Why so scared of Christmas?

[Cynthia]

"Let's get back to reality here"

The reality here has been beat to death.

Your statement was clearly about  name calling a name caller.

So, when you say that you must refresh our memories?? duh? what?

That has nothing to do with MY particular post.

[Michael Tee]

<<So, when you say that you must refresh our memories?? duh? what?

<<That has nothing to do with MY particular post.>>

Your mistake was only to equate the provocation with the reaction.  I don't agree that they're both equal, but there's nothing particularly stupid in your post, a lot of people who aren't themselves involved in a squabble with take a "plague on both your houses" POV, as you did.

As I indicated in my post, the person I was particularly disappointed in was The Professor, who claimed he couldn't see any difference between my reaction to sirs' insult and the purely gratuitous insult that Rich levelled at terra.  It should have been obvious from my post that the "let's refresh our memories" stuff was aimed at The Professor, not at you.  However, if you took that as aimed at YOU, then I apologize for not making myself clearer.

[Cynthia]

Cynthia:  <<uh...."Kettle, Pot on line one!">>

The Professor:  <<and here we go again. We, and you did it aplenty criticized Rich for name-calling and yet we see it again, except by someone else.

                      <<Physician, heal thyself!>>

Let me refresh your memories.


Let me refresh YOUR memories!

Directed at both of us.

[The_Professor]

Cynthia:  <<uh...."Kettle, Pot on line one!">>

The Professor:  <<and here we go again. We, and you did it aplenty criticized Rich for name-calling and yet we see it again, except by someone else.

                      <<Physician, heal thyself!>>

Let me refresh your memories.  Rich insulted terra without provocation.  In a particularly vile manner.  This shouldn't be too hard for either of you to understand:  1.  An UNPROVOKED insult.   2.  a vile insult

Let's get back to reality here, difficult though it may be for the two of you.  I take the time and trouble to provide a reasoned, logical response to sirs' (typically) idiotic post.  Showing him at least the respect of taking his brain-farts seriously enough to compose a reasoned reply to them.  And in return, get this response to my post:  [I quote]:  "Gotta love that rationalizing hypocrisy."  Period.  No more no less.  Basically calls me a fucking hypocrite - - fair enough.  That's his opinion.  For what it's worth.  But with nothing to back it up?  With not one single reference to one thing I said that is "hypocritical?"  Sorry folks, that is not discussion, not debate, not even rational.  My argument, which I put some time and thought into, was answered with a single unsubstantiated personal insult.

So naturally I responded in kind.  Insult for insult.  Is there anything particularly vile in sirs' insult to me ("hypocrite?")  I don't think so.  Was there anything particularly vile in my retaliatory insult to sirs ("moron?") I don't think so.

Here's my reply to those of you who wish to compare my response to sirs' insult of me  with my response to Rich's insult of terra:  You are wrong.  I am not particularly surprised or disappointed by Cynthia's response, but I am kind of disappointed in yours, Professor.  You really should know better.  I really thought you were smarter than that.

MT, the chief point I am making is NOT that your name calling was as bad as Rich's as it obviously wasn't even in the same league, BUT we all cross the line, so more understanding should be in order. Hey, I do it sometimes, too, to my shame.

[Michael Tee]

<<MT, the chief point I am making is NOT that your name calling was as bad as Rich's as it obviously wasn't even in the same league, BUT we all cross the line, so more understanding should be in order. Hey, I do it sometimes, too, to my shame.>>

I know that I crossed a line, Professor, but it was one of the minor, "danger ahead" lines, not the red line that Rich crossed.  When someone insults me, I like to give back at least as good as I get.  I figured "moron" was a tad stronger than "hypocrite" but perfectly appropriate in the circumstances.  "Ass-hole" was maybe something more than the situation required, and I probably would have had no objection to being properly taken to task over it.  However your post, even as I re-read it, gives no indication that my response to sirs wasn't in the same league as Rich's conduct, which of course pissed me off no end.

I'm glad you are not putting ME in the same league as Rich, Professor.  With that little misunderstanding straightened out, I can certainly appreciate your point and even agree with it to some extent.  No hard feelings, Professor.

[_JS]

So, Js....here's a pet peeve I have, that you never have fully been able to explain to my satisfaction.  You use Christ's teachings and references to scripture in how we are to help our fellow man....which of course I also support & agree with.  UNTIL it turns to commentary regarding taxes, where I've seen the reference to Jesus in criticising, if not condemning those, especially christians, who don't agree with ever increasing taxation, especially on the so-called "rich" in order to enabl...I mean perpetu....I mean to "help our fellow man". 

