Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

No argument from me... That was a poorly phrased tweet and he (Trump) should explain clearly what was meant... Or apogize...

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Thanks Kyle, I’ve already disclosed on this forum what a bad memory I have, it’s a serious handicap, so I appreciate very much you pointing that out about Rumi.

It does help put things in perspective for me.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Rumi, I don’t disagree with your last sentence. Like Kyle said, and I referred to in my first response, I’m not gaga about Trump. I’m actually quite suspicious of him. The reason? Again, my main concern is the children. Either I’m just not looking in the right place, or he isn’t doing enough to expose and eliminate child sex traffickers in this country.

I’m not so concerned with Trump’s “unpolishedness” because I don’t trust politicians who have to sugarcoat and script everything they say.

For decades I’ve said and believed that Democrats and Republicans were both tools in the hands of the elites, like burning a candle at both ends, to destroy America. I would not be surprised if that still isn’t the case with Trump, but, if so, the level of manipulative deception is mind boggling. On the other hand, what I see, is an unexplainable kind of blind submission on liberals, and wonder if it isn’t fair to ask, is the same level of deception being played against the conservatives and I’m being seduced into the same deception by my conservative values as well?

These are things rattling around in my head when I say I don’t consider myself part of Trump’s base.

So yes, maybe you and I have more in common than not, and we’re just coming to this discussion from artificially manufactured opposite ends of a certain spectrum.

Which makes our friend Kyle’s timely input so welcome at just that point! I very much appreciate and respect Kyle’s passion for not generalizing, hopefully more and more will rub off on me, but I come from a family of stubbornness (no excuse).

I actually started reading here at OPP with the hopes of understanding and hearing “both sides” of the debates. But I’ve gotten jaded. Your comments have restored some hope to me for open dialog if nothing else. Thanks for that!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

No problem Tommy...

Same thing happened to me the other day...

Another member reminded me of some past threads and the stances they had taken... I had forgotten and made some statements that were inaccurate....

Love your response just below the one you gave me... Couldn't agree more...We all get caught up in our own ideologies and start projecting and generalizing others...

The OPP certainly doesn't need more of that...

Take care and carry on the good fight...

And I agree that Teump (and all of congress... Plus other nations, like Canada) could do more to protect children.... Amen

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

You’re a good friend, Kyle!

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

The question rephrased: "when you l*****ts make socialism the law of the land, and make loving liberty and this country’s founding principles illegal to express and defend, and then force compliance at the end of a gun, who will be the f*****ts then?

rumitoid

Thank you and I deeply appreciate you being so open and tolerant. You have a good mind and soul. Your presence here my very well help turn the tide from its often strident d******eness. And, yes, Kyle has been a great diplomat, really a statesman, in all this.

I agree with your general assessment of the two parties being "both tools in the hands of the elites, like burning a candle at both ends, to destroy America." Lobbyist, Big Money, Pork, and re-e******n seem the working triumvirate of concern for our representatives, though I do feel there are some who are so persuaded but cannot come up with a name.

The temptation to comment on what you call Trump's "unpolishedness” I will avoid.

Look forward to good and honest debate with you.
Tom

rumitoid

Nobody wants socialism; it is anathema to the human spirit and does not work. Social programs are not--repeat, NOT--Socialism, not anywhere close. To suggest that I or any liberal want to "make loving liberty and this country’s founding principles illegal to express and defend, and then force compliance at the end of a gun" is absurd. This is a fringe fanatic statement. From my perspective, I could say that is what the Right wants. If the Left wants to supposedly take away all guns, where is the gun you mentioned to force compliance? The Right wants the guns and wants them with any real controls. Who would have the guns to force compliance? Read the definition as to your last question.

"F*****m (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." Who will be the f*****ts then?

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

It's refreshing to have an actual conversation with you, being as we both claim to be on the proverbial "other side of the aisle. Of course, maybe that's because we agree that maybe somewhere in the middle of the aisle more accurately defines our positions? Lol

"Nobody wants socialism"? Give me a break! You don't know about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their rising following? Do you have to hide your head in the sand to legitimize your stance? How can we have a real discussion if we ignore or sugar coat facts?

