People are Not Basically Good, They're Basically Like the Beatles

[Bob Enyart]

Liberal concern = even MORE poor always with us

Liberal concern = even MORE poor always with us

Yeah, I remember how Jesus, in that passage to which you are referring, blamed liberals and their ridiculous focus on poverty for the fact that we will always have the poor with us!

Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?

This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.

 

[Lighthouse]

Oh! It's a DIAMOND cross, too! "My Lord and Savior died on a wooden cross for my sins. I think I'll honor Him by wearing a diamond-encrusted cross." She could have fed 5,000 homeless people with the money she spent on that bling.

You sound like Judas.

 

[kmoney]

You sound like Judas.

Is that a bad thing??

 

[CabinetMaker]

Why?

Because I'm tierd of the republican lies.

 

[Turbo]

Because I'm tierd of the republican lies.

Me too.

But you're willing to tolerate democrat lies?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Me too.

But you're willing to tolerate democrat lies?

At least they are honest about them. I do not agree with everything that the democratic party stands for. Overall I find more in democratic platform I can support than in the republican platform.

The one issue that I find draws most members of my church to the republicans is abortion. The republicans have controlled the white house, the senate and the congress for 6 years. In that time they have passed one law to ban partial birth abortion that they have never enforced. They waited until they could stack the court and will now hear the case in November. If the republicans are really the party of life, why didn't they pass a law banning all abortion and wait to enforce it just like they are doing with the partial birth ban? They didn't even try.

It is my opinion that the republicans will not make any significant efforts to ban abortion as doing so could very likely result in the loss of a large percentage of their voter base.

In my (liberal) opinion, I would rather see programs to strengthen our schools, programs to help those in our society that need help (not hand-outs - help to get productive) and something (I have no clue what) to address the staggering burden of medical costs facing each and every one of us.

I see the republicans as the party of the rich focused on getting more and keeping it all. The democrats still attempt to think of people before profit.

 

[Granite]

Republicans have dominated politics since Roe v. Wade was passed and we still have abortion. If they were serious about ending it, they would have by now.

Oh yes, and idiotic foolishness aside, the Beatles still rule.

 

[aharvey]

Ah, I see. So all people who say they care about the poor are really interested in lining their own pockets. And since only liberals say they care about the poor, you infer that Jesus was blaming liberals for the eternal presence of the poor. Is this really the best that an accomplished proof-texter like yourself can come up with?

 

[Jefferson]

This is incredibly lame.

And nobody should dis the fab four...:down: :nono:

From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

In an extraordinary escalation of their dispute, Miss Mills claims in the documents that the ex-Beatle:

* Subjected her to four violent attacks, including one in which he stabbed her in the arm with a broken wine glass.
* Continued to use illegal drugs and drink excessively, despite promises made before they married.
* Hurled abuse at his wife, calling her an 'ungrateful *****'.
* Tried to prevent her breastfeeding, saying: 'They are my breasts.'
* Made her cancel a crucial operation because it interfered with his holiday plans.
* Objected 'vociferously' when she asked to buy an antique bedpan to save her crawling to the toilet at night.

In the papers, which will form the basis of her bid for a share of Sir Paul's estimated £1billion fortune, she claims he became 'physically violent' and acted in a 'vindictive, punitive manner' towards her.

A series of episodes are described in which she alleges he physically attacked her.

In Los Angeles, in November 2002, the papers say, he 'grabbed her by the neck and pushed her over a coffee table'.

He then went outside and, in his allegedly drunken state, fell down a hill, cutting his arm, which remains scarred Later, in May 2003, while Miss Mills was four weeks' pregnant, she claims Sir Paul became 'angry and pushed' her into a bath. She says she suffered 'shock and distress'.

On Long Island, in August 2003, Miss Mills asked Sir Paul if he had been smoking marijuana and claims he became 'very angry, yelled at her, grabbed her neck and started choking her'.

In April 2006, as the marriage neared collapse, Sir Paul allegedly tipped red wine from a bottle over his wife's head and then threw what remained in his glass at her.

The divorce papers claim that Sir Paul 'then reached to grab the respondent's (Miss Mills's) wine glass, and broke the bowl of the glass from the stem.

'He then lunged at the respondent with the broken, sharp stem of the wine glass, which cut and pierced the respondent's arm just below the elbow, and it began to bleed profusely.

'He proceeded to manhandle the respondent, flung her into her wheelchair and wheeled it outside, screaming at her to apologise for "winding him up".' Miss Mills 'still bears the scars of the assault', the papers say.

The papers allege that Sir Paul humiliated his wife, or ignored her needs. After the birth of their daughter Beatrice in 2003, he forced his exhausted wife to 'accompany him everywhere' still with no regard to her physical or disability needs, they claim.

