Give me an issue, that is considered conservative where Jesus would agree?

?

 

The liberal mindset in this country seems to be if it is between two consenting adults than whatever they do is okay.

 

Jesus would not set with this mindset as he called many things out as sins that our society accepts today.

 

He would be against getting drunk as a constant part of your character, sexual behavior outside of husband and wife, divorce for many of the reasons that go on today, creating programs (like casino gambling) that would allow others to sin (remember it is better to have a millstone tied around your neck and cast in the sea than it is to cause a child to sin), and some more but this is a start.

Here's my stance about certain things.

 

1 - I am against abortion

2 - I am starting to lean to be against capital punishment

3 - I am against GIVING money to those, because they don't work

4 - I am for civil unions between two people regardless of sex, religion, creed, sexual preference, etc....

 

Those are some basics

Here's my stance about certain things.

 

1 - I am against abortion

2 - I am starting to lean to be against capital punishment

3 - I am against GIVING money to those, because they don't work

4 - I am for civil unions between two people regardless of sex, religion, creed, sexual preference, etc....

 

Those are some basics

 

Probably best in another thread but I will go ahead here. #4. If you are going to allow it for 2 people why not 3?

 

#1 right with you.

#2 right with you.

#3 I can see this.

The liberal mindset in this country seems to be if it is between two consenting adults than whatever they do is okay.

 

Jesus would not set with this mindset as he called many things out as sins that our society accepts today.

 

He would be against getting drunk as a constant part of your character, sexual behavior outside of husband and wife, divorce for many of the reasons that go on today, creating programs (like casino gambling) that would allow others to sin (remember it is better to have a millstone tied around your neck and cast in the sea than it is to cause a child to sin), and some more but this is a start.

 

 

Getting drunk is not a liberal stance . . .

 

Personal choice is, and God gave us the power to choose

 

Divorce is not a liberal stance

 

Casino gambling is not a liberal stance - it is the stance of some democrats in this state to generate money to take are of the poor.

Getting drunk is not a liberal stance . . .

 

Personal choice is, and God gave us the power to choose

 

Divorce is not a liberal stance

 

Casino gambling is not a liberal stance - it is the stance of some democrats in this state to generate money to take are of the poor.

It seems that liberals' belief in choice does not extend to the choice of what one may do with the fruits of his or her own labor.

 

There is no act more intrusive than a government taking hard earned money away from one group of people and doling it out to other groups of people who have done nothing to earn it. When private individuals do the same thing, it is called armed robbery. When the government does it, the victims are the ones who risk imprisonment if they object.

It seems that liberals' belief in choice does not extend to the choice of what one may do with the fruits of his or her own labor.

 

There is no act more intrusive than a government taking hard earned money away from one group of people and doling it out to other groups of people who have done nothing to earn it. When private individuals do the same thing, it is called armed robbery. When the government does it, the victims are the ones who risk imprisonment if they object.

 

Yeah, that is exactly how it works, do just little bit of research to see where your tax money goes

 

Roads,

Bridges

Police

Social Security

Military

Research

Education

Safe Food

 

Even so, I am all for it taxes if it promotes the "general welfare". BTW where have I heard that phrase before?

 

Not only that, i don't know of anyone, and i know that you don't either, who as gone broke from paying taxes. I have known plenty that have struggled because of low wages.

 

this country gives you the opportuniy to make that money, it put safety measures in place so that you feel good about work and travel and your safety. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor argument is so 90s. Without the taxes you pay to set up the system we have you wouldn't have the opportunity you do. PERIOD

Yeah, that is exactly how it works, do just little bit of research to see where your tax money goes

 

Roads,

Bridges

Police

Social Security

Military

Research

Education

Safe Food

 

Even so, I am all for it taxes if it promotes the "general welfare". BTW where have I heard that phrase before?

 

Not only that, i don't know of anyone, and i know that you don't either, who as gone broke from paying taxes. I have known plenty that have struggled because of low wages.

