Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 11/29/2016 3:50:32 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:


That's because they believe the crap they hear and actually know very little of how the Christian church here acts.


Maybe. But put it this way: it's next to impossible to imagine someone with Mike Pence's views reaching a similar position of power here. He'd never have the required support.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 11/29/2016 4:04:25 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		Sometimes the shades of puritanism in the US today equal those of the english civil war.
I think we have been exposed to way to many evangelical and tv healers more than any other "congregation" in the UK
I have actually been in a couple of congregations and churches in the US. Catholic and "Christian" altho not regularly. The Catholic mass was in latin, beautiful.
Of course there are so many churches and so many denominations, even americans dont "know" what 80% of them are like either.


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 11/29/2016 4:50:29 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


That's because they believe the crap they hear and actually know very little of how the Christian church here acts.


Maybe. But put it this way: it's next to impossible to imagine someone with Mike Pence's views reaching a similar position of power here. He'd never have the required support.

Tony Blair wasn't far off Pence's level of self-righteous piety, and while I'm sure some would argue that he was playing that up some to endear himself to George the Second, it looks like it was innate given that the first thing he did when he ceased to be Prime Minister was convert to Catholicism.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 11/29/2016 5:19:19 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Tony Blair wasn't far off Pence's level of self-righteous piety, and while I'm sure some would argue that he was playing that up some to endear himself to George the Second, it looks like it was innate given that the first thing he did when he ceased to be Prime Minister was convert to Catholicism.


Doing that after he was PM makes a big difference, though. Also, he didn't sign any draconian religious freedom bills into law that promoted discrimination against LGBT people nor claim that gay partnerships were indicative of societal collapse. He didn't support anti-abortion legislation and accepted the theory of evolution. More crooked perhaps, but less mad, basically.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 11/29/2016 5:22:10 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline 		How would you define him establishing those bloody faith schools, then? It's been suggested a few times that the reason the academy system is so shitawful is to encourage parents to stick their kids into those things instead.

< Message edited by WhoreMods -- 11/29/2016 5:23:04 AM >

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 11/29/2016 5:39:19 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

All of the "Christians" I have met (except for the nuns I met as a child) werent very christian and they were hypocrites..

And the ones here certainly aren't any better. They are some of the most hateful, closed-minded people I've ever encountered.


like I have said numerous times, its only when you are allowed to re-define words to suit your own purposes can you get away with stuff like that.

also, sorry---having certain standards for living is not being "close-minded" (as if being "open-minded" was automatically a virtue??), its considering X and rejecting it based on values one holds dear.


(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 11/29/2016 3:12:53 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
If that were true then all of the people who voted for Hillary would have solved the homeless problem in this country all by themselves by now. Talk is cheap.

Sorry babe, but that just does not follow.

Yes it does. If the left advocates feeding the poor... etc... then by their actions they would put forth their own money, homes, clothes and solve these problems. Jesus always preached about the actions of individuals. He never said to have the government do it.


No, Lefties don't advocate feeding the poor, exactly. They advocate for government to feed the poor.

But, to wit, who wants the poor to go hungry? Anyone?
Who wants anyone to go without needed medical care? Anyone?

Of course not. What Lefties and Righties disagree on, is how we best feed the poor, and how we best ensure that necessary medical care isn't out of reach.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 11/29/2016 4:13:26 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline 		and desi---to merge what you just posted with what I posted just previous...everyplace ive ever been, its the Christians, either formally, or informally, who are running the food pantries and the homeless shelters.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 11/30/2016 8:35:58 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		and I see many run by non-xtians, or not as xtian based shelters or pantries.
The largest in the US are certainly not xtian based.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 12/1/2016 3:37:29 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


That's because they believe the crap they hear and actually know very little of how the Christian church here acts.


Maybe. But put it this way: it's next to impossible to imagine someone with Mike Pence's views reaching a similar position of power here. He'd never have the required support.


I am not sure what that has to do with it. The church didn't elect the man, it was the people who decided it was worth their time to get out and vote. And while some of those people do go to church, not all do and they don't all have the same beliefs so they wouldn't necessarily vote for the same person anyway. If fact had the election been held only at my church, people would be practicing the phrase "madame president" and others would be getting ready to be called a "women hater" every time they disagreed with her because the majority of the people who go there are on the left.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 12/1/2016 7:32:20 AM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

All of the "Christians" I have met (except for the nuns I met as a child) werent very christian and they were hypocrites..

And the ones here certainly aren't any better. They are some of the most hateful, closed-minded people I've ever encountered.
Coming from you, that's irony right there.


_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 12/1/2016 9:44:15 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
If that were true then all of the people who voted for Hillary would have solved the homeless problem in this country all by themselves by now. Talk is cheap.

