Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Hunger across the world would probably disappear if the rest of us would simply "shoulder our share of the burden" and send our spare food to them until it hurt.
But - your supposition is that someone else's problems are rightfully considered mine - that I have a "share" of the problem myself, and that failing to pay "my share" for someone else's support is an unpaid debt of mine.
I respectfully don't buy that.
|
My supposition is that if the government (via liberal doctrine) is going to force all of us to "share" the burdens financially, than we should all reasonably be expected to "share" the risks and burdens geographically and legally. Here, wealthy communities (that ironically tend liberal) are paying to avoid their burdens, sorta like rich people paying $500 to buy out of the civil war draft. What kind of war on poverty is this when we allow people to buy their way out?
Which is to say, if we are going to do it, why not do it right?
And that's just my moral position.
My rational probable-results driven position is that putting one family among every 100 is better than putting 99 among 100 in some places and 0 among 100 in many others.
Hello
ET note that it appears that Colin Powell was just talking 'bout unfair drafts yesterday on TV.
Hybrid Mode
