Entitlements

[nomosendero]

I did not undercut my position to anyone that is logical. There is a difference between quoteing a scripture & twisting one. I used no interpretation at all as I assumed that anyone here could read it & understand. The others who quoted Scriptures must have thought the same, but I guess not.No, I don't twist anything about the Bible, in fact I will do an in depth Bible study at nite with anyone who desires & the study would be 2 way with everything out in the open. The rolling eyes could be in reference to what you said or to indicate that you can't find anything on this. Doesn't matter, the point is made. Actually, victorcharlie used the teach them to fish analogy & he was correct in doing so, not me. Then you in a feeble way try to blast him by saying, well, people need help while they learn to fish. Victorcharlie would do that, I have no doubt & we all knew what he meant.
Having grown up in poverty, I do not care for condenscension. I made the statement about wanting to know where you live because I have a hard time believing that in America an able bodied person would starve. We have been made fun of here in AR. for being hillbillies, I guess we have everyone fooled.Funny, the illegals come here or anywhere in America & in no time they are working. Why?

Once again you bring up not judgeing people & then judgeing me & even the Church I attend. You have been all over the board from the beginning.
I still believe the subject is "Entitlement Mentality", if you want to include
Big Block Chevy's, fine.
Neither of us are being forced to respond, right? So, your request sounds good to me. I guess if you want to do that, so will I.  

[victorcharlie]

Jesus tells us I am the truth.  We also know that the devil is one who serves to confuse, to lie and to deceive us.

The fight my brothers is not between those of us who believe but is between god and satan over us and our souls.
 
Satan works to disrupt the works of gods chuch and gods people.  What better way than to get to those of us who do love the lord  to fight among ourselves.  This is the reason there are so many different dominations inside the christian church.  We allow ourselves to get caught up in issues such as this one which divides us rather than strengthens us.

We are going no where by continuing this debate which, if it continues could serve a purpose that's not inspired by god.  I think we have all made our positions clear.

We all are here on this earth for one purpose and that is to glorify god.  As long as we think along these lines there is no wrong as god will judge us by reading the content of our heart as well as our work here on earth.  If your heart is pure then christians will have few problems with god come judgement day.  

Charity, or love is the greatest of all things.  Our work here will not be complete without the greatest of all things in our resume.  We are saved by the grace of god who knows what's in a mans heart.   As there is a time and a place for every purpose, some time growth occurs only through pain.  That same pain is what purifies us and make us open to change and thus growth.

Tolerate one more piece of scripture from the gospel of Matthew:

Mt 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

[Daks]

Of course you've undercut your own position. You stated that people can misinterpret Scripture. Who is to say you are not doing so? You assume that you are interpreting it correctly but then again, so did the folks who burned the Cathars alive in Southern France. There is no definitive interpretation of Scripture. There is only individual interpretation. That's why I don't think much of arguments that rely on it.

My position in all of this is that many people use their disagreement with the entitlement program to relieve themselves of any obligation to help their fellow man. They do exactly what you are doing - declare the recipients unworthy and wash their hands of the problem.

If Jesus did that to us, where would we be? So maybe we ought not to do it to ourselves.

You also make an extremely large assumption about me, that I was able-bodied at that time. I was not. Try putting aside the preconceived notions of who you might be speaking with and making arguments based on those assumptions.

As for judging you, I'm just giving you a taste of what you've been handing out. If it tastes bad, try avoiding it yourself and maybe your own attitudes won't come back to haunt you.

Entitlements are a form of state-sponsored charity. If you don't think that a discussion about charity in general is relevant to a discussion about state-sponsored charity, I'm a bit perplexed. That's kind of like saying a comment about food generally is irrelevant to a topic devoted to eating out. My point is that when people want to opt out of state-sponsored charity, they oftentimes relieve themselves of any obligation towards charity whatsoever and I find that to be not in keeping with the message of Jesus as I understand it.

