Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's ridiculous. I have a right to read a newspaper, but that doesn't obligate anyone, individually, collectively or via government, to provided newspapers to me.
This is way to basic of stuff to be so out of touch with. Please try harder.
THAT'S ridiculous. You're equating reading a newspaper with having food to survive? Wow.
I remember in Romney's infamous 47% comments he spoke with disgust about those who thought they had a "right to health care... and food"
I think these are a right. Do you?
A person has a right to life, liberty, his property (intellectual and the fruit of his labor) and the persuit of happines.
Food, and health care, one must provide for themselves through work. Something is not a "right" if it must be provided by someone else, as no one has a right to what is the property or creation of others.
Health care costs money. Somebody pays. "Free health care" is a myth. When doctors are required to provide their services for "free" or at greatly reduced fees (per ObamaCare) we will see a reduction in the number of doctors.
Food must be produced by farmers who work their farms. No one has a right to their produce, or the meat from their livestock without paying for it.
Why is this hard for liberals to understand? I thought liberals were supposed to be intellectuals? You would think they would understand basic concepts like this.
A person has a right to life, liberty, his property (intellectual and the fruit of his labor) and the persuit of happines.
Food, and health care, one must provide for themselves through work. Something is not a "right" if it must be provided by someone else, as no one has a right to what is the property or creation of others.
Health care costs money. Somebody pays. "Free health care" is a myth. When doctors are required to provide their services for "free" or at greatly reduced fees (per ObamaCare) we will see a reduction in the number of doctors.
Food must be produced by farmers who work their farms. No one has a right to their produce, or the meat from their livestock without paying for it.
Why is this hard for liberals to understand? I thought liberals were supposed to be intellectuals? You would think they would understand basic concepts like this.
Obviously you give them too much credit since they keep trotting out the same misunderstood bull (purposely??) about Romney and the 47%
No, you don't have to force an individual to provide you with any item. For those who can't provide for themselves the government should provide with our collective support.
Bull!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff
Don't like it? Too bad. I don't like my tax dollars going to fight wars in Iraq, but, that's how the ball bounces. Our tax dollars go to support things we like and things we don't.
The Constitution lays out the purpose of the Federal Government. Providing for the "common defense" is one of those purposes. Providing "welfare" is not.
Care for the "poor" has always been the domain of the Church and other private organizations. Donations are voluntary. This is as it should be.
Extracting the wealth of some for the purpose of redistribution to others is immoral. This is why there was not an "income tax" in the Constitution until ammended to add it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff
Are you really saying that food and health care aren't basic human rights? They should only be available to those who have the financial means?
They are not "basic human rights." One is expected to provide for oneself. "Need" does not constitute a "right."
Is a cell phone a "right?" Is owning an automobile a "right?" One only has a right to property which they have either created, or have paid for with their earnings.
A person has a right to life, liberty, his property (intellectual and the fruit of his labor) and the persuit of happines.
Food, and health care, one must provide for themselves through work.
So what does the right to life mean? What is life without the necessities to sustain it. Implicit in the right to life must be health care and food, don't you think?
Obviously you give them too much credit since they keep trotting out the same misunderstood bull (purposely??) about Romney and the 47%
Shall we watch the Romney tape again and quote what he said word for word? I don't see how he can be misunderstood unless you are being willfully obtuse.
Did you not learn from the election that doing mental gymnastics that allow to believe what you prefer instead of what is fact doesn't work out?
The Constitution lays out the purpose of the Federal Government. Providing for the "common defense" is one of those purposes. Providing "welfare" is not.
You are talking about Constitutional Rights and I am talking about human rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Care for the "poor" has always been the domain of the Church and other private organizations. Donations are voluntary. This is as it should be.
And if the non-profit sector were adequately meeting this need, the social welfare system would need not have been built. However, while important, the non-profit/religious sector does not have the means to care for all of the poor. Perhaps if they weren't so worried about boys kissing and birth control pills, they could shoulder more of the burden...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Extracting the wealth of some for the purpose of redistribution to others is immoral. This is why there was not an "income tax" in the Constitution until ammended to add it.
The Constitution is not the arbitrator of morality.
I disagree. I think it is imoral to have children go hungry here and abroad. I think it is imoral to have families lose their home due to a wage earner being stricken with cancer. I think it is immoral to reserve life saving medical treatment for those who can pay for it.
Your concerns about redistribution of wealth having nothing to do with morality and everything to do with your political philosophy which has warped selfishness in to a sick virtue...
Nope, not rights. The right to life is so that no one can take it away from you. It is up to you to make the proper decisions to gain food and healthcare.
Someone mentioned the "general welfare" too and the proper phrase is "promote the general welfare" as is written in the preamble of the Constitution.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This does not mean "provide" the general welfare or it would have been written that way (as in "provide for a common defense"). Those founding fathers were pretty smart guys and they had been dealing with government oppression for a long time which is why they wrote things the way they did. It is idiots like Pelosi, Reid and Obama who think that government oppression overrides the Constitution.
What happens when the UN decides everyone on the planet has the same right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
