Bernice:Parents.  Individual responsibility.  Not the governments problem.  Then kick the kid in the choochoos and send his butt to his room for 10 years.  Horney little twerp. 

Mousetrap:
 

Czuch: 

Bwild:I"m not sure about the Australia thing.  Bernice might know tho.

Bwild:  I think I kinda brought it up with my posts on honor killings.  The forum is for politics and issues.  Everything seems to filter through politics eventually.  In my post below, the wife of a prominent business man was beheaded when she filed for divorce.  He is a Muslim and his mission in life was counter violent image of Muslims.  I'd say chopping off his wife's head didn't really help eliminate that negative image. 

Bernice:There's a psychology behind it and for many women, it's like being caught in a trap.  It seems easy to outsiders that escape is a logical choice.  But it's like having one's legs in a cement bucket.  You can't move.  For many women, there's no place to go but perhaps the biggest deterrent is the fear factor.  Look at how many abusive men go after their ex's and do them harm even to the point of death.  It's easier to live with the abuse than it is the fear of what may happen if you leave.  I think that the abuser breaks their spirit and they have nothing left to help them flee the abusive relationship.   They are frozen like a deer in headlights.

Mousetrap:Even in the US there have been many honor killings.  The women don't allow it.  But they don't have a lot of choice.  In the Eastern cultures, it's an oppressive situation and they either submit, or die.  There is no fighting back.  In the US, you have to be willing to break totally with your family and basically go into hiding.  CNN has done several stories on this issue and it's a serious problem that's not likely to go away anytime soon.

Mousetrap: In Islam, beating one's wife is not only permitted, but encouraged for the sake of strengthening the family and maintaining here honor and modesty.  We in the West oppress women.  An interesting way of looking at things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb6D9G4gpW8&feature=channel

2004: Buffalo, NY Muslim activist Muzzammil Hassan founds TV
station to combat negative stereotyping of Muslims.

2009: Buffalo, NY
Muslim activist Muzzammil Hassan beheads wife

What a difference 5 years makes.  Seems that since his wife had filed for divorce, Muzzammil had to perform an honor killing so he chopped her head off.  Nice touch Muzzammil.  That's sure to get those of us in the West to see Muslums in a different light. 

Get this:

"Friends expressed shock on Friday that the founder of a Muslim TV channel — which he launched in order to counter violent images of Muslims"
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/579324.html

From the article:

"I cannot believe it — I know them both well," he said Friday. "I cannot get a handle on this."

It would be a mistake to link an act of domestic violence to the couple's religion, he added.

"There is no place for domestic violence in our religion — none," Qazi said. "Islam would 100 percent condemn it."

Yeah, let's not blame the religion.  Just because honor killings is common practice, let's not jump to conclusions.  Islam wouldn't condemn this act since it's Islam that promotes it.  In Islam, if you are a woman and you are raped, you just may find yourself beheaded.  That's right, the family's honor is at stake here.  You had sex outside of marriage and that calls for your head.

Here's a picture of the couple.  She had an instrumental role in the creation of BridgesTV. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxnlvyCge4k

The Usurper:Good then you won't mind telling us the answers to the questions I asked.  How much money do you give away a year.  What's the percentage.  How many children do you support and from which organizations.  And what is the average giving of republicans?

I'll expect answers to these questions. 

 

 

The Usurper:No

They sound like followers of Jesus.  Next question

  

How many children do you sponsor in either world vision or Compassion International?

The Usurper:that's a cop out answer. 

What percentage of money do you give away to the needy each year and where does your money go?

For that matter, how much do you give away?

Jesus is here

give me a break.  Dude, finish school!  Suck it up!  Keep flippin burgers.  And you'll be ok.  But don't ask for a handout.

If I owe the poor anything, it is between me and GOD and NOT between me and the government.  And it certainly isn't any of your business what others do with their money.  And the early Christians weren't socialists.  You are misrepresenting their views and that amounts to lying.  I won't respond to any more of that sort of nonsense.  

The Usurper:You're over generalizing and misquoting.  But here goes:

Expecting the "poor" (whatever that really means for it is different from person to person) to earn their bread is NOT despising them. But it may be that their laziness is despised.

*[Doesn’t
O’Reilly mock the poor by generalizing that they are lazy &
irresponsible, and by equating them primarily with those who “drink gin
all day,” “smoke reefers 24/7,” “dropped out of school,” and are “too
lazy to hold a job”? Does not Glenn Beck mock the poor by misquoting
Benjamin Franklin to say, “We should make the poor uncomfortable and
kick them out of poverty”?]

