Well, the actions that Lincoln and Davis took sure were different.
Wrong. It's the liberals that are picking on the poor and the week. Tobacco taxes, Alcohol taxes. These taxes hurt the poor most of all. Also when Clinton raped, sexually abused, and sexually harrassed the women around him, it was Republicans that tried to hold him accountable and protect those women and subordinates.. Democrats defended him.
Tobacco and alcohol taxes only hurt the people who buy tobacco and alcohol. Oh, and they also hurt the proprietors of alcohol by cutting sales of their deadly product. Both will kill you gradually, no matter how much money you make. If you're asking me to feel sorry for Phillip Morris, you won't get any sympathy here. And I have a hard time accepting Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky as some sort of "oppressed group", in the same breath as victims of discrimination and profiling. The only reason they ever aligned themselves with Lewinsky was to score political points against Clinton. And that's giving them the benefit of the doubt, BTW...I have friends who are convinced it's all a protracted case of penis envy, and I can't argue against them.
Wrong. The bible says if a man will not work, let him starve. 2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. Of course there should be help to the ones among us that are unable to work, but Democrats want to give the money of the workers to those who just lay around, get on drugs, etc. Just because a person is poor does not mean there should be charity.
If you'll read Leviticus 25:35-36 a bit further down, it will contradict everything you just said: (from the article) "If your brother becomes poor, you are responsible to help him; invite him to live with you as a guest in your home. Fear your God and let your brother live with you; and don't charge him interest on money you lend him. Remember -- no interest; and give him what he needs, at your cost: don't try to make a profit!"
Besides, this is an overly narrow view of what aid to the oppressed is. It's not just food for the hungry, although that is an important part to it. It's also welfare-to-work programs to give people job opportunities, programs to pay for childcare for single moms, and Medicare and Medicare supplements to give medical aid to these people. And this is aid for those who cannot work, not aid for those who simply will not work. I spoke of this difference in my last post -- one example of someone who finds a loophole in the system gets generalized to portray the entire system as full of lazy, drug addicted leeches, when this is absolutely not the case.
And very often the conservative Democrats or "DIXIECRATS" of the so-called "Bible Belt" sided with the Republican Party. Indeed, ever since the G.O.P. has become the outright champions of native born, English speaking, male, white, upper class privilege, most of those former Dixiecrats are switching their allegiance -- thank God! -- to the new and revised Republican Party.
So you think that's a good thing?? Do you realize that most of the people in this country are not "native born, English speaking, male, white, upper class privileged" people? That would make the GOP a party for the interests of a minority of people. The reason they have disproportionate influence in the media, election boards, and legislatures of the country is because of their money. I am "native born, English speaking, male, white, and upper class privileged," but I don't want this party to represent me. That attitude is directly against the principal of loving others more than you do yourself. And this "new and revised" Republican party was growing more and more conservative up until 9/11. This is part of the reason why Jim Jeffords and other "New England Republicans" defected from the party. For every Zell Miller you find among the Democrats, there is a John McCain and Olympia Snowe to counter them.
The G.O.P. is the champion of the producers, whether they produse $200 a week of $200,000 a week.
And the Democratic party is the champion of the producer and the consumer, because if you don't take care of the welfare of the consumer, there would be no producers.
An emphatic "No" is the way Cain (and many conservative Christians today) would like to answer the rhetorical question "Am I my brother's keeper?"
My brothers keeper? Sounds like communism. God didn't say we were our brother's keeper. Every able bodied, able minded person is responsible for themselves.
Yes, to the degree that they can help themselves. It's when they are unable to help themselves that God says we should aid our fellow man. Again, you seem convinced that every single person on the welfare line is there because they're just "lazy", and this is entirely wrong. And it's this kind of generalization that causes all welfare to be cut and hurts the people that really do need welfare.
But from beginning to end, the answer the Bible keeps giving to that question is: "If you want God's approval, you must indeed be your brother's, and your sister's, and even your neighbor's keeper !
Where does it say this?
One place is Leviticus 25:35-36. I referenced it above.
Here are other early admonitions of part of the bible the Jews call "the Law" : { Leviticus 25:35-36 } "If your brother becomes poor, you are responsible to help him; invite him to live with you as a guest in your home. Fear your God and let your brother live with you; and don't charge him interest on money you lend him. Remember -- no interest; and give him what he needs, at your cost: don't try to make a profit!
Liberal lying through omission. Read on in Leviticus and you'll see that in verse 40, it's a temporary relief until the brother has a chance to get back on his feet.
