|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evangelical Support Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
ringo writes: And yet let's cut to the chase. Liberals want to control conservative property and finance. It is never gonna happen. Nor should it. Beyond necessary taxation, no reparations, welfare, or social equality programs should ever be forced on an electorate that never elected you. Community is not voluntary. It's a contract. It's binding. This is one of the main reasons for a clear division in US politics. It may have taken freedom and conscience a long time to change our minds and hearts, but even the bible advocates a cheerful and willing giver as opposed to a mandatory one. You may argue that Ananias and Saphire had no choice, but anyone who knows God, the Holy Spirit knows that He does not simply go around slaying people for being disobedient. jar always told me to throw God away. Maybe he had a point. And even though you always deny deny deny that you are advocating for a government to institute mandatory taxes, reparations, and social changes for the good of everyone, you really do support such a system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 663 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Of course conservative propaganda would tell you that. They want you to help protect THEIR property and finance - while they're stealing yours.
Liberals want to control conservative property and finance. Phat writes:
Of course it shouldn't. But it's a lie. It's the conservatives who want to control YOUR property and finance.
It is never gonna happen. Nor should it. Phat writes:
Nobody is suggesting anything beyond necessary taxation. But feeding the children IS necessary.
Beyond necessary taxation... Phat writes:
Get off that. Why shouldn't you pay what you owe?
... no reparations... Phat writes:
You fucking bastard. How can you DARE to be against feeding the hungry?
...welfare, or social equality programs should ever be forced on an electorate that never elected you. Phat writes:
Yes, there is a division between hateful, greedy bastards like you and people with compassion. There are also a lot of people in the middle who can be fooled by your lies.
This is one of the main reasons for a clear division in US politics. Phat writes:
It MANDATES a cheerful giver. Give your last two mites or you fry. even the bible advocates a cheerful and willing giver as opposed to a mandatory one. It's only because of greedy, hateful bastards like you that the churches have failed to fulfill their mandate. It's only because of greedy, hateful bastards like you that the government is FORCED to be the conscience of society.
Phat writes:
You DO NOT know God.
You may argue that Ananias and Saphire had no choice, but anyone who knows God, the Holy Spirit knows that He does not simply go around slaying people for being disobedient. Phat writes:
Supporting is not advocating. I say we unbelievers HAVE to do it. Our consciences demand no less. And even though you always deny deny deny that you are advocating for a government to institute mandatory taxes, reparations, and social changes for the good of everyone, you really do support such a system. But YOU fight against it.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
Well I finally did it. I pushed the right buttons to get an honest reply out of you. There really IS a liberal agenda. YOU really ARE authoritarian s. You justify the mandatory control because after all it NEEDS to be done. Why did you have to try and sell me a nice nice agenda when the facts show that you guys make it your secular version of a religion? I may have been born at night but not LAST night! And you won't win the next election.
ringo writes: Supporting is not advocating. I say we unbelievers HAVE to do it. Our consciences demand no less. And so it begins. Each side claims that the other side is the villains. We have liberalism as a secular authoritarian "ideal" to counter what you see as fake and hateful conservatives who use a made up Jesus. I really need to start a new topic on this. Edited by Phat, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 663 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Every reply you get from me is an honest one.
I pushed the right buttons to get an honest reply out of you. Phat writes:
It isn't a "liberal" agenda. It's a decent agenda. All decent people support it.
There really IS a liberal agenda. Phat writes:
I asked you before what's "authoritarian" about it. You didn't answer. How about an honest answer?
YOU really ARE authoritarian s. Phat writes:
As I have said, we HAVE the mandatory taxes regardless of the party in power. But it's only the hated "liberals" who want to spend the money to feed the children. You right-wing fanatics want to give it all to the rich.
You justify the mandatory control because after all it NEEDS to be done. Phat writes:
You talk about "facts" but you don't show any.
Why did you have to try and sell me a nice nice agenda when the facts show that you guys make it your secular version of a religion? Phat writes:
I'm not running in any election. And you won't win the next election. And you're the last person on earth who's capable of predicting election results.
Phat writes:
But it's easy to show the villainy on the conservative side. Your hero Trump brags about cheating on his taxes. He brags about groping women. He can't open his moth without lying. And his henchmen in the Republican Party protect him from the law. Each side claims that the other side is the villains. And YOU agree with him on everything. At least you're ashamed to openly support him. On the other hand, you have not shown that "liberals" are villains. It's pretty hard to find villainy in feeding the hungry and healing the sick, isn't it?