Seems pretty much within the bounds of a discussion of entitlements to me. If you don't agree, no one is forcing you to respond to me.

[Daks]

Sounds good to me, victorcharlie. I was composing while you were writing. I'm done here.

BTW, the Beatitudes were always one of my favorite parts of Scripture. That and the part of Revelation about the new Jerusalem, when every tear will be wiped away, really move me.

Out.

[Graybeard]

I believe we have more than enough places to discuss religion, let's use them for that. This topic is about Entitlements aka "hand outs" as opposed to a" hand up". Let's try to get it back on topic. This is a POLITICAL discussion NOT a religious one.

[Questor]

I'm entitled to own guns. Does that mean that we should have a new tax that takes my money and gives it to somebody else so they can buy guns too, or should the government use my money to buy the guns directly and then dole them out to the needy?

How would this work? is it like a gun version of a WIC coupon where you can only use the coupon to buy guns (but not ammo) and after you have the gun then you don't get any more gun stamps, but start getting ammo stamps?  Or should they get one box of defense ammo when they get the gun, and then only get ammo when they redeem their ammo and range time stamps at the shooting range?

The questions here are complex enough to make any bureaucrat slaver and drool over the infinite administrative possibilities.

How much would a Ruger P95 cost the taxpayer under such a plan? I'm thinking about $20,000 each.  Sound about right to you?

[victorcharlie]

Questor, the government has plenty of rifles.  You really want one?  I can tell you how to go get one but it might include an all expenses paid trip to an exotic foriegn land!

[Georgian]

I agree Greybeard. I was like, WTH? lol How in the world did a post on entitlement to holdouts and such get turned into a post about religion? Beats the heck outta me, lol.

[nomosendero]

Daks
I love it! You don't want me to respond but you want to respond, OK.

To say people can misinterpret does not mean I did or anyone else did & we did not & that is flawed reasoning at best. But if you want to PM me  &
show with facts where I did, I will let it be known to everyone here. in a Bible Study thread.Your statement  is false. However if that's what you  
want to believe, that is no problem to me.

Graybeard
Thanks Graybeard, when I saw the first "religious" post, whether I thought it was correct or not, I should have ignored it, given it the treatment it deserved. I apologize.

Daks, You judged me again by saying that I have washed my hands of the
whole matter. You say you justified by saying I judged you, in other words
2 wrongs making a right, I guess. But if you look at my first post on this matter, I said I did not know YOUR situation, but in general people can work & that is a correct statement. If you look at the post, I did NOT judge
you as I not only did not know your situation but also stated that we are all down at one time or another, I have been too & finally pulled through.
You say now that you were not able bodied while you were on Welfare &
I made a huge assumption that you were. Can you refer me to that post?
No, I & most likely everyone here believe in aid to those who aren't
physically able.

Instead of washing my hands of it, I look for opportunities to help others.
Could I do more, most likely. Sometimes  I want to buy something for my family or buy myself a gun, so maybe I am weak at times, but I try hard
to help others either physically or with money.

I think that most people on this thread are giving people. I have not seen ANY evidence from anyone indicating that they would not want to help those who are trully in need & that could not help themselves.

State Sponsored Charity, nice liberal term but very inaccurate as the system robs from some to give to those who can easily work along with a
few who trully need it. Doesn't sound like charity to me. This is why our Founders did not impose such a system, knowing that citizens can figure who is trully needy & help them. A gov. system will allways be laced with
corruption & is only income redistribution.
Is it charity to encourage some to have more kids to get a bigger check?
Is it charity to take money from the achiever & GIVE to the non-achiever.
Is it charity to encourage some to stay in this system.
Is it charity to pay for the education of some & the middle income folks
can't afford to send their kids to college while paying for the others.
Is it charity that so many can claim disability, but not have any serious health issues, but others who have a bad back have to work & pay for these others.
I could go on & on

Nope, does not look like Charity to me. Charity is helping those that you
can within your means to do so.