Would those who would bring up such a reference to Jesus, in apparently trying to lay some massive guilt trip on the individual(s) being criticized, be implying that Jesus would support coercison, be it forceably or legally, of taking $$$ from some, and give to others?  You really think that's a line of debate help spread Christ's message?

Absolutely. Shall I recall the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? Shall I go into James chapter 5? All the examples from Luke? Acts? Wealth is not exactly one of Christ's nor the Apostle's most favored of social statuses.

James 5:1-6

1 Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries.
2 Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten,
3 your gold and silver have corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days.
4 Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.
5 You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter.
6 You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous one; he offers you no resistance.

Wow. James didn't exactly mince words, did he? Let me know if you wish to get into deeper discussions on specific scripture and we can make a new thread. I'd enjoy the discussion.

To answer your question quite clearly, no, I don't believe Christ would have a problem with a government whose goal was to do good for the poor by taxing the wealthy. Whose face is on the coin? What did Abraham say to Lazarus? What did he say to the wealthy man? What kind of society did Peter form with the Apostles after Christ's death, Resurrection, and ascension? Did they not share all possessions in common? Or did they squabble over property rights?

Have you read Matthew 25?

You come up with whatever names you want and semantics to play. Neoliberalism is its own church, requiring its own tenets of belief and certainly its own worship of its own golden calves.

[_JS]

The troubble is that the Palstinians are stuck in the violence groove imagine the civil ight movement in he US or South Africa if every attempt at anything other than vioence led to violence?If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were a Palestinian he woul be assissinated by another Palestinian (someting like Rabin) and the violence is innefective , it should remain innefective and it shold LOOK innefetive to everyone that sees it.

Meanwhile I don't see criticiseing the Isrelis fortheir violece without also criticiseing the Palistinians for theirs , if the alistinians would give up on violencethey might make some better progress, but while they are struggleing with violenc it is useles to note that the number of kids killed by one side is greater than the other.

Are you saying that the South African's didn't experience violence? They did. The Blacks fought back.

Why should it be ineffective? Should our violence towards the British have been ineffective? It certainly did not stop us and we were NO WHERE near as oppressed as the Palestinians (if we were oppressed at all). There were plenty of innocent people killed and dispossesed by "patriots." Should they have countered with nonviolence instead? Or are they special because they are Americans, or perhaps Christians, or perhaps white?

[The_Professor]

<<MT, the chief point I am making is NOT that your name calling was as bad as Rich's as it obviously wasn't even in the same league, BUT we all cross the line, so more understanding should be in order. Hey, I do it sometimes, too, to my shame.>>

I know that I crossed a line, Professor, but it was one of the minor, "danger ahead" lines, not the red line that Rich crossed.  When someone insults me, I like to give back at least as good as I get.  I figured "moron" was a tad stronger than "hypocrite" but perfectly appropriate in the circumstances.  "Ass-hole" was maybe something more than the situation required, and I probably would have had no objection to being properly taken to task over it.  However your post, even as I re-read it, gives no indication that my response to sirs wasn't in the same league as Rich's conduct, which of course pissed me off no end.

I'm glad you are not putting ME in the same league as Rich, Professor.  With that little misunderstanding straightened out, I can certainly appreciate your point and even agree with it to some extent.  No hard feelings, Professor.

And I certainly offer my apologies if I meant it was in the same league as it is defintely NOT.

I must say, with all sincerity, that I find your views, most of the time anyway, to be bizarre in the extreme. That being said, I am a better person for having been exposed to them and having my mind exercised.

[Plane]

The trouble is that the Palestinians are stuck in the violence groove imagine the civil right movement in he US or South Africa if every attempt at anything other than violence led to violence?If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were a Palestinian he would be assassinated by another Palestinian (someting like Rabin) and the violence is ineffective , it should remain ineffective and it should LOOK ineffective to everyone that sees it.

Meanwhile I don't see criticizing the Israelis fortheir violence without also criticizing the Palestinians for theirs , if the Palestinians would give up on violencethey might make some better progress, but while they are struggling with violenc it is useless to note that the number of kids killed by one side is greater than the other.

