Lefties Pretend To Be Religious

[Bonnie]

rtwngAvngr

I believe if taxes were radically cut, people would have more money, and that they would give more to charity. Of course they wouldn't give ALL of it to charity. But then at least giving would be real charity, and not government coercion.

I agree with this, government as always loves to say or think they know better how to spend people's money. Liberals especially love to think they are the only giving people on the planet, so what do they do, they legislate and lobby up laws to give away everyone else's money, how generous.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

rtwngAvngr


I agree with this, government as always loves to say or think they know better how to spend people's money. Liberals especially love to think they are the only giving people on the planet, so what do they do, they legislate and lobby up laws to give away everyone else's money, how generous.

Studies have shown red state personages (for ictp) give more. Dems somehow get puffed up with their own virtue when they take OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY and give it away. Silliness. Utter silliness.

 

[Bonnie]

Studies have shown red state personages (for ictp) give more. Dems somehow get puffed up with their own virtue when they take OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY and give it away. Silliness. Utter silliness.

Hey it's easy spending other's money right??

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey it's easy spending other's money right??

Stalin thought so. Pol pot too. Let's ask Dick Durbin.

 

[Gabriella84]

You can spew all the conservative hatred you want. Modern technology can easily turn shit into sugar and pass it off as such. That is the basis for much of Republican view of the "terrorist threat."

What is important is that the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
I am guessing that, if you did an exhaustive investigation, there are more conservatives that want to kill Muslims than Muslims who want to kill Americans. Islam is, by its very nature, a very peaceful religion. There is a small radical faction that are hardliners.
You can look at American corporations the same way. Many work for the good of their workers and society as a whole. A small faction work for their own good and want to screw as many people as possible.
That is why, when foreigners look at America, they rarely see the honest, peaceful majority. They see the hateful minority that cares only about itself and wants to kill everyone that disagrees.

 

[OCA]

Islam is, by its very nature, a very peaceful religion. There is a small radical faction that are hardliners.

 

[Annie]

You can spew all the conservative hatred you want. Modern technology can easily turn shit into sugar and pass it off as such. LINKThat is the basis for much of Republican view of the "terrorist threat."

What is important is that the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and separation of church and state.No it doesn't, it provides freedom from the establishment of a religion.
I am guessing that, if you did an exhaustive investigation, there are more conservatives that want to kill Muslims than Muslims who want to kill Americans. Islam is, by its very nature, a very peaceful religion.LINK for both the conservatives wanting to kill Muslims AND Islam by NATURE being PEACEFUL! There is a small radical faction that are hardliners.
You can look at American corporations the same way. Many work for the good of their workers and society as a whole. A small faction work for their own good and want to screw as many people as possible.
That is why, when foreigners look at America, they rarely see the honest, peaceful majority. They see the hateful minority that cares only about itself and wants to kill everyone that disagrees.

Ya know Gabby, you've worn out whatever welcome some wished to extend you. Trot along now to DU or another conservative board.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You can spew all the conservative hatred you want. Modern technology can easily turn shit into sugar and pass it off as such. That is the basis for much of Republican view of the "terrorist threat."

What is important is that the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
I am guessing that, if you did an exhaustive investigation, there are more conservatives that want to kill Muslims than Muslims who want to kill Americans. Islam is, by its very nature, a very peaceful religion. There is a small radical faction that are hardliners.
You can look at American corporations the same way. Many work for the good of their workers and society as a whole. A small faction work for their own good and want to screw as many people as possible.
That is why, when foreigners look at America, they rarely see the honest, peaceful majority. They see the hateful minority that cares only about itself and wants to kill everyone that disagrees.

You're just plain igorant. Please get educated about the history of islam and especially the dominant Wahabi sect, which is funding global terrorism.

 

[Bonnie]

Gabriella84

I am guessing that, if you did an exhaustive investigation, there are more conservatives that want to kill Muslims than Muslims who want to kill Americans. Islam is, by its very nature, a very peaceful religion. There is a small radical faction that are hardliners.

Islam is seeking to achieve its goal of the Final Holy War (Jihad) through means of International terrorism as well as the rise of the Islamic religion. Muslims say that conversion may be achieved through persuasion or subjugation, but if people will not convert to Islam, then it is ok to kill the people who do not convert, who they describe in the Koran as “infidels”. (Ibid pg. 35)

Islam teaches that Jihad, or Holy War is to be waged until the Day of Judgment, or until the world is under complete domination by the Islam. According to the Koran, if a non-Muslim will not repent and turn to Islam, then “Slay them wherever you find them” and “When you encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter against them.” The Koran also states, “O, true believers, take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends. They cannot be trusted. They are defiled, filth.”

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme." (Koran 8:37)



The Koran instructs not to make friendship with Jews and Christians (Koran 5:51) but to war against them: "When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way (Koran 4:5). "Fight against those who believe not in God nor in the Last Day, who... refuse allegiance to the True Faith from among those who have received the Book, until they humbly pay tribute out of hand." (Koran 9:29)



"...kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191); "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (Koran 9:5); "murder them and treat them harshly" (Koran 9:123).


Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (Koran 69:30-37)


“Strike off the heads of the disbelievers"; and after making a "wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" (Koran 47:4).

“Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers"; "smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them" (Koran 8:12; cp. 8:60).



“O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern against them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge indeed" (Koran 9:73).



“slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace..." (Koran 5:34).



“for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" (Koran 22:19-22)



It is not us who slay them but Allah, in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself." (Koran 8:17; cp. Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190)



Allah "will punish them by our hands..." (Koran 9:14).

Do you actually think before you write down your thoughts????

 

[IControlThePast]

I prefer to stay here and keep lefty pigs like you out of our government, while simultaneously revealing your ideas as the trash they are.

The only party going for your flat tax rates/radical cuts are the libertarians and other minor parties, so enjoy having a lot of power in government and getting those ideas through .

I believe if taxes were radically cut, people would have more money, and that they would give more to charity. Of course they wouldn't give ALL of it to charity. But then at least giving would be real charity, and not government coercion.

They might give more to charity than they give now, but they wouldn't give all of the money they would have been taxed for programs to help the poor, plus what they would have given to charity anyways to charities.

Everyone still is able to give charity. Just because the government provides for the general welfare of its citizens doesn't eliminate giving through private charity.

I never said anyone is preventing me from giving to a charity. Your hallucinating again, Ophelia.

I'm not the one with the tragic flaw, and I think you're seeing ghosts. I never said you claimed people were preventing you from giving to charity. I asked you what person here was saying that you are prevented from giving private charity, the person you are arguing against. You said the fact you are allowed to give private charity "is [your] argument," so who are you arguing against? You're getting yourself so worked up that you're missing whatever I say.

You've really gotten confused. You've been tarred and feather. Your like an injured puppy that doesn't understand it's own pain.

See the above paragraph. Venting your own fustration about the difficulty of reading comprehension?

Tell me more about the real world, commie boy.

It's big and mean, and if you let it get to you, then you start making abstract generalizations your scapegoat. They'll do all sorts of horrible things like owning the media or trying to steal from you. Come on down to the meeting at the docks and I can tell you all about it .

Ok, you trash-talking human pestilence, we've all grown weary of your jimcrackery.

Big words eh? Almost. Perhaps you meant to say the word "gimcrackery," which is a word that means showy but shallow, kinda like your grandiloquent rhetoric. Don't worry about using proletarian prose; it won't make you a commie. You can call me an odious, reprehensible, and pernicious epidemic of delerium (as anyone with a Thesaurus could) all you want, but you make Frasier Crane look like Burt Reynolds .

 

[IControlThePast]

Studies have shown red state personages (for ictp) give more. Dems somehow get puffed up with their own virtue when they take OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY and give it away. Silliness. Utter silliness.

Yes, because certainly they're not giving away their own money at the same time . Are you questioning how much I volunteer and give? I guess not because I'm a red state personage.

 

[Said1]

The Koran is akin to Sun Tzu's ""Art of War" (only not as good) which Muslims were when the Koran was written and passed around. They would have dropped them from planes, but ya know.....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes, because certainly they're not giving away their own money at the same time . Are you questioning how much I volunteer and give? I guess not because I'm a red state personage.

i'm questioning the actual virtue of your apparent totalitarian bent.

 

[Bonnie]

IControlThePast

Yes, because certainly they're not giving away their own money at the same time

If they are good for them, now if they would kindly take their hands out of mine and let me decide what charities I want to support that would be nice. It's a given that Liberals in the legislature and some Conservatives have this nasty habit of legislating just how generous I should be. Secondly if you were to tax the extremely wealthy, like those in Hollywood that seem very eager to tell me how generous I should be with my middle income money, by about 10% it would actually keep Social Security solvent indefinately...I don't see any of them lining up though do you? I see them going to cocktail parties to illicit mroe money from all of us Republicans who according to Howie Dean "never had an honest job in their lives"....

 

[IControlThePast]

i'm questioning the actual virtue of your apparent totalitarian bent.

If you think our government is "totalitarian" then I suggest to take a look at the world in which we live.

IControlThePast

If they are good for them, now if they would kindly take their hands out of mine and let me decide what charities I want to support that would be nice. It's a given that Liberals in the legislature and some Conservatives have this nasty habit of legislating just how generous I should be. Secondly if you were to tax the extremely wealthy, like those in Hollywood that seem very eager to tell me how generous I should be with my middle income money, by about 10% it would actually keep Social Security solvent indefinately...I don't see any of them lining up though do you? I see them going to cocktail parties to illicit mroe money from all of us Republicans who according to Howie Dean "never had an honest job in their lives"....

When liberals pass tax laws, the money isn't just being taken from their enemys. They are having to pay for that taxation too.

You can definately still decide which charities to support with your money, but the government understandably would have problems if it allowed citizens to dictate line items, like one for social programs, and they failed at it before, which is why these programs were created in the first place.

The government decides tax rate, and decides how generous you should be, because that's the way things have to work. It wouldn't work out if you didn't pay any taxes and just donated however much you wanted to private organizations like PACs or 527s or political parties instead. It's the same case for charity work and social programs.

