isadore;1153273 wrote:Barely getting by in where you live, Barely getting by in what you eat, Barely getting by in the health care you receive, those are good thing? Those that have really seem to think that living like is so dignified. Eating well, living comfortably, receiving quality healthcare has much more dignity.

Con_Alma;1153330 wrote:We don't libve in a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

Your inturpretation of my views is nothing more than an opinion. I appreciate you sharing it with me.

I fund and publicly state that I believe we have a need dor social safety nets.

When I look at the length of time and the numbers we provide those services to it is clear to me that people lose their freedom to the dependency on those programs. Mass starvation is not a threat in this country. That belief does not mean that certain programs are not needed nor shouldn't be in place.

There's no reason to associate me as the Mitt Romney of the social services we provide for it leaves to much uncertainty in what that means. Just call me the Con_Alma of the approach. We can be more accurate with that.

Your exaggeration for effect continues to be entertaining and I thank you for it.

Con_Alma;1153336 wrote:Well that's subjective and we disagree. Earning my keep is more dignified than getting a few more crumbs than I have given to me.

isadore;1153372 wrote:Oh your welcome. Without the social safety net provided by government, mass starvation is a real thhreat. You double unemployment and as consistently happens charity contribution dry up at a time of enduring economic hardship and you have a real threat of mass starvation. Although the name Con_Alma resounds with all long term contributors to the OC, comparing you to Mitt Romney on this issue makes an analogy a casual thread reader can understand and one consistent with your stated opinions on the issue. We began as a constitutional republic but have become a representative democracy with the extension of suffrage to almost all adults, the direct election of Senators and the practical tying of the vote of the electoral college to the popuar vote.

isadore;1153384 wrote:Now there is the attitude of a "have." "A few more crumbs" what a patronizing way to refer shelter, food and health care for one's family. The ill fed, ill clothed and unhealthy sure have alot of dignity.

Con_Alma;1153394 wrote:It may indeed be the attitude of a have. If I am a 'have" should I have an attitude of another? Wouldn't that new attitude then be one of a have?

isadore;1153417 wrote:You never understand another till you walk a mile in their shoes. You just been in those wing tips too long to understand and have compassion for the "have nots" of our nation.

Con_Alma;1153390 wrote:A threat is not the same thing as actual. You need not read into my posts but rather take them for what they are.

I understand you better thanks to your explanation. If your posts are designed to inform the "casual reader" the exxageration for effect tact that you use can certainly come from such motivation. If it is a comparison to Mitt ROmney you prefer so be it. Maybe I need to reconsider my vote and further investigate him if we are truly similar.

We are not a Representative Democracy. The electoral vote, although many/most times is reflective of the popular vote, still maintains the power to place the President separate from the populace's vote.

Con_Alma;1153421 wrote:I understand that I am willing to provide safety nets t those who are in need. Is there more that I am in need of understanding? If so,I am open to further consideration but I again ask, wouldn't that new understanding then be an understanding of a "have" if you do indeed consider me a "have"?

isadore;1153431 wrote:The threat is real as anyone who has been around food banks understands. The combination of a Romney Presidency, a Republican Congress, their Budgetary Plans and any kind of economic downturn=Mass Starvation. Romney is a natural for you. Go for it. Each state chose to tie electoral vote to popular vote and the states have passed laws requiring their electors to vote for whoever wins the state's popular vote. We have evolved into a representative democracy.

isadore;1153438 wrote:how else is there to look at you. You look at continuing recipient of government entitlements as cringing dependents who lack dignity. You write about the need funds they receive as a few crumbs. Scrooge McDuck, Daddy Warbucks and the Donald think that way.

isadore;1153244 wrote:above that level you want to deny them benefits. So at $23,000 no benefits and nothing left over for things like medical care for the parents and their children. Nice guy.

isadore;1153438 wrote: You look at continuing recipient of government entitlements as cringing dependents who lack dignity.

isadore;1153438 wrote:... You look at continuing recipient of government entitlements as cringing dependents who lack dignity. ...

Con_Alma;1153471 wrote: I view them as people in need of the safety net that we have in place and people I would like to provide the opportunity to fell more dignified by earning that which they are in need of.

Con_Alma;1153444 wrote:We finished my daughters volunteer hours over springbreak at a food bank. I am around a food bank.

Again, there's no reason to read into my post. Take them for what they are. Threat does not equal actual presence that's why it called a threat. The threat may be real but it's still a threat.

The fact that a constitutions exists limiting the governments powers and there are three separate branches providing checks and balances along with the leaders being elected as opposed to inherited is the classic definition of a Constitutional Republic. We have not "yet" eluded such a definition.

Con_Alma wrote:Why do you want to take away the protections? Have you even read my posts? I clearly stated above that having safety nets in place are good thing.

I don't believe, however, that there would be suffering on a monumental scale.

Con_Alma;1153449 wrote:I don't know how else nor do I care. If that's what you see, so be it. I was simply trying to give you thebenefit of the doubt with your exxageration for effect approach. If you think I am a "have", think away!

My question is, understanding my affirmation of the need for social safety nets for certain individuals, is there more I am need of understanding? Wouldn't that new understanding then be an understanding of a "have" since you do indeed consider me a "have"?

isadore;1153484 wrote:Yes it would be nice if you didn't spit on them as you throw them the crumbs from your table.

isadore;1153477 wrote:If we took away abolished TANF, Food Stamps, WIC and the rest with 15 million children living in poverty and you don’t think there would be suffering on a monumental scale. Now there is the attitude of a have. ...
.

gut;1153466 wrote:And you're dignifying these people by ostensibly saying they are failures and incapable of providing for themselves?

isadore;1153477 wrote:...
The history of our country constitutionally since 1787 has been a move toward representative democracy with the 15[SUP]th[/SUP], 17[SUP]th[/SUP], 19[SUP]th[/SUP], 23[SUP]rd[/SUP], 24[SUP]th[/SUP], 26[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendments all part of the process of our finally reaching that type of government.

Con_Alma;1153471 wrote:Lol. I do? That's news to me.

I view them as people in need of the safety net that we have in place and people I would like to provide the opportunity to fell more dignified by earning that which they are in need of.

isadore;1153501 wrote:sir you are well spoken. What is hard to tell through out this discussion is if you are just a practitioner of sophistry or if you suffer from cognitive dissonance about your own statements.

Con_Alma;1153498 wrote:...and yet we continue to be the classic definition of a constitutional republic.

isadore;1153506 wrote:we are by definition and in actuality a representative democracy.