# Be A Human Being



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

PEOPLE!!!!

STOP, think! 

Would you speak to your mother, father, sister, or brother this way? Do you not know you have an impact on everyone with whom you interact? 

I like your Christ, not so much your "Christians".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Be A Human Being


Are you suggesting there are aliens among us?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Little confused here myself.
I've never met anyone on the forum but feel kindly towards all of them.
Even the ones I disagree with. Concerning people in discussion who are outside the forum I believe that telling the truth is more important than maintaining some artificial politeness.

I can not sit here and say nice things about Hitler, or Stalin, or Hillary for the sake of someones idea of civility. Evil is evil, and since we brought up Christianity, sin is sin. Being "nice" about it is wrong.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

tlrnnp67 said:


> PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> STOP, think!
> 
> ...


Thank you guru Mahatma Gandhi.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Yes, HDRider - would have been nice if the op had attributed the quote to whom it belonged.

If General Chat offends one, maybe that person needs to be reading someplace else.

Sorry I opened this, as I dislike being preached to.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

tlrnnp67 said:


> PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> STOP, think!
> 
> ...


When everyone was alive..pretty much. Yeah..that's right. We never did become PC.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

tlrnnp67 said:


> PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> STOP, think!
> 
> ...


FWIW, I do speak _on here_ like I would to my family. Wondering though, is this a mean Christian person rant or just a mean person rant. If someone is mean it doesn't matter what they believe in. They may just be mean after all. Mean can be subjective too. If someone tells me I have a booger in my nose and does it in public, is that being mean or being nice? Its all in how you choose to look at it. 

Just my nickel.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> Evil is evil, and since we brought up Christianity, sin is sin. Being "nice" about it is wrong.


According to Jesus, you are wrong. I'm pretty sure he coined the following phrase in many languages for generations to come. "You catch more flies with honey."


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

tlrnnp67 said:


> PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> STOP, think!
> 
> ...


A Christian bash? I wouldn't make an entire thread for that.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I was wondering if maybe to poster thought only Christians were human? :cute:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> According to Jesus, you are wrong. I'm pretty sure he coined the following phrase in many languages for generations to come. "You catch more flies with honey."


He might have, but I couldn't find it written as such.
Being the Author of The Word in its entirety, it can be paraphrased from Proverbs 15:1.


Proverbs 15:1New International Version (NIV)

15 A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.


The actual origin is attributed to an Italian proverb, that was published by Ben Franklin in Poor Richard's almanac.
http://resolutionadvocate.blogspot.com


Good advice, regardless.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

tlrnnp67 said:


> PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> STOP, think!
> 
> ...


You might learn who Christ called your brother. He never advocated approving of evil or sins. Stick around and see how He treats evil people when He returns. Or, you can simply read about it for now. What do you think the wine press He will tread is? How about the rod of iron He will be carrying? He wasn't too kind to the money changers in the temple either.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of General Chat.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Been some strange postings going on lately.
And ..what No_Really said.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I would. I can't think of a thing I have ever posted here which I would not say in front of my wife, mother or even my pastor.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> He might have, but I couldn't find it written as such.
> Being the Author of The Word in its entirety, it can be paraphrased from Proverbs 15:1.
> 
> 
> ...


I think maybe Mark 2:13-17. I feel like I've read a translation that uses the "catch more flies with honey" line. But, I don't see it translated as such in any of the major online versions. This is what it says in the NIV.



> "Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collectorâs booth. âFollow me,â Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
> 
> 15 While Jesus was having dinner at Leviâs house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: âWhy does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?â
> 
> 17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, âIt is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.â


So I don't what translation I saw it in. Maybe there isn't one.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

wiscto said:


> According to Jesus, you are wrong. I'm pretty sure he coined the following phrase in many languages for generations to come. "You catch more flies with honey."


Sure would like a scriptural verse to back up your statement.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Stick around and see how He treats evil people when He returns.


That's always the eventual message. They start by talking about a God of love, but then they talk of God striking down disbelievers with blood-soaked vengeance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by poppy View Post
> Stick around and see how He treats evil people when He returns.


I bet some are in for a big surprise


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> That's always the eventual message. They start by talking about a God of love, but then they talk of God striking down disbelievers with blood-soaked vengeance.


I thought that was just called the Old Testament.:heh:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's always the eventual message. They start by talking about a God of love, but then they talk of God striking down disbelievers with blood-soaked vengeance.


Would you say your parents loved you? Did they not punish you when you violated their rules?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Would you say your parents loved you? Did they not punish you when you violated their rules?


I suspect that some religious leaders imagined God might be offended with disbelievers, but that would be a human shortcoming and not the kind of thing a deity would worry about. I kind of doubt that a deity would strike down anyone for disbelief.

As with your analogy of parents, if a deity exists he would want to see us be happy, productive, and good to each other. If someone has those three qualities then God is going to be pleased enough, regardless of what he believes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> I thought that was just called the Old Testament.:heh:


Sad. Sad, so bad..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I suspect that some religious leaders imagined God might be offended with disbelievers, but that would be a human shortcoming and not the kind of thing a deity would worry about. I kind of doubt that a deity would strike down anyone for disbelief.
> 
> As with your analogy of parents, if a deity exists he would want to see us be happy, productive, and good to each other. If someone has those three qualities then God is going to be pleased enough, regardless of what he believes.


Glad so got it all figured out. Good for you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Glad so got it all figured out. Good for you.


You really believe that God worries about vanity and punishes ungrateful subjects who don't believe in him? Why would he do that?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Sad. Sad, so bad..


Yes, the OT is.



Nevada said:


> You really believe that God worries about vanity and punishes ungrateful subjects who don't believe in him? Why would he do that?


The problem is, we really don't know what he would do if He exists, since it is almost entirely humans' interpretations of scriptures and God.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I suspect that some religious leaders imagined God might be offended with disbelievers, but that would be a human shortcoming and not the kind of thing a deity would worry about. I kind of doubt that a deity would strike down anyone for disbelief.
> 
> As with your analogy of parents, if a deity exists he would want to see us be happy, productive, and good to each other. If someone has those three qualities then God is going to be pleased enough, regardless of what he believes.


Once again you fail to answer direct questions put to you. Oh well its not like I expected answers from you. I know the definition of insanity but. . .

The problem comes when you set standards. If you owned a business w/ employees who do you think should set the standards for how productive does someone has to be to keep their job, you or the individual employee? Are you being a horrible, vindictive and completely evil boss when you set a standard which is higher than an individual wants to live up to? 

And even harder is to define "good". I can tell you right now a drug user does NOT think its "good" when someone tries to keep them from using. OTOH the family of that user thinks doing that is "good".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Once again you fail to answer direct questions put to you. Oh well its not like I expected answers from you. I know the definition of insanity but. . .
> 
> The problem comes when you set standards. If you owned a business w/ employees who do you think should set the standards for how productive does someone has to be to keep their job, you or the individual employee? Are you being a horrible, vindictive and completely evil boss when you set a standard which is higher than an individual wants to live up to?
> 
> And even harder is to define "good". I can tell you right now a drug user does NOT think its "good" when someone tries to keep them from using. OTOH the family of that user thinks doing that is "good".


You should set those standards for your business. But if I don't work for your business I don't have to follow your standards. As to whether those standards make one evil, horrible or vindictive. That largely depends on what the standards are and the reasons for them. Completely unattainable standards meant mainly to exert control and dominÃ nce over others may be classified as evil, horrible or vindictive. If the standard is that one must load 16 tons and the reward is that the person gets a day older and deeper in debt one might surmise that the standard serves no just purpose except for the person setting the standard. What that purpose is and the reasons for it are open to interpretation.

Hope that answers your question.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> If the standard is that one must load 16 tons and the reward is that the person gets a day older and deeper in debt one might surmise that the standard serves no just purpose except for the person setting the standard. What that purpose is and the reasons for it are open to interpretation.


And if the person took the job of loading 16 tons for an agreed upon wage, what other reward should he be looking for?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

I am a Christian and I hate most churches I have attended. They seem to be filled with people who are concerned how you dress or cut your hair. I swear, I have seen whiplash occur watching heads snap around to glare at newcomers who dare to walk in dressed differently. 

I have little doubt in my mind that if a prostitute finally hit bottom and walked into a random church on any given Sunday looking for Him and answers, she or he would not feel welcome in the vast majority. I often say the greatest enemy of Christianity is Christians. It makes me very sad to see these very hypocritical actions among my brothers and sisters, but none of us are perfect, right?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> And if the person took the job of loading 16 tons for an agreed upon wage, what other reward should he be looking for?


I said nothing of the person doing the loading. The question was about the person setting the standard. Is it your contention that no standard, no matter how severe or unattainable is above reproach or criticism. As to the loader, if they freely walk in with all the facts knowing thÃ¨ standard can never be reached the fault is on them. But when the standard is deceptive and set in such a way to ensure that one cannot voluntarily leave I will judge the standard and those who impose it as unfair at best. Look up the history of company towns and company stores to gain more understanding of my stance.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> I said nothing of the person doing the loading. The question was about the person setting the standard. Is it your contention that no standard, no matter how severe or unattainable is above reproach or criticism. As to the loader, if they freely walk in with all the facts knowing thÃ¨ standard can never be reached the fault is on them. But when the standard is deceptive and set in such a way to ensure that one cannot voluntarily leave I will judge the standard and those who impose it as unfair at best. Look up the history of company towns and company stores to gain more understanding of my stance.


Thank you for the suggestion but I don't feel the need to understand your stance more.I don't live in the past, I live in the present. I commented on what I read. My stance is if you are getting paid to do and job then do it. If you don't like the standards, look for a job that better suits your standards. :shrug:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> Thank you for the suggestion but I don't feel the need to understand your stance more.I don't live in the past, I live in the present. I commented on what I read. My stance is if you are getting paid to do and job then do it. If you don't like the standards, look for a job that better suits your standards. :shrug:


But when one was in debt to the company town or company store they couldn't leave. They had to keep working to reach ever more unattainable goals in order to pay that debt and have the freedom to leave. Many fought and died to break that system up. Knowing where you came from is always important and ignoring history comes with its own risks.

So, can standards be motivated by greed, evil or the need to control others?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> My stance is if you are getting paid to do and job then do it. If you don't like the standards, look for a job that better suits your standards. :shrug:


Does that go for everyone? In the case of a bakery operator who doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, shouldn't he also look for a job that better suits his standards?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Does that go for everyone? In the case of a bakery operator who doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, shouldn't he also look for a job that better suits his standards?


If he is a manager and the owner tells him to bake the cake, then yes, he should find other, more suitable employment. If he is the owner, he should not be forced to bake the cake.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Does that go for everyone? In the case of a bakery operator who doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, shouldn't he also look for a job that better suits his standards?


Shouldn't he have the freedom to choose his customers, that's only fair, right? You choose yours don't you?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Does that go for everyone? In the case of a bakery operator who doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, shouldn't he also look for a job that better suits his standards?


He does have choices doesn't he? He can stay and stick to his beliefs, decide it's not worth the fight and bake the cake or find another line of work. It's completely up to him isn't it.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

thericeguy said:


> I am a Christian and I hate most churches I have attended. They seem to be filled with people who are concerned how you dress or cut your hair. I swear, I have seen whiplash occur watching heads snap around to glare at newcomers who dare to walk in dressed differently. /QUOTE]
> 
> Well, I'll tell ya what I hate is when I walk into church and see someone sitting in my pew.. I mean, my friends and I always sit there....how dare they! I don't care how they dress - but sit in my seat of all things! I feel violated!


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Wolf mom said:


> thericeguy said:
> 
> 
> > I am a Christian and I hate most churches I have attended. They seem to be filled with people who are concerned how you dress or cut your hair. I swear, I have seen whiplash occur watching heads snap around to glare at newcomers who dare to walk in dressed differently. /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> I am a Christian and I hate most churches I have attended. They seem to be filled with people who are concerned how you dress or cut your hair. I swear, I have seen whiplash occur watching heads snap around to glare at newcomers who dare to walk in dressed differently.
> 
> I have little doubt in my mind that if a prostitute finally hit bottom and walked into a random church on any given Sunday looking for Him and answers, she or he would not feel welcome in the vast majority. I often say the greatest enemy of Christianity is Christians. It makes me very sad to see these very hypocritical actions among my brothers and sisters, but none of us are perfect, right?


Just keep repenting, you'll be fine.:facepalm:



mmoetc said:


> But when one was in debt to the company town or company store they couldn't leave. They had to keep working to reach ever more unattainable goals in order to pay that debt and have the freedom to leave. Many fought and died to break that system up. Knowing where you came from is always important and ignoring history comes with its own risks.
> 
> So, can standards be motivated by greed, evil or the need to control others?


Are you trying to say that since God's standards are so high as to be unattainable, that they're evil? Just trying to clarify if that's or point or if we've gone on a tangent.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I suspect that some religious leaders imagined God might be offended with disbelievers, but that would be a human shortcoming and not the kind of thing a deity would worry about. I kind of doubt that a deity would strike down anyone for disbelief.
> 
> As with your analogy of parents, if a deity exists he would want to see us be happy, productive, and good to each other. If someone has those three qualities then God is going to be pleased enough, regardless of what he believes.


That of course is your interpretation. The old "I'm a good person" so if God exists I'm OK. But there is more to it than that. You are a good person because of your faith in God. Without faith you have nothing.
Remember when Jesus said that at the time of judgement many believers will say they did this and they did that and Jesus tells them that he does not know them.
Actually, disbelief is the one sin that can not be forgiven.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Since the "parent" thing came up, allow me to put it into action on your terms. You have children. These children never speak to you. Never. They never tell you they love you. Never carry any groceries. Never ask you how your day went. Instead, they spend as much time as possible at the next door neigbhors. They carry their groceries. In fact they work part time jobs to help buy groceries. Babysit their younger children, and tutor the older children. 

Your children are good and kind, loving and caring. Just not to you. Are you going to let them live with you until you die, provide their meals, supply a car, insurance, and a masters degree from Yale? Or will you tell your children at some point they are not a part of your life and maybe should go live next door. 

Thats how the "good person" thing plays out with Jesus.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You should set those standards for your business. But if I don't work for your business I don't have to follow your standards. As to whether those standards make one evil, horrible or vindictive. That largely depends on what the standards are and the reasons for them. Completely unattainable standards meant mainly to exert control and dominÃ nce over others may be classified as evil, horrible or vindictive. If the standard is that one must load 16 tons and the reward is that the person gets a day older and deeper in debt one might surmise that the standard serves no just purpose except for the person setting the standard. What that purpose is and the reasons for it are open to interpretation.
> 
> Hope that answers your question.


Since you agree who ever made the business has the 'right' to set the standards then you should have no problem with God setting the standards for right and wrong and His punishment for violating them.

Think about the standards for government. Many people don't like the standards and think those standards don't or shouldn't apply to them but they discover differently when caught. The fact they may think the government doesn't exist or have authority over them doesn't matter when they are sitting behind bars.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> I am a Christian and I hate most churches I have attended. They seem to be filled with people who are concerned how you dress or cut your hair. I swear, I have seen whiplash occur watching heads snap around to glare at newcomers who dare to walk in dressed differently.
> 
> I have little doubt in my mind that if a prostitute finally hit bottom and walked into a random church on any given Sunday looking for Him and answers, she or he would not feel welcome in the vast majority. I often say the greatest enemy of Christianity is Christians. It makes me very sad to see these very hypocritical actions among my brothers and sisters, but none of us are perfect, right?


We are told many of those who claim to be followers of Christ are not. Wolves in sheep's clothing, "I never knew you", straight is the way and narrow is the path, etc. This is why we are given the standards to judge, yes we ARE supposed to judge people by their actions. We are also told if we see someone claiming to be a Christian acting against the teachings of Christ we are supposed to point it out to them and try to get them to change.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

watcher said:


> We are told many of those who claim to be followers of Christ are not. Wolves in sheep's clothing, "I never knew you", straight is the way and narrow is the path, etc. This is why we are given the standards to judge, yes we ARE supposed to judge people by their actions. We are also told if we see someone claiming to be a Christian acting against the teachings of Christ we are supposed to point it out to them and try to get them to change.


Yes, that may be true, but I will let you take on the little old ladies with pink and blue hair. They are all married to the deacons. It wont go well for you to go tell them He came for the sinners, and they should give up their front row seat to the prostitute because she or he needs to hear the most clearly.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I said nothing of the person doing the loading. The question was about the person setting the standard. Is it your contention that no standard, no matter how severe or unattainable is above reproach or criticism. As to the loader, if they freely walk in with all the facts knowing thÃ¨ standard can never be reached the fault is on them. But when the standard is deceptive and set in such a way to ensure that one cannot voluntarily leave I will judge the standard and those who impose it as unfair at best. Look up the history of company towns and company stores to gain more understanding of my stance.


But God's standards aren't hidden nor changing. All you have to do is read His Word to know them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Does that go for everyone? In the case of a bakery operator who doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, shouldn't he also look for a job that better suits his standards?


He has his standards and it is his business therefore its up to the buyer to find a seller who meets HIS standards.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> That of course is your interpretation. The old "I'm a good person" so if God exists I'm OK. But there is more to it than that. You are a good person because of your faith in God. Without faith you have nothing.
> Remember when Jesus said that at the time of judgement many believers will say they did this and they did that and Jesus tells them that he does not know them.
> Actually, disbelief is the one sin that can not be forgiven.


Actually, that's not what Jesus said. He said we would be asked these few questions.

