PDA

View Full Version : What Illegal Aliens Cost Us


boxcar
03-13-2010, 04:26 PM
The spin on this should be interesting. :rolleyes:

A friend sent this to me, so I'm "forwarding" it to this forum.

Boxcar

A Real Eye Opener




WHY is the USA BANKRUPT?




Informative, and mind boggling!





You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:

Boy, was I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.


I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.



I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts...


1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.


Verify at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd 8



2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.



Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML





3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML




4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!



Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML





5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.



Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML





6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.



Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML




7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.



Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML <http://transcripts/..cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML>




8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.



Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML




9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.



Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML






10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .




Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn/..com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML>






11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.




Verify at: Homeland Security Report:





12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'





Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute/..org/PDF/deportation.PDF





13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.



Verify at: http://www/..rense..com/general75/niht.htm <http://www.rense.com/general75/niht..htm>




14.. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'


Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml> http://ww/%20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml>



The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.



Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S.CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!


If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the United States AND PLEASE REMEMBER IT AT THE NEXT ELECTIONS!!!

jballscalls
03-13-2010, 05:23 PM
isn't everyone in agreeance that illegals are a big problem?

Tom
03-13-2010, 05:35 PM
isn't everyone in agreeance that illegals are a big problem?

Go talk to the bottom feeding slimeballs in DC.
THEY have no problem with them.
All they see is potential votes.
Ask the AHOLE-N-Chief what he is doing about it.
Absolutely NOTHING.


Still, the illegals are far better off than our own government.
Cost less, commit fewer crimes.....smell better.:rolleyes:

boxcar
03-13-2010, 05:59 PM
Go talk to the bottom feeding slimeballs in DC.
THEY have no problem with them.
All they see is potential votes.
Ask the AHOLE-N-Chief what he is doing about it.
Absolutely NOTHING.


Still, the illegals are far better off than our own government.
Cost less, commit fewer crimes.....smell better.:rolleyes:

Stay tuned. This problem is very high on his agenda. He wants to give amnesty to all. That's his "solution". :rolleyes:

Boxcar

wizard_of_odds
03-13-2010, 06:32 PM
This is a big problem,I say they all need to go back where they came from.I have nothing against them coming here if they go thu the proper channels and pay their taxes...Burns my ass to see them get this money we work so hard for.

JustRalph
03-13-2010, 06:45 PM
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31239

The above thread is almost 4 yrs old now..........

fast4522
03-13-2010, 07:04 PM
TFM!

hcap
03-13-2010, 07:11 PM
Ok, beleive it or not, one giganenormous crock. My guess is you won't.

Sorry guts there is no comparison between the Iraq War and illegals.
Not to mention both bush tax cuts. (remember your pal the rutabaga was the Greatest Ev-e-r-r-r-r, and even according to many here the 2nd coming of JC) Add that to the totally bogus war, and you guys are whistling your usual bogus tune.


First the truth about them mean iillegals...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/

Then the cost of the War. Without the bushies tax cuts for the rich....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

Then add a trillion and 1/2 more from those 2 tax cuts...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/S5Ey5VhmV5I/AAAAAAAAErU/67eu3pCZHZw/s1600/4407203486_9cd4a3a587.jpg

fast4522
03-13-2010, 07:19 PM
Besides costing us more than if we had a choice, in my case not one red cent, they burn gasoline. When the greed gets going this summer and you are at the gas pump looking at the per gallon price on the pump, think of the illegals and how consumption drives the price up. Do you think I am full of it just look at the BS prior to this post.

Tom
03-13-2010, 07:41 PM
hcap....no doubt your perverts in congress, once they stop having tickle fests behind closed doors, will dwarf all spending by Bush.
But have no fear, your little nazi-wannabe UpChuck Schummer is pushing to force everyone to carry bio id cards....much like the real socialist/communist
contries. I look at your side in power and all I can say is "Ziech!"

boxcar
03-13-2010, 07:51 PM
Ok, beleive it or not, one giganenormous crock. My guess is you won't.

Sorry guts there is no comparison between the Iraq War and illegals.
Not to mention both bush tax cuts. (remember your pal the rutabaga was the Greatest Ev-e-r-r-r-r, and even according to many here the 2nd coming of JC) Add that to the totally bogus war, and you guys are whistling your usual bogus tune.


First the truth about them mean iillegals...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/

Then the cost of the War. Without the bushies tax cuts for the rich....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

Then add a trillion and 1/2 more from those 2 tax cuts...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/S5Ey5VhmV5I/AAAAAAAAErU/67eu3pCZHZw/s1600/4407203486_9cd4a3a587.jpg

Yo...'cappie...err...since when did keeping more of our own hard-earned money -- more of the fruits of our own labor -- become a government expense? Would you explain that to me? I thought costs were things associated with government programs that had to paid for -- things associated with expenses -- such as Medicare, various entitlement programs, public sector employees' wages, etc.

And define for us who the "rich" are specifically who got to keep more of their own money. We're these rich folks only those who made 250k or more? 200k or more? 150k or more? 100k or more? 50k or more? Just who, specifically, got to keep more of their own money?

Boxcar

hcap
03-14-2010, 06:55 AM
What about the fact that your fable is just that? And anything but an eye opener?
Or that the cost of illegals is no where near your bogus bush war?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/co...gal-immigrants/

HUSKER55
03-14-2010, 08:37 AM
Can we all agree that illegals are causeing #300B a year in problems and that is not small chnge and should be dealt with?

Can we all agree that we can't undo the Irag war but until the US stops being the world police nothing will change?

Can we all agree that the US will be the worlds police until the UN is out of the US? Not every nation is contributing on an equal level. Especially the big 5.

Can we all agree that if all we do is argue and do nothing about anything the problem will keep getting worse?

JMHO

lsbets
03-14-2010, 09:19 AM
The first "stat" thrown out about welfare made me think the e-mail was bullshit. Hcap's link backs that up. The Mexican immigrants here, whether legal or not, are some of the hardest working people you will ever meet. 6 days a week, often two jobs. If they are here illegally, they have no choice but to work their tails off - the coyotes who bring them in to the country put them on a payment plan. If they miss a payment the consequences aren't pretty. The cost goes anywhere from $2500 for a Mexican who is wiling to do a lot of walking up to over 10 grand for someone from Central America (the smugglers don't like El Salvadorans and charge them a lot more). Illegal immigration is a big problem, but not for any of the reasons listed above, and virtually all of the "solutions" offered are meaningless politically motivated bullshit.

MONEY
03-14-2010, 10:46 AM
My nephew is a real estate agent in Houston. He just rented a 5 bedroom 4 bath house to a single mother of 5. She is in the U.S. illegally. Welfare will be paying her rent $1450.00 a month. How many of you can afford to live in a 5 bedroom house?

Also in the Houston area my nice teaches Kindergarten. At the begginning of the school year none of her students knew how to speak english, and it wasn't supposed to be a bilingual class. Many new schools are getting built in my area to accommodate the children of illegals.

Where I live there is a lot of new construction going on. A couple of weeks there was an immigration raid in a nearby house. 20 illegals that were paying off their debts to coyotes were removed. The constuction came to a halt until a few days ago when the illegals were replaced by American workers.

It doesn't matter how much illegal aliens are costing us. Whatever it is, it is too much.

boxcar
03-14-2010, 12:15 PM
What about the fact that your fable is just that? And anything but an eye opener?
Or that the cost of illegals is no where near your bogus bush war?

I'm not entirely convinced that is a fable because we really don't know how many illegals are here, and they are arriving daily. How do we know this? Simple. The U.S. isn't doing very much to stop the traffic. It's just not the politically correct thing to do.

Furthermore, given the state of our dismal economy, even illegals will have a tough time finding work, so their only option would be to get on the public dole.

Also, we have to factor in how many illegals aren't paying their fair share of taxes. So on top of everything and all the other problems they have created, they are thieves too because they're not paying their fair share.

And finally, the Iraq war was never "my" war. But your man-child that is currently in office mustn't think the war is all that bogus, for he would have yanked the troops home by now, don't you think?

Boxcar

jonnielu
03-14-2010, 01:49 PM
The spin on this should be interesting. :rolleyes:

A friend sent this to me, so I'm "forwarding" it to this forum.

Boxcar

A Real Eye Opener




WHY is the USA BANKRUPT?




Informative, and mind boggling!





You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:

Boy, was I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.


I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.



I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts...


1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.


Verify at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd 8



2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.



Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML





3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML




4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!



Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML





5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.



Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML





6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.



Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML




7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.



Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML <http://transcripts/..cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML>




8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.



Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML




9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.



Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML






10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .




Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn/..com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML>






11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.




Verify at: Homeland Security Report:





12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'





Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute/..org/PDF/deportation.PDF





13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.



Verify at: http://www/..rense..com/general75/niht.htm <http://www.rense.com/general75/niht..htm>




14.. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'


Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml (http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml) <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml> http://ww/%20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml>



The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.



Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S.CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!


If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the United States AND PLEASE REMEMBER IT AT THE NEXT ELECTIONS!!!

I don't understand your bitching, did you send money to Congress in the form of an income tax this past year? Do you expect Congress to respect you at all when you refuse to exercise your basic rights in having a voice in these matters? As long as you keep facilitating it, it will continue.

jdl

toetoe
03-14-2010, 02:00 PM
I'm reserving judgement until I hear from my eminently moral geniuses, Tom Hanks and Sean Penn. :jump:

boxcar
03-14-2010, 03:15 PM
I don't understand your bitching, did you send money to Congress in the form of an income tax this past year? Do you expect Congress to respect you at all when you refuse to exercise your basic rights in having a voice in these matters? As long as you keep facilitating it, it will continue.

jdl

And I don't understand your question. What does my household's tax situation have to do with anything? If you're asking if we pay federal taxes, then -- yes, of course we do! So, why do you ask?

But I would ask you why aren't you outraged that not everyone who lives here in America is paying their fair share of taxes? And that would include millions of illegal aliens! Why should they get a free ride at taxpayers' expense!?

And as far as Congress respecting the people's voices, you see how well that is working out with the libs who insist on imposing their will against the majority of the people who don't want the Dems' health care takeover. So, again....what is your point? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

bigmack
03-14-2010, 04:58 PM
Illegal immigration is a big problem, but not for any of the reasons listed above, and virtually all of the "solutions" offered are meaningless politically motivated bullshit.
There are a lot of numbers bandied about RE: the cost of illegals. Many are speculative as data is tough to pin down. While I'll give you the fact than many of them are hard working, the financial cost to us legals to host them and have them abuse our system is a very real and meaningful reason for concern.

Sorry, we can't afford it.

Tom
03-14-2010, 05:14 PM
If they are here working hard, then those jobs are fit for anyone to do, and the anchors who I am paying to carry damn well should be doing them.And the illegals should be back where they belong - building their own damn country instead of leeching off of ours. No amnesty, no way.

JustRalph
03-14-2010, 05:21 PM
The first "stat" thrown out about welfare made me think the e-mail was bullshit. Hcap's link backs that up. The Mexican immigrants here, whether legal or not, are some of the hardest working people you will ever meet. 6 days a week, often two jobs. If they are here illegally, they have no choice but to work their tails off - the coyotes who bring them in to the country put them on a payment plan. If they miss a payment the consequences aren't pretty. The cost goes anywhere from $2500 for a Mexican who is wiling to do a lot of walking up to over 10 grand for someone from Central America (the smugglers don't like El Salvadorans and charge them a lot more). Illegal immigration is a big problem, but not for any of the reasons listed above, and virtually all of the "solutions" offered are meaningless politically motivated bullshit.

perfect summary...........but culling the good from the bad is the problem. I have a few friends who came her illegal.........got green cards ....by working through the state and jumping through multiple hoops......and work their asses off........some of the best people I know....... but how in hell do we separate them from the bad ones...........which by the way I am very very familiar with also.

