What is our obligation to the poor?

[danielpalos]

What objection can there be to solving simple poverty and taxing the rich into Heaven, at the same time?

Do you mean besides the fact that you are proposing communism?

only in the special pleading of right wing fantasy, as cronies will, to help the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor.

Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the Convention (where they thought of every Thing), with our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution.

Our use of socialism is limited by our Social Contract and Constitution for the People of our Republic.

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

The common defense is not the common offense nor the general warfare; there is no explicit enumeration for a warfare-State economy; a welfare-State economy is expressly and intelligently designed into our form of Government.

No, in the real world. If you take it from one group to give to another that would be communism.

no, it would be socialism. communism would be giving the other person what they need, if you have it.

 

[BlueGin]

He must have been influenced by Jesus the Christ and His teachings.

The problem is, socialism requires social morals for free.

We have more than Ten social or religious Commandments.

Forced charity is not charity. Socialism has and will always be a reaction. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its inconcruieties. It is a subversive and deceptive ideology that destroys the spirit of man.

"Forced" obedience is not True Love for Any God, either; and, we have more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God.

So, what is your actual point?

Yes, and forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous. My point was that your initial comment is something the founder of socialism would have said and that socialism is evil. What is your point about having more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God? Because I don't see God forcing us to follow His "more than Ten religious Commandments," but I do see you suggesting that we should force the rich to be charitable.

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

If you had morals you would collect food and volunteer at your local food bank instead of whining that other people are too wealthy and need to be taxed more.

Whining doesn't feed anyone.

 

[BlueGin]

You mistake for moral virtues for civil virtues and civil liberties. And, why do you believe capitalists are any more honest for free, we know capitalists must have capital based morals, not social based morals. the Only problem with socialism, is that it requires social morals for free, even while being "punished" by lucre or a lack thereof, as the case may be.

No. virtues are virtues. I don't believe that capitalists have superior values. I believe that free enterprise has superior values. There are many many problems with socialism. The biggest being it is a subtle narcotic which destroys the spirit of man.

Free enterprise? Is that why even gods mandated moral commandments and why we have social laws?

Do you see God enforcing His laws?

I have no way of knowing. We do have social laws enacted pursuant to our social Contract and federal Constitution.

I don't have enough Faith, to rely on purely religious laws for my "civil" salvation.

And, Any recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme law of the land for the militias of the several United States; implies that consent to our form of socialism and Government.

You have no way of knowing if God is forcing people to obey His laws? Do you have a way of knowing if the state is forcing people to obey its laws?

Hell no... half of the Obama administration are tax dodgers.

 

[danielpalos]

Forced charity is not charity. Socialism has and will always be a reaction. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its inconcruieties. It is a subversive and deceptive ideology that destroys the spirit of man.

"Forced" obedience is not True Love for Any God, either; and, we have more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God.

So, what is your actual point?

Yes, and forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous. My point was that your initial comment is something the founder of socialism would have said and that socialism is evil. What is your point about having more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God? Because I don't see God forcing us to follow His "more than Ten religious Commandments," but I do see you suggesting that we should force the rich to be charitable.

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

If you had morals you would collect food and volunteer at your local food bank instead of whining that other people are too wealthy and need to be taxed more.

Whining doesn't feed anyone.

i am not whining about anything; but looking for solutions to our problems.

 

[danielpalos]

You mistake for moral virtues for civil virtues and civil liberties. And, why do you believe capitalists are any more honest for free, we know capitalists must have capital based morals, not social based morals. the Only problem with socialism, is that it requires social morals for free, even while being "punished" by lucre or a lack thereof, as the case may be.

No. virtues are virtues. I don't believe that capitalists have superior values. I believe that free enterprise has superior values. There are many many problems with socialism. The biggest being it is a subtle narcotic which destroys the spirit of man.

Free enterprise? Is that why even gods mandated moral commandments and why we have social laws?

Do you see God enforcing His laws?

I have no way of knowing. We do have social laws enacted pursuant to our social Contract and federal Constitution.

I don't have enough Faith, to rely on purely religious laws for my "civil" salvation.

And, Any recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme law of the land for the militias of the several United States; implies that consent to our form of socialism and Government.

