Amen Bybee!!!!
Did the presidential debates change anyone's mind?
- Thread starter ebenz47037
- Start date
Amen Bybee!!!!
Well he did keep the change promise. When he started we had dollars and now we have change.
Excuse me but, you're the one out of line!!! No offence, just a truthful observation!!!! You're also a man of "true ignorance!!" Again, no offence just a truthful observation from your friend and fellow poster, GM!!!!!
Now, that's funny!!!
Paying taxes isn't immoral for citizens to pay but the percentage of people's income the government extracts is immoral as well as some of the things the government spends that money on.
I'm not rich. But I refuse to be a thief to meet my needs.
Junius Gallio
New member
You are using two different sources for morality. You use the Bible for the assertion "Paying taxes isn't immoral," but as the Bible says absolutely nothing about percentage, you are using some other source for "the percentage of people's income the government extracts is immoral." Additionally, you are also ignoring the Bible's historical context when you say that "some of the things the government spends that money on" is immoral.
The Roman government spent tax revenue on wars of conquest, the corn dole, religious persecution, state-sanctioned idolatry, subsidizing the lifestyle of the equestrian and aristocratic classes (which included infanticide, orgiastic behavior, and a level of licentiousness that would make Hugh Heffner blush), and legalized extortion--yet Jesus said "Pay the taxes." Do you not suppose that if Jesus objected to paying the taxes to support immoral behavior, he would have said something else?
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
Perfectly expressed.
At what point, who determines that and how?
So say the Amish. Darn killing machinery. Or, it's always something to someone.
"Render unto Caesar...". for Caesar has power on this earth. It is pointless to fight that power. But remember who holds ultimate power and live your life accordingly.
PureX
Well-known member
I'm leaning more this way, myself. I'm seriously considering writing in (write-ins count in PA.) the Justice Party candidate. It's not that I see Romney and Obama as being so similar; I actually think they are very different men being driven by very different internal motivations. But I am more and more convinced that the net effect of electing either one of them will be our continuing slide into a horribly toxic corporate plutocracy. This election is basically just a choice between republicans who call themselves democrats but aren't, and republicans who call themselves republicans but who have completely lost their sense of reason, proportion, or fairness in their pathological lust for more money and power. It's a choice between liars, thieves, and lunatics.
So I think I'm going to choose the lunatics who are at least telling us the truth.
eameece
New member
Exactly wrong. If you want change, then vote for Obama so he can continue the change, not for Romney who will stop it and bring us back to Bush.
from http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-implicated-perjury-and-stock-fraud-made-millions-process
Mitt Romney has been implicated in a complex case involving perjury, stock manipulation, and possibly consumer fraud.
Mitt Romney lied in the divorce proceedings of his wealthy friend, Tom Stemberg, founder of Staples, according to a story by radaronline.com. At least that is what Stemberg's former wife, Maureen, says. She is a MS patient who says her husband was so vindictive he even cut off her health insurance. Unfortunately the records for this case have been sealed, and participants are unable to discuss them. Other forces are in motion to lift the gag order.
It is a matter of public record that Mitt Romney went on the stand claiming that Staples as a business was "overvalued." He also specifically said:
I didn't place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the company's future.
Because of Romney's testimony the court valued the corporation at a paltry percentage of its actual worth, and Maureen Stemberg was granted a tiny settlement.
Meanwhile, weeks after the divorce was finalized, Mitt Romney and his buddy Tom Stemberg sold their shares of Staples to Goldman Sachs and made millions in the process.
This is a case in a long line of cases that show a side of Mitt Romney's business ethics that he does not want the American people to know about.
eameece
New member
But most Christians don't have this; they only take it literally or believe what their church or preachers says it means. Agnostics have a better chance than fundies do to understand it.
eameece
New member
Just what I said. Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. So it must have been OK with him to pay taxes to support the poor.
Your unwillingness to do that is what is immoral.
eameece
New member
Well that is clever, even if untrue. :ha:
eameece
New member
Taxes are not theft. Anything you own can be taxed if decided by law. If you refuse to pay taxes you owe, you are a criminal and should go to jail.
If taxes are theft, then so is private property. The Earth belongs to God, not you. Yet you demand that the government support your property with taxes, money, courts and police. So, if taxes are theft, give up any police or legal protection for your money or property.
Stop the libertarian utopian nonsense as an excuse not to help others. Do your part to support the society that provides your wealth. Social insurance protects you as well as others. Stop destroying it.
eameece
New member
That is plausible as an interpretation, but how does that mean you should be so callous as to oppose social programs that help the people whom Jesus asked you to help? The Christ power and the Caesar power are aligned in their purpose on that one. The best government is when the Earth's powers have become the Divine power; and they can be, as forecast in the Book of Revelation.
I am not callous.
eameece
New member
If you oppose social programs, you are. Just like most Republicans.
And you are a knobheaded arrogant, puffedup, self righteous moron! Just like a few Democrats.
At no time or place have I stated that I am against social programs.
I am against lazy, shiftless, sniveling parasites consuming what ought to be available for the needy and the disadvantaged.