"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ~ Mark Twain
I found this in my e-mail today:
A Quiz.
Note your answers, then check answers below:
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers:
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
The question is not "Are we ready for a woman President?",
the question is, "Are we ready for a Communist President?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
Here are some more quotes for you to guess the author...
Woe to you who are rich...
Woe to you who are well fed...
Do not save riches for yourselves here on earth...
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God...
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you...
Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?
Must be a bunch of communists, huh?
HAH! I got them all correct!
The point is Hillary is a Communist. (Duh) Communism is a bad thing. Your question makes my point in the last post.
Dan, You know there is nothing wrong with being rich. It is not money that God condemns, but placing the love for money above the love for God. You know that. Why do you persist in villifying the rich?
"Why do you insist on villifying the rich?"
Hey, I said nothing about the rich. As I'm sure you know, those quotes are from Jesus and the apostle James. You don't like their words, you'll have to take it up with them.
The question, actually, Does Mark know what "Communism" is, and the answer, clearly, is "no."
Gad.
Slap Hill around for being a liberal (on economics and social issues, not on the military-industrial-political-media war machine), or even a leftist. But you embarass yourself when you misue the word "Communism."
Re, "You know there is nothing wrong with being rich. It is not money that God condemns, but placing the love for money above the love for God."
That is the common American interpretation. Jesus his self was pretty clearly against harboring personal wealth, judging from the words the Bible reports he used. So, be all for the rich if you want -- but credit your admiration for them to anything to do with the Lord or even historic Christianity.
True, the Bible says "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil."
The ROOT. That doesn't mean that the fear of money (not having enough), or the worldly joys that come from having more than enough, or any unnatural emotionnal attachment to it one way or the other, above thankfulness for one's daily bread, isn't evil, too.
"Slap Hill around for being a liberal (on economics and social issues, not on the military-industrial-political-media war machine), or even a leftist."
True. Although she's probably amongst the most Rightward of this bunch of Dems. The progressive Left will have a VERY hard time voting for Clinton and we're praying it doesn't come to that.
dan, redneck--
Democrats do not make a distinction between the Kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of God.
The socialist urge to create the Kingdom of Heaven on this planet has been the root of sin in the modern era, from inner city Detroit to the killing fields of Cambodia. From the National Socialists who tried through eugenics to create the superman, to the Bolsheviks who thought they could plunder their way to universal brotherhood, man does not accept his limitations and tries to play God.
Even a few months ago, I made the mistake of thinking Jesus was a communist. I've read a little bit of Tillich and Niebuhr in the meantime, and finally believe I understand where genuine Christians are coming from with human imperfection, pride, and the doctrine of Original Sin.
Dan, ER, do you guys live in houses?
Do you have bank accounts?
Then shut up.
"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
You two hypocrites don't believe your own shtick.
When EITHER of you point out to me where Jesus said to take from your neighbor and give to the poor, then you might have a point.
You only illustrate your own bias and ignorance when you spout the type of nonsense you are slinging here today.
I love it when liberals use the Bible to browbeat people. It just shows how mean-spirited and irreverent they are at heart. Jesus preached charity, He did not preach robbery, which is what socialism is.
"Jesus preached charity, He did not preach robbery, which is what socialism is."
Exactly, LR.
But Dan and ER would tell you that their vote is a resource given to them by God with which to do His work. (As if God Almighty needs their help.)
So THEY don't see Socialism as "robbery", but rather as a tool that God has given them with which to help the "Poor" by taking from those people that God (in his wisdom) has blessed too much, and giving to them that God (by some mistake) has not blessed enough.
At the same time, they do not compromise their own standard of living, but rather preach to the rest of us about "the Rich" and how Jesus would tell us to look after "the Poor", and try to convince us that attacks against people who have succeeded beyond what we personally have acomplished are somehow "Evil", and how Jesus would not approve of that.
But they forget all about this verse... (Perhaps because it is not in red letters...)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Forget about "the Rich." This is the command of God.
Focus instead on what you, yourself, can do for the less-fortunate, with the resources that god has blessed YOU, YOURSELF with.
When you stop basing your desire to help "the Poor" on the sin of Coveteousness, then, maybe God will bless your efforts.
And while we are taking the words of Jesus out of context to support our own ridiculous points, I will remind both of you that Jesus also said, in His own words in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 25, Verse 41, "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."
Tug! I think kind thoughts for you every day. The loading bays where I work are dock-high, but whoever designed the place didn't give drivers near enough turn-around space. And I honestly do think kindly of you, EVERY DAY I go to work, which is five, or more days out of seven. Seriously.
So, if you want to disagree with me, do so. But I'm past the mud with you. Godspeed, brother, in your own getting there.
