Should we show an interest in the OWS movement?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

So who are these conservatives that don't want to cut medicare and social security?

Who are these conservatives that want to level the tax code?

Who are these conservatives that actually have a plan that doesn't simply cut everything?

You need to read carefully. You need to listen to real Conservatives carefully. It appears that you are so set against them because of the propaganda that you have been fed that you can't hear or see the truth.

What is it about smaller Fed gov that you don't understand?

It's interesting that you aren't able to even come up with one name. LOL

What is it about actual candidates that you don't understand? LOL

“41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 They will answer, ‘Lord, what is it about smaller Fed gov that you don't understand? ’"

[phkrause]

taking videos of the marginal makes everyone look like that doesn't it? Makes us feel much better. whewww

[phkrause]

You need to read carefully. You need to listen to real Conservatives carefully. It appears that you are so set against them because of the propaganda that you have been fed that you can't hear or see the truth.

I don't listen to either, for me I listen to those that have something to say! So I guess I don't listen to either side, neither has anything to say. And the so called propaganda is rampart on both sides, and that's the sad part.

[phkrause]

It's interesting that you aren't able to even come up with one name. LOL

What is it about actual candidates that you don't understand? LOL

“41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 They will answer, ‘Lord, what is it about smaller Fed gov that you don't understand? ’"

[CoAspen]

Quote:

How long will you keep feeding and housing an able-bodied person who would not work?

Interesting, only talk in extremes!

My understanding of Christ is that HE stands at the door and Knocks, goes out and searches for (1) lost sheep.....how long does he keep looking??

[ClubV12]

CoAspen, with all due respect I think it's fair to say your analysis also tends to be a bit extreme. In that you seem to suggest there are no rules, no requirments, no interview is required in 100% of all cases for the poor.'

There are certainly some cases where the need is immediate and must be met without qualification. Then there is the long term aspect, where "rules" must be applied.

The goal should always be to avoid extreme positions on an issue.

[Overaged]

A new report mentioned the former ACORN workers were paying homeless $10 an hour to hang out. Paying others to solicite funds. Sounds like Capitalism is alive and well, no problem!

I wouldn't be so quick to say other posters are 'extreme" in their views until you can provide credible, verifiable references for this "report."

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

taking videos of the marginal makes everyone look like that doesn't it? Makes us feel much better. whewww

It's not hard to see the whole thing is orchestrated, and that many participants are repeating scripts already planned before the OWS crowd hit the street.

[cardw]

CoAspen, with all due respect I think it's fair to say your analysis also tends to be a bit extreme. In that you seem to suggest there are no rules, no requirments, no interview is required in 100% of all cases for the poor.'

There are certainly some cases where the need is immediate and must be met without qualification. Then there is the long term aspect, where "rules" must be applied.

The goal should always be to avoid extreme positions on an issue.

Nobody is suggesting no rules.

If abuse is the problem, which is one of the problems, then instead of cutting programs you need to reform them.

How come you advocate cutting rather than a plan to make people accountable?

Extreme or moderate has nothing to do with solving problems. You can be moderate and still not solve the problem.

There are ways to hold people accountable and still take care of the poor. And people who want to do this could care less if your are liberal or conservative.

The reason I tend to support democrats is that I would rather error on the taking care of side than to place people who are mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves in even more severe positions of poverty. If the Republicans came out with plans to stop the rich from fleecing the country and make those on welfare accountable I would be all over that. But instead you have a bunch of sound bytes and obstructionist smoke and mirrors that is ruining our country.

You want to make slashing cuts to programs that are helping people that legitimately need the help. The problem is in accountability.

And all I see is the conservative right demonizing the poor and looking the other way when people who have plenty steal even more.

Where is your outrage when the top 3 percent of the wealthy are being rewarded for doing a bad job?

You would rather continue to support the myth of trickle down economics with no rules. Talk about no rules!!!

[ClubV12]

OA, "Faux News" on that Acorn report, which I take with a grain of salt, sometimes I just unscrew the lid and take ALL the salt when it comes to Faux!

