dumb lib laws that violate Command: "Love your neighbor"

Caledvwlch

Caledvwlch

New member
republicanchick said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...d-under-fort-lauderdale-strict-rules-against/


Wow, this is amazing: a 90 yr old man who feeds the homeless in public is in violation of a stupid law that says you can't feed people in public!

Now what CONSERVATIVE would write such a law?

So much for freedom in America, Folks...

This man truly loves Jesus. Keep him in your prayers



+++
Click to expand...

How do you know this law was written by a liberal? Was it in the story? (I only skimmed it, sorry)
 
R

republicanchick

New member
wow... feeding them is "sanctioning" homelessness

yeh, i will bet those people just LOVE being homeless b/c they get a meal or 2...

makes sense to me

:doh:
 
R

republicanchick

New member
Caledvwlch said:
How do you know this law was written by a liberal? Was it in the story? (I only skimmed it, sorry)
Click to expand...

it's always the libs who want to restrict freedom, make controlling laws. Even the seat belt law is restrictive of freedom... They are the ones who want to regulate business until the business is threatned with demise. In fact, that's how they get rid of businesses they don't like.

they are controllists, as Glenn Beck calls them



+
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
From the article:

The people feeding them are enablers, and they enable the homeless by making their lives easier," Deal told the New Times of Broward County. "Hunger is a big motivator. Are people more likely to seek help when they're hungry or when they're fed and happy?"

Sounds like an argument coming from the party you support.
 
Caledvwlch

Caledvwlch

New member
republicanchick said:
it's always the libs who want to restrict freedom, make controlling laws. Even the seat belt law is restrictive of freedom... They are the ones who want to regulate business until the business is threatned with demise. In fact, that's how they get rid of businesses they don't like.

they are controllists, as Glenn Beck calls them



+
Click to expand...

Ah. Gotcha.

Although, to quote your other reply,
republicanchick said:
wow... feeding them is "sanctioning" homelessness

yeh, i will bet those people just LOVE being homeless b/c they get a meal or 2...

makes sense to me

:doh:
Click to expand...

Doesn't that sound a lot like claiming that providing welfare benefits encourages unemployment?
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
republicanchick said:
it's always the libs who want to restrict freedom, make controlling laws.
Click to expand...

Uh huh ... because they are responsible for the laws that have *restricted* gays from marrying one another.

Care to rethink your argument?
 
C

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Rusha said:
From the article:

The people feeding them are enablers, and they enable the homeless by making their lives easier," Deal told the New Times of Broward County. "Hunger is a big motivator. Are people more likely to seek help when they're hungry or when they're fed and happy?"

Sounds like an argument coming from the party you support.
Click to expand...

Caledvwlch said:
Ah. Gotcha.

Although, to quote your other reply,


Doesn't that sound a lot like claiming that providing welfare benefits encourages unemployment?
Click to expand...

I actually see two different ways of looking at this philosophically.

One would be the "conservative" stereotype of getting people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, which seems to be the angle Deal is coming from.

The other would be the "liberal" stereotype of making sure people are dependent on govt. rather than private charity.

Notice that I said these were stereotypes. Stereotypes are sometimes based on truth, though.

I don't know if it was a Republican or Democrat who did this, but it surely wasn't a libertarian.
 
R

republicanchick

New member
Caledvwlch said:
Doesn't that sound a lot like claiming that providing welfare benefits encourages unemployment?
Click to expand...

The poor already have MANY strikes against them, the homeless even more

There is a law in most states (OK, at least SOME) that when you buy a piece of land, even an inexpensive pc of land (the only kind the economically disadvantaged can afford) you can only put a home or mobile home on the land that is less than 10 yrs old.

These are the kinds of stupid laws that keep people poor. If a person could buy a cheap pc of land and be able to build on it as his finances allow, maybe... just MAYBE he could get himself out of poverty. But no, we have this kind of law tht favors the wealthy, the only ones who can afford a brand new home...

This is just one example of how the poor are KEPT poor by stupid liberal laws... and again, it is the liberals who want to CONTROL every little freaking detail of our lives...

they are the ones who don't have anything better to do t han write more and more laws and regulations...

This is not America anymore...



+​
 
Caledvwlch

Caledvwlch

New member
republicanchick said:


The poor already have MANY strikes against them, the homeless even more

There is a law in most states (OK, at least SOME) that when you buy a piece of land, even an inexpensive pc of land (the only kind the economically disadvantaged can afford) you can only put a home or mobile home on the land that is less than 10 yrs old.

These are the kinds of stupid laws that keep people poor. If a person could buy a cheap pc of land and be able to build on it as his finances allow, maybe... just MAYBE he could get himself out of poverty. But no, we have this kind of law tht favors the wealthy, the only ones who can afford a brand new home...

This is just one example of how the poor are KEPT poor by stupid liberal laws... and again, it is the liberals who want to CONTROL every little freaking detail of our lives...

they are the ones who don't have anything better to do t han write more and more laws and regulations...

This is not America anymore...



+​
Click to expand...

I agree that these things are bad, I just don't see how you're making the connection to liberals. You might as well be saying, "Hey everybody, here's something bad! Must be liberals!" The link is tenuous, in all of your examples.
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Caledvwlch said:
See? You're just assuming it was a liberal (one liberal) because you don't like it.
Click to expand...

THAT ... and she is unwilling to admit that those she support contribute greatly to that which she is complaining about.
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
republicanchick said:
I'd be willing to bet it was no true R who supported this kind of freedom-hating law (regulation)

a rino, maybe.. but i will bet it was lib
Click to expand...

That's because you wear blinders in regards to your own ...

I lived in Cali most of my life and for the last few years that my father was alive, I accompanied him to his church on Tues and Thursday to help feed the homeless and less fortunate.

This has been going on for years. Not once has the church ever been harassed. Then again, the facilities offers two working bathrooms and a full kitchen and dining area.
 
C

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Rusha said:
That's because you wear blinders in regards to your own ...
Click to expand...

Now, don't be silly Rusha. Just define "RINO" as "Republican who does things you don't like" and "True R" as "Republican who only does stuff you do like" and the statement comes out totally true;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top