You have no way of knowing if God is forcing people to obey His laws? Do you have a way of knowing if the state is forcing people to obey its laws?

we have a public, social justice system.

 

[Votto]

He must have been influenced by Jesus the Christ and His teachings.

The problem is, socialism requires social morals for free.

We have more than Ten social or religious Commandments.

Forced charity is not charity. Socialism has and will always be a reaction. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its inconcruieties. It is a subversive and deceptive ideology that destroys the spirit of man.

"Forced" obedience is not True Love for Any God, either; and, we have more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God.

So, what is your actual point?

Yes, and forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous. My point was that your initial comment is something the founder of socialism would have said and that socialism is evil. What is your point about having more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God? Because I don't see God forcing us to follow His "more than Ten religious Commandments," but I do see you suggesting that we should force the rich to be charitable.

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Morals? What morals?

 

[danielpalos]

Forced charity is not charity. Socialism has and will always be a reaction. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its inconcruieties. It is a subversive and deceptive ideology that destroys the spirit of man.

"Forced" obedience is not True Love for Any God, either; and, we have more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God.

So, what is your actual point?

Yes, and forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous. My point was that your initial comment is something the founder of socialism would have said and that socialism is evil. What is your point about having more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God? Because I don't see God forcing us to follow His "more than Ten religious Commandments," but I do see you suggesting that we should force the rich to be charitable.

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Morals? What morals?

are you on the right, or just engaging in satire?

it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

 

[Votto]

"Forced" obedience is not True Love for Any God, either; and, we have more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God.

So, what is your actual point?

Yes, and forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous. My point was that your initial comment is something the founder of socialism would have said and that socialism is evil. What is your point about having more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God? Because I don't see God forcing us to follow His "more than Ten religious Commandments," but I do see you suggesting that we should force the rich to be charitable.

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Morals? What morals?

are you on the right, or just engaging in satire?

it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Is it moral to force someone to give up their wealth to help another someone else deems needs the help?

 

[BlueGin]

"Forced" obedience is not True Love for Any God, either; and, we have more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God.

So, what is your actual point?

Yes, and forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous. My point was that your initial comment is something the founder of socialism would have said and that socialism is evil. What is your point about having more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God? Because I don't see God forcing us to follow His "more than Ten religious Commandments," but I do see you suggesting that we should force the rich to be charitable.

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

If you had morals you would collect food and volunteer at your local food bank instead of whining that other people are too wealthy and need to be taxed more.

Whining doesn't feed anyone.

i am not whining about anything; but looking for solutions to our problems.

Go offer your services to an organization that feeds or houses the poor.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, and forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous. My point was that your initial comment is something the founder of socialism would have said and that socialism is evil. What is your point about having more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God? Because I don't see God forcing us to follow His "more than Ten religious Commandments," but I do see you suggesting that we should force the rich to be charitable.

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Morals? What morals?

are you on the right, or just engaging in satire?

it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Is it moral to force someone to give up their wealth to help another someone else deems needs the help?

Yes, promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our social Contract and federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, and forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous. My point was that your initial comment is something the founder of socialism would have said and that socialism is evil. What is your point about having more than Ten religious Commandments, from a God? Because I don't see God forcing us to follow His "more than Ten religious Commandments," but I do see you suggesting that we should force the rich to be charitable.

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

If you had morals you would collect food and volunteer at your local food bank instead of whining that other people are too wealthy and need to be taxed more.

Whining doesn't feed anyone.

i am not whining about anything; but looking for solutions to our problems.

Go offer your services to an organization that feeds or houses the poor.

that is your subjective value of morals. i prefer to advocate for equal protection of the law regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.

 

[ding]

What objection can there be to solving simple poverty and taxing the rich into Heaven, at the same time?

Do you mean besides the fact that you are proposing communism?

only in the special pleading of right wing fantasy, as cronies will, to help the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor.

Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the Convention (where they thought of every Thing), with our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution.

Our use of socialism is limited by our Social Contract and Constitution for the People of our Republic.

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

The common defense is not the common offense nor the general warfare; there is no explicit enumeration for a warfare-State economy; a welfare-State economy is expressly and intelligently designed into our form of Government.

