DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on October 15, 2008, 06:29:19 PM
-
Maybe this will clue you guys on the right in...but I seriously doubt it. ::)
http://www.dailykos.com/ (http://www.dailykos.com/)
"I'm still voting for Obama"
by kos
Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM PDT
Ben Smith talks to a Republican consultant, who had done a focus group showing a hard-hitting, no-holds barred anti-Obama attack ad from a 527 that has yet to air, to a group of midwestern Reagan Democrats. The results: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall] [url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall (http://[url)[/url]
Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.
Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.
The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:
54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, Nascar fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."
The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."
I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....
You can sense the frustration in GOP ranks -- the playbook that has been so successful for so many years has been ripped out of their hands and thrown out the window. People want substance? They want their elected officials to be on the right side of the issues? But what about the crazy liberal terrorist-living Democrat??????
How can substance be trumping character attacks?
Only a Republican ideologue would think that we haven't already lived through eight years of pure crazy, not to mention a generation of voters voting against their own interests because of bullshit social issues that affect them little. That's why these voters are shrugging off allegations of Ayers and sticking with Obama, no matter how much slime the Republicans dish.
And if Obama ends up being a good president and proves to the American people that government can be their friend? Republicans are going to be in an even bigger world of hurt than they think.
-
"I'm still voting for Obama" by kos
LOL.......I'm stunned, I tell ya, stunned. Kos & Brass STILL going to vote for Obama after all these revelations?? Shocking :D
Here's to Carter II. Perhaps we need to measure the baseline Misery Index right now
-
"I'm still voting for Obama" by kos
LOL.......I'm stunned, I tell ya, stunned. Kos & Brass STILL going to vote for Obama after all these revelations?? Shocking :D
Here's to Carter II. Perhaps we need to measure the baseline Misery Index right now
You didn't read it.
You're stuck on stupid.
-
Read something from kos?
Get real.
-
You didn't read it.
An op-ed from a terminal BDS leftest, Kos?? Pray tell, what relevelations would we have gleemed from that? And your response if I posted an op-ed from Sean Hannity would be.....what again?
You're stuck on stupid.
ah, the tried and true debate tactic of the left. When one disagrees with them, call them all kinds of names. The consistency is impressive, I'll grant you that. Let's all hunker down for Carter II. I'm predicting a misery index of ..... hovering around 18, by the end of Obama's 1st and only term
-
You didn't read it.
An op-ed from a terminal BDS leftest, Kos?? Pray tell, what relevelations would we have gleemed from that? And your response if I posted an op-ed from Sean Hannity would be.....what again?
You're stuck on stupid.
ah, the tried and true debate tactic of the left. When one disagrees with them, call them all kinds of names. The consistency is impressive, I'll grant you that. Let's all hunker down for Carter II. I'm predicting a misery index of ..... hovering around 18, by the end of Obama's 1st and only term
Again, you didn't read it. The actual article that Markos is commenting is from BEN SMITH AT POLITICO, sirs.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall)] [url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall
But since you're so consumed with ODS and stuck on stuck you don't have the god damned sense to actually pay attention.
-
ah, the tried and true debate tactic of the left. When one disagrees with them, call them all kinds of names. The consistency is impressive, I'll grant you that. Let's all hunker down for Carter II. I'm predicting a misery index of ..... hovering around 18, by the end of Obama's 1st and only term
Any other bets? 20 maybe?
-
OK I read it , and this too.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/16/14747/740/490/632094 (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/16/14747/740/490/632094)
Closely related.
Obama is picking up the "don't confuse me with facts " voting block?
It may make the difference for him but I would not brag about it.
-
<<Obama is picking up the "don't confuse me with facts " voting block?>>
You should have read it and thought about it more carefully. There was this -
<<Fuel prices are killing us. To me, McCain is just for the rich people. A lot of us are reconsidering Obama because we like what he's saying on the economy.">>
and similar comments like it.