1. When I was thirsty did you give me something to drink?
2. When I was hungry did you feed me?
3. When I was a stranger did you invite me in?
4. When I needed clothes did you clothe me?
5. When I was sick did you care for me?
6. When I was in prison did you visit me?

What's St Peter going to say when you tell him that you didn't give anyone food or drink because they probably spent their money on drugs or alcohol?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Actually, that's not what Jesus said. He said we would be asked these few questions.
> 
> 1. When I was thirsty did you give me something to drink?
> 2. When I was hungry did you feed me?
> ...


Not an inclusive list. It is false debate to put this forward as an only directive or the minimum threshold needed for redemption. Dont be like a political reporter please. Leave context.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Not an inclusive list. It is false debate to put this forward as an only directive or the minimum threshold needed for redemption. Dont be like a political reporter please. Leave context.


Perfection is a fine goal, but is it realistic? I know lots of people who are depressed because they believe since they're not perfect, God is upset with them, ergo, they are upset with themselves.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Perfection is a fine goal, but is it realistic? I know lots of people who are depressed because they believe since they're not perfect, God is upset with them, ergo, they are upset with themselves.


I would say to that person that they seemed to have missed perhaps the single largest theme of the Bible. We are not perfect and can not be perfect. I would then ask them to accept forgiveness and to accept that we live under grace.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Actually, that's not what Jesus said. He said we would be asked these few questions.
> 
> 1. When I was thirsty did you give me something to drink?
> 2. When I was hungry did you feed me?
> ...


Very true. And very out of context to the what is being discussed.
Besides, "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and not of yourselves. It is a gift from God, Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

It is interesting that a topic asking us to be human turns into a discussion of the Divine! :angel:


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Whether you believe or not, without he divine there is nothing human about us.


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

My belief in God absolutely helps me to be a better human!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> Whether you believe or not, without he divine there is nothing human about us.


I never believed that. Most of the Ten Commandments are self-evident. I know that stealing is wrong because I wouldn't like to be robbed. I know that killing is wrong because I wouldn't like to be murdered. I even know that lying is wrong, because I don't like to be lied to.

Did you really need to be told that stealing, murder and lying are all wrong? You wouldn't have been able to conclude that without religious training?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

There is the external and the INTERNAL spirit of God. He pervades our lives. But we have free will and decide whether to obey or not.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I never believed that. Most of the Ten Commandments are self-evident. I know that stealing is wrong because I wouldn't like to be robbed. I know that killing is wrong because I wouldn't like to be murdered. I even know that lying is wrong, because I don't like to be lied to.
> 
> Did you really need to be told that stealing, murder and lying are all wrong? You wouldn't have been able to conclude that without religious training?


Hum. . .you know that stealing is wrong. Then how do you justify having no problem with the government taking money from your labor to give it directly to someone else just because the government thinks the other person needs it more than you? If your neighbor did the same thing you would call it stealing would you not?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JJ Grandits said:


> There is the external and the INTERNAL spirit of God. He pervades our lives. But we have free will and decide whether to obey or not.


Not entirely. If someone rejects God's message, they will be punished either by a cutoff of blessings or cast into hell, outer darkness, purgatory, whatever you want to call it. I wonder how many people choose to believe simply because they fear a wrathful God?



watcher said:


> Hum. . .you know that stealing is wrong. Then how do you justify having no problem with the government taking money from your labor to give it directly to someone else just because the government thinks the other person needs it more than you? If your neighbor did the same thing you would call it stealing would you not?


Some churches require donations in order to maintain social status. Is that stealing?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Some churches require donations in order to maintain social status. Is that stealing?


No, it is wrong, it is stupid, but, it is also a choice. There are plenty of churches that don't arm twist for money, one can choose to attend one of those. Refuse to pay for the extortion from government and you will likely end up as an involuntary guest of same.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Then how do you justify having no problem with the government taking money from your labor to give it directly to someone else just because the government thinks the other person needs it more than you?


We all benefit from taxes, not just the poor. In some ways the wealthy benefit more from government programs than poor people, for such things as taking advantage of transportation infrastructure and national parks.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> We all benefit from taxes, not just the poor. In some ways the wealthy benefit more from government programs than poor people, for such things as taking advantage of transportation infrastructure and national parks.


That is not what he asked.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> That is not what he asked.


I pay a lot of taxes for a lot of years. I never resented helping people who were less fortunate than me. I can justify it because I paid those taxes.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I pay a lot of taxes for a lot of years. I never resented helping people who were less fortunate than me. I can justify it because I paid those taxes.


Well bully for you. It is your right to look the other way when someone breaks into your house and steals your TV, that still doesn't justify the action. 

I don't resent helping the poor either, but, that is not what government welfare does. Government welfare is an opiate used in a multi generational vote buying scheme using money stolen from our more productive citizens.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Some churches require donations in order to maintain social status. Is that stealing?


Never heard of that but no its not stealing because you have the choice to pay or not. If you don't pay them they are not going to take it from you by force.

I always have to laugh when people try to equate government ran welfare with charity. If I don't donate money to the Red Cross they aren't going to send men with guns to take my money and/or property. The government will. My FiL was an IRS auditor for 20+ years and I can tell you there are very good reasons why the IRS is the most feared government agency out there.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We all benefit from taxes, not just the poor. In some ways the wealthy benefit more from government programs than poor people, for such things as taking advantage of transportation infrastructure and national parks.


NICE twist. Now try reading my question a little slower. 

If you think stealing is wrong how do you justify having no problem with the government taking money from your labor to give it directly to someone else just because the government thinks the other person needs it more than you?


You will note I'm not talking about money which the government takes and uses to buy or maintain something or to pay for a service. 

I'm talking about the government taking money from you and then giving that money directly to another individual who has not provided a good nor service to the government in exchange for the money. As I said, the only reason they get YOUR money is because the government thinks they need it more than you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I pay a lot of taxes for a lot of years. I never resented helping people who were less fortunate than me. I can justify it because I paid those taxes.


So you'd have no problem being mugged if the mugger was less fortunate than you? After all he's just taking what's yours because you have more than he has.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> So you'd have no problem being mugged if the mugger was less fortunate than you? After all he's just taking what's yours because you have more than he has.


Voters voting into existence the current system of welfare. Government had relatively little to do with it. Your true axe to grind should be with a greedy, unsatisfied general public. I've always liked how the religious right frames themselves as morally superior, when they deem helping the poor, through whatever means, an overreach of government. 

Absolutely, we should scale back the current welfare system. It's bloated and is t very helpful that way. But it helps those in need, even if there are abusers.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I'm talking about the government taking money from you and then giving that money directly to another individual who has not provided a good nor service to the government in exchange for the money. As I said, the only reason they get YOUR money is because the government thinks they need it more than you.


I'm more concerned about bank bailouts, oil subsidies, and sweetheart defense contractors. It's never about how much money is being spent, it's about what it gets spent on.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Voters voting into existence the current system of welfare. Government had relatively little to do with it. Your true axe to grind should be with a greedy, unsatisfied general public. I've always liked how the religious right frames themselves as morally superior, when they deem helping the poor, through whatever means, an overreach of government.


Voters voted in the system of segregation but that didn't make it right.




Heritagefarm said:


> Absolutely, we should scale back the current welfare system. It's bloated and is t very helpful that way. But it helps those in need, even if there are abusers.


Me mugging you and taking your cash and giving it to a homeless guy helps a man in need. Would you support that? Again I have to ask, what's the difference if I'm the one taking your money by force or its the government?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Voters voted in the system of segregation but that didn't make it right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The government institution is set up to take the burden of being nice off people's shoulders. How often have you seen someone actually go help a homeless person? Most ignore them. If no one helps them, they may steal and become dangerous. It's far more effective to help them out and give them a boost. If you came to my door and asked, I'd give you money. You wouldn't need to steal, so the comparison is useless.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I never believed that. Most of the Ten Commandments are self-evident. I know that stealing is wrong because I wouldn't like to be robbed. I know that killing is wrong because I wouldn't like to be murdered. I even know that lying is wrong, because I don't like to be lied to.
> 
> Did you really need to be told that stealing, murder and lying are all wrong? You wouldn't have been able to conclude that without religious training?



You, me and the vast majority might look at it that way, but stop and look at the world around you.
Obviously, not everyone has the same standards of decency, otherwise the news reporters would be largely unemployed, lol.

It isn't anything new either. People have been killing, lying, stealing and cheating on their spouses for as long as anyone can remember.
The conundrum is, the "law" isn't really for the lawful, as you say, it isn't something we need to be told. The law is for the lawless, those that who have no intention of obeying it anyway.

From that perspective it seems useless to make such rules public, but then again, who knows how many would cross the line into anarchy if there were no boundaries at all?
:shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> But God's standards aren't hidden nor changing. All you have to do is read His Word to know them.


All religions say the same thing.
They all claim to be the "only way"


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> The government institution is set up to take the burden of being nice off people's shoulders.


Two things. One, if you think that's why it was set up you are one of the most navie people on the planet. It was, is and always be a vote buying machine.

Two, its not the government's job to do that.

Ok three things, the constitution does not give the power to do that to the government.




Heritagefarm said:


> How often have you seen someone actually go help a homeless person?


About once a week. My church has several programs which go out to help them.




Heritagefarm said:


> Most ignore them. If no one helps them, they may steal and become dangerous.


The same thing can be said about alcoholics and drug users. Should there be a program providing booze and drugs to them?




Heritagefarm said:


> It's far more effective to help them out and give them a boost.


That's true. But again reality doesn't fit with your view of the world. First the government programs aren't there to boost people up, they are there to keep people dependent on the programs. Ever wonder why those programs are set up to be all or nothing? If you are getting $500 a week government help and get a $200 a week job the government doesn't just cut your subsidy to $300 they cut it to zero. That means you can't take a starter job and work yourself up to making more. 




Heritagefarm said:


> If you came to my door and asked, I'd give you money. You wouldn't need to steal, so the comparison is useless.


What if I wanted more money than you were willing to give? Would using force then be ok?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> The government institution is set up to take the burden of being nice off people's shoulders. How often have you seen someone actually go help a homeless person? Most ignore them. If no one helps them, they may steal and become dangerous. It's far more effective to help them out and give them a boost. If you came to my door and asked, I'd give you money. You wouldn't need to steal, so the comparison is useless.


I know that the "Homeless" around here do very well for themselves, preying on the sympathy of others.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I'm more concerned about bank bailouts, oil subsidies, and sweetheart defense contractors. It's never about how much money is being spent, it's about what it gets spent on.


I am concerned about that as well. Just think how much money, you and I would have to help the poor, if the government didn't take so much to spend on such foolish ventures.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I am concerned about that as well. Just think how much money, you and I would have to help the poor, if the government didn't take so much to spend on such foolish ventures.


You know as well as I do from reading just this forum that not everyone would willingly volunteer money to feed the hungry. And there are many many other people that feel the same way. There are members now that whine and complain about food programs to feed hungry kids, many will not _give_ anything. It's an ugly thing to think but about the "I've got mine too bad for you" mentality is not only alive, it's thriving.


----------



## mzgarden (Mar 16, 2012)

IP - your last post sounds fairly judgemental and almost as if you chose your words intentionally to shame people with stuff/money. 

I believe people have a personal choice. If it's their money/stuff and if they choose to hide it, give it away, bury it or burn it up in a bonfire - it's theirs and, in fact, I don't think it's any of my business to try to figure out how much they have, compared to others or what they choose to do with it. Do I wish no children ever went hungry - yes I do. Do I think it's up to anyone but them to decide if they're a have or a have-not and then try to shame those with stuff into sharing it with others, especially using judgemental words like whine, complain, and calling their mindset 'ugly.' - nope.

It's theirs, it's their choice and while I may be sad that they make a choice differently from me -- that's their prerogative.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mzgarden said:


> IP - your last post sounds fairly judgemental and almost as if you chose your words intentionally to shame people with stuff/money.
> 
> I believe people have a personal choice. If it's their money/stuff and if they choose to hide it, give it away, bury it or burn it up in a bonfire - it's theirs and, in fact, I don't think it's any of my business to try to figure out how much they have, compared to others or what they choose to do with it. Do I wish no children ever went hungry - yes I do. Do I think it's up to anyone but them to decide if they're a have or a have-not and then try to shame those with stuff into sharing it with others, especially using judgemental words like whine, complain, and calling their mindset 'ugly.' - nope.
> 
> It's theirs, it's their choice and while I may be sad that they make a choice differently from me -- that's their prerogative.


My opinion is based on exactly what I've read on this forum from it's members.

What do you mean with this statement, "Do I think it's up to anyone but *them* to decide if they're a have or a have-not and then try to shame those with stuff into sharing it with others, especially using judgemental words like whine, complain, and calling their mindset 'ugly.' - nope." Are you saying "them" as in kids? Kids have no choice and shouldn't be to blame for their parent's irresponsibility, ever. I do think it's ugly to begrudge people food. And there are many many people, including members, that would never willingly give money for those less fortunate than they are. 

Opinions (and word choices) are great, aren't they? Everyone can have them.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

I'm OK with Jesus but not so much his fan club


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I know that the "Homeless" around here do very well for themselves, preying on the sympathy of others.


But not well enough to have a home.


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

I try to live by the wise words " Be the change you wish to see in the world " . There is much that I am powerless over, but I do try to do my part throughout the day.

It is my way to pay it forward to the people who were there for me when I had nothing and believed I was nothing.
If it wasn't for these selfless, loving people I wouldn't be the woman that I am.
I am grateful.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> But not well enough to have a home.


A local news paper did interviews with the local "tent city" dwellers. They found that the vast majority had family who would take them in, if they wanted, they just didn't want to, they enjoyed living in their community and were there by choice.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You know as well as I do from reading just this forum that not everyone would willingly volunteer money to feed the hungry. And there are many many other people that feel the same way. There are members now that whine and complain about food programs to feed hungry kids, many will not _give_ anything. It's an ugly thing to think but about the "I've got mine too bad for you" mentality is not only alive, it's thriving.


Much like when I hear Donald Trump, I don't believe the bluster coming from here.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Two things. One, if you think that's why it was set up you are one of the most navie people on the planet. It was, is and always be a vote buying machine.
> 
> Two, its not the government's job to do that.
> 
> ...


1. I prefer the term "idealistic," but I admit it means basically the same thing.
2. That depends on your perspective. But you're right - it's actually the peoples' job. That's why the government gives people tax incentives to donate, because then they have to help people less.
3. That's debatable as well, because it doesn't prohibit it, either.

4. Good for you! And yes, I know the system can breed dependency. People can also build dependency on other family members. People who have any pride are going to leave the welfare behind as soon as possible. 



Farmerga said:


> I know that the "Homeless" around here do very well for themselves, preying on the sympathy of others.


So clearly we should ignore them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> A local news paper did interviews with the local "tent city" dwellers. They found that the vast majority had family who would take them in, if they wanted, they just didn't want to, they enjoyed living in their community and were there by choice.


Do you have a link to that?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> 3. That's debatable as well, because it doesn't prohibit it, either.
> 
> 
> 
> So clearly we should ignore them.




The Constitution certainly does prohibit the Federal government from acting as a charity. The 10th amendment. 

The ones who receive a middle class income, under the table, from begging should not be getting government welfare. Just because some choose not to live they way that you do, doesn't mean that they are destitute. I have a brother, with a full time job, who lives in a tent in the woods, by choice.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Do you have a link to that?


I believe this is the article I was talking about, it has been 12 years, so, this may not be the one and I am not interested in subscribing to make sure:

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125458406.html


----------



## mzgarden (Mar 16, 2012)

IP - thanks for asking for a clarification. When I said 'them' it meant the people that may be considered Haves or Have nots that are making a choice whether or not they choose to share what they have. It did not refer to the children who may or may not be hungry.

I appreciate your right to have an opinion, much as I appreciate the right of people with 'stuff' to choose to share it, or not to share it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I believe this is the article I was talking about, it has been 12 years, so, this may not be the one and I am not interested in subscribing to make sure:
> 
> https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125458406.html


I didn't subscribe to see the full article, but the preview didn't suggest that most homeless people are homeless by choice.

My problem with that notion it's more than the discomfort that homeless people put up with, and it's even more than the indignity of becoming a pan handler -- there are also serious dangers in living on the street. The insecurity of living on the street alone is enough to discourage all but the most rugged.

I'm sure that there are a handful of homeless people who are nomads at heart, but they're in the minority. Most simply found themselves on the street through life circumstances. Remember, anyone can end up on the streets.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I didn't subscribe to see the full article, but the preview didn't suggest that most homeless people are homeless by choice.
> 
> My problem with that notion it's more than the discomfort that homeless people put up with, and it's even more than the indignity of becoming a pan handler -- there are also serious dangers in living on the street. The insecurity of living on the street alone is enough to discourage all but the most rugged.
> 
> I'm sure that there are a handful of homeless people who are nomads at heart, but they're in the minority. Most simply found themselves on the street through life circumstances. Remember, anyone can end up on the streets.


Yes, and it is not the Federal government's job to get them off of the streets.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mzgarden said:


> IP - thanks for asking for a clarification. When I said 'them' it meant the people that may be considered Haves or Have nots that are making a choice whether or not they choose to share what they have. It did not refer to the children who may or may not be hungry.
> 
> I appreciate your right to have an opinion, much as I appreciate the right of people with 'stuff' to choose to share it, or not to share it.


The bottom line is that without the government using public funds for food programs people would go hungry. And that may not be a horrible thing for some people, it is for kids and the elderly. 

