|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 12:18:57 AM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tracydolls
Why can't Bo just not have claimed everything. To me it's not giving if I get a tax break for it.
I don't have receipts for the money I hand to homeless, which I do all the time. I also don't keep receipts for the money I give to family members for help for things like food or bills.
Heck , the other day I was in the grocery store, a skinny white kid, I mean that boy was skinny, was asking the clerk while I was checking out how much one package of raman noodles was, I told him to just grab a case. I'll pay for them. I never turn any of it in. I would have to contact the charities that I do give to to get reciepts. And they are paid on a regular schedule.
I just don't do it, it's not giving to me. WE don't claim or deduct any of it. Ever. I don't have reciepts for most of our charitable giving.
Amen, Tracydolls...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 1:24:07 AM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1378
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
...and he's right.
Why are atrocities allowed to occur with our full knowledge in Dar Fur and other places deemed "not in our national interest"?
Why do thousands of people die every day from preventable desease and hunger?
.....because it's not important to us. Our national interest is code language for presevering our wealth and power (dressed up as "freedom" by some on the right).
In the end, I don't think God will be impressed with our excuses and arbitrary political boundries.
Wing, I think you made that quote up. Tell us who said that Darfur is "not in our national interest?"
The USA is the clear world leader in providing assistance to the refugees in Darfur. In any case, GWB's response to this is infinately better than Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda, where he actually asked UN so-called peacekeeping troops to leave.
"Since the outbreak of violence in Darfur, the United States provided, through FY 2007, nearly $2.5 billion in humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance to that region. In FY 2007, the U.S. gave more than $1 billion in assistance to the people of Sudan, including Darfur, and anticipates providing a similar amount in FY 2008. In 2007, the United States provided more than 67 percent of the World Food Program's food aid to Sudan, serving more than 6 million people throughout Sudan and eastern Chad."
GWB's leadership in Africa
You probably don't know President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). It is the largest amount of money from any nation to combat a single disease in history.
You probably also don't know that he tripled funding to eradicate malaria and TB from Africa.
The USA is the most generous nation in the world. Some countries, like African nations that celebrated GWB last winter, know this far better than stingy liberals like Barak Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 1:49:54 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 1262
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
I would ask that you all consider one thing that I am surprised nobody has pointed out yet: Why is everybody jumping on Obama's bandwagon of delusion and swallowing his premise in the first place? America is NOT the horrible, selfish nation the bitter liberals love making it out to be.
AMERICA IS THE MOST GENEROUS NATION ON EARTH! Stop swallowing this trash that the socialists in the media love to spew, and come back to reality. We as a nation may have our share of stingy, selfish folk, but our overall level of charity is very admirable. Our "poor" are better off than most of the rest of the world's "rich". When disaster strikes somewhere in the world, who is the first there with food, medicine, supplies, shelter? The United States of America. Who is there for the widow and the orphan and the oppressed? The USA. And why is this? Because we are one nation under GOD and the American Christian church is one of the most generous entities in the world.
Quit being so eager to trash our country.
Also, let us not forget about the the cycle of American poverty, specifically in the black communities. And let us not forget who created that mess: the humanist left and their socialist welfare policies. And yet black America continues to vote almost exclusively for the vile party that reinforces the victim mentality and poverty cycle, the vile party that helped usher the black father out of the home, the vile party that eagerly bows at the alter of Planned Parenthood, and institution that was created specifically to exterminate the "inferior" black population of America. I wish black America would wake up and rebel against their real oppressors: the Democratic Party.
< Message edited by ManimalX -- 8/20/2008 1:59:32 AM >
_____________________________
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." - 2nd Peter 3:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 4:46:04 AM
|
|
|
saved9201
Posts: 712
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
I wish black America would wake up and rebel against their real oppressors: the Democratic Party.
First of all, if you would allow me to respond to your post without providing proof sufficient to your approval that I am indeed a Christian worthy of an audience with you.
Okay.
You mean the "Wicked" democratic party? Maybe it's cause "black America" is just "wicked" too? Can't be more complex than that. It's got to be a simple explanation, huh? Democrats are wicked, people who vote for democrats are wicked. Hey, maybe if we just got rid of the democratic party, and force people to vote for godly, righteous, Christian, patriotic republicans, we could eliminate wickedness forever!