These people might not know or remember exactly where their impressions come from, but a comment like the above is a natural, gut-felt impression that's unavoidable where one candidate rises on his own from obscurity and the other, the son and grandson of Admirals, doesn't know off-hand how many houses he owns and has to promise to "get back to" his interlocutor with the answer when his "staff" tells him.
People are dumb but they're smart, if you know what I mean.
-
People are dumb but they're smart, if you know what I mean.
Gas prices have dropped a dollar in one week here in Atlanta. I doubt Obama gets credit for that.
-
Gas prices are the one silver lining in the whole depressing mess. The guy's problems don't start and end with the price of gas. And the class-war lines are just way too obvious in the case of McCain and Obama. As well-off as the Obamas are, they still have only one house. I'll stand by my comment regardless of what happens to the price of gas.
-
Class war is a tool of the commie sympathizer socialist social justice crowd. Just as much a tool to keep the rabble in line as Marx said about religion.
I see resentment for McCain remarrying well, but i don't see resentment for Obama making a boatload of money for a couple of books.
Why is that?
If he is the poster boy for wealth distribution, why is it that Palin gives more to Charity.
I think your guy is a big ass hat with no cattle.
-
<<Class war is a tool of the commie sympathizer socialist social justice crowd. Just as much a tool to keep the rabble in line as Marx said about religion.>>
Class war is a fact of life which the ruling class and its stooges have a vested interest in denying. But everyone encounters it every day everywhere.
<<I see resentment for McCain remarrying well, but i don't see resentment for Obama making a boatload of money for a couple of books. Why is that?>>
McCain was born into the upper class and has always belonged there. Marrying upwards inside a closed class doesn't change your class allegiance or membership. Obama is someone who's crossed the class barrier in an upwards direction, and is thus not as resented as those "to the manor born." Because of the colour of his skin, his wife's skin and their origins, they will never be real members of the upper class. Nor are they wealthy enough. And it's accepted that people can get rich by writing books, even trashy novels. Writing is just another branch of the entertainment industry.
<<If he is the poster boy for wealth distribution, why is it that Palin gives more to Charity.>>
I think you meant re-distribution, right? Charitable donations are mainly symbolic. As a means of re-distribution of the wealth, most folks understand that bigger donations are just purchasable status symbols. In the overall scheme of things, they're a drop in the bucket. The real re-distribution of the wealth, if it ever occurs (and I am certainly not one who believes that Obama will even try to accomplish it) would have to be done through taxation. A tax of only one dollar per head on every living American would instantly raise $300,000,000 more or less. Nobody is fooled by charitable donations any more. Rich Republicans presumably give to charity to highlight the "hypocrisy" of Democrats and fight off attempts to make a REAL redistribution of wealth through the IRS.
<<I think your guy is a big ass hat with no cattle.>>
I don't trust him either. However as the lesser of two evils - - a doddering, half-senile war criminal, fake torture victim and treasonous broadcaster of enemy propaganda, who's been on the wrong side of every issue as far as I can remember and got off to one of the most crooked starts in politics as we all know, and a ditzy bimbo with almost zero qualifications to be Governor of Alaska let alone President of the U.S.A. should anything happen, whether you love him or hate him, when Obama's finally elected you should get down on your knees and kiss your TV screen in thanks that it was not John Insane.
-
In defense of 'the rich'
Posted: October 09, 2008
So, what do "the rich" pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for "the rich" ? known in some quarters as "job creators."
A recent poll commissioned by Investor's Business Daily asked, in effect, "What share do you think the rich pay?" Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about the amount the rich actually do pay.
First, the data: The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 ? the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes.
The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes.
The top 1 percent's taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government's revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.
Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich's share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less ? far less ? than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.
Let's try this another way. A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, "What should 'the rich' pay in income taxes?" Half the respondents said "25 percent"; 25 percent said "20 percent"; 12 percent said "30 percent"; and another 12 percent said "35 percent." The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now ? both by share of taxes and by tax rate!
Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing ? zero, zip, nada ? in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don't pay federal income taxes agree with Obama's $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes are opposed to Obama's health care plan.
