Your final paragraph couldn't be further from the truth. On Sep 9, 2014 11:57 PM, "Rick Faircloth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That's the nature of America, Maureen. > > People aren't guaranteed success in the country; only the right to try > for it. > > I have more compassion than you'll ever know, but it's rightly placed > compassion. > I don't know of a single child who has starved to death in this country? > Do you? > Can you name one or point me to a reference? > > Pointless wars to you, perhaps. But you're still here only because so > many have > sacrificed their lives to keep you free. Show some gratitude. > > And you can't get beyond the propaganda of those who feed you your daily > dose of unreality. I listen to very little commentary on the news. I get > the facts > and make up my own mind, unlike you apparently. Think for yourself and stop > listening to others. Use your own mind and brain. > > And children most often suffer because of their sorry parents, if they > have both, > which way too many don't, or even none. > > "Keep my soul in a bank vault." What in the world does that mean? I > don't defend > corruption and evil by anyone; rich or poor, black or white, or any > other group. > You just think you know me. You don't know anything about me except what > your > small mind can assume based on a few minutes of reading what I've written. > > You seem (however, I draw no hard conclusions from the few minutes of > reading > your writing) like a bleeding-heart liberal who thinks everyone who > suffers is a > victim of someone else. Most people are the victim of their own choices. > > And I'm certainly not rich or even close, but I believe people have a > right to keep > the money they earn. Income tax should be abolished and a consumption tax > put in it's place. Everyone should pay. And, by the way, the rich are > paying the > way for almost everyone in this country. > > You're just sad, Maureen. You and Obama would make a nice couple. > Neither one of you has a clue as to what's really going on in this world. > > > On 9/9/2014 8:55 PM, Maureen wrote: > > You can't protect a nation by allowing the citizens of that nation to > > suffer. You can't protect a nation by taking the hard earned dollars > > of the working class and giving it to rich and their corporate > > minions. You can't protect a nation by letting children starve while > > you enrich the weapons industry with pointless wars. > > > > You are only interested in the welfare of the nation when it enriches > > those whose propaganda you believe and you are unwilling to consider > > compassion or help to anyone those propagandists have denigrated. > > > > Keep your soul, if you have one, in a bank vault. As long as people > > like those you support are in charge, it might be safe there, and you > > certainly appear to have no use for it in the real world. > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Rick Faircloth <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> You don't understand "general vs individual welfare", Maureen. The > >> Federal governments > >> job is to protect the nation as a whole, not every individual that makes > >> up the nation. > >> > >> Scout was right. It is not the job of the Federal government to provide > >> people with food > >> to eat, clothes to wear, and a roof over their heads. After decades of a > >> failed social > >> experiment of rampant welfare, we, as a nation, are seeing the results > >> of handing out > >> money to people too lazy to earn it. > >> > >> If nothing else, people can clean up the streets, mow grass along the > >> side of the highways > >> and do other honorable work to earn their keep. If they don't like these > >> types of jobs, > >> then find something better. > >> > >> It's time people got off their lazy behinds (those that are abusing the > >> system) and > >> earn their keep instead of having it handed to them without cost. > >> > >> I can find plenty of work for people to do. Put me in charge of the US > >> Labor Department > >> and some things will get done. > >> > >> > >> On 9/9/2014 7:25 PM, Maureen wrote: > >>> Of course it is. Remember that clause that says "provide for the > >>> general welfare". Plus the fact that money spent on care and food for > >>> the elderly and impoverished goes right back into the economy. The > >>> war of poverty has been one of the more successful government programs > >>> in terms of raising the standard of living and education in the US. > >>> > >>> Even if all the government does is work with business to raise the > >>> standard of living and income, it matters. Much more so than providing > >>> weapons and aid to foreign governments that ends up in the hands of > >>> those who become our enemies. I say again: priorities. Tax dollars > >>> should not only be spent on the rich. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:07 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> That's not the government's job or concern. > >>>> On Sep 9, 2014 6:51 PM, "Vivec" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Allowing people to just survive doesn't help them escape poverty. > >>>>> What actually seems to make a difference is giving them money to > lift them > >>>>> out of poverty. > >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:372326 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