- Julius
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 7:41:59 AM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
Another oft-repeated assertion without the slightest proof provided to support it.
Tell me, o sage - what makes you think Obama favors higher taxes?
Because he favors balanced budgets.
Got it, balanced budgets bad. New taxes bad. therefore, balanced budgets = increased taxes.
Next.
ummm....i think blessedinnyc is for a balanced budget...
he/she believes that higher taxes and decreased spending will get us there...
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 9:34:30 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
Another oft-repeated assertion without the slightest proof provided to support it.
Tell me, o sage - what makes you think Obama favors higher taxes?
Because he favors balanced budgets.
Got it, balanced budgets bad. New taxes bad. therefore, balanced budgets = increased taxes.
Next.
ummm....i think blessedinnyc is for a balanced budget...
he/she believes that higher taxes and decreased spending will get us there...
Actually, the very few times that America has acheived a balanced budget, at least in the post-WW2 era, has been during a time of high economic activity (increased tax REVENUES) and has had very little to do with either Federal spending levels nor with tax rates themselves.
The problem is that each of the 'boom' times have been built around a specific societal change.
In the 50's, it was the manufacturing boom, driven by the development of the Interstate highway system, commercial air travel, and the suburban housing boom.
In the 60s, if not for the Viet Nam war, we would have run a surplus, thanks to the economic expansion made possible by spinoff technology from the space (and defense) programs.
In the 90's, it was the growth of the Internet and the increased economic activity made possible by vastly improved communications.
We will have boom times again, driven by some segment of the economy that has yet to become obvious - maybe alternate energy, maybe the reurbanization movement. Who knows, it might even be 'rolling roads, Douglas-martin sunscreens, and Shipstone energy cells', as suggested by an extremely popular - and foresighted - sci-fi writer.
But the next boom is NOT going to come from cheap energy, quantity manufacturing, housing, or spinoff.
Your thoughts on this - what IS going to be the next 'big thing'?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 10:08:52 AM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
Another oft-repeated assertion without the slightest proof provided to support it.
Tell me, o sage - what makes you think Obama favors higher taxes?
Because he favors balanced budgets.
Got it, balanced budgets bad. New taxes bad. therefore, balanced budgets = increased taxes.
Next.
ummm....i think blessedinnyc is for a balanced budget...
he/she believes that higher taxes and decreased spending will get us there...
Actually, the very few times that America has acheived a balanced budget, at least in the post-WW2 era, has been during a time of high economic activity (increased tax REVENUES) and has had very little to do with either Federal spending levels nor with tax rates themselves.
The problem is that each of the 'boom' times have been built around a specific societal change.
In the 50's, it was the manufacturing boom, driven by the development of the Interstate highway system, commercial air travel, and the suburban housing boom.
In the 60s, if not for the Viet Nam war, we would have run a surplus, thanks to the economic expansion made possible by spinoff technology from the space (and defense) programs.
In the 90's, it was the growth of the Internet and the increased economic activity made possible by vastly improved communications.
We will have boom times again, driven by some segment of the economy that has yet to become obvious - maybe alternate energy, maybe the reurbanization movement. Who knows, it might even be 'rolling roads, Douglas-martin sunscreens, and Shipstone energy cells', as suggested by an extremely popular - and foresighted - sci-fi writer.
But the next boom is NOT going to come from cheap energy, quantity manufacturing, housing, or spinoff.
Your thoughts on this - what IS going to be the next 'big thing'?
i am not the economist...i wouldn't be able to tell you the first thing to invest in outside of a secure router or switch...
tis not my job...but from this minimalist view, from what we little people can see, the best thing, for starters, is to reduce government spending where we can...
(but i disagree with the higher taxation...i believe people wouldn't be able to invest if they are being overtaxed)...
what are your thoughts on where our next boom is??? you seem to be into economics??? funny as it is you claiming on another thread that you are some form of an anarchist (if memory serves me right)...
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 10:34:41 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
Another oft-repeated assertion without the slightest proof provided to support it.
Tell me, o sage - what makes you think Obama favors higher taxes?
Because he favors balanced budgets.
Got it, balanced budgets bad. New taxes bad. therefore, balanced budgets = increased taxes.
Next.
ummm....i think blessedinnyc is for a balanced budget...
he/she believes that higher taxes and decreased spending will get us there...
Actually, the very few times that America has acheived a balanced budget, at least in the post-WW2 era, has been during a time of high economic activity (increased tax REVENUES) and has had very little to do with either Federal spending levels nor with tax rates themselves.
The problem is that each of the 'boom' times have been built around a specific societal change.
In the 50's, it was the manufacturing boom, driven by the development of the Interstate highway system, commercial air travel, and the suburban housing boom.
In the 60s, if not for the Viet Nam war, we would have run a surplus, thanks to the economic expansion made possible by spinoff technology from the space (and defense) programs.
In the 90's, it was the growth of the Internet and the increased economic activity made possible by vastly improved communications.
We will have boom times again, driven by some segment of the economy that has yet to become obvious - maybe alternate energy, maybe the reurbanization movement. Who knows, it might even be 'rolling roads, Douglas-martin sunscreens, and Shipstone energy cells', as suggested by an extremely popular - and foresighted - sci-fi writer.
But the next boom is NOT going to come from cheap energy, quantity manufacturing, housing, or spinoff.
Your thoughts on this - what IS going to be the next 'big thing'?
i am not the economist...i wouldn't be able to tell you the first thing to invest in outside of a secure router or switch...
tis not my job...but from this minimalist view, from what we little people can see, the best thing, for starters, is to reduce government spending where we can...
(but i disagree with the higher taxation...i believe people wouldn't be able to invest if they are being overtaxed)...
what are your thoughts on where our next boom is??? you seem to be into economics??? funny as it is you claiming on another thread that you are some form of an anarchist (if memory serves me right)...
"Rational anarchist", Randite, or, in a pinch, libertarian.
There is a difference between 'rational anarchist' and 'anarchist' - note the modifier.
Here's an adequate essay:
http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 10:40:38 AM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 770
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why do thousands of people die every day from preventable desease and hunger?
.....because it's not important to us. Our national interest is code language for presevering our wealth and power (dressed up as "freedom" by some on the right).
In the end, I don't think God will be impressed with our excuses and arbitrary political boundries.
Oh big bad America, doesn't do anything to help the poor. Please!
According to the UN America is the top donor to their World Food Program while the oil rich countries give little or nothing:
Contributions to WFP in 2008 (in US$) as of 17 August 2008
1 USA 1,190,543,719
2 Saudi Arabia 500,000,000
3 European Commission 196,114,605
4 Canada 192,297,494
5 UN CERF, Common Funds and Agencies 151,614,687
6 Japan 137,975,429
7 United Kingdom 131,835,566
8 Italy 98,932,657
9 Australia 74,008,669
10 Sweden 73,731,717
WFP Donors
Then there are the stats for US giving to charities:
In 2007, giving to charities rose 1 percent from 2006 levels, when adjusted for inflation. For the first time since the economic downturn started in 2001, giving to every subsector increased over the last year; a positive development, especially in today’s tough economic environment, with demand for charitable services ever increasing. Few people realize how large charities have become, how many vital services they provide, and how much funding flows through them each year. Without charities and non-profits, America would simply not be able to operate. Their operations are that big.
How big?
* Total giving to charitable organizations increased to $306 billion in 2007 (2.2 percent of GDP). This is an increase of 1 percent from 2006 (when adjusted for inflation).
* The majority of that giving came from individuals, $229 billion (74.8%). Giving by individuals dropped by 0.1 percent (when adjusted for inflation).
* Giving by bequest was $23.2 billion (up 4 percent from 2006), foundations gave $38.5 billion (up 7.3 percent), and corporations donated $15.7 billion (down 0.9 percent).
* Religious organizations received the most support--$102.3 billion. Much of these contributions can be attributed to people giving to their local place of worship. The next largest sector was education ($43.3 billion).
* International charities reported the largest increase in donations. These groups received $13.2 billion (up 12.9 percent), a large percentage of that money received from donors retained after their initial donations in response to Hurricane Katrina and the December 2004 tsunamis.
* All categories of charities saw increases in contributions: giving to environmental organizations increased 7.7 percent (when adjusted for inflation), giving to human services groups increased 5.4 percent, giving to arts, culture and humanities organizations increased 4.8 percent, and giving to health charities increased by 2.4 percent.
Giving Statistics
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 10:42:06 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7781
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
"Rational anarchist", Randite, or, in a pinch, libertarian.
There is a difference between 'rational anarchist' and 'anarchist' - note the modifier.
And how do you maintain these positions in light of the Constitutional Republic we now possess?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 11:02:27 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
"Rational anarchist", Randite, or, in a pinch, libertarian.
There is a difference between 'rational anarchist' and 'anarchist' - note the modifier.
And how do you maintain these positions in light of the Constitutional Republic we now possess?
There is no conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 11:09:13 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: inthysite
quote:
Why do thousands of people die every day from preventable desease and hunger?
.....because it's not important to us. Our national interest is code language for presevering our wealth and power (dressed up as "freedom" by some on the right).
In the end, I don't think God will be impressed with our excuses and arbitrary political boundries.
Oh big bad America, doesn't do anything to help the poor. Please!
According to the UN America is the top donor to their World Food Program while the oil rich countries give little or nothing:
Contributions to WFP in 2008 (in US$) as of 17 August 2008
1 USA 1,190,543,719
2 Saudi Arabia 500,000,000
3 European Commission 196,114,605
4 Canada 192,297,494
5 UN CERF, Common Funds and Agencies 151,614,687
6 Japan 137,975,429
7 United Kingdom 131,835,566
8 Italy 98,932,657
9 Australia 74,008,669
10 Sweden 73,731,717
WFP Donors
Then there are the stats for US giving to charities:
In 2007, giving to charities rose 1 percent from 2006 levels, when adjusted for inflation. For the first time since the economic downturn started in 2001, giving to every subsector increased over the last year; a positive development, especially in today’s tough economic environment, with demand for charitable services ever increasing. Few people realize how large charities have become, how many vital services they provide, and how much funding flows through them each year. Without charities and non-profits, America would simply not be able to operate. Their operations are that big.
How big?
* Total giving to charitable organizations increased to $306 billion in 2007 (2.2 percent of GDP). This is an increase of 1 percent from 2006 (when adjusted for inflation).
* The majority of that giving came from individuals, $229 billion (74.8%). Giving by individuals dropped by 0.1 percent (when adjusted for inflation).
* Giving by bequest was $23.2 billion (up 4 percent from 2006), foundations gave $38.5 billion (up 7.3 percent), and corporations donated $15.7 billion (down 0.9 percent).
* Religious organizations received the most support--$102.3 billion. Much of these contributions can be attributed to people giving to their local place of worship. The next largest sector was education ($43.3 billion).
* International charities reported the largest increase in donations. These groups received $13.2 billion (up 12.9 percent), a large percentage of that money received from donors retained after their initial donations in response to Hurricane Katrina and the December 2004 tsunamis.
* All categories of charities saw increases in contributions: giving to environmental organizations increased 7.7 percent (when adjusted for inflation), giving to human services groups increased 5.4 percent, giving to arts, culture and humanities organizations increased 4.8 percent, and giving to health charities increased by 2.4 percent.
Giving Statistics
I'm afraid it is useless to try to show facts to the Obamamaniacs.
If they are not allowed to determine who should receive the re-distribution of wealth, then obviously it is not fair.
The unstated committment is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 11:10:52 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7781
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
There is no conflict.
That wasn't really my question. The explanation you provided claims that the Constitution 'repudiates' the fundamental principles of the American people.
If so, how then would such a political philosophy correlate with our current system of government? (Much less Obama's desire to great expand it's power?)
< Message edited by Jhud -- 8/20/2008 11:19:40 AM >
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 11:11:57 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Or perhaps more "Go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor"
or
"As you did for the least of these, so you did as for Me"
or
"They sold all that they had, and turned it over to the leaders, and all shared in all that they had."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 11:20:14 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
There is no conflict.
That wasn't really my question. The explanation you provided claims that the Constitution 'repudiates' the fundamental principles of the American people.
If so, how then wouldsuch a political philosophy correlate with our current system of government? (Much less Obama's desire to great expand it's power?)
Here's a simpler explanation of rational anarchy, since the first proved too complex:
"Rational Anarchists" believe that the concepts of State, Society and Government have no existence but for the "acts of self-responsible individuals". The Rational part of the term Rational Anarchist comes from the acknowledgment that other people do not believe in Rational Anarchism and/or Anarchism itself. Further, the desire for anarchy is balanced by the logic that some form of government is needed, despite its flaws. Knowing this fact, a Rational Anarchist "tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world".