Tough issue.............I support a sponsorship system of amnesty, with real teeth.

fast4522
03-14-2010, 05:30 PM
There is no justification for anyone born here to play second fiddle after working hard the getting caught up in a lay off after working for a company for twenty years. Why are Americans so friggin soft to what they let happen to their country by the hands of progressive filth in our congress. If everyplace there is town meetings and TV coverage people use the word filthy and that word gets on TV watch them fold up like a cigar box running from the truth.

toetoe
03-14-2010, 06:06 PM
many of them are hard working



I'm hardworking. Can you find me a coyote to smuggle me into Switzerland ?

bigmack
03-14-2010, 06:18 PM
I'm hardworking. Can you find me a coyote to smuggle me into Switzerland ?
A City of Angels radio station hired a couple of gringos with a pick-up truck, rakes akimbo in the bed. Went into TJ looking for gardener work. They were summarily ousted within an hour.

YbBWmLMVR_o

This from the Swiss immigration site:
We only offer services for people who wish to move to Switzerland to live off independent income (pensions, investments, activities outside Switzerland). If you do not fall in this category, we cannot unfortunately help you.

jonnielu
03-14-2010, 06:20 PM
And I don't understand your question. What does my household's tax situation have to do with anything? If you're asking if we pay federal taxes, then -- yes, of course we do! So, why do you ask?

But I would ask you why aren't you outraged that not everyone who lives here in America is paying their fair share of taxes? And that would include millions of illegal aliens! Why should they get a free ride at taxpayers' expense!?

And as far as Congress respecting the people's voices, you see how well that is working out with the libs who insist on imposing their will against the majority of the people who don't want the Dems' health care takeover. So, again....what is your point? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

The point is that if people only paid what was needed for the legitimate purposes of government (which they are supposed to be), they would not be getting abused by paying for politicians vote-buying schemes (all forms of public aid).

Do you think that it takes more money from you to fund the legitimate functions of the national government than what you spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined?

Let me try to understand this, you go out and work at some occupation in an attempt to better circumstances for yourself and your family by earning money, then the yellow, spineless, and incompetent people that you send to Congress tell you that you owe 35% of what YOU EARN to the rest of society... or to whomever they prefer to hand it to... and you buy it without question???

I'm just trying to get a grip on why you elect liars, thieves, cheats, incompetent/power hungry/idiots.. knowing that they are just looking to take yours from you, and give it to someone else (for their vote, they already have yours), then abandon your responsibility to oversee their activities while you throw 35% at them every pay period... or quarter for the self employed. Then bitch and moan when you find that these people are abusing you. As if you have some say in the matter.

You may as well write ABUSE ME, I LOVE IT SO on the memo line of your check... since you are paying for it and asking for it too.

You've been electing new guys for generations now... so what. Let me ask you this, you have a new guy in Mass. right?

Are the same people going to keep him from lying, stealing, and cheating that kept Ted Kennedy from doing it for 40 years or so?

Power corrupts, if you are going to turn your power over to a politician, you shouldn't expect good results. Try it at home, put your 12 year old in charge of the bank account for a month.

jdl

jdl

boxcar
03-14-2010, 06:24 PM
I have zero problems with LEGAL IMMIGRATION policy -- with immigrants who are here legally -- who have obeyed the rule of law. The "anchors" who are here have no business being here. They should not have been born here to begin with. But of course, this makes too much sense, so liberals will never buy into this bit of irrefutable logic. :rolleyes:

Amnesty!? Now way, Jose. Now, the libs will want to reward scofflaws just the same way they reward failure(s)? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

boxcar
03-14-2010, 06:28 PM
The point is that if people only paid what was needed for the legitimate purposes of government (which they are supposed to be), they would not be getting abused by paying for politicians vote-buying schemes (all forms of public aid).

Do you think that it takes more money from you to fund the legitimate functions of the national government than what you spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined?

Let me try to understand this, you go out and work at some occupation in an attempt to better circumstances for yourself and your family by earning money, then the yellow, spineless, and incompetent people that you send to Congress tell you that you owe 35% of what YOU EARN to the rest of society... or to whomever they prefer to hand it to... and you buy it without question???

I'm just trying to get a grip on why you elect liars, thieves, cheats, incompetent/power hungry/idiots.. knowing that they are just looking to take yours from you, and give it to someone else (for their vote, they already have yours), then abandon your responsibility to oversee their activities while you throw 35% at them every pay period... or quarter for the self employed. Then bitch and moan when you find that these people are abusing you. As if you have some say in the matter.

You may as well write ABUSE ME, I LOVE IT SO on the memo line of your check... since you are paying for it and asking for it too.

You've been electing new guys for generations now... so what. Let me ask you this, you have a new guy in Mass. right?

Are the same people going to keep him from lying, stealing, and cheating that kept Ted Kennedy from doing it for 40 years or so?

Power corrupts, if you are going to turn your power over to a politician, you shouldn't expect good results. Try it at home, put your 12 year old in charge of the bank account for a month.

jdl

jdl

So, what is your solution? Should we forgo future elections at least until after we have successfully revolted against against the tyranny we've been experiencing?

Boxcar

hcap
03-14-2010, 06:30 PM
As I pointed out, the so-called "facts" behind this thread are inaccurate. Certainly any comparison with the Iraq War is bogus.
Yes, it is a problem that has to be addressed, but once again exaggeration is THE operative word. Like many of the threads started by the right here, there is a kernel of truth, but the outlandish claims are spun from hate and meant to scare us, is based in many cases on fear of the "other".A dumb knee jerk tale.

Similar to the Hitler Youth thread that is yet to uncover one real piece of evidence. One real life application issued to one real life student. The phoney application form that a blogger plastered on the internet as truth, that many hear got their panties clenched over.

Another "Issue That Won't Die" :D

Fine hate Obama and liberal goody goody concerns, but at least put to bed the 24/7 nonsense that is posted as the Biblical truth.

toetoe
03-14-2010, 06:34 PM
there is a kernel of truth



(:Gaping, jaw on ground.)




May I respectfully dub thee The Colonel of Truth ?

bigmack
03-14-2010, 06:38 PM
Similar to the Hitler Youth thread that is yet to uncover one real piece of evidence. One real life application issued to one real life student. The phoney application form that a blogger plastered on the internet as truth, that many hear got their panties clenched over.
Listen Mojo, hear is the deal. The only one hear that has their panties in a bind over that thread is you. Let it go. Everyone else hear has.

hcap
03-14-2010, 07:10 PM
Considering all the anti-illegal responses here, NOT me. I simply posted a counter to what I considered a rather hateful diatribe posted by our resident Christian Bible scholar. Once again box rambles on about why we should hate. Ironic.

BTW, where is the Hitler Youth application form-a real one- that you promised would, as you said "surface"?

You gentlemen are Beck fodder.

boxcar
03-14-2010, 07:21 PM
Considering all the anti-illegal responses here, NOT me. I simply posted a counter to what I considered a rather hateful diatribe posted by our resident Christian Bible scholar. Once again box rambles on about why we should hate. Ironic.

BTW, where is the Hitler Youth application form-a real one- that you promised would, as you said "surface"?

You gentlemen are Beck fodder.

No wonder at all you can't interpret the bible correctly when you read so very much into people's posts. Yeah...I "hate" because I think illegals shouldn't be above the law. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You need serious help, 'cap.

Boxcar

hcap
03-14-2010, 07:36 PM
Your post exaggerated the problem, and seemed to zeroed in on the "inferiority" of another people.
It was not so much against the illegality, as the inferiority, and implied a sub human race or culture.
Don't worry yourself too much, tho', it follows your contempt for those that are less fortunate, and is in step with Tom's "anchors away" philosophy.

That's why I said Ironic.

bigmack
03-14-2010, 07:42 PM
Mr. Show Me is jumping to all sorts of conclusions.

what I considered a rather hateful diatribe

seemed to zeroed in on the "inferiority" of another people

implied a sub human race or culture.

OK, point us to the hate, implied reference to sub-human/culture & inferiority that you see in this thread.

hcap
03-14-2010, 07:51 PM
The original post has it all. The general tone is pathetic.

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

5.$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies
.
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

These are exaggerations as my link at Fact Check shows and is meant to rile up the blood.
You have been riled.

boxcar
03-14-2010, 08:25 PM
Your post exaggerated the problem, and seemed to zeroed in on the "inferiority" of another people.
It was not so much against the illegality, as the inferiority, and implied a sub human race or culture.

Really? How so? Can you prove your spin? :rolleyes:

Don't worry yourself too much, tho', it follows your contempt for those that are less fortunate, and is in step with Tom's "anchors away" philosophy.

That's why I said Ironic.

See...there you go projecting again. I have no contempt for anyone. You are projecting your own contempt upon those who are fortunate because in your version of reality, you think everyone who has two nickles to rub together must have gotten them on the backs of the "poor". Isn't that right, 'cap? This is why you love the man-child so much because he believes the same way, doesn't he? This is why he's hell bent to make over America into his image.

Boxcar

jonnielu
03-14-2010, 10:05 PM
So, what is your solution? Should we forgo future elections at least until after we have successfully revolted against against the tyranny we've been experiencing?

Boxcar

Getting off your knees to start excercising your own authority against the tyranny would be a fine start.

jdl

boxcar
03-14-2010, 10:18 PM
Getting off your knees to start excercising your own authority against the tyranny would be a fine start.

jdl

What would even be better is some specific, practical solutions. Personally, I think this country is so far left, there can be no meaningful and lasting reversal to the right. Some temporary reprieve, perhaps, but that's about all.

Boxcar

JustRalph
03-14-2010, 11:22 PM
Getting off your knees to start excercising your own authority against the tyranny would be a fine start.

jdl

sometimes you talk such crap my monitor starts to smell...........

what are you doing? ,,,,,,besides not paying your taxes and acting like you are living on a different planet?

I agree we now live under tyranny, from our own government. But our forefathers ( 2 generations before us) allowed it to happen.

You can go back to Woodrow Wilson and Beyond to find the moment and the catalyst for giving up our ability to be able to control our government. The genie is out of the bottle..........and we will never be able to take back the government............ the decline continues...... unabated.

hcap
03-15-2010, 06:23 AM
Your post exaggerated the problem, and seemed to zeroed in on the "inferiority" of another people.
It was not so much against the illegality, as the inferiority, and implied a sub human race or culture.
Don't worry yourself too much, tho', it follows your contempt for those that are less fortunate, and is in step with Tom's "anchors away" philosophy.

That's why I said Ironic.Here is Glenn Beck echoing boxcar. Or is it boxcar echoing Glenn Beck?

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/03/antijustice-wow.html

"Yesterday, Beck told his radio listeners to "look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. ... If you find [them], run as fast as you can. ... They are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church?

....That trailblazers of wingnuttery like Glenn Beck would explicitly condemn justice itself shouldn't be surprising. You'll recall that just a few months ago, Beck and his allies (including most of the Republican caucus in Congress) were loudly railing against a related prerequisite virtue, empathy.

Yes, that's right, they said empathy was bad. Once they decided that, then it was only a matter of time before they were bound to come out against justice as well, because empathy is the foundation of justice. (See if you can arrive at some conception of justice that does not rely upon empathy. No philosopher, ethicist or religious genius ever yet has managed to do so.)"

Njalle
03-15-2010, 07:14 AM
Clearly the author of that mail has no economic understanding at all. Especially the post about suppressed wages, supposedly costing society $200bn, shows just that - are we forgetting that the people who gain from lower wages, namely company owners and consumers, are American too? Also there are several dynamic effects not taken into accout - for instance that a higher population equals more jobs (which is why America has more jobs than say Greece), and that the competition of low-paid jobs forces people to educate themselves which in turn increases productivity for the benefit of themselves and society.