Actually, it says in verse 40 he is to work "until the Year of the Jubilee"(NIV) and then be released, not work "until he gets back on his feet". Regardless, temporary aid is the only intent of welfare! Find me one lawmaker who thinks people should be given any sort of aid if they don't plan to use it to better themselves. Too often, people make this assumption in order to keep from giving any aid at all to these people, and even to prevent giving non-monetary aid. Another case of sweeping generalizations and proof by stereotype by conservatives.
The appeal of this passage to charity is rather unusual for the Hebrew bible, because more often than not the great prophets of old expressed concern for the unfortunate on the grounds of JUSTICE. In sharp contrast to the hard-hearted attitudes of "Christian Conservatives", the Bible rarely blames the victims of poverty and the like for their plight. Rather, the great prophets of the Bible blame the powerful for those ills and expect the community as a whole to redress what they perceive as INJUSTICES. { Deuteronomy 24:14 } "Never oppress a poor hired man, whether a fellow Israelite or a foreigner living in your town. Pay him his wage each day before sunset, for since he is poor he needs it right away; otherwise he may cry out to the Lord against you and it would be counted as a sin against you."
You will notice this person has a job. Conservatives do not disagree that the poor should be paid for their work. This guy is an idiot.
You missed the point of the paragraph. The author says nothing about the poor being paid for their work; it is saying that the community should expect the powerful to address injustices, not expect the wronged to fend for themselves. You should read more carefully what you're so quick to criticize.
And after 11 years of Roosevelt's socialism, Americans were even worse clad, worse housed, and worse nourished. The economy was in worse shape in 1941 than when he began his programs.
I think you mean nine years -- he was inaugurated in 1933. As I said earlier in the thread, FDR was trying things that had never been tried before, out of the desperateness of the Great Depression (which, incidentally, was much worsened by the Republican administration of Hoover than by FDR). It took WWII, which began in 1941, to snap us out of it. The fact that many of his ideas are still around today attests to the worthiness of the programs.
As time went on in Biblical times, there arose once in a great while a preacher whose words were worth recording for future generations to hear. A few of these made predictions about the future, (mostly warnings, in effect, about the consequences of hearing or failing to hear God's teaching). But what made them great "seers" or "prophets" wasn't what they could predict about the future, but what they dared to see and say about the present, i.e. teaching that some people in high places did not want to hear, such as . . . { Micah 6: 8-12 } What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? The voice of the LORD cries to the city : . . . Can I forget the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the accursed scant measure? Can I tolerate wicked scales and a bag of dishonest weights? Your wealthy are full of violence; your inhabitants speak lies, with tongues of deceit in their mouths. Your rich men are wealthy through extortion and violence; your citizens are so used to lying that their tongues can't tell the truth!"
Yep, some wealthy are like this. This sounds like a good description of Hollywood and Clinton and his pals. Rape is about as bad as it gets. Just because the rich in Hollywood are like this doesn't mean the whole country is. In this verse God was speaking to a specific group at a specific time.
Gee, and there's never been another evil rich white man in the whole world except for big bad Clinton and those Hollywood weirdoes. Anyway, you missed the point of the authors paragraph again. When God says "Your wealthy are full of violence..." and "Your rich men are wealthy through extortion and violence," that's addressed to the specific group. When God says " Can I forget the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the accursed scant measure? Can I tolerate wicked scales and a bag of dishonest weights?", he's talking about everybody. See the difference?
"I never gave them hell. I just tell the truth, and they think it is hell." - Harry Truman
"If they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." Adlai Stevenson, (who lost to Ike Eisenhower)
Oh boy, you don't actually want to bring up lying do you? Clinton set a record.
Sure, we can talk about lying. We can talk about the way Shrub lied about his role in Funeralgate, we can talk about the way he lied about when the troops in Kosovo would be sent back home, we can talk about lying about the effectiveness of the Missile Defense System, we can talk about lying about all kinds of stuff that actually has a bearing on the welfare of the country, unlike Clinton lying about a BJ. What he lied about didn't even have a bearing on the Whitewater hearings...it was just a tangent designed to entrap the president by our friends in the GOP.
{ Amos 8:4-7 } "Listen, you merchants who rob the poor, trampling on the needy; you who long for the Sabbath to end and the religious holydays to be over so you can get out and start cheating again -- using your weighted scales and under-sized measures; you who make slaves of the poor, buying them for their debt of a piece of silver or a pair of shoes, or selling them your moldy wheat." Those who cheat are wicked, this doesn't conflict with conservative views.
You missed the point again. Keep reading below to see what the author is actually talking about, rather than assuming you know already.
