There is no need to criticize his religous belief thats not what we are discussing. His religion may very well give him compassionate convictions there is nothing wrong with that its to be commended if our society only had more people of compassionate conviction...

The governments job is to provide a safe secure environment for the individual to work in, in order to provide for himself and his family. Not to redistribute the earning of those who are successful. The individual should determine his own level of compassion, or amount of charitable giving.

If the government is going to do the providing, where is the incentive to produce, or be innovative? You might as well be living in Castro's Cuba.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

That doesnt address my argument about ethics or the purpose of the government, the government doesnt have to distribute yes but it is their goal to provide the security of their citizens and one way they should do that is by providing for them making sure that the underprivileged are not treated with no respect as well as to ensure they are provided for. Agains i shall ask what is the purpose of the government if not to secure and provide for all of its citizens it cant simply be to only secure them becaus what does it profit them if they are secured but die of a disease they could have been cured of or suffer from malnutrition the list goes on and on the government has the power to help maybe they should. ( im not supporting ither capitalism or socialism im just pointing things out)

The only people who are UNDERPRIVILEGED, in this country are those who were to ARROGANT to pay attention in school, and those who have been told all their life, thats its someone else's job to take care of them. The only ethical concern is that they had an opportunity to attend school, to get a job, and support themselves. For the last 50 years everyone has had that opportunity, and more.

Again it is not the governments job to provide any more than a reasonably secure location for people to live and work. EVERYTHING else is the individuals responsibility.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

WEll then it all comes down to one fundamental disagreement you think the only people with genuine hardship making money are the lazy. I disagree so that what it clearly come down to.

Once again you have demonstrated your inability to read and comprehend. As stated; its not just the lazy, it's also the stupid, and those who have been raised, all their life, to believe that someone else should take care of them. All you are doing is perpetrating that erroneous idea, just like Sharpton and Jackson.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

Was Terri Schiavo "lazy" or "stupid"?

And why were conservatives and Republicans so convinced that the Federal government must take care of her?

Was she lazy, or stupid? I don't know, but she was disabled, NOT underprivilaged.

Why anyone thought the government should take care of her is anyones guess. Do you know the answer?

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

So, you are adding to your list of reasons that people are poor and disadvantaged, and it is now "lazy", "poor", and "disabled".

Why isn't "discriminated against" a reason? Why isn't "lack of opportunity"?
Why isn't "bad parents"?

Do you believe that success is something that is easy and instant, like responding to the TV ads "How to get Rich" which emphasizes "saving is not how you get rich", and the next thing you know you are rich?

You have a very, very, short memory there mulp. I have always included the aged and disabled. Thats what social security is for. However this discussion is not about social security.

BTW, Schiavo was not about being taken care of, or provided for. Schiavo was about whether her husband had the right to remove her from life support equipment. You are again just trying to stir the pot with apples and grapes comparisons.

Now try finding something germane to the subject.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.