Phat writes:
1. Either back up your claim about authoritarianism or shut up about it. We have liberalism as a secular authoritarian "ideal"...2. Nobody is saying it's an "ideal". It's the bare minimum. Phat writes:
You don't need a new topic. You just need to respond to the rebuttals. I really need to start a new topic on this.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
Phat writes:
There really IS a liberal agenda.ringo writes:
It isn't a "liberal" agenda. It's a decent agenda. All decent people support it. Phat writes:
YOU really ARE authoritarian s.ringo writes:
OK. Lets start with the Oxford Dictionary.
I asked you before what's "authoritarian" about it. You didn't answer. How about an honest answer?au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism-- noun: authoritarianism 1) the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. 2) lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others. You can employ your euphimism of "decent agenda" all you like, but the fact is you prefer equality over freedom. If any child in the world were hungry, you would consider it a sacred duty for the government (a liberal progressive one, likely eventually a global one if the antichrist spirit gets its way) to tax or utilize my assets in order to feed them. That is, by definition, the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.I prefer the right to control (and distribute) my own private property and my own private money. The liberal authoritarians HATE that! Which, again, is why we have a political division in this country. Ray Dalio explains it all rather well in this video, which I doubt any of you will watch. He DOES know what he is talking about, however.
And Theodoric knows less about economic realities than he imagines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 663 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
That would be the conservatives, forcing women to carry dangerous pregnancies to full term.
authoritarianism1) the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. Phat writes:
That would be the conservatives, with no concern for whether the poor starve or freeze to death.
2) lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others. Phat writes:
It's not a euphemism. You can employ your euphimism of "decent agenda" all you like, but the fact is you prefer equality over freedom. Yes, I do prefer people to eat equally instead of having the freedom to starve. That is not authoritarian.
Phat writes:
Yes. A thousand times yes.
If any child in the world were hungry, you would consider it a sacred duty for the government (a liberal progressive one, likely eventually a global one if the antichrist spirit gets its way) to tax or utilize my assets in order to feed them. You should be ashamed of yourself for hoarding "your" assets while children go hungry.
Phat writes:
Not even close. It's a social contract. Fulfilling the terms of a contract is not authoritarian.
That is, by definition, the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. Phat writes:
The liberals hate it when you watch children starve and don't do anything about it. AND you have the gall to act all holier-than-thou about it.
I prefer the right to control (and distribute) my own private property and my own private money. The liberal authoritarians HATE that! Phat writes:
If it could be explained well... ("Y'see, Lord, I had to step on that homeless man's face because...") and if you're half as smart as you claim to be, you should be able to explain it yourself. Ray Dalio explains it all rather well in this video...Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
ringo writes: I like how you frame your argument. *cough* appeal to emotionalism*cough*. Not that I need to defend myself, but I am far from being a "Mr. Potter" or an "Ebenezer Scrooge" just because I lean conservative. My argument is that yes, an administration (imagine a global government) that insists upon control and distribution of ALL finances held by ALL private individuals in the context of feeding everybody would in fact be authoritarian. And before you all start cussing me out, I am NOT against helping the poor. I DO help many of them, more than you think or imagine. My argument centers on whether giving and providing for ALL of the people (be it a nation or a world) *should* be mandated by government (be it local, national, or global) rather than left up to individual decisions. My argument is that any mandatory system beyond taxation for basic services (which we have now) is authoritarian and SHOULD be opposed. As I said before,
I do prefer people to eat equally instead of having the freedom to starve. That is not authoritarianPhat writes:
If any child in the world were hungry, you would consider it a sacred duty for the government (a liberal progressive one, likely eventually a global one if the antichrist spirit gets its way) to tax or utilize my assets in order to feed them.Social Justice ringo writes: And you would chide me for "not doing what Jesus mandated I do". You don't believe the man/God ever existed, yet you always roll Him out of the archives whenever you want to support your authoritarian liberal agenda! You won't get all of the votes on this one unless you keep letting enough hungry and desperate people (without background checks) into the country simply to swing the vote perpetually to your party, ideology, and "side". Yes. A thousand times yes. See, I know where this all is going to end up.
ringo writes: You have not refuted my argument that liberals are (also) authoritarians. You simply blame the conservatives for being the WRONG authority. And since none of you sense that God is real, you justify liberal authoritarianism as necessary because If it could be explained well... ("Y'see, Lord, I had to step on that homeless man's face because...") and if you're half as smart as you claim to be, you should be able to explain it yourself.quote:. The problem is that "you guys" make up a little more than 50% of the population---hardly a mandate for such a "necessity".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 8.6
|
My argument is that yes, an administration (imagine a global government) that insists upon control and distribution of ALL finances held by ALL private individuals in the context of feeding everybody would in fact be authoritarian. Are any liberals actually proposing that? Or are you just making it up.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
I am making it up to a degree. It has not yet actually happened, since the money we now pay is adequate to address most bipartisan issues. Addressing ringo specifically, I find that he advocates doing whatever is necessary, My issue is that he thinks that in a crisis, everyone's money is fair game for use. In other places, such an action is known as a bail-in.