Once again, this kind of scripture doesn't make those who oppress or exploit others happy. But if you put yourself in the shoes of the men, women and children who are being oppressed, it should certainly make you happy to know that God doesn't approve of sneaky merchandisers who are constantly using dirty tricks to reduce the quantity and/or quality of their products and/or increasing the prices, and eliminating the opportunities customers have to buy such products at lower prices from competitors.
Dirty tricks such as the unrequested taking of wages from union workers and giving that money the the Democratic party.
What's your reference for this claim?
Clinton was king of the campaign contribution. He sold nuclear missile technology to the Chinese for campaign cash.
These have always been unsubstantiated claims. They have about as much substance right now as the claims that Cheney had his "town hall meetings" on energy policy only with those large corporations that made equally large contributions to the GOP.
(To be continued...)
"These have always been unsubstantiated claims...."
Unsubstantiated, my arse, and you know it, LEFTY!! Clinton's goin' down...and where he's goin' he ain't never comin' back!!
Wake up and smell the coffee, dude, it smells a lot fresher than the Big Creep's Bum!!
Hey Ivan...I can habla ingles, too!! How 'bout a Dubyuh/Blair Graphic?! Got any?
LOL...MUD
Hey Buddy, quit pretending yer so friggin' IGNORANT...you ain't that stooopid and I don't appreciate you coming on my threads and actin' like you are!!
Capiche?!...MUD
Exactly. Lincoln was a great president.
Tobacco and alcohol taxes only hurt the people who buy tobacco and alcohol.
Right. And it's the poor that spend a higher percentage of their income on these items. Democrats soak the poor with these extremely high taxes.
Oh, and they also hurt the proprietors of alcohol by cutting sales of their deadly product. Both will kill you gradually, no matter how much money you make. If you're asking me to feel sorry for Phillip Morris, you won't get any sympathy here.
Phillip Morris wasn't hurt by those lawsuits, they simply raised prices to pay for the suits. The smokers paid. It was a Democratic scam to steal from the poor. Trial lawyers made billions off those lawsuits. Alcohol has been part of the caucasion diet for thousands of years. It's good for ya. The bible says to drink a little wine here and there (if you're not a wino). I don't want some thieving, raping, murdering liberal getting all self-righteous and telling me or anybody else not to do something my people have done for thousands of years.
And I have a hard time accepting Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky as some sort of "oppressed group", in the same breath as victims of discrimination and profiling.
Who said anything about those two? I'm more concerned with Juanita Broadrick, the Oxford student, and the 15 year old girl at Roger's cocaine party.
The only reason they ever aligned themselves with Lewinsky was to score political points against Clinton.
So they had a 25 year plan? What are they, the Illuminati?
And that's giving them the benefit of the doubt, BTW...I have friends who are convinced it's all a protracted case of penis envy, and I can't argue against them.
Yeah, you liberals seem to be overly obsessed with the penis.
If you'll read Leviticus 25:35-36 a bit further down, it will contradict everything you just said: (from the article) "If your brother becomes poor, you are responsible to help him; invite him to live with you as a guest in your home. Fear your God and let your brother live with you; and don't charge him interest on money you lend him. Remember -- no interest; and give him what he needs, at your cost: don't try to make a profit!"
Lev 25:40 [But] as an hired servant, [and] as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, [and] shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:
40 says it's temporary. And besides, there's a diffence between a "brother" and a "neighbor" and even a "stranger".
Besides, this is an overly narrow view of what aid to the oppressed is. It's not just food for the hungry, although that is an important part to it. It's also welfare-to-work programs to give people job opportunities, programs to pay for childcare for single moms, and Medicare and Medicare supplements to give medical aid to these people. And this is aid for those who cannot work, not aid for those who simply will not work. I spoke of this difference in my last post -- one example of someone who finds a loophole in the system gets generalized to portray the entire system as full of lazy, drug addicted leeches, when this is absolutely not the case.
You could've fooled me. Why did all those people get jobs after the Republicans reformed the system in the 90's? A lot of those people were parasites.
And very often the conservative Democrats or "DIXIECRATS" of the so-called "Bible Belt" sided with the Republican Party. Indeed, ever since the G.O.P. has become the outright champions of native born, English speaking, male, white, upper class privilege, most of those former Dixiecrats are switching their allegiance -- thank God! -- to the new and revised Republican Party.
So you think that's a good thing??
Now this is hilarious. You mistook your website's words for my words. Your arguing with your hero. ROFL
Do you realize that most of the people in this country are not "native born, English speaking, male, white, upper class privileged" people?
Come to the heartland and see about that.
That would make the GOP a party for the interests of a minority of people.
Then how do we win so many elections? The liberal left controls a 100 billion dollar propaganda machine of the networks and Hollywood alone. If the field was level on the propaganda side the commies would be in Cuba where they belong.