The ACORN story, if true to some degree and who knows, Capitalism is alive and well! At least somebodys making money on the protest. :)

[CoAspen]

Quote:

My understanding of Christ is that HE stands at the door and Knocks, goes out and searches for (1) lost sheep.....how long does he keep looking??

Yup, the religious leaders of Christs day had their rules also, Christ was the extreme, so thank you very much!!

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: cardw

So who are these conservatives that don't want to cut medicare and social security?

Who are these conservatives that want to level the tax code?

Who are these conservatives that actually have a plan that doesn't simply cut everything?

You need to read carefully. You need to listen to real Conservatives carefully. It appears that you are so set against them because of the propaganda that you have been fed that you can't hear or see the truth.

What is it about smaller Fed gov that you don't understand?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

You need to read carefully. You need to listen to real Conservatives carefully. It appears that you are so set against them because of the propaganda that you have been fed that you can't hear or see the truth.

I don't listen to either, for me I listen to those that have something to say! So I guess I don't listen to either side, neither has anything to say. And the so called propaganda is rampart on both sides, and that's the sad part.

You need a quality known as "discernment". It is a wonderful quality to have.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: cardw

It's interesting that you aren't able to even come up with one name. LOL

What is it about actual candidates that you don't understand? LOL

“41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 They will answer, ‘Lord, what is it about smaller Fed gov that you don't understand? ’"

This is an example of having a lack of discernment.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

CoAspen, with all due respect I think it's fair to say your analysis also tends to be a bit extreme. In that you seem to suggest there are no rules, no requirments, no interview is required in 100% of all cases for the poor.'

There are certainly some cases where the need is immediate and must be met without qualification. Then there is the long term aspect, where "rules" must be applied.

The goal should always be to avoid extreme positions on an issue.

Nobody is suggesting no rules.

If abuse is the problem, which is one of the problems, then instead of cutting programs you need to reform them.

How come you advocate cutting rather than a plan to make people accountable?

Extreme or moderate has nothing to do with solving problems. You can be moderate and still not solve the problem.

There are ways to hold people accountable and still take care of the poor. And people who want to do this could care less if your are liberal or conservative.

The reason I tend to support democrats is that I would rather error on the taking care of side than to place people who are mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves in even more severe positions of poverty. If the Republicans came out with plans to stop the rich from fleecing the country and make those on welfare accountable I would be all over that. But instead you have a bunch of sound bytes and obstructionist smoke and mirrors that is ruining our country.

You want to make slashing cuts to programs that are helping people that legitimately need the help. The problem is in accountability.

And all I see is the conservative right demonizing the poor and looking the other way when people who have plenty steal even more.

Where is your outrage when the top 3 percent of the wealthy are being rewarded for doing a bad job?

You would rather continue to support the myth of trickle down economics with no rules. Talk about no rules!!!

That is just the point cardw the Feds are not able to build into their junk programs accountability. Such accountability happens at the "local level" and the "personal level".

What are you cardw doing to make the poor as well as the rich accountable? Your solution is let the Feds do it so you don't have to soil your hands by getting in their and doing it at the "local level". Cardw just sits in his stuff and believes he has done his part because his "taxes" are working for him at the Fed level.

How about a smaller Fed Gov and you get those taxes back and then you go out yourself and use those "former taxes" to actually meet the poor and do something constructive for them and make them accountable yourself?

Is that too hard for you?

[miz3]

Quote:

My understanding of Christ is that HE stands at the door and Knocks, goes out and searches for (1) lost sheep.....how long does he keep looking??

Yup, the religious leaders of Christs day had their rules also, Christ was the extreme, so thank you very much!!

Just how many "libs", "socialists", "communists" etc, etc. are actually going out personally like Jesus Christ did, "one on one" or in "small groups" at their own expense without gov funds and 'seek those lost sheep'?

I hear a lot of talk, talk, talk, from the dems, the libs, the socialists, the commies, etc. but I see little actual personal seeking for those "lost sheep".