'Forced to crawl on hands and knees'

In April 2006, it is claimed, Miss Mills - who lost a leg in a road accident in 1993 - was forced to crawl on her hands and knees up the steps of a plane because they were not wide enough for her wheelchair and Sir Paul had not made other arrangements.

Sir Paul allegedly told his wife during her pregnancy she should not breastfeed because 'they are my breasts'. He is alleged to have told her: 'I don't want a mouthful of breastmilk.'

She breastfed for six weeks, but gave up because Sir Paul would constantly interrupt her during feeds which left her 'miserable and demoralised', the papers say.

In November 2005, Sir Paul is alleged to have forced her to defer an essential and already once-cancelled operation on her leg because it 'interfered with his holiday plans'.

The papers claim Sir Paul vomited on himself after a drinking session towards the end of their relationship and staggered home drunk and slurring, demanding his dinner.

 

[Granite]

Nice to know you buy allegations that are unsubstantiated and printed in the tabloids, Jeff.

This kind of criticism is petty, puerile, idiotic, foolish, boorish, pointless, and is something you'd expect from a cultural Philistine.

 

[Jefferson]

Nice to know you buy allegations that are unsubstantiated and printed in the tabloids, Jeff.

Who said I buy it? I'm simply reporting the allegations that are being made in court.

 

[Granite]

Who said I buy it? I'm simply reporting the allegations that are being made in court.

Sure. And you don't believe them at all...

While we're on the subject anti-semites (Luther) and womanizers (Mozart) should be put on the chopping block. At least their foibles are established fact, unlike the allegations of a gold digger.

 

[Jefferson]

Sure. And you don't believe them at all...

Knowing fallen human nature, I think it's a definite possibility.

 

[Turbo]

Sure. And you don't believe them at all...

While we're on the subject anti-semites (Luther) and womanizers (Mozart) should be put on the chopping block. At least their foibles are established fact, unlike the allegations of a gold digger.

And we could put gold-diggers on the chopping block.

Whether or not her allegations are true, the point is made, right? (either through her husband or through her)

 

[Granite]

I guess the "point" is that you can get away with saying anything...

No class, these days.

 

[aharvey]

And we could put gold-diggers on the chopping block.

Whether or not her allegations are true, the point is made, right? (either through her husband or through her)

The point being that people are not basically good? Well, not that I necessarily disagree with this point (although I'm guessing I'm more inclined to say "Most" and you're absolutely certain it's "All"), but...

I'm not sure how safe it is to generalize from celebrities to all people. They are a highly nonrandom subsample of people to begin with, and one could argue that they live their lives in a somewhat pathological, or at least unnatural, environment.

And it seems that while your "glass-half-empty" philosophy would naturally lead to this conclusion ("all people do bad things sometimes, therefore all people are basically not good"), a more positive person could look at the exact same people and draw the exact opposite conclusion with the exact same legitimacy (namely, "all people do good things sometimes, therefore all people are basically not bad").

I think it's fair to say that most people are driven by self-interest, and how they act on that self-interest largely shapes whether other people judge them as "good" or "bad."

 

[Lighthouse]

Is that a bad thing??

 

[Turbo]

But you're willing to tolerate democrat lies?

At least they are honest about them.

Democrats are honest about their lies??

I do not agree with everything that the democratic party stands for. Overall I find more in democratic platform I can support than in the republican platform.

Put aside the comparison to Republicans for a moment. What is it about the Democratic platform that you support that overshadows their "pro-choice" stance? What specifically do you like about Hillary Clinton that outweighs her support for child-killing?

The one issue that I find draws most members of my church to the republicans is abortion. The republicans have controlled the white house, the senate and the congress for 6 years. In that time they have passed one law to ban partial birth abortion that they have never enforced. They waited until they could stack the court and will now hear the case in November. If the republicans are really the party of life, why didn't they pass a law banning all abortion and wait to enforce it just like they are doing with the partial birth ban? They didn't even try.

It is my opinion that the republicans will not make any significant efforts to ban abortion as doing so could very likely result in the loss of a large percentage of their voter base.

No kidding. I generally don't support Republicans for the reasons you just cited.

But what I'm asking is, why do you therefore support Democrats, who openly support child-killing? Where is the sense in that?

The democrats still attempt to think of people before profit.

Do you count the unborn among those "people"?

A liberal's strategy for "helping people" is to help people steal from their neighbors. (And the politicians are sure to take their cut.)


CabinetMaker, you should repent of your support for politicians who advocate child-killing.

 

[Jukia]

child-killing?

.

Interesting how you right wing fundy's have learned from the Rovish chicken hawks. An abortion, certainly an early term abortion at least, is not "child killing". Rethinking the Iraq strategy is not "cut and run".
Was it Orwell who discussed "the big lie"?

 

[Turbo]

An abortion, certainly an early term abortion at least, is not "child killing".

Yes, it is.

Do you deny that an abortion, even and early-term abortion, kills a living human being?