LR, pbhthth. Jesus taught his followers to use the resources they had to advance the kingdom. In this country, that includes one's vote. If you don;'t like the fact that I can use the resourcer of my vote to put people peopel in power to take away some resources from some people, and give them to other people, you can either worj hard, as I know you do, against people like, in the political realm, or, you can move to another damn country. In the meantime, I'm gonna use my vote in the way I think Jesus wouild have me -- and I don't think he would give a damn anout your rights to your wealth, or my rights to my own wealth, versus the needs of the least of these.
Eh, sue me if I don't give enough to suit you. I don;t think you give enough of your vote for the common good, which is why I use my resouces to keep people like you out of power.
Oh, one more thing: Myself, I love it when Jesus uses his holy self to browbeat people. Vipers and whited sepulchurs and such, ya know.
I find it highly amusing that many on the Left are scared silly that HillBilly may be the Democrat nominee.
Amusing as well... hmmm, frightening actually... is the Left's torture of Scripture. Your problem Dan is one of context... you torture context.
Fellas, do y'all know how to have a civil conversation?
All I did was offer up some bible quotes. I made no commentary. Just offered the verses.
And in response? I get called a hypocrite, mean-spirited, irreverent and am told that I'm browbeating people with the Bible!
What's up with that?
And this coming from people who love to browbeat people with the Bible, perhaps?
As to this:
Democrats do not make a distinction between the Kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of God.
??!! What the heck is that supposed to mean? All Democrats? Most Democrats? And no Republicans make a distinction? Are you just ranting or do you the slightest bit of evidence to support such a preposterous statement?
"The socialist urge to create he Kingdom of Heaven on this planet has been the root of sin"
?? Really? I thought that we were supposed to pray and work for "God's Kingdom come, God's will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven."
Are you saying that Jesus was a socialist?
I'm sorry, but you're wrong on that one Jason. Dems are not trying any harder (or any less) to bring God's Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven than the Republicans. Dems (and, by the way, I'm a Green guy, not a Democrat) are not socialists any more than Republicans are fascists for wanting to outlaw drugs, gay marriage or abortion.
It's amazing how fast these emails get around, and how far reaching they are. I just got this one from my grandma this morning...
They're spiitin' mad now, Mark!
LOL!
Hey Dan...are you rich?
LOL!
Answer....yes.
"I get called a hypocrite, mean-spirited, irreverent ..."
LOL!
Po' widdle victim.
If the shoe fits, Danielsan...
I'll tell you what, ER and Dan. Both of you probabkly have more money than I do. (I know ER does, I'm not sure about Dan) Perhaps I should tell the gubmint that you are holding out on me and insist they make you two give me enough money to where I am equal in assets to you.
Judging from your apparent disdain for me and other poor folks like me, you wouldn't like having to share your wealth with me.
What if the gubmint decided to take your hard earned money and just hand it over to me so we all would have the same amount, without asking permission? What would y'all do then? Gladly give and be happy to pay the extra taxes so I can live as y'all do? Or would you complain that since I don't work as hard. or are as smart as you, that I don't deserve access to your money?
Dont bother to answer. I already know the answer, and if it isn't, you're lying.
OK, ER, substitute the word, "Socialism", or "Marxism", or "Stalinism" for the word "Communism" in the e-mail that I didn't write, but merely copied and pasted. They are all varying degrees of the same concept. (I've read "The Communist Manifesto", by the way)
Whatever you want to call it, Hillary's concepts of taking from the rich and giving to the poor does not square with the ideal of a free republic.
ER, you also said, "True, the Bible says 'the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.'
The ROOT. That doesn't mean that the fear of money (not having enough), or the worldly joys that come from having more than enough, or any unnatural emotionnal attachment to it one way or the other, above thankfulness for one's daily bread, isn't evil, too.
And on that, I completely agree. But what I said, is that the placement of money above God, in any form, whether from greed, or fear, or whatever, is evil.
Basically, putting money above or beside God in importance violates the first 2 commandments.
LOL.. I got this one a week or so ago. Disturbing.
Hill is a SOCIALIST. $5,000 bucks for everyone's anchor babies! Great.
Okay, again, not much point to this, because facts seem to be a low priority sometimes, but:
1. I am not a supporter of the economic systems known as Socialism and Communism, in that I'm not wanting to see those put in place in the US.
2. None of the Dems elected to major office are supporters of communism or socialism and they don't want to see it implemented in the US.
3. I AM rich. As are all of us here. Go to that website (http://www.globalrichlist.com/) that tells you how rich you are, enter your annual income and, if you're making $20k, you're in the top 10% globally. If you make only $10k, you're still in the top 13%.
4. The point is, we're all wealthy here. I point to the verses about wealth in the Bible knowing that it's talking about me and you.
5. So, no, I'm not talking about "taking people's money."
6. On the other hand, we all agree (I think) that "we, the people," can decide to tax ourselves to pay for some common needs. That's not robbery.
7. If you have a problem with ANY taxation, you are always welcome to leave and start your own country where there are no taxes. Good luck with that.
8. If I were in charge, we'd be paying a helluva lot less in taxes than we are under the last three Republican presidencies (and the last Dem presidency, too), since I'd advocate cutting a good deal of gratuitiously large gov't. Road-building, for instance. Corporate welfare. An obscenely large military machine. Oil subsidies. In my administration, we'd be pay as you go and if your program doesn't make sense/doesn't pay for itself, it would likely be phased out.
So don't talk to me about Big Gov't, and don't try to demonize folk with "boogeyman" labels like "commies" when you don't know what you're talking about.
Re, "I know ER does."
You don't know s--t about s--t.
Dan, Er, I asked you guys a question.
And while both of your efforts at redirection and your displays of self-righteous outrage at the treatment to which you have been subjected here have been impressive, neither of you have answered it.
So I will ask it again.
Quote for me, if you can, the verse, from the King James Bible, in which Jesus specifically commanded anyone to take anything from their neighbor, and give it to the poor.
(This should be easy for either of you to do, since you both seem to have based your political identities and your theologies on the concept.)
So, if it is there, then point it out.
If not, then admit that I am right, and apologize for your error.
(I will not hold my breath.)
dan--
"God's Kingdom come, God's will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven."
Moses is closer than the truth than Marx. The Ten Commandments *explicitly* say not to covet the assets of your neighbor, as a previous commenter mentioned. Also stated is not to steal. If Paul wants to help the poor, he shouldn't have to steal from Peter through means of the State to do it.
The modern leftist is a Jacobin, a parricide as Richard Weaver put it, that does not honor the Mothers and Fathers that have come before him. The left's reason for being is to liberate man from the family, from businesses, from custom, from tradition, and to place Big Brother (Big Sister, in Hillary's case) in the place formerly occupied by God. After all, Hillary cares for us, no one is invisible to her by her own account, she feels our pain, etc.
"Corporate welfare."
Democrats are the biggest promoters of this. Only they call it "energy independence," "protecting American jobs," "investing in a clean future," and in health care "managed competition."
Democrat policies frequently screw the little guy. Democrats are for REGRESSIVE taxation to fund their schemes like socialist security and Medicare-- stealing from the poor for a handout to their beloved middle class. Plus larger companies can pay the SS and minimum wages better than small businesses-- this means the Democrats inadvertently through their good intentions empower companies like Walmart they perceive to be their enemies. I don't know if this is ironic or sad.
Just got here. I knew it was Hillary.
I agree that it really doesn't matter what term is used for her, as they are, like Mark said, different degrees of the same thing. And Dan, you ARE vilifying the rich with your tracts. As you like to consider the story behind the verse to justify your various positions, you must be aware that the type of rich person to whom Jesus was referring was the oppressive type that wasn't concerned with anything BUT his wealth. I don't believe that you could confirm that type is in the majority today (thought maybe you could). Many people like to have more so they can give more. I know in my case it sucks to not be in that position. I also know that you have claimed you live a more spartan existence than many do. So you can't really help too many in need, can you? You've limited your ability to help by choice, and I choose to find more ways to help.
As to your "we're already rich" statements, that's goofy. Our standard of living has made our poor far better off than those in most countries. And before you say that's the point, you also have to take into account that different countries have different standards of living. A friend of mine just completed several months exploring India. He was able to do it for an incredibly low amount of dough with only a slight change in comfort level.
But the discussion is about THIS country so that foreign stuff is irrelevant and levels of class in this country are the point.
I've heard it said that for every new millionare, ten jobs are created. I don't know if that's true, if that's an average, or what. But it IS true that to allow people to thrive is GOOD for a society, not bad or evil. God delights in the success of his children. It's silly to think that we are to refrain from becoming all we can be in every phase of our lives. Poor people can't help poor people so the rich or well to do are extremely important in society. Sticking your hand in the pockets of those people is the evil. Particularly after choosing to live on the cheap.
Green, Dem, where's the difference exactly? Both put undo burdens on the producers of society.
"That is the common American interpretation."
That's the truth. Jesus was only concerned, as I suggested above, with those rich who were greedy, took advantage of the less fortunate, didn't use their wealth to help the less fortunate. You, too, are big on context and to suggest that He simply disdained all wealth and wealthy isn't borne out in Scripture. Do you not believe it possible to both aquire wealth and riches without losing the sense of what's truly important? Without losing one's devotion to God and His teachings? In my limited study of successful people, I've found most like to spread it around. No. They don't just give it away willy-nilly, but they are often quite charitable.
As to how one uses one's vote, if one votes to raise taxes to "help the needy", one is using one's vote to force others to give, particularly when they vote to make the rich pay a greater percentage of their earnings. This is theft, not doing God's Will. It is a massive stretch to say otherwise. The Captain's right. There's no mandate in Scripture to do that.
It's almost funny, ER. You've said that it isn't up to you to tell people what to believe, that they'll find their own way (or words to that effect), but you'll pick their pockets for the sake of what you believe. Frankly, what you should be doing instead is Evangelizing. Encourage everyone you know and can reach to give to the needy. That would be far more in line with what God wants than voting to take peoples' money without permission.
BTW Dan,
ALL of the Dems who are seeking to raise taxes, impose universal health care and other such programs and policies are indeed in favor of socialism, even if it does not mirror exactly the systems of other socialist/communist nations. Any time one seeks to "level the playing field", they are implementing socialist notions.
And if YOU were in charge, the country would go to hell in a handbag. Just as troubling as what you would cut would be what you wouldn't. You're acting, it seems to me, on emotion. Good way to screw us all.
Quote for me, if you can, the verse, from the King James Bible, in which Jesus specifically commanded anyone to take anything from their neighbor, and give it to the poor.
Why? I didn't answer that question before because no one here is advocating taking money from their neighbor. As I have said repeatedly, I'm not advocating socialism. Nor robbery.
But I will point out the OT passage where God warns Israel about asking for a king because a king would tax them incredibly, draft their sons and daughters to do the gov’t’s bidding and build up a large military (sound familiar?). So we do have warnings about gov't "taking" money and resources for war-making.
I answered your question, tugboat, now you answer mine: Are you opposed to "stealing" people's money to pay for a large offensive military - as God warned about in the OT?
Having said that, Tug, if you want me to show you places in the Bible where the gov't sets up an institution whereby people are commanded to set aside part of their crops for the poor, that's easy...
When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien.
~Lev 19:9-10
When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow.
~Dt 24:19-22
At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
~Dt 14:28-29
=====
Shall I go on? There are many passages in this vein, including commands to forgive debts and to take land away from people and give it back to the original owners who may have fallen on hard times.
If you want to make a case against taxation, it's not really there in the Bible. Especially if you want to make a case against a gov't setting rules against poverty assistance, you'll be kicking up against commands.
I DO think, though, that you can make a case against taxation for an excessively large military, and I can help you with that, if you'd like, Tug. Need any help?
[And, by the way, the passage where God warns Israel about getting a king because a king would tax them horribly to raise a large army is 1 Samuel 8, which says:
God said, "This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.
"He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
"He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.
"He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.
"He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.
"He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.
"He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.
"Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but (R)the LORD will not answer you in that day."
ouch. Tug?
"1. I am not a supporter of the economic systems known as Socialism and Communism, in that I'm not wanting to see those put in place in the US.
2. None of the Dems elected to major office are supporters of communism or socialism and they don't want to see it implemented in the US."
Dan...you should really try telling the truth FIRST...before telling obvious whoppers like your first listings here. It might be a better formula for your deception.
Hey Dan....Don't you think that the United States of America does a little more than making it legal for the poor to keep the dregs that are left over from the rich?
Be honest. Quit decieving people for Christ's sake!
Marshall, there are so many lies, mis-statements and half-truths in your comments, that it's difficult to know where to begin. I'm sure you aren't deliberately speaking these mistruths, but they are mistruths, nonetheless.
How about with this last statement:
You're acting, it seems to me, on emotion.
Bogus.
My suggestion is that we base spending on economic, security and environmental wisdom. I'm okay with spending money to educate and rehabilitate prisoners, for instance, because those programs have demonstrated objectively that they SAVE taxpayer dollars.
Reduced recidivism = increased numbers of productive citizens and decreased prison bills, decreased crime, decreased policing needs and court time, ALL of which equals reductions in taxpayer and societal dollars.
Where is the "emotion" in that? That's just fiscal sense. Those who want to "Punish prisoners, not mollycoddle 'em! I don't care if it DOES cost more, they shouldn't get any education!" are the ones who are acting emotionally, not logically.
For one example.
Building more and more freeways, roads, parking lots and otherwise subsidizing the auto industry, the oil industry and personal motorists is another example of wasteful, emotional, selfish spending that costs a GREAT deal more than any programs I'd institute. My programs would be based on personal responsibility, sustainability and paying actual costs as we go instead of deferring costs to future generations, to the poor, the elderly, the sick and the young.
Again, this Green way of thinking is based upon fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and societal responsibility, treating the world as a valued asset, not a "free" resource to be exploited and poisoned at great costs.
Really, this Green way of thinking is a fairly Conservative way of thinking, in the classical sense of the word.
I don't have time to pursue your other misstatements right now, just know that I don't think you represented ANY thing that I believe in your suppositions about what I believe.
