Christianity is what's wrong with American politics.

[CuteOldGuy]

You're not forced to buy lumber, you choose to buy lumber. If you don't buy lumber, no one with guns will show up at your house demanding payment. You're so indoctrinated. Think for yourself, quit with the "compassionate liberal" bullshit. And while you're at it, learn something about the FairTax before you spout off again and make a fool of yourself.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

COG, I don't get to decide, we all decide via our representatives in government. Just like defense. Just like crop support programs. Just like corporate welfare, etc.

And explain to me how your claimed solution isn't "forced" anymore than this system. People have to consume at some level. A VAT tax like the so-called "Fair Tax," not matter how narrowly drawn, is mandatory when one triggers the conditions precedent, just like an income tax in mandatory when one's income triggers the conditions precedent. If I buy a newspaper, I am "forced" to pay the tax. If I buy lumber to build my house, I'm forced to pay a tax.

Your notion that any tax is theft simply won't wash.

your ignorance is showing.

the Fair Tax is not a VAT tax

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis, 1935

FYI the guy that carried the cross was killed by religion.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

How is it not moral? The state is by definition, force. Your argument, taken to it's logical conclusion, would make taxation for any purpose, including mutual defense, immoral. And yes, making every member of a society who can afford to pay, fund the obligations of a society is absolutely moral. What is immoral is to leave the obligations of a society to chance or charity, so that some pay and others skate.

To use your own logic, how is it moral to pay taxes so someone else, i.e., gvmt, redistributes it to support freeloading Americans? And I'm not talking about the people who genuinley need the help. You are no different that the politicians. You've completely lost touch with real America.

You forget that those products are being distributed, warehoused, and sold by stores here in the states that provide jobs for the people you bill. Had they not been in a position to seek council, that money would have been distributed to the economy the way it normally is, through commerce.

With unemployment as high as it is, you think you libs would be more likely to want to support the folks here that are part of the economy.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're not forced to buy lumber, you choose to buy lumber. If you don't buy lumber, no one with guns will show up at your house demanding payment. You're so indoctrinated. Think for yourself, quit with the "compassionate liberal" bullshit. And while you're at it, learn something about the FairTax before you spout off again and make a fool of yourself.

Yeah, I guess you're not forced to buy lumber unless you want to live in a house!! Or you could kill a buffalo and live in a tepee, is that your theory? To live life in a normal manner, you have to buy a certain basket of goods. That basket is largely predictable across large sections of society. Some buy directly, others do so indirectly. But we all essentially consume the same things. The distinction you make is a ridiculous one. I'll be that every person on this board, without exception, has purchased lumber, directly or indirectly in their life. Do you seriously dispute this? If so, that lack of connection to reality could at least explain your bizarre views on any number of subjects.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

To use your own logic, how is it moral to pay taxes so someone else, i.e., gvmt, redistributes it to support freeloading Americans? And I'm not talking about the people who genuinley need the help. You are no different that the politicians. You've completely lost touch with real America.

All taxes are re-distributive. Otherwise, you'd just leave the money where it was.

As to whether a person is truly in need to not is decided via the system that we have all agreed to via social contract. If you disagree with the outcome of the distribution scheme, you have no one to blame other than your representative who was at the table with the distribution scheme was agreed upon. However, I would say that since you have agreed to the social contract by remaining in the country, you implicitly agree to the outcome.

Of course, you can urge a different outcome. You can ask for better representatives. Or you can run as a representative yourself. You can even urge (peacefully) for changes in the social contract itself. But I don't see how that outcome is immoral because of internal disagreements about how needy a given recipient of benefits is.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Or you could kill a buffalo and live in a tepee, is that your theory?

15 - 50 buffaloes
http://www.kstrom.net/isk/maps/houses/tipi.html

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Tell me, why do you get to choose the priorities? Why do you get to choose who pays?

He doesn't, and he's not. You're confusing his advocacy with decision making. The decisions are made based on the representative government that we have. When you get right down to it, you're arguing against even that.

Edit: In fact, what you're arguing for is to have the priorities decided by a group of people from back in the 1700's. People i, or anyone else alive today, didn't have the option of voting for or against. So tell me, how is that moral?

The income tax was not in the Constitution until the citizens were duped into passing the 16th Amendment in 1913, the year freedom died.

But it's in there, and because of that, to hear The Constitution Guy on the board whine about the income tax is nothing short of comical.

This is why I support the FairTax. People only pay the tax if they buy a new good or service. Don't want to pay the tax? Don't buy the stuff. Simple.