There are people that would not donate willingly to food programs for anyone, and since America is not a third world country that allows it's people to starve, we need government funded food programs.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Yes, and it is not the Federal government's job to get them off of the streets.





Farmerga said:


> The Constitution certainly does prohibit the Federal government from acting as a charity. The 10th amendment.
> 
> The ones who receive a middle class income, under the table, from begging should not be getting government welfare. Just because some choose not to live they way that you do, doesn't mean that they are destitute. I have a brother, with a full time job, who lives in a tent in the woods, by choice.


*"The measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens." - Jimmy Carter*

"Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members". - Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children." 
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization."
- Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson

"The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities." - John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, [1877].

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped." - Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey 

*"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." - Mahatma Ghandi *

"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest." 
- Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Does that go for everyone? In the case of a bakery operator who doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, shouldn't he also look for a job that better suits his standards?


What if he owns the bakery, shouldn't he be able to run it the way he wants to?
He'll survive or go out of business based on how he runs it. How does it hurt anyone else to not be able to buy a cake from one particular bakery? Its not like there are no other bakeries around.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> But God's standards aren't hidden nor changing. All you have to do is read His Word to know them.


Yes, but what are Gods words and what are the words of men claiming they wrote Gods words?

As far as the Bible states there are only 3 times that God actually wrote something, in 2 cases it doesn't say what he wrote. The third thing he wrote [actually the first mentioned], The 10 commandments, most Christians today throw away as no longer applying.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> What if he owns the bakery, shouldn't he be able to run it the way he wants to?
> He'll survive or go out of business based on how he runs it. How does it hurt anyone else to not be able to buy a cake from one particular bakery? Its not like there are no other bakeries around.


Because bakeries have been judged a public accommodation. It's also true that someone turned down at a hotel could probably find other hotels, but the courts have decided that it's illegal.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> *"The measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens." - Jimmy Carter*
> 
> "Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members". - Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].
> 
> ...


So why do liberals want to harm the poor by giving them something rather than giving them the dignity of earning their way?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Because bakeries have been judged a public accommodation. It's also true that someone turned down at a hotel could probably find other hotels, but the courts have decided that it's illegal.


This is a case where the courts are wrong. 
I have no problem baking a cake for a Gay couple (other than I am a lousy baker) but if the owner of a bakery doesn't want to, thats his/her business. And if they make enough potential customers mad enough, they'll go out of business. Its still their right. They put up the money and the hard work and time to create their own business, not the courts and certainly not the government.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You know as well as I do from reading just this forum that not everyone would willingly volunteer money to feed the hungry. And there are many many other people that feel the same way. There are members now that whine and complain about food programs to feed hungry kids, many will not _give_ anything. It's an ugly thing to think but about the "I've got mine too bad for you" mentality is not only alive, it's thriving.


So you think its the government's job to FORCE people to help others?

Do you think the government should have the power to tell you: "No, you may NOT buy a new goat to provide more meat and/or milk for your family. You MUST use that money to buy food and give it to the person WE THINK deserve it."


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is that without the government using public funds for food programs people would go hungry. And that may not be a horrible thing for some people, it is for kids and the elderly.
> 
> There are people that would not donate willingly to food programs for anyone, and since America is not a third world country that allows it's people to starve, we need government funded food programs.


No people in America would starve. A lot of people would however, learn to distinguish between wants and needs though.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> So why do liberals want to harm the poor by giving them something rather than giving them the dignity of earning their way?


It depends on what you're giving them.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> The government institution is set up to take the burden of being nice off people's shoulders. How often have you seen someone actually go help a homeless person? Most ignore them. If no one helps them, they may steal and become dangerous. It's far more effective to help them out and give them a boost. If you came to my door and asked, I'd give you money. You wouldn't need to steal, so the comparison is useless.


How about when the tenth person that day came to your door? how about the hundreth.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It depends on what you're giving them.


Makes no difference whatsoever if I'm not giving them a job to do for their compensation


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But not well enough to have a home.


There are plenty of truly homeless (most of which should be in mental institutes) but there are also plenty of professional beggars who spend all day with a cardboard sign and make more tax free money in a day than a lot of people working 8 hrs a day.

I don't give money to street beggers. If someone is sitting with a sign with a sob story I will offer to take them to a place that can get them help. Want to take a guess on how many people have taken me up on this offer?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

roadless said:


> I try to live by the wise words " Be the change you wish to see in the world " . There is much that I am powerless over, but I do try to do my part throughout the day.
> 
> It is my way to pay it forward to the people who were there for me when I had nothing and believed I was nothing.
> If it wasn't for these selfless, loving people I wouldn't be the woman that I am.
> I am grateful.


That's nice but how much of your time do you spend doing this? I hope its a lot because there is a huge need for people. A much larger need than for money. 

I see a lot of people who talk a nice line but when you ask them to help you move a woman out of a house where she is being abused they are suddenly very busy. People who are willing to have another government program to help feed the elderly but are not willing to spend a few hours a month to help make and deliver meals to them and FORGET about trying to get them to deliver the meal and spend a few minutes talking.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Makes no difference whatsoever if I'm not giving them a job to do for their compensation


So what do you give them?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> So what do you give them?


A job.

Let me explain: There is a poor family at Church my wife and I like to help out, he has some medical problems and has not been able to work full time in about a year, they scrape by but barely. They have 2 teenage boys. 
I'm getting older and have recently had a number of medical issues that got me a hospital stay a couple weeks ago and right now I can't work like I used to. We needed spring yard work done so I offered $100 to come over and do some specific things. Last Saturday Dad brought the two boys over and I explained to all 3 what I wanted done. Dad and I talked while he supervised the boys making sure they did a good job. 2 and 1/2 hours later they earned $100 and my yard was the way I wanted it. Worked out to $20 a hour for each of the boys and Dad and I visited for most of it, we also served them lunch afterwards (my wife picked up his wife while I was cooking burgers on the grill for everyone).
Everyone was happy and they had the dignity of earning money for a job well done.

Could I have just given then $100? sure. But then they would have felt bad because people had to give them money. Worse yet, their kids might have learned that they deserve to be given money just because they were poor, and I would have had to hire a professional crew to get my yard cleaned up. This was a win for everyone involved.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> No people in America would starve. A lot of people would however, learn to distinguish between wants and needs though.


There is absolutely no proof of your statement. What can be proven is that there are hungry kids and elderly people now _with_ government programs. Without that safety net there very well could be deaths.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> There is absolutely no proof of your statement. What can be proven is that there are hungry kids and elderly people now _with_ government programs. Without that safety net there very well could be deaths.


There is absolutely no proof to your statement. In fact its preposterous. This nation has the richest poor people in the world.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> 1. I prefer the term "idealistic," but I admit it means basically the same thing.


Basically but there is one major difference. I'm an idealist, I dream of a perfect world where we judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin, where every down person is given a hand up not a handout, where the government is limited to the point it only interferes in the rights of an individual if that individual is interfering with the rights of another and more. And I work to make this come about. But I'm not naive because I know that there will always be people who will judge by skin color, people who enjoy having someone dependent on them and people who want to use the force of law to make others do what they think is "correct".




Heritagefarm said:


> 2. That depends on your perspective. But you're right - it's actually the peoples' job. That's why the government gives people tax incentives to donate, because then they have to help people less.


It a perspective based on rights and the powers given to the government via the constitution. 

One, you have the right to do what you wish with your money and no one has the right to tell you what you can, can't, must or must not spend it on unless doing so interferes with the rights of another.

Two, there is NOTHING in the USC which gives the government the power to take money from an individual and give that money directly to another individual unless the second individual is providing a good or service to the government in return. IOW, it does not have the right to decide you have too much money and must give it to someone it has decided has too little.




Heritagefarm said:


> 3. That's debatable as well, because it doesn't prohibit it, either.


Huh?




Heritagefarm said:


> 4. Good for you! And yes, I know the system can breed dependency. People can also build dependency on other family members. People who have any pride are going to leave the welfare behind as soon as possible.


You naivety is showing again. Open your eyes and look around. It isn't the system "can" build dependency its designed to do so and has done it very well. I have no hard data all I have is anecdotal evidence so take it for what it is. In all the years of dealing with "the down trodden" I have only seen a few handfuls of people ever move out of "the projects" into their own housing. I've seen more individuals, usually children who grew up there, escape but even that seems to be getting more rare.

As for pride. Some people are quite proud of living on welfare. I have family in the Ozarks and I can tell you where they live a large percentage of people living there are bums living off the system. I know because they are friends of my bum family members. I have one family member who has his son living in a trailer on his property and has the government paying the son's "rent". The son also is on food stamps, mediwhatever and I don't know how many other government give-aways. And the poor son who must get food stamps to live is (was) a certified mechanic with thousands of dollars of tools who fixes cars for spending money, booze or pot. And yes I've contacted the proper authorities about it but they don't care, after all its only tax dollars being wasted and the local cops don't want to be bothered.




Heritagefarm said:


> So clearly we should ignore them.


No, we should not.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Yes, and it is not the Federal government's job to get them off of the streets.


Actually it is if they are interfering with the rights of others. This includes but is not limited to; sitting on the sidewalk, aggressively begging, sleeping in a public place, sleeping on private property w/o permission, urinating or defecating in a place or way which is a public health hazard, are a danger to themselves or others.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is that without the government using public funds for food programs people would go hungry. And that may not be a horrible thing for some people, it is for kids and the elderly.


Yes it is. But you have no right to steal food out of my house to give to a hungry kid and neither does the federal, state or local government.

Once you give the government the power to take food from you and give it to another because it thinks you have more than you need and they don't have enough you have opened the door to what we have today. Now the federal government has the power to force you to buy something if it thinks you should have it. 




Irish Pixie said:


> There are people that would not donate willingly to food programs for anyone, and since America is not a third world country that allows it's people to starve, we need government funded food programs.


So the ends justify the means?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> *"The measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens." - Jimmy Carter*
> 
> "Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members". - Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].
> 
> ...


So you support the government forcing a belief system onto the people because its a belief you like?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Because bakeries have been judged a public accommodation. It's also true that someone turned down at a hotel could probably find other hotels, but the courts have decided that it's illegal.


Blacks were once judged to be only 3/5 of a person. Did that make it right?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It depends on what you're giving them.


How about if we are giving them YOUR money?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So what do you give them?


I give those who are willing to help themselves help and hope. I give them my time and the use of my knowledge and contacts to be able to change their lives.

Sadly only a small percentage of them are looking for that, the rest are just looking for something for nothing.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> There is absolutely no proof of your statement. What can be proven is that there are hungry kids and elderly people now _with_ government programs. Without that safety net there very well could be deaths.


There is absolutely no proof of your statement. What can be proven is that there are hungry kids and elderly people now _with_ government programs. Without that safety net there very well could NOT be deaths.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> There is absolutely no proof to your statement. In fact its preposterous. This nation has the richest poor people in the world.


You won't bother to read this and certainly won't believe it but here is a link:

http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/hunger-and-poverty/

More than 48.1 million Americans lived in households that struggled against hunger in 2014. The 2014 numbers were a slight decline (of fewer than a million people) from 2013, with the rate declining from 15.8 to 15.4 percent.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> You won't bother to read this and certainly won't believe it but here is a link:
> 
> http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/hunger-and-poverty/
> 
> More than 48.1 million Americans lived in households that struggled against hunger in 2014. The 2014 numbers were a slight decline (of fewer than a million people) from 2013, with the rate declining from 15.8 to 15.4 percent.


Once again, many people would *learn the difference between needs and wants. *

What good is $150 tennis shoes when you are hungry? How does that tattoo you got fill your belly? Will watching cable TV actually make your belly full? Does the smartphone you got instead of the disposable prepaid flip phone have more calories?

(The 'you' above is metaphorical)


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> Once again, many people would l*earn the difference between needs and wants. *
> 
> What good is $150 tennis shoes when you are hungry? How does that tattoo you got fill your belly? Will watching cable TV make your belly full?
> 
> (The 'you' above is metaphorical)


The generalizations in your post make me sick to my stomach. Do you think that every. single. case. of people that receive some type of food program live like that? Gah. The "tennis shoe" reference smacks of something really ugly. 

What about the elderly widow trying to live on social security? The young mother that is working but can't earn enough to pay for everything? The person disabled by cancer? The reality is that most people that receive SNAP benefits _are_ working. 

Did you even bother to skim the link?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you even bother to skim the link?


Yes, and its preposterous. Another example of a program reporting its own success by how many people it makes dependent upon itself or the groups it supports rather than how many people it helps off its programs.

BTW I contribute to my local 'Meals on Wheels' program with both time and money. Do you?



> The "tennis shoe" reference smacks of something really ugly.


I wonder why that is? Must be some prejudice on your part.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> Yes, and its preposterous. Another example of a program reporting its own success by how many people it makes dependent upon itself or the groups it supports rather than how many people it helps off its programs.
> 
> BTW I contribute to my local 'Meals on Wheels' program with both time and money. Do you?
> 
> I wonder why that is? Must be some prejudice on your part.


How did I know you'd say that? Called it, didn't I? SMH. 

Yes, I donate to several food programs, and volunteer with one as well. You probably won't believe that either but I've mentioned it here so do a search. :happy2:


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> How did I know you'd say that?


Probably because its the Truth


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The generalizations in your post make me sick to my stomach. Do you think that every. single. case. of people that receive some type of food program live like that? Gah. The "tennis shoe" reference smacks of something really ugly.
> 
> What about the elderly widow trying to live on social security? The young mother that is working but can't earn enough to pay for everything? The person disabled by cancer? The reality is that most people that receive SNAP benefits _are_ working.
> 
> Did you even bother to skim the link?


Why did the elderly widow wind up with nothing but social security to live on? Why is can't someone working earn enough? 

I ask because people are always eager to throw other people's money (after all a large number of people pay no or very little federal income tax) at a problem but not willing to work to fix the cause. 

Most of the people I see who are on any type of government assistance and are not just scamming the system are there because of their actions. Providing a fix when someone screws up teaches them nothing, well it teaches them not to worry about things because someone will step in and fix it.

If you had a kid who was failing math would you think the way to fix it would be to go the the teacher and make her take points from the kids with good grades and give it to him? Or would you try to find out WHY he is failing and solve that problem? In the first case he will always need you to take points from others and give them to him because he will never learn to do math. In the second he will reach a point where he will not need your help and therefore not need you.

Now lets say you find out he is failing because he just refuses to do his homework, he sleeps through class and basically isn't making any effort to learn. No matter what you do you just can't get him to learn math. Would you then go to the school and demand they give him a passing grade because it would be horrible for him to get an F on his report card? Or would you let him suffer the consequences of his actions because doing so might just motivate him to make the effort to learn?

The cancer victim should be helped but he should not expect someone to rob his neighbors to provide that help.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> There are plenty of truly homeless (most of which should be in mental institutes) but there are also plenty of professional beggars who spend all day with a cardboard sign and make more tax free money in a day than a lot of people working 8 hrs a day.
> 
> I don't give money to street beggers. If someone is sitting with a sign with a sob story I will offer to take them to a place that can get them help. Want to take a guess on how many people have taken me up on this offer?


Hmm... I wonder how those mental institutions get funded? Oh, wait - with tax dollars! By the way, I feel like we're discussing two separate issues here. One issue is that you don't think the government should be able to tax at all, and another argument is that you don't think people should be forced into helping anyone else. Let's keep them separate for a bit.

I don't give to street beggars either, because I know most of them are scamming. But that's because I know how effective the welfar system is, and that they can just go find an office or something. 




mnn2501 said:


> There is absolutely no proof to your statement. In fact its preposterous. This nation has the richest poor people in the world.


I think your statement is preposterous.



watcher said:


> Basically but there is one major difference. I'm an idealist, I dream of a perfect world where we judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin, where every down person is given a hand up not a handout, where the government is limited to the point it only interferes in the rights of an individual if that individual is interfering with the rights of another and more. And I work to make this come about. But I'm not naive because I know that there will always be people who will judge by skin color, people who enjoy having someone dependent on them and people who want to use the force of law to make others do what they think is "correct".
> 
> * I agree.*
> 
> ...





watcher said:


> Yes it is. But you have no right to steal food out of my house to give to a hungry kid and neither does the federal, state or local government.
> 
> Once you give the government the power to take food from you and give it to another because it thinks you have more than you need and they don't have enough you have opened the door to what we have today. Now the federal government has the power to force you to buy something if it thinks you should have it.
> 
> ...


Some people are on welfare because they have made bad decisions. Does this mean they should starve to death? Isn't there something in the Bible about helping people no matter what? We talk about helping people, and then when the methods are discussed OH we don't want to give money to the government, which will then give it to someone else who needs it. 
I ask - WHAT is the difference? Who cares if it goes to the government first and then to needy people. Irish Pixie is right - people are inherently uncaring. The government is not much better, but at least the program is well intentioned. I say we fix it, kick the abusers off, and get people back on their feet. In some areas, it's really hard to fix. We're talking about deep issues here, not just whether or not the system breeds dependency. It's economics - not enough money to around. It's morality - some [people don't want to work or help each other. It societal - some people can't figure out a different way. It's educational - many schools are underfunded and create stupid kids, which create more stupid kids. 
How to fix the education system - dump more money in it! Yes, blunt, but it works, as evidenced by large budget education systems like in Sweden and Denmark! Stop trying to fix stuff by throwing people into the streets and tossing them the towel!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Why did the elderly widow wind up with nothing but social security to live on? Why is can't someone working earn enough?
> 
> I ask because people are always eager to throw other people's money (after all a large number of people pay no or very little federal income tax) at a problem but not willing to work to fix the cause.
> 
> ...