I'm no fan of the Hollywood liberal or Dean, but many people are opposed to taxing the rich more, because it's stealing from them. But your example here brings up one of my points again. The rich, and normal people too, aren't willing to give up the necessary portion of their income to help social programs. Even though they are telling you to be generous, they are being hypocritical and aren't lining up to willingly help. These programs can't surivive on human will alone for funding.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If you think our government is "totalitarian" then I suggest to take a look at the world in which we live.

It's not NOW, but it would be if lefties like you had your way.

and decides how generous you should be, because that's the way things have to work.

No. That's not how things have to work. Your totalitarianism is not an unavoidable future.

It wouldn't work out if you didn't pay any taxes and just donated however much you wanted to private organizations like PACs or 527s or political parties instead.

Nobody here is advocating ZERO taxes. Quit smoking crack.

 

[IControlThePast]

It's not NOW, but it would be if lefties like you had your way.

No. That's not how things have to work. Your totalitarianism is not an unavoidable future.

Nobody here is advocating ZERO taxes. Quit smoking crack.

I'm only for supporting the programs we have now, and in fact cutting some of the welfare programs we have now, but that fact remains the government is legally responsible for the welfare of its citizens to some degree.

That is how things have to work, and how things already work. The "future" is now. This comes back to that analogy thing. The zero taxes is an analogy, one that demonstrates why it has to work that way. It's the same logic as charity only welfare, that people would be more willing to fund a group that will inform recipients of the donators ideology and therefore supposedly recieve more in donations than the government would in taxes. The fact that nobody here is advocating the ZERO tax system is my point: we all know it wouldn't work, just like relying on only charity to take care of citizens' welfare didn't work, and won't work.

 

[Bonnie]

IControlThePast

You can definately still decide which charities to support with your money, but the government understandably would have problems if it allowed citizens to dictate line items, like one for social programs, and they failed at it before, which is why these programs were created in the first place.

I would have to take issue again and say most of these "programs" were enacted by legislators wishing to create a permanent voting constituency by making them dependent on government rather than self reliant. This started with Roosevelt and continues today mostly with Liberals and yes some Republicans as well. We have sunk
trillions of dollars into these programs and have only made things worse for most. The only good thing Clinton did was enact Welfare reform mostly because he had no choice, the public overwhelmingly supported it. Yes there should be a small group of truly needy people that have available to them some kind of temporary safety net if they fall on hard times but not this out of control Socialism we have in place today. In the not too distant future if not already we will have too many sitting in the wagon and not many pulling it. Our founding fathers never intended for the U.S. to be a welfare state.

 

[Gabriella84]

Ya know Gabby, you've worn out whatever welcome some wished to extend you. Trot along now to DU or another conservative board.

What you are stating is that this is a "conservatives only" board and that non-conforming views are not welcome.

I will make a deal with you. If you redo your board description to warn people that usmessageboard.com is open to conservative views only, I promise to willingly leave and not come back.
I don't post on conservative boards. I am not a troll. I post only on message boards that guarantee freedom of expression. If this is a conservative board, then I don't belong here.
You see, my opinions are as valid as yours. I am as intelligent as anyone here (probably more so, since I have the ability to process independent thoughts without watching Fox or listening to Rush first).
I even read both sides of the story. Now THERE is something original! Geez, who'd have thought that each issue has two sides? See, you learn something new everyday!

 

[IControlThePast]

IControlThePast


I would have to take issue again and say most of these "programs" were enacted by legislators wishing to create a permanent voting constituency by making them dependent on government rather than self reliant. This started with Roosevelt and continues today mostly with Liberals and yes some Republicans as well. We have sunk
trillions of dollars into these programs and have only made things worse for most. The only good thing Clinton did was enact Welfare reform mostly because he had no choice, the public overwhelmingly supported it. Yes there should be a small group of truly needy people that have available to them some kind of temporary safety net if they fall on hard times but not this out of control Socialism we have in place today. In the not too distant future if not already we will have too many sitting in the wagon and not many pulling it. Our founding fathers never intended for the U.S. to be a welfare state.

I would contend that most of these people aren't dependant upon government. Even back when we gave handouts more than 2/3 of the people on "stigmatizing welfare" were off in less than two years. Over 90% were off within 10 years, and basically everyone who still wasn't off was put on as a very young kid (i.e. 1-4 years old) and was still unable to really get a job after 10 years. This was back when we gave cash handouts to people even. Now they don't get these anymore and can't really survive by sitting on the wagon. These programs actually did show signs of helping us out of the depression, but then the war got us out real quick. These programs have greatly increased the quality of life for the poor.

Welfare makes up and has always made up a very small percent of the budget. I think right now less than four cents of every tax dollar goes to welfare. And what is most welfare spent on? Most of it is for coporate welfare, not the poorly funded "stigmatizing welfare" programs for the poor that you think of when you hear the word. Our Welfare system is far from a Welfare State, or Socialism as you're thinking of it, but even most Republicans are Democratic Socialists.