 

this country gives you the opportuniy to make that money, it put safety measures in place so that you feel good about work and travel and your safety. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor argument is so 90s. Without the taxes you pay to set up the system we have you wouldn't have the opportunity you do. PERIOD

Nowhere in my post did I object to paying taxes to support legitimate government functions, so most of your response misses the point. Forced income redistribution through taxation is a basic liberal position and it constitutes theft, IMO. Mine is not a popular position because the top 5% of wage earners in this country pay more than 54% of all federal income taxes.

 

As they say, if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support. That is, in a nutshell, the campaign strategy for all liberal Democrat candidates. Just because the majority of voters approve such thievery does not make it the right thing to do. Taxation to redistribute wealth is not charity.

http://www.polianna.com/2005/10/15.taxtherich.shtml

http://www.polianna.com/2005/10/15.taxtherich.shtml

Translation: tax the rich more because they can afford it.

 

What is ignored in the liberal belief in forced wealth redistribution is the negative impact creating a permanent class of government dependents has on society.

 

When the bottom 50% of wage earners pay 96.5% of all federal income taxes, there is continuous pressure on politicians to raise taxes on wealthy and productive citizens while reducing the tax burden on the least productive members of society. That is how we ended up with a top marginal rate of 70% before Ronald Reagan took office.

 

If having the top 1% of wage earners paying 34.3% of all federal income taxes is not enough, how much is enough? Should we tax the rich until they can no longer afford it and begin moving capital and jobs overseas? Oops, it's too late.

Translation: tax the rich more because they can afford it.

 

What is ignored in the liberal belief in forced wealth redistribution is the negative impact creating a permanent class of government dependents has on society.

 

When the bottom 50% of wage earners pay 96.5% of all federal income taxes, there is continuous pressure on politicians to raise taxes on wealthy and productive citizens while reducing the tax burden on the least productive members of society. That is how we ended up with a top marginal rate of 70% before Ronald Reagan took office.

 

If having the top 1% of wage earners paying 34.3% of all federal income taxes is not enough, how much is enough? Should we tax the rich until they can no longer afford it and begin moving capital and jobs overseas? Oops, it's too late.

Typo correction: The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.5% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 40% pay no federal income taxes.

Find me a scripture where Jesus is against it.

 

Matt.18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2

Matt.18:6' date=' Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2[/quote']

 

No.

 

for 1, abortion would not cause the fetus to sin

 

2. you have to born to stumble

 

It is a good stretch though.

Typo correction: The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.5% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 40% pay no federal income taxes.

 

CAN SOMEONE HELP ME DISTRIBUTE MY TABLE OUT EVENLY? It looks right on the submit page, but goes back otherwise?

 

What would you like them to pay with - they control nearly 0% of the wealth and their net work is probably in the negative as well. Maybe we should indenture that bottom 40% - ooooh wait - they already are. There are slaves to wages

 

Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2001

Total Net Worth

Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent

1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%

1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.4%

1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.3%

1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%

1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%

2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.5%

 

2001 top 1% controls 33.4% of net worth, bottom 80% controls 15.5%

 

Financial Wealth

Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent

1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%

1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%

1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%

1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%

1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%

2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.8%

 

2001 top 1% controls 39.7% of financial wealth, bottom 80% controls 8.8%

 

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

DON'T GIVE ME ANY CRAP ABOUT WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION, THERE IS NO WEALTH DISTRIBUTION IN THIS COUNTRY NOW - what we should talk about is WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

No.

 

for 1, abortion would not cause the fetus to sin

 

2. you have to born to stumble

 

It is a good stretch though.

 

I don't think God is tied to the American version of when life begins because he tells us that he knew us before we were in the womb.

I don't think God is tied to the American version of when life begins because he tells us that he knew us before we were in the womb.

 

Then he knows all of those who are going to be aborted? Why does he let them be conceived.

 

He then also knows who all is going to heaven, so much for free will.

 

This is not a quote from Jesus