A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Youâre welcome.Thank you for that link!![]()
Youâre welcome.Thank you for that link!![]()
Youâre obviously missing the point here. Read the story.Yes, thatâs why Romney gave $ 4 million to charity on the latest released tax return.
And better at discipline too! My nuns were tough, let me tell you.Yes, thatâs why Romney gave $ 4 million to charity on the latest released tax return.
Also, for all the do-gooders who want the government to do charity, over taxation could be called stealing as well. We know thatâs against divine law.
St. Vincent de Paul to Mother Teresa, charity is best done by the religious.
I went to Catholic Schools as many here have, they had to run things on a tight budget, some public schools do to but itâs clear which many consider to be better at educating.
Just typical nastiness from the left. Canât say anything positive about their candidate so they have to dig into decades old remarks.So that more babies can continue to die?
So that less babies will die. If the economy improves, which it will continue to do under Obama, less mothers and fathers will experience economic anxiety about actually raising a child and decide for abortion. Romneyâs policies would push for even more inequality, which is bad for the economy in the long term. Look at actual wage growth (adjusted for inflation) in the last 30 years compared to growth in company profits. A sad story. No wonder our economy is limping.So that more babies can continue to die?
But no match at all for the Jesuits.And better at discipline too! My nuns were tough, let me tell you.
Bless you for helping the poor! I certainly donât mean that if the goverment helps then the Church doesnât have to! I believe the Catholic Church is the biggest charity on the planet! Amazing! Thanks to people like you. And you can bet that there are some Obama supporters working alongside you. There are both Republican and Democrat Christians - even Catholics!I did not hear Romney say he despised the poor. Never. like killing the unborn in the womb?
You are making a lot of assumptions here. We pro-Romney people care about the poor. We actually get our hands dirty doing it. We donât expect the government to do it for us.
The job of government is not to help the poor, that is the job of the people in the Church. I know many churches, Catholic and Protestant that offer the poor a place to shower, get bus tickets, feed them, provide them shelter. They believe in giving the poor a hands up, not a ticket into dependence.
The place where I volunteer, Our Ladyâs Inn, is home to homeless mothers and pregnant women. They are taught life skills, caring for children, nutrition, quit-smoking programs. The moms are expected to follow a code of conduct. They can stay there as long as they need to. Many of them are working. We give housewarming gifts to those who finally get homes of their own.
There is no way the government could personally change a personâs heart the way another human can.
Donate a can of good beef stew to your St. Vincent de Paul Society every week. They do more for the disenfranchised than an anonymous check.
Iâm careful about which charity I give to. I like those that have 10% or less in overhead, and where I can know my money is being spent.Yes, thatâs why Romney gave $ 4 million to charity on the latest released tax return.
Also, for all the do-gooders who want the government to do charity, over taxation could be called stealing as well. We know thatâs against divine law.
St. Vincent de Paul to Mother Teresa, charity is best done by the religious.
I went to Catholic Schools as many here have, they had to run things on a tight budget, some public schools do to but itâs clear which many consider to be better at educating.
Oh, yes, Obama is Mr. Charity, trying to assault religious liberty that helps millions around the world while the Secularists have done virtually nada and are funded with tax programs, over-taxation could be called stealing.Youâre obviously missing the point here. Read the story.
So that less babies will die. If the economy improves, which it will continue to do under Obama, less mothers and fathers will experience economic anxiety about actually raising a child and decide for abortion. Romneyâs policies would push for even more inequality, which is bad for the economy in the long term. Look at actual wage growth (adjusted for inflation) in the last 30 years compared to company profits. A sad story.
Right! Even Catholic charities can be badly managed regarding their overheads and actual charity operations.Iâm careful about which charity I give to. I like those that have 10% or less in overhead, and where I can know my money is being spent.
That is precisely why you live in a right-wing bubble parallel to reality, and I donât. I live in actual reality.
Nasty Op-ed piece that thinks it can read Romneyâs mind. Why donât you judge him by his actions, they speak louder than words.Thank you for that link!![]()
The Democratâs pet, Planned Parenthood performs more abortions almost year in and year out. So, it really doesnât do any good when faced with the fact.So that less babies will die. If the economy improves, which it will continue to do under Obama, less mothers and fathers will experience economic anxiety about actually raising a child and decide for abortion. Romneyâs policies would push for even more inequality, which is bad for the economy in the long term. Look at actual wage growth (adjusted for inflation) in the last 30 years compared to growth in company profits. A sad story. No wonder our economy is limping.
Again youâre missing the point. This is not about reading Romneyâs mind, but about the obvious fact that Romney has never had to deal with lifeâs inconveniences and everyday economic struggles.Nasty Op-ed piece that thinks it can read Romneyâs mind.
And the keyword to your statement is âcanâ. Any charity âcanâ be badly managed.Right! Even Catholic charities can be badly managed regarding their overheads and actual charity operations.
But you wouldnât think peoplesâ allegiance would come so cheaply. I can sort of imagine the well to do being grateful for their âcash for clunkersâ subsidies, which ran into thousands of dollars, but is it really possible in this country to buy womensâ votes for $4-$8/month worth of contraceptives?I think weâve finally reached the tipping point where the takers are equal in numbers to the makers. If you rely on the government for your living and donât pay taxes, then you want the government to increase in size and strength so as to keep the checks rolling in. Itâs just a numbers game now and itâs only going to get worse.
Perhaps. But if Ann Romneyâs recount of how they lived when they were first married is to be credited, heâs no stranger to it.Again youâre missing the point. This is not about reading Romneyâs mind, but about the obvious fact that Romney has never had to deal with lifeâs inconveniences and everyday economic struggles.
Did you think I was implying more?And the keyword to your statement is âcanâ. Any charity âcanâ be badly managed.