I totally agree that there is a big difference between socialism and social programs. For me, I think a case from the Bible explains the difference very well. That is the story of Ananias and Sapphira from Acts 5. They sold some land and claimed to donate all the proceeds to the congregation for the common good. The problem is, they lied because they held back some of the money for themselves. They wanted the honor and praise of men for a total self-sacrifice of their worldly possessions without actually making such a sacrifice. But that wasn't the main point I want to make, rather, it was Peter's response, when he said, 4“While it remained unsold, ->did it not remain your own<-? And after it was sold, ->was it not under your control?<- Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5:4).

The point is, there is a huge difference between free-will giving and coerced and forced giving. The problem with Democrats claiming they are benevolent is that they must first take (steal) from others what isn't theirs to give, and then they pretend like they are generous! (Which, again, is the tyranny of the 51% I spoke of previously). Such is the same type of lie as Ananias and Sapphira were guilty of, but even worse! At least Ananias and Sapphira weren't commandeering other people's money, and then putting themselves in power where they could reap more power and even more money by being the ones to manage and direct where that money is to go. How come it is that people like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, etc, not only take on positions of power of dictating where the money goes, but also get richer and richer in the mean time?

The "point of a gun" statement I was referring to was in the hands of the police to enforce the social policies of big government. Try reframing from donating to the politically mandated "social programs" (i.e. Taxes) and tell me if no one with a gun, or backed by those with guns (i.e. Police or other law enforcement agents) shows up to enforce compliance.

So, it appears obvious to me, that the only difference in "socialism" and "social programs" as practiced by Democrats, is that they call what they are actually doing (socialism) something else (social programs) so that they can hide and mask (i.e. lie about) what they are really doing.

The fact is, America had much greater social programs, based on voluntary giving, than have yet been imposed by the government. In fact, "governmentally imposed social programs" (socialism by another name) destroys all those other voluntary programs and their benefits!

To this I would add some things that Dennis Prager pointed out at CPAC:

~~~~~~
Dennis Prager's Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse.

https://youtu.be/Uj9qvBwOeMA

"We measure morality by what happens, not what is intended. Very big distinction between us..."

"Ten failings of progressive policies on the character of a society..."

"#1 The bigger the government the less citizens do for one another."
"Why is that superior?"
"Socialism destroys all alternatives to state welfare."


"#2 The welfare state may be well intended, but it is a Ponzi scheme"
"It will collapse like every Ponzi scheme does."
"Means well and creates something destructive. That is what liberalism is: means well and destroys."

"#3 Citizens of welfare states become increasingly narcissistic."


"#4 The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work." 13:49

"#5 Nothing guarantees the erosion of character [more] than getting something for nothing" 15:44
"Dignity is not a big deal on the left. E******y is big, but not dignity. There is no dignity in having others pay for you. It is humiliating..."

"#6 The bigger the government the bigger the corruption." 19:10
"Who has committed the greatest evils of history...? Big governments; big secular governments...Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Polpot, all big states..."
"Why would anybody trust the big state?..."
"More people have been k**led by governments than by anything else in history, and just in the 20th century alone, and none of them were religious. You don't learn that in college, comes as a shock to my listener..."

"Big corporations are not conservative. GE is not conservative... The head of GE is a big time pro Democrat liberal. They have invented this notion that big business is conservative, it never was..."


"#7 The welfare state corrupts family life."
"The biggest single part of the problem in the inner city, where women began to look to the state for a husband instead of to a man for a husband. The big state has a terrible impact..."

"#8 The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults."
~~~~~

So, Rumi, what advantages do you see that forced social programs have over voluntary social programs, that would outweigh all these negatives, not only Prager's points, but mine also?

rumitoid

I like what Jesus said about taxes, and two things should be noted. First, Roman taxes on the Jews were crushing, onerous; families could barely feed themselves. Second, the Romans used those monies for things the Jews saw as breaking the Commandments of God, such as maintaining temples that honored false gods and was used for their own suppression. Imagine the enormity of Jesus not rending his clothing and calling on the wrath of God but saying, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are God's." It is my feeling that although Jesus avoided the trap by the Scribes to put him in Rome's cross-hairs that day, that remark went a long way to seal his fate.