No  and
No (and one source I read puts that quote in Franklin's autobiography)

Having pity on the poor doesn't equate with paying their way.  People who are stuggling should be helped.  But only if they help themselves in the process.  Otherwise let them live on the streets.


*[This
is gonna be a tough experience for Rush Limbaugh and like-minded
individuals, i.e., the hard right Republicans, the Hannitys, the
O’Reillys, etc.; but the filthy democrats who serve the same masters
are in the same boat.]

Who need God when they have the Usurper to judge them?

O'Reilly probably gives away more money percentage wise than you'll ever give.  He's always giving away money.  It's on his website if you took the time to really look.

*[There’s
our credit system. Do you think Solomon is applauding this state of
affairs, and not rather pronouncing judgment upon it? It seems that he
is finding fault with the good ‘ole American way.]

Um, hate to break this to you but Solomon is dead. 

*[I
take it Solomon believes that some people are robbed simply because
they are poor and can’t defend themselves. Not much has changed.]

Yeah, according to you then it is better to rob me and take my money and give it to my lazy neighbor.

Proverbs 28:3 A poor man that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food.

*[This is like being a poor Republican…there’s a real anomaly here.]

You don't know what you are talking about.  YOu can't name one socialist country where everyone prospers.  Only in a capitalistic system can the average man "live the dream."


*[You who love the American economic system, seem to me to despise the One Who inspired Solomon to write these words.]

Cheap shot and will be ignored.

*[Those
who argue that opportunity abounds, that only the lazy don’t succeed,
seem to me to “regard…not to know” the cause of the poor.]

You don't know either.  And you haven't even defined what you consider "the poor"


Proverbs 31:20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

*[This is what the Virtuous Woman does.]


um yeah Greg.  So give away your own money and leave the money of others alone.  You want to steal the money of others and give it to the poor. 


Acts
2:44 -45 And all that believed were together, and had all things
common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all
men, as every man had need.

That's right, they didn't expect a hand out from the government.  So this verse proves your position is extremely weak. 

*[The early Christians don’t look
like Capitalists to me. More like Socialists, if I may say so. They
worked hard, then spread the wealth.]

No.  They shared in their communal living.  You promote the government taking money from hard working people and spreading it around.  That is theft.


*[Can you
imagine what the Repubs would say about these people today?
Centralization & distribution of wealth so that all may benefit as
needed…that is Socialism!]

Socialism has always failed as a government system.  And you are mistreating all these texts.

You have butchered the biblical texts.

You have misapplied their meaning to fit your bias.

You have misrepresented the views of others (built up strawmen and ripped them down).

Your arguments are meaningless with non-Christians. 

The Usurper:'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.' We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15)

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Czuch:  

The Usurper: It doesn't matter what I think since I am not familar with the laws.  Off the top of my head I'd say I don't agree with such a generalized statement.

The Usurper:It's an ad hominem argument.  Just because a law is written by someone with money doesn't  make the law a bad law.  So define the law and argue the merits of your case.  A person's financial situation isn't an argument.

The Usurper: I don't know why people are poor.  In the US, most areas offer enough opportunities where if people work hard enough, they can lift themselves out of cycles of poverty.  I have more than my parents.  I started when I was in my twenties.  I saved my money.  Put myself through college.  Held three jobs when necessary.   My family never went hungry because I was willing to do what it took to keep employed.  When I lost a job, I was back out looking right away.  Sure I got unemployment and for a very short time (weeks) I benefited from food stamps.  But the point is, I kept trying.  I didn't rely on the government, I relied on myself.  And 30 years later I am debt free.  O'Reilly's point is that it can be done and many people have done it.  And many who haven't "done it" are just plain lazy or unmotivated.  They have no one to blame but themselves.  If you waste your youth, then when you are older, you'll have nothing to show for your years.  Who is at fault for that?

The Usurper:Promoting the general welfare has to do with US citizens and is not specifically referring to the poor. 

It has to do with Congress providing laws that are consistent with principles of self government.  Legislation is made to be in the best interest of the Nation.  In no way is there a constitutional right to welfare, if that's what you are getting at. 

The Usurper:No

The Usurper:
Are not rightwing attitudes towards poverty in general and the poor in
particular, overly critical?

No.  They are not.  They are right on.  What is more important is why anyone on the left would want to perpetuate the myth that people can't pick themselves up by their bootstraps.  The government is NOT the answer, it's the problem.  Why work when the system allows you to do nothing and get paid?  Only very hard cases deserve government help.  But most can do somthing for themselves and they do nothing.  And they are told not to worry, the government will help them.  If you refuse to work, you don't deserve anything but society's contempt.

Do they not heap blame upon the poor for
being poor? Do they view the poor with more or less contempt?