Are you saying that the South African's didn't experience violence? They did. The Blacks fought back.

Why should it be ineffective? Should our violence towards the British have been ineffective? It certainly did not stop us and we were NO WHERE near as oppressed as the Palestinians (if we were oppressed at all). There were plenty of innocent people killed and dispossessed by "patriots." Should they have countered with nonviolence instead? Or are they special because they are Americans, or perhaps Christians, or perhaps white?

Violence can work , but why does no one ever admit that violence can fail?
Or deny that the alternative can work?

For Sixty years the Palestinians and their allies have done their utmost , in the future they may do even More , but they can fail , they can fail any number of times.

The Israelis are worried that they only get one failure so they fight harder than the Palestinians  , however hard they Palestinians fight they know that just by stopping they can take  rest , the Israelis don't have this.

The Isrelis have built a wall , regrettable in many respects , but the fatalitys of children on both sides are down as a result , sowhere should the prioritys be placed?

[Plane]

Why should it be ineffective? Should our violence towards the British have been ineffective? It certainly did not stop us and we were NO WHERE near as oppressed as the Palestinians (if we were oppressed at all). There were plenty of innocent people killed and dispossesed by "patriots." Should they have countered with nonviolence instead? Or are they special because they are Americans, or perhaps Christians, or perhaps white?

What the early US had was military advantage that the English couldn't match , if the Revolution had happened earlyer it might have failed , if t had happened later it might have succeeded faster. Benjaman Franklin right in the middle of hostilitys noted that the American Birthrate was far in excess of the casualtys and predicted victory.In those days large familys were the norm and each young man was prone to stablish a new farm and a new family.

The Palestinians have a diffrent situation but they don't understand it , a high birthrate is working against hem because it is contributeing not to their strength , but to their poverty. If they tripple their number they will gain practicly no military advantage , but they will divide their resorces for sustanance by three.

[sirs]

To answer your question quite clearly, no, I don't believe Christ would have a problem with a government whose goal was to do good for the poor by taxing the wealthy.

Absolutely stunning.  Well, at least your honest.  To think, the core foundation of what God allowed to happen, and thru Christ, the freedom of will, to choose the path you want to take, not being forced to lead a Christian life, but the freedom to make the ultimate choice, between walking a path of Godly righteousness or........not.  Yet here, a much lesser choice is not to be made by man, but by government.  

That you'd think for a microsecond that Jesus would support Goverment forcibly talking anything, be it money, property, whatever from one to give to another is pretty much the epitome of......well, NOT being Christian.  Christianity is the heart of giving of oneself.  At least IMHO

[_JS]

To answer your question quite clearly, no, I don't believe Christ would have a problem with a government whose goal was to do good for the poor by taxing the wealthy.

Absolutely stunning.  Well, at least your honest.  To think, the core foundation of what God allowed to happen, and thru Christ, the freedom of will, to choose the path you want to take, not being forced to lead a Christian life, but the freedom to make the ultimate choice, between walking a path of Godly righteousness or........not.  Yet here, a much lesser choice is not to be made by man, but by government.  

That you'd think for a microsecond that Jesus would support Goverment forcibly talking anything, be it money, property, whatever from one to give to another is pretty much the epitome of......well, NOT being Christian.  Christianity is the heart of giving of oneself.  At least IMHO

Christianity is a religion of following Christ. Christ's call is radical Sirs. He was not put to death for telling people what they want to hear. He was not put to death for telling the wealthy that they could do whatever they want and we'd all be fine with that. Christ didn't go around saying, "whatever man." Had he done so, He'd have lived and we'd never know who He was. His call is very radical and He upset the status quo. Look at what James wrote, you think that made people content or just maybe it got under some people's skin?

Love your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Forget burying your father. Give away all of your possessions. Clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the prisoners. Those weren't easy commands Sirs. Christ never said to do what you like and love free enterprise. That was not His call.

I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't see that it has anything to do with Christianity.

[_JS]

The trouble is that the Palestinians are stuck in the violence groove imagine the civil right movement in he US or South Africa if every attempt at anything other than violence led to violence?If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were a Palestinian he would be assassinated by another Palestinian (someting like Rabin) and the violence is ineffective , it should remain ineffective and it should LOOK ineffective to everyone that sees it.

Meanwhile I don't see criticizing the Israelis fortheir violence without also criticizing the Palestinians for theirs , if the Palestinians would give up on violencethey might make some better progress, but while they are struggling with violenc it is useless to note that the number of kids killed by one side is greater than the other.