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals." In other words, all choices are made by individuals and no individual can shift or share responsibility for one's own choices.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 11:20:28 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7781
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Or perhaps more "Go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor"
or
"As you did for the least of these, so you did as for Me"
or
"They sold all that they had, and turned it over to the leaders, and all shared in all that they had."
Is that a response to something, or a random musing?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 11:31:59 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Or perhaps more "Go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor"
or
"As you did for the least of these, so you did as for Me"
or
"They sold all that they had, and turned it over to the leaders, and all shared in all that they had."
Is that a response to something, or a random musing?
62.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 11:44:21 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7781
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Here's a simpler explanation of rational anarchy, since the first proved too complex:
"Rational Anarchists" believe that the concepts of State, Society and Government have no existence but for the "acts of self-responsible individuals". The Rational part of the term Rational Anarchist comes from the acknowledgment that other people do not believe in Rational Anarchism and/or Anarchism itself. Further, the desire for anarchy is balanced by the logic that some form of government is needed, despite its flaws. Knowing this fact, a Rational Anarchist "tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world".
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals." In other words, all choices are made by individuals and no individual can shift or share responsibility for one's own choices.
What does a rational anarchist make of Hamilton and Madison's contention from Federalist 51 that:
"...the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 11:47:36 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7781
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Or perhaps more "Go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor"
or
"As you did for the least of these, so you did as for Me"
or
"They sold all that they had, and turned it over to the leaders, and all shared in all that they had."
I have to admit I find great irony that a self-described rational anarchist would find in Christ's command's to take personal responsibility for those in need an argument for greatly expanding and utilizing a strong centralized and bureaucratic government.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 12:22:06 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1378
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tracydolls
Why can't Bo just not have claimed everything. To me it's not giving if I get a tax break for it.
I don't have receipts for the money I hand to homeless, which I do all the time. I also don't keep receipts for the money I give to family members for help for things like food or bills.
Heck , the other day I was in the grocery store, a skinny white kid, I mean that boy was skinny, was asking the clerk while I was checking out how much one package of raman noodles was, I told him to just grab a case. I'll pay for them. I never turn any of it in. I would have to contact the charities that I do give to to get reciepts. And they are paid on a regular schedule.
I just don't do it, it's not giving to me. WE don't claim or deduct any of it. Ever. I don't have reciepts for most of our charitable giving.
I'm just glad to hear he at least sees the problem.
quote:
tracy
If you really want to maximize your charity then you should take the deduction. The money you saved on your income taxes could then be given to the poor.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 12:24:12 PM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: inthysite
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Or perhaps more "Go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor"
or
"As you did for the least of these, so you did as for Me"
or
"They sold all that they had, and turned it over to the leaders, and all shared in all that they had."
Is that a response to something, or a random musing?
It's a blatant mis-use of scripture taking verses completely out of context and background. 
Prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 12:25:33 PM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Or perhaps more "Go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor"
or
"As you did for the least of these, so you did as for Me"
or
"They sold all that they had, and turned it over to the leaders, and all shared in all that they had."
I have to admit I find great irony that a self-described rational anarchist would find in Christ's command's to take personal responsibility for those in need an argument for greatly expanding and utilizing a strong centralized and bureaucratic government.
Simply another manifestation of your misunderstanding of the political philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 1:18:20 PM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Or perhaps more "Go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor"
or
"As you did for the least of these, so you did as for Me"
or
"They sold all that they had, and turned it over to the leaders, and all shared in all that they had."
I have to admit I find great irony that a self-described rational anarchist would find in Christ's command's to take personal responsibility for those in need an argument for greatly expanding and utilizing a strong centralized and bureaucratic government.
Simply another manifestation of your misunderstanding of the political philosophy.
SwedishCovenant, doesn't anarchy promote decentralization of government over government spending??? i would assume such, but i am not an anarchist, so i don't know...
and please respect other users on this forum. thanks.
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: America's problem, not mine - 8/20/2008 1:21:27 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7781
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Simply another manifestation of your misunderstanding of the political philosophy.
Well I have been trying to get you to exapnd on your rather obtuse political philosohy in relation to reality, but to no avail.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
