MSNBC socialist Sees the Light.

[Mac1958]

The question is whether Lawrence will learn from his experience or continue to keep his head in the sand about socialism.

He's paid to be a hardcore lefty, he'll snap back immediately.

The division pimps don't stray too far from the ol' paycheck.

.

 

[asterism]

I love stuff like this. All you haters can go to hell.
MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience

Sorry, but I actually watched Lawrence when he was talking about his experience and the car wreck. Matter of fact, it was the first segment of his show on Monday when he came back to work.

No........................Lawrence HASN'T done a 180. He still holds his views and disagrees very much with the political stance that the Koch brothers have. However, he also stated that even though he does not agree with them on many things, on this one part where they have done some good for lots of people by building the hospital, he's happy they did it, and approves of their actions in this instance.

Which is a 180 from his previous position of attacking them as evil people. See the difference?

 

[S.J.]

The question is whether Lawrence will learn from his experience or continue to keep his head in the sand about socialism.

He's paid to be a hardcore lefty, he'll snap back immediately.

The division pimps don't stray too far from the ol' paycheck.

.

I tend to agree with that. I'm also wondering how much of his millions Lawrence has donated to helping others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's perfectly fine with me. I do have to ask... what's the rational for doing that? You just hate religious people? That's a perfectly acceptable reason, but just wondering what it is?

And a follow up.... if today was 1806.... would you have also given William Wilberforce a negative since his push against the slave trade was based entirely on the Bible?

My rational for that is that it contradicts the teachings of Jesus. If that means I hate religion in the peanut you use to think, so be it.

But you just contradicted yourself. You said that you neg anyone who uses the Bible to justify their political views.

Now you say you neg because it contradicts what Jesus said.

Those are two different things. I often use the Bible to justify my political views, because they are inline with what Jesus said. Not contradicting.

By definition, if it contradicts what Jesus said, it is impossible to use the Bible to justify it. You can't use the Bible to justify something that contradicts Jesus. The whole Bible is about Jesus.

It is entirely possible to use the Bible to justify anything, even things that blatantly contradict the Bible. If you don't believe me you should take the time to read some of the threads in the religion section.

 

[Andylusion]

My rational for that is that it contradicts the teachings of Jesus. If that means I hate religion in the peanut you use to think, so be it.

But you just contradicted yourself. You said that you neg anyone who uses the Bible to justify their political views.

Now you say you neg because it contradicts what Jesus said.

Those are two different things. I often use the Bible to justify my political views, because they are inline with what Jesus said. Not contradicting.

By definition, if it contradicts what Jesus said, it is impossible to use the Bible to justify it. You can't use the Bible to justify something that contradicts Jesus. The whole Bible is about Jesus.

It is entirely possible to use the Bible to justify anything, even things that blatantly contradict the Bible. If you don't believe me you should take the time to read some of the threads in the religion section.

You can rationalize anything with anything.....

But justify has a specific meaning, that involves the proper use of words and meaning.

You can't use the Bible to justify just anything, but only those things it actually says.

Rationalize, yes. You can use the Bible, the Constitution, or the way sticks lay in the woods, to rationalize whatever you want.

Those two things are fundamentally different.

 

[Andylusion]

The question is whether Lawrence will learn from his experience or continue to keep his head in the sand about socialism.

He's paid to be a hardcore lefty, he'll snap back immediately.

The division pimps don't stray too far from the ol' paycheck.

.

I tend to agree with that. I'm also wondering how much of his millions Lawrence has donated to helping others.

Liberals tend to give little to charity, because their fundamental belief system is that government should fix the worlds problems. If you believe that at a fundamental level, what reason would you have to give of your own money? Your paying taxes, and government has programs, so why should you sacrifice anything more?

 

[jcfranks]

But you just contradicted yourself. You said that you neg anyone who uses the Bible to justify their political views.



Now you say you neg because it contradicts what Jesus said.



Those are two different things. I often use the Bible to justify my political views, because they are inline with what Jesus said. Not contradicting.