Taxes aren't stealing. Without taxes, we would be a Second or Third World Country. Hoover Dam would never have been built. The great highway system that brought us into the 20th Century would never have been built. Before Social Security, old people had to work until they died or starved to death. It is an established fact that during recessions, those on Social Security keep the economy going.

As far as what a few points by Prager pointed out about Welfare recipients, most poor people who avail themselves of a U.S. government safety net program are off benefits within three years, according to a government survey that tracked individual people over time. Of the one-in-five Americans who participated in a program like Medicaid or food stamps from 2009 through 2012, the Census Bureau reported this week, 56 percent stopped participating within 36 months, while 43 percent lingered between three and four years. Nearly one-third quit receiving benefits within one year. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/public-benefits-safety-net_n_7470060.html

Curious you quote Prager. I work for a Christian TV station. My job is to maintain, edit, revise, convert, and update our playlist of on air shows. I also do research to find suitable Christian shows and coordinate getting them into our program. A month and a half ago I added Prager to our program. I take his 5:25 (app) mini-lectures and put them at the start of other our popular shows, then return viewers to the show already in progress. He gets aired four times a week. Despite that, I can easily take issue with those eight points.

The Really Blatant Lies About Welfare That People Actually Believe:

1. ‘I*****l i*******ts take advantage of the system.’

2. ‘People on welfare don’t work.’

3. ‘Minorities dominate the welfare rolls.’

4. ‘They’re buying steak and lobster.’

5. ‘You can live big on welfare.’

6. ‘Once people get on welfare, they stay on it for life.’

7. ‘Welfare people just do drugs and cash checks.’

8. ‘These welfare queens drive Cadillacs.’

9. ‘Blue states are great for welfare queens.’
https://www.c***tsheet.com/money-career/the-really-blatant-lies-about-welfare-that-people-actually-believe.html/

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Interesting that you deflected from acknowledging or addressing the corrupt and evil nature of “social program” politicians themselves (left or right, I might add) and chose to double down in defending or at least justifying them and their programs. Can corrupt people really implement truly good programs?

Likewise that you would attempt to use the sayings of Jesus to do so. A lot of people jump to false conclusions because they don’t take the whole bible account into consideration, and that's what you've done in claiming Jesus supported taxes. Actually, he no more supported the Jews paying taxes to Caesar than he advocated the legal death penalty on the adulterous woman! What was happening in both cases was that they were trying to trap Jesus and he outsmarted them in dilemmas they couldn’t escape from.

One thing to keep in mind is, there is no “Caesar” in America, or at least there isn’t supposed to be. So, who would “Caesar” represent, legitimately, in America? Do you mean your corrupt politicians? I would say the Constitution, because it is the supreme law of the land.

Now, notice that Jesus said render unto God what is God’s. He didn’t say, “also render unto Caesar what is God’s.” The point is this:

“In the Tribute Episode, Jesus' response is subtly s*******s. The first-century audience would have immediately apprehended what it meant to render unto God the things that are God's. They would have known that the things of God and Caesar were mutually exclusive. No Jewish listener would have mistaken Jesus' response as an endorsement of paying Caesar's taxes. To the contrary, His audience would have understood that Jesus thought the tribute was illicit. Indeed, opposition to the tribute was one of the charges the authorities levied at His trial, "They brought charges against him, saying, “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king.'" To the Roman audience, however, the pronouncement of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's sounds benign, almost supportive. It is, however, one of many vignettes of covert political protest contained in the Gospels. In short, the Tribute Episode is a subtle form of s******n. When viewed in this context, no one can say that the Episode supports the payment of taxes.” https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/

So, you misinterpret Jesus by interpreting him through the lens of the oppressors, just as the Romans would have.