No, in the real world. If you take it from one group to give to another that would be communism.

no, it would be socialism. communism would be giving the other person what they need, if you have it.

No, what you are proposing is communism.

 

[ding]

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Morals? What morals?

are you on the right, or just engaging in satire?

it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Is it moral to force someone to give up their wealth to help another someone else deems needs the help?

Yes, promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our social Contract and federal Constitution.

No. it's not. Sorry.

 

[danielpalos]

What objection can there be to solving simple poverty and taxing the rich into Heaven, at the same time?

Do you mean besides the fact that you are proposing communism?

only in the special pleading of right wing fantasy, as cronies will, to help the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor.

Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the Convention (where they thought of every Thing), with our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution.

Our use of socialism is limited by our Social Contract and Constitution for the People of our Republic.

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

The common defense is not the common offense nor the general warfare; there is no explicit enumeration for a warfare-State economy; a welfare-State economy is expressly and intelligently designed into our form of Government.

No, in the real world. If you take it from one group to give to another that would be communism.

no, it would be socialism. communism would be giving the other person what they need, if you have it.

No, what you are proposing is communism.

nope; it is socialism, and promoting the general welfare is in our social Contract.

 

[danielpalos]

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Morals? What morals?

are you on the right, or just engaging in satire?

it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Is it moral to force someone to give up their wealth to help another someone else deems needs the help?

Yes, promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our social Contract and federal Constitution.

No. it's not. Sorry.

Yes, it is; sorry.

 

[ding]

Do you mean besides the fact that you are proposing communism?

only in the special pleading of right wing fantasy, as cronies will, to help the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor.

Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the Convention (where they thought of every Thing), with our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution.

Our use of socialism is limited by our Social Contract and Constitution for the People of our Republic.

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

The common defense is not the common offense nor the general warfare; there is no explicit enumeration for a warfare-State economy; a welfare-State economy is expressly and intelligently designed into our form of Government.

No, in the real world. If you take it from one group to give to another that would be communism.

no, it would be socialism. communism would be giving the other person what they need, if you have it.

No, what you are proposing is communism.

nope; it is socialism, and promoting the general welfare is in our social Contract.

They are the same thing. The only difference is timing.

 

[ding]

Morals? What morals?

are you on the right, or just engaging in satire?

it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Is it moral to force someone to give up their wealth to help another someone else deems needs the help?

Yes, promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our social Contract and federal Constitution.

No. it's not. Sorry.

Yes, it is; sorry.

Do you want government to set wages?

 

[Votto]

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Morals? What morals?

are you on the right, or just engaging in satire?

it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

Is it moral to force someone to give up their wealth to help another someone else deems needs the help?

Yes, promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our social Contract and federal Constitution.

Was Robin Hood just in stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor?

 

[Votto]

Libs think by stealing other people's money to feed the poor instead of doing it themselves makes them virtuous by default.

It's all about how they feel about helping the needy...not what they as individuals actually do to accomplish this.

No dear; it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.

If you had morals you would collect food and volunteer at your local food bank instead of whining that other people are too wealthy and need to be taxed more.

Whining doesn't feed anyone.

i am not whining about anything; but looking for solutions to our problems.

Go offer your services to an organization that feeds or houses the poor.

that is your subjective value of morals. i prefer to advocate for equal protection of the law regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.

It is there subjective morals? Isn't what you are selling subjective as well? What makes your subjective morality better than someone elses?

 

[danielpalos]

only in the special pleading of right wing fantasy, as cronies will, to help the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor.

Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the Convention (where they thought of every Thing), with our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution.

Our use of socialism is limited by our Social Contract and Constitution for the People of our Republic.

The common defense is not the common offense nor the general warfare; there is no explicit enumeration for a warfare-State economy; a welfare-State economy is expressly and intelligently designed into our form of Government.

No, in the real world. If you take it from one group to give to another that would be communism.

no, it would be socialism. communism would be giving the other person what they need, if you have it.

No, what you are proposing is communism.

nope; it is socialism, and promoting the general welfare is in our social Contract.

They are the same thing. The only difference is timing.

nuances. Socialism starts with a social Contract. It is why, i am glad, our Founding Fathers did such an Excellent job, with ours.