By definition, if it contradicts what Jesus said, it is impossible to use the Bible to justify it. You can't use the Bible to justify something that contradicts Jesus. The whole Bible is about Jesus.

It is entirely possible to use the Bible to justify anything, even things that blatantly contradict the Bible. If you don't believe me you should take the time to read some of the threads in the religion section.

You can rationalize anything with anything.....



But justify has a specific meaning, that involves the proper use of words and meaning.



You can't use the Bible to justify just anything, but only those things it actually says.



Rationalize, yes. You can use the Bible, the Constitution, or the way sticks lay in the woods, to rationalize whatever you want.



Those two things are fundamentally different.

This is such an excellent point that I don't even know what to say.

Kudos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HenryBHough]

Imagine a world in which every individual who had given to charity decided do so so no more after those he/she fed bit them. Of course more ingrates would die and that could be a positive thing, no?

 

[Andylusion]

Imagine a world in which every individual who had given to charity decided do so so no more after those he/she fed bit them. Of course more ingrates would die and that could be a positive thing, no?

I'm lost on that one. I have no idea what you were trying to say, or what point you intended to make.

 

[HenryBHough]

Imagine a world in which every individual who had given to charity decided do so so no more after those he/she fed bit them. Of course more ingrates would die and that could be a positive thing, no?

I'm lost on that one. I have no idea what you were trying to say, or what point you intended to make.

The "so", "to", "do" and "no" elements got mixed up, probably fat fingers. I edited it to correct so please go back and re-read.

 

[Darkwind]

When David Koch gives up politics and gives all those megabucks to a decent charity that decent people can appreciate then I will consider him something other than a rich sociopath trying to play puppet master.

When George Soros gives up politics and gives all those megabucks to a decent charity that decent people can appreciate then I will consider him something other than a rich sociopath trying to play puppet master.

 

[HenryBHough]

When David Koch gives up politics and gives all those megabucks to a decent charity that decent people can appreciate then I will consider him something other than a rich sociopath trying to play puppet master.

When George Soros gives up politics and gives all those megabucks to a decent charity that decent people can appreciate then I will consider him something other than a rich sociopath trying to play puppet master.

Ah, then, you definitely do NOT let the kiddies watch PBS!

Or are you just a vocal hypocrite?

 

[AntiParty]

Here is where you see the conflict of our current system vs. the "Fair Tax". Libertarians, Tea party and some Republicans are pushing for.

Today, the Rich are looking for ways to donate to charities because it's more profitable to, as the system is set up. If they don't donate, they will be taxed more! It's not a good hearted investment at all. It's simply a way to get more profit!

"Giving to the needy" sometimes brings your tax bracket down and it's extremely common for the rich to be forced to give to the needy so they get more profit.

Note; In the fair tax, they just assume people will give to the needy. Because so much is given already.........(They never mention it's the churches)

Obviously you're just another liberal retard who doesn't understand the tax code. A billionaire doesn't end up with more money after he makes a donation to charity. It just doesn't take as much out of his pocket as it would have if he had to make the donation with after tax savings.

Stupid remarks like yours are the proof that liberals shouldn't be allowed to vote. They are just too damn stupid.

This remark shows your unintelligence of the tax code in general....

I think there can be changes, but not until unintelligent people like YOU understand the tax system we are using and stop taking "Fox News" word for it.


Learn more, type less please.

 

[S.J.]

Here is where you see the conflict of our current system vs. the "Fair Tax". Libertarians, Tea party and some Republicans are pushing for.

Today, the Rich are looking for ways to donate to charities because it's more profitable to, as the system is set up. If they don't donate, they will be taxed more! It's not a good hearted investment at all. It's simply a way to get more profit!

"Giving to the needy" sometimes brings your tax bracket down and it's extremely common for the rich to be forced to give to the needy so they get more profit.

Note; In the fair tax, they just assume people will give to the needy. Because so much is given already.........(They never mention it's the churches)

Obviously you're just another liberal retard who doesn't understand the tax code. A billionaire doesn't end up with more money after he makes a donation to charity. It just doesn't take as much out of his pocket as it would have if he had to make the donation with after tax savings.

