The Tea Party will change America back to the days of Thomas Jefferson

[Dr.Who]

we can't all be like you and be willing to sacrifice others for ourself...

I think you meant that as a joke but I suspect it is the reality.

Openmind makes the argument that material posessions are not worth keeping of it means someone else suffers. She wants the gov to take away the possessions of other people. We see no evidence that she herself is willing to work to sacrifice for others or to sell off possessions to sacrifice for others.

How valid is her argument if she herself does not live by it?

[edit} I read two of pockets words transposed. oops. but the point I made is still true.

 

[Openmind]

I think you meant that as a joke but I suspect it is the reality.

Openmind makes the argument that material posessions are not worth keeping of it means someone else suffers. She wants the gov to take away the possessions of other people. We see no evidence that she herself is willing to work to sacrifice for others or to sell off possessions to sacrifice for others.

How valid is her argument if she herself does not live by it?

[edit} I read two of pockets words transposed. oops. but the point I made is still true.

How many times do I have to state that I have NEVER proposed to take away the "possessions" of other people, but that EVERYBODY should participate WITHIN THEIR MEANS to the BASIC wellbeing of all. I also never said that material possessions were not worth keeping if it "hurts" someone else. What I said was that I would rather lose an object (whether it be money, electronic, or other possession) rather than SHOOT someone and risk killing him/her.

I don't know about you, but "hurting" someone is a far cry from risking to kill someone (for exemple, I wouldn't mind breaking his/her nose!)

And, once again, why are you trying to insult me by pretending that I am not willing (or never have) "walked the talk?"

I'm am so glad Buddha taught me to not accept every "gifts" handed to me!

You seem to have a very generous mind!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I think you meant that as a joke but I suspect it is the reality.

Openmind makes the argument that material posessions are not worth keeping of it means someone else suffers. She wants the gov to take away the possessions of other people. We see no evidence that she herself is willing to work to sacrifice for others or to sell off possessions to sacrifice for others.

How valid is her argument if she herself does not live by it?

[edit} I read two of pockets words transposed. oops. but the point I made is still true.

from what I recall of some things she has posted...she has already...

 

[Dr.Who]

from what I recall of some things she has posted...she has already...

From her more recent posts the examples she gives makes her barely normal in her generosity despite being a 1%er. lets hope that she was in fact far more generous but just did not tell us about that. But if that is true then it proves that the 1%ers can be generous without the need for coercion.

In contrast to her own giving her language indicates that she expects greater sacrifice from others than from herself and furthermore that theirs should be forced.

 

[GenSeneca]

EVERYBODY should participate WITHIN THEIR MEANS to the BASIC wellbeing of all.

To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

 

[Openmind]

To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

So. . .we seem to agree on this one!

 

[BigRob]

So. . .we seem to agree on this one!

He definitely will not agree.

 

[dogtowner]

He definitely will not agree.

she seems to not know the irony

 

[Openmind]

she seems to not know the irony

I guess it all depends if one is willing to expect the best out of someone, or the worse.

See how important the way one interpret a comment is?

 

[Gipper]

He definitely will not agree.

There it is clear as day.

The difference between liberty and tyranny right here at the HOP.

 

[Openmind]

There it is clear as day.

The difference between liberty and tyranny right here at the HOP.

Thank you for sharing your OPINION!

 

[Dr.Who]

I guess it all depends if one is willing to expect the best out of someone, or the worse.

See how important the way one interpret a comment is?

The best is when people with lots of ability volunteer to help those with lots of need.

The worst is when the gov takes the money from those with ability (punishing their efforts) and gives (minus their take) to those with need (enabling their problems). It is both immoral and inefficient.

Of course the gov has strange ideas of what need is. We might agree that people who cannot support themselves have need, but then the gov adds anyone who is kinda poor, then they add banks, and car companies, and green companies, and farmers...and the only thing the needy have in common verses the not needy is that they give ruling class either votes or money.

 

[dogtowner]

I guess it all depends if one is willing to expect the best out of someone, or the worse.

See how important the way one interpret a comment is?

Well proponents of this system of government have brought us gulags, Killing Fields and Tienneman Square (to name a few).

 

[Dr.Who]

How many times do I have to state that I have NEVER proposed to take away the "possessions" of other people,

Money is a possession and you most certainly want more of the rich persons money taken away.

but that EVERYBODY should participate WITHIN THEIR MEANS to the BASIC wellbeing of all.

Everybody can afford SOMETHING. Yet 50% pay nothing. So do you agree that the bottom 50% start paying something?

I also never said that material possessions were not worth keeping if it "hurts" someone else. What I said was that I would rather lose an object (whether it be money, electronic, or other possession) rather than SHOOT someone and risk killing him/her.

I have reviewed your posts and it could be put together that you do believe it is immoral for people with lots of money not to help the poor.

So rather than piecing together an argument you would find fault with lets just ask you:

Should a person with wealth walk past a person in need and not give them something? Or is there an obligation to give? Based on that obligation I expect you to affirm should the gov tax the wealthy just a a bit more than now?

I don't know about you, but "hurting" someone is a far cry from risking to kill someone (for exemple, I wouldn't mind breaking his/her nose!)

There is a risks that will kill them too - the difference is a matter of degree.

And, once again, why are you trying to insult me by pretending that I am not willing (or never have) "walked the talk?"

It appears that you walk to talk but only marginally.

 

[Dr.Who]

Factual link please?

"It is clear that President Obama is intent on not only continuing the failed war on poverty but expanding and growing the size of the welfare state. President Obama’s 2011 budget will increase spending on welfare programs by 42 percent over President Bush’s last year in office. Total spending on the welfare state (including state spending) will rise to $953 billion in 2011. "

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...Increases-Welfare-Spending-to-Historic-Levels

There you go.

Now you provide links for the last ten times I asked for one or indicated that you had said something that was unsupported.