coma. Dr Paul's response was it was his decision, let him pay the price for it

As we become a "let him die" society, what are the parameters for letting those who made bad choices die? I don't want young children have to watch people suffering and keeling over in our streets......that is distasteful

Do we set up special shelters where people are taken to hack out their last breath out of sight and out of mind? Are people in "let him die" shelters provided with food or does that fly in the face of the let him die philosophy?

What is it exactly that you don't understand about personal responsibility? My sister used to hold her breath when she got mad and my mom asked the doctor what she should do? He told my mom to let her hold her breath until she passes out and she'll start breathing again and will think twice about doing it again. If someone who is able bodied refuses to provide for themself, they have made a choice and it is not incumbent on me to give into their tantrum.

The key word in that quote from 2 Thessalonians 3:10 is: UNWILLING.

Too many on the dole ARE unwilling to work. If they are unable to work, it implies the desire to work but are being prevented from doing so by an outside source. THAT is the key issue.

The left doesn't care about that critical difference because it undermines their social engineering goals into creating a neo-feudalist culture where we're back to nobles and peasants dependent on them.

 

[Claudette]

26 million plus hits

charitable assistance - Google Search

So I was correct.

Why in the world didn't you just say so?

Strange.

.

Are you of the opinion that there isn't a multitude of charitable organizations out there designed specifically to provide help to those in need and all one need do is ask for their help?

Are you also of the opinion that it is the constitutional responsibilty of the government to provide these services by forcibly taxing citizens (detrimental to their freedom and liberty) to provide service against their will?

If so, I find your opinions equally strange.

He and all likeminded are welcome to assume the burden for the poor and downtrodden at any time.

Wonder how long it will take for those very same poor and downtrodden to take every dime they can get their hands on?? And they will. LOL

I, like you, have no wish to assume the cost of someone elses responsibilities

But kudo's to those of you that do. Have at it.

 

[Mac1958]

26 million plus hits

charitable assistance - Google Search

So I was correct.

Why in the world didn't you just say so?

Strange.

.

Are you of the opinion that there isn't a multitude of charitable organizations out there designed specifically to provide help to those in need and all one need do is ask for their help?

Are you also of the opinion that it is the constitutional responsibilty of the government to provide these services by forcibly taxing citizens (detrimental to their freedom and liberty) to provide service against their will?

If so, I find your opinions equally strange.

I am of the opinion that charitable organizations don't have near the resources to deal with what has become of this country. I am also of the opinion that there is no law that requires you to give an inch, nor is there a constitutional requirement for you to acknowledge the dire straits in which so many of your fellow Americans find themselves. I am also of the opinion that you have every right to close your eyes to the lives so many of your fellow Americans have to live.

I'm also a First Amendment purist, which means I support your right to talk about your "freedom" and your "liberty" while you know quite well that millions of Americans simply never had a chance. And there is no law forcing anyone, as far as I know, from ignoring and/or avoiding the unavoidable shit hole of a life so many Americans enjoy today.

"I don't give a crap about anyone else, let 'em rot if there's not enough help for them, after all, this is America" is definitely constitutionally-protected speech and opinion. As is "if someone is in trouble, it's their own fault, they're responsible for their own life, too bad."

God Bless America, huh?

.

 

[koshergrl]

Your opinion is wrong. Charitable organizations will rise to fill the need, as they always have.

That doesn't mean that people won't have to scramble, or that they will enjoy the degree of cushiness they have now.

 

[rightwinger]

What is it exactly that you don't understand about personal responsibility? My sister used to hold her breath when she got mad and my mom asked the doctor what she should do? He told my mom to let her hold her breath until she passes out and she'll start breathing again and will think twice about doing it again. If someone who is able bodied refuses to provide for themself, they have made a choice and it is not incumbent on me to give into their tantrum.

If your sister chose not to buy health insurance because she didn't feel sick and instead spent her money on cheap perfume and trampy clothes what should we do with her if she comes down with cancer?

It was her poor personal responsibility that lead to her not having insurance. When we let her die, do we just leave her to die or can the taxpayer provide her with basic comforts?

Wow, you really don't understand the concept of personal responsibility or voluntary charity do you? Which government agency comes and wipes your ass for you every time you take a crap? Do you have to prearrange it and hold it or do they arrive on demand?

What difference does it make whether it is the government or a private charity providing help to someone who refuses to work?

 

[JohnA]

Of course there are far to many relying on govt help to get thou the day
but there would,nt be so many if the govt didnt have such far reaching and varied *social programes * the extent of govt help has its self produced this amount large % of citizens falling under its umbrella
it some of the help wasnt there those who dont WANT to work would quickly change there attitude when they find out a *handout* was not coming to them
the more free stuff there is the longer the line gets to obtain it

there would be enough private charities to attend to the needy if not for this massive forever expanding social programes the govt adopts to ENSLAVE some portion of the population .

 

[rightwinger]

Your opinion is wrong. Charitable organizations will rise to fill the need, as they always have.

That doesn't mean that people won't have to scramble, or that they will enjoy the degree of cushiness they have now.

Private charities failed miserably during the Dust Bowl and Great Depression. They were also incapable of providing help in a catastrophe of the magnitude of Katrina

Private charities also lack a sizable reserve to handle bad economic times. During good times, people send part of their bonus to charity. In bad times, when people are out of work or worried about losing their jobs.....charitable donations go down. Just when they are needed the most

 

[koshergrl]

This isn't the dust bowl, or the great depression.

As I said, it will look different and people won't be paid to sit in nice apartments in the middle of the city and smoke crack. That will come crashing to an end. They will have to move to where the jobs are. We would have to open up industry.

Horrors!

 

[rightwinger]

THEY throw themselves in the street or whatever...

This is the crucial difference in thinking between normal people and pandering liberals...

YOU bring the consequences of your actions... It is not someone else 'doing this to you'

No question there are consequences.....but how bad does a society let those consequences become?

Do we allow people to beg door to door? That is how it was handled before the 1930s.
How do we handle our sick, who because of poor decisions do not have healthcare? Do you walk down the sidewalk on Main Street and watch people spit up blood?

Where is your line?

Again... it is not 'society' letting this happen... it is the fucking individual doing this to themselves

idiot

You have the freedom to fail that goes hand in hand with the freedom to succeed... you have the freedom to fail to the point that you want to put a fucking bullet thru the roof of your mouth (and maybe you fucking do it)... you have the freedom to succeed to the level that you want to squee with glee like a little girl... and everything in between

You make your own line, motherfucker

Interesting viewpoint

More reason I can't wait till we move to a "let him die" society