Personal responsibility is taking responsibility for one's self, family, etc. (I assume). I don't have a problem with the government providing benefits to these families. But, for just a moment, leave the "emotion" out of it. A soldier is an employee of the government. Why should an employer pay the family of an employee if that employee dies? Why should the employer pay for the travel expenses of that employee's family? Isn't that their responsibility, just as if their accountant family member had been killed doing his job?

 

Again, I don't have a problem that they DO receive the benefit. I just can see where the situation counters the "personal responsibility" credo, especially when it is used to harshly decry other social programs. In a way, it's every man for himself.....unless you meet some subjective criteria...then government benefits are OK.

 

I'm sorry this point doesn't add up . You can't equate providing for fallen soldiers family and their personal responsibility. If anything it is the personal responsibility of every American citizen to take care of our fallen soldier families . I'm sorry your point fails. I respect you and I understand you are trying to discredit the personal responsibility stance , but this just make zero sense.

 

I was discussing actions that only affects oneself and saying the government shouldn't try to protect you from said action. You are trying to equate a selfless act to defend freedoms of hundreds of million Americans as a bad judgement that doesnt deserve reward for courage and selfless action .

 

There is ZERO comparison between taking care of a fallen soldier and personal responsibility outside of the personal responsibility of people such as you and I to take care of them to protect our freedoms to live our dreams.

So far we've gotten three knee-jerk responses to rockmom's thoughtful analysis. C'mon, folks, let's try harder, shall we?

 

Lol. You have to be a parity account.

I'm sorry this point doesn't add up . You can't equate providing for fallen soldiers family and their personal responsibility. If anything it is the personal responsibility of every American citizen to take care of our fallen soldier families . I'm sorry your point fails. I respect you and I understand you are trying to discredit the personal responsibility stance ' date=' but this just make zero sense. I was discussing actions that only affects oneself and saying the government shouldn't try to protect you from said action. You are trying to equate a selfless act to defend freedoms of hundreds of million Americans as a bad judgement that doesnt deserve reward for courage and selfless action . There is ZERO comparison between taking care of a fallen soldier and personal responsibility outside of the personal responsibility of people such as you and I to take care of them to protect our freedoms to live our dreams.[/quote']

 

Bingo. If we're talking responsibility it's our responsibility to take care of these families.

Lol. You have to be a parity account.

You never got back to me on whether you would be comfortable having a meth lab next-door to your residence. I've obviously exposed a chink in your libertarian armor.

Let's use a different example: A Bardstown police officer loses his life in the line of duty. His local community raises donated money to help his family.

 

Listen, again, I am NOT against the benefit. But, in this case, the families would have been reimbursed when the shutdown ended. So, it is a delay in benefits, not an outright denial.

 

As to the point I am trying to make, if one wants to use "personal responsibility" as the foundation of their platform when discussing government benefits of any kind, I feel it should be the applied to all benefits, regardless of the emotion attached to the issue.

 

We have families here in Louisville who lost everything in last week's flood who can't get FEMA help because FEMA offices are closed because of the shut down. Some have no place to live because. The American Red Cross is stepping in, but to these families this is devastating.

 

I will state again: I have no problem with the military benefit. I just feel that in the case of this shut down, and in future cuts that are sure to come, picking and choosing which are the most outrageous is subjective, and to many people it has nothing to do with not being "personally responsible".

You never got back to me on whether you would be comfortable having a meth lab next-door to your residence. I've obviously exposed a chink in your libertarian armor.

To be fair, a meth lab next to my home would be illegal one would think, even if all drugs were legal. If you're talking a legal meth lab if all drugs were legal, I would expect zoning laws would prevent that.

You never got back to me on whether you would be comfortable having a meth lab next-door to your residence. I've obviously exposed a chink in your libertarian armor.

Not the same. A meth lab poses dangers to surrounding houses due to vapors and risk of explosion.

You never got back to me on whether you would be comfortable having a meth lab next-door to your residence. I've obviously exposed a chink in your libertarian armor.

 

If drugs were legal, I wouldn't mind. With the legalization would come a streamlined process of producing the drugs, and regulations (just like a food joint) and "codes" would be in place. It'd be just as safe as living next to a plant of some sort IMO.

You never got back to me on whether you would be comfortable having a meth lab next-door to your residence. I've obviously exposed a chink in your libertarian armor.

 

As long as it didn't affect me and no other laws were being broken I doubt I would notice. But I normally don't live in areas where there are high meth lab population. It isn't usually high on my list of wants in a residence.

 

But as others stated a meth lab posses many other threats beyond drug to other people. This is a bad day for comparisons in this thread lol.

Let's use a different example: A Bardstown police officer loses his life in the line of duty. His local community raises donated money to help his family.

 

Listen, again, I am NOT against the benefit. But, in this case, the families would have been reimbursed when the shutdown ended. So, it is a delay in benefits, not an outright denial.

 

As to the point I am trying to make, if one wants to use "personal responsibility" as the foundation of their platform when discussing government benefits of any kind, I feel it should be the applied to all benefits, regardless of the emotion attached to the issue.

 

We have families here in Louisville who lost everything in last week's flood who can't get FEMA help because FEMA offices are closed because of the shut down. Some have no place to live because. The American Red Cross is stepping in, but to these families this is devastating.

 

I will state again: I have no problem with the military benefit. I just feel that in the case of this shut down, and in future cuts that are sure to come, picking and choosing which are the most outrageous is subjective, and to many people it has nothing to do with not being "personally responsible".

 

I don't want to come off as a jerk. But you really are struggling to understand the concept of personal responsibilty. You are comparing situations that involve self sacrifice for the general public. These are bad attempts to discredit a valid opinion. You are comparing freak accident and natural disasters to individuals who volunteered to put their lives on the line.

If drugs were legal' date=' I wouldn't mind. With the legalization would come a streamlined process of producing the drugs, and regulations (just like a food joint) and "codes" would be in place. It'd be just as safe as living next to a plant of some sort IMO.[/quote']

 

You ever been in a house where someone is making meth? They're not exactly responsible people. They live in absolute FILTH and they don't really care about codes and regulations.

You ever been in a house where someone is making meth? They're not exactly responsible people. They live in absolute FILTH and they don't really care about codes and regulations.

 

Right, because meth is illegal right now.

 

Make it legal, and a) companies will take over the production of it, 2) individuals who do it will have strict regulations they have to adhere to.

Right' date=' because meth is illegal right now. Make it legal, and a) companies will take over the production of it, 2) individuals who do it will have strict regulations they have to adhere to.[/quote']

 

You are dreaming if you think the people who make it now will simply stop making it. And you are dreaming if you think they care about your regulations.

 

Even with these so called companies you are certain will start making it (I'm not so sure of that) it will still be cheap to make your own. You only need items that can be purchased at wal mart.

You are dreaming if you think the people who make it now will simply stop making it. And you are dreaming if you think they care about your regulations.

 

Even with these so called companies you are certain will start making it (I'm not so sure of that) it will still be cheap to make your own. You only need items that can be purchased at wal mart.

 

Honestly don't have an issue with anything you've mentioned so far. :idunno:

Honestly don't have an issue with anything you've mentioned so far. :idunno:

 

You've never been in a meth house, I'm guessing. I guarantee you wouldn't want to live next to one if you had seen one. Not only is it filthy...and by filthy I mean inside and our.

 

It also stinks of chemicals mixed with filth. Oh, and there's always the chance these idiots will screw something up when they try to cook while they are high...and they will blow something up.

 

You are okay living next to that?