Our Constitution (the closest thing to "our Caesar") does not grant our politicians the right or authority to redistribute wealth. Here’s a good site that exposes how corrupt politicians have taken on more authority than they have been granted as far as Constitutionally legitimate taxes go-http://www.originalintent.org/edu/docs/Constitutional%20Issues%20of%20Taxation.pdf
And this article doesn’t even delve into the fact that the 16th amendment was never legally ratified: because they show how fraudulent it is, it doesn’t have to in the scope of that writing. So, to correct myself, all taxes aren’t necessarily theft, but these types of unconstitutional taxes, imposed by corrupt politicians, most certainly are.

I believe Jesus was the most moral person ever, and l*****ts fall far short of what Jesus set as moral standards in many areas. Jesus and the apostles expressed the sentiment that Christians, as Christians (meaning not as good Romans) were to be charitable to the poor, and that what we do unto others, we do unto Christ himself. In other words, charity is one of the things that belongs to God, and thus is to be rendered to God, NOT to Caesar.

Notice what Jesus said here:
“25He said to them, "The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are called 'benefactors.' 26But not so with you. But one who is the greater among you, let him become as the younger, and one who is governing, as one who serves. 27For who is greater, one who sits at the table, or one who serves? Isn't it he who sits at the table? But I am in the midst of you as one who serves.” Luke 22:25-27.

Jesus condemned and forbade Christians lording it over others under the guise of being a “benefactor”, meaning one who pretends to care for their subjects...by ruling over them (oppressing them) while at the same time bestowing beneficial niceties in order to outwardly appear magnanimous! This is something the denarii represented that Jesus said belonged to Caesar, as the Lew Rockwell article explains.

Therefore, for politicians to take what belongs to God, and assume authority and power for themselves that was not granted to them by our Constitution, is both contrary to Christ, and Constitutionally unethical. This state of being “overlords in the guise of beneficiaries” are the types of “beneficial” things you are justifying “forced social program politicians” for!

Next, the only time and place where Jesus got physically violent, was in the face of corrupt men who perverted the temple tax and made merchandise of the people. I’m sure Jesus would feel the same about today’s politicians who ens***e and make merchandise of the people they were elected to serve, not “lord it over.”

Furthermore, Jesus said he came to set people free, so we know that he was against s***ery, in particular mental s***ery because he said t***h would set free. More on this later under Toqueville...

Yet another thing that Jesus said that works to condemn hypocritical leaders is when he said “the Pharisees sat in Moses seat, therefore do what they say but don’t do after their works.” Boy, the list of politician’s actions falling in this category would be long. Just some examples: https://www.propublica.org/article/do-as-we-say-congress-says-then-does-what-it-wants
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2011/06/01/insider-trading-rules-that-dont-apply-to-congress/#79d76bef6167

I can’t and won’t ever justify politicians that so align with just about everything Jesus identifies as evil. Of course, he wasn’t the only one.

Alexis du Toqueville pointed out something Americans used to know:

“It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of s***ery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville

This is the category your forced social programs falls under: rations of s***ery, and of course the rations themselves have positive appeal, but the mask the evil character of the ens***ement.

This “rations of s***ery” also explains in realistic terms the left’s insatiable desire for more and more “rights”, which are actually just these “rations of s***ery” and, at one and the same time reinforce the left’s mentality that citizens are their s***es to financially plunder at will, while themselves are the “benefactors”, they can feel good about themselves and so overlook their inhumanity to man.

Another Toqueville quote gleaned from the same site is quite eye-opening to me:

“[Under the absolute sway of one man the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul; but the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it and rose proudly superior.] Tyranny in democratic republics does not proceed in the same way, however. It ignores the body and goes straight for the soul. The master no longer says: You will think as I do or die. He says: You are free not to think as I do. You may keep your life, your property, and everything else. But from this day forth you shall be as a stranger among us. You will retain your civic privileges, but they will be of no use to you. For if you seek the v**es of your fellow citizens, they will withhold them, and if you seek only their esteem, they will feign to refuse even that. You will remain among men, but you will forfeit your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellow creatures, they will shun you as one who is impure. And even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they, too, be shunned in turn. Go in peace, I will not take your life, but the life I leave you with is worse than death.”
Alexis de Tocqueville

In other words, this explains why the left h**es and discourages free speech if it goes against their ideology. This explains why the big techs are censoring conservative voices, and colleges are denying conservative speakers- it is certainly the “tyranny in democratic republics.”

