Looking out for one’s self
no surrender
A WORTHY QUOTE FROM CAL THOMAS:
[Barack] Obama [has said] the top priority of the next president should be
the creation of a more lasting and equitable prosperity than achieved under
Presidents Bush and Clinton. Obama apparently missed the class that teaches
government doesn’t create prosperity; people do. During [a recent] debate
with Hillary Clinton, Obama said he would pay for his proposed new programs,
including mandatory health insurance, by imposing higher taxes on ‘the
wealthy’ and raising the tax on Social Security wages. He added, ‘What we
have had right now is a situation where we’ve cut taxes for people who don’t
need them.’ Should government determine how much money people ‘need’? This
is Marxism: ‘from each according to his ability; to each according to his
need.’
Sen. Clinton expressed similar sentiments on ABC’s ‘This Week’ when she said
if people refuse to buy health insurance under her plan she might garnish
people’s wages.
One reason this socialistic mind-set resonates favorably with many is due to
the shift in the last half-century from promoting hard work,
self-sufficiency, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability and
living within one’s means, to a mentality that, 'I am entitled to the fruits
of other people’s labor.' That used to be called robbery before government
started doing it more than a century ago through the income tax... How many
politicians today talk about looking out for one’s self, not relying on
government?”
********
Not too many....and it doesn't look as if its gonna get better anytime soon.
Dennis
Tim Crowley
Stick to momma talking, surrender-boy - it's more fitting for someone
like you.
no surrender
"Tim Crowley" <timmyt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:05798d54-ed15-45b2...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Why, Priggy, thought you didn't like anyone talkin' 'bout mommas; you get
all sweaty and stuff just thinkin' 'bout 'em, 'n all.
Say, you ever look at those great space pics I shared with all here...
including you?
Dennis
>
>
d2e2
Government to provide physical and economical security to the population
of a nation.
no surrender
"d2e2" <d2...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:pn7sj.84495$rc2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
BWAHAHAHAHA....Either you missed the point boy, or you're the product of a
failed unionized public school brainwashing. It is not government's
responsibility to take care of me or you. It is not in place to guarantee
our success, but merely to safeguard our chance to succeed or fail on our
own.
Dennis
Tim Crowley
> "Tim Crowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's just what you do best. You know nothing about society or
politics, so momma talking is right up your ally.
Tim Crowley
sorry, surrender boy doesn't understand ANY of those terms. He's a
momma talking 12 year old.
Mani Deli
<no_sur...@never.net> wrote:
> It is not government's
>responsibility to take care of me or you. It is not in place to guarantee
>our success, but merely to safeguard our chance to succeed or fail on our
>own.
>
Says Dennass, member of the I got mine go fuck yourself fascist
faction of the Banana Republican party.
Michael Price
No it isn't. Who gave them the right to take my money to provide
"economic
security". If you want economic security get some skills that are
needed in
the market. The idea that the government owes you a living is nothing
to do
with any "fundamental resposibility" of government. Of course given
how woefully
the provide physical security why would you want them in charge of
economic
security?
Michael Price
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:33:39 -0500, "no surrender"
>
> > It is not government's
> >responsibility to take care of me or you. It is not in place to guarantee
> >our success, but merely to safeguard our chance to succeed or fail on our
> >own.
>
> Says Dennass, member of the I got mine go fuck yourself fascist
> faction of the Banana Republican party.
He is but in this case he's right. The government doesn't have the
responsibility
to make sure you're fed. Never has never will. Why is it that
stealing via government
is seen as OK? If you're so concerned about other people's economic
security why
aren't you helping them?
Clave
news:5dcfd854-80cd-4365...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 3:53 pm, Mani Deli <noth...@inter.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:33:39 -0500, "no surrender"
>>
>> <no_surren...@never.net> wrote:
>> > It is not government's
>> >responsibility to take care of me or you. It is not in place to
>> >guarantee
>> >our success, but merely to safeguard our chance to succeed or fail on
>> >our
>> >own.
>>
>> Says Dennass, member of the I got mine go fuck yourself fascist
>> faction of the Banana Republican party.
>
> He is but in this case he's right. The government doesn't have the
>responsibility to make sure you're fed. Never has never will. Why is it
>that
>stealing via governmentis seen as OK?
Hey, Dennis -- how do you feel about government "stealing from" the non-rich
to fight wars that primarily benefit the rich?
Jim
no surrender
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:Lq6dnSp4IexRpCza...@cablespeedwa.com...
Prove your contention.
Dennis
>
>
no surrender
"Woefully"? How so?
Dennis
no surrender
<stuff...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oio2r35rm574gajoi...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:07:56 -0800 (PST), Michael Price
> <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> No Dennis this is not Marxism. It is a fundamental responsibility of
the
> >> Government to provide physical and economical security to the
population
> >> of a nation.
> >
> > No it isn't. Who gave them the right to take my money to provide
> >"economic security".
>
>
> 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.
> . . .
> Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,
> duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the
> common defense and general welfare of the United States;
>
> Idiot.
*****
Whillikers, I just can't find the phrase "provide physical and economical
security to the population" in there; where do you see it?
Dennis
Tim Crowley
> "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Lq6dnSp4IexRpCza...@cablespeedwa.com...
>
> > "Michael Price" <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:5dcfd854-80cd-4365...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 12, 3:53 pm, Mani Deli <noth...@inter.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:33:39 -0500, "no surrender"
>
> > >> <no_surren...@never.net> wrote:
> > >> > It is not government's
> > >> >responsibility to take care of me or you. It is not in place to
> > >> >guarantee
> > >> >our success, but merely to safeguard our chance to succeed or fail on
> > >> >our
> > >> >own.
>
> > >> Says Dennass, member of the I got mine go fuck yourself fascist
> > >> faction of the Banana Republican party.
>
> > > He is but in this case he's right. The government doesn't have the
> > >responsibility to make sure you're fed. Never has never will. Why is it
> > >that
> > >stealing via governmentis seen as OK?
>
> > Hey, Dennis -- how do you feel about government "stealing from" the
> non-rich
> > to fight wars that primarily benefit the rich?
>
> ******
> Prove your contention.
>
> Dennis
>
>
snicker. denny plays dumb. not much of a stretch. He'll be momma
talking in no time.
Titix
"no surrender" <no_sur...@never.net> wrote in message
news:8vadnUeQvqfFHyza...@comcast.com...
Did you read "general welfare of the U.S."?
Tim Crowley
> "no surrender" <no_surren...@never.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8vadnUeQvqfFHyza...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > <stuff_st...@comcast.net> wrote in message
surrender monkey can copy and paste - it can momma talk, it cannot
read and think.
MACK DADDY
>
> news:8vadnUeQvqfFHyza...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > <stuff_st...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Little Denny can't handle the word "welfare".