Non-taxpayers support Obama's plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000.
Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of "neighborliness." Vice-presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of "patriotism."
Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income.
Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals ? especially secular liberals.
In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity ? or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity ? or 5.5 percent of their income.
Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.
Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity ? or 0.1 percent of their income.
So let's sum up.
- The "compassionate" liberals ? at least based on charitable giving ? show less compassion than "hardhearted" conservatives.
- The rich pay more in income taxes than people think.
- Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more.
Those evil greedy conservatives (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=77399)
-
This article is misleading in several ways, but just to pick the most obvious:
1. The rich have more to give away, so they can give more away. The obvious test is to look not at what they give away, but what they have left. Their lifestyle appears unimpeded by their giving. The McCains, for example, may give more to charity as a percentage of income, than the Obamas. But after giving whatever it is they give, the McCains are left with eight homes, the Obamas with one. The life-style that goes with the ownership of eight homes is obviously a little different than that of the Obamas as well. John McCain, for example, reported personally paying out over a quarter of a million dollars in just one year for household help.
2. The rich have various tax-shelter devices available to shelter a large portion of their income from U.S. income tax, so that their real income is usually not the reported income. Accounting for the wealth of even one typically rich family could be almost a full-time job for a professional C.P.A., structuring and tracking off-shore accounts, "sprinkler" trust funds and dummy interlocking corporations and voting trusts.
3. The article is fundamentally mistaken in stating that <<[the] top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542, the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. >> In actual fact, the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise is the group earning over $250,000.00 in annual income.
4. I've seen the figures before showing the relative percentages of income given by conservative families and liberal families. It sort of reminded me of the factoid I've seen in several places now that poor, elderly, black women living alone are the biggest contributors to televangelists like Swaggart and Benny Whatsizname and the others. Simple people with simple demands on life don't need a hell of a lot of money for themselves. Liberals with a very high regard for education want something more for their kids than some anti-evolution Bible College in the depths of the Ozarks, they want to attend theatre, opera, night-clubs, etc. and they want to save for a comfortable old age. So, sensibly, they save more and give less. They're smart enough to know that giving to charity solves nobody's problems because of the haphazard, drop-in-the-bucket nature of the gifts, it's really meant to make the giver feel good about himself, and they're also smart enough to know that government action CAN change social conditions. So maybe it's not very nice to say this, but charitable giving is for dummies, smart people who really want to make a difference rather than just indulge their own egos know that only government policy will make the changes that are needed.
-
This article is misleading in several ways, but just to pick the most obvious: The rich have more to give away, so they can give more away.
With the key factor being that they DO GIVE. And by all accounts, far more than liberals give. Liberals on the other hand have the propensity to TAKE from others and give it to who they deem more needing of it.
The obvious test is to look not at what they give away, but what they have left.
LOL....brilliant rationalization technique. Let's not look at how much they give. Let's look at what they still have left....in other words, if they still have "alot" they're still being greedy bastards. Which really doesn't bode well when you look at what's left after what messers Biden & Oblather give
-
<<With the key factor being that they DO GIVE. And by all accounts, far more than liberals give. Liberals on the other hand have the propensity to TAKE from others and give it to who they deem more needing of it.>>
Well, "taking from others" sounds like bank robbery. This is more like a bank robbery where the robber takes his own money out of his pocket and throws it into the pile of bank money and then the whole pile goes, not to the robbers, but to the poorest and neediest in the community. And of course, the money is taken legally through taxation and not at gunpoint. You are forgetting that the liberal is willing to contribute his own share to the pool and if he inherits a million, he pays the same tax on the income generated from that million as anyone else of similar income would pay.
<<Let's not look at how much they give. Let's look at what they still have left....in other words, if they still have "alot" they're still being greedy bastards. >>
What it really means is: don't be so impressed by what the rich gave, because it didn't really impact on their life-style. If a family with less money had to give the same percentage, it would actually be a bigger sacrifice, since their lifestyle WOULD be impacted by the gift.
-
>> And of course, the money is taken legally through taxation and not at gunpoint.<<
Once again the commie is clueless.
If you don't pay your taxes here in America, you will most certainly be forced to do so at the point of a gun. You will be fined, and or jailed. Your money will be taken BY FORCE. Your property will be taken BY FORCE.
Poltroon.
-
Once again the commie is clueless.
If you don't pay your taxes here in America, you will most certainly be forced to do so at the point of a gun. You will be fined, and or jailed. Your money will be taken BY FORCE. Your property will be taken BY FORCE.
Poltroon.
===================================================================
Really, Rich? What percentage of America's taxes is collected at the point of a gun? Most law-abiding citizens pay up long before it comes to that.
For your information, "poltroon" means "coward," not "ignoramus." It's one of the relatively few Dutch words ("boss" being another) that have made it into the English language. I believe your general complaint against me in this message was ignorance, not cowardice.
-
Once again ...
You claimed they weren't brainiac. Refuse to pay them and see what happens. See, a law implies force. Understand Mikey? If you break a law you are forced to suffer the consequences. I really don't see what's so hard to understand. I explained it pretty well in the previous post.
Read it again.
::)
-
<<With the key factor being that they DO GIVE. And by all accounts, far more than liberals give. Liberals on the other hand have the propensity to TAKE from others and give it to who they deem more needing of it.>>
Well, "taking from others" sounds like bank robbery.
Which is pretty much what egregious over taxation is.....Governmental endorsed robbery
You are forgetting that the liberal is willing to contribute his own share to the pool and if he inherits a million, he pays the same tax on the income generated from that million as anyone else of similar income would pay.
Notice the neat tact that liberals won't initiate any giving. It must be part of a universal giving. In other words, no compassion or charity, until its mandated by the left. Notice again also, the complete avoidance of how by and large Conservatives GIVE more of their own money & resources, but for the left, it requires an act of congress
<<Let's not look at how much they give. Let's look at what they still have left....in other words, if they still have "alot" they're still being greedy bastards. >>
What it really means is: don't be so impressed by what the rich gave, because it didn't really impact on their life-style.
And who cares about what impact it has on them?? What we should be caring about is how it impacts those the money is given to Good Lord ::)
-
<<And who cares about what impact it has on them?? What we should be caring about is how it impacts those the money is given to Good Lord >>
I'm not going to explain the obvious to you, sirs. Just give it five seconds' thought. If I give my home to the poor, I'm out in the street. If McCain gives one of his homes to the poor, he's still got seven left. Who made the bigger sacrifice, the guy with one home who gave it all to the poor, or the guy with seven or eight, who gave one to the poor?
There's even a Biblical parable about that, but I forget which one.
-
Class warfare is being a divider not a uniter.
You might be surprised who is wealthy in the USA , lots of regular people are millionaires and very few farmers can be a commercial success with less than a million dollars worth of land.
A cousin of mine used to raise soybean ,he used hundreds of dollars to buy or lease each tractor , some years he had six. He farmed the family land and rented thousands of acres more from landowners who couldn't afford that equipment.
Seed , herbicide , pesticide , fuel, fees and hires were expenses that generally rose every year , but the price of beans would rise and fall depending on factors that were as unpredictable as the weather or as predictable as the increase in Brazilian acres under cultivation.
He would sell a portion of his crop on the futures market to hedge his bets and lock in a price on a portion , he would buy insurance in the case of a catastrophic loss, enough insurance to ensure survival , not enough insurance and hedging to waste the receipt of a good crop.
To sum up , he would borrow hundreds of thousands , sell sometimes two or three millions , but even in a good year his share of the profit placed him firmly in the middle class.
Plumbing , heating and air contractors builders have also got the problem of looking richer on paper than they actually are. Taxes can be onerous enough to make sure that none of them actually becomes rich , if so they are also taxing enough to prevent expansion and hiring .
-
<<And who cares about what impact it has on them?? What we should be caring about is how it impacts those the money is given to Good Lord >>
I'm not going to explain the obvious to you, sirs.
Good, because your grasp of the "obvious" is pretty much on par with Xo's
Just give it five seconds' thought. If I give my home to the poor, I'm out in the street.
And that'd be YOUR CHOICE
If McCain gives one of his homes to the poor, he's still got seven left.
And less the amount of financial revenue the homes bring in, which then allows them to donate far more than any of your prescious libs, that will impact far more families, than just 1. So my advice, is to actually practice what you preach....give 5 seconds beyond your Communist manifesto playbook
-
<<And who cares about what impact it has on them?? What we should be caring about is how it impacts those the money is given to Good Lord >>
I'm not going to explain the obvious to you, sirs. Just give it five seconds' thought. If I give my home to the poor, I'm out in the street. If McCain gives one of his homes to the poor, he's still got seven left. Who made the bigger sacrifice, the guy with one home who gave it all to the poor, or the guy with seven or eight, who gave one to the poor?
There's even a Biblical parable about that, but I forget which one.
Ypu might mean the story of the widows mite , which Jesus said impressed him better than the ostentatious giveing of the wealthy , because the widow was modestly giveing all she had , the wealthy were giveing much more with great show , but were not giveing so much that they were straining themselves.
The comparison of the giveing of the canadates is in percentages , since none of them is less than comfortable , this makes the direct comparison quite fair .
The hipocracy of the liberal is to call themselves less greedy and more comnpassionate than the people that they rob to satisfy their urge to give , they do not part with their own so gladly.
-
<<Ypu might mean the story of the widows mite , which Jesus said impressed him better than the ostentatious giveing of the wealthy , because the widow was modestly giveing all she had , the wealthy were giveing much more with great show , but were not giveing so much that they were straining themselves.>>
Yes! Of course, the widow's mite. Thanks, plane.
-
sirs, your argument isn't with me, it's with Jesus Christ. Read the parable of the widow's mite and then respond or not as you see fit. I've done my best to explain the thing in my own way. Maybe Jesus Christ had a better way of putting it.
-
sirs, your argument isn't with me, it's with Jesus Christ. Read the parable of the widow's mite and then respond or not as you see fit. I've done my best to explain the thing in my own way. Maybe Jesus Christ had a better way of putting it.
MT goes on record as being in favor of giveing till it hurts , to the church.
-
"Giving till it hurts" is also a good way of expressing the same concept. Thanks again, plane.
I don't express any opinion on giving to the church, but the concept of giving till it hurts is certainly useful in evaluating the relative moral positions of liberal and conservative donors.
-
"Giving till it hurts" is also a good way of expressing the same concept. Thanks again, plane.
I don't express any opinion on giving to the church, but the concept of giving till it hurts is certainly useful in evaluating the relative moral positions of liberal and conservative donors.
It makes a diffrence if you are giveing till you hurt, or you are giveing till I hurt.
-
<<It makes a diffrence if you are giveing till you hurt, or you are giveing till I hurt.>>
Sure there's a difference - - in the first case, a few people are giving and hurting and the net effect is like a piss in the ocean. In the second case, you and I and everyone else is giving together and most of us are hurting equally, but we are collectively starting to make a real difference. Our "pain" is counterbalanced by the improvement in so many other people's lives, the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.
-
<<It makes a diffrence if you are giveing till you hurt, or you are giveing till I hurt.>>
Sure there's a difference - - in the first case, a few people are giving and hurting and the net effect is like a piss in the ocean. In the second case, you and I and everyone else is giving together and most of us are hurting equally, but we are collectively starting to make a real difference. Our "pain" is counterbalanced by the improvement in so many other people's lives, the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.
So it isn't moot to point out that Liberals give much less volentarily and pay less tax volentarily?
There are plenty of welthy Liberals , and they have plenty of Cayman Island accounts, when they are congressmen they write plenty of loopholes into every tax law they compose.
There isn't any evidence I know of that Liberals tax themselves as eagerly as they apply takeing to others , and I have seen evidence before that Conservatives do give volentarily.