The reason they have disproportionate influence in the media, election boards, and legislatures of the country is because of their money.
Democrats have their share of the rich. Besides, Dems control 90% of the media, Hollywood, universites, government jobs.
I am "native born, English speaking, male, white, and upper class privileged," but I don't want this party to represent me.
Why are you privilaged? Is it because you're white or because you're someone who actively tries to keep a job?
That attitude is directly against the principal of loving others more than you do yourself.
These are the words of self-righteous hypocrites. Democrats do not love others more than themselves. It's obvious by their agenda. Democrats never inconvenience themselves for others. They allow children to be murdered (abortion) so they don't have to care for them. They make others pay for their pet programs. They allow women to be raped, murdered, assaulted so they don't lose their president to impeachment. They "save the whales" knowing full well they won't have to sacrifice anything from their own well-being for this cause. They tax the hell out of alcohol and tobacco since they themselves won't be hurt by these taxes. They call for high taxes on energy when they run around in limosines and live in mansions in Hollywood. They let Clinton bomb Yugoslavia from 35,000 feet killing more civilians than the enemy without saying nothing so their president won't be seen as inept. They call for the ouster of Nixon for a two-bit break-in and then allow Clinton to sell nuclear technology to the communist Chinese. They call for the ouster of Packwood and Thomas and yet let Clinton sexually harass his underlings. They throw the book at Gingrich for a college course and yet let Clinton-Gore collect money from Buddhists. Name a liberal agenda item that actually calls for sacrifice from liberals.
And this "new and revised" Republican party was growing more and more conservative up until 9/11. This is part of the reason why Jim Jeffords and other "New England Republicans" defected from the party.
They defected because they're socialists.
For every Zell Miller you find among the Democrats, there is a John McCain and Olympia Snowe to counter them.
And the sooner they go to the Democrats, the better. It's better to have a focused minority than an unfocused majority.
And the Democratic party is the champion of the producer and the consumer, because if you don't take care of the welfare of the consumer, there would be no producers.
A lot of consumers can take care of themselves. I'm a consumer and can.
Yes, to the degree that they can help themselves.
Yes, that's what "able bodied, able-minded" means.
Again, you seem convinced that every single person on the welfare line is there because they're just "lazy", and this is entirely wrong.
I know you're a liberal, but you need to resist the temptation to lie about what I said and didn't say. I never said "every single person". I said there are some that aren't able-bodied, and able-minded.
And it's this kind of generalization that causes all welfare to be cut and hurts the people that really do need welfare.
Show me where I said "every single person".
One place is Leviticus 25:35-36. I referenced it above.
Read verse 40.
Actually, it says in verse 40 he is to work "until the Year of the Jubilee"(NIV) and then be released, not work "until he gets back on his feet".
So you're suggesting we go back to slavery? Some of the ordinances of Leviticus were nailed to the cross along with Jesus.
Regardless, temporary aid is the only intent of welfare! Find me one lawmaker who thinks people should be given any sort of aid if they don't plan to use it to better themselves.
How about most Democrats. They were howling when those poor welfare recipients had to go out and get jobs in the 90's.
Too often, people make this assumption in order to keep from giving any aid at all to these people, and even to prevent giving non-monetary aid. Another case of sweeping generalizations and proof by stereotype by conservatives.
I believe you're stereotyping and generalizing yourself. You take the Conservative position that too much money is wasted on able-body/minded people living off the government and sweep that to conclude Conservatives believe all should recieve no help.
You missed the point of the paragraph. The author says nothing about the poor being paid for their work; it is saying that the community should expect the powerful to address injustices, not expect the wronged to fend for themselves. You should read more carefully what you're so quick to criticize.
No, when I read those passages in the bible, it says the poor should be paid for their work. Sounds good to me. Conservatives love increased economic activity.
I think you mean nine years -- he was inaugurated in 1933.
9 years, 11 years whatever. That's a mightly long time for no results. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were dying in 1944 because of FDR's campaign lie that he was going to keep us out of the war. If his opponent would've won and we contained Hitler early, before he took all of Europe, maybe so many families wouldn't have had to make the ultimate sacrifice.
As I said earlier in the thread, FDR was trying things that had never been tried before,...
Uncle Joe's socialism.
...out of the desperateness of the Great Depression (which, incidentally, was much worsened by the Republican administration of Hoover than by FDR).
It was worsened by isolationism and a runaway bubble market.
It took WWII, which began in 1941, to snap us out of it. The fact that many of his ideas are still around today attests to the worthiness of the programs.
Nah, it attests to to power of liberal propaganda of Hollywood, the networks, universites, schools, etc.