In 2008, the banks and financial institutions were bailed out. Some think that if a similar crisis occurred nowadays, the solution would have to be a bail-in since the Fed no longer has the money for a bail-out. The public collectively does, however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 8.6
|
Addressing ringo specifically, I find that he advocates doing whatever is necessary, My issue is that he thinks that in a crisis, everyone's money is fair game for use. As usual, you are probably misunderstanding ringo. And I'll remind you that it is the Republicans who are wanting to steal the social security trust fund and give it away to the very rich.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.0
|
So your answer is no. There are no liberals proposing such a thing and your are just making this up.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 663 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
People dying is an emotional subject. Empathy doesn't necessarily strengthen my argument but lack of empathy weakens yours.
I like how you frame your argument. *cough* appeal to emotionalism*cough*. Phat writes:
I damn near quoted Ebenezer Scrooge.
Not that I need to defend myself, but I am far from being a "Mr. Potter" or an "Ebenezer Scrooge"..."Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
Sounds a lot like you.
"Then let them die and reduce the surplus population." Phat writes:
You're not mean and nasty because you're conservative. You're conservative because you're mean and nasty.
... just because I lean conservative. Phat writes:
And that argument is wrong. Is an administration that taxes ALL finances held by ALL private individuals to build roads and schools authoritarian?
My argument is that yes, an administration (imagine a global government) that insists upon control and distribution of ALL finances held by ALL private individuals in the context of feeding everybody would in fact be authoritarian. Phat writes:
You certainly come across that way.
I am NOT against helping the poor. Phat writes:
For *should*, substitute "has to be because nobody else is doing it*.
My argument centers on whether giving and providing for ALL of the people (be it a nation or a world) *should* be mandated by government (be it local, national, or global)... Phat writes:
See above. Individual decisions are failing miserably.
... rather than left up to individual decisions. Phat writes:
Feeding people IS a basic service. It doesn't get any more basic than that.
My argument is that any mandatory system beyond taxation for basic services (which we have now) is authoritarian and SHOULD be opposed. Phat writes:
YES.
And you would chide me for "not doing what Jesus mandated I do". Phat writes:
You really are an idiot. You don't believe the man/God ever existed, yet you always roll Him out of the archives whenever you want to support your authoritarian liberal agenda! I expect you to do what Jesus said because you DO claim to believe in him. I have asked you many times, If you really do believe in Him, why would you not do what He said? It has nothing to do with what I believe. It's about knowing YOU by YOUR fruits.
Phat writes:
I told you before, I'm not asking for votes.
You won't get all of the votes on this one unless you keep letting enough hungry and desperate people (without background checks) into the country simply to swing the vote perpetually to your party, ideology, and "side". Phat writes:
Sure I have. I have pointed out that ALL governments tax their citizens. That is not authoritarian. YOU have not responded to the rebuttal.
You have not refuted my argument that liberals are (also) authoritarians. Phat writes:
Not for "being" wrong. For DOING wrong.
You simply blame the conservatives for being the WRONG authority. Phat writes:
Eating is a necessity. No "mandate" is needed for feeding people. It's the decent thing to do. The problem is that "you guys" make up a little more than 50% of the population---hardly a mandate for such a "necessity".Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
nwr writes: Seriously? If so that is evil, evil, evil. Link me up with some data to support this. And I'll remind you that it is the Republicans who are wanting to steal the social security trust fund and give it away to the very rich.
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894). When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.0
|
Read the news. There is a thing called Google. Search GOP social security.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
I do read the news and I do use google but I do need to brush up on my political ideology(ideologies?) since unlike many Democrats and Republicans both, I don't simply listen to my own peanut gallery and glean my ideologies off of soundbites from the news, videos, and newspaper commentary. I strive to be a moderate, but I'm not sure which ideological path will help (all of us, I suppose) the most.
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894). When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024