So when you are supporting and justifying, what certainly looks to me like, the corrupt politicians of big government to be the “benefactors” of “forced social programs”, you are very much supporting emotional and financial s***ery of the subjects. This is oh so contrary to Jesus’ overall message of setting captives free.

Another voice crying foul of forced social programs like welfare, is what these programs have done in destroying strong family units with a father and mother in the home.
https://www.quora.com/Thomas-Sowell-says-welfare-caused-black-America-to-degenerate-since-the-1960s-rather-than-endemic-r****m-Is-this-true

Another point from the Bible: Have you read where John the Baptist said, “Do violence to no man”? “The Greek word was the exact equivalent of the Latin concutere (whence our "concussion"), and was applied to the violence which was used by irregular troops to extort money or provisions.” So, in fact, John the Baptist, Jesus’ forerunner, forbid his followers from forcibly extracting money.

I never said you couldn't come up with some benefits and some success stories. That is the nature of benefactors; even s***e owners could come up with s***es who worked themselves out from under it, and even some that were happy with their masters.

The point is, at what cost? For l*****ts, the cost of their "forced social programs" includes the loss or denigrating of liberties that are guaranteed by our Constitution that l*****ts and RINO's, and other professional politicians love to abrogate and negate seemingly every chance they get, all the while they are getting richer and richer and ever more powerful... while making themselves immune to the same mandates. I can't understand how anyone would look to these types of people for "solutions" to social ills!

Maybe you and I aren’t as similar after all. It seems to me you think corrupt people can engineer socially redemptive programs, while I, following the framers of the Constitution, and Jesus’ view of corrupt leaders, believe the less control by those same politicians the better.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Amen

rumitoid

"he no more supported the Jews paying taxes to Caesar than he..." Then you are saying Jesus lied to escape a trap? Prove that ridiculous point. That is blasphemy.

"Interesting that you deflected from acknowledging or addressing the corrupt and evil nature of “social program” politicians themselves..." That is not up to either of us to judge. If any are Christians, rebuke and educate them with respect and kindness, not condemn. Acknowledging "the corrupt and evil nature of “social program” politicians themselves" is pure gossip. Only God know the heart. Rom. 2.1-11

Sorry, the rest you wrote is difficult for me to make sense of or appreciate. All I got was that you h**e welfare. Lost my patience to follow your points. My bad. I will try again, maybe in a day or two.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Hi Rumi,
I did NOT say Jesus lied, that would be, at best, a misunderstanding of what I said, at worst a complete false accusation on your part. The link I provided went into length proving the point about Jesus’ response and how it would have been understood from the culture he was speaking to. I realize it’s difficult for us to understand things from a different culture and time, but unless we allow ourselves to put ourselves in their position and look through their eyes, we won’t be able to understand. This is what being open-minded means.

It is also very hard to view things outside of traditions we’ve been taught and held. Jesus said the traditions of men make void the worship of God. I have been on a personal mission to look beyond the traditions of men for almost 40 years now.

As for the politicians, Jesus said we would know them by their fruits. When a whole group of people’s main platform includes murdering unborn living human babies, that alone exposes enough about where their hearts are at to make such an accusation beyond rumor and into the realm of public awareness. That these same people are attempting to change Gods laws, like a marriage being between one man and one woman, further exposes the evil intentions in their hearts. I could go on and on.

I think your last three sentences pretty much summed things up, so I’d be glad to give you time to take a deep breath and try again.

rumitoid

Tommy, I deeply appreciate you as a person of faith and conviction. Too often when I get into a debate I fail to acknowledge such things, overly focused on the discussion. Please forgive this failing. You are honest and committed to what you see as right. No argument against that. I failed to simply present what I see as t***h and instead argued against your beliefs. Basically, I consider that a huge mistake and just plain wrong. It will not happen again.