Sorry babe, but that just does not follow.

Yes it does. If the left advocates feeding the poor... etc... then by their actions they would put forth their own money, homes, clothes and solve these problems. Jesus always preached about the actions of individuals. He never said to have the government do it.


No, Lefties don't advocate feeding the poor, exactly. They advocate for government to feed the poor.

But, to wit, who wants the poor to go hungry? Anyone?
Who wants anyone to go without needed medical care? Anyone?

Of course not. What Lefties and Righties disagree on, is how we best feed the poor, and how we best ensure that necessary medical care isn't out of reach.

You are correct, Des. The Left opts for government agency action while the Right favors private voluntary donations to agencies of charity.

Then the donors can deduct their gifts from their income taxes . . . .

And the Government pays anyway.

Not to mention that the staff and CEOs of some of the charities take a larger slice of the funds then do the staff and heads of the Gov Agencies.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 12/1/2016 9:52:28 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		And the reasons governments had to take over from "charitable" giving, is that charitable giving, wasnt enough to cover the problems, in any sense of the word.


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 12/4/2016 9:47:31 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
If that were true then all of the people who voted for Hillary would have solved the homeless problem in this country all by themselves by now. Talk is cheap.

Sorry babe, but that just does not follow.

Yes it does. If the left advocates feeding the poor... etc... then by their actions they would put forth their own money, homes, clothes and solve these problems. Jesus always preached about the actions of individuals. He never said to have the government do it.

No, Lefties don't advocate feeding the poor, exactly. They advocate for government to feed the poor.
But, to wit, who wants the poor to go hungry? Anyone?
Who wants anyone to go without needed medical care? Anyone?
Of course not. What Lefties and Righties disagree on, is how we best feed the poor, and how we best ensure that necessary medical care isn't out of reach.

You are correct, Des. The Left opts for government agency action while the Right favors private voluntary donations to agencies of charity.
Then the donors can deduct their gifts from their income taxes . . . .
And the Government pays anyway.
Not to mention that the staff and CEOs of some of the charities take a larger slice of the funds then do the staff and heads of the Gov Agencies.


That's only if you hold the belief that income is government's in the first place.

Another way to look at it, is that income is the people's and anything being paid for by the government is really, "and the taxpayers pay anyway."

The biggest disagreement between government taking people's income to take care of the poor is more about it not being the choice of the people, completely opposite charity.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 12/4/2016 11:17:21 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
If that were true then all of the people who voted for Hillary would have solved the homeless problem in this country all by themselves by now. Talk is cheap.

Sorry babe, but that just does not follow.

Yes it does. If the left advocates feeding the poor... etc... then by their actions they would put forth their own money, homes, clothes and solve these problems. Jesus always preached about the actions of individuals. He never said to have the government do it.

No, Lefties don't advocate feeding the poor, exactly. They advocate for government to feed the poor.
But, to wit, who wants the poor to go hungry? Anyone?
Who wants anyone to go without needed medical care? Anyone?
Of course not. What Lefties and Righties disagree on, is how we best feed the poor, and how we best ensure that necessary medical care isn't out of reach.

You are correct, Des. The Left opts for government agency action while the Right favors private voluntary donations to agencies of charity.
Then the donors can deduct their gifts from their income taxes . . . .
And the Government pays anyway.
Not to mention that the staff and CEOs of some of the charities take a larger slice of the funds then do the staff and heads of the Gov Agencies.


That's only if you hold the belief that income is government's in the first place.

Another way to look at it, is that income is the people's and anything being paid for by the government is really, "and the taxpayers pay anyway."

The biggest disagreement between government taking people's income to take care of the poor is more about it not being the choice of the people, completely opposite charity.

The income belongs to the people until such time the people wish to have rules, regulations, law, order, and safety. When those services are desired the people have to pay for them. Those fees (taxes) are income to the government.

It is easy to single out support for the poor for disapproval but the same does not apply, it seems, if the government decides to develop new weapons or to build new roads. Are they the choice of the people? Not necessarily. When Governor Pence offered a bribe of $7B to Carrier A/C was that the choice of the people?

Someone else rightly suggested above that private charities cannot meet the necessary demand.

So, no. Government is needed.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 12/4/2016 11:26:26 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline 		As far as the whole argument about Government usurping the correct role of charity goes, I'd suspect that charities get more rather than less donations as a result of tax dodgers wanting to look generous or salve their consciences.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times - 12/21/2016 7:44:44 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		The thing about identity politics is that it reflects the beliefs/fantasies of those making the labels. Those labeled don't act as a group.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 77
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.063