But putting all things aside, I think we should remember that illegal immigrants are human beings and should be treated as such. I think that most of the immigrants do not come to America with the intention of stealing jobs or living off welfare, but rather because the see America as an opportunity for a better life without the dangers and misery of Latin America.

Tom
03-15-2010, 07:44 AM
You get real scared when the truth is spoken, don't you?

boxcar
03-15-2010, 11:18 AM
Here is Glenn Beck echoing boxcar. Or is it boxcar echoing Glenn Beck?

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/03/antijustice-wow.html

"Yesterday, Beck told his radio listeners to "look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. ... If you find [them], run as fast as you can. ... They are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church?

....That trailblazers of wingnuttery like Glenn Beck would explicitly condemn justice itself shouldn't be surprising. You'll recall that just a few months ago, Beck and his allies (including most of the Republican caucus in Congress) were loudly railing against a related prerequisite virtue, empathy.

Yes, that's right, they said empathy was bad. Once they decided that, then it was only a matter of time before they were bound to come out against justice as well, because empathy is the foundation of justice. (See if you can arrive at some conception of justice that does not rely upon empathy. No philosopher, ethicist or religious genius ever yet has managed to do so.)"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Empathy is the foundation of justice!? You are out of your mind. You have completely lost it, 'cap. You have become totally disconnected from reality. Let me give you a little clue. Here it is, are you ready?

RIGHTEOUSNESS is the foundation of justice. The bible makes this abundantly clear from cover to cover. Your visceral nonsense won't fly, except with muddle-headed bird brains.

Boxcar

Tom
03-15-2010, 11:42 AM
hcap,

You left our some major parts of the quote, and you mislead the discussion on empathy. The talk was about Obama wanting empathy as part of the SC process. Empathy has no place in our justice system. We are a nation of laws, not men.

The purpose of the courts is to interpret the laws, not make them. You desire to ridicule the messenger has blinded you to the message. One post, two blatant misrepresentations of the message from Beck. One might think it was intentional.

boxcar
03-15-2010, 01:06 PM
hcap,

You left our some major parts of the quote, and you mislead the discussion on empathy. The talk was about Obama wanting empathy as part of the SC process. Empathy has no place in our justice system. We are a nation of laws, not men.

The purpose of the courts is to interpret the laws, not make them. You desire to ridicule the messenger has blinded you to the message. One post, two blatant misrepresentations of the message from Beck. One might think it was intentional.

Of course BO wants empathy. That gives miles of wiggle room for liberal meatheads to make laws up on the fly. Wicked, godless human beings get to decide what is good and what is evil. (And very many of us know how that has worked out!) Libs are notorious for calling good evil and evil good. Libs like Hcap get everything else backwards, so how can they possibly get moral issues right? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

46zilzal
03-15-2010, 01:09 PM
now say Ah......

boxcar
03-15-2010, 01:14 PM
now say Ah......

Looks like the spittin' image of BO.

Boxcar

Njalle
03-15-2010, 01:38 PM
You get real scared when the truth is spoken, don't you?

What truth, colonel Jessep?

hcap
03-15-2010, 06:56 PM
Empathy is the foundation of justice!? You are out of your mind. You have completely lost it, 'cap. You have become totally disconnected from reality. Let me give you a little clue. Here it is, are you ready?

RIGHTEOUSNESS is the foundation of justice. The bible makes this abundantly clear from cover to cover. Your visceral nonsense won't fly, except with muddle-headed bird brains.I don't think any of us would like to stand before a judge using the bible and his/her interpretation on why killing witches or stoning children or homosexuals is the correct raison d'ętre, instead of case law and precedent. Fairness, the cornerstone of law requires a human to apply a law justly. Otherwise a computer would do just as well.
Regard for the law and the surrounding and possible extenuating circumstances of which the case is based on, is why we have humans judging the APPLICATION of law, not biblical scholars. Or sharia scholars, or seven day adventists. Thinking too long on what is righteous, and what is not, is not the place of a legal judge.

The OT sanctioned slavery, the modern world has moved way beyond such views. Civil rights came into existence because of the ability of humans to put themselves in another's place. If we still used the OT, riding in the back of the bus would be justified in some strange way. Or explained by scholars using one passage in the bible to justify another.

However all the worlds' religions call on the empathy within us.
I seem to remember "Do unto others " That takes empathy. In fact putting yourself in another's place is so much simpler than a religious diatribe on righteousness. (Very few religions agree on that concept)

Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12,
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
Luke 6:31,


Buddhism:
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
" Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18


Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- ......reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

Hinduism:
" This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517

Taoism:
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

So the truth is you really do agree with Glwnn Beck.

BlueShoe
03-15-2010, 07:45 PM
How many of you pro invader guys actually live in an area that has a large illegal presence? Cappy, the friend of everything that is against the nation, resides in a city that is 85% white and only 8.7% Hispanic, according to the info on city-data website. Therefore, he has little or no exposure to illegals. Those of us that live in the Southwest or California have a huge illegal presence, and have seen their effect. Besides the fiscal impact, which has been discussed, there is the huge detrimental influence in many other sectors. Speaking from personal experience, many parts of Southern California are now resembling third world nations. This is a horse racings site, so have any of you been to Hollywood Park recently? Inglewood not long ago was a mostly middle class black community. Today, the area around the track looks, sounds, and smells like Tijuana Norte.

boxcar
03-15-2010, 08:13 PM
I don't think any of us would like to stand before a judge using the bible and his/her interpretation on why killing witches or stoning children or homosexuals is the correct raison d'ętre, instead of case law and precedent. Fairness, the cornerstone of law requires a human to apply a law justly.

Your nonsense is a non sequitur. The principles of justice are universal and eternal. Now, you say that "fairness" is the cornerstone of law, whereas previously you said that the foundation was empathy. Make up your mind already! You're waffling early in this discussion. :rolleyes:

While you're much closer with this latest foundation, i.e. fairness, this still begs the question because fairness, like beauty, can lie in the eye of the beholder. And fairness can depend upon a judge's interpretation of law, as well. A third problem with "fairness" is the existence of wicked, godless, immoral judges. If you don't believe this, then consider all the bad, unrighteous, immoral laws we have on the books today! In short the "justice" of the dark, lost forlorn world leaves very much to be desired for the simple reason the world at large is at war with God and rejects his law and his righteous judgments.

This is precisely why the bible throughout makes the connection between righteousness and justice, judgments and judges (Gen 18:19, Dt 1:16, Pr 31:9, Ps 7:11, 33:5, 72:2, 2Ti 4:8, etc. Fairness itself, therefore, finds its ground in Righteousness, as it only can.


However all the worlds' religions call on the emphatic ability within us.
I seem to remember "Do unto others " That takes empathy. In fact putting yourself in another's place is so much simpler than a religious diatribe on righteousness. (Very few religions agree on that concept)

Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12,
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
Luke 6:31,

Wrong. Man has no innate ability to do good! All the good that we do see in the world is due to God APPLYING his common grace to mankind -- to induce mankind to do good. Otherwise, without this grace, we'd be living in hell currently! The quintessential torment of hell is the total absence of God. Hell is when God entirely abandons the lost for all eternity and leaves man to his own wicked and godless devices.

Also, the megabytes of irony with the passages you quote above is that the Matthew text speaks to man's MORAL DUTY -- not any supposed "emphatic ability"! Christ himself said that "this is the LAW and the PROPHETS"! And since this is the law, then we know that the law is also holy, RIGHTEOUS and good (Rom 7:12), as it can only be since it's author is God Almighty!

And since you bring up these passages, let's see how an Evangelical Christian would apply this to his every day living. A true Christian knows that stealing -- in any form -- is forbidden. A Christian would not steal from his neighbor because of this law and because he doesn't want his neighbor stealing from him either! Nor would a Christian welcome the theft of the fruits of his labor by some third party for the purposes of it being redistributed to some unknown "neighbor" by equally unknown entities who they deem as "worthy". But godless, wicked men don't see the unfairness and injustice in this practice, do they? And because they don't they don't have any qualms or problems with breaking God's laws in the name of their godless brand of "social justice"!

So the truth is you really do agree with Glwnn Beck.

Only to the extent his premise is in agreement with scripture.

Boxcar

freeneasy
03-15-2010, 09:29 PM
i live in LA. the cost to la for supporting the mexican illeagals is 37, not 3.7 million dollars, not centavos, a month, not year.
these people are like ants. they are everywhere u turn. they outnumber the rightful citizens of la to the point where they have the vote. in other words they have reached a voting number to where they can vote anybody that they so desire into office and there is not a damn thing that u or i can do about it.
the mayor, hymmie, dont call me jimmy, villaragosa wants to be the govornor of california so bad he can taste it and is doing everything he can short of sending busses down to the boarder to pick these people up to bring them all back here to la to assist these mexican illeagals in order to keep these people healthy, wealthy and wise by allowing them the luxury of free room, board, lodging, schooling, rent, hospitalization, food, cash money, taxpaying and nontaxpaying work that he is doing absolutely nothing to curb, drivers license, socaial security numbers, city, county and state jobs with all the benifits that go along with these jobs as well as offering free incarceration for mexicos criminals. gee aint that swell.
villaragosa will be the next govornor of california because every mexican illeagal that has been given this free immunization bullshit and practically automatic american citizenship will be flooding the polls to vote their favorite meal ticket into the govornorship. as a matter of fact when vegas opens up the betting lines on who will be the next govornor of california iam catching the first flight out to vagas and betting all and i mean all my hard earned cash on my boy jimson. and if he opens up at 2-5? ha! r u kidd'n me, iam going to jump for joy at such an underlay price and unload every penny i gots. 2-5? ha! taking candy from a baby? ha! easiest 2-5 money u will ever make. let me see if i can put it more simler terms, hmm nope, easiest 2-5 money u will ever make, trust me on this one

the next time some drunkass driving (par for the coarse) mexican illeagal bangs into ur car and he says to u, thats if he pulls over and doesnt start running like a bat outta hell, and he says to u "ohhh no, i saarry senior, i no have-a th innn-chuence for uooo" i'll tell u how he can drive around all day long with no insurence, free as lark and not get caught.
hard working? some but as far as iam concerned the greater majority are just a bunch of traitors to there own country and people taking advantage of the opportunities that america offers to any and all who come here buy stealing from the sonofabitch hardassworking taxpayers who r pulling their own weight as well as pulling the weight for these lazy fatass drunk driving ungreatful non taxpaying mexican illeagals that call themselfs american citizens. fk me and the horse i rode in on

Tom
03-15-2010, 09:41 PM
I have a plan for immigration reform.

We grant amnesty to all illegals.

Then, we draft them all and form a 20 million man army and invade Mexico and rid the country of both the drug cartels and the government.

Then let them clean up the cesspool that is Mexico and make it fit for people to live in.

Then give it to them free of charge.

dav4463
03-15-2010, 11:00 PM
isn't everyone in agreeance that illegals are a big problem?


Is that a word? :confused:

Tom
03-15-2010, 11:04 PM
Certaintively it is.

BlueShoe
03-15-2010, 11:38 PM
Then, we draft them all and form a 20 million man army and invade Mexico and rid the country of both the drug cartels and the government.
Good thought, but do not think that it would work. First off, they would all desert. Then, they either would come back here, return to their old homes, or join the drug lords. The last thing that they would do would be to join their army. The Mexican Army is so inept and corrupt that the thugs have fought them to a standstill. Meanwhile, Mexico draws ever nearer to anarcy and disintegration, and the violence has spread to our side of the border. Am almost starting to seriously think about what to many is unthinkable. About how history tends to repeat itself, and about the years 1846-1848--------.

bigmack
03-16-2010, 12:14 AM
the mayor, hymmie, dont call me jimmy, villaragosa wants to be the govornor of california so bad he can taste it
Alrighty.