Stupid remarks like yours are the proof that liberals shouldn't be allowed to vote. They are just too damn stupid.

This remark shows your unintelligence of the tax code in general....

I think there can be changes, but not until unintelligent people like YOU understand the tax system we are using and stop taking "Fox News" word for it.


Learn more, type less please.

Irony alert!

 

[bripat9643]

Here is where you see the conflict of our current system vs. the "Fair Tax". Libertarians, Tea party and some Republicans are pushing for.

Today, the Rich are looking for ways to donate to charities because it's more profitable to, as the system is set up. If they don't donate, they will be taxed more! It's not a good hearted investment at all. It's simply a way to get more profit!

"Giving to the needy" sometimes brings your tax bracket down and it's extremely common for the rich to be forced to give to the needy so they get more profit.

Note; In the fair tax, they just assume people will give to the needy. Because so much is given already.........(They never mention it's the churches)

Obviously you're just another liberal retard who doesn't understand the tax code. A billionaire doesn't end up with more money after he makes a donation to charity. It just doesn't take as much out of his pocket as it would have if he had to make the donation with after tax savings.

Stupid remarks like yours are the proof that liberals shouldn't be allowed to vote. They are just too damn stupid.

This remark shows your unintelligence of the tax code in general....

I think there can be changes, but not until unintelligent people like YOU understand the tax system we are using and stop taking "Fox News" word for it.


Learn more, type less please.

ROFL! So you insist that donating to charity means you will have more money after you make the donation than before? Why don't you test this theory out yourself and let me know how it works out for ya, retard.

 

[bripat9643]

Obviously you're just another liberal retard who doesn't understand the tax code. A billionaire doesn't end up with more money after he makes a donation to charity. It just doesn't take as much out of his pocket as it would have if he had to make the donation with after tax savings.

Stupid remarks like yours are the proof that liberals shouldn't be allowed to vote. They are just too damn stupid.

This remark shows your unintelligence of the tax code in general....

I think there can be changes, but not until unintelligent people like YOU understand the tax system we are using and stop taking "Fox News" word for it.


Learn more, type less please.

Irony alert!

Really. Antiparty insists on flaunting his idiocy.

 

[AntiParty]

Obviously you're just another liberal retard who doesn't understand the tax code. A billionaire doesn't end up with more money after he makes a donation to charity. It just doesn't take as much out of his pocket as it would have if he had to make the donation with after tax savings.

Stupid remarks like yours are the proof that liberals shouldn't be allowed to vote. They are just too damn stupid.

This remark shows your unintelligence of the tax code in general....

I think there can be changes, but not until unintelligent people like YOU understand the tax system we are using and stop taking "Fox News" word for it.


Learn more, type less please.

ROFL! So you insist that donating to charity means you will have more money after you make the donation than before? Why don't you test this theory out yourself and let me know how it works out for ya, retard.

So you don't know that rich people donate to charities to stay in lower tax brackets?........ADVANCED stuff right here kids....Just embarrassed for you..

 

[HenryBHough]

When a donating hand is bitten the person attached to it sometimes finds it prudent to choose another cause to support. The brothers seem to be slow learners in that regard.

 

[Synthaholic]

I love stuff like this. All you haters can go to hell.
MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience

That headline is a complete lie. I saw the segment.

 

[asterism]

This remark shows your unintelligence of the tax code in general....

I think there can be changes, but not until unintelligent people like YOU understand the tax system we are using and stop taking "Fox News" word for it.


Learn more, type less please.

ROFL! So you insist that donating to charity means you will have more money after you make the donation than before? Why don't you test this theory out yourself and let me know how it works out for ya, retard.

So you don't know that rich people donate to charities to stay in lower tax brackets?........ADVANCED stuff right here kids....Just embarrassed for you..

Define "rich" in the context of your comments.

Walk us through this, how does one end up with more money by donating even if one ends up in a lower tax bracket.