Are you saying that the South African's didn't experience violence? They did. The Blacks fought back.

Why should it be ineffective? Should our violence towards the British have been ineffective? It certainly did not stop us and we were NO WHERE near as oppressed as the Palestinians (if we were oppressed at all). There were plenty of innocent people killed and dispossessed by "patriots." Should they have countered with nonviolence instead? Or are they special because they are Americans, or perhaps Christians, or perhaps white?

Violence can work , but why does no one ever admit that violence can fail?
Or deny that the alternative can work?

For Sixty years the Palestinians and their allies have done their utmost , in the future they may do even More , but they can fail , they can fail any number of times.

The Israelis are worried that they only get one failure so they fight harder than the Palestinians  , however hard they Palestinians fight they know that just by stopping they can take  rest , the Israelis don't have this.

The Isrelis have built a wall , regrettable in many respects , but the fatalitys of children on both sides are down as a result , sowhere should the prioritys be placed?

So violence is OK for some, but you don't think it is OK for the Palestinians. Why?

The Americans would never have won without the French. End of.

Besides you never really answered the question. Why was said violence OK for us, even towards innocents, but for the Palestinians it is absolutely intolerable (in your view)?

[Cynthia]

"I figured "moron" was a tad stronger than "hypocrite" but perfectly appropriate in the circumstances.  "Ass-hole" was maybe something more than the situation required, and I probably would have had no objection to being properly taken to task over it.  However your post, even as I re-read it, gives no indication that my response to sirs wasn't in the same league as Rich's conduct, which of course pissed me off no end."


A tad stronger.....appropriate for WHAT?

You make this sound as if it's the sequel to Yellow Crane's play.

Lexical differences, indeed.

[Plane]

The trouble is that the Palestinians are stuck in the violence groove imagine the civil right movement in he US or South Africa if every attempt at anything other than violence led to violence?If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were a Palestinian he would be assassinated by another Palestinian (someting like Rabin) and the violence is ineffective , it should remain ineffective and it should LOOK ineffective to everyone that sees it.

Meanwhile I don't see criticizing the Israelis fortheir violence without also criticizing the Palestinians for theirs , if the Palestinians would give up on violencethey might make some better progress, but while they are struggling with violenc it is useless to note that the number of kids killed by one side is greater than the other.

Are you saying that the South African's didn't experience violence? They did. The Blacks fought back.

Why should it be ineffective? Should our violence towards the British have been ineffective? It certainly did not stop us and we were NO WHERE near as oppressed as the Palestinians (if we were oppressed at all). There were plenty of innocent people killed and dispossessed by "patriots." Should they have countered with nonviolence instead? Or are they special because they are Americans, or perhaps Christians, or perhaps white?

Violence can work , but why does no one ever admit that violence can fail?
Or deny that the alternative can work?

For Sixty years the Palestinians and their allies have done their utmost , in the future they may do even More , but they can fail , they can fail any number of times.

The Israelis are worried that they only get one failure so they fight harder than the Palestinians  , however hard they Palestinians fight they know that just by stopping they can take  rest , the Israelis don't have this.

The Isrelis have built a wall , regrettable in many respects , but the fatalitys of children on both sides are down as a result , sowhere should the prioritys be placed?

So violence is OK for some, but you don't think it is OK for the Palestinians. Why?

because it is fruitless and endless , and there is a better alternative or them . One might think it unjust that the Apache didn't win , but they decided to quit while there were still some of them left if they were fihting till the present day they would have suffered the war till the present.The Palestinians are too hung on the notion of winning should they really devote two more generations to it|?

The Americans would never have won without the French. End of.

The French were key , but the Spanish would not have served just as well if the French were not helpfull?
The war was a near thing , but it worked.
Imagine that the British kept controll untill 1864 , then the Civil war might have been fough with Redcoat involvement.

Besides you never really answered the question. Why was said violence OK for us, even towards innocents, but for the Palestinians it is absolutely intolerable (in your view)?

It is not OK for US it is not OK for anyone , esecially for attacks intended to kill the innocent , or which neglectfully allow innocent casualtys.We do work to prevent the by kill that can be avoided . The Palestinians do not.

Isreal does not deserve praise for killing a child, and the Palestianians don't either, neither do the Palestianins deserve any excusemakeing.