Your example makes me sick to my stomach. Maybe the elderly widow married, made a perfect life, and then her husband bailed and left her. Or maybe he DIED. Oh, now she has 3 kids and no husband because he went and  died on her! Now people like you pass judgement on her cause, oh, obviously she's made mistakes, so just let her wallow in them and she'll learn to not procreate! It's your scriptures that told her to reproduce in the first place!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Hmm... I wonder how those mental institutions get funded? Oh, wait - with tax dollars! By the way, I feel like we're discussing two separate issues here. One issue is that you don't think the government should be able to tax at all, and another argument is that you don't think people should be forced into helping anyone else. Let's keep them separate for a bit.
> 
> *I don't give to street beggars either*, because I know most of them are scamming. *But that's because I know how effective the welfar system is, and that they can just go find an office or something.*
> 
> ...


I have bolded two phrases that you wrote. Don't you think that the attitude, described with the first statement is directly responsible for the belief of the 2nd?

Prior to government welfare the Nation was full of aid societies, on the local level. The government killed those societies through their crooked, vote buying welfare programs. People didn't starve in any great number. (there were cases, but, those were cases of poor communication, and long distances, not uncaring citizens.)


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

The fact is that:
Liberals think they are helping people by getting them onto government programs that give away free stuff (money, food, etc)
Conservatives help people by getting them off government programs (helping to get them employed and giving them their dignity)


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

watcher said:


> That's nice but how much of your time do you spend doing this? I hope its a lot because there is a huge need for people. A much larger need than for money.
> 
> I see a lot of people who talk a nice line but when you ask them to help you move a woman out of a house where she is being abused they are suddenly very busy. People who are willing to have another government program to help feed the elderly but are not willing to spend a few hours a month to help make and deliver meals to them and FORGET about trying to get them to deliver the meal and spend a few minutes talking.


You are right watcher, it is easy to talk the talk......and much more difficult to walk the walk.
Yet I do try.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> The fact is that:
> Liberals think they are helping people by getting them onto government programs that give away free stuff (money, food, etc)
> Conservatives help people by getting them off government programs (helping to get them employed and giving them their dignity)


Generalization and name calling. Conservative- good, liberal- bad! :facepalm:


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Generalization and name calling. Conservative- good, liberal- bad! :facepalm:


Show me where in that statement I am wrong.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Show me where in that statement I am wrong.


I'm a liberal.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> The fact is that:
> Liberals think they are helping people by getting them onto government programs that give away free stuff (money, food, etc)
> Conservatives help people by getting them off government programs (helping to get them employed and giving them their dignity)


Don't forget the benefit of getting a vote in return of such heartfelt kindness.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Hmm... I wonder how those mental institutions get funded? Oh, wait - with tax dollars! By the way, I feel like we're discussing two separate issues here. One issue is that you don't think the government should be able to tax at all, and another argument is that you don't think people should be forced into helping anyone else. Let's keep them separate for a bit.


Why do you automatically assume the government should fund them unless they are pental institutions I don't see why the government should be involved. 




Heritagefarm said:


> I think your statement is preposterous.


It wasn't my statement but I agree with it. You can think whatever you wish but the facts don't lie. Here's a couple for you. In the US a single person is in "poverty if they make less than $12,071/year. The average world income is $1,480 a year. IOW, you can make over eight (8) times more than the average world worker and still be "poor". 





Heritagefarm said:


> Some people are on welfare because they have made bad decisions. Does this mean they should starve to death?


No. Does it mean they should be able to rob people to eat?




Heritagefarm said:


> Isn't there something in the Bible about helping people no matter what?


Care to point out where that is? I can point out where Christians are told to take care of two groups of people and one of them is limited. Those groups are orphans and widows with a limit on which widows we are supposed to help.




Heritagefarm said:


> We talk about helping people, and then when the methods are discussed OH we don't want to give money to the government, which will then give it to someone else who needs it.


You are free to GIVE all the money you wish to the government and have them give it to anyone it wants. But you are not free to have an armed government agent TAKE money from others and give it away.

I really don't think you can find any place where Christ told us to use the government to force our neighbors to take care of others.


Care to point out where in the USC the government is given the power to give money to someone who is not providing a good or service in return? 

Even a lazy person will work hard enough to eat if its that or starve.




Heritagefarm said:


> I ask - WHAT is the difference?


Its very simple. One is freely given the other is taken by the threat of force.




Heritagefarm said:


> Who cares if it goes to the government first and then to needy people.


The people who don't want to help needy people for one. People who have a different view of who is needy than the government for another. Each of those people are having their personal property rights violated.




Heritagefarm said:


> How to fix the education system - dump more money in it! Yes, blunt, but it works, as evidenced by large budget education systems like in Sweden and Denmark!


You can't compare different national systems because of different national attitudes. Its like trying to compare Japanese and American suicide rates. If you want to compare things compare you'll have to compare different US schools and spending per pupil. But I think you will find there is no causal link between money spent per pupil and quality of pupil graduating (or whatever standard you want to use).




Heritagefarm said:


> Stop trying to fix stuff by throwing people into the streets and tossing them the towel!


Ever dealt with a drug addict? You can throw all the money you want at all the rehab programs you can find but until and unless he wants to get clean all you are doing is wasting money, time and a slot in the rehab clinic. The same thing applies to throwing money at schools and expecting kids who don't want to learn to start. As long as a large percentage of people view an education as unwanted or unneeded you are not going to get them to learn. I've dealt with addicts and students who were smart but had zero desire to learn. 

Trying to rehab an unwilling addict or educate an unwilling student is a massive waste of resources and screws those who want to get clean or an education.

Do you want to really improve schools? One, go back to 'tracking' where you group students by their ability to learn. Its not to hold back the majority of the class because the minority can't keep up. Two, throw out those who are not willing to learn so you can concentrate your resources on those who do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> So you support the government *forcing a belief* system onto the people because its a belief you like?


Don't you, if it involves what people can sell to whom, or which bathroom they can use?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Your example makes me sick to my stomach.


Take some pepto. I asked the questions which need to be answered. They are questions only a fool would NOT ask before doling out a limited resource. That the realist, idealist way of doing things.




Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe the elderly widow married, made a perfect life, and then her husband bailed and left her. Or maybe he DIED. Oh, now she has 3 kids and no husband because he went and  died on her!


Or maybe she has a gambling habit. Or is hooked on Oxy. Maybe she spent every dollar she made in her life and didn't save a dime for her old age. Maybe she her husband was a criminal who was shot to death while trying to rob a convenience store. How are we going to know if we don't ask? 

Would you give money to someone to pay their mortgage again and again if you knew they were blowing their pay checks gambling? If you did do you think they'd ever stop gambling? Do you think their gambling buddies would see any need to stop? After all they aren't going to lose their house if they lose.




Heritagefarm said:


> Now people like you pass judgement on her cause, oh, obviously she's made mistakes, so just let her wallow in them and she'll learn to not procreate! It's your scriptures that told her to reproduce in the first place!


As long as you keep fixing people's problems they have zero incentive to fix their lives. And yes I pass judgment because resources are limited. Ever heard of triage? Ever been trained in it? You are told you must take responsibility for picking who lives and who dies based on the resources available. If I have one operating room and 6 people who will die w/o quick treatment. The first guy in line would need 4 hours of surgery to be saved but the other 5 people could each be saved with 30 minute operations what would you do?

If you have only one bag of groceries and two widows. One widow worked hard all her life and tried to take care of herself and the another who was a bum all her life and did nothing to plan for her old age which do you give the food to?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Generalization and name calling. Conservative- good, liberal- bad! :facepalm:


Care to point out where the statement is incorrect?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't you, if it involves what people can sell to whom, or which bathroom they can use?


Nope. I think the owner of the item or bathroom has the full right to control each based in his individual belief. If your belief system views left handed people as evil or untouchable then you should have the full right to refuse to sell to or allow a left handed person use your bathroom.

You are the one who thinks the government should force that person to bow to belief left handed people are not evil and are equal to right handed ones.

What's the difference between a government having the power to force a business must sell to people the businessman wishes not to sell to and a government's use of force to make a businessman NOT sell to someone he wishes to? You are probably too young to remember, but it used to be legal for a government to tell a businessman that he could not serve blacks in the front of his restaurant even if he felt all men should be treated equal.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I'm a liberal.


Yup. Everyone knows that all of us are the same, right? :facepalm: 

I could make stereotypical statements like many posters do but lets suffice to say that generalizations suck.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup. Everyone knows that all of us are the same, right? :facepalm:
> 
> I could make stereotypical statements like many posters do but lets suffice to say that generalizations suck.


Doesn't fit for me anyway. I'm not a taker. I retired from Chevron, so by definition I'm a doer. If you haven't seen the Chevron "doers" commercial, here it is.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5hc8l_VPdk[/ame]


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> Isn't there something in the Bible about helping people no matter what?


Yep.
Quite a lot.
I'm sure this isn't all of it, but more than enough to chew on for now........

https://www.openbible.info/topics/helping_others


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Doesn't fit for me anyway. I'm not a taker. I retired from Chevron, so by definition I'm a doer. If you haven't seen the Chevron "doers" commercial, here it is.


Actually you are a taker, were were a doer. Once you started drawing a SS check you became a taker. Like it or not the money you are getting from SS is being taken out of the pockets of the people working today. Just as money was taken from your check to pay those who were drawing before you. That's how ponzi schemes work.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Actually you are a taker, were were a doer. Once you started drawing a SS check you became a taker. Like it or not the money you are getting from SS is being taken out of the pockets of the people working today. Just as money was taken from your check to pay those who were drawing before you. That's how ponzi schemes work.


There's not a lot I can do about that now that I'm retired. It's not like anyone asked for my advice on managing FICA funds.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> There's not a lot I can do about that now that I'm retired. It's not like anyone asked for my advice on managing FICA funds.


No they asked for your vote. Guess you gave it to them.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> There's not a lot I can do about that now that I'm retired. It's not like anyone asked for my advice on managing FICA funds.


:hammer:



MO_cows said:


> No they asked for your vote. Guess you gave it to them.


Hard to believe he said that, huh?

Sometimes I wonder how this country ended up like we have........and sometimes the answer is loud and clear.
:facepalm:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> Quite a lot.
> I'm sure this isn't all of it, but more than enough to chew on for now........
> 
> https://www.openbible.info/topics/helping_others


Yes, thank you. 

Have any of you ever watched the tears in someone's eyes, as they suffered pain that could have been remedied by money or a willing individual? There was nothing you could do, and nothing anyone would do, so you sat and watched a loved one suffer because even the government wouldn't help on technicality. 

And this is where I part ways with most of you. I don't care how someone is helped. I don't give a @&$# if someone hurt themselves through their own decisions. I don't care if they are wallowing in their sins and bad planning. It's their job to grow as a human being, and nothing I can say, do, or think can change them. I'm going to help them. 

That person you ask, if they are deserving of your help or not... You pass judgement on them. This is exactly what you are not supposed to do as a Christian. We are not animals, and we do not leave our sick and elderly behind to die in the desert. As a society, we have a moral obligation to take care of our weakest members. If you disagree with the methods of taking care of the weak, sick, and poor, or pass judgement on which weak, sick, and poor you will or will not help, you've got it wrong. 

In my church, we help people regardless. I've seen people who look like absolute scum come in. They're offered food, help and even room and board if someone is crazy enough. We've given drunk people money. 
Is that enabling? Possibly. And what else? That person will remember the help they received, when they were so low they didn't even know how low they were. Maybe they will change. 

You see, I believe the best in people. I choose to see, through the scars and wickedness, through the gruff and the bristle - the great, fragile, shining human spirit. And then I treat that person as if that's all I can see, because we're all human. We make mistakes. We blunder, we fall. Some of us, get back up. Some of us, need a helping hand. The arrogance of believing you know which person to help and which not to help will eat you. You will become morally superior, you will see the lesser in people every time, and you will not help them for the mistakes and evil you perceive. 

This is what separates us. Some of us, believe in helping regardless - the sinner, the tax collector, the prostitute. We see the sinner - not the sin, to use your beliefs. 

Through whatever means necessary, in the richest country in the history of the world, I strive that everyone should know a certain level of dignity, freedom, and freedom from strife, fear, and suffering.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, thank you.
> 
> Have any of you ever watched the tears in someone's eyes, as they suffered pain that could have been remedied by money or a willing individual? There was nothing you could do, and nothing anyone would do, so you sat and watched a loved one suffer because even the government wouldn't help on technicality.
> 
> ...



I agree with most of what you said, with a few exceptions.




> If you disagree with the methods of taking care of the weak, sick, and poor, or pass judgement on which weak, sick, and poor you will or will not help, you've got it wrong





> The arrogance of believing you know which person to help and which not to help will eat you. You will become morally superior, you will see the lesser in people every time, and you will not help them for the mistakes and evil you perceive.



I think disagreeing with the "method" of help, is not necessarily wrong. You can "help" somebody in the wrong way, not usually, but enabling an addict of any form surely takes away from others who would truly benefit from that same help, would it not?
This is where Godly discernment is important. Not everyone has it that claims to have, no doubt, but passing on that judgement label to those that do exercise discernment is a step in the wrong direction too.

JMO.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

What happens if everyone, every adult man and woman, decided that section 8 housing, $300/mo in food, free health care, and a free cell phone was good enough. Just a big fat to heck with it. Lets all join them. What happens then?

Do the politicians see finally there is no free money? Do people start to accept that there is no free ride? Do we finally begin to understand that a society has to be productive to survive?

It is often mentioned that we are the richest society in the history of mankind. It was said within this thread. Do you that happened because noone tilled the fields, cut the lumber, dug the coal, mined the gold? Did the government go sieze all those resources from some other "rich" country because we needed them? No, that wealth was created by people who went out and worked. They did very tough work in tougher conditions. Work creates wealth. Not working destoys wealth. It erodes it until there is nothing left to erode. 

What line would you draw? Do you even have a line? Should we all go down in flames in the name of charity? Or do we continue to rely upon hard working people who reject a government handout to continue to pay for people who refuse?

Do we stop when 25% of people dont work? 50%? 75%?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> What happens if everyone, every adult man and woman, decided that section 8 housing, $300/mo in food, free health care, and a free cell phone was good enough. Just a big fat to heck with it. Lets all join them. What happens then?
> 
> Do the politicians see finally there is no free money? Do people start to accept that there is no free ride? Do we finally begin to understand that a society has to be productive to survive?
> 
> ...


You have to have pretty low standards to be willing to live like that. Yes, there are abusers, but instead of railing against them, maybe we can produce productive and helpful solutions, instead of ranting about welfare queens and other idiocies.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> You have to have pretty low standards to be willing to live like that. Yes, there are abusers, but instead of railing against them, maybe we can produce productive and helpful solutions, instead of ranting about welfare queens and other idiocies.


The thing is that there is already a good sized army of social workers screening welfare recipients.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> You have to have pretty low standards to be willing to live like that. Yes, there are abusers, but instead of railing against them, maybe we can produce productive and helpful solutions, instead of ranting about welfare queens and other idiocies.


That deserves a "Post of the Year" award!



> You have to have pretty low standards to be willing to live like that.


I think one only need to look at the prospective candidates for our next President to see the ugly truth about how low our standards have fallen.
:awh:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> That deserves a "Post of the Year" award!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks!

I agree. Normally the economy picks up during election season. Not so this time around. Maybe we'll get our first Libertarian or Independent president.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

I see it otherwise, since the topic came up. The rise of Trump and the relative success of Sanders shows to me that the electorate feels as if the government no longer represents them. They are searching blindly for anything that isnt "them". 

How did we get there? People want a stable balanced budget, like they live. What do they get? 19 trillion dollar debt. 

People want term limits. What do they get? Elected officials that die if office. 

There are many people, me included, that feel as if the government no longer exists to serve the people. The people now serve the government via a revenue stream. If we are not cautious, these feelings make it ripe for a charismatic leader (think Hitler here) to rise to power. These are perilous times. This topic would be included in that disconnect between people and government.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> I see it otherwise, since the topic came up. The rise of Trump and the relative success of Sanders shows to me that the electorate feels as if the government no longer represents them. They are searching blindly for anything that isnt "them".
> 
> How did we get there? People want a stable balanced budget, like they live. What do they get? 19 trillion dollar debt.
> 
> ...


Yes, certainly. I don't think Trump would be our Hitler, or Sanders, but the next time around, if things in DC don't get better, we may fall even further.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I agree. Normally the economy picks up during election season. Not so this time around. Maybe we'll get our first Libertarian or Independent president.


The economy imploded during the 2008 election season and we got Obama. Common wisdom was that republicans weren't handling the economy as well as they should. No libertarian or independent candidate had a realistic chance.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> The economy imploded during the 2008 election season and we got Obama. Common wisdom was that republicans weren't handling the economy as well as they should. No libertarian or independent candidate had a realistic chance.


They never do, which I don't really understand. If Democrats are making all the Republicans angry, and vice versa, why not try a different party for crying out loud?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> They never do, which I don't really understand. If Democrats are making all the Republicans angry, and vice versa, why not try a different party for crying out loud?


 I am not sure, but, I believe we are too easily pulled into an "us vs. them" mentality. That lends itself to a two party system and, in the absence of total destruction of one, or, the other major parties, the third party hasn't much of a chance.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> I see it otherwise, since the topic came up. The rise of Trump and the relative success of Sanders shows to me that the electorate feels as if the government no longer represents them. They are searching blindly for anything that isnt "them".
> 
> How did we get there? People want a stable balanced budget, like they live. What do they get? 19 trillion dollar debt.
> 
> ...


This is a symptom of party politics. People want fresh blood representing them, BUT - if they have to vote for the "wrong" party to get it, they'll go ahead and vote for that 5-termer again. 

Saw a perfect example of this in Kansas last year. Roberts, who is knocking on 80 years old, was re elected to the US Senate. There was an independent who ran against him and really had some traction, but then here came the non stop negative ads claiming the Independent was really a Democrat in sheep's clothing. Roberts also weaseled out of a debate with him. On a radio interview, he said he would debate, but when it came down to it, his schedule just never permitted it. Ain't that sweet. And it worked, he got re-elected. Lather, rinse, repeat in all 50 states.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There's not a lot I can do about that now that I'm retired. It's not like anyone asked for my advice on managing FICA funds.


Sure they did and you kept voting to keep them in power.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Sure they did and you kept voting to keep them in power.


I don't know who I could have voted for to fix Social Security. The last SS reform was during the Reagan administration, and that policy took us to where we are today.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Years ago my father said to me the next civil war will not be black vs white, or any combination like this, but rich vs poor. The slice of the pie feels like it gets smaller with each passing years. We currently have near 0 interest rates designed to destroy the savings of middle class and down, especially the retired. It is working.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The economy imploded during the 2008 election season and we got Obama. Common wisdom was that republicans weren't handling the economy as well as they should. No libertarian or independent candidate had a realistic chance.


You have quite the illuminating view on many subjects, while I have the chance, could you share your perspective of the happenings of September 11th 2008 and who might it have been that was drawing down the money market funds to plunge us into the red.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=setWW57RRsI[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

:hijacked:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, thank you.
> 
> Have any of you ever watched the tears in someone's eyes, as they suffered pain that could have been remedied by money or a willing individual? There was nothing you could do, and nothing anyone would do, so you sat and watched a loved one suffer because even the government wouldn't help on technicality.


BTDT. But I can also tell you there have been many more times when an individual was given help and wound right back up in the same place. As I have said you can not truly help someone who is not ready to help themselves. I've seen parents spend thousands of dollars sending their kids to one rehab program after another only to have the kid go right back to being a druggie after the 'graduate'. There are times when your time and money is better spent on someone else. I used to keep a list of my "failures" until the wife finally beat it into my head none of them were MY failures, they failed themselves. I still have a sad place in my heart for those who decide to be failures but I know there's not a thing I can do to change them.




Heritagefarm said:


> And this is where I part ways with most of you. I don't care how someone is helped. I don't give a @&$# if someone hurt themselves through their own decisions. I don't care if they are wallowing in their sins and bad planning. It's their job to grow as a human being, and nothing I can say, do, or think can change them. I'm going to help them.


If you were in that situation would you take a gun and rob your neighbor? Or how about robbing the guy who lives in that 10 bedroom house and drives a BMW, after all its clear he has more money than he needs, right?

If not why not? After all you just said you don't care HOW someone is helped. 

But if you wouldn't stick a gun in your neighbor's face to help another person would you be willing to hire a local thug to rob the neighbor and give you 80% of the take to help? This is EXACTLY what you are doing when you stand by and watch the federal government exceed its power and take money from your neighbor and give it directly to someone who is "in need".




Heritagefarm said:


> That person you ask, if they are deserving of your help or not... You pass judgement on them. This is exactly what you are not supposed to do as a Christian.


You pass judgement on people every day. An example of judging my pastor liked to use is if you had a 14 y.o. daughter and a 21 y.o. man who had a criminal history, had several DUIs and had just skidded to a stop in front of your house jumped out of the car and said "Hey, #@$! I'm here to take your daughter to the movies." Would you say, "Oh, OK wait a second while I go get her." Or would you judge him and him to hit the road?

BTW you do know that CHRIST told you to judge people, right? After all why would He the standards to judge people if you were not expected to use them?




Heritagefarm said:


> We are not animals, and we do not leave our sick and elderly behind to die in the desert. As a society, we have a moral obligation to take care of our weakest members. If you disagree with the methods of taking care of the weak, sick, and poor, or pass judgement on which weak, sick, and poor you will or will not help, you've got it wrong.


If you want to give every dollar you have and dedicate your life to helping the sick and poor that's great. The problem comes in when you want to force others to do it. Can you point out where Christ it was OK to take money from people who don't want to give it as long as the money was used to help the poor?




Heritagefarm said:


> You see, I believe the best in people. I choose to see, through the scars and wickedness, through the gruff and the bristle - the great, fragile, shining human spirit. And then I treat that person as if that's all I can see, because we're all human. We make mistakes. We blunder, we fall. Some of us, get back up. Some of us, need a helping hand. The arrogance of believing you know which person to help and which not to help will eat you. You will become morally superior, you will see the lesser in people every time, and you will not help them for the mistakes and evil you perceive.


As an old pastor told me long ago; there's a big difference in falling into a mud hole and jumping into one and wallowing around in it like a hog. Do you think that giving a drunk money when there is a good chance he will spend it on more booze or to pay the electric bill for the 10th time for someone with a gambling problem proper stewardship of church money?




Heritagefarm said:


> This is what separates us. Some of us, believe in helping regardless - the sinner, the tax collector, the prostitute. We see the sinner - not the sin, to use your beliefs.


What if a prostitute came in wanting money to rent a motel room because she thought it was dangerous to turn tricks in the alley, would you give her money? After all that money would go to keep her safe. What if she said she could charge more if she had a room to go to and she needed the extra money to pay the electric bill and buy food for her kids this month, would you spring for the room then? Or would you be evil and JUDGE her actions to be _wrong_ and refuse to give her money?




Heritagefarm said:


> Through whatever means necessary, in the richest country in the history of the world, I strive that everyone should know a certain level of dignity, freedom, and freedom from strife, fear, and suffering.


You sir seem to be a hypocrite. You say you want people to have freedom but you want the government to use force of arms to take money from one individual and give it to another based on what YOU think each of those individuals should have. You do not want freedom you want government control and to have your belief system forced upon everyone no matter if they agree with it or not. 

Real freedom means you are free to do as you please but it also means you will have to live with the consequences of what results.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The economy imploded during the 2008 election season and we got Obama. Common wisdom was that republicans weren't handling the economy as well as they should. No libertarian or independent candidate had a realistic chance.


IDK, if the GOP tosses Trump out and he runs 3rd party I'd say he'd have a very good chance. Especially if they run a second democrat like they have for the past several elections.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't know who I could have voted for to fix Social Security. The last SS reform was during the Reagan administration, and that policy took us to where we are today.


Humm. . .who was in control of congress at the time? That's what most people don't understand, congress is where the power is. There's almost nothing a President can do which congress can't undo. IIRC, they can even pass laws which will override an EO because laws apply to everyone and EO only apply to members of the executive branch.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Years ago my father said to me the next civil war will not be black vs white, or any combination like this, but rich vs poor. The slice of the pie feels like it gets smaller with each passing years. We currently have near 0 interest rates designed to destroy the savings of middle class and down, especially the retired. It is working.


As long as the poor keep getting their bread and circuses or food stamps and American Idol/Dancing With the Stars as the case maybe they aren't going to want to be bothered.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> IDK, if the GOP tosses Trump out and he runs 3rd party I'd say he'd have a very good chance.


Trump will either get the 1237 delegates he needs or be very close to it. The GOP can't get away with taking from him without causing a voter revolt. I think you can look forward to Trump facing off with Hillary.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Trump will either get the 1237 delegates he needs or be very close to it. The GOP can't get away with taking from him without causing a voter revolt. I think you can look forward to Trump facing off with Hillary.


As much as the GOP hates Trump I can see them doing anything. I'm beginning to think they would rather lose the election to Hillary rather than have Trump. After all if Trump wins it will be Katie bar the door because politics as usual will be out the window. Can you imagine Trump's first state of the union address? Him standing there telling the world that the emperor has on no close rather than spewing out the PC feel good gobbledy---- we usually hear.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Could try this.


Do all the good you can...by all the means you can...in all the ways you can..in all the places you can...at all the times you can..to all the people you can...as long as ever you can.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> BTW you do know that* CHRIST told you to judge* people, right? After all *why would He the standards *to judge people if you were not expected to use them?


No.
It's "judge *not*, lest ye be judged".



> "why would he the standards"


Why learn English if you're not expected to use it?

Unless you pray towards Mecca 5 times a day, you're being a hypocrite to apply your religious standards to anyone else


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> BTDT. But I can also tell you there have been many more times when an individual was given help and wound right back up in the same place. As I have said you can not truly help someone who is not ready to help themselves. I've seen parents spend thousands of dollars sending their kids to one rehab program after another only to have the kid go right back to being a druggie after the 'graduate'. There are times when your time and money is better spent on someone else. I used to keep a list of my "failures" until the wife finally beat it into my head none of them were MY failures, they failed themselves. I still have a sad place in my heart for those who decide to be failures but I know there's not a thing I can do to change them.
> 
> *Yes, I know some people cannot be helped, and that giving them money constantly allows them to continue in the same direction. Yet you seem to think that giving free money or assistance to anyone causes them to just keep making the same mistake. You have a rather low opinion of people's abilities to improve themselves. Perhaps it's just because you're so amazing?*
> 
> ...


I imagine, off topic, you also believe the national parks are evil? After all, they were sectioned off using public money, maintained with public money (taken with force), and operate for the public good. Oh, and people love them. They also love the extravagantly expensive highways they use to access said parks, also paid for with public money. If we allowed only FREEDOM, and let everything back into the private sector, what do you suppose would happen? The parks would be either decimated for their resources, or admission would skyrocket. The roads would crumble, or there would be toll booths at the beginning of every road. Freedom of travel, much?
Freedom from strife, fear, suffering. They are a different freedom than libertarian freedom, but they are still a form of freedom. I do not have a problem with that.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> Could try this.
> 
> 
> Do all the good you can...by all the means you can...in all the ways you can..in all the places you can...at all the times you can..to all the people you can...as long as ever you can.


I like that. Really that's a the core teaching of a variety of religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Mahatma (Hindu?), etc.



Bearfootfarm said:


> No.
> It's "judge *not*, lest ye be judged".
> 
> 
> ...


I never expected to agree with you or have you back up my arguments. Has one of us gone mental?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I never expected to agree with you or have you back up my arguments. Has one of us gone mental?


Lots of people agree with me more often than one would think, but they are reluctant to admit it in public

They devote too much energy to wanting to argue, and too little towards paying attention to what I* actually* say. 




> Join Date: 07/12/06
> Total Posts: 39,645
> *Likes Received:16538*


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No.
> It's "judge *not*, lest ye be judged".
> 
> 
> ...


If you are going to quote Christ, it would be wise to also use that English to discover what word was used that was translated as "judge" from either Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
That particular word in that particular verse, means "judge", as to condemn.
It is not the same word used in other places, "judge" , meaning to differentiate or separate oneself.

Another verse in the NT advises to, "......Study to show thyself approved....."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> If you are going to *quote Christ*, it would be wise to also use that English to discover what word was used that was translated as "judge" from either Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
> That particular word in that particular verse, means "judge", as to condemn.
> It is not the same word used in other places, "judge" , meaning to differentiate or separate oneself.
> 
> Another verse in the NT advises to, "......Study to show thyself approved....."


He didn't write the bible, so we don't know it's a real quote.
I've heard the "condemn" lines before too

The operative word is still *"not*", meaning *don't* judge or condemn or what ever synonym you choose to insert.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No.
> It's "judge *not*, lest ye be judged".


You JUDGE a tree by its fruit. And if you read on a bit more from where you stopped you will find out AFTER we have removed the beam from our eye we are to then remove the mote from another. IOW, after we have accepted Christ and have started cleaning up our lives we are to go out in the world and help others do the same. After all who would be the better person to help a boozer to quit drinking, a person who had never had a drink or someone who had already over came an alcohol problem? I believe one of the reasons AA works so well is because those helping have been through what those seeking help are going through.




Bearfootfarm said:


> Why learn English if you're not expected to use it?
> 
> Unless you pray towards Mecca 5 times a day, you're being a hypocrite to apply your religious standards to anyone else


How Christian would it be to stand by doing nothing and watch someone try to get a piece of sawdust out of their eye because a few months ago you had to have a metal flake removed from yours? This is what you are saying Christians should do. 

And talking about hypocritical and applying standards on others, isn't that exactly what you are doing? You don't like what someone else is doing so you want to have them live according to your standard of conduct.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> How Christian would it be to stand by doing nothing and watch someone try to get a piece of sawdust out of their eye because a few months ago you had to have a metal flake removed from yours? This is what you are saying Christians should do.
> 
> And talking about hypocritical and applying standards on others, isn't that exactly what you are doing? You don't like what someone else is doing so *you want to have them live according to your standard of conduct*.


I haven't told anyone to do anything other than mind their* own* business.

How "christian" is it to call others "sick mentally ill perverts" for not following *your* rules? 

It's not "christian" to use the bible as some sort or weapon either, spinning the quotes to belittle people by insinuating they are "swine" or "dogs" as has often been done here.



> IOW, after we have accepted Christ and have started cleaning up our lives we are to go out in the world and help others do the same.


That's you forcing your beliefs on others who really don't care what you think some mythical being told you to do.

If someone wants to hear you preach, they can ask for a sermon.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't told anyone to do anything other than mind their* own* business.
> 
> How "christian" is it to call others "sick mentally ill perverts" for not following *your* rules?
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> You JUDGE a tree by its fruit. And if you read on a bit more from where you stopped you will find out AFTER we have removed the beam from our eye we are to then remove the mote from another. IOW, after we have accepted Christ and have started cleaning up our lives we are to go out in the world and help others do the same. After all who would be the better person to help a boozer to quit drinking, a person who had never had a drink or someone who had already over came an alcohol problem? I believe one of the reasons AA works so well is because those helping have been through what those seeking help are going through.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So what if those that don't believe receive a God Bless you, they can just let roll in one side and out the other without having to stand there and argue. That argument will go no where with those that don't want to receive a blessing anyhow. They can just shut their traps and enjoy what others have said. Even if they don't want to take it seriously. It sure as heck won't hurt them at all to just let it go.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> So what if those that don't believe receive a God Bless you, they can just let roll in one side and out the other without having to stand there and argue. That argument will go no where with those that don't want to receive a blessing anyhow. They can just shut their traps and enjoy what others have said. Even if they don't want to take it seriously. It sure as heck won't hurt them at all to just let it go.


:umno:


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Whether one is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, Buddhist, Shinto, animist or whatever. Forced charity (charity by taxation as an example) is nothing more than extortion. No matter how you slice it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, I know some people cannot be helped, and that giving them money constantly allows them to continue in the same direction. Yet you seem to think that giving free money or assistance to anyone causes them to just keep making the same mistake. You have a rather low opinion of people's abilities to improve themselves. Perhaps it's just because you're so amazing?


Its based on experience and a knowledge of history. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Your tax-at-gunpoint example is getting tiresome. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it a good example. No one gets taxed at gunpoint. If someone wants to stop paying taxes, they can move to Belize and hire an armed guard, or move to Antarctica, or just quit their job.
> Taxes contribute to the proper functioning of a society. We are a great nation. Refusing to contribute to it's greatness is irresponsible.


You deflected and didn't answer the question. Would you or would you not use a gun to get the money to help someone in need?

But to your deflection, the problem is the fact the constitution does not give the government power to take YOUR money and give it to ME for the sole reason the government thinks I NEED it more than you do. Can you point out to me anywhere in the USC the government is given the power to do that?



You pass judgement on people every day. An example of judging my pastor liked to use is if you had a 14 y.o. daughter and a 21 y.o. man who had a criminal history, had several DUIs and had just skidded to a stop in front of your house jumped out of the car and said "Hey, #@$! I'm here to take your daughter to the movies." Would you say, "Oh, OK wait a second while I go get her." Or would you judge him and him to hit the road?

And this question you didn't even bother to answer. Come on tell the world if you would or would not uphold your standard of not judging and allow your daughter to go out on a date with the man in question.




Heritagefarm said:


> That depends entirely on your interpretations of the Bible.


Seeing as how we are given the standards God expects people to live buy, we are told to judge a tree by its fruit and even the often quoted "judge not" story tells us in the end that we ARE to look for the mote in another's eye I think you have to twist the words in the Bible quite a bit to say we are to ignore people's actions.




Heritagefarm said:


> This article discusses some of the issues of judging others righteously. Seems reasonable.
> 
> I withdraw my "you judge them" argument, but I still stand behind helping people who need it. This, of course, you agree with.


Of course I agree. My point is you have to pick your battles. Change it from helping people with their worldly needs to helping them spiritually. Look at what Christ told us. If we come to someone who is not willing to hear the Word what are we to do? Keep telling them and telling them and hope that at some point they will want to here it? Or are we told to walk away from them? How horrible is that! Isn't it much worse to let someone go to Hell for all eternity than to not give a homeless guy a meal? One of the points there is there are some who can not be helped because they do not want to be. Another is you, because you are human, have limited resources (time, money, etc) and you should not waste them.




Heritagefarm said:


> Does "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" work?


But its NOT Caesar's because he has no legal right to it. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe they're just better at not judging. However, repeat assistance was not made.


You have just contradicted yourself. How can you not judge but not give repeat assistance? 

Again you didn't answer the question. Is giving a known gambler money proper stewardship of the church's money?




Heritagefarm said:


> Neither I nor the government would give her money for prostitution.


Is that not hypocritical of you? You are JUDGING her are you not?

But you have no problem with her getting tax money say via WIC for here kids right? Or food stamps? Or housing assistance? Or governmental assistance for medical care?




Heritagefarm said:


> I imagine, off topic, you also believe the national parks are evil? After all, they were sectioned off using public money, maintained with public money (taken with force), and operate for the public good.


Nope because of your last statement, for the public good. If the government made a park which only one individual could use that would be wrong. When you give money to an individual it benefits only that individual. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Oh, and people love them. They also love the extravagantly expensive highways they use to access said parks, also paid for with public money. If we allowed only FREEDOM, and let everything back into the private sector, what do you suppose would happen? The parks would be either decimated for their resources, or admission would skyrocket. The roads would crumble, or there would be toll booths at the beginning of every road. Freedom of travel, much?


So people like Danial Boone didn't have the freedom to enjoy the beauty of natural America because there were no national parks? He didn't have the freedom to travel because there no roads? Do you only have freedom to do things if they are easy?




Heritagefarm said:


> Freedom from strife, fear, suffering. They are a different freedom than libertarian freedom, but they are still a form of freedom. I do not have a problem with that.


And you have that freedom. What you do not have is the right to demand others provide it to you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lots of people agree with me more often than one would think, but they are reluctant to admit it in public
> 
> 
> Total Posts: 39,645
> Likes Received:16538


Hummm. . .playing that game I'd have to say people agree with me way more often than you.

You have a 41.7% "approval rate" while I have a 70.4%.

Total Posts: 15,232
Likes Received:10,729


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He didn't write the bible, so we don't know it's a real quote.
> I've heard the "condemn" lines before too
> 
> The operative word is still *"not*", meaning *don't* judge or condemn or what ever synonym you choose to insert.


The problem is you do not seem to know how to put words into context to grasp the idea which is trying to be expressed. 

Using your reading skills airlines want children to die. After all don't they tell parents in an emergency to NOT put the O2 mask on their children?

But if you read the ENTIRE thought you discover later in the writing the airlines want to make you and your child come through alive by having you put your mask on THEN attending to your child.

Then if you read the entire safety pamphlet you discover there are several places where the airline gives you info on keeping your child safe which shows you have to take one little part of a sentence out of context and twist it hard to conclude they wish to have children die.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> So what if those that don't believe receive a God Bless you, they can just let roll in one side and out the other without having to stand there and argue. That argument will go no where with those that don't want to receive a blessing anyhow. They can just shut their traps and enjoy what others have said. Even if they don't want to take it seriously. It sure as heck won't hurt them at all to just let it go.


A *sincere *statement is one thing.

A thinly veiled intentional insult is something totally different.

Trying to pretend the bible says it's ok is just pathetic


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The problem is you do not seem to know how to put words into context to grasp the idea which is trying to be expressed.


I understand context well enough to know some who claim "religion" are simply deluding themselves as to what it really means
They aren't fooling anyone else

I also see you resort to some fantasy scenario in every post, which is why it's always pointless to have any real discussion.

Your rabbit trails are too tiresome to keep things interesting.

You just want to ramble until everyone forgets it *says* "judge *NOT*"


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lots of people agree with me more often than one would think, but they are reluctant to admit it in public
> 
> They devote too much energy to wanting to argue, and too little towards paying attention to what I* actually* say.


You've got that humble thing down pat, too. :nanner:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I understand context well enough to know some who claim "religion" are simply deluding themselves as to what it really means
> They aren't fooling anyone else
> 
> I also see you resort to some fantasy scenario in every post, which is why it's always pointless to have any real discussion.
> ...


I want them to know it says not to judge unless you are willing to be judged by the same standard. I have no problem being judged by Biblical standards therefore I have no reason not to judge others based on that standard. 

Using your attempt at reasoning Christians should not do anything to help anyone. After all we can't judge if someone is poor, hungry, sick or what ever. We should just keep act like the world and look out for #1 because we can only judge ourselves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> You've got that humble thing down pat, too. :nanner:


I don't care if anyone likes it or not.
I just state what I think


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Doodly doot de doo and here we have the bigger gonads syndeome.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> *I want them to know it says not to judge* unless you are willing to be judged by the same standard. I have no problem being judged by Biblical standards therefore I have no reason not to judge others based on that standard.
> 
> Using your attempt at reasoning Christians should not do anything to help anyone. After all we can't judge if someone is poor, hungry, sick or what ever. We should just keep act like the world and look out for #1 because we can only judge ourselves.


And yet you keep repeating that it's telling you *to* judge.
You just talk in circles sometimes

I never said one should not offer help in an honest *sincere* manner.



> After all we can't *judge* if someone is poor, hungry, sick or what ever.


So now it means "judge" again, not "condemn"?

One can observe and see problems without "judging" or "condemning".

Some *want* to judge and condemn any who don't blindly follow their ideals, and they tout their "beliefs" as a justification to do just that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

bjba said:


> Doodly doot de doo and here we have the bigger gonads syndeome.


I think you're looking for the transgender thread


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I understand context well enough to know some who claim "religion" are simply deluding themselves as to what it really means
> They aren't fooling anyone else
> 
> I also see you resort to some fantasy scenario in every post, which is why it's always pointless to have any real discussion.
> ...



No one has "forgotten" judge NOT.
Christ used that particular word many times, meaning to condemn or sentence to death or punishment.
That is HIS office, not ours.

He also used DIFFERENT words (in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic) on other occasions that have been translated in English as the same word (judge) that have slightly different meanings.

ie., to differentiate, to separate, to discern.




Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet you keep repeating that it's telling you *to* judge.
> You just talk in circles sometimes
> 
> I never said one should not offer help in an honest *sincere* manner.
> ...



THAT is it, exactly.
We are to use judgement in how we live our lives on a daily basis. For example, how fast to drive. To use NO judgement at all would be foolish.
But we are NOT to assume the role that we can *judge* someone's eternal soul to life or death.
That is a different word and reserved for the office of THE Judge.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> This is a symptom of party politics. People want fresh blood representing them, BUT - if they have to vote for the "wrong" party to get it, they'll go ahead and vote for that 5-termer again.
> 
> Saw a perfect example of this in Kansas last year. Roberts, who is knocking on 80 years old, was re elected to the US Senate. There was an independent who ran against him and really had some traction, but then here came the non stop negative ads claiming the Independent was really a Democrat in sheep's clothing. Roberts also weaseled out of a debate with him. On a radio interview, he said he would debate, but when it came down to it, his schedule just never permitted it. Ain't that sweet. And it worked, he got re-elected. Lather, rinse, repeat in all 50 states.


Maybe Trump offered us a clue as to why the candidates from the established parties always win. Key word established. 

The candidate, Democrat or Republican, wins because of the power of the party machine overwhelms the voters desire for "fresh blood". 

In Trump's blunt New Yorker's language, "the system is rigged". Both parties control two choices and work to exterminate any other choice. Be in the club or have no chance.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Its based on experience and a knowledge of history.


Your experience is different than mine. Do you believe yours to be superior?



watcher said:


> You deflected and didn't answer the question. Would you or would you not use a gun to get the money to help someone in need?
> 
> But to your deflection, the problem is the fact the constitution does not give the government power to take YOUR money and give it to ME for the sole reason the government thinks I NEED it more than you do. Can you point out to me anywhere in the USC the government is given the power to do that?


I wouldn't use a gun because it's illegal. However, legalities aside, I still wouldn't. I have neighbors that I'm pretty sure would either just give me money or a job in a bind. 
There, you got an answer. Feel free to call me a hypocrite, since you've been fishing for it long enough.



watcher said:


> You pass judgement on people every day. An example of judging my pastor liked to use is if you had a 14 y.o. daughter and a 21 y.o. man who had a criminal history, had several DUIs and had just skidded to a stop in front of your house jumped out of the car and said "Hey, #@$! I'm here to take your daughter to the movies." Would you say, "Oh, OK wait a second while I go get her." Or would you judge him and him to hit the road?
> 
> And this question you didn't even bother to answer. Come on tell the world if you would or would not uphold your standard of not judging and allow your daughter to go out on a date with the man in question.


I prefer to call it discernment. If we couldn't judge anything, we wouldn't be able to shop because we'd have to buy all 20 brands of crackers at the store if we wanted crackers.
Further, this man apparently already has a criminal record. Someone else already did the judging for me. 



watcher said:


> Seeing as how we are given the standards God expects people to live buy, we are told to judge a tree by its fruit and even the often quoted "judge not" story tells us in the end that we ARE to look for the mote in another's eye I think you have to twist the words in the Bible quite a bit to say we are to ignore people's actions.


Since I'm now enlightened, I will go tell my fellow Christians, I know many, to judge each other and have fun with it. 
So, since we can actually judge people, how are we to know when the beam is gone from our eye? I'm willing to guess that Jesus' overblown example indicates that since it is so hard for us to remove the beam from our own eye, should we even be searching for that mote?



watcher said:


> Of course I agree. My point is you have to pick your battles. Change it from helping people with their worldly needs to helping them spiritually. Look at what Christ told us. If we come to someone who is not willing to hear the Word what are we to do? Keep telling them and telling them and hope that at some point they will want to here it? Or are we told to walk away from them? How horrible is that! Isn't it much worse to let someone go to Hell for all eternity than to not give a homeless guy a meal? One of the points there is there are some who can not be helped because they do not want to be. Another is you, because you are human, have limited resources (time, money, etc) and you should not waste them.


I'm glad you feel obligated to help people find Christ. For my part, however, I am more concerned with helping people find their own path. That another thing that separates us; I do not find my beliefs so superior to others that I want everyone else to be like me. I realize you're commanded to do this, and certainly, finding God can bring people peace and stability in their lives. So can, I believe, meditating and becoming Buddhist or Confucian.



watcher said:


> But its NOT Caesar's because he has no legal right to it.
> 
> *Why not?
> *
> ...


I don't have to - people already did.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet you keep repeating that it's telling you *to* judge.
> You just talk in circles sometimes
> 
> I never said one should not offer help in an honest *sincere* manner.
> ...


The only times judge/judging means condemn is when its referring to God. Humans can not condemn anyone any more than they can save them.

You judge people by their actions. Are any of the following statements false:

Adultery is said to be a married person having sex with someone other than their spouse. 

If someone is screwing someone other than his wife he is an adulterer.

God's words tell adultery is a sin

God's word says unrepentant sinners will go to Hell. 

If all of those are true then anyone (even a non-Christian) can logically and truthfully tell that person "According to the Bible if you die right now you will go to Hell." That's not condemning him, his actions and heart are doing that.

A simple way to look at is judging is based on a person's actions, condemnation is based on their heart.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Your experience is different than mine. Do you believe yours to be superior?


Someone tells you the reason casinos are such big business is because most gamblers lose. The first time you go to Vegas you come back $10,000 ahead is your view that its easy to win gambling is superior or is it just backed up with not enough experience and ignores all the history?

I've been helping people for decades and in the early part of that I was quite navie and thought if I just kept helping them they would eventually turn their lives around. I had a wise pastor point out the fact that there are some people who can not be helped because they don't want to change. He used Crist's telling his followers if someone does not want to hear the Word you knock the dust off your feet and move on. Christ did not say you keep knocking on their door and maybe after 1,000 visits they will suddenly see the light and accept.

Are you saying there are people you would not stop giving money to?




Heritagefarm said:


> I wouldn't use a gun because it's illegal. However, legalities aside, I still wouldn't. I have neighbors that I'm pretty sure would either just give me money or a job in a bind.
> There, you got an answer. Feel free to call me a hypocrite, since you've been fishing for it long enough.


Ok you would not use a gun. Would you get someone else to use the gun to get the money for you?




Heritagefarm said:


> I prefer to call it discernment. If we couldn't judge anything, we wouldn't be able to shop because we'd have to buy all 20 brands of crackers at the store if we wanted crackers.
> Further, this man apparently already has a criminal record. Someone else already did the judging for me.


Call it what you want but you are judging him based on his actions. If you knew your married neighbor was having sex with a woman other than his wife would you refuse to call him an adulterer because that would be judging him? 




Heritagefarm said:


> Since I'm now enlightened, I will go tell my fellow Christians, I know many, to judge each other and have fun with it.


Christian are directly told not only judge fellow Christians but they are to go to them and point out their failure. If they continue sinning to take two or three others with you and confront them about it. If they still keep on bring them before the entire church. If they doesn't change them you are to treat them the same way you would a lost person.




Heritagefarm said:


> So, since we can actually judge people, how are we to know when the beam is gone from our eye? I'm willing to guess that Jesus' overblown example indicates that since it is so hard for us to remove the beam from our own eye, should we even be searching for that mote?


By comparing your life to the standards set in the Word. If you are an adulterer you need to get that sin out of your life before you go to another adulterer and tell him he's sinning.




Heritagefarm said:


> I'm glad you feel obligated to help people find Christ. For my part, however, I am more concerned with helping people find their own path. That another thing that separates us; I do not find my beliefs so superior to others that I want everyone else to be like me. I realize you're commanded to do this, and certainly, finding God can bring people peace and stability in their lives. So can, I believe, meditating and becoming Buddhist or Confucian.


I find it hard to understand anyone who thinks that way. If you truly believe in your belief system I would think you'd want everyone one to follow it. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Why not?


Because the USC says what powers the federal government has and it does not have any power which is not listed. The dollar it takes from me to build a road, pay the military and other things is theirs. The dollar it takes from me to give to you because it thinks I have too much and you have too little is mine. One is 'rendering unto Caesar' the other is being robbed by Caesar.




Heritagefarm said:


> Again you didn't answer the question. Is giving a known gambler money proper stewardship of the church's money?


Again you refuse to answer the question. A simple yes or no will do. Then you can follow up.




Heritagefarm said:


> Now that you've rephrased the question, my answer becomes different.


Its the same question the only difference is if you are giving the money directly to the hooker or a third party is giving it to her. 




Heritagefarm said:


> That's because I base my answers on experience, data, and logic. I have my beliefs, which dictate not to help a prostitute in any way, and my want to help, which overrides any distaste I may have. Your first question was about giving a prostitute a room so she could do her business there. I did not agree with that. Now we're dealing with a desperate woman with children, doing what she believes is the only thing she can do to feed her kids. In my eyes, she's doing what she can.


So you think doing what you can to allow her to keep being a hooker rather than seeking help to find a better way to support her children is OK? 

What's the difference in paying for a room so she can make more money to buy food for her children and you just paying for food for her children? The same amount of money is being given to her and the children are getting food. The only difference I can see is your judgement on how she uses the money to get the food.




Heritagefarm said:


> In your eyes, she's a barbarian.


No, in my eyes she's a lost person who should be helped to get out of a bad life. I wouldn't give her money in either case because doing so is just keeping her in that life. I would offer to find her a half-way house. I'd offer to find PRIVATE organizations to help her with food, housing and getting the skills needed to stay out of that life. I'd offer to find help for her children. But it would be up to her to make the decision to take this help and change. And to make you think I have a much harder heart than you already do, if she refused I would then contact people I know to remove her children from her. She has the right to live her life as she pleases but she does not have the right to endanger her children.

It seems in your eyes she's just someone you can take advantage of to make yourself feel good. After all if you keep her in the prostitution lifestyle the odds are she will need your help again and again and again. Not only that her children will most likely grow up to need to be saved over and over again as well because that's the example they were given.




Heritagefarm said:


> How do you determine that public assistance is not for the public good?


Because it is only for the individual. You think roads are a public good correct? Say your local government built a road which went to one private residence and only the owner of that resident could use it. Would you say that was a proper use of public funds and for the public good?




Heritagefarm said:


> Impoverished people may sometimes be driven to excessive means, such as stealing, bribery, etc. Isn't a handout a convenient way to prevent that behavior from becoming necessary?


Tell you what, take a few minutes and read about the history of government give-a-way programs. I suggest you start in the 60 with JBL's "Great Society" and go through to day. THEN tell me how well giving handouts to the needy has worked in preventing that behavior as well as reducing the number of needy people.

What's the definition of stupidity?




Heritagefarm said:


> You can't say it benefits only the individual, because we are an interconnected web. None of us live truly disparate lives. Even the hermit living in the woods is connected to the lifeblood of the wilderness.


But the money can be 'enjoyed' and used only by the individual who it is given. The public has no access to it. Again its like the government building a private road. Its for the public good. After it makes the life of the homeowner easier and makes it so he can get to work which means he will work more and the public will get more goods and tax dollars. So how can you say that private road isn't for the public good?




Heritagefarm said:


> And you have that freedom. What you do not have is the right to demand others provide it to you.
> 
> I don't have to - people already did.


So you didn't steal the big screen TV and game system, someone stole it and gave it to you, therefore you should get to keep it when the police find it because its yours now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> So you didn't steal the big screen TV and game system, someone stole it and gave it to you, therefore you should get to keep it when the police find it because its yours now.


It's all in how you look at it. Relying on younger people to fund part of my retirement may not sound fair, but when you consider that we have a long history of helping the elderly it makes more sense. The part that upsets a lot of people is how the money we contribute to Social Security and Medicare is used immediately to support people who are already retired. But we've been doing that for four generations now. Nobody is realistically suggesting that we try to catch-up to the point where we aren't spending it as fast as it comes in.

