Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exnavychick

Perhaps you are familiar with the Supreme Court decision which states the police have NO duty whatsoever to PREVENT crimes from happening.

Therefore, your argument falls apart. Those police officers have no obligation to risk their own lives for people who MAY need help in this case, especially when the help available will be very limited.

At least you admit federal charity is not Constitutional. But, I never said sink or swim. I am strongly in favor of private charity, and I encourage all Americans to help out as each is able.

Government provided "relief" for natural disasters is no different than welfare or food stamps in my opinion. Both are simply marxism come to life.

"..., to each according to his need". In this case, you allow your emotions to carry you away and obuscate this point, but it is there nonetheless. Just because the people of New Orleans REALLY need help, they should get it.

Guess what, I REALLY need help purchasing a house of my own and a new car. Do you want the federal government to step in and give me some of your money for my "needs"?


353 posted on 08/30/2005 4:48:13 AM PDT by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum

Whatever. Call me a marxist, liberal looney-tunes, or whatever else you care to.

I think you're clinging to principle to obscure the fact that you're a cold-hearted, pennypincher that begrudges a dime given to the federal government. Your fallback position of private charities in this case is ludicrous. The federal government has immediate access to monies and equipment private charities do not. They also possess the power of the state, and that's no small thing when you have to contend with looters and price gougers.

Yes, I am aware that the police TECHNICALLY may not have a duty to prevent crimes from happening...but apparently these officers disagreed with that. I, for one, am glad that they did, though it sadly cost them their lives. They are far braver people than most, when most could and (honestly) should run for safety.

There is a vast difference between helping someone recover from a natural disaster, and "helping" someone pay for things they otherwise could not afford. If you can't understand that, then we're through here.

Have a nice day.


389 posted on 08/30/2005 7:38:30 AM PDT by exnavychick (We're damned if we do, damned if we don't...so my vote goes for "do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson