The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Idolater]

..."Not that there's anything wrong with it."

Now that's from 'Seinfeld.'

Unless Seinfeld ripped it off from somebody else? :idunno:

 

[glorydaz]

Anyone who assaults others in public should be punished per the law. It's not assault for people to speak their minds about despicable behavior, particularly on their own property or in a public venue.

I think you know what I'm talking about....these deranged liberals who get in a person's personal space and scream obscenities into their ears. That is physically threatening, and they should be charged with assault. The authorities need to start cracking down on that.

 

[glorydaz]

I don't have a "problem" either. You see, your comment about poop wasn't offensive or anything, it was ironic that on a thread that you accused the left of being vulgar that you were the first to indulge in it is all.

Where you get the bizarre notion that I have a proclivity for talking about homosexual sex acts is anyone's guess, I don't talk about them on any thread let alone loads of them. I leave that to the likes of Tam & aCW who can't seem to help fixating on a certain act and going into detail about it so you really have got me confused with someone else on that one.

Where it comes to your last then read anna's responses elsewhere on the subject. Plenty people on the "left" oppose abortion so once again your bracketing of people is ignorant.

You tire me with your excuses. Don't you ever get sick of whining?

 

[The Barbarian]

I think you know what I'm talking about....these deranged liberals who get in a person's personal space and scream obscenities into their ears.

I checked You Tube. Plenty of Trump supporters doing that. Can't post them, here,but if you look, they are there. So there's that.

Meantime, this woman went beyond screaming threats. She got violent. But like a lot of people like that, she seems to be mentally-ill.

And yes, if any leftists act like right wing thugs, they should be punished as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

Now that's from 'Seinfeld.'

Unless Seinfeld ripped it off from somebody else? :idunno:

Seinfeld said that? :think:

 

[annabenedetti]

I checked You Tube. Plenty of Trump supporters doing that. Can't post them, here,but if you look, they are there. So there's that.

Here's one:

Just as the recipients of the abuse in the other video, her restraint is commendable.

 

[eider]

They are mourned by their parents, as they should be.

OK........ I just wanted to find out if Jesus (or the bible) had ever stated any special provision for children who die. Some Christians say that this is so, and apparently it seems as if others do not.

Fair enough......

 

[eider]

I got into rope access work in the early90’s

Honolulu has the fourth most high rises in America, my company has 10 rope access technicians. My beautiful wife was working as a travel agent when I met her at church, she never had to work after our first child was born 21 years ago. Maga my miggah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough......
I'll google 'maga my migga' ........ :think:

 

[Idolater]

Seinfeld said that? :think:

Yeah, or something very close to it. The last line in the show I'm thinking of, is Kramer reentering the set through one of his characteristic door-openings, and uttering, perfectly, "Not that there's anything wrong with that," in a perfect 'Kramer' delivery.

 

[Idolater]

OK........ I just wanted to find out if Jesus (or the bible) had ever stated any special provision for children who die. Some Christians say that this is so, and apparently it seems as if others do not.

Fair enough......

It's not really fair though, not for you. If you want to know if there is an authorized Christian^TM view on any matter that you can locate in the online or book, indexed Catechism of the Catholic Church, you can know it. Protestants may not agree. But you'd know the view of over 50% of Christians.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Not all Protestants disagree on all divergence from Catholicism, but almost every Protestant agrees with Rome on something, which I find notable and remarkable.

 

[intojoy]

OK........ I just wanted to find out if Jesus (or the bible) had ever stated any special provision for children who die. Some Christians say that this is so, and apparently it seems as if others do not.

Fair enough......

There is no biblical evidence for infant salvation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[intojoy]

The remedy for leftist unhinging: Shock Therapy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think you know what I'm talking about....these deranged liberals who get in a person's personal space and scream obscenities into their ears. That is physically threatening, and they should be charged with assault. The authorities need to start cracking down on that.

You mean like this?

https://youtu.be/2yWcEHWiHe4
(She's screaming "Hail sodomy and death camps for you all!")

 

[JudgeRightly]

As for the posts I haven't gotten to yet, I'll try to get to them today

 

[Arthur Brain]

You tire me with your excuses. Don't you ever get sick of whining?

I'm not making any excuses. You brought the first vulgarity into the thread and went on about personal attacks that didn't come your way. Then you say I have a proclivity for going on about homosexual sex acts which I simply don't. As before, I leave that stuff for folk like Captain 'gay on the brain' and Tam so that was a false accusation. Finally, you accuse the "left" of not caring about abortion when some of the staunchest opposition to it comes from people like Rusha and Wiz, so once again that's a fail.

Don't you ever get sick of being wrong?

 

[The Barbarian]

Don't you ever get sick of being wrong?

It's not being wrong. It's believing "alternative facts."

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's not being wrong. It's believing "alternative facts."

:chuckle:

 

[Rusha]

It's not being wrong. It's believing "alternative facts."

Faux News!

 

[JudgeRightly]

But that doesn't really answer the question.

Except that it does.

The government has the right and the responsibility to build and maintain roads and other infrastructure. It does not have the right to care for people cradle to grave. It's not a right given to the government by God.

If the government takes your money and gives it to the poor, you call that socialism

Because it is. It's redistribution of wealth. It's theft-by-receiving on the part of the person who receives it, and it's theft by taking on the part of the government.

Let me ask you this: If you buy something from me using your credit card, and instead of me charging you the predetermined amount, say, $5, I charge you $50 dollars, would that be theft? Was the original purchase price theft? or was it lawful?

but if they take the same money and build roads, that isn't socialism.

Because it isn't. That's called "building good roads."

Which the government is obligated to do.

You shall prepare roads for yourself... - Deuteronomy 19:3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:3&version=NKJV

Either them taking the money is wrong or it isn't.

False dichotomy. You're ignoring that my position is that some tax is ok, while the rest is not.

Why isn't building government roads socialism?

You're asking why infrastructure is not considered socialism?

Do I have to answer? I'd think it would be obvious...

They take your money and build roads for the welfare of the nation. They think building roads will improve our country.

Duh.

Do you see any parallels?

What is the difference between socialism and welfare capitalism?

Again, if your neighbor robs you, is it only theft if he spends your money in a way you don't approve?

My neighbor does not have the inherent right to fund himself with my money. Does that make my position more clear?

You stated that it doesn't

What doesn't what? if my neighbor takes my money, it's theft. He does not have the right to fund his desires using my money.

The government is not my neighbor, though the people in it are my neighbors. Therefore, to the extent that they work as my government, they have the right to fund its obligations.

but you keep arguing that what the money is spent on determines the morality of the taking of the money to begin with.

You're missing something.

You're forgetting the amount the government takes and how. It's not just it spends it on.

Your argument is one dimensional. I'm arguing that how they take the money is wrong, AND how much they take is wrong, AND what they use it for is wrong.

But we would have had a lot less money to spend on the military if the government only taxed 5%. Do you realize how high the tax rate was during the war?

Wasn't it somewhere around 90%? I don't feel like looking it up right now.

Let's look at a hypothetical for a moment.

Let's say it was 90% (all taxes combined into one percentage of nation's income, and let's say that that the average person made $5 a day (before taxes).

That comes out to them making (working 260.7 days per year) around $1300 per year. 90% of that would go to the government ($1173 tax), leaving the average person with about $130 total to spend throughout the year. The person wouldn't be able to spend more than an average of $0.357 per day throughout the year.

So what would that look like with a total 5% tax, Well, you would start out with the average person making $5 a day (before taxes), then that 5% tax (which only comes from one's income, and no other source) that only funds criminal justice and infrastructure, results in a tax of about $65.18, however, the person now has $1238 to spend how they please. While, yes, that amount given (willfully) to the government is small to begin with, now that has the ability to spend his money at an average amount of $3.39 per day, compared to $0.36 per day. That's 9.5 times more money to spend per day than they would have had.

So what's the result of people having more money to spend (especially this much more)? Your economy grows exponentially. I don't know the exact formula, but I know that by the end of the 6th year of WW2, with a 5% variable tax (capped at 5%), our economy would have surplus of money, and by the end of the seventh year, that tax rate could drop to 1% and fund the government indefinitely.

If we have a lot less money to spend on the war effort, how would our military have been far superior?

You're not taking into consideration the fact that when people have more money to spend, they spend it, meaning that more companies which produce goods and services earn more, which means that they can pay their employees more, meaning they have more money to spend, etc.

And not only that, things become cheaper, (even just relatively speaking).

If you cut out all spending other than for the military but only taxed at a 5% rate, there would have been far less financial resources. I can do the math if you're unconvinced but it's an obvious truth.

Of course there wouldn't be good funding right off the bat. But again, things would be cheaper as time went on, and people would spend more. A booming economy is good for wartime.

Taxation is amoral. It is neither 'right' nor 'wrong'. Over-taxation is most certainly immoral. If the tax drives citizens into poverty or starvation, then it is immoral, for example.

And yet, that is exactly what socialism does. It taxes all people, rich and poor, and redistributes that wealth, so that everyone is poorer.

What would happen to our military if we taxed at a 5% rate, even if we spent all tax revenue on the military?

See above. Our economy would boom, and within a few short years, the government would have no problem funding either infrastructure or criminal justice system an military.

You use moral laws?
But you ignore many OT laws, it seems, which require you to support the poor, not by charity but by law.

Here's the thing. You can't compel charity, or it's not charity.

There is nothing wrong with charity, ie, the willful giving from one person to another without expecting anything in return. But that's just it, the government stepping in and saying, "we're taking this money to give to the poor" is not charity, it's theft.

If someone comes up to you and they are poor, you should help them. But it should not be forced.

The poor-laws of the OT........ We already know it's wrong to steal, murder, kidnap, pervert justice etc, but we were talking about you paying you taxes and paying up in support of your beliefs.

Paying taxes to fund the government is completely different than paying taxes to fund the poor. The former is good and just because God says for governments to provide infrastructure and to deal with matters of criminal justice, the latter is wicked because it's theft.

Literally no one is unclear about that. I didn't ask you to define stealing.

I understand what stealing is...though I hear people use it in a way that tells me they essentially don't. The government has the legal right to levy taxes.

The government has the right and obligation to fund itself so that it can perform its two just functions given in the Bible, providing and maintaining infrastructure, and dealing with criminal justice (both foreign (military) and domestic (police and judiciary)).

So that kills your charge right there. You may believe the level of taxes are outrageous or immoral, but you cannot call them theft.

I have never said that all taxes are theft. Please stop bringing that straw man argument against me.

Every law is backed by the promise of consequence if you fail to meet your obligations to it. True of the rate you object to and true of the one you find acceptable. So you can't rest on that as though it's meaningful only when you don't like the rate.

My subjective opinion has nothing to do with this.

God says that anything higher than 10% tax is tyrannical.

I'm going to believe Him, not you.

He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants.And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work.He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants.And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.” - 1 Samuel 8:15-18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Samuel8:15-18&version=NKJV

(By the way, this verse is not condemning a monarchy, it's condemning the people's choice of king, Saul. God intended for Israel to have a king, but His people weren't patient, and demanded a king a generation before God was ready.)

Sure it does.

No, it doesn't. God says that if a person does not work, he SHALL NOT EAT. It's a command, just like "You shall not steal." Obviously, this doesn't include people who are unable to work.

Interstates

Are considered infrastructure, not socialism.

public education

When the government pays, most parents will not take ownership of a child’s education. To the extent the government raises and educates children, most parents relinquish that role. The government does not have the right to force someone to pay for another man’s education.

etc.

Is that all you could think of? Please, provide more examples of socialism so I can tell you why they're wrong.

We the people can fund any program we find valuable to the society. It's perfectly legal, an operation of our laws and structures.

"We the people" are not the government, no matter how many times you say it or try to enforce it in your government. A republic is just as wicked as a democracy. They're practically kissing cousins.

Remember Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16?

And you're right. The rest is just deciding how much and applied how, which is why we elect representatives.

Where in scripture does it say a 10% tax by Caesar is wicked?

Not Caeser. Government. See the verses I quoted from 1 Samuel above.

I'd agree that almost any tax Rome set out was abusive, if mostly because it wasn't voluntary in any sense of the word. You had to pay the conqueror for whatever he provided in return, which mostly seemed to be things that made it easy for him to continue to occupy and make money off of them.

What I know about our relationship to Caesar is this: Romans 13 makes it clear we are to submit to the lawful authority. Romans 13:6-7 are pretty clear about paying taxes, but I don't recall anything about percentages relating to secular authority and tithing is a separate matter.

That's because you're looking in the wrong place.

Not until you establish the fact of it, supra.

See above.

Rome was about as wicked a system as you could have. Christ said to submit to its authority. Any tax is a burden, but there's nothing inherently wicked in our system of taxation. We derive all sorts of benefits and if we don't care for the system we are free to find another compact and join it.

You need to address what I actually wrote and not the point you think you can answer that I didn't. I said you don't have to remain a part of this system. You don't like the movie? Don't go to the theater. You don't like the justice system or the taxation system here, you can opt out. Or you can remain and meet your legal obligations while you attempt to convince enough Americans to change the system. What you can't do is watch the movie/derive the benefit and not meet your obligation under the laws of our compact.

So you separated half the sentence in order to write that... Remarkable.

And you even took the time to respond to it.

Um, where can I find scripture stating this.

I'm not sure it's explicitly stated in scripture, but implied through many verses, with the reasoning that God does not regulate sin, and that Jesus said render to Caeser what is Caeser's.

I thought that you followed the bible's guidance and laws?

I do.

You are required to lend money to the poor in need, and if the poor debtor cannot pay back then you may not press for your funds. Exodus 22:24

You may not take a pledge for a loan from a widow. Deut 24:17

You are required to subsidise a poor man. Deut. 15:7 and you cannot press for repayment if such a poor man cannot repay. Deut. 24:10

Above all....... you are required to maintain the poor! Deut. 15:7

Further to that, it's quite reasonable to expect you to extend the OT poor-laws on farming into today's commerce and industry, whereby a % of produce should be put aside for the poor to collect as they need.

It's all in the bible....... but you seem to have ignored it all?

Again, I'm not against charity. But forced charity is not charity at all.

Willfully giving money to someone in need is a good thing (what they do with it is another matter). Having money taken from you by the government by force for them to take a portion of it and then give what remains to the poor is wicked.

In both cases I would not wish or vote for pressure to be applied to a pregnant woman either way. I believe absolutely that she should have choice in such situations.

So let me ask you this: If you were a Christian in Germany during WW2, would you advocate that the officers have a choice of which jews to kill instead of having them kill all of them? or would you advocate that they kill none of them?

Question:- What do you believe happens to infants when they die?

Not very relevant to the discussion, but I'll answer.

When a baby dies (it's a baby from the moment of conception) before the age of accountability (which, contrary to some beliefs, is not a set number, but it varies from person to person) they are given the opportunity to choose between living with God for eternity, or without Him. How long this opportunity lasts, the Bible doesn't say, but I imagine it's longer than a few minutes, and i imagine that they are shown what both choices are like. If they choose to live with God, then they will, remain with Him. If not, they are separated from Him until Judgement Day, where they will, by their own decision, be cast into the eternity apart from God.

In many cases it can be. There are cases where the situation is far too dangerous.

You still haven't named even one. Eider, could you please provide a hypothetical situation where the doctor should stop and intentionally kill the baby to save the life of the mother?

Where specialists decide on the latter then they should have the right to explain the situation to the woman and the decision should be hers. Would you put pressure on such a woman at such a time to continue ...?

If you were a Christian in Germany in WW2, would you tell the Nazi soldiers:
A) "You can decide which Jews you kill."
B) "Kill all the Jews!"
C) "Don't kill any Jews, because they're innocent human beings!"

Look harder. Romans establishes the authority of government right before it speaks to our role. Jesus said to give Caesar what was his due and Caesar establishes that as surely as he mints the coin Christ held.


No, it's fairly plain, but I'm wasn't really advancing a biblical argument in the main, since what I was responding to at that point wasn't biblical, but secular. JR wasn't using scripture to define theft/stealing.


So far that appears to be the province of JR and his wicked 10% in relation to taxes. I think he may be conflating tithes which is another horse and another color.

See 1 Samuel 8:14-18.

Let's look at scripture together, beginning with authority.

6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Romans 13:6-7

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Romans 13:1

13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 1 Peter 2:13-14

Then there's what Christ had to say about it:

17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Matthew 22:17-21

Christ also addresses the thumb on the scale habit of tax collectors of his day, and when he does so it's to warn them off the practice. What he doesn't do is get into a dispute over the rate of those taxes:

12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” Luke 3:12-13

Just thought I'd point out that your formatting is atrocious. I believe there's an option to "paste as plain text" on the TOL desktop site comment editor. You may want to start using that, because it's extremely hard to read with all that formatting.

In fact he hasn't. He's stated a thing more than once without once providing the scripture he appears to reference.

I don't care that you're not interested in meeting a rational posit. I rather thought you wouldn't be, because you're one of those sorts of people with that objectively skewed context that makes rational discourse on the point a bit pointless.

See? That's not what I said at all. You're incapable of a fair analysis on the point because your foundation is skewed and doesn't permit it. Even in something that relatively small.

When asked if taxation was proper, He asked to see a coin. Finding Caesar's face on it, He told his questioners to give to Caesar that which was Caesar's, and to God that which was God's.

If you call that "regulating sin", I don't see how.

Here's the thing, I don't, because it's NOT inherently a sin for a government to tax its citizens. Certain ways are wrong, and certain amounts are wrong, and certain goals are wrong.

Way to completely misunderstand my position.

 

[intojoy]

The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/0...isname-the-one-whos-the-head-of-senate-652833


PELOSI FORGETS NAME OF MITCH M, HAS TO ASK AID... DANGEROUSLY UNHEALTHY