Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[pnewton]

• usually in tax dollars. So, I think it is Charity. Your money being used.

Taxes are not optional, though. A gift that is demanded is not gift. Resentment and Charity are mutually incompatible.

We can, however, support programs we believe helpful for our fellow man.

 

[fnz2thrght]

Taxes are not optional, though. A gift that is demanded is not gift. Resentment and Charity are mutually incompatible.

We can, however, support programs we believe helpful for our fellow man.

correct, wish as we do, they’re not optional. But my point is that if we’re voting into practice these programs, or we’re supporting these programs then we’re allowing ourselves to be taxed, therefore, not demanded. If I vote for a particular program to feed school children because I believe that it’s the right thing to do, then I have no right to complain about paying for it with my tax dollars. I should have no resentment in paying for a program which I support.

No?

 

[geraldffff]

Why are statements like this allowed to stay? Have you actually ever looked at the Massachusetts health curriculum? both my children attended public schools in MA and neither received any sort of “homosexual lifestyle” training. It’s laughable at best that you would make that assertion. Read the framework.

Yeah! Why is what is true allowed to be posted in this forum. Poor people are forced to send their children to public school and put up with the obnoxious indoctrination why the well to do can talk about charity and empower the pandering teachers unions who empower the homosexual agenda. Pretending something dose not exist dose not make it cease to exist. Its laughable at best that you ignore a serious problem when you are not personally effected by it and others have to suffer the consequence. Charitable?
A second-grade teacher in Massachusetts is under heat after reading to her class “King and King” – a children’s book about “gay marriage.” Photo Terms of Use
bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23077

 

[fnz2thrght]

This is a one time situation. Throw the baby out with the bath water. Good policy.

Its laughable at best that you ignore a serious problem when you are not personally effected by it and others have to suffer the consequence. Charitable?

How so? I live in MA. I have gay married people living on my street who’s children attend my school. The world has not ended, the sky has not fallen. Charitable? Yes, very. They came to our church BBQ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

correct, wish as we do, they’re not optional. But my point is that if we’re voting into practice these programs, or we’re supporting these programs then we’re allowing ourselves to be taxed, therefore, not demanded. If I vote for a particular program to feed school children because I believe that it’s the right thing to do, then I have no right to complain about paying for it with my tax dollars. I should have no resentment in paying for a program which I support.

No?

This leads us to be what I call couch potato Catholics – we sit on the couch, crunch chips, cheer for the team (or social program) we support – but **someone else **moves the ball.

Athletes, we’re not.

 

[geraldffff]

This is a one time situation. Throw the baby out with the bath water. Good policy.

How so? I live in MA. I have gay married people living on my street who’s children attend my school. The world has not ended, the sky has not fallen. Charitable? Yes, very. They came to our church BBQ.

Well good for you I hope and pray it works out for you but I will not hold my breath. In nature for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. With full prisons and rampant school slaughtering
killing of the babes and the old you might began to see the confusion that is caused when the laws of God are mocked. The acceptance of homosexuality as the norm Is part of the tip of the ice berg we now see emerging. btw how do you know you had a BBQ with homosexuals and their children if they did not rub your nose in it. Of coarse if your willing to accept it that is your choice but why should you and they force others and there little ones to experience something which is morally repugnant to them by making it part of a school curriculum. I won’t bother but I could provide you with volumes that show this is not an isolated incidence of homosexual activism in public schools, JUST ONE.
" homosexual activists are making significant inroads in US schools, as a booklet titled, “Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth,” is set to be distributed to all 16,000 school districts in the country.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022106.html
My children are now adults as are the kids they used to hang with and it is sad to see the damage that was done to the lives of their friends lives because of the confusion caused by the destructive message of homosexual activism. Many on the Right have shown their hypocrisy by supporting Mitt Romney the friend of homosexual activism. So best wishs to you and yours.

 

[cynic]

This leads us to be what I call couch potato Catholics – we sit on the couch, crunch chips, cheer for the team (or social program) we support – but **someone else **moves the ball.

Athletes, we’re not.

except that the couch potato earned the income that is being taxed. Some of us have to go to our place of employment during the day and don’t have a great deal of time for much else.

 

[rlg94086]

except that the couch potato earned the income that is being taxed. Some of us have to go to our place of employment during the day and don’t have a great deal of time for much else.

So, *give charitably *of they money you earned during that employment. Why should your personal act of charity be a vote to take other people’s money away from them for something you like? You can give of your time and/or your money. It is what we are all called to do.

I’m not saying that all taxation and government programs are evil or wrong, but they are not charitable giving. If we are to take care of the poor, as Christ commanded, we are doing so properly by taking personal action. When we face God at judgment and are asked what we did, I don’t think “well I didn’t give of my time or money, but I voted to take money from other people to help the poor” is going to cut it.

 

[cynic]

So, *give charitably *of they money you earned during that employment. Why should your personal act of charity be a vote to take other people’s money away from them for something you like?

.

perhaps because my money alone won’t ensure that anything happens. It depends on what you mean by government programs aswell. Is it essential services, or additional help.

 

[rlg94086]

perhaps because my money alone won’t ensure that anything happens.

I’m sorry, but I’m not following your logic. Are you saying that if you don’t have enough, it is okay to take from others? Why not charitably give what you can of your own time and resources and encourage your fellow Christians to charitably give what they can of their time and resources?

cynic:

It depends on what you mean by government programs aswell. Is it essential services, or additional help.

What depends on that?

 

[cynic]

I’m sorry, but I’m not following your logic. Are you saying that if you don’t have enough, it is okay to take from others?