I will say that you can read those passages (and many others) yourself, if you want. Sometimes, the Bible may have been talking about some specific person or some specific subset of "the rich," but look at James, for instance. "Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?!" He's making an unqualified statement there.
Now, I don't think that rich = evil (despite the many here who keep insisting that I am thinking so). As I said, I think I'm wealthy and I don't think I'm evil.
What I'm saying and what I think an honest reading of the Bible will support is that many systems that encourage wealth-accumulation are oppressive in nature.
Read the Bible this coming year and make a note of each time issues of money, justice, poverty, wealth and oppression come up. See what the teachings tend to lean towards.
This is why, in the one case in the Bible where we had a civilization where the people could implement their own laws (Israel in the OT), God insisted that they do so in ways that demand resource-sharing and that limit wealth accumulation.
And for the last time, my pointing out what the Bible says is not "rich-bashing." It's pointing out what the Bible says. You have a different interpretation, feel free to bring it up.
Just do so without twisting my words.
Nobody will admit they intend to vote for Hillary. Even the Dems at the DU and Daily Kos say they won't vote for her. I rarely see anyone who will admit they would vote for her, yet she leads the Democratic candidates in all the polls. If no one intends to vote for her, how is it that she leads the other candidates?
Someone is lying.
"No one will admit they're voting for Hillary..."
That's what I'm wanting to know! Who in the heck is supporting her in these polls?!!
It's not any of my so-called "liberal" friends (well, maybe literally a handful or two of the hundreds of like-minded folk I associate with), and it's clearly not with the so-called "conservatives" out there. So, who is it??
And again, I wonder why "conservatives" are express such outrage about her but not the more progressive (but still flawed) Obama, Edwards, Richards?
And obviously, the one truly progressive candidate - Kucinich - doesn't worry "conservatives" because they don't think he has a chance of winning.
I've said it before and will say it again: The Dems have this presidency in a landslide UNLESS they nominate Hillary. They'd be fools.
And there you go...
As to Hillary's quotes, if you want to get the context, you can look here.
Context matters.
Except for some people.
Dan,
Ignoring or oppressing the poor by the rich in Biblical times was commonplace, wouldn't you say? If the rich were helping the rich back then, it would get the same attention, especially in the NT, that homosexuality does. That is, it wasn't happening, so there's no need to preach on it. In other words, they had to be TOLD to be generous or charitable. That's what you're seeing in your examples.
As I've stated, economically, our society improves by people striving to make good. George Soros might need your preaching, but not every rich person does. I've read stories of the charity of people like Oprah Winfrey, Alex Spanos, who's autobio is entitled, "Sharing the Wealth", Michael Jordan, Elvis Presley, Charles Givens, even Brittney Spears for pete's sake. People by and large are happy to be generous. People are already happy to give to the poor. But YOU need to earn more so that you can give more to make up for what you believe others failed to give. Not vote to take it from them just to satisfy your idea of what's enough. But even better, there are tons of people out there, like Charles Givens (his foundation, actually. He's passed), Rob't Kiyosaki, Robert Allen, and almost countless more who offer varying degrees and methods of improving one's lot. That's ALWAYS better than charity, if the needy are willing to do their part. You yourself have shown it to be true in supporting educating felons. Give them the means and let them run with it.
But to have the feds alone, or at all, be the ones to dole out the charity is far from the ideal. This is what is debated. How the charity gets done.
sidebar---some Bibles say "Blessed are the poor in spirit..."
But most of your Biblical examples deal with greedy rich or those who put money above God's Will. Not merely with being wealthy. None of them are admonitions against being wealthy. "Do not save riches for yourselves..." refers to doing nothing spiritually while working toward success, not merely against building wealth. It's a fine line and the temptations are many, but being wealthy isn't in itself evil or wrong or likely to, by itself, cause problems at the front gate.
Here's my support:
Parables. Jesus used parables to teach. In each of his parables were messages of a spiritual nature. But each was based on real world practical advice and teachings. Building a house on a good foundation, planting seed in fertile soil. And in the parable of the talents, he shows that proper stewardship of money is a good thing. When the third guy buried his portion, he was scolded by his master for the stupidity of his actions. Making lots of money isn't the problem, it's how one behaves while doing it and after one has it.
Finally, you really need to work on your presentation. You make remarks that carry clear meanings that you then refute when called upon them. This is similar to libs in general. What they do provokes results not intended, yet they insist on their doing it anyway. In your case, you deny that for which you are accused, but most reasonable people would come to the same conclusions we do by reading your words. It happens over and over and you insist your words are being twisted. It doesn't serve us to do that, so it must be you. Just a helpful hint.
Dan, I'm surprized!
Your Bible aparently has an Old Testament!
Okay...
The verses you copied and pasted say absolutely nothing about surrendering resources to a Government to be redistributed.