Caboodle to drink in there, f'n'ease. Spelling notwithstanding, take a scoop of this, Mayor Villaraigosa. (cue marimba)

He's born Antonio Ramon Villar

He meets Corina Raigosa

Before wedsville she insists his sorry ass takes on HER name! :lol:

Voila. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

BlueShoe
03-16-2010, 12:35 AM
Tony V dropped out of the governors race some time ago. San Franciscos sleazy mayor, Gavin Newsom, also quit that race, instead, he recently announced that he is running for lieutenant governor. That leaves Jerry Brown, California governor from 1975-1983, trying for another go around at the top spot on the Democratic ticket. Moonbeam & Sleaze, what a pair. Pity California if they both win election.

mostpost
03-16-2010, 12:57 AM
i live in LA. the cost to la for supporting the mexican illeagals is 37, not 3.7 million dollars, not centavos, a month, not year.
these people are like ants. they are everywhere u turn. they outnumber the rightful citizens of la to the point where they have the vote. in other words they have reached a voting number to where they can vote anybody that they so desire into office and there is not a damn thing that u or i can do about it.
the mayor, hymmie, dont call me jimmy, villaragosa wants to be the govornor of california so bad he can taste it and is doing everything he can short of sending busses down to the boarder to pick these people up to bring them all back here to la to assist these mexican illeagals in order to keep these people healthy, wealthy and wise by allowing them the luxury of free room, board, lodging, schooling, rent, hospitalization, food, cash money, taxpaying and nontaxpaying work that he is doing absolutely nothing to curb, drivers license, socaial security numbers, city, county and state jobs with all the benifits that go along with these jobs as well as offering free incarceration for mexicos criminals. gee aint that swell.
villaragosa will be the next govornor of california because every mexican illeagal that has been given this free immunization bullshit and practically automatic american citizenship will be flooding the polls to vote their favorite meal ticket into the govornorship. as a matter of fact when vegas opens up the betting lines on who will be the next govornor of california iam catching the first flight out to vagas and betting all and i mean all my hard earned cash on my boy jimson. and if he opens up at 2-5? ha! r u kidd'n me, iam going to jump for joy at such an underlay price and unload every penny i gots. 2-5? ha! taking candy from a baby? ha! easiest 2-5 money u will ever make. let me see if i can put it more simler terms, hmm nope, easiest 2-5 money u will ever make, trust me on this one

the next time some drunkass driving (par for the coarse) mexican illeagal bangs into ur car and he says to u, thats if he pulls over and doesnt start running like a bat outta hell, and he says to u "ohhh no, i saarry senior, i no have-a th innn-chuence for uooo" i'll tell u how he can drive around all day long with no insurence, free as lark and not get caught.
hard working? some but as far as iam concerned the greater majority are just a bunch of traitors to there own country and people taking advantage of the opportunities that america offers to any and all who come here buy stealing from the sonofabitch hardassworking taxpayers who r pulling their own weight as well as pulling the weight for these lazy fatass drunk driving ungreatful non taxpaying mexican illeagals that call themselfs american citizens. fk me and the horse i rode in on

Apparently some Mexican took your place in school when they were teaching grammar and spelling. But, it's the ignorance of your ideas that is really distressing. Who is this hymmie you think is mayor of Los Angeles? Maybe the reason Villaraigosa does not want to be called "Jimmy" is that his name is Antonio Ramon. "Hymmie is a perjorative for a person of Jewish ancestry. If you're going to be a racist at least get your terminology right.
Here's a civics lesson. Citizens vote, illegals don't. No matter how many illegals Villaraigosa alledgedly brings in he ain't getting any extra votes.

Funny how those healthy, wealthy illegals keep clogging up the emergency rooms and how they live in shacks in the Barrio. Must be they have no ambition. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Kind of like a guy who can't spell or use proper grammar. Unbelieveable.

mostpost
03-16-2010, 12:59 AM
Tony V dropped out of the governors race some time ago. San Franciscos sleazy mayor, Gavin Newsom, also quit that race, instead, he recently announced that he is running for lieutenant governor. That leaves Jerry Brown, California governor from 1975-1983, trying for another go around at the top spot on the Democratic ticket. Moonbeam & Sleaze, what a pair. Pity California if they both win election.
Don't worry. You survived Reagan. You can survive anybody.

johnhannibalsmith
03-16-2010, 01:06 AM
Freeneasy v Mostpost exchange really is about as good as it gets. Certaintively a top moment that is in agreeance with my expectations.

mostpost
03-16-2010, 01:15 AM
Freeneasy v Mostpost exchange really is about as good as it gets. Certaintively a top moment that is in agreeance with my expectations.
Certaintively? That is not in my Funk and Wagnalls.

johnhannibalsmith
03-16-2010, 01:20 AM
Stop skimming these threads Mostpost, you're missing a third of the entertainment! :D

bigmack
03-16-2010, 01:21 AM
Don't worry. You survived Reagan. You can survive anybody.
REmind us, what was the bad part about Reagan?

BlueShoe
03-16-2010, 01:22 AM
Don't worry. You survived Reagan. You can survive anybody.
I also survived FDR and Jimmy Carter, but it is very much up in the air whether or not I will survive Barack Obama. Another turn with Governor Moonbeam would make things even worse. And oh how i wish that another Ronald Reagan is just around the corner.

NJ Stinks
03-16-2010, 01:41 AM
REmind us, what was the bad part about Reagan?

Let's start with Reagan's greatest achievement - selling arms to Iran. I wonder if they still got any. :rolleyes:
___________________________________________

What followed would alter the public's perception of the president dramatically. How "Iran" and "Contra" came to be said in the same breath was the result of complicated covert activities, all carried out, the players said, in the name of democracy.
___________________________________________


Read the entire article about the would be face of the fifty dollar bill at the link below. Guaranteed Grant is rolling in his grave.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html

BlueShoe
03-16-2010, 01:54 AM
Let's start with Reagan's greatest achievement
That would be building up our armed forces to such levels that the Soviet Union was spent into bankruptcy attempting to keep up. The collapse of the Evil Empire was largely due to his administration, not that of Bush Senior, when the Soviets technically ceased to exist.

bigmack
03-16-2010, 01:55 AM
Let's start with Reagan's greatest achievement - selling arms to Iran. I wonder if they still got any.
An uproarious laughter on this coast.

Iran/Contra? Next you'll be in disfavor of Studio 54.

Meanwhile, Prince readies himself for 1999.

mostpost
03-16-2010, 02:08 AM
Let's start with Reagan's greatest achievement - selling arms to Iran. I wonder if they still got any. :rolleyes:
___________________________________________

What followed would alter the public's perception of the president dramatically. How "Iran" and "Contra" came to be said in the same breath was the result of complicated covert activities, all carried out, the players said, in the name of democracy.
___________________________________________


Read the entire article about the would be face of the fifty dollar bill at the link below. Guaranteed Grant is rolling in his grave.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html
Of course part and parcel of that was Reagan arranging through William Casey for the hostages to be held until after the election. For that, he should have been tried for treason. There is also the matter of the planned second rescue attempt which the Carter administration had in the works. When the Reagan campaign found out about this they accused Carter of planning an "October surprise" to influence the election, thus insuring that Iran knew about the rescue attempt.

bigmack
03-16-2010, 02:10 AM
Of course part and parcel of that was Reagan arranging through William Casey for the hostages to be held until after the election. For that, he should have been tried for treason.
You're delusional. Bring on any evidence Casey negotiated the release of the hostages.

mostpost
03-16-2010, 02:15 AM
That would be building up our armed forces to such levels that the Soviet Union was spent into bankruptcy attempting to keep up. The collapse of the Evil Empire was largely due to his administration, not that of Bush Senior, when the Soviets technically ceased to exist.
Here we go again, with the fantasy that Reagan singlehandedly destroyed the evil empire. Reagan built the worlds biggest bulldozer to knock over a dead tree. And he nearly bankrupted us in doing so.
Had Breznev or Kruschev or Stalin been running the Soviet Union they would have laughed in his face. Gorbachev was more concerned with Russia than with the Communist Party. He was the man responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union.

mostpost
03-16-2010, 02:18 AM
An uproarious laughter on this coast.

Iran/Contra? Next you'll be in disfavor of Studio 54.

Meanwhile, Prince readies himself for 1999.
The question was: remind us what was bad about Reagan. Since he was President in the 80's that is where we will find most of the stuff that was bad about him. Try to keep up.

bigmack
03-16-2010, 02:19 AM
Here we go again, with the fantasy that Reagan singlehandedly destroyed the evil empire. Reagan built the worlds biggest bulldozer to knock over a dead tree. And he nearly bankrupted us in doing so.
Had Breznev or Kruschev or Stalin been running the Soviet Union they would have laughed in his face. Gorbachev was more concerned with Russia than with the Communist Party. He was the man responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union.
Somebody school this fool about playing poker.

mostpost
03-16-2010, 02:19 AM
You're delusional. Bring on any evidence Casey negotiated the release of the hostages.
He didn't negotiate their release. He negotiated their non release.

bigmack
03-16-2010, 02:22 AM
He didn't negotiate their release. He negotiated their non release.
Uh huh. And coffee stunts your growth, right?

HUSKER55
03-16-2010, 03:17 AM
For those of you who think aliens don't vote consider that here at home we just sentenced some people to prison for voting more than once. . . and then we are told others would follow. Currently they are charging a group who registered dead people and then voted for them.

jonnielu
03-16-2010, 06:59 AM
sometimes you talk such crap my monitor starts to smell...........

what are you doing? ,,,,,,besides not paying your taxes and acting like you are living on a different planet?

I agree we now live under tyranny, from our own government. But our forefathers ( 2 generations before us) allowed it to happen.

You can go back to Woodrow Wilson and Beyond to find the moment and the catalyst for giving up our ability to be able to control our government. The genie is out of the bottle..........and we will never be able to take back the government............ the decline continues...... unabated.

What I did is get up out of the recliner refusing to believe that all is lost, to take back my own authority and live at liberty by right. Nothing is lost. The federal jurisdiction runs your life for you because you not only allow it, you authorize it.

jdl

lsbets
03-16-2010, 07:09 AM
Reading freeneasy's post, I couldn't help but think that scared and insecure men once went on the same nonsensical rants about Italians, Irish, Catholics, Jews, Chinese, etc ...........

hcap
03-16-2010, 09:14 AM
Your nonsense is a non sequitur. The principles of justice are universal and eternal. Now, you say that "fairness" is the cornerstone of law, whereas previously you said that the foundation was empathy. Make up your mind already! You're waffling early in this discussion. :rolleyes:

While you're much closer with this latest foundation, i.e. fairness, this still begs the question because fairness, like beauty, can lie in the eye of the beholder. And fairness can depend upon a judge's interpretation of law, as well. A third problem with "fairness" is the existence of wicked, godless, immoral judges. If you don't believe this, then consider all the bad, unrighteous, immoral laws we have on the books today! In short the "justice" of the dark, lost forlorn world leaves very much to be desired for the simple reason the world at large is at war with God and rejects his law and his righteous judgments.

This is precisely why the bible throughout makes the connection between righteousness and justice, judgments and judges (Gen 18:19, Dt 1:16, Pr 31:9, Ps 7:11, 33:5, 72:2, 2Ti 4:8, etc. Fairness itself, therefore, finds its ground in Righteousness, as it only can.

