do you mean if only one person starved dead it would be a problem? or all the world can starve dead and you wouldn't care as long as it's not you and your family?Originally Posted by Philhelm
so if private charity is unable or unwilling to help disabled people who may have a problem begging, never mind actually working, tough luck, property before lives, am I right? "That'll never happen" is not an answer, are you willing to let it happen, or is there any need so desperate that property is worth violating?
The latter. Although I may allow others to eat at my pleasure.
What are you advocating?
"I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
-Stannis Baratheon
As you are probably awareYou are hard-hearted and cruel, uncle oyarde., I am a very charitable person . There is a right and wrong way to go about it . All charity is more efficient at the most local level. Least efficient at the Fed level .There is no role for it at the Fed level .
Every single one of them that is able bodied and refuses to work. Frankly, as work goes I'm perfectly fine with doing the Russian model of digging holes and filling them in as long as that person is working.
Digging is honorable work . I have a pond that needs dredged , LOL
And, to pick nits, it isn't charity at the federal level.As you are probably aware
"I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
-Stannis Baratheon
Private charity gives the opportunity for me to volunteer my time, talent and treasure. I then have the moral obligation to look around me and try to make the world a better place. Since its voluntary people will come to the occasion and help. We would do that because we are moral people and we want to see those less fortunate prosper. However, when you steal my money at gun point and give it to someone who may or may not need. PLUS do it without my consent (since its my labor) I have no say in who, how, when and where.
Give the responsibility back to the people and they will do the right thing.
As for disability, this thread has been about the SNAP program which is primarily used but those who's only disability is "heavy butt disease". Disability exists and is funded through taxation of labor. We already have that program in place. We can discuss the merits of it in another thread. Food stamps through theft is immoral.
Me to
And I'd happily pay for it to be done with the savings from theft via the federal government.
That is correct.
That sounds like a great idea.
Actually, I have seen many instances in local news here where some lady free food give away was shut down because the kitchen serving the foods did not meet some state requirement for safety. People give up after hitting one or two difficult obstacles from the state.
one of the complaint against this one lady was about the sink she had in her house wasn't up to code, so it wasn't like she was serving people with dirty hands or serving rotten foods.
I bet if she found a dumpster and just place it next to it, the state would leave her alone. Anyway, how many is many?
I'm advocating never stealing and property always comes before lives, since you asked. But what was my point in asking you? That you've admitted as long as you're fed, starving is never a problem, so it would be impossible for me to "educate" you or meet your burden of proof, until you starve yourself.
any work that gets a voluntary reward is honorable
Getting robbed at gunpoint isn't rare at all. The government does that to all of us, all the time.
is anything both rare and wrong? again, what service are you to the guy you claim I am not comforting?
Sorry... maybe the cold weather has frozen my brain... but I honestly have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. Can you spell it out so a lil' ol' dimwit like me can understand?
Food stamps actually help a lot of poor people and the amount we spend on it is a pretty insignificant when compared to our bloated defense budget, corporate welfare, bail outs, and spying on our own citizens. I think letting the free market work with recipients is pretty much the only way to go, you can't control what people do with them. You could ban candy or soda or whatever but if the person really wants it then they'll trade for them or find a store that rings it up something else just like the people that do it with cigarettes and liquor, you're just creating a black market.
Letting the free market work with recipients of stolen money is an oxymoron.
Are you also in favor of letting the free market work with recipients of other unConstitutional Federal largess such as many corporations,banks,schools,local and State police forces and Governments,defense contractors,farmers and NGO's as to how they spend the tax dollars they seized from you?
What if Boeing really wants to give all of its top executives a ten million dollar bonus out of some defense contract or Detroit wants to give everybody on the city council a new Rolls Royce from some Government grant?
Last edited by mad cow; 03-21-2014 at 09:16 PM.
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
A police state is a small price to pay for living in the freest country on earth.
I don't think you can really draw parallels on this. In a perfect 100% ideologically pure world sure but as far as real priorities then food stamps and their possible misuse is pretty far down then list. We shouldn't balance the budget on the backs of poor people when there so many other morally reprehensible things we spend money on.
I think maybe a couple of times and I think reason TV covered one a few years back also. The problem is that one or two examples is enough to discourage anyone planning on doing charity work which in of itself is a very discouraging thing tot do in this economy.
Exodus 20:15 Thou shall not steal...
These idiots do not understand that this is not an issue of MERIT, its an issue of MORALS. Most Republicans don't get it either. The debate is over who "deserves" to be given someone else's stuff rather than the morality of theft. Its evil.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
"100% ideological purity" is just a nickname for basic morality. ANY reduction of theft is morally justified, even if the reasons are wrong.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
oh, you keep saying that the fact I think government stopping charity is rare doesn't help people in need, I agree. Now, do you have something better to say or do for those who are in need? or is it "If only the government legalized charity I'd do it all and nobody would starve"? Are YOU of any service to people in need? do YOU have something better to say if you're having so much fun telling me that my words are of no comfort?
Wait a minute, so now the debate is between murder and theft?
You are repulsive. And everyone who agrees with you is also repulsive.
The more I see these kinds of posts, the more I hate the so called "liberty movement".
This post immediately came to mind as I was reading this filth:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...berty-Movement
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
No, there's third options, which is letting poor children starve. Because you have a right to be born but not a right to be fed, clothed, or medical cared. or you can keep telling yourself the fantasy of "if only the government didn't punish charity, or tax people, everything and everybody would be fine"
you hate the liberty movement because you don't believe in the freedom to abort? you believe it's the government's job to guard a woman's uterus and protect an unborn baby?You are repulsive. And everyone who agrees with you is also repulsive.
The more I see these kinds of posts, the more I hate the so called "liberty movement".
This post immediately came to mind as I was reading this filth:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...berty-Movement
Or there's a fourth option, which involve Christians and churches doing their jobs. But of course, your IQ is probably lower than 5, so you probably didn't consider this.
And just for the record, this comment is deliberate. I WANT this wicked person and everyone who thinks like him to be shamed. This is blatant wickedness, and Bryan should be ashamed that anyone would even think to use this website to post something this repulsive. We all know Ron Paul would be.
You didn't say anything about abortion. You said parents should "have a right to kill their kids if they can't support them." Now, I'm pro-life, so I interpret "I am pro-choice" to mean pretty much what you said. But you're twice as bad because you actually realize what you're advocating, and you're OK with it anyway. Absolutely repulsive.you hate the liberty movement because you don't believe in the freedom to abort? you believe it's the government's job to guard a woman's uterus and protect an unborn baby?
As for "government" I don't think it should exist, but while it does, it should either protect the unborn, or stop protecting abortion doctors.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us