They heap blame on those that offer excuses as to why the poor are helpless to help themselves.  This is the lie of the left. 

The Usurper: It's a generalized statement and it's accurate.

The Usurper: I don't see your point

The Usurper: In many cases, yes.

Oh my, it's an ad hominem freeforall! 

Since we've established that people don't want to go this route, then...........

Bernice: I think I'll give a lesson on ad hominem since I seem to be the resident expert on it.  ;)

The Usurper:  I never listen to his program and I won't be baited into responding to a statement that's out of context.  Context is everything. 

Bernice:  I'll bet we don't hear from those that took me to task for my posts.  Wanna bet? 

The Usurper:  You're wrong.  They are both insulting and ad hominem.  Whenever you argue "to the man" that's an ad hominem.  Saying one's brain is under the influence of Fox is another way of saying one doesn't think for  him or herself.  You didn't address the issues,  addressed the person. 

And perhaps you can explain to everyone here how the first insult is "strictly accurate."  How can you possibly know?  To whom are you addressing this insult (since you seem to be generalizing it to all repubs)?  You can't have your cake and eat it too Greg.  Ad hominem is to the man.  That is what you did in both cases.  Man up.

The Usurper:  don't expect most of you to be able assimilate this fact in brains under the influence of Fox News.

Yes, old politics. From both parties. And they've sure got you boys trained like pet puppies.

And here I thought you said you were above throwing insults?  Guess not.  I'll bet you get a pass tho.  So much for:  "........my (your) attempt to keep this debate civil. In my (your)
opinion, it is too important to be approached in any other way."

Approached any other way except in some cases you mean. 

Bernice:

Czuch:  I'm not asking questions.  I'm making statements in the form of a question. 

Czuch:notice how many didn't pay their taxes and received no penalty?  I think we need to investigate Obama's tax records.

Czuch:And in the history of socialism and communism, they've always oppressed the people, kept them in collective poverty, and eventually they have fallen. 

OTOH, there is no system like the free enterprise / capitalist sys where the little guy can become a millionaire and the average joe can achieve financial freedom.  The Dems want socialism because that's the way to control the masses.  Promise them steak, feed them cake.

Czuch:A great way to start out change we can believe in. 

The Usurper:  I'd respond to that but I'm way over my quota for the day. 

The Usurper:  Well I've made my position clear and I have no interest in rehashing this topic as I've discussed it on several other forums.  My view hasn't changed over the years and it's unlikely you will convince me here either.  But feel free to engage others and I will stay out of it and keep my tiresome insulting comments to myself. 

Bernice:  Great, you ask me a question and now I have to answer so now I'm up to 20 posts for today and that means I'm still over 50 percent!  Oh well, now that I'm here, I have an answer.

You see, the Australian government set those fires.  The current theory is that the fires were set deliberately but the "who" isn't known.  Likely it was secret government operatives with orders coming from the highest branch of the military.  The reason?  Unknown at this point.  But like all good conspiracies, we'll just keep digging until we get to the bottom and find the "truth" (or find some reasonable explanation that we can adopt--which ever comes first).  And like all those committed conspiracy theorists, we will explain away any and all official explanations and only accept those explanations that support our conspiratorial views.

Or something like that.  ;) 

Could you people start posting some stuff cuz my daily percentage is nearly 50 for today and I gotta get it down.  With this post I'm probably over 51!  Any thoughts on this:

From the Cafferty File: Is stimulus plan “theft”?

??

(ps, we need 165 more posts to bring me down to my 10 percent quota so please hurry as I have a bunch more copy/pastes and links to share.)

Thanks  ;)

In The News:

For many months Operation YouTube Smackdown has effectively shut down almost 15 thousands terrorist videos posted on Youtube and this has caused a lot of anger among the cyberspace terrorists. Operation YouTube Samckdown is a group of patriots who took upon themselves to prevent spreading terrorist propaganda on Youtube. We have an ongoing thread here on FR about this operation and it is posted by Freeper StarCMC.

Bernice:Kennedy was killed in 63 and they are still arguing about the facts of his assassination.  It will never end.  I suspect the same will be true of 911.  No matter how much is said, and even if an independent investigation were conducted, unless the results match the conspiracy theorists agenda, they will not be satisfied.  Said another way, unless the world agrees with their point of view, they will continue to press on ad nauseum. 

Bernice:  I know, I suck at it.  I'm not sure how to calculate the 10% but I do have a calculator in my accessories folder.  That may help.  I'm still trying to google for the rule but can't find it.  I'll probably die tomorrow anyway as I've used up my cut and paste quota by now.