I'm STILL Voting For Obama

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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]

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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[sirs]

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

[sirs]

<<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