But yes, the country does have an entitlement mentality, what can the
Gov. do for me or what can my employer do for me, instead of asking
what Pres. Kennedy asked long ago. What can you do for your country.

[rifleman61]

You are entitled to what it is you can pay for and nothing more
You are not entitled to what it is I can pay for
If I take a dollar out of my pocket and give it to the poor, I have by that act performed an act of Christian charity and am commended for it, hopefully.  If I take that same dollar out of the pocket of somone else and perform that same act of charity I have not done "charity"; I am principal, though, an act of theft.
The"Liberal" never cease to amaze me; they politicize morality, and moralize politics.

Anchor's away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

[rifleman61]

I am convinced that if the late President John F. Kennedy were alive today he would be a Republican.  This party of Marxists, Communists, and terrorists enablers is absolutely in no ways shapes or forms the party of Truman or Kennedy.  It is a party of elitists and professional academics that long ago separated itself in an intellectual apartheid from the WASP working  and middle classes that made it  dynamic.

Anchor's away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

[nomosendero]

So true Sir, on both counts!

[victorcharlie]

Neither party is the party of the working man.   Special interest money buys a politician who then works to serve that interest.  Both parties engage in this in order to have the money necessary to get reelected and special interest gives money to both sides.  Special interest doesn't care who wins, just that there interest is served.  

For example, Root and Carlson, a Texas oil company, contributed heavily to Lyndon Johnsons senate campain in the late 1940's.   After Johnson was elected the Texas oil interest instructed Johnson to get rid of Leland Olds, chairman of the Federal power commission.  Johnson got himself named chairman of the committie and begain a smear campain to oust Leland Olds who was considered unfriendly to Texas oil interest.  Johnson did this to convince the Texas oil men he would comply provided they continue to contribute to his reelection fund.

http://www.basinelectric.com/NewsCenter/News/FeaturedArticles/Who_was_Leland_Olds.html

There is no party that is a party "of the people, by the people and for the people".

[rifleman61]

Yes there are such things as "special interests"; that is the way the system of entrepreneurial free market capitolism works.  If you think that absolutely anybody, "lobbyist" or elected government official, goes into government for altruistic reasons for "humane" and social responsibility" well then you better think again because you are not "thinking" at all.  That is not the way Republican democratic government works, not from Washington to this present day.  it is absolutely about "the money".    Those who go about crying "power to the people" are really saying "power to the people who go about crying power to the people".  Money buys cachet' to power; money and power buys privilege.  Just what the heck do you think its all about?  Absolutely no one works like a dog whether they are an investment banker or a harried "cabinetmaker", 62 years old, for the supposed glory of it or to make a social statement.  That is asininity and sophmoric reasoning; the Mother Theresas are Saintly and thankfully few and far between.  "They" work to get money so that they can buy time and privilege and nothing less.  Those who will "not" work as well as those who "cannot" work msut content themselves with "personnel charity" or the leavings of legislation that we are forced to pass, and if that's not enough well well "my boyo" it's time to go to work.   Money without power is defensless and power without money is hollow.  the tools are there for anybody to exploit; the history books of this country are too long and voluminous illustrating that point for it to be otherwise.


Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

[dukkillr]

Did you know that a Congressman is exempt from any crime or intent to commit inside trading

Alright, I'll bite... can you cite any legal authority on this?  While I know only one semester worth of SEC law, this doesn't sound right.

[dukkillr]

then there's this, which seems to contradict what you're saying:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092301811.html

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/wa03_baird/BizWeek121605.html

You stated your claim like it was law, I suspect it's not.  I'd think you should have a law to quote or present your claim as opinion.

Congressmen are absolutely eligible for prosecution if they personally benefit from inside information.  That seems to contradict what you're saying right there.

[dukkillr]

So, just so we're sure here, you're not capable of offering support for something you claimed that seems to be wrong, incomplete, or misleading?  You're also not in agreement that Sen. Frist was investigated for a crime you said he was immune from?  Certainly there are other news publications that reported that well known story.  I could post others, but I'd still like to see proof of your claim.