Wrong. Man has no innate ability to do good! All the good that we do see in the world is due to God APPLYING his common grace to mankind -- to induce mankind to do good. Otherwise, without this grace, we'd be living in hell currently! The quintessential torment of hell is the total absence of God. Hell is when God entirely abandons the lost for all eternity and leaves man to his own wicked and godless devices.

Also, the megabytes of irony with the passages you quote above is that the Matthew text speaks to man's MORAL DUTY -- not any supposed "emphatic ability"! Christ himself said that "this is the LAW and the PROPHETS"! And since this is the law, then we know that the law is also holy, RIGHTEOUS and good (Rom 7:12), as it can only be since it's author is God Almighty!

And since you bring up these passages, let's see how an Evangelical Christian would apply this to his every day living. A true Christian knows that stealing -- in any form -- is forbidden. A Christian would not steal from his neighbor because of this law and because he doesn't want his neighbor stealing from him either! Nor would a Christian welcome the theft of the fruits of his labor by some third party for the purposes of it being redistributed to some unknown "neighbor" by equally unknown entities who they deem as "worthy". But godless, wicked men don't see the unfairness and injustice in this practice, do they? And because they don't they don't have any qualms or problems with breaking God's laws in the name of their godless brand of "social justice"!


BoxcarGive it up already. There is no court in this country, using biblical excerpts or passages to decide case law. Which version of the bible should be used? Which interpretation? Pat Robertson's? Yours'?

Fairness requires empathy box. Can't you figure that out? Putting yourself in anothers' shoes takes humility, and forgetting all those high-faluten' boxcarian proclamations. Fairness and consideration of the other guy requires the innate goodness in man that you deny.

Yes there is ignorance and "sin" ( to use your archaic term ) in men, but you are blinded by your hatred of what you see as mans' fall from grace, and most definitely have a hard time seeing the good that coexists alongside "sin".

Hell and brimstone? 18th century preachers? Or maybe Glenn Beck

delayjf
03-16-2010, 10:16 AM
Here's a civics lesson. Citizens vote, illegals don't.

Tell that to Acorn :lol: :lol:

BlueShoe
03-16-2010, 10:49 AM
Here we go again, with the fantasy that Reagan singlehandedly destroyed the evil empire. Reagan built the worlds biggest bulldozer to knock over a dead tree. And he nearly bankrupted us in doing so.
Had Breznev or Kruschev or Stalin been running the Soviet Union they would have laughed in his face. Gorbachev was more concerned with Russia than with the Communist Party. He was the man responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union.
You are very good at fabricating revisionist history. Have you ever considered applying for a job with the New York Times or MSNBC? You would fit right in with their propagandists.

boxcar
03-16-2010, 01:14 PM
Give it up already. There is no court in this country, using biblical excerpts or passages to decide case law. Which version of the bible should be used? Which interpretation? Pat Robertson's? Yours'?

You're the one who needs to give it up! I never said there was! All I'm saying is that TRUE justice can only be realized on a foundation of righteous laws and principles -- not on touchy feely "empathy". This is all I've said, and you go off on a tangent about the irrelevance of the bible in this day and age. :rolleyes: And then you go and unwittingly shoot yourself in the foot by pointing to what you think is an "empathy-filled" teaching of Jesus when in the very passage you quote, Jesus essentially said his teaching is grounded in the "law and the prophets" of the OT...yet! :bang: :bang:

Fairness requires empathy box. Can't you figure that out? Putting yourself in anothers' shoes takes humility, and forgetting all those high-faluten' boxcarian proclamations. Fairness and consideration of the other guy requires the innate goodness in man that you deny.

Sure, "empathy" is a desirable quality and even a necessary one in applying the law -- however, a judge should not bend the law beyond recognition to bandaid his bleeding heart either. :rolleyes: Empathy, as important quality that it may be, is certainly not the foundation to real justice.

Yes there is ignorance and "sin" ( to use your archaic term ) in men, but you are blinded by your hatred of what you see as mans' fall from grace, and most definitely have a hard time seeing the good that coexists alongside "sin".

You know what I love about you liberals: Your ideology is full of contradictions. You like Mosty believe that man is basically "good", right? But you also believe that man isn't good enough to make his own important life choices. In fact, you libs believe that man is basically pretty stupid. Nanny needs to be calling the shots for us, right? This is why elitist politicians exist, right? This is what supposedly justifies these politicians' existence, right? :rolleyes:

Hell and brimstone? 18th century preachers? Or maybe Glenn Beck

Hey...who knows? If Beck isn't a Christian, you'll have all eternity to get to know him up close and personal. Now...tell me that wouldn't be hell for YOU. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

mostpost
03-16-2010, 09:09 PM
You're delusional. Bring on any evidence Casey negotiated the release of the hostages.
http://history.eserver.org/the-october-surprise.txt
This is one of several exposes on this subject.
Barbara Honegger was not a Democrat with an ax to grind. She was a member of the Reagan campaign team and served for two years in the Reagan White House.
Shaded areas are from the report
Honegger: The very possibility that Carter could bring the hostages home was close to certain to wreck a Reagan bid for the presidency. So the Reagan campaign took phenomenal secret measures to ensure that the Carter white house was not successful.
There was a close connection between (GHW) Bush and William Casey and certain elements of the CIA.
From Historian Donald Fried.
Fried: Precisely the people in the intelligence community commissioned to
develop some kind of rescue for the hostages, were clearly those elements of CIA
who were close to Bush and Casey, and demonstrably hostile to Carter.
Jonathon Marshall is coauthor of the Iran Contra Connection and he said:
Brian Copeland, who had had some CIA connections in the past, ran in
the Washington Star, a hypothetical hostage rescue piece, how he would do it,and it is so remarkably close to the actual mission, and came only a few days before the mission took place, that there is legitimate room to at least
question whether it was some kind of leak
Again from Barbara Honegger:
Honegger: ... and then of course we have Richard Secord, Oliver North and Albert
Hakim. Richard Secord was one of the chief planners for the so- called failed
Desert 1 rescue attempt, North was involved in that rescue attempt, in the
mother ship, which was on the Turkish border awaiting the cue from Secord to fly
in and rescue the hostages, and Albert Hakim was in charge of the ground
operations of the rescue attempt, in particular, obtaining the trucks and other
vehicles which were going to be needed. Hakim skipped town, left Tehran 24 hours before the rescue was to take place, and the reason for that, as detailed in my research documentation, was that Secord, North and Hakim had no intention ofseeing Desert 1 carry through, and so sabotaged the operation.

honegger: Richard Allen was head of the october surprise working group. It met every morning to try to come up with ways to try to prevent Carter from bringing the hostages home. We do know from published accounts, in the Knight Ridder papers across the country, that Richard Allen met with Robert McFarlane and an alleged emmissary from Khomeni's regime in Washington in early october of 1980 to discuss a deal to delay the release of the hostages until after the 1980 election. There is no question that that meeting happened, Allen and McFarlane have acknowledged that it did.

On
October 22, during lengthy negotiations between the Carter white house and Iran,
the Iranian's persistent demand for US weapons was suddenly dropped. The
Iranians no longer linked the release of the hostages to obtaining military
spare parts from the US. Iran's president at the time, Bani-Sadr, explains why,
although facing war with Iraq, Iranian negotiators no longer demanded these
essential military supplies:

(voice of Bani-Sadr, translator over-dubbed:) It is now very clear that there
were two separate agreements, one the official agreement with Carter in Algeria, the other, a secret agreement with another party, which, it is now apparent, was Reagan. They made a deal with Reagan that the hostages should not be released until after Reagan became president. So, then in return, Reagan would give them arms.

(Richard) Allen, in late november of 1986 on the Mcneil-Leherer news hour, referred to a deal between Reagan and Iran. He was being interviewed at the time, and he was referring tothe very first day that Reagan was president. Allen recalled for the audience that he had told Reagan that there was a53'rd hostage, Cynthia Dwyer, who had not been released, and Reagan responded, 'You get the Iranians on the phone for me, and I'm going to tell them that our deal is off unless she is released.'

There is a lot more, but I think what I have quoted above is more than enough to convonce any reasonable person that the Reagan campaign, at the very least, published material that could have warned the Iranians about the failed rescue mission. That they held secret meetings with the Iranians and promised them arms if they would delay the release of the hostages.

Why did they do these things? that question is answered at the end of the report linked above.
Honegger: These individuals have had an arrogant contempt for the will of the american people as expressed through the congress of the US and the laws of the US. I know, having been in this white house, and from my research since, that this contempt for the rule of law in this country, comes because these people have an erroneous belief that they are serving a higher law.

[COVERUP states that this "higher law" is the fight against communism.]

This is a recurring problem with Republican foreign policy. When "Dubya" took over from Clinton, he was warned that bin Laden and Al Queda would be the major foregn policy problem. Instead the Bush administration focused on the Star Wars missile defense system. We all know how well that turned out.

Tom
03-16-2010, 09:17 PM
When "Dubya" took over from Clinton, he was warned that bin Laden and Al Queda would be the major foregn policy problem.

Yes, Billy knew all about Bin Laden, seeing how it he that not only failed to take him out when he had the chance, even after the first attack on the WTC, but his miserable performance as a president with his pant on the ground allowed Al Qeda to grow and flourish, and the 9-11 plot to deveolpe on our shores.

mostpost
03-16-2010, 10:00 PM
Yes, Billy knew all about Bin Laden, seeing how it he that not only failed to take him out when he had the chance, even after the first attack on the WTC, but his miserable performance as a president with his pant on the ground allowed Al Qeda to grow and flourish, and the 9-11 plot to deveolpe on our shores.
Leaving aside the fact that you ignored the main thrust of my post. (As usual)
The peretrators of WTC 93 were captured and are now in prison.
From Wikipedia:
The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.

As far as not taking out bin Laden, at no time did Clinton have as good of intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts as Bush did at Bora Bora.

bigmack
03-16-2010, 10:23 PM
Why did they do these things? that question is answered at the end of the report linked above.
I had to read that whole burrito and there still ain't no meat to be found?

Again, where's the evidence Casey negotiated the release of the hostages?

Just so you don't go running off on another tangent, we're not talking about Ben Casey.

PaceAdvantage
03-17-2010, 01:53 AM
How the F did I let these "gems" from freeneasy slip past my radar? No more off-topic for you Mr. "I'm going to punch your lights out" Easy.

hcap
03-17-2010, 08:06 AM
You're the one who needs to give it up! I never said there was! All I'm saying is that TRUE justice can only be realized on a foundation of righteous laws and principles -- not on touchy feely "empathy". This is all I've said, and you go off on a tangent about the irrelevance of the bible in this day and age. And then you go and unwittingly shoot yourself in the foot by pointing to what you think is an "empathy-filled" teaching of Jesus when in the very passage you quote, Jesus essentially said his teaching is grounded in the "law and the prophets" of the OT...yet!

......You know what I love about you liberals: Your ideology is full of contradictions. You like Mosty believe that man is basically "good", right? But you also believe that man isn't good enough to make his own important life choices. In fact, you libs believe that man is basically pretty stupid. Nanny needs to be calling the shots for us, right? This is why elitist politicians exist, right? This is what supposedly justifies these politicians' existence, right? Empathy and compassion and consequently fairness are the culmination of human social evolution. Coincidentally they are also common ground shared by all religions. This is one area where there is no difference between evolution and religion. "Touchy feely" is your idiotic term for your inability to value humanity for what it is. As though real feelings of love and compassion are somehow not real or in fact despicable. You are practicing religion as a dried up old prune.

Relax those sphincters box, and recognize a true component of all religions. Empathy

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...