That’s statement alone represents a libertarian point of view (in the economic sense), and libertarianism is a no compromise philosophy. It doesn’t matter how important this or that service is to society, if it involves taxation, taking from others, even if others benefit in the long term - then it is wrong. That would have us go back to the 19th century for the sake of a no-tax, no-government ideal. Yes I do think certain things warrent taking from others, like for eg the availability of education for children (which has been gone on about above) because such things should not be left purely to chance. Other services or government run programmes may not.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s statement alone represents a libertarian point of view (in the economic sense), and libertarianism is a no compromise philosophy.** It doesn’t matter how important this or that service is to society, if it involves taxation, taking from others, even if others benefit in the long term - then it is wrong**. That would have us go back to the 19th century for the sake of a no-tax, no-government ideal. Yes I do think certain things warrent taking from others, like for eg the availability of education for children (which has been gone on about above). Other services or government run programmes may not.

Are you reading my posts? I already stated the opposite of that:

I’m not saying that all taxation and government programs are evil or wrong, but they are not charitable giving

All I am saying is that you shouldn’t, as you have been in most of your posts, equate taxation and government programs with charity and the work of helping the poor which Jesus called us all to do. The only time Caeser and taxes came up was when someone thought they shouldn’t pay taxes in defiance of the law, and Jesus told him he should pay them. I don’t see anywhere in Jesus’ calls to take care of the less fortunate, where he tells us to lobby the senators in Rome to increase taxes and set up social welfare programs, but that is what liberals seem to want to believe.

cynic:

I don’t think giving to charity makes you any less of a ‘couch potato’ with regards to helping the poor anyway (how hard is signing a cheque?).

I agree…you should do much more, so quit with the excuses and get off your butt.

 

[vern_humphrey]

except that the couch potato earned the income that is being taxed. Some of us have to go to our place of employment during the day and don’t have a great deal of time for much else.

Actually, nearly half of workers don’t pay income tax.

And most couch potato Catholics I know fall into that category – they aren’t willing to put in the sweat and time to make more and pull their share of the load.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, nearly half of workers don’t pay income tax.

And most couch potato Catholics I know fall into that category – they aren’t willing to put in the sweat and time to make more and pull their share of the load.

A fact few people aret aware of. The problem is not that the rich dont pay enough-the problem is that 48% dont pay anything

 

[vern_humphrey]

A fact few people aret aware of. The problem is not that the rich dont pay enough-the problem is that 48% dont pay anything

And to those people I say, have you considered upgrading your skills, assuming more responsibility, working for promotion, and earning enough to pull your share of the load?

Hey, if that’s too harsh, couldn’t they at least put their hands on the traces while the rest of us strain and sweat to pull the load?

 

[BamaRider]

First Vern pointed out-

Actually, nearly half of workers don’t pay income tax.

And most couch potato Catholics I know fall into that category – they aren’t willing to put in the sweat and time to make more and pull their share of the load.

Then Estesbob added-

A fact few people aret aware of. The problem is not that the rich dont pay enough-the problem is that 48% dont pay anything

So Vern put this out-

And to those people I say, have you considered upgrading your skills, assuming more responsibility, working for promotion, and earning enough to pull your share of the load?

Hey, if that’s too harsh, couldn’t they at least put their hands on the traces while the rest of us strain and sweat to pull the load?

Now they’re sitting back gettin ready to get http://bestsmileys.com/shooting1/11.gif

Cause alooooooot folks don’t wanna hear that.

I’m gonna predict the following responses-

A. Vern and Estes don’t care about the little guy

B. The rich don’t pay enough as it is, because they cheat, rob from the working guy, so they need to get what’s coming to them.

C. They got theirs, and not worried about helping out their fellow man

D. The reason we have people in the service industries because rich folks keep them there. They gotta have folks flip the bugers for them, cut their grass, wash their cars, and clean their big houses.

And the list goes on.

Funny, how in one party’s economic formula I go from middle class to rich, and their tax policy has ME squarely in their sites, because if they get elected not renew the Bush tax cuts, and cost me about 2500 dollars in extra taxes, and the sad thing about that is, lot of folks will stand up and cheer when I gotta write that check.

 

[estesbob]

Funny, how in one party’s economic formula I go from middle class to rich, and their tax policy has ME squarely in their sites, because if they get elected not renew the Bush tax cuts, and cost me about 2500 dollars in extra taxes, and the sad thing about that is, lot of folks will stand up and cheer when I gotta write that check.

You forgot about the part where I am cursed for laying people off because they required to pay more for my employees insurance and forced me to pay more taxes on what my companies earn.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Isn’t it funny how people who pay no or low taxes, consider themselves holier than the people who work and earn the money? How they look down on those who pull the load, and never accept responsibility to pull their share?

 

[pnewton]

Now they’re sitting back gettin ready to get http://bestsmileys.com/shooting1/11.gif

Cause alooooooot folks don’t wanna hear that.

I’m gonna predict the following responses-

A**. Vern and Estes don’t care about the little guy**

B. The rich don’t pay enough as it is, because they cheat, rob from the working guy, so they need to get what’s coming to them.

C. They got theirs, and not worried about helping out their fellow man

Argue the politics, the solutions, but not the character.

 

[estesbob]

You might want to remove the beam from your own eye first. You can not stop other people from flaming, but you can temper your own comments and edit the slander out. There is no reason for the character assassination, especially when you base it on assumptions of the others state of heart. It is this very type of judgmentalism that we are warned against. Only God sees the heart and detemines such things as you post.

Argue the politics, the solutions, but not the character.

You’ve been around long enough to kow what he says is true.