Our Obligation.

[Luddly Neddite]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

This ^^^

There are some so-called "christians" here who would help a stray dog but want children to go hungry but we're human beings. As human beings, we have the capacity for compassion and caring for our fellow human being.

Gandhi said there's enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.

 

[martybegan]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

This ^^^

There are some so-called "christians" here who would help a stray dog but want children to go hungry but we're human beings. As human beings, we have the capacity for compassion and caring for our fellow human being.

Gandhi said there's enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.

Forcing someone to be charitable is not Christian, and only being charitable when forced ain't christian either.

 

[Anathema]

Gandhi said there's enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.

Sorry, but the idea of giving up things that I have earned so that someone else can have something without appropriate compensation is a non-starter for me. Always has been and always will be.

 

[Roadrunner]

Dumb ass, with the help of the French, there would be no United States.

Bullshit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Dumb ass, with the help of the French, there would be no United States.

Bullshit.

Roadrunner

France sent us money and soldiers.

 

[Roadrunner]

Dumb ass, with the help of the French, there would be no United States.

Bullshit.

Roadrunner

France sent us money and soldiers.

Yes they did.

I'll admit they probably shortened the war.

Note that the poster said "Dumb ass, WITH the help of the French, there would be no United States."

He might have been on to something after all.

 

[Sonny Clark]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a **** up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a ****-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be ******* ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[Darkwind]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

There is also the lesson of the French Revolution. If a government allows too many people to go hungry and acts as if it does not care the elite may find themselves trying to be rich and powerful without their heads.

Yes because we are so much like 18th century France.

Idiot

We are not like 18th century France because we actually try to alleviate hunger and suffering in our population much to the dismay of conservatives who seem to want us to be like 18th century France and let hunger go unchecked.

Yes, when you enslave people, you have an obligation to feed them. At least your alleviating hunger.

 

[martybegan]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a **** up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a ****-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be ******* ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Some take advantage of it, but even those who use it without malice still get caught up in the simple fact that we pay for bad choices in life, and we don't call people out on it. You screw up and have a kid out of wedlock without a viable means of support, and we give you MORE MONEY if you do it again....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a **** up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a ****-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be ******* ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Some take advantage of it, but even those who use it without malice still get caught up in the simple fact that we pay for bad choices in life, and we don't call people out on it. You screw up and have a kid out of wedlock without a viable means of support, and we give you MORE MONEY if you do it again....

A tiny percent of what the right takes from taxpayers to support corporate welfare.

 

[Sonny Clark]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a **** up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a ****-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be ******* ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Some take advantage of it, but even those who use it without malice still get caught up in the simple fact that we pay for bad choices in life, and we don't call people out on it. You screw up and have a kid out of wedlock without a viable means of support, and we give you MORE MONEY if you do it again....

Yes, people make bad choices in life, that goes without saying.

 

[martybegan]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a **** up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a ****-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be ******* ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Some take advantage of it, but even those who use it without malice still get caught up in the simple fact that we pay for bad choices in life, and we don't call people out on it. You screw up and have a kid out of wedlock without a viable means of support, and we give you MORE MONEY if you do it again....

A tiny percent of what the right takes from taxpayers to support corporate welfare.

So the government writes checks to companies every month?

 

[martybegan]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

The problem is that when government pays for some type of behavior, it is actually encouraging it. If you make it comfortable to be a **** up, people will see no incentive NOT to be a ****-up.

When it comes to able bodied people sucking at the government teat, the key component progressives leave out is SHAME. you should be ******* ashamed if you are able bodied and can't work, or if you have tons of kids and can't support them on your own. However, we can't do that because progressives get collective sand in their assholes the second people want to make being on the dole something you WANT to get off of, instead of something that perpetuates more poverty, and more government dependence (and of course more votes for those who find the welfare state just dandy).

I believe that everyone would agree that yes, there are those that take unfair advantage of the system, that goes without saying. And, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Some take advantage of it, but even those who use it without malice still get caught up in the simple fact that we pay for bad choices in life, and we don't call people out on it. You screw up and have a kid out of wedlock without a viable means of support, and we give you MORE MONEY if you do it again....

Yes, people make bad choices in life, that goes without saying.

So that means the government has to endorse those poor choices by paying for it?

 

[Iceweasel]

Caring for others is not an obligation unless the obligation is forced onto us. Most people don't mind public money helping those too old or sick, the difference is with those able bodied. Liberals define compassion as how much of your money they can spend. Conservatives define compassion as their own efforts and conservatives DO donate more to the poor. Libs are typically cheap with their own money.

 

[hortysir]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

We have a humane obligation to the disabled, the elderly, the VETS, the handicapped, children, the homeless, the poor and needy, the less fortunate, and in some cases, the unemployed. We are a civil and humane people that takes care of our fellow man. We have homeless families that include small children, we have disabled VETS, we have elderly that can't take care of themselves, we have many disabled and those with other severe handicaps. We can't just turn our backs to them and let them starve to death, eat out of trash cans and dumpsters, and go without medical attention when needed. Yes, we are obligated. We're not a heartless and barbaric people.

Also, we have to consider mental conditions that prevent some from being productive members of society. And, we have those that simply have a very low IQ that can't be self-supporting. There are many reasons why people need help. Everyone is not blessed the same, nor afforded the same opportunities in life. Civilized man does not abandon his own.

This ^^^

There are some so-called "christians" here who would help a stray dog but want children to go hungry but we're human beings. As human beings, we have the capacity for compassion and caring for our fellow human being.

Gandhi said there's enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.

Good grief.
Not the "hate children" shit again.
Faith-based charities give more than government-mandated charity

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

What about disabled VETS, the elderly, homeless children, the handicapped, and those with some type of disability aside from our VETS?

 

[rightwinger]

The obligation of We, The People to care for the truly incapable and the lazy.

Do The People at large have an obligation to care for those who can't or won't care for themselves?
​

Yes we do

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

 

[martybegan]

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to help homeless and disabled people is free to send money to homeless and disabled people.
Libs love to proclaim their moral superiority by pushing for other people to pay for their moral choices.

Anyone who thinks they have an obligation to support war is free to send money for that war
Conservatives love to push other people to pay for their wars

National defense is part of the constitutional mandate of the federal government. Giving checks to lazy people is not.