The thesis that conservatives do not spread their wealth around volentarily seems unproven , even though it is used as the reason and justifacation for punitive taxation.
Have you ever been involved in hireing someone? The ordinary operation of capitolism not counting any charitable impules spreads wealth in the process of createing the wealth in the first place.
The forced charity of the liberal style of giveing may stave off starvation for some , but it produces no love , no pride , no permanant change in the situation.
-
sirs, your argument isn't with me, it's with Jesus Christ.
This is always entertaining to read a rabid Anti-christian, proclaim that someone else needs to get their act together with Christ. Problem of course, being that he's not me, nor has any clue about my walk with God. Just FYI for Tee, I have no arguement with Christ. My point with you however remains unrefuted, in that Conservatives by and large give FAR more to the poor and needy, while Liberals require an act of congress, and only as long as everyone else is being mandated to help
Read the parable of the widow's mite and then respond or not as you see fit.
That's easy.......it's what's in the heart, it's the intentions that God is looking at. If one's intentions is to give so much, because they believe it's the right thing to do, fabulous. If one's intentions are to give "alot" because it makes them look better to those around them, then that's not so fabulous. Only those people know what their own intentions are, and to claim that some "rich person's life" isn't properly upended following his giving, as some key to determing how honorable and sincere the giving is, speaks far more of the person making the pathetic claim, than it does about the person making the gift. Especially when you consider how much more left that liberals tend to have following their paltry charity efforts
Which again leads us to where the primary focus should be (minus the class warfare garbage), on how it impacts those on the receiving end of such charity
-
<<This is always entertaining to read a rabid Anti-christian, proclaim that someone else needs to get their act together with Christ. >>
Well, of course, that is not even close to what I said, but what else is new?
<< Problem of course, being that he's not me, nor has any clue about my walk with God. >>
Like I give a shit. It's something I never expressed an opinion on, or ever been concerned about in the slightest degree, but it's certainly not worth arguing about now.
<<Just FYI for Tee, I have no arguement with Christ. >>
Well, excuse me, sirs, but you have a HUGE argument with Jesus Christ. Jesus preached the parable of the widow's mite and you, in effect, have ridiculed the entire concept right here in this thread.
<<My point with you however remains unrefuted, in that Conservatives by and large give FAR more to the poor and needy, while Liberals require an act of congress, and only as long as everyone else is being mandated to help>>
OF COURSE it remains unrefuted. Nobody has ever denied it.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 05:26:20 PM
<<Read the parable of the widow's mite and then respond or not as you see fit.
<<That's easy.......it's what's in the heart, it's the intentions that God is looking at. If one's intentions is to give so much, because they believe it's the right thing to do, fabulous. If one's intentions are to give "alot" because it makes them look better to those around them, then that's not so fabulous. Only those people know what their own intentions are, and to claim that some "rich person's life" isn't properly upended following his giving, as some key to determing how honorable and sincere the giving is, speaks far more of the person making the pathetic claim, than it does about the person making the gift. Especially when you consider how much more left that liberals tend to have following their paltry charity efforts>>
LMFAO. Well, of course you totally missed the point and made it say whatever you wanted it to say in the first place. Just completely in line with your cheerfully making up your own reality as you go along to fit your crackpot crypto-fascist theories. Nothing new there. "This country was founded on conservative principles." Thank God I'm not your fucking spiritual advisor. You'll have to get someone else to explain the parable for you. It's pretty simple, really.
-
As is painfully obvious and yes, still entertaining, is again watching someone completely anti-Christian, judge my walk with Christ in some arguementative conflict, as we watch how he completely distorts and misrepresents the parable of the widow's mite. Then again, it's largely what we've come to expect, in the way of debate tactics from messer Tee
-
<<My point with you however remains unrefuted, in that Conservatives by and large give FAR more to the poor and needy, while Liberals require an act of congress, and only as long as everyone else is being mandated to help>>
OF COURSE it remains unrefuted. Nobody has ever denied it.
Finally......concensus