"However, it is religion we turn to for guidance on how to respond and act in the world. In the case of an earthquake such as in Haiti or in Chili, the sane Christian recognizes that life has been harmed and responds with compassion and love as we have been taught by our Christian tradition. Inspirited by our faith we insist on standards for protecting life such as buildings that won't collapse so easily, using warning signals against tsunamis, and levies that do not break so that we might protect as many as possible the next time a disaster occurs. While science can tell us much about the world it does not give us the moral imperative of our faith. For that we turn to Jesus who gives us an ethical framework for how to act in the world and a vision for what a just society looks like and for which we should strive.

That is why Glenn Beck's comments that social justice in a church can be equated with Nazism or Communism is also repugnant to the sane Christian. The responses to Beck were swift and wide, from Evangelicals, Catholics, and Mainline all of whom rejected Beck's unhealthy vision for Christianity. Were the Christian church to forsake its mission to create a world that reflects Jesus' teachings in Matthew 25 and Luke 4, it would lose much of its reason for being -the church would become a sick and useless institution indeed. As the 20th century pastor William Sloane Coffin said to me once: "Ethics do not exhaust the Gospel but they are not ancillary either. " Beck's unhealthy statement reminded us that sane Christianity cares for the individual soul as well as for the common good of the entire society, and we will never forsake either one. What Beck decries as the Church's "social justice" and "progressivism" has been responsible for such consequential commitments as the abolitionist and civil rights movements. Unless Beck is suggesting that these efforts, largely fueled by the church, were a waste of time then he should reassess his thoughts about social justice and the church.

....But we should thank Robertson and Beck. They have reminded us that we crave - no, DEMAND sane Christianity, and that actually there are many millions of us who profess it. If Sane Christians, Sane Jews, Sane Hindus, Sane Muslims, Sane Buddhists, Sane Atheists etc, would join together, I think we would have a healthier religious discourse, and a healthier and more compassionate world."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/it-took-pat-robertson-and_b_499125.html

delayjf
03-17-2010, 10:11 AM
Empathy and compassion

So when Christians support the progressive agenda (immigration) they are "empathetic and compassionate. But when they stand on principle against issues like abortion, gay rights, etc, they are full of hate.

boxcar
03-17-2010, 12:12 PM
So when Christians support the progressive agenda (immigration) they are "empathetic and compassionate. But when they stand on principle against issues like abortion, gay rights, etc, they are full of hate.

And herein is the crux of the issue with empathy-driven, touch-feely drivel: It is totally devoid of any morally objective and righteous principles. Most people who subscribe to this brand of worldly love or compassion are moral relativists who tend to make up morality as they go along. They moisten their moral barometer finger, stick it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing and they act accordingly. Whatever feels good to them must be the right thing to do...so they think.

Yesterday in one of the local papers in my area (I believe it was the Sun-Sentinel) they had a picture on the front page of what I suppose was a homeless person panhandling at a busy intersection. (Sadly, this is becoming more and more of a common sight.) Some reporter interviewed this guy and to the panhandler's credit he confessed that most of the money he collects from people goes toward feeding his alcohol habit. He said straight out that he buys beer or wine with it.

A true Christian and a citizen of the world (which Christians aren't!) would likely look at this kind of situation very differently. A Christian may feel genuine compassion for this fellow and offer to help him, but on terms of biblical principles. For example, he may offer to buy the fellow some food instead of giving him money that he would likely waste on adult liquid refreshment in order to abuse his body further.

But people like Hcap would say to himself...well I have to help him out because it's the "right" and "compassionate" thing to do. And besides, I should do unto him as I would want him to do unto me. (After all, this is what Jesus taught.) But there are couple of things wrong with this simplistic, worldly attitude: The first thing is that 'cap's monetary donation would probably only serve to feed this guy's alcohol problem, in which case he would not really be helping the fellow. In fact, he'd be promoting the problem and encouraging the man to continue in his self-destructive ways.

And secondly, 'cap's assumption is all wrong in what Jesus taught. The assumption is that if I, for example, were ever to end up in this poor panhandler's shoes, I would also want people to "help" me continue on my destructive path with their donations that I could be spending on virtually anything -- even hard drugs -- hard drink, etc., etc. Would I really want this, or would I ultimately appreciate being the object of TRUE love and compassion wherein some truly compassionate person helped to deliver me out of my sinful ways and destructive lifestyle?

Now, we can begin to understand why in Christ's infinite wisdom he linked his words of "empathy" securely to the "law and the prophets" because in doing that he is teaching us that doing good, doing what is right for our fellow man must be grounded in righteous principles and in God's righteous law. This is the only way we can have of knowing whether we are truly doing good or not. Anything short of this, could mean that we're actually doing evil! That we're doing more harm than good.

This is precisely why, as a Christian, I am diametrically opposed to the welfare state -- to wealth redistribution, etc. because the godless state will invariably misspend my hard earned money, waste it and encourage abusive and destructive behavior among the recipients -- and ultimately, if this continues for a long period, destroy the very moral fabric of society.

Boxcar

johnhannibalsmith
03-17-2010, 12:20 PM
If the homeless dude had earned the money by washing windows or doing an entertaining little jig for tips - would you condemn him for wasting the money that he earned on adult refreshments that further destroyed his body rather than buying the food that you would choose to provide him with were it your money?

Tom
03-17-2010, 12:45 PM
....But we should thank Robertson and Beck. They have reminded us that we crave - no, DEMAND sane Christianity, and that actually there are many millions of us who profess it. If Sane Christians, Sane Jews, Sane Hindus, Sane Muslims, Sane Buddhists, Sane Atheists etc, would join together, I think we would have a healthier religious discourse, and a healthier and more compassionate world."



You mean like Sadam Hussein Obama's spiritual adviser for 20+ year, the racist mad dog, Reverand Wright?

Yeah, right.
Keep you nose out of my religion - I'll deal with you in DC.
You should listen less to Beck and more to Nazi Pelosi and her brain dead comments. Beck has no power, the bitch is plotting the overthrow of our government.

boxcar
03-17-2010, 01:02 PM
If the homeless dude had earned the money by washing windows or doing an entertaining little jig for tips - would you condemn him for wasting the money that he earned on adult refreshments that further destroyed his body rather than buying the food that you would choose to provide him with were it your money?

How did "condemnation" creep into this discussion? I thought I was quite clear in my singular purpose for my commentary it that critiqued and contrasted godly love/compassion against the worldly variety. The former is grounded in God's holy and righteous laws and principles while the latter's foundation is worldly and, therefore, ungodly. The Christian knows when he's doing right because his reasoning and choices are ground in the sure word of God. Whereas moral relativists have only their feelings to guide them.

Now, what a person does with his life, whether he begs for his necessities or works for them, is between him and his creator who is also the righteous judge of the earth. Either way, he will give an account of his life to God.

Boxcar

hcap
03-17-2010, 07:38 PM
Box, your idiotic comparison of an indiscriminate handout to a drunkard with that of someone needing food or shelter, or treatment for a chronic illness, all forms of real social justice is ridiculous. Social justice may be distasteful to you and real schmucks like beck, but it is the basis of mainstream religions throughout the world.

You are in the small minority of your own religion.

Tom
03-17-2010, 08:44 PM
Then let churches take care of it and keep the government the HELL out of it.
There is a huge difference.

hcap
03-17-2010, 08:58 PM
Maybe churches should administer social security, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps?

Glenn Beck says Christians should leave churches that use the word "social justice." He says social justice is a code word for Communism and Nazism.

You and box seem to have similar views.

Tom
03-17-2010, 09:29 PM
No hcap, oh clueless one.
I just don't focus on the knucklehead stuff like you do.
Beck is Beck, and you're obsession with him is a waste of time.
The REAL issues are going on in DC and you ignore them all.

BTW, I had all the money I have paid out to SS, I would have a great retirement planned, 100% from money I EARNED MYSELF. But since the government got involved, I can safely plan on never seeing a dime of that money.


Yes, Beck is correct when he says those things.

Your nonsense about social justice - one of the dumbest things you have ever posted. Of course it is a code word.

mostpost
03-17-2010, 10:30 PM
This is precisely why the bible throughout makes the connection between righteousness and justice, judgments and judges (Gen 18:19, Dt 1:16, Pr 31:9, Ps 7:11, 33:5, 72:2, 2Ti 4:8, etc. Fairness itself, therefore, finds its ground in Righteousness, as it only can.
Alrighty then, let's look at your biblical passages. You look at Gen 18:19 and see it as an example of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah because of Homosexuality. But there is empathy there also. God is willing to spare the cities should there be sufficient righteous men there. And he acquieces each time Abraham reduces the requisite number. This benefits not just the righteous, but also the unrighteous.

Dt 1:16
I charged your judges at that time: ‘Give the members of your community a fair hearing, and judge rightly between one person and another, whether citizen or resident alien.
Nothing there says a person doing the judging can't take circumstances into account. Also known as empathy. Of course fairness would require consideration of the circumstances of all parties involved.

Pr 31:9
Speak out, judge righteously,
defend the rights of the poor and needy.
It appears you stopped reading at the end of the first line.
Line two is all about empathy.

Ps7:11
11God is a righteous judge,
and a God who has indignation every day.
Indignation caused by our lack of empathy.

Ps33:5
He loves righteousness and justice;
the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord.
Clearly, righteousness on its own is not sufficient. Justice requires that righteousness be tempered with empathy

Ps 72:2
May he judge your people with righteousness,
and your poor with justice
Why doesn't this verse just say "May he judge your people with righteousness and justice? Why is it emphasized that the poor should be judged with justice? I believe this distinction was to make the point that it is OK, even required that judgements be based on circumstances.

The dictionary defines righteousness as adhering to divine or moral law. It is not necesary to read the bible or to be a Christian to be righteous. Hcap has posted a number of passages from non christian religions which make the same points as are made in the bible.

Even an atheist can be a righteous person. Even an atheist can adhere to a moral law. The only difference between him and a Christian is where he percieves that law to be coming from.

newtothegame
03-17-2010, 11:12 PM
Maybe churches should administer social security, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps?

Glenn Beck says Christians should leave churches that use the word "social justice." He says social justice is a code word for Communism and Nazism.

You and box seem to have similar views.

Based on the way the government has handled and mismanaged these programs....umm do you think it could be worse??? I would be the church would do a better job.
Now of course I must preface this by saying I in no way endorse a take over by the church either.....My response was solely based on your asking the above bolded sentence.

boxcar
03-18-2010, 12:16 AM
Alrighty then, let's look at your biblical passages. You look at Gen 18:19 and see it as an example of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah because of Homosexuality. But there is empathy there also. God is willing to spare the cities should there be sufficient righteous men there. And he acquieces each time Abraham reduces the requisite number. This benefits not just the righteous, but also the unrighteous.

Dt 1:16

Nothing there says a person doing the judging can't take circumstances into account. Also known as empathy. Of course fairness would require consideration of the circumstances of all parties involved.

Pr 31:9

It appears you stopped reading at the end of the first line.
Line two is all about empathy.

Ps7:11

Indignation caused by our lack of empathy.

Ps33:5

Clearly, righteousness on its own is not sufficient. Justice requires that righteousness be tempered with empathy

Ps 72:2

Why doesn't this verse just say "May he judge your people with righteousness and justice? Why is it emphasized that the poor should be judged with justice? I believe this distinction was to make the point that it is OK, even required that judgements be based on circumstances.

The dictionary defines righteousness as adhering to divine or moral law. It is not necesary to read the bible or to be a Christian to be righteous. Hcap has posted a number of passages from non christian religions which make the same points as are made in the bible.

Even an atheist can be a righteous person. Even an atheist can adhere to a moral law. The only difference between him and a Christian is where he percieves that law to be coming from.


I never said a judge can't or shouldn't take circumstances into account in trying to reach a fair decision. The bible itself makes this abundantly clear, for example, in judging a murder of a person, and whether that murder was intentional or unintentional. However, fairness doesn't find its ground in mere circumstances. Fairness finds its grounds in righteousness, i.e righteous principles derived from a righteous law.