Given the fact that the only reason people bother to earn an income is so they can buy goods and services, the distinction you make in the name of "freedom" makes for possibly the dumbest argument i've ever heard for anything.

And if you refuse to buy something subject to the tax, no one with guns will show up at your house taking your stuff, and putting you in jail.

And if you're going to refuse to buy anything subject to tax, then you might as well not bother having any income. At which point nobody with guns will show up at your house taking your stuff and putting you in jail for not paying tax.

The FairTax represent a return to freedom, and takes control away from Congress.

No it doesn't. It simply changes the terms of who pays how much.

And you have no right under any moral system to steal from me what I have earned.

This is the problem with you libertarians. You're so full of yourself that you actually think you "earned" what you make. You don't. Several factors go into what you make, most of them you have no control over, and what you "earn" is pretty far down the list.

[essence]

All I know is that my local church is st leonards, patron saint of prisoners, so it was my duty to visit a prisoner girl I know for a few years, and later this week we are going to eat and fuck and drink and fuck and smoke and fuck and it's all OK because it is my charitable duty.

I followed a car with a sticker today - it said 'Clergy'. Wonder why it was a spanking new white c*** (damn can't remember the name, those big cruisers). That seems like a good charity. No doubt he likes to convert the younger female flock in the back of his pimp mobile.

[London Rayne]

Oh sure go ahead and blame GOD for this too lol. Open your damn eyes people! The world has never been this fked up and why is that? I will let you all figure out the ONE thing that has lost its place in the family unit, and been replaced with self gratifying bs that is justified to the point of exhaustion!

Look in the mirror...if the world is messed up, it's OUR fault!

Nuff said!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by London Rayne

. . . . I will let you all figure out the ONE thing that has lost its place in the family unit . . . .

Nuff said!

+1

[WTF]

Originally Posted by London Rayne

Oh sure go ahead and blame GOD for this too lol. Open your damn eyes people! The world had never been this fked up and why is that? I will let you all figure out the ONE thing that has lost its place in the family unit, and been replaced with self gratifying bs that is justified to the point of exhaustion!

Look in the mirror...if the world is messed up, it's OUR fault!

Nuff said!

God isn't to blame...it is the dumb fucs that use him to justify their BS that is! We have "In God We Trust" ON MONEY! WTF.

And just for the record, things are better now than they ever have been, if you were black or a woman back 100 years ago London, you would not be longing for the good ole days! LOL

In fact you might be in some sweatshop making my drawers with no shot at any decent paying job , other than a school marm!

[London Rayne]

They may be better in a sense, but we have waaaaay more filth than in the 50s. Families stayed together much longer back then and are still together now from that generation. We are fked up, and have no one to blame but ourselves!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by London Rayne

They may be better in a sense, but we have waaaaay more filth than in the 50s. Families stayed together much longer back then and are still together now from that generation. We are fked up, and have no one to blame but ourselves!

Yea they stayed together...the woman had nowhere else to go!

Hot damn...I'm a white male, bring back the fifties!

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

‎"In only the last thirty years have we embraced religiosity as the qualifier for public office. It is in this short period that we have plummeted from the top of nearly every category of cultural and economic success to the bottom. Our country resembles Pakistan and Iran more than America in 1960, and the variable which looms largest is the enthusiastic inclusion and encouragement of Christianity as a governmental philosophy."

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. -- Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater wasn't just any old conservative. He wrote the book on conservativism. In the fifties and sixties, his influence on both conservative and libertarian politicians was the most direct and powerful cause of the resurgence of conservative politics in America. Current presidential candidate John McCain said of Goldwater, "He transformed the Republican Party from an Eastern elitist organization to the breeding ground for the election of Ronald Reagan."

The irony of this statement would be comical if it did not encompass such genuine human suffering. The current Republican party is arguably the most polarizing and elitist party in the history of American politics, and its goals are so bizarre that its platforms would be unrecognizable to many of the country's historic conservatives.

The lynchpin to the whole system is straight from Goldwater's prophetic vision. When the Republican party effectively merged with the Christian right, all hope of compromise, plurality, and negotiation disappeared from American politics. It is no trifle to say that divine mandate is the end of democracy. The current batch of Republican legislators has proven beyond any and every doubt that nothing short of their vision is acceptable. Anything -- anything at all -- which deviates from it in the slightest will be fillibustered, voted down, or not even allowed to come to vote.