Its just talk because you are letting the Feds and bureaucrats in Washington do your work for you. If you leftist talkers got off your talk and went out and did something then there would be little if any need for the Feds to be involved.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

“41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 They will answer, ‘Lord, what is it about smaller Fed gov that you don't understand? ’"

Twisting the Word of God to apply to Big Fed Gov socialism and communism does nothing for your argument.

Jesus is not talking here about Big Fed Gov, Jesus is talking directly to you cardw. So what are you doing? Are you salving your conscience that you did your part because the Big Fed Gov took your dollars and doles it out in social programs?

"God the Feds did my part so I would not have to soil my hands". Is that what you are going to tell God?

I'm an agnostic so I won't be telling god anything.

It always comes to personal attacks once you don't have a case.

And when you can't even come up with one candidate you resort to calling me a socialist and communist. I'm neither. I rather enjoy living in a capitalistic society. I don't want more taxes. I want the funds we already have to be used with intelligence and everybody pays their fair share. That includes people who are poor and gaming the system, but the hemorrhage is coming from the rich.

Why do oil companies, drug companies, large food conglomerates, and financial institutions need subsidies? They are making the largest profits and yet they get billions. What is wrong with this picture? This is welfare for the rich on a scale that should shock you, but you are so blinded by I don't know what that you can't even admit that this is a problem.

What I want is smart government and that may involve allowing more local control. All you want to do is unilaterally destroy and you have no idea how the complexity of a modern culture works. You offer these simplistic solutions and call people names. What you should be screaming for is to restore the boundary between banking and investing and the repeal of FEC ruling by the supreme court that allowed corporations to be considered people. This has completely removed the ability of people to influence our political system in any kind of intelligent way because the machine of politics is now dedicated to re-election, no solving problems. There is no incentive to solve problems. This is called fascism and you are supporting it.

You complain that the poor are gaming the system and ignore the wealthy in this country who are fixing the system. There is no incentive to avoid financial risks in the stock market because it is considered too big to fail. That is not capitalism. That is socialism for the rich. You are ignorantly supporting socialism with this blame the poor schtick given to you by some very smart people who know they only have to say a few key words and they got you.

The stock market produces no product and is essentially gambling. It is like having your bets covered by the federal government. And it is these very Republican representatives you love so much that are allowing this to happen. They do this by feeding you this nonsense about the poor being the problem and you go around ignorantly parroting it for them.

I don't respect people who call me names and spread ignorance. You have the freedom to be willfully ignorant if you want, but you are being led by the nose.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: cardw

“41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 They will answer, ‘Lord, what is it about smaller Fed gov that you don't understand? ’"

Twisting the Word of God to apply to Big Fed Gov socialism and communism does nothing for your argument.

Jesus is not talking here about Big Fed Gov, Jesus is talking directly to you cardw. So what are you doing? Are you salving your conscience that you did your part because the Big Fed Gov took your dollars and doles it out in social programs?

"God the Feds did my part so I would not have to soil my hands". Is that what you are going to tell God?

[fccool]

Quote:

Third, I knew you were agnostic. However, you quoted the Word of God as if you knew what it meant when in fact you do not know what it means. If you quote Scripture as an Authority for your position then you have to be prepared to submit to that same Authority and be accountable. Don't quote the Bible as an Authority unless you are willing to submit to such an Authority.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what "authority" is. You are using it in context of a "power to submit to", while in it's original context it contained the idea of idea/advice/opinion of a certain author of that idea. Hence the authority. The book has no authority, and can't have any. Book is a collection of ideas written down by authors. The authors, but mere etymology of the word, would have the authority over the content of the book. I think it's obvious that if one agrees with certain concepts from that book and uses these as example, it does not automatically mean that one must submit to every single idea in the book.

Demanding that from people is beyond ludicrous. That's actually quite insane and totalitarian in its mindset.

I find it ironic that you are offended by the idea of totalitarian mindset, and you arguing against totalitarian governments, yet you are propagating the idea of totalitarian authority (as a book) that people must submit to . Do you see any dissonance here?

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Its just talk because you are letting the Feds and bureaucrats in Washington do your work for you. If you leftist talkers got off your talk and went out and did something then there would be little if any need for the Feds to be involved.