This has nothing to do with entitlements, but I grow frustrated with the use of anecdotal evidence to support something.  Even worse than that is misleading or incorrect anecdotal evidence.

[rifleman61]

I am finished with this string of supposed "debate".
Any argument presented to you as a point of debate eventually winds up in some sort of trashbin of anecdotal evidence, or "ad hominem" against the military, or anybody else that disagrees with you. I am telling you directly that from the tone and text of your presents that you are a failure and that "bottom line" you are jealous and envious of those who have made a successful venture into the free market.  I find that it is a characteristic of the intellectually corrupt and the corruption of liberalism  as a general remark that somehow justifies the feeling that in order for themselves to feel good or successful that the "rich guy" has gotta' take it in the shorts cause he "stole it from me".  Your interpretation of everything from capitiolism to the spirit of entrepreneurial free market capitolism is flawed and will not allow of a reasonable debate on any subject, because you view any success as a zero sum game.  I have suffered your dreck on the military and will tell you bluntly that you would not last five minutes on a good day onboard a USN ship or as part of a Marine Corps fire team.  Most of my 19 years old firemen would have you for lunch before lunch, and not break a sweat.
Some one brings up "entitlements" and you want to talk about Senator Frist.  That's not how you hold a debate.  if you want to compare apples to apples then compare them top each other; don't compare apples to dump trucks.

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

[dukkillr]

I am finished with this string of supposed "debate".
Any argument presented to you as a point of debate eventually winds up in some sort of trashbin of anecdotal evidence, or "ad hominem" against the military, or anybody else that disagrees with you. I am telling you directly that from the tone and text of your presents that you are a failure and that "bottom line" you are jealous and envious of those who have made a successful venture into the free market. I find that it is a characteristic of the intellectually corrupt and the corruption of liberalism as a general remark that somehow justifies the feeling that in order for themselves to feel good or successful that the "rich guy" has gotta' take it in the shorts cause he "stole it from me". Your interpretation of everything from capitiolism to the spirit of entrepreneurial free market capitolism is flawed and will not allow of a reasonable debate on any subject, because you view any success as a zero sum game. I have suffered your dreck on the military and will tell you bluntly that you would not last five minutes on a good day onboard a USN ship or as part of a Marine Corps fire team. Most of my 19 years old firemen would have you for lunch before lunch, and not break a sweat.
Some one brings up "entitlements" and you want to talk about Senator Frist. That's not how you hold a debate. if you want to compare apples to apples then compare them top each other; don't compare apples to dump trucks.

I'm confused, I only joined this debate recently, and only discussed the claim that congressmen are immune from insider trading.  Perhaps you're thinking of someone else?  I only posted a link to Frist to refute the claim that the legislators are immune from SEC regulations.  Think of it as a sub-debate, or actually think of it as someone calling TM7 on a claim that isn't true.

With respect to entitlements you and I are in agreement, which makes this whole thing even more strange.

Your personal claims and assumptions are as wrong as they are ignorant.  I can't think of a reason to get into "who can eat who for lunch (although I suspect a 19 year old fireman can eat anyone on this board for lunch)" and who is "jealous" or "envious" or even who has been a "failure".  Personal claims only make you look desperate.  Even if you're talking about someone else there is no reason for this to happen, especially from someone who prides himself in his "debating".

[dukkillr]

Did you know that a Congressman is exempt from any crime or intent to commit inside trading

This seems to imply a legal exemption.  You didn't say, "Did you know that a Congressman will never be prosecuted for insider trading."

You're obviously smart enough to know what your statement says, I don't know what the dancing is about.

[DakotaElkSlayer]

Why do people who've not invested in themselves in the form of education or job training feel they should be paid a living wage at whatever job they might have, rather than what the market would dictate their limited skills should be worth?

