Remember when the nuts on the left laughed about death panels?
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
You're cold hearted, Scat.
Providing for the poor and sick is a human responsibility. It just isn't the government's responsibility. The government manages to screw up everything they touch including charity and has no business involving themselves in this part of human life.
Humans have taken care of each other since the dawn of time. We depend upon each other every day. We have a moral and religious responsibility to help those who can't help themselves.
Charity shouldn't be required. It is something those doing better for themselves decide to do. God is big on people helping other people. If you don't believe in God, then you can just do what ever you think is right or not. We joke about Karma but in the end I think it will all even out. (but keep government out of it)
1) I've been very civil in my exchanges with you so I don't get your emotional response to my reasoned arguments.
Obviously it's not the disagreement that bothers you because you still engage ak , rcg, ricter .
The chief difference seems you evidently (and correctly I might add) perceive yourself as LOSING the argument with me (as you have in this thread).
I mean by all means if you know you are LOSING the argument run away just like the rest of the liberals here do, nothing unusual about that.
2)Who was it that said this ?
Oh right that would be you. I don't claim to know it all already, that isn't required to refute your weak points which is exactly what I did.
You sensing that fact and not accustomed to losing arguments on here apparently it triggered an emotional response. Sounds to me like you have an ego problem.
We have a saying down here "If you can't run with the big dogs you'd better stay on the porch".
Looks like you've chosen "PORCH"
Be well tsing
Mother Nature is cold hearted.
I don't think we have a "moral and religious" responsibility to do anything at all. We CHOOSE to and nothing wrong with that... just shouldn't be mandated by the Federal Government.... especially when motivated by votes and the acquisition/maintenance of political power.
I recently read a study by some population dynamicist about how the planet can support in a healthy fashion only about 3 Billion people. We currently have 7 Billion.... the majority of which are poor. What are we to do about them? What is our moral obligation to them, if any? What does the cost of their maintenance mean to the productive part of the world's societies? Bigger questions than for which I have the answer... but I harken back to Grandpa's Wisdom... "The world doesn't owe you (or anyone) a living".
I don't fault Sebelius. Seems like she was working within the rules already set up. We need a new system. Right now, only about 1/3 of people elect to be organ donors on their license. We should have a system where people are compensated for the organs they donate. For example, the proceeds of the organs could go to a family member, friend, charity, etc. This could be stipulated in a will.
fan27
fan27
Aren't there limits to our compassion and empathy? Where are lines to be drawn? I say, "provide for yourself or perish". In lieu of that, "3S&C. If that's not enough for you, provide for the rest yourself". If you cannot or will not, then so be it. Live with it.
Exactly and no federal govt program is going to have an "immaculate conception" and become immune to mission creep and all the other pitfalls of permanent govt programs.
State run programs would have the same problems, but at least one could pick and choose the state that most closely suited your ideals.
I contend govt is the largest competitor with private charity.
That it does so from the end of a gun (making politicians fatuously wealthy in the process) it's no surprise it only plays a minor role in our society.