Got to love the name calling! Last resort!

I'm talking about Christ and you are talking about politics! You might want to get on the same page.

[miz3]

Quote:

Third, I knew you were agnostic. However, you quoted the Word of God as if you knew what it meant when in fact you do not know what it means. If you quote Scripture as an Authority for your position then you have to be prepared to submit to that same Authority and be accountable. Don't quote the Bible as an Authority unless you are willing to submit to such an Authority.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what "authority" is. You are using it in context of a "power to submit to", while in it's original context it contained the idea of idea/advice/opinion of a certain author of that idea. Hence the authority. The book has no authority, and can't have any. Book is a collection of ideas written down by authors. The authors, but mere etymology of the word, would have the authority over the content of the book. I think it's obvious that if one agrees with certain concepts from that book and uses these as example, it does not automatically mean that one must submit to every single idea in the book.

Demanding that from people is beyond ludicrous. That's actually quite insane and totalitarian in its mindset.

I find it ironic that you are offended by the idea of totalitarian mindset, and you arguing against totalitarian governments, yet you are propagating the idea of totalitarian authority (as a book) that people must submit to . Do you see any dissonance here?

No dissonance. One is submitting to human totalitarianism and the Bible on the other hand is submitting to God/Creator of All. There is an infinite difference between the two concepts.

Second, if one quotes something that as if one should be bound by its concepts then one should be willing to follow that same concept. No one was asking cardw to follow the whole Bible. I was asking him to submit to the Authority of that One Passage, a thing he seems unwilling to do. Thus, it is UNREASONABLE and hypocritical to quote to me one thing as if I should submit to that Authority when he (cardw) himself will not submit to it. In addition cardw got the meaning of that passage wrong. On both counts he is wrong.

In addition you are wrong to back him up thus, you make the same mistakes of reason and logic. In addition you were factually wrong about my use of Authority. No dissonance here. I am the consistent one.

[miz3]

Quote:

Its just talk because you are letting the Feds and bureaucrats in Washington do your work for you. If you leftist talkers got off your talk and went out and did something then there would be little if any need for the Feds to be involved.

Got to love the name calling! Last resort!

I'm talking about Christ and you are talking about politics! You might want to get on the same page.

I am on the same page. You apparently have trouble reading and understanding. What I wrote and have been writing is what Christ wants you CoAspen to do as an individual and to stop relying on the Feds to do God's work for you especially when the Feds are doing it for pagan reasons. Can the Feds Love the "poor" for you. Or does Christ expect you to get up close and personal?

[fccool]

Quote:

No dissonance. One is submitting to human totalitarianism and the Bible on the other hand is submitting to God/Creator of All. There is an infinite difference between the two concepts.

Most totalitarian governments throughout history claimed to be "god-diven". I don't think it's a proper excuse to say that well... one is by men and other is by god. You assume that it is, and then you go on claiming that people should abide by that assumption.

Quote:

Thus, it is UNREASONABLE and hypocritical to quote to me one thing as if I should submit to that Authority when he (cardw) himself will not submit to it. In addition cardw got the meaning of that passage wrong. On both counts he is wrong.

And that would be what exactly? Following Christ, or the fact that one should be sympathetic to those around us, and value and compassion for people more than we value digits?

Quote:

In addition you are wrong to back him up thus, you make the same mistakes of reason and logic. In addition you were factually wrong about my use of Authority. No dissonance here. I am the consistent one.

Telling me that I'm wrong is no different than saying "Sky is blue". It's an unconstrained statement. By itself, it has no wight whatsoever. Your sky may be blue, but it may be raining here.

[John317]

Jesus, the Liberal Democrat

By Michael Shannon, on October 29th, 2011

Lisa Miller, the religion columnist for the Washington Post, tells us how Jesus would have viewed the Occupy movement. In her mind, Christ becomes a non–judgmental, vegan philosopher whose market beliefs are Karl Marx without the aggressive beard and class struggle.