Huh?  You didn't really type this with a straight face, did you?  Hmmm...ya, great idea!  Let the market dictate the wages with 12,000,000 illegals in this country and hundreds more coming in everyday.  Sure, all of us with a good education are sitting fat and happy, but what if we start getting flooded with educated illegals?!  Would you still be preaching about the market dictating your wage when there's a couple of guys from India willing to do your job at half your wage?

Jim

[nomosendero]

Goes back to entitlements, doen't it. The illegals feel they are entitled but
they are illegal. Yes, we must deal with it, if not soon, it won't matter.

[victorcharlie]

Why do people who've not invested in themselves in the form of education or job training feel they should be paid a living wage at whatever job they might have, rather than what the market would dictate their limited skills should be worth?

Huh?  You didn't really type this with a straight face, did you?  Hmmm...ya, great idea!  Let the market dictate the wages with 12,000,000 illegals in this country and hundreds more coming in everyday.  Sure, all of us with a good education are sitting fat and happy, but what if we start getting flooded with educated illegals?!  Would you still be preaching about the market dictating your wage when there's a couple of guys from India willing to do your job at half your wage?

Jim

Enter the New World Order.  Every day we see more and more jobs going to India, China, and others.  It doesn't bother the guys at the top because they're "divisafied".........they're invested across the globe.

If you think the Republicans or democrats give a hoot about the little guy in America all you have to do is watch the political postureing going on in Washington over the new imigration bill.  

In a couple of days we've watched the bill go from a fence at the border to making the illegals legal.  If this doesnt' convice you that washington is out of touch with the people I don't know what will.

CLEARLY, PROFIT MOTIVATED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LESS POWERFUL.

[Awf Hand]

>Huh? You didn't really type this with a straight face, did you? >Hmmm...ya, great idea! Let the market dictate the wages with >12,000,000 illegals in this country and hundreds more coming in >everyday.

-I did type it with a straight face, but I couldn't stop laughing as I read your response!!


First off, the illegals are here illegally i.e. against the law, and they shouldn't be working here at all.  Their employers should be socked with fines so hard that they wouldn't even think about hiring them.  Turn them into hot potatoes.

Secondly,
If you've done so poorly for yourself that the 12 million uneducated from a third world country are able to take "your" job, maybe you deserve what you get.  You were handed K-12 education and had countless opportunities for college (and scholorships) available, and an illegal is picking vegetables or shovelling dirt that you should be... Is that right??  Please don't tell me you've squandered your gifts of education to the extent that someone who speaks very little English, and came from an impoverished, uneducated background can dictate "your" wages.  Say it isn't so..


>Sure, all of us with a good education are sitting fat and happy, but what >if we start getting flooded with educated illegals?!

See "First off..." above and "Finally..." below.

>>Would you still be preaching about the market dictating your wage >when there's a couple of guys from India willing to do your job at half >your wage?  

   
That's really funny because I trained under a gentleman from Ishapore.  He owned the company and made at least 5 times what I did when I worked there.  I now own a company that requires educated individuals trained in local, State, and Federal Law, for localized development projects.  

Finally, if someone is willing to take on the liability of my work for half my wage, it will be short-lived, as they would have enough education to realize what the services are worth, or they wouldn't have enough education to complete the tasks.

[DakotaElkSlayer]

Reread my post....S  L  O  W  E  R  this time.  At no time was I discussing illegals taking jobs, I was talking about illegals creating a surplus of labor.  This LOWERS wages as a business owning prodigy, such as yourself, surely already knows.

Oh ya, I really enjoyed that smug tone in your last post!  Oh ya, I couldn't be as well educated as a 21 year old business owner. :-D  Maybe one day you will enlighten me on the unified field theory! :-D  :-D  :-D

Jim

[Awf Hand]

I read the post slowly and what I understood was this:

>Let the market dictate the wages with 12,000,000 illegals in this country >and hundreds more coming in everyday

and more recently, this:

>At no time was I discussing illegals taking jobs, I was talking about >illegals creating a surplus of labor.