Instead, they tell us personally what to do with our own resources, just like I said. (Except for the verse about the Levites, who were a Priest Class, and are a whole different matter.)
And I never claimed that the Bible supports a "large offensive military" (whatever that means).
YOU, however, quoted the words of Jesus, and compared them to the statements listed in Mark's post.
Once again, you tried to beat on your chest, and say "Jesus agrees with ME!" (Whether you recognize that you did that or not, it's what you did.)
"Hillary is JUST LIKE JESUS!" you said.
It's offensive.
I hope you are proud of yourself.
Oh, Dan, one other thing...
ouch?...
Dan, please...
Don't pat youself on the back too hard.
You have scored no points here with me.
You have only further illustrated your own bias and ignorance.
Re, "As to how one uses one's vote, if one votes to raise taxes to 'help the needy', one is using one's vote to force others to give, particularly when they vote to make the rich pay a greater percentage of their earnings.
YES. TRUE. ABSOLUTELY.
"This is theft, not doing God's Will. It is a massive stretch to say otherwise. The Captain's right."
NO. IT'S DEMOCRACY. YOU MAY CALL IT THEFT, BUT YOU ARE NO MORE CORRECT IN THAT THAN WHEN YOU CALL ABORTION "MURDER." IT IS LEGAL TAKING, JUST AS ABORTION IS LEGALIZED ENDING OF A FORM OF LIFE (AS IS SPILLING ONE'S SEED).
" ... It's almost funny, ER. You've said that it isn't up to you to tell people what to believe, that they'll find their own way (or words to that effect), but you'll pick their pockets for the sake of what you believe."
NICE RHETORIC. YER RIGHT. IT IS NOT UP TO ME TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO BELIEVE. TRUE. HOWEVER, IT IS MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN TO USE MY VOTE TO TRY TO TELL PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH WHAT TO DO. ABSOLUTELY.
SORRY. CAPS ARE EASIER TNAN USING QUOTE MARKS WHERE I'M SITTING RIGHT NOW.
I AM, here, there. I am shameless in this. Yolu are damn right: I have NO QUALMS about using my vote to REDISTRIBUTE RESOURCES in this country.
ER, you are wrong.
Abortion IS Murder.
Forced Charity through Taxation for the purpose or Wealth Redistribution IS Robbery.
If I decided that my gun was a resource that I should use to take from the rich and give to the poor in Jesus' name, that would still be robbery.
Same with your vote.
Use all the capital letters you want...
You're still wrong.
I'm still praying for you, even though you have told me not to.
My! Look at all the pretty Communists in this room!
The verses you copied and pasted say absolutely nothing about surrendering resources to a Government to be redistributed.
The nation of Israel had laws that required people to give of their resources to the poor. They had a different society and economy than we do (for one thing, there was no money TO tax) and so things were done differently.
But the larger Truth is that there were laws that required individuals to give up resources for the betterment of others.
And there were warnings saying how bad it would be when a gov't DID require the nation to give up resources for a large military.
That's different than taxation, how?
In truth, it's not. That's the answer to your question.
Additionally, as I'm sure you well know, Jesus does not condemn taxation in the NT, when he says to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
But as I'm sure I've pointed out here before, you're being hypocritical if you call taxation "stealing" when you like taxation for YOUR benefit. It's "stealing" when it has a fiscally responsible reason (ie, reduce recidivism, increase education, etc) but it's Good and Godly when it's to build more roads or the world's largest military-industrial complex.
Hypocrisy.
Come out against ALL taxation and you can shed the hypocrite label.
And Tug? I love the Bible, Old and New Testaments. And, being raised a good ol' baptist boy by conservatives who took the Bible seriously, I probably know it better than you do.
Read up on it some.
And I'll repeat my question that you did not directly answer:
Are you opposed to taxation for a large military?
"As I said, I think I'm wealthy and I don't think I'm evil. "
LOL!
We disagree on just about EVERYTHIBG, don't we?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp ..some blogsters have removed this urban legend.
Ive got some:
"Childrens do learn"
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions."
"I feel strongly that there ought to be fair justice."
"I heard somebody say, 'Where's (Nelson) Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas."
"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th."
"I'm going to try to see if I can remember as much to make it sound like I'm smart on the subject."
"You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- 1976."
"Information is moving -- you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets."
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."
"I want to thank the leaders for joining Laura and me and the Vice President and his wife, Lynne, as we commemorated the -- a day that really helped -- or it did define our nation, which is 9/11/2001."
"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."
Guess who said those?
Mark,
Communism seems to be working great for China. Their economy is growing faster than ours and will soon surpass ours.
Heres a quote from a Capitalist view:
"It is America's right to stretch from sea to shining sea. Not only do we have a responsibility to our citizens to gain valuable natural resources we also have a responsibility to civilize this beautiful land."