The very foundation to God's throne is clearly stated in this text:

Ps 89:14
14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Thy throne ;
NASB

And the order of words here is very important because they denote logical order. Righteousness rightfully precedes justice. There can be no true justice apart from righteousness.

And secular dictionaries are often not much help when trying to define or understand biblical terms or even concepts. For example, all laws find their ground in morality or "moral laws"; however, even moral laws have been perverted and twisted by man. For example, in many cultures the practice of homosexual acts is not considered immoral. In fact, may cultures consider people who believe homosexual acts are sinful or perverse as being immoral! So, the laws of the world are not all that righteous when held to the standard of God's law.

Your take on Ps 7:11 is creative but doesn't fit the larger context. You chide me for having stopped short of reading the full verse (which was unnecessary to my point anyway, but then you conveniently stopped reading the larger context because it doesn't support your creative interpretation..

Ps 7:11-13
11 God is a righteous judge,
And a God who has indignation every day.

12 If a man does not repent,
He will sharpen His sword;
He has bent His bow and made it ready.
13 He has also prepared for Himself deadly weapons;
He makes His arrows fiery shafts.
NASB

In this text and in a host of others throughout the bible, God is often depicted as having righteous indignation over sin -- all sin. The text here clearly implies this, i.e. "if a man does not repent..." Repent of what? His sins! All his sins!

And regarding Sodom and Gomorrah...well, we all know how that turned out, don't we? God did wind up condemning both cities and destroyed them utterly for their wickedness, especially for their sexual perversions. Also, the bible in order to accommodate our finite understanding of the infinite God often employs a figure of speech known as an anthropomorphism. Writers assigned human traits and characteristics to God. However, the same bible also teaches that God is immutable. There is no shadow or turning or variance with him.

Ps 72:1ff reads:

Ps 72:1-4
Give the king Thy judgments, O God,
And Thy righteousness to the king's son.
2 May he judge Thy people with righteousness,
And Thine afflicted with justice.
3 Let the mountains bring peace to the people,
And the hills in righteousness.
4 May he vindicate the afflicted of the people,
Save the children of the needy,
And crush the oppressor.
NASB

Again, the very passage you cite because you think it supports your case that empathy is somehow the cornerstone to fairness or justice actually refutes that silly idea. Again, note the logical order of these verses. The psalmist is actually praying that God give the king of Israel HIS judgments -- and "judgments" is just another term for laws -- or more specifically to all the law -- all aspects to God's holy law. Only then can the king carry out the requirement in next verse -- to judge with righteousness and justice. And once again, note carefully the logical order of the two key nouns in this verse -- righteousness once again logically precedes justice.

And finally, before I take my leave. An atheist may well be a "good" person. He well be a "moral" person even. The world is filled with good, decent moral human beings -- according to worldly standards, that is. It's overflowing with them. ( I'm dead serious. I'm not being sarcastic here.) But an atheist who denies the existence of God is a fool (and this term "fool" in the bible denotes serious moral deficiency!). I would refer you to this passage:

Ps 14:1-3
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God ."
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good.
2 The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men,
To see if there are any who understand,
Who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one.
NASB

Or how can an atheist be a righteous man in the sight of God when he thumbs his nose at God breaks the first and foremost commandment!?

Matt 22:36-40
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
NASB

I guess you must think that on judgment day God is going to take into account this atheist's "circumstances" and declare him righteous even though he lived a life in open rebellion against his creator!? Mr. Mosty, there will be no fools (in the biblical sense) in heaven! Only those who have been justified by faith in Christ will dwell for all eternity with God. As it's essentially written, Mosty -- the path is narrow that leads to life and few are those who find it, but the road is wide that leads to destruction and many are those who travel upon it.

Boxcar

boxcar
03-18-2010, 12:19 AM
Maybe churches should administer social security, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps?

Glenn Beck says Christians should leave churches that use the word "social justice." He says social justice is a code word for Communism and Nazism.

You and box seem to have similar views.

Err...Hcap, "social justice" = collectivist ideals. Collectivism is at the heart of "social justice" just as it is at the heart of communism. You know...from each... to each, etc.

Boxcar

boxcar
03-18-2010, 12:35 AM
Box, your idiotic comparison of an indiscriminate handout to a drunkard with that of someone needing food or shelter, or treatment for a chronic illness, all forms of real social justice is ridiculous. Social justice may be distasteful to you and real schmucks like beck, but it is the basis of mainstream religions throughout the world.

You are in the small minority of your own religion.

Chronic illnesses have been treated, bought and paid for with Medicaid. So, what's your point, again?

And how does any taxpayer know that his money isn't being wasted and squandered away by giving to undeserving homeless folks or the poor? What if their life choices put them in those sets of circumstances and they really have little or no chance now of turning their life around? You can't rebuild someone's life when he has devoted most or even his entire life to self-destructive behavior. The state does a very poor job in distinguishing between the deserving and undeserving.

And, yes, thanks be to God I'm not in the mainstream of Christendom! I praise God daily for saving me from the Satanic part of his church and from all the lies and heresies it propagates. (Bone up on the first three chapters of Revelations if you think "Satanic" is too strong of a term.)

Boxcar

boxcar
03-19-2010, 12:30 AM
Now that I have a little bit more time, I'd like to address 'cap's theory that the cornerstone or foundation to Justice is Empathy. Yes, we have already seen from several passages in the bible that the rock solid foundation upon which Justice finds its ground is Objective Nature of Righteousness. I've inserted the term "objective" to starkly contrast the total subjective nature to "empathy". So, what I'd like to do in this post and the next one is to dig even deeper into 'cap's theory to see if it holds any water. To see if it passes the sniff test. And I'd like to do this in two ways: In this post simply by defining what "empathy" is. And in the next one look at the quintessential example of how Righteousness and Justice are inextricably entwined in the sacrificial death of Christ. Seems to me that if "empathy" is the cornerstone to justice, including the divine type, then God the Father failed to exercise it miserably by decreeing, sending and allowing his righteous (not merely innocent, but Righteous!) Son to suffer a torturous and excruciating death by crucifixion in order to satisfy his Father's justice on behalf of the Father's elect. So, let's begin by taking up the definition of "empathy" for in the very definition, we'll find that empathy is not merely a one way street as 'cap and Mosty seem to think. Empathy is a TWO way street. Empathy can and often does work both ways!

The Definition:

Main Entry:empathy
Pronunciation:*em-p*-th*
Function:noun
Etymology:Greek empatheia, literally, passion, from empath*s emotional, from em- + pathos feelings, emotion more at PATHOS
Date:1904

1 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Right here, according to this definition, one's emotions, feelings or passions can run any which way. The term "another in the second definition doesn't just mean who liberals think it does, i.e. the poor, the downtrodden, the needy or the underprivileged. This is where libs unwittingly shoot themselves in the foot! In order for their empathy-based justice to work properly, they would literally have to perform a definition makeover in order to short circuit any possibility that a judge, for example, could have empathy for some entity that doesn't fit the liberal mold.

Let's say I'm a judge. I'm a conservative judge, to boot. And I have this big case coming up before me -- let's say involving the Big Widgets Industry who is being sued by some "average", "nondescript" woman because she claims some widgets she bought never worked properly and she was injured putting them together and she also suffered emotional trauma for her whole ordeal, etc. Now, I don't have any conflicts of interest in this case as I know none of the parties, have no investments in the Big Widgets industry, etc., so I'm legally qualified to try this case. However, after hearing the arguments and sitting in judgment of this case, I'm FEELING more and more that this gal's case is pretty weak. And I'm also feeling quite a bit of empathy for the executives for the Big Widgets industry because I do personally know my share of very successful business people -- some of whom have shed their blood, sweat and tears 80, 90, 100 or hours a week to build their little financial empires. Plus they employ a lot of people. They are directly responsible for a lot of workers being able to earn their way through life. And their successful businesses have attracted a lot of investors who are also making money from companies within this industry. In short, I'm a pretty staunch pro-capitalist guy to begin with and I can definitely relate to the thoughts, feelings and experiences of many of my big business acquaintances and friends. I can really empathize with THEM much more than I can with this woman! So, much so that I rule against her! Case closed!

At the core of "empathy" are passions, feelings and emotions....and of course, SUBJECTIVITY. (Look again at the etymology of this term!) All these qualities form the foundation to "empathy". And it's not at all surprising that liberals would elevate "empathy" to a throne from which it would decree what is just and what isn't. The vast majority of libs are Moral Relativists to begin with! To a liberal there are no absolutes. No objective truth. Everything is subjective. But why would a liberal think only they have a mortal lock on "empathy"!? Why can't a godless conservative or moderate or whatever feel empathy for or empathize with someone other than an entity that fits only the liberal mold? And right here, folks is the Achilles Heel to "cap's theory. Since the 'caps of the world don't believe in any absolutes (especially in terms of morality), surely no lib would dare claim that their brand of empathy is the only and absolutely correct one! Or would they? :D But seriously, once we're told that things like feelings and passions and emotions play or should play a huge rule in the dispensing of justice, then no liberal can claim a mortal lock on "empathy" or even justice because all human beings have feelings, passions and emotions. But...not all human being's feelings, passions and emotions will run in the same direction as a liberal's! Empathy really is a Two Way Street.

Bottom line: If Empathy is the foundation to Justice, that foundation is sitting over a sink hole! And that sink hole is the term's own definition!

Boxcar

hcap
03-19-2010, 05:39 AM
You pick and choose galore. Just like you cherry-pick from the bible.

From Wiki.

Empathy is an ability with many different definitions. They cover a broad spectrum, ranging from feeling a concern for other people that creates a desire to help them, experiencing emotions that match another person's emotions, knowing what the other person is thinking or feeling, to blurring the line between self and other.[5] Below is a list of various definitions of what empathy means:

* Daniel Batson: A motivation oriented towards the other.[6]
* D. M. Berger: The capacity to know emotionally what another is experiencing from within the frame of reference of that other person, the capacity to sample the feelings of another or to put oneself in another's shoes.[7]
* Jean Decety: A sense of similarity in feelings experienced by the self and the other, without confusion between the two individuals.[8][9]
* Nancy Eisenberg: An affective response that stems from the apprehension or comprehension of another's emotional state or condition, and that is similar to what the other person is feeling or would be expected to feel.[10]
* R. R. Greenson: To empathize means to share, to experience the feelings of another person.[11]
* Alvin Goldman: The ability to put oneself into the mental shoes of another person to understand her emotions and feelings.[12]
* Martin Hoffman: An affective response more appropriate to another's situation than one's own.[13]
* William Ickes: A complex form of psychological inference in which observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning are combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others.[14]
* Heinz Kohut: Empathy is the capacity to think and feel oneself into the inner life of another person.[15]
* Carl Rogers: To perceive the internal frame of reference of another with accuracy and with the emotional components and meanings which pertain thereto as if one were the person, but without ever losing the "as if" condition. Thus, it means to sense the hurt or the pleasure of another as he senses it and to perceive the causes thereof as he perceives them, but without ever losing the recognition that it is as if I were hurt or pleased and so forth.[16]
* Roy Schafer: Empathy involves the inner experience of sharing in and comprehending the momentary psychological state of another person.[17]
* Wynn Schwartz: We recognize others as empathic when we feel that they have accurately acted on or somehow acknowledged in stated or unstated fashion our values or motivations, our knowledge, and our skills or competence, but especially as they appear to recognize the significance of our actions in a manner that we can tolerate their being recognized.[18]
* Edith Stein: Empathy is the experience of foreign consciousness in general.[19]
* Simon Baron-Cohen (2003): Empathy is about spontaneously and naturally tuning into the other person's thoughts and feelings, whatever these might be [...]There are two major elements to empathy. The first is the cognitive component: Understanding the others feelings and the ability to take their perspective [...] the second element to empathy is the affective component. This is an observers appropriate emotional response to another person's emotional state.[20]
* Khen Lampert (2005): "[Empathy] is what happens to us when we leave our own bodies...and find ourselves either momentarily or for a longer period of time in the mind of the other. We observe reality through her eyes, feel her emotions, share in her pain.."[21]

And.

em·pa·thy
–noun
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

But even if we accept subjective, which I admit is in the mix, I would point out the fallacious theory of "righteousness" that you claim is rock solid. Interpretations of religious scripture are among the most SUBJECTIVE and dogmatic twistings and turnings of all philosophies.

