JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,756
- 2,220
- Thread starter
- #41
....unless the targets of the death wish are child molesters.there is also a special place in hell for those who wish death on other people.....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
....unless the targets of the death wish are child molesters.there is also a special place in hell for those who wish death on other people.....
But can it be done? can you reduce partisanship on this board? Hardly. With the outdated two party system,we seem to envision our "own" party and the "wrong" party. There's such a small path of neutrality in the middle but very few can take that giant leap there and understand it.Well we the people of the USA need to reduce the partisanship and repair the Center, because we are getting fucked with this false dichotomy between Democrat Establishment Corporate Cronies (Hillary Clinton) and the GOP version of the same damned thing (Bush, Rubio, Christi).Very admirable post. There's a middle ground where the people of this country can agree on what you're talking about and that's what needs to happen. I'll be the first to admit many on the left are as crazy about this as you're implying many on the right are.Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.
And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.
Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.
But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.
The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.
I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.
Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.
Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.
Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.
We need to be bigger and better than that.
Cant accept the notion that our nation will long last if we leave the Center broken and collapsed.
I'm beginning to think that the two establishment parties are going the way of the horse and buggy. People will start looking outside their comfort zone in finding a candidate that meets their personal needs instead of the needs of the country. This is the first election where the people are standing up and declaring that the establishment is not going to call the shots any longer. Sanders, Trump and Cruz are unbelievably the front runners that people share some enthusiasm for. Even Bloomberg is eyeing the chance to come in late and take it from the establishment and go third party or join the Dems.
This system is broken, but perhaps we can pick up the pieces and trudge along. Teach your young to be able to adapt to changing times and give them the vision that they cannot depend on anyone but themselves. Take what you can and develop it.
At least since 2010.
Except they dont and no one is claiming that other than a few fringe wack jobs.Since when does social programs mean create more poor people?
Actually poverty has generally decreased since the Great Society began.Except they dont and no one is claiming that other than a few fringe wack jobs.Since when does social programs mean create more poor people?
Since the, "War on Poverty" was launched, there more poor people in America.
Actually poverty has generally decreased since the Great Society began.Except they dont and no one is claiming that other than a few fringe wack jobs.Since when does social programs mean create more poor people?
Since the, "War on Poverty" was launched, there more poor people in America.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2000/pov00cht.pdf
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
I missed the part in the bible where Jesus commanded his followers to rob others to give to the poor. That's all tax money is. It is taken and given in some sort of grotesque parody of charity. Charity by force isn't charity. It is robbery!Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.
And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.
Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.
But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.
The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.
I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.
Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.
Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.
Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.
We need to be bigger and better than that.
There is a special place in hell reserved for thieves who take in the name of charity and feel self-righteous in forcing others to be virtuous.
there is also a special place in hell for those who wish death on other people.....I missed the part in the bible where Jesus commanded his followers to rob others to give to the poor. That's all tax money is. It is taken and given in some sort of grotesque parody of charity. Charity by force isn't charity. It is robbery!Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.
And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.
Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.
But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.
The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.
I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.
Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.
Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.
Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.
We need to be bigger and better than that.
There is a special place in hell reserved for thieves who take in the name of charity and feel self-righteous in forcing others to be virtuous.
thank you jill.....katz or tipsy as she now calls herself ,has called for the death of quite a few people she dont even know.....people who just might be very nice people and many maybe doing something katz certainly does not do,contribute to the society around them....and why she wishes them death?.....because they smoke a joint now and then.....there is also a special place in hell for those who wish death on other people.....I missed the part in the bible where Jesus commanded his followers to rob others to give to the poor. That's all tax money is. It is taken and given in some sort of grotesque parody of charity. Charity by force isn't charity. It is robbery!Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.
And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.
Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.
But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.
The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.
I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.
Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.
Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.
Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.
We need to be bigger and better than that.
There is a special place in hell reserved for thieves who take in the name of charity and feel self-righteous in forcing others to be virtuous.
you're a good person, harry.
thank you jill.....katz or tipsy as she now calls herself ,has called for the death of quite a few people she dont even know.....people who just might be very nice people and many maybe doing something katz certainly does not do,contribute to the society around them....and why she wishes them death?.....because they smoke a joint now and then.....there is also a special place in hell for those who wish death on other people.....I missed the part in the bible where Jesus commanded his followers to rob others to give to the poor. That's all tax money is. It is taken and given in some sort of grotesque parody of charity. Charity by force isn't charity. It is robbery!Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.
And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.
Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.
But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.
The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.
I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.
Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.
Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.
Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.
We need to be bigger and better than that.
There is a special place in hell reserved for thieves who take in the name of charity and feel self-righteous in forcing others to be virtuous.
you're a good person, harry.
thank you jill.....katz or tipsy as she now calls herself ,has called for the death of quite a few people she dont even know.....people who just might be very nice people and many maybe doing something katz certainly does not do,contribute to the society around them....and why she wishes them death?.....because they smoke a joint now and then.....there is also a special place in hell for those who wish death on other people.....I missed the part in the bible where Jesus commanded his followers to rob others to give to the poor. That's all tax money is. It is taken and given in some sort of grotesque parody of charity. Charity by force isn't charity. It is robbery!Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.
And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.
Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.
But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.
The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.
I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.
Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.
Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.
Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.
We need to be bigger and better than that.
There is a special place in hell reserved for thieves who take in the name of charity and feel self-righteous in forcing others to be virtuous.
you're a good person, harry.
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
hilarious.
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
hilarious.
You're wrong, my friend.
[i
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
hilarious.
You're wrong, my friend.
[i
that's from the heritage foundation.
nice propaganda site.
how about using a legitimate source?
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
hilarious.
You're wrong, my friend.
[i
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
hilarious.
You're wrong, my friend.
[i
that's from the heritage foundation.
nice propaganda site.
how about using a legitimate source?
The National Poverty Center says the poverty rate for 2015 is STILL 15%.
Are you going to call that an illegitimate site, too?
National Poverty Center | University of Michigan
'Vitiate' Good word, thanks!That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
hilarious.
You're wrong, my friend.
[i
that's from the heritage foundation.
nice propaganda site.
how about using a legitimate source?
The National Poverty Center says the poverty rate for 2015 is STILL 15%.
Are you going to call that an illegitimate site, too?
National Poverty Center | University of Michigan
What you call the war on poverty is different from what I'm discussing.
And for the record I know nothing about that group or how it collects data show won't opine.
But that doesn't vitiate the fact that we've created an environment where we're eating out middle class. And that some programs help. The trick is doubling down on the ones that work and getting rid of the ones that don't.
That is hilarious. I showed you the data then you simply repeated your disproven assertion as though that were some kind of rebuttal.Actually poverty has never decreased since the war on poverty and $22 trillion. Which means, it's a failure.
hilarious.
You're wrong, my friend.
[i
that's from the heritage foundation.
nice propaganda site.
how about using a legitimate source?
The National Poverty Center says the poverty rate for 2015 is STILL 15%.
Are you going to call that an illegitimate site, too?
National Poverty Center | University of Michigan
What you call the war on poverty is different from what I'm discussing.
And for the record I know nothing about that group or how it collects data show won't opine.
But that doesn't vitiate the fact that we've created an environment where we're eating out middle class. And that some programs help. The trick is doubling down on the ones that work and getting rid of the ones that don't.