If they working in the market i.e. performing labor, wouldn't they be doing (or taking) jobs?  Wouldn't someone be committing a crime by hiring them?  Aren't they (the illegals) committing a crime by being here?

This isn't the real market, it's the black market (of labor), and doesn't really apply to this post of entitlements.  Current and past administrations may disagree but, I don't feel anyone is entitled to break the law.

I'm not 21 years old.  I haven't been for a good long time.  I recently found the "profiles" portion of the login, and thought it would be fun to be "21 again" under the age portion of my post.  The profile doesn't give me any option other than birthdate so, with careful arithmetic, I figured out what year that'd be.  I'll remove the age from my profile, if you can modify your profile to reflect a known gender.  

Unified field theory...  Let's just say it's all relative.   :-D

I'm no prodigy, I've had to work too hard to wear that label.

[superhornet]

Vote for a Democrat, it is easier than getting a job......

[victorcharlie]

Vote for a Democrat, it is easier than getting a job......

Do you really think it matters which of the 2 parties are in power?  There isn't a nickles worth of difference between the two other than the "smoke screen" issues we are concerned about.  Just like a good feight play in football, they fake up the middle, and then run around the end.  

I'm voting libertairan.....I might throw my vote away, but neither choice pleases me so I might as well try to get their attention.

[nomosendero]

Victorcharlie
In many ways there is very little difference, but the Democraps are the Welfare Party. But the current Pres. has Democrap spending habits too,
so I see your point.
A big diff. is gun control & no one can argue they are the same there. The instant the Dems. have control of Congress & the Oval Office, whether it
is sooner or later, they will make their gun-grabbing presence known, count on it!
The Republicans are pulling us down, but the Socialist Democraps do that
at warp speed.
It is the difference between bad & horrible to me. I would do what I can to help someone that would have a chance as a third party can., only if they have a chance at all, but not at the expense of getting a loser like Kerry or Kennedy in office.

[victorcharlie]

Nomo, I've never voted for a Democrat in a general election.  I'm so, very disappointed in the Republican party.  We give them the whitehouse, the house, and senate and what do they do?  Forget about the middle class that got them there and start wire tapping phones and pulling sneak and peak searches.  They talk about being tough on terror and quietly allow 12 million  illegal aliens in the country and then talk about rewarding their behavior by making them citizens.   The tax payers subsidize the illegals so the rich  can benefit by cheap labor while telling us we'll all be better off because of it.   They talk about liberty but tell us to sacrafice it for security.  At the same time they grow the government at an astronomical rate and run the debt to 9 trillion dollars.

I have been hood winked by scoundels.  WE HAVE ALL BEEN LIED TO AND DECIEVED! :shock:

Gun control,abortion, and gay rights are smoke screens to hide the real agenda which is to give up US Soverignty for the sake of a one world government which benefits the rich and enslaves the poor while eliminating the middle class.

Over the past few months I've read the articles of the Confederation, I've read the Declaration of Independance.   I've read the Madison debates, I've read the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution.  I've read the Communist Manefesto and Chairman Mao's little red book.

The government most of us think we have isn't any where close to what we're suppose to have or think we have.  We have only the liberty the Federal government wants us to have.  Nothing more.

I can no longer continue to pick my poison and choose between 2 parties who's concern are diversified all over the world and embraces "globalization", and who's only interest lies in lining the pockets of their friends at the sake of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the less powerful and less affluent.  It's clear they are not working for the good of the common man and have become the very thing that my 7th great grandfather indentured himself for the term of  4 years and risked life and limb sailing across the ocean to get away from.

We think a third party doesn't have a chance.  The only power we have is at the ballot box.  I say it's time put someone in who might be interested in the rights of man, and hope we can get back to what our forefathers dreams of.  Pardon my rant.......