For a "religious man" you are like a stone on the dark side of the moon.
Average temp, -200 degrees F

delayjf
03-19-2010, 10:10 AM
Social justice may be distasteful to you

How does feeding a destructive habit serve social justice.

Tom
03-19-2010, 10:32 AM
Individual responsibility trumps social justice everyday.
Socially, it make no sense at all to carry the weak. Society needs to reward the strong to advance itself. The weak, as in all of nature, are not needed and are discarded.

boxcar
03-19-2010, 12:13 PM
You pick and choose galore. Just like you cherry-pick from the bible.

em·pa·thy
–noun
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

But even if we accept subjective, which I admit is in the mix, I would point out the fallacious theory of "righteousness" that you claim is rock solid. Interpretations of religious scripture are among the most SUBJECTIVE and dogmatic twistings and turnings of all philosophies.

For a "religious man" you are like a stone on the dark side of the moon.
Average temp, -200 degrees F

Ahh...So, I take it that you don't care much for Merriam-Websters definition?

But even with your definition, tell me why, in the example I provided in my post, I can't genuinely empathize with the business being sued? Why wouldn't I be able to identify intellectually with or experience the "feelings, thoughts and attitudes" of the CEO and rule in the corporation's favor? Don't waste anymore of my time with your worldly wisdom, 'cap. Dig up a definition for me on the 'net that says I can't or even shouldn't empathize with anyone outside a liberal's bubble. What is to prevent me from doing this? Why couldn't I get all tingly up my leg and touchy-feely for the plight of the CEO or anyone else directly or indirectly connected with his business?

And you're a fine one to accuse me of cherry-picking the bible! Who was it who quoted two NT bible texts that supposedly supported empathy-based justice? :bang: :bang: And who was it that offered up his twisted interpretation by conveniently overlooking the part of one verse wherein Jesus said his teaching was grounded in the Law and The Prophets? In other words...in the objective, absolute, righteous law of the OT!?

Boxcar

JustRalph
03-19-2010, 11:26 PM
From the L. A. Times
1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people)are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8 Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A.. are Spanish speaking.
10.. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County . )

boxcar
03-20-2010, 12:11 AM
To try to keep this post to a reasonable length, I will keep bible references and citations to a bare minimum. Of course, if anyone questions any of my statements, I will happily provide scriptural support.

When Satan succeeded in his temptation by convincing Eve that it was in her best interest that she eat of the forbidden fruit since God had lied to her, I'm sure he took great pride for a moment or two in thinking that God would now have to do to the human race what he did to him and all the fallen angels with him -- that is to say, to "cast out" the entire race. Satan figured that God would be forced to condemn the entire human race because of our first parents' sin. After all, God is so holy that he cannot even look upon sin, let alone allow any sinner in his presence. I'm sure Satan was thinking that he had defeated God just on the basis of the imputation of Adam's sin to all his progeny, since Adam was the federal head of the human race. If God condemned all the fallen angels with no hope for any [legal] recourse, then surely God would also have to condemn all mankind due to Adam's sin, our sin nature and to our actual sinful acts. He had to have thought that he actually outwitted God! In his mind, God's creation would become one huge and irreparable moral and spiritual disaster. He knew on one hand that God loved his creation, yet on the other hand the holy and righteous nature of God would not acquit any of his highly imperfect, sinful creatures. A real Catch-22 dilemma for God, so the Evil One surely thought. But what happened immediately after the Fall? God addressed all three of his sinful creatures in the Garden, starting with Satan and this is what God promised (i.e. decreed):

Gen 3:14-15
14 And the LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly shall you go,
And dust shall you eat
All the days of your life;
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.
NASB

Here is the gospel in hard, kernel form. And the meaning behind words is easily understood in light of progressive revelation -- in light of all the bible.
God is decreeing, promising, prophesying (i.e. forth telling) that from that day forward there would be two distinct peoples in the world. There would be Adam and his spiritual seed (which is implicitly understood). And there would be Eve and her seed. (However, in the text itself the Hebrew term for "seed" is in the singular and is actually a messianic promise -- the seed who was born of a virgin, and not by a man.) But Eve be the mother of her spiritual seeds because many would come to believe in the ultimate seed, i.e. Christ. God did not promise to put enmity between Adam's seed, nor did he promise to put enmity between "their" seed. He promised to do this only between Eve and Satan. This is why Adam, fully understanding the profound and grave implications this promise would have on him, called his wife "Eve" the "mother of all the LIVING", that is to say all the spiritually living!

(As a very interesting aside, if man is basically good as liberals usually believe, then why was it necessary for God to put this enmity between the two seeds? One would think that the human race would naturally have this adversarial relationship with the devil. But it doesn't! The whole race is actually at war with or at rebellion against God! So, God had to take the initiative by doing something for a remnant of the race that it cannot do for itself. God must turn his enemies into friends and make them enemies of his Old Adversary, which he would do through the promised seed.)

What's important to take away from this passage in Genesis is that Adam (i.e. the First Adam) and his seed were excluded from the seed promise. Only Eve and her seed (Christ) were heirs to the promise. God condemned Adam. But he graciously acquitted (saved) Eve of her sin and, of course, all her subsequent sins. But on what basis did God forgive Eve of her transgressions? What kind of justice would forgive one and condemn another? Could God have only sympathy or empathy for Eve, but not for Adam? Is God's justice the touchy-feely kind? And if it is, how would mankind ever know for certain if God judged fairly? How could we ever be sure that he's a really fair God? How do we know God never has a bad or off day that could affect his judgment? How would we ever know if we'd get a fair hearing before God on Judgment Day? Or is God's justice based on something entirely different than mere empathy? Just how did God go about fulfilling his seed promise?

The genius (and I use this term with a great deal of reverence since I in no way mean to imply a mere intellectual fascination with God's plan of salvation) behind the gospel is to be found in the Last Adam (1 Cor 15:45) who is the antitype to the First Adam as this chapter in the NT makes clear.
Of course, this Last Adam is none other than the messiah, the promised seed in Genesis 3. It's none other than the "sent one' -- the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead.

How God can acquit one person but not another is found in the doctrine of Justification, which is a NT term used primarily in a legal sense. In a nutshell, how Justification works is this: God justifies or "declares or proclaims" righteous all those who believe on his Son for their salvation. Since Christ lived a perfect, sinless, holy and righteous life and the Father was always "well pleased" with his Son, and since he sacrificed himself on the Cross for his people's sins, when they believe on him, the Father imputes his Son's righteousness to their account and declares them "righteous", that is to say, they are in a "right standing" before God. Salvation is free to those of us who believe only because Christ paid the ultimate price for his people. It was not free for him! Therefore, the Son satisfied his Father's exacting justice through his perfect obedience to his Father's Law and by his sacrifice on the Cross. He had to shed his blood on the cross because the penalty of sin, according to that Law, is death!

In conclusion, then, I ask: Where was the Father's sympathy for his son? Never mind empathy! Why didn't the Father take pity on his beloved son and deliver him from his horrible death on the cross? Surely, his Son did not deserve to suffer and die, did he? Liberals can't answer these kinds of questions, apart from a mental gymnastics performance, that is. :) But I can because the bible is simple to understand and straightforward in this matter. As the Psalmist essentially said, Righteousness and Justice are the foundation to God's throne. Because he is a righteous God, his justice must be satisfied when his Law is broken. The price by guilty sinners must be paid either by the sinners themselves or by an Advocate -- a Mediator -- a High Priest who intercedes on their behalf. Either way -- the price must be paid. The demands of God's holy Law must be met. There's nothing touchy-feely or visceral about divine justice. God cannot wink at sin. He cannot sweep any sin under some rug in his throne room.

Well, then...since Righteousness is the foundation to Divine Justice, should not all mankind adopt the same standard? Yes, of course man should. But Man is fallen and still warring against his creator, as most men have dismissed God's law. This is why the whole earth is in turmoil. Why the whole world is agitated and uneasy. Man's ideas of justice are largely perverse. There is very little true justice in the earth.

Boxcar

hcap
03-20-2010, 06:45 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/beck-returns-as-jesus.jpg

bigmack
03-20-2010, 09:27 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/beck-returns-as-jesus.jpg
Another installment of Comics for Dolts from Monroe.

Tom
03-20-2010, 11:04 AM
hcap, first off, your sickness is showing with that post.
Secondly, I thought you were all gung ho separation of Church and state?
All those good works are the province of Churches and people, NOT governments. In fact, Glen contibutes generously. But when he gives, he gives his own money, where OBama STEALS it from others.

boxcar
03-20-2010, 12:20 PM
hcap, first off, your sickness is showing with that post.
Secondly, I thought you were all gung ho separation of Church and state?
All those good works are the province of Churches and people, NOT governments. In fact, Glen contibutes generously. But when he gives, he gives his own money, where OBama STEALS it from others.

His illness was manifested long before that. This is just 'cap's standard, predictable, boring, tired modus operandi when he can't refute an argument logically and intelligently.

And I would add to your comments Beck, Tom, that when he or anyone else gives money to a church or any charity, they do so willingly -- by their own free choice. And this is the biblical kind of giving. This is the only kind of giving or charity spoken of in the bible. Any other kind of forced or coerced giving is a form of stealing and is in clear violation of the 8th commandment. In principle, when the government decides to play the role of Robin Hood, using the force of law to confiscate money from one class of citizenry to give to another, this is no different than if I hired a thug to rob someone at gunpoint and instructed him to give the proceeds to someone else. There is absolutely no difference in principle. Both acts are done under threats and force. In one case, under the force of an unrighteous law, and in the other under the force of a gun.

And this brings me to this final point: When all nations under heaven have their law books filled with unrighteous laws, how in the world can any of us expect justice or fair treatment? As you, Tom, have previously pointed out the foundational element to justice and fairness is THE LAW. If we begin with an unrighteous law, chances are indeed extremely slim that a judge would make a righteous judgment on the basis of that law. This is why I stated earlier that there's very little true justice in the earth because virtually all man's laws are unrighteous! We can't reasonably or logically expect to extract gold after inputting nothing but garbage into the hopper! As the old saying goes (and it applies here): Garbage in, garbage out.

Boxcar

only11
03-20-2010, 12:41 PM
I work for the state...

If your a cuban refugee you and your family will recieve anywhere from $180 up to $500 cash a month pending how many family members came along with you...$200 min in food stamps and free health care for 8 months..And you should hear them bitch about that isnt enough and they were better off in CUBA..thousands arrived daily...miami has become a 3rd world country.
Mexicans are not eligible for benefits but there kids are....they recieve anywhere from $250 and upwards pending how many kids they have,and trust me its always 3 kids and 1 on the way..

They lie about there husbands or boyfriends being unemployed but they are working off the books..so they rec benefits and also there off the books salary..They cheat the system and worse of all we KNOW IT...we treat others better then we do our own..

delayjf
03-21-2010, 11:20 AM
Does anybody have any statistics with regards to the number of people in Florida that
a. Starved to death
b. died from exposure.
c. Died on the steps of a hospitol due to neglect.