As time went on in Biblical times, there arose once in a great while a preacher whose words were worth recording for future generations to hear. A few of these made predictions about the future, (mostly warnings, in effect, about the consequences of hearing or failing to hear God's teaching). But what made them great "seers" or "prophets" wasn't what they could predict about the future, but what they dared to see and say about the present, i.e. teaching that some people in high places did not want to hear, such as . . . { Micah 6: 8-12 } What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? The voice of the LORD cries to the city : . . . Can I forget the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the accursed scant measure? Can I tolerate wicked scales and a bag of dishonest weights? Your wealthy are full of violence; your inhabitants speak lies, with tongues of deceit in their mouths. Your rich men are wealthy through extortion and violence; your citizens are so used to lying that their tongues can't tell the truth!"
By the way, take a look at that county by county election map and you'll see that the cities are Democratic strongholds. It would appear that your hero author is shooting himself in the foot again.
Isa 5:8 Woe unto them that join house to house, [that] lay field to field, till [there be] no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!
Democrats live in cities.
Gee, and there's never been another evil rich white man in the whole world except for big bad Clinton and those Hollywood weirdoes.
Clinton and his weirdo worshippers are the most visible.
Anyway, you missed the point of the authors paragraph again. When God says "Your wealthy are full of violence..." and "Your rich men are wealthy through extortion and violence," that's addressed to the specific group. When God says " Can I forget the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the accursed scant measure? Can I tolerate wicked scales and a bag of dishonest weights?", he's talking about everybody. See the difference?
He's not talking about everybody. Tell me how you think God's talking about everybody. There's no sin in receiving God's blessings to the point of being rich.
Sure, we can talk about lying. We can talk about the way Shrub lied about his role in Funeralgate,...
Funeralgate? Man you guys really have to dig deep to find this stuff. LOL
...we can talk about the way he lied about when the troops in Kosovo would be sent back home, we can talk about lying about the effectiveness of the Missile Defense System, we can talk about lying about all kinds of stuff that actually has a bearing on the welfare of the country, unlike Clinton lying about a BJ.
Although you're taking positions on legislation and trying to call them lies, in which you're lying yourself (liberals are fampous for their self-righteous hypocrite ways), all people sin. Clinton made sin a virtue to his worshippers.
What he lied about didn't even have a bearing on the Whitewater hearings...it was just a tangent designed to entrap the president by our friends in the GOP.
Clinton's a proven liar in a court of law. Again you liberals are obsessed with the penis aspect of Clinton's behaviour. Clinton sold China the technology to kill millions of Americans with nuclear missiles, stole the taxpayers money through the whitewater savings and loan scandal, lied about sexual harassment in the workplace, lied about his cocaine use, lied about dialing for dollars, released terrorists that kill NYC cops after sucking up to them for years, hid evidence related to Foster, ripped a hole in that note, murdered Brown and everone on his plane, and the others that have a bad habit of falling out of buildings and committing suicide, murdered those kids at Waco, murdered the people in OKC. We're getting into the thousands. People fall out of buildings and commit suicide all the time, don't they.
You missed the point again. Keep reading below to see what the author is actually talking about, rather than assuming you know already.
What's there to see, God said "those who cheat".
Once again, this kind of scripture doesn't make those who oppress or exploit others happy. But if you put yourself in the shoes of the men, women and children who are being oppressed, it should certainly make you happy to know that God doesn't approve of sneaky merchandisers who are constantly using dirty tricks to reduce the quantity and/or quality of their products and/or increasing the prices, and eliminating the opportunities customers have to buy such products at lower prices from competitors.
Let's hear some specific examples. If you know of anyone whose fraudulant, I suggest you report them to the proper authotities, hopefully they can be arrested.
What's your reference for this claim?
I was a union worker. They took my money, gave it to Democrats, and then sent me a monthly newsletter telling me all aout it and outlining their plan to defeat Republicans. They are thugs. They are liberal thugs who threaten and steal from the lower middle class. I despise them.
These have always been unsubstantiated claims.
Yeah if you have no common sense, it's easy to believe that Clinton was a good ole boy that felt people's pain and and got in trouble for the simple sin of getting some on the side. Meanwhile, the blood of Brown, Foster, Brown's plane acquaintences, and so many others cry out from the earth.
They have about as much substance right now as the claims that Cheney had his "town hall meetings" on energy policy only with those large corporations that made equally large contributions to the GOP.
Digging deep again, huh. I'm a Republican, pro-business, pro-jobs, pro-economic activity, if Cheney wants to help the economy, that's fine with me. It doesn't compare to murdering people on planes.