It’s tough enough trying to be a Christian in this secular world without taking misleading doctrinal advice from non–believers who deny the divinity of Christ. But some Christians obviously can’t resist because Hindus, Buddhists, Zen masters, Wiccans, pagans, fire worshipers, polytheists, agnostics, atheists and Unitarians continue their work of trying to get us to follow the “real” teaching of Jesus.

The latest advice comes from the religion columnist for the WaPost: Lisa Miller. Lisa is a conflicted Jew. The kind who goes to a Reform synagogue and says prayers for Israel, but her bizarre philosophy of moral equivalence leads Miller to believe Israelis are mean to Arabs. So she feels like it’s time to redefine the word “Israel,” at least for prayer purposes.

Fresh from altering the intent Jewish prayer, Miller turns to occupy Wall Street with helpful advice on how Christians should respond to this civic tantrum. Lisa knows just how Jesus would have responded, had He spent a few days in Zuccotti Park: “Thus, (H)e might have sympathy for the various causes espoused by the campers (end hydrofracking, tax the rich, support unions, cap executive pay.)”

Poor Jesus, He never gets a break. Plagued by Pharisees during his own time – thrown among parasites today. Miller’s non–divine Jesus is an advocate of what John Eldredge calls “wispy wisdom.” Christ becomes non–judgmental, vegan philosopher whose market beliefs are Karl Marx without the aggressive beard and class struggle. Naturally Miller turns to Bart Ehrman for expert agreement. Ehrman’s a favorite of secular, non–believing reporters because he’s a former evangelical Christian who lost his faith over typos in the New Testament. Today Ehrman is an agnostic professor of religion and the go–to guy for reporters looking to enlist Jesus in the Socialist International.

Still, even cursory readers of the New Testament know Jesus did not spend a lot of time discussing investment strategy, although Matthew 25: 14–30 comes close. Theologically it’s complicated, but the parable concerns a rich man going on vacation. He gives three of his servants ten, five and one talent of silver and then heads for the beach. When he returns, the master calls the servants to account. The ten–talent and the five–talent men invested and doubled their money. But the one–talent servant buried his for fear of losing it. The master praised those who doubled their money, but fired the one–talent servant, which sounds to me like a rousing endorsement of capital gains.

If you really read the Bible, it’s hard to co–opt the Savior into your earthly political plans without simply inventing theology. He had plenty of time to confront civil authority, yet Christ focused on religious authority. He didn’t discuss the politics with the Centurion or tax rates with Matthew. In fact the only system of government approved by God was that of the judges, and the Jews disliked that so much they demanded a king. Democracy and the consent of the governed are not mentioned in the New Testament because it’s not a political science or economics text. The Word is directed at individuals and not banks, corporations, the GOP, Congress or Parliament.

But Miller does real damage when she repeats the big lie of our modern, dissolute age. “The Jesus of history would love them all. What Jesus really said, and what he meant, are the subjects of culture’s greatest controversies, but one thing is sure. Jesus gave preferential treatment to society’s outcasts.” This half–truth is used to justify homosexuality, shacking up, sex before marriage, out–of–wedlock births and much of the rest of the degeneracy of our age.

But it’s a lie. Jesus’ ministry was in sharp contrast to that of the Pharisees who weren’t interested in people unless they were already members of the club. Jesus did do outreach. His ministry was directed at sinners and He welcomed them. For adulterers, thieves, terrorists, prostitutes, tax collectors, men with anger issues it was come one, come all.

But to remain in His presence you had to be willing to change EVERYTHING. He changed the names of His disciples, ordered them to abandon their families, and rebuked them for lack of faith. The prostitute and the fornicator had to lead a moral lives and the thief stopped stealing, to mention but a few. Yes ee reached out without regard to your past or your station in life, but if you were to follow Him, it was under His rules and Christ did not grade on the curve. That’s the truth Miller and other liberal Bible hijackers conveniently overlook.

Source:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2011/10/29/jesus-the-liberal-democrat/

[fccool]

I don't think the religious acceptance issue is question here. The question is whether Jesus did things in spite of people abusing the gift? Did he withhold healing from those lepers for being unthankful?