4000 Cherokees died on the "Trail of Tears".
A capitalists view on states rights:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy
Heres one from Samuel Gompers, a labor leader you would call a "Communist":
"What does labor want? We want more schoolhouses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures, to make manhood more noble, womanhood more beautiful, and childhood more happy and bright."
Sorry, BB-Idaho, but MediaMatters.com doesn't dispute the first two quotes at all, only cries about them being taken out of context.
Therefore... not an Urban Legend.
And despite context, she still advocates raising taxes... which, sorry to inform you, involves taking money away from folk to give to others.
"I probably know it better than you do."
"As I said, I think I'm wealthy and I don't think I'm evil. "
Ever read what the Bible says about pride, Dan?
"Communism seems to be working great for China. Their economy is growing faster than ours and will soon surpass ours".
Yeah, tell that to the millions of people murdered by the Communist Chinese Governemt for daring to disagree with them!
Geeez, you really are a putz. Why don't you just pack your things and move to China since you think oppression is so wonderful? You couldn't talk about their governemt the way you talk about ours. You'd be tortured and executed fot that.
Their economy is growing faster now because they are copying our economic system.
It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
Oooh, how radical, she doesn't want Exxon and Haliburton to make decisions which will affect our country in a negative way.
I never really liked Clinton but after seeing that maybe Ill take a second look.
I know your idea utopia is that the rich will get richer eliminating small businesses and destroying the Unions and thus the middle class leaving 1% to control 90% of the wealth and creating a service economy which would be subserviant to those elite but if you want that you might as well move to Uganda.
Millions murdered by China?? Where are these mass graves?
Millions were murdered for Democracy and Capitalism here to create the United States, I remember that part (which was the point of my previous post)but I don't remember the genocide in China. Could you refresh my memory?
When I look at China today, with their labor conditions and what not it reminds me a lot of the US in the late 1800s and early 1900s until unions were formed which created a middle class where children didn't get fried in the blast furnaces of the steel mills in which they worked.
Wow! Toad... you are SOOOoooo brainwashed! It's absolutely astounding! I offered these links in a previous post here, but I think it bears repeating since you can't imagine that China has murdered at least 43 million people. If you don't like charts here's the article that accompanies it. Haliburton may be many things, but Mass-Murderer is not among them.
Furthermore, worry about Exxon and Haliburton all you want, but most of us here would love to see an end to Government of the few and powerfully elite, by the few and powerfully elite, and FOR the few and powerfully elite-- namely 'out of touch' Democrats who care more about bankrupting the nation with countless and untold programs designed to enslave and secure perpetual power....
It astounds me... there's that word again... it utterly ASTOUNDS me that anyone who grew up under the threat of 'The Red Menace'; seeing the disaster of food lines, toiletpaper lines, gulags, mass murder, and the ever-present threat of nuclear war; having seen the evil of Communism and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, would so blithely defend ANY candidate who has uttered the things Hillary has. What kind of man or woman embraces such a candidate knowing full well the ideology she espouses, if allowed to blossom in 3 houses of government united under the Democrat Banner, could do to this nation!? How utterly incomprehensible it is to me that ANY such person could even look twice at Hillary Clinton. What kind of man or woman...?
A fool. And I don't say that lightly.
Does anyone remember Tienanmen Square? Where and when in recent American history have Americans been murdered by the government of the United States?
Hmmm. Clinton's Atty General Ms Janet Reno murdered women and children at Waco. Does anyone remember Reno's Gestapos storming the home in Miami where Elian Gonzalez was staying just so they could ship him back to a Communist nation? Despite the government policy that states anyone who makes it to shore is given asylum?
Good Grief! We're talking about a woman who defends her husbands inaction during the FIRST World Trade Center Bombing... His inaction when given a chance to acquire Bin-Laden... His tail-tucking maneuver in Somalia... His inaction over the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania... His lack of leadership during the USS Cole attack. This was an administration that couldn't even say good-morning without first consulting a focus-group! This is the same woman who wrote, It Takes a Village-- forwarded posthumously by Friedrich Engels!!!
Go ahead and take a second look at her. No one here will stop you-- because that would be unAmerican --but will she and the rest of the Bourgeoisie/Progressive/Democrats allow ME a second look at a preferred candidate or desired policy change?
Or will I be run over by a tank?
Or shot by national guardsmen ala Kent State?
Burned at the stake by Hillary's version of Janet Reno?
And by the way, "The Rapture" IS the best exit plan I know of.
Eric, Toad is a perfect example of the kind of American I was referring to in my previous post. He has never been taught the truth of Communism, and if he was, someone has convinced him the millions of murders committed by Communists is a lie, much like the typical holocaust denier of today.
As I said, he is a putz. He has swallowed the Socialist line so completely there appears to be little hope for him now. The only reason I allow his moronic comments is to show everyone what a brainwashed lemming he is.