The most disturbing thing to me is the nearly $3 trillion my generation overpaid to FICA during our working years. It's disturbing because the government borrowed all of it, and there are politicians who don't think it should be paid back.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's all in how you look at it. Relying on younger people to fund part of my retirement may not sound fair, but when you consider that we have a long history of helping the elderly it makes more sense. The part that upsets a lot of people is how the money we contribute to Social Security and Medicare is used immediately to support people who are already retired. But we've been doing that for four generations now. Nobody is realistically suggesting that we try to catch-up to the point where we aren't spending it as fast as it comes in.


You or any other individual or group of individuals are free to help, or not help, anyone or group you wish. The problem comes when the government starts taking money from one individual and giving it directly to another on the sole reason that the government thinks the second individuals needs it more than the first.

Its taking money which you have no right to from an individual who does not want you to have it. That is not taxation, that's theft.

Change the set up. What if the government told a doctor that he HAD to treat someone at no cost or the doctor would go to jail? What if the government came in and told you that you had to allow a family move in with you and you supply not only a place to live but food for them as well and refusing would result in you being jailed? What if the government told someone they had to pay to fuel their neighbor car or face jail time? Would you say that was legal? What's the difference in that and taking money from someone to pay for another's medical care, provide food & housing and/or providing them money to buy gasoline?




Nevada said:


> The most disturbing thing to me is the nearly $3 trillion my generation overpaid to FICA during our working years. It's disturbing because the government borrowed all of it, and there are politicians who don't think it should be paid back.


They didn't borrow it, they stole it. Its gone, its been spent to buy votes of the stupid people who actually believe that the government is there to take care of them and cares about them. They used it to guarantee they would be in power for decades and by the time you figured out you had been screwed they'd be long gone. That's how ponzi schemes work. The people first in and the operators live the high life while the late comers get screwed. Think about how much more and how much longer Madoff could have keep his high life going if he had the power to FORCE people to 'invest' in his scheme.

Well I guess I shouldn't say it was stolen because that implies what was done was illegal and it wasn't because the government makes the laws and made their taking of it legal.

And one last thing, this is the same government you think should be in charge of the medical care system.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> They didn't borrow it, they stole it. Its gone, its been spent


Of course it's spent. Nobody ever borrows money that they don't intend to spend. After all, that's why they borrow it.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Of course it's spent. Nobody ever borrows money that they don't intend to spend. After all, that's why they borrow it.


How come, then, anytime anyone proposes a change to SS, a very long line forms chanting THATS MY MONEY? You should have a look at the end of Dan Rostenkowski's carrer (sp). As the chairman of the house ways and means commitee, he had the political courage to amend SS reducing a future INCREASE by $9 a month. 

Otherwise rational human being 65+ were waiting for him at his local office. They rocked his car and set it on fire. He was evacuated from his office under high security. He returned to DC, led the cause to repeal the new law, anounced he did not care anymore if SS went broke, and retired. 

AARP has been so unreasonable with following generations on this topic, I would feel no sympathy if it ended and the elderly ate Alpo and had no heart medicine. 

You get what you give. The political clout of boomers is running out. I refer you to the active thread about millineals passing boomers as the largest group. Paybacks can be viscious.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> How come, then, anytime anyone proposes a change to SS, a very long line forms chanting THATS MY MONEY? You should have a look at the end of Dan Rostenkowski's carrer (sp). As the chairman of the house ways and means commitee, he had the political courage to amend SS reducing a future INCREASE by $9 a month.
> 
> Otherwise rational human being 65+ were waiting for him at his local office. They rocked his car and set it on fire. He was evacuated from his office under high security. He returned to DC, led the cause to repeal the new law, anounced he did not care anymore if SS went broke, and retired.
> 
> ...


Good grief what an attitude. Do you hate your grandma or something? :hobbyhors The "us against them" shouldn't be the generations turning on each other, but the citizenry as a whole trying to make the government behave. Don't blame every boomer for the actions of a few you saw on one news report. Jerkholes can grow old too, ya know. And AARP doesn't represent the whole generation no matter how much they might imply they do. 

Congress spent the SS surplus that had built up at one time and replaced it with IOU's. So now for those payments to keep going out, revenue has to keep coming in too. I wouldn't be opposed to some cuts determined by means testing - the people who have a nice income outside of SS can stand to lose at least part of their benefits. And yes, I know, they paid into it. Just like they might have paid car insurance for 40 years and never had a wreck. We're to the point where hard choices have to be made.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

MO_cows said:


> Good grief what an attitude. Do you hate your grandma or something? :hobbyhors The "us against them" shouldn't be the generations turning on each other, but the citizenry as a whole trying to make the government behave. Don't blame every boomer for the actions of a few you saw on one news report. Jerkholes can grow old too, ya know. And AARP doesn't represent the whole generation no matter how much they might imply they do.
> 
> Congress spent the SS surplus that had built up at one time and replaced it with IOU's. So now for those payments to keep going out, revenue has to keep coming in too. I wouldn't be opposed to some cuts determined by means testing - the people who have a nice income outside of SS can stand to lose at least part of their benefits. And yes, I know, they paid into it. Just like they might have paid car insurance for 40 years and never had a wreck. We're to the point where hard choices have to be made.


It is an accepted reality to Congress that SS in untouchable. Have you EVER seen anything anywhere where a SS recipient protested to have their benefits reduced so their grandchild could draw benefits too, avoiding the bankruptcy that has been publicized for what, 30 years?

Yes, I blame bomers. Do not be shocked if
Millenials do too. You get what you give. Political unbeatable clout has been used to form current policy. It was selfish driven behavior. MY MONEY. 

So being selfish and thinking only of me, grandma wont eat Alpo and will have heart medicine. See, she is wealthy. So it matters not to me what happens to SS. Either way, SS is guaranteed to be gone for me due to very selfish policies demanded by retired folks that represented a HUGE voting block.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

dixiegal62 said:


> Thank you for the suggestion but I don't feel the need to understand your stance more.I don't live in the past, I live in the present. I commented on what I read. My stance is if you are getting paid to do and job then do it. If you don't like the standards, look for a job that better suits your standards. :shrug:



But what if hidden in the contract in language you don't understand is a prohibition on looking for another job or quitting ?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> It's all in how you look at it. Relying on younger people to fund part of my retirement may not sound fair, but when you consider that we have a long history of helping the elderly it makes more sense. The part that upsets a lot of people is how the money we contribute to Social Security and Medicare is used immediately to support people who are already retired. But we've been doing that for four generations now. Nobody is realistically suggesting that we try to catch-up to the point where we aren't spending it as fast as it comes in.
> 
> The most disturbing thing to me is the nearly $3 trillion my generation overpaid to FICA during our working years. It's disturbing because the government borrowed all of it, and there are politicians who don't think it should be paid back.


I don't have a problem with my tax dollars supporting retired folks. 

@Watcher: Your previous comment calling Nevada a "taker" now instead of a "giver" was denigratory. 



watcher said:


> Someone tells you the reason casinos are such big business is because most gamblers lose. The first time you go to Vegas you come back $10,000 ahead is your view that its easy to win gambling is superior or is it just backed up with not enough experience and ignores all the history?


Stop trying to set yourself up as a moral champion.



watcher said:


> I've been helping people for decades and in the early part of that I was quite navie and thought if I just kept helping them they would eventually turn their lives around. I had a wise pastor point out the fact that there are some people who can not be helped because they don't want to change. He used Crist's telling his followers if someone does not want to hear the Word you knock the dust off your feet and move on. Christ did not say you keep knocking on their door and maybe after 1,000 visits they will suddenly see the light and accept.
> 
> Are you saying there are people you would not stop giving money to?


Yes, you keep mentioning all the people you help. There are people I help as well, but I've avoided mentioning it until now because I consider it in poor class. It's like walking up to someone and telling them your IQ level. 
The people in my life who've told me they were a "good person," "I help people all the time," and "I'm a good Christian," have ALL either ripped me off or attacked me later. The best person I know, the most moral and upstanding, kind friend of mine, is a Buddhist.



watcher said:


> Ok you would not use a gun. Would you get someone else to use the gun to get the money for you?


I feel like I'm talking to a computer that keeps asking my to select "Option 1... Option 1... Option 1..."



watcher said:


> Call it what you want but you are judging him based on his actions. If you knew your married neighbor was having sex with a woman other than his wife would you refuse to call him an adulterer because that would be judging him?


I would;t be judging him because adulterer is factual.



watcher said:


> Christian are directly told not only judge fellow Christians but they are to go to them and point out their failure. If they continue sinning to take two or three others with you and confront them about it. If they still keep on bring them before the entire church. If they doesn't change them you are to treat them the same way you would a lost person.


There are a lot of definitions of "failure." For many Christians, it seems to be that anyone different than them has failed.




watcher said:


> I find it hard to understand anyone who thinks that way. If you truly believe in your belief system I would think you'd want everyone one to follow it.



It's quite simple, really. For instance, I believe in X and Y. These are my beliefs and I hold them dear. Another person believes A and B. Those are their beliefs and they hold them dear. I do not try to change that person, and accept them for who they are. I can believe something and not expect everyone to believe it; I can hold an idea and not believe in it; I can entertain thoughts and not act on them. Most people, though, just call it being open minded and accepting.




watcher said:


> Because the USC says what powers the federal government has and it does not have any power which is not listed. The dollar it takes from me to build a road, pay the military and other things is theirs. The dollar it takes from me to give to you because it thinks I have too much and you have too little is mine. One is 'rendering unto Caesar' the other is being robbed by Caesar.


Then your beef is not with helping people with government money, it's how the government gets the money. 



watcher said:


> Again you refuse to answer the question. A simple yes or no will do. Then you can follow up.


Artificial goalpost logical fallacy. But I'll bite anyways: no.



watcher said:


> So you think doing what you can to allow her to keep being a hooker rather than seeking help to find a better way to support her children is OK?
> 
> What's the difference in paying for a room so she can make more money to buy food for her children and you just paying for food for her children? The same amount of money is being given to her and the children are getting food. The only difference I can see is your judgement on how she uses the money to get the food.
> 
> No, in my eyes she's a lost person who should be helped to get out of a bad life. I wouldn't give her money in either case because doing so is just keeping her in that life. I would offer to find her a half-way house. I'd offer to find PRIVATE organizations to help her with food, housing and getting the skills needed to stay out of that life. I'd offer to find help for her children. But it would be up to her to make the decision to take this help and change. And to make you think I have a much harder heart than you already do, if she refused I would then contact people I know to remove her children from her. She has the right to live her life as she pleases but she does not have the right to endanger her children.


I would absolutely try to get her a different job. Prostitution is a low, low job. But guess who's paying? The men. Do they get punished? Nope. It's always the woman's fault. I hope you don't think divorce is always the woman's fault as well, because if so we're done talking.



watcher said:


> It seems in your eyes she's just someone you can take advantage of to make yourself feel good. After all if you keep her in the prostitution lifestyle the odds are she will need your help again and again and again. Not only that her children will most likely grow up to need to be saved over and over again as well because that's the example they were given.


You presume a lot about a lot.



watcher said:


> Because it is only for the individual. You think roads are a public good correct? Say your local government built a road which went to one private residence and only the owner of that resident could use it. Would you say that was a proper use of public funds and for the public good?


No, but it happens. I get mad when our local town diverts funds to the golf course when our sidewalks are horrible. That's because the rich and powerful run the local government.



watcher said:


> Tell you what, take a few minutes and read about the history of government give-a-way programs. I suggest you start in the 60 with JBL's "Great Society" and go through to day. THEN tell me how well giving handouts to the needy has worked in preventing that behavior as well as reducing the number of needy people.
> 
> What's the definition of stupidity?


Scientific studies have found that communities immediately start improving and showing sustainable improvement after a year or so of basic help. (We're talking very basic - food, toiletries, and facilities in third-world countries.) These communities benefit greatly from the assistance and handouts, as well as hand-ups, but I see a similar attitude on the Republicans' part towards this activity as you've shown to any gov't assistance.

Since we're working with facts and data right now, and I've said previously that my life is based extensively off research and data instead of religion, here's a piece from Pew that supports my position:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...4/10/28/how-the-safety-net-cuts-poverty-rates

Pew is an internationally respected research think-tank. You'll have a hard time arguing with them.



watcher said:


> But the money can be 'enjoyed' and used only by the individual who it is given. The public has no access to it. Again its like the government building a private road. Its for the public good. After it makes the life of the homeowner easier and makes it so he can get to work which means he will work more and the public will get more goods and tax dollars. So how can you say that private road isn't for the public good?
> 
> So you didn't steal the big screen TV and game system, someone stole it and gave it to you, therefore you should get to keep it when the police find it because its yours now.


Hair-splitting semantics here.


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

tlrnnp67 said:


> PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> STOP, think!
> 
> ...



The title of this thread is Be a Human Being.
It seems to me this thread sure encompasses much of what being human means to me.
Some here seem to have an I'm right and you are wrong attitude. 
Some seem to have a live and let live attitude. 

I have seen people talk to their families in all kinds of ways.....from the very loving and respectful to vicious and demeaning and everything in between. ( From both Christians and not)

Some people don't seem to care about their impact on others, while others seem to revel in stirring the pot and get off on even negative attention.

I enjoy the posts that look for our commonalities, while respecting our differences. 
Those are the humans I want to spend time with.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Of course it's spent. Nobody ever borrows money that they don't intend to spend. After all, that's why they borrow it.


You are still living the dream wearing your rose colored glasses. One more time, THEY DIDN'T BORROW IT THEY *STOLE *IT.

They never intended to pay it back because they knew they would be out of office if not dead before anyone went looking for it. 

People sat around fat, dumb and happy as pols raided the cookie jar time and time again. Those same people loved it when those pols spent that money to pay for neato cool stuff. They didn't stop to think that money was theirs and was supposed to be used to help them later in life. 

Face it the problem is your liberal generation time and time again voted in pols who was stealing your money. You didn't care because they were keeping your occupied with shinny objects as they lifted your wallet.

Where in Hades did you think the money was coming from to provide SS money to people who had paid in next to nothing? Or the money to pay for WIC, Section 8 housing, "the projects", welfare, ADC, food stamps and all the rest of the "free" stuff the pols were giving away to buy votes? The welfare fairy was leaving it under congress critter's pillows? Any fool could have seen income taxes weren't enough.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Good grief what an attitude. Do you hate your grandma or something? :hobbyhors The "us against them" shouldn't be the generations turning on each other, but the citizenry as a whole trying to make the government behave. Don't blame every boomer for the actions of a few you saw on one news report. Jerkholes can grow old too, ya know. And AARP doesn't represent the whole generation no matter how much they might imply they do.


Grandma drunk the kool-aid. Grandma thought the dems, specifically FDR, saved the world and if a dem told her he could give her free medical care for the rest of her life and money to live on PLUS supply everything her little grandkiddies needed she would dutifully pull the D lever.

I've sat around with people who would rail about how the government is taking too much money from them and giving it to the bums in one breath then say how they were proud dems and always voted a straight dem ticket. And it'd be Katie bar the door if you happened to point out it was the dems who kept voting to do just what they yelling about a few minutes ago.

FYI, I grew up in a yellow dog dem union or die family therefore I know this stuff first hand.




MO_cows said:


> Congress spent the SS surplus that had built up at one time and replaced it with IOU's. So now for those payments to keep going out, revenue has to keep coming in too. I wouldn't be opposed to some cuts determined by means testing - the people who have a nice income outside of SS can stand to lose at least part of their benefits. And yes, I know, they paid into it. Just like they might have paid car insurance for 40 years and never had a wreck. We're to the point where hard choices have to be made.


How would you like for the government to take money out of your IRA and give it to another person because it thinks you have more than you need and the other person doesn't? That just what you are expecting them to do if you support means testing. SS was supposed to be a retirement account just like your IRA, meant to be used by you and only you. It wasn't supposed to be just another welfare program (even though it really is).


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

I have said for some time now, our country needs another depression era. It will help to reset realities and expectations to something more reasonable.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Grandma drunk the kool-aid. Grandma thought the dems, specifically FDR, saved the world and if a dem told her he could give her free medical care for the rest of her life and money to live on PLUS supply everything her little grandkiddies needed she would dutifully pull the D lever.
> 
> I've sat around with people who would rail about how the government is taking too much money from them and giving it to the bums in one breath then say how they were proud dems and always voted a straight dem ticket. And it'd be Katie bar the door if you happened to point out it was the dems who kept voting to do just what they yelling about a few minutes ago.
> 
> ...


meanwhile, Republicans keep blowing money on wars, corporate bailouts, and subsidies for the rich. All the Reps have to do is convince everyone their wellbeing depends on the wealthy to pull the R level.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The only times judge/judging means condemn is when its referring to God. Humans can not condemn anyone any more than they can save them.


So it means what it means, until you want it to mean something else.

This is why conversations with you end up going in endless circles


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> I have said for some time now, our country needs another depression era. It will help to reset realities and expectations to something more reasonable.


It's coming, and coming fast. It won't be like the Great Depression though. Things are a LOT different this time around. Reasonable won't be in the equation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> But what if hidden in the contract in *language you don't understand* is a prohibition on looking for another job or quitting ?


If it's your native language, there's little excuse for "not understanding" before you sign. 

Get a dictionary if you're confused


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> It's coming, and coming fast. It won't be like the Great Depression though. Things are a LOT different this time around. Reasonable won't be in the equation.


Right. Just a few of the different things today from my perspective:

1) a huge class of entitled people used to handouts with few skills
2) few people with skills to live minimally
3) all government already on the brink of bancruptcy
4) massive dependency on advanced (expensive) technology
5) far too many "rights"
6) a lot more people
7) a lot more guns
8) advanced foreign enemies

How did I do? Anyhow, when people have no time to picket a cake shop for refusing to bake a cake because they are too busy foraging for food in a forest, a little perspective might be gained. When people only have $20/wk to feed their own children, they will not be so quick to offer $10 to the government. Spotted owls might not seem as critical when people are dying. All just a matter of excess money and time from my chair.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

I hear you. The biggest difference this time around is debt. The last Depression people who owned homes usually paid cash for them, didn't have car loans and credit card debt. But they were able to fix and make do with what they had. Today, a lot of people don't even change their own oil in their vehicle or fix a clogged drain,or repair an appliance.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

In a hypothetical scenario conversation with the wife a little while back, she said something along the lines of people hunting deer to eat. I said DEER? I am shooting cows. I want the most meat per bullet.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

I see the cuts of beef chart when I see cattle ever day. 
Keep in mind farmers have guns.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> In a hypothetical scenario conversation with the wife a little while back, she said something along the lines of people hunting deer to eat. I said DEER? I am shooting cows. I want the most meat per bullet.


Ha, great point. People have asked me why I don't hunt. I tell them, "I have sheep and goats. They have way more meat than a deer!"



WolfWalksSoftly said:


> I hear you. The biggest difference this time around is debt. The last Depression people who owned homes usually paid cash for them, didn't have car loans and credit card debt. But they were able to fix and make do with what they had. Today, a lot of people don't even change their own oil in their vehicle or fix a clogged drain,or repair an appliance.


I'm constantly amazed, even in our rural area of self-sufficiency, how many folks don't know how to wield a screwdriver.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> It's coming, and coming fast. It won't be like the Great Depression though. Things are a LOT different this time around. Reasonable won't be in the equation.


The problem with recovery now is that everyone knows the central banks are overextended, throwing the credibility of both the central banks and the major currencies into doubt. That means that in another major financial crisis the Fed can't print money like it's been doing since the 2008 crisis. The last institution standing will be the IMF.

In the next crisis I expect the IMF to try to save the economy by issuing special drawing rights to central banks. Those drawing rights will become the new defacto currency, since the dollar, yen, and euro will all be disrespected. It's anybody's guess how credible an IMF drawing rights bailout will be to the financial markets. But even if it works, it's going to be inflationary on a level we haven't seen since the late 1970s. During the 1970s gold went from $35/oz to $800/oz. I suggest holding gold, or better yet silver.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

There is no doubt in my mind we are being set up for a fall. The Feds have been pumping billions into the economy each month and we still have less than 3% growth? 
I have silver and will be watching it grow. I'm also big on every day intangibles to stock up on.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> There is no doubt in my mind we are being set up for a fall. The Feds have been pumping billions into the economy each month and we still have less than 3% growth?
> I have silver and will be watching it grow. I'm also big on every day intangibles to stock up on.


Don't become discouraged with silver. I expect it to go down over the next few months, possibly below $13. But it will eventually go for a moonshot. Just keep acquiring silver whenever you can afford it.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

I asked my son a riddle once. Most adults choose the right answer. 

You are one of two people left. You can choose all edible food sources or all tangible things like property and money. Which do you choose?

Children, my son included, choose the money. Then you explain your fee for one meal is half of all the money. In short order you will own both.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't have a problem with my tax dollars supporting retired folks.


 That's fine but its not constitutional. There were many people who were fine with other illegal and/or unconstitutional actions the government has taken, does that make those actions right?




Heritagefarm said:


> @Watcher: Your previous comment calling Nevada a &quot;taker&quot; now instead of a &quot;giver&quot; was denigratory.


Call it what you wish but he is getting his money from the federal government and to get that money the feds must TAKE it out of your paycheck. If that's not a taker then I'd like to see what you call it.





Heritagefarm said:


> Stop trying to set yourself up as a moral champion.


Stop evading/deflecting questions. Your POV is based on your life. I'm fairly sure I'm older than you and that I have been helping people for longer than you therefore I have much more data to draw conclusions from than you. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, you keep mentioning all the people you help. There are people I help as well, but I've avoided mentioning it until now because I consider it in poor class. It's like walking up to someone and telling them your IQ level.


I bring them up to show I walk the walk not just talk the talk. You can't see how I live my life therefore the only way you can know how I live it is to tell you. In the real world I don't tell people what I do because they can see how I live.

I know plenty of people who will talk all day about how horrible this or that is but that's all they do is talk. You MIGHT be able to get them to give a little money but when it comes to them giving time or making an effort forget it.





Heritagefarm said:


> I feel like I'm talking to a computer that keeps asking my to select &quot;Option 1... Option 1... Option 1...&quot;


Not its like a computer saying YOU MUST MAKE A SLECTION BEFORE YOU MAY CONTINUE. You refuse to answer the questions. You wouldn't use a gun but you CLEARLY have no problem with someone else using a gun to take money because you support the government doing it and the government has armed men who to take the money if you refuse to hand it over.




Heritagefarm said:


> I would;t be judging him because adulterer is factual.


How can you say that? Don't you have to look at his actions and judge them against the standard before you can determine that? 




Heritagefarm said:


> There are a lot of definitions of &quot;failure.&quot; For many Christians, it seems to be that anyone different than them has failed.


The definition for failure for a Christian is failing to following the teachings of Christ. These teachings are not hidden, you don't need a secret decoder ring to know what they are. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Then your beef is not with helping people with government money, it's how the government gets the money.


 Its both. If the government was not committing an unconstitutional act by giving people money then it would have no need to take the money in the first place. The government 'helps people' when it builds roads, when it provides a military to defend the nation, when it keeps a blind justice system to settle disputes and many other things which it has the constitutional power to do. When it takes money from a person to do those things the person does or can get a benefit from it. You may never need to use the court system but its there if you do so you can get a service from your tax dollars. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Artificial goalpost logical fallacy. But I'll bite anyways: no.


So you would refuse to help him because you JUDGE his actions to be wrong. Again an example of how you should judge.




Heritagefarm said:


> I would absolutely try to get her a different job. Prostitution is a low, low job. But guess who's paying? The men. Do they get punished? Nope. It's always the woman's fault. I hope you don't think divorce is always the woman's fault as well, because if so we're done talking.


The point is the giving money to her, either directly or indirectly via WIC et al, is not helping her. You only help her if you do something to get her out of what you and I consider a bad situation.

As for the men, if I knew a guy who was routinely using hookers I'd try to get him to stop. BTW not all hookers are women.

On to divorce. It can be either gender's fault but the fault usually is making a bad choice. Remember every divorced person PICKED the person they are divorced from. Very few divorced people didn't know about the thing that lead to the divorce before they were married. Sure he was a party animal before we married but. . . Well she did cheat on me when we were dating but. . . 




Heritagefarm said:


> You presume a lot about a lot.


I'm just reading what you write.




Heritagefarm said:


> No, but it happens. I get mad when our local town diverts funds to the golf course when our sidewalks are horrible. That's because the rich and powerful run the local government.


Is it a private golf course or can you use it if you can pay the greens fee? If its a public course then that is just as much of a correct use of government funds as funding a park. If they were spending tax dollars for something you, as a member of the public, could not use then that would not. There's a difference in the fact they are not spending the money the way you would wish and them spending it on something they do not have the legal power to.




Heritagefarm said:


> Scientific studies have found that communities immediately start improving and showing sustainable improvement after a year or so of basic help. (We're talking very basic - food, toiletries, and facilities in third-world countries.) These communities benefit greatly from the assistance and handouts, as well as hand-ups, but I see a similar attitude on the Republicans' part towards this activity as you've shown to any gov't assistance.


 Really? If that were true shouldn't Detroit be a little slice of the Garden of Eden? Shouldn't there be no poor left in the US at all after 60 years of the government 'assisting' people? How do you explain after spending billions upon billions of dollars we still have effectively the same poverty rate? 




Heritagefarm said:


> Pew is an internationally respected research think-tank. You'll have a hard time arguing with them.


That's all based on the assumption if the government programs were not there no one would help them. &quot;Studying&quot; if you stop giving someone money shows that they would not get that money is saying if everyone was unemployed no one would be working.

If you do a bit of research you will find that the poverty level in 1964 was 19% in 2014 it was 15%. In 50 years with billions of dollars spent we have manage to cut the poverty rate by 4%. To me that's a better showing of how well hand outs are working.


But all that is moot to the point. The point is the government does not have the right nor power to take YOUR money and give it to ME just because it thinks I need it more than you. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Hair-splitting semantics here.


 
No it isn't. Would you say it would be in the public good for everyone to have a place to live? If so would you support a program where you were taxed to build houses to be GIVEN to homeless people? IOW, that tax payer built house would became the homeless person's private property. Property which the public had no more access to nor no more control over than it does your house. That is much different than a national park or road.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The problem with recovery now is that everyone knows the central banks are overextended, throwing the credibility of both the central banks and the major currencies into doubt. That means that in another major financial crisis the Fed can't print money like it's been doing since the 2008 crisis. The last institution standing will be the IMF.


 The massive amount of debt the feds are carrying is also causing problems.




Nevada said:


> In the next crisis I expect the IMF to try to save the economy by issuing special drawing rights to central banks. Those drawing rights will become the new defacto currency, since the dollar, yen, and euro will all be disrespected. It's anybody's guess how credible an IMF drawing rights bailout will be to the financial markets. But even if it works, it's going to be inflationary on a level we haven't seen since the late 1970s. During the 1970s gold went from $35/oz to $800/oz. I suggest holding gold, or better yet silver.


You can't eat silver. While there will always be some who are willing to trade useful things for shinny objects there will be fewer and fewer as the economy goes deeper and deeper into the toilet.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> You can't eat silver. While there will always be some who are willing to trade useful things for shinny objects there will be fewer and fewer as the economy goes deeper and deeper into the toilet.


Don't buy precious metals to plan for a complete breakdown in society. There will be no market for gold or silver if that happens. Buy 22 shells and pinto beans to prepare for SHTF.

Silver is more as a hedge against inflation or a financial crisis. There is also the draw of speculation, since many silver investors foresee a shortage in silver supply. Gold could be hard to get during severe currency devaluation, but I don't foresee a supply shortage. That makes silver the better speculative investment, IMO.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Silver is also a metal used in manufacturing. It is a byproduct of mining other metals, so it will be in shorter supply. I agree, to get stocked up on the ammo, food,medicines, clothes and different parts needed around your place.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> That's fine but its not constitutional.


You're going to have to get the Supreme Court to go along with you on that. In the meantime, SS & Medicare are presumed to be constitutional programs. I know that I'm happy I have that deposit every month.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You're going to have to get the Supreme Court to go along with you on that. In the meantime, SS & Medicare are presumed to be constitutional programs. I know that I'm happy I have that deposit every month.


History has shown that the court is as political as any other part of the government. Remember segregation was found to be constitutional later it was found to be unconstitutional. Did the constitution change between the rulings or was the political climate?

I give you the example of abortion and prostitution. Abortion is legal because the courts have ruled there is a constitutional right for a woman, via her right to privacy, to do with her body as she wishes. If that were true then why haven't the laws against prostitution been found unconstitutional for the same reason? After its her body and her choice in each case is it not?

No one has ever shown me where the federal government is given the power to take your money and give it to me. Or even where it has the power to take your money to keep for you because you are clearly too stupid to take care of it yourself.

The constitution isn't written in some secret code, foreign language or even legalezes. It very clearly states what powers the feds have, what powers they don't have and the fact if a power isn't given to the feds then it doesn't have that power.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Watcher: don't have time for a full response, but as a taxpayer I'm fine if my tax money is used to pay for housing and food projects. I'd say most social works can determine who needs help and who doesn't, although I suspect many of them don't care. But I've voted in the past for higher taxes to support the welfare system. I think we should work with what we have, create better rules, and help people get off it. Because you are right in one respect, it seems as soon as someone gets going a bit, they get kicked off welfare and they fall again. It's needs to be a gradual kick off. 
I'll respond more last. I think taxes should be more of a voluntary thing, with the IRS being seriously pared back.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Remember segregation was found to be constitutional later it was found to be unconstitutional.


The constitution was amended.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> The constitution was amended.


To support commonly accepted cultural beliefs. Its political. You do know what it takes to change the constitution. The ratification process is bowing to the electorate, thus the power to the people.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> To support commonly accepted cultural beliefs. Its political. You do know what it takes to change the constitution. The ratification process is bowing to the electorate, thus the power to the people.


That would the democracy part of our society at work. Not everyone wants old rich men in red leather recliners making our decisions for us.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> That would the democracy part of our society at work. Not everyone wants old rich men in red leather recliners making our decisions for us.


I certainly dont. I consider the supreme court nothing more than harvard educated rich white males. That is what confirms them, thus the voice speaking.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> Remember segregation was found to be constitutional later it was found to be unconstitutional. Did the constitution change between the rulings or was the political climate?





Nevada said:


> The constitution was amended.



Really? Which amendment WAS that?

The constitutionality of segregation was actually decided by Brown vs. The Board of Education in 1954........not by a constitutional amendment.
:huh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> I certainly dont. I consider the supreme court nothing more than harvard educated rich white males. That is what confirms them, thus the voice speaking.


Then why'd they care about gay rights? I wouldn't think they'd care if they were just rich white men, which most obviously are.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Really? Which amendment WAS that?
> 
> The constitutionality of segregation was actually decided by Brown vs. The Board of Education in 1954........not by a constitutional amendment.
> :huh:
> ...


From your own link reference:

_Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9&#8211;0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."_

Brown v. BoE knocked down 'separate but equal.'


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Then why'd they care about gay rights? I wouldn't think they'd care if they were just rich white men, which most obviously are.


Because rich white men care about staying rich and white. If they keep the divorce rate high, single mothers, fighting about racism, discrimination, and personal freedoms, we might not notice that rich white men are slowly taking every asset that produces income, thereby leaving all the rest of us as indentured servants to a paycheck. 

Its classic divide and conquer. If poor whites and poor blacks combined with poor hispanics, asians, etc, there are enough of us to completely install a new government via election. 

So they give us a 2 party system and carve up the issues. Pro choice. Pro life. To make it appear you have a choice. When in reality they are both the same. Pro power.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> History has shown that the court is as political as any other part of the government.
> 
> * Remember segregation was found to be constitutional later it was found to be unconstitutional. Did the constitution change between the rulings or was the political climate?*





Nevada said:


> The constitution was amended.





Nevada said:


> From your own link reference:
> 
> _Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9â0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."_
> 
> Brown v. BoE knocked down 'separate but equal.'




The basis of the 1954 Brown ruling was indeed an amendment, the 14th to be exact, which was passed in *18*68.

As watcher pointed out, there were no amendments passed during the century between 1868 and 1954 that changed segregation laws.
That was done judicially, unlike the 19th amendment which gave women the right to vote, that was done legislatively.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> From your own link reference:
> 
> _Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9â0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."_
> 
> Brown v. BoE knocked down 'separate but equal.'


Humm. . . raises an interesting question in today's political environment. If separate educational facilities are inherently unequal might we not apply the same to bath and locker rooms? Shouldn't I have the right to use any shower I wish in a gym? Back in the old days, things might have change, the showers were clearly unequal because the men's showers consisted of a couple of poles with shower heads all around the top in an open tiled room whereas the women's showers were separate stalls with benches and curtains.

Yep, I've been in many of women's bath and locker rooms. But never when there were females in there.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Because rich white men care about staying rich and white. If they keep the divorce rate high, single mothers, fighting about racism, discrimination, and personal freedoms, we might not notice that rich white men are slowly taking every asset that produces income, thereby leaving all the rest of us as indentured servants to a paycheck.
> 
> Its classic divide and conquer. If poor whites and poor blacks combined with poor hispanics, asians, etc, there are enough of us to completely install a new government via election.
> 
> So they give us a 2 party system and carve up the issues. Pro choice. Pro life. To make it appear you have a choice. When in reality they are both the same. Pro power.


Dang, that's good. Ever read the Creature from Jekyll Island? Arguably a conspiracy theory, but the Fed is still the most secretive and untrustworthy "agency" around. It's not even really recognized as part of the gov't, it just exists.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> Dang, that's good. Ever read the Creature from Jekyll Island? Arguably a conspiracy theory, but the Fed is still the most secretive and untrustworthy "agency" around. It's not even really recognized as part of the gov't, it just exists.


No, I have not read that work. My last 20+ readings were Christian books. Before that, stock market. Before that, Piers Anthony.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

I am a human oddity. I go through long phases.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

It's an interesting book, and as noted lumped in to the conspiracy theory genre.

My occasional answer to questions involving one's sanity, is an old one............"Just cuz I'm crazy, don't mean I'm _wrong._"
:happy2:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> No, I have not read that work. My last 20+ readings were Christian books. Before that, stock market. Before that, *Piers Anthony*.


I have lots of his books


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm guessing that's why Ron Paul didn't make it; he maybe have actually quashed some government spending and whatnot.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

A strict constitutionalist will struggle in the current political climate. Perhaps rightfully so. Maybe we have moved passed the right to go hungry and homeless based upon random acts of fate. 

But we still need lines. Barriers. We must, as a society, encourage hard work and productivity. Some of our socialist policies (food stamps) never end and encourage the opposite. Hence the friction. 

I do not see middle class vs poor as class warfare. I see it as principle warfare.


----------