Defenders of Christianity will say that it is not the cause of this utter polarity, but theirs is a weak case. For anyone who has attempted to discuss religion with an average Christian, the relationship is clear. For all the talk of tolerance, love, and acceptance, the reality is that very few (if any) "True Believers(TM)" will even broach the subject of possibly being wrong about Jesus. No amount of evidence or reason will convince them that their religion is wrong.

Curiously... the Republican Christian legislators display precisely the same attitude towards economic and social issues. Show them the evidence that universal healthcare and welfare are beneficial -- to every single country that has them -- and they will cling all the more firmly to their conviction that it is an evil that must be forcibly destroyed. Show them the evidence that creating income disparity is the end of democracy in every historical case and they will vow to make it work anyway. Point to the other times in American history when groups as large as the "Occupy Movement" took to the streets, and they will be certain that this time, they can quell the mass uprising and maintain their power.

In no other time in our history has a political party been openly and unapologetically driven by not only the moral dictates of their religion, but the certainty that by virtue of their religious belief, they are always right. The words of our founding fathers are resounding condemnation of the union of Christianity and politics:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." -- George Washington (From the Treaty of Tripoli).

"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." -- Millard Fillmore

[L]eave the matter of religious teaching to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate." -- Ulysses S. Grant

"I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this county in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." -- Andrew Jackson (In his refusal to establish a national day of prayer).

"There is not a shadow of right on the general goverment to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject that I have warmly supported religious freedom." -- James Madison

"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Interestingly, one of the most staunchly religious presidents, and one whose presidency coincided with the rise of the "New Evangelism" in America, was also one of the most staunchly against the merging of church and state. Jimmy Carter is and has been a Southern Baptist his whole life. If any denomination is the poster child for the New Republican Theocracy, it is the Southern Baptists. Even so, President Carter had this to say:

Last year I was on Pat Robertson's show, and we discussed our basic Christian faith - for instance, separation of church and state. It's contrary to my beliefs to try to exalt Christianity as having some sort of preferential status in the United States. That violates the Constitution. I'm not in favor of mandatory prayer in school or of using public funds to finance religious education." -- Jimmy Carter

There are many lists of quotations by Presidents in support of separation of church and state. By themselves, they are compelling reminders of the intentions of the founders and the attitudes of our statesmen. However, the lesson we must learn -- and soon -- is the real world danger of allowing the two to merge. Our history is filled with examples of Christian politicians who left their beliefs for hearth and home. In only the last thirty years have we embraced religiosity as the qualifier for public office. It is in this short period that we have plummeted from the top of nearly every category of cultural and economic success to the bottom. Our country resembles Pakistan and Iran more than America in 1960, and the variable which looms largest is the enthusiastic inclusion and encouragement of Christianity as a governmental philosophy.

What is the alternative? The same thing that it has always been. America has thrived as a nation with a clear boundary between religious beliefs and socio-economic policy. We must return to this gold standard. The mention of a candidate's religious beliefs must never sully the debates or TV ads. More importantly, even the hint a Christian ideal's inclusion in legislation must be regarded as approaching treason. Even more importantly, when the whining, bleating protests of "oppression" arise, we must continue to assure the religious that we have no qualms with their religion. They may bow to whatever idol they choose in the privacy of their church or home. They may teach their children any fairy tale creation story they wish. They may forbid their own children from marrying outside of the approved gender. We will protect their right to do so in exactly the same way we will protect our right to abstain from religious nuttery -- by removing every trace of it from our government, and treating as pariah anyone who would presume to reintroduce it.

Hum. I think in 1960 a lot more people were influenced by christian,
values and ethecs, and a lot more of them were in church.

Then came the roaring 60s free love, LSD, the mamas and the papas,
woodstock, ( wasn't everyone below the age of 20 in 1969 at woodstock )

The 70s, the me generation me, me, me, ME, me, me, not you ,ME.

The 80s, I slept through the 80s.

The 90s, who cares about the 90s.

The 00 Y2K, that was funny.

So here we are 2011, mother F it's 2011 already.

There are way more muslim people in this country now than there were
in 1960 so ( begining to look more like pakastan and iran ) I think part of your statement is correct.

Dont realy beleave in applying the theory of evolution as the reason
for our exsistance. Full of so many holes you can use it to strain
spaghetti. Go look up the difference between MACRO and MICRO
evolution, for just one example.

I'm beginning to think that DE>evolution might be a good idea though. Crawling back into the ocean is starting to look like a
good idea.

Naw, think i'll stick around to see how that obama care thing
works out.