Does anyone remember Reno's Gestapos storming the home in Miami where Elian Gonzalez was staying just so they could ship him back to a Communist nation?
Ummm, this was to uphold the law and return a child to his father. You're opposed to this?
He had family in Miami... FAMILY. Considering that conditions in Cuba were/are deplorable-- whatever Michael Moore says --and having seen recently in the news how Elian has been used by Castro as a propaganda tool to illustrate how wonderful Cuba is; turning him into a communistic boyscout; brainwashed and goose-stepping the party line... you mean to tell me you were opposed to letting him stay in a country where he would have received superior medical care, superior education, and superior opportunities?
I'm truly disappointed in you, Dan. Janet Reno did not have to send him back. There was and still is a law on the books that allow Cubans to seek citizenship if they make it to dry land... which Elian did.
Here's a telling excerpt from Wiki:
"The wet feet, dry feet policy (sometimes called the wet-foot, dry-foot policy) is the name given to a consequence of the 1995 revision of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 that says, essentially, that anyone who fled Cuba and got into the United States would be allowed to pursue residency a year later. After talks with the Cuban government, the Clinton administration came to an agreement with Cuba that it would stop admitting people found at sea. Since then, in what has become known as the "wet feet, dry feet" policy, a Cuban caught on the waters between the two nations (i.e., with "wet feet") would summarily be sent home or to a third country. One who makes it to shore ("dry feet") gets a chance to remain in the United States, and later would qualify for expedited "legal permanent resident" status and U.S. citizenship."
That's right! A Clinton policy change! Which Reno summarily ignored in favor of sending a child back to a repressive communist government.
If you're going to stand so solidly on the WORDS of Jesus rather than New Testament doctrine per se you should consider Matthew 18:6
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
...or Mark 9:42
"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."
...or Luke 17:2
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."
If you were Elian's mother and you had died in the crossing from Cuba to Florida, would you have wanted your child to be returned to the very repressive regime you had died to escape?
Come on, Dan!
Reno's actions WERE Gestapo-like. She DID violate her own boss' policy toward Cuban refugees. Why then do you defend her?
I grant you the debate is moot at this point as to whether or not he would have been better off there or here. But I'm shocked that you would defend Ms. Reno... ESPECIALLY in this regard.
And I'm shocked you would deny a father - A FATHER - his legal right - LEGAL RIGHT - to have his son with him.
You obviously are no father.
And don't believe all the Right Wing gospel about Cuba. It's not perfect, but it's no hellhole, either. I have friends who have visited and who have lived there.
Yes, you have friends everywhere... friends in Cuba, friends in Nicaragua, friends in Morocco. You can see where I'm going so I won't bother....
Further, you assume Elian's father WANTED his son in Cuba. It seems to not have occurred to you that Mr. Gonzales might have been coerced into the limelight by his "benevolent" dictator. You also have no idea whether or not Mr. Gonzales would rather have been in Miami HIMSELF rather than see his son returned to Cuba.
You seem so willing to give tyrants the benefit of a doubt yet unwilling to give "fellow" Christians the same.
I am not a father, but I know enough about the family I do have and love to know that if I lived in the land of Fidel Castro and Che Guavera I'd prefer my loved ones had the opportunity to live beyond the reach of Castro's "Utopian" Society. Just because I'm not a father doesn't mean my opinion on this is in any way invalid.
you have friends everywhere... friends in Cuba, friends in Nicaragua, friends in Morocco. You can see where I'm going so I won't bother....
No, I don't see where you're going. You doubt me?
The thing is, Eric, the LAW supported the son being returned to his father. The father wanted his son back and therefore, MORALITY supported returning him to his father. Them's the facts.
We have no evidence that the father was being "coerced" - that is speculation on your part. Bring some actual evidence that the father wished for his son to remain here and you'd have a legitimate case.
But breaking the law and going against what's morally right based on your hunch which is based on your fear of communism is not really all that logical, right?
As to my "having friends everywhere" comment, I'm Baptist. We do missions work, it's what we do.
Therefore, yes, I have friends in those places. I have another friend who grew up in Africa the son of a missionary. My pastor's sister is a missionary in China. I've another friend who grew up in Liberia.
I've another friend who has traveled at least a few times to India.
And, off the top of my head, that's my friends that I can think of living in, or who have lived in, or who have visited other nations.
You want names and phone numbers to verify these friends, Eric - if that's your real name?
I am a father. I have 5 Children and 4 grandchildren. I would never want any of my kids to have to live in a Communist state, even if I myself had to live there. I would prefer my children to live in freedom.
So now you have it from a father's perspective. Now, do you want to argue that I'm wrong to not support forcing a small child to live under an oppressive atheistic regime?
Post a Comment