America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/op

[JakeStarkey]

Comments from the far right crazees are merely shrill white noise, bigrebnc. Move on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Comments from the far right crazees are merely shrill white noise, bigrebnc. Move on.

A dust bunny makes more sense than you do.

 

[Steelplate]

Your Mosiah 4 answers your question, Listening. The prophet-king Benjaminn, the Priest and King over the people, theocratic and political leader, told his people that could not judge the righteousness of those asking for help, but that they had to give it.

Your own religious leaders today counsel you to take care of the needy.

You simply ignore the counsel.

You are wrong, completely, on this, morally and politically.

How do you know who I take care of and don't.

There is nothing in there about using political means to enforce "good works".

I'd say you are about as offbase as you can get.

You'll have to forgive Jake. For some reason, he seems to think that unless you support uncontrolled government spending on social programs, you are against the needy. I've tried to explain to him several times that the Gospel teaches us to voluntarily be charitable and to do it individually and not outsource charity to the government.

He has an odd interpretation of King Benjamins sermons. But he's a decent guy.

and I asked you to show me where in the gospels it tells us that and you never did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Avatar obviously is no gospel doctrine teacher. He cannot even somewhat adequately explain Mosiah 3 and 4, and how those chapters inform poltics, theocracy, and duties of citizens to other citizens. I have even had LDS scholars review some of his comments, and every one of them agree that Avatar4321 is an extremist reactionary following cult principles instead of the LDS gospel principles. Avatar4321, outside of this cult obsession, however, is a truly neat person, whom I like a lot.

 

[Steelplate]

You didn't dispute my claims.

And you don't understand statistics (that or your purposefully misinterpreting them).

Noise is noise. I can't help that and neither can you. And The Havard study does not have the kind of precision to pick out 1 in 100. I am sorry...but those are the facts. What you are calling a demise....I am calling exptrapolation based on the most specious of assumptions.

And cut the crap about what conservatives have and don't have. I am not going to rehearse to you how I think the system should work because to this point you are not worth it.

So far, we have established that health care is not explicitly called out in the U.S. Constitution.

Whether you believe, as some of us do, that the Federal Government then has no constitutional authority to pass health care administration, has not been established.

You've seen my arguments.



You can make that assertion and I would not dispute it....as a qualitative statement.

This does nothing for your Harvard argument, which also contains quantitative claims that are meaningless. And you never addressed the fact that 99 out of 100 seem to be doing fine.



If this an argument for people having health care, there is no dispute.

It is somehow supposed to implicitly project a conclusion, I don't see it.



What is your point ?



And my mother smoked for 50 years and died of lung cancer. Something naturally follow. What is your point in all this ?

That people need health care ?

Or that we should be the ones providing it to them ?

All I need to do is look at people who are taking vacations on their Social Security all the while getting their health care paid for by the guy down the street who can't take vacations because of the money he is paying out of check for his neighbors care....to know that I don't think medicare is the greatest thing in the world...in fact....I think it sucks in many ways.

However, that does not mean I don't believe in people having health care.

They are two different issues and you somehow seem to think that we can read between the lines and figure out how you are connecting them.

In fact, there are even more issues without relevence to the conversation that you keep bringing up. As I pointed out earlier, people who lose their houses because they went bankrupt got the care they needed (and they didn't pay for it). That they lost their houses is a different issue. They got the care. If we are talking medical care, that is one thing. If we are talking safety nets, that is something else.

If these are your facts and figures you plan to bury me with, you'd better get a better shovel. Right now, all you are doing is blathering.

O.K. we can compare...



Correct.



Cock-n-Bull, fairytale, etc. ectc.

The Constitution is not a guideline. It is a document set up specifically to limit the federal government. If you don't want to respond to Federalist 45, I understand. It pretty much kills this assertion.

No such thing has been established.



He died. And.....



This certainly has not been established.

Health Care is not a right and people are denied treatment all the time.

The fact that you would premise (albeit incorrectly) the Harvard study...something you hide behind....only contradicts yourself.

Let's be clear....it has not been established that Health Care is a right.



Yes, quoting the man who wrote it does not seem to carry much weight. And your opinion is greater than his.

No "mistake" has been established.



The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

People driving cars die.

Outlawing cars would save lives.

What was your point ?



I don't think I have argued this poiint at all.

However, the term "affordable" (you've not spoken about it in those terms...but now we've established that or what it means ?....sorry, Charlie) is always funny. Affordable being that you can have your health care and keep your house ? When you define that term, we can further discuss it.

However, you've not established anything with regard to how many people have died due to a lack of affordable health care.



While you are hardly worth the time, you are the one who claimed he would bury with me with facts.

The only fact that has been presented (and which you chose to ignore) is that the U.S. Constitution was written to limit the Federal Government. You've not countered that claim at all.

You've also done nothing but proposed a thought experiment when I pre-empted that assanine Harvard study and have asked for a list of the names of people who have died as a result of a lack of health care.

Is this what you call debate ?

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

So get on with some of those facts.

But, to stay engaged, please don't try to call out your point of view as having been established again.

That is not only lazy, it is dishonest.

the Federalist Papers are NOT the US Constitution. Stop trying to equate them. in fact in Federalist 84, Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of rights being in the constitution. Apparently with good cause. Because people in the future would misconstrue it to mean that only the rights listed were valid. Seems as though Hamilton was speaking directly towards modern day Conservatives.

 

[Listening]

the Federalist Papers are NOT the US Constitution. Stop trying to equate them. in fact in Federalist 84, Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of rights being in the constitution. Apparently with good cause. Because people in the future would misconstrue it to mean that only the rights listed were valid. Seems as though Hamilton was speaking directly towards modern day Conservatives.

Another foolish comment.

They actually are in that they have been utilized to support decisions handed down from the start of time.

You misread Hamilton. His questions is why would you need a Bill of Rights to outline or guard against powers which clearly have NOT been given.

You make the mistake of oversimplifying something you don't understand.

 

[Listening]

I am far more literate on these matters and your own church's counsel on these matters than you. That you don't get it is your problem, not mine.

 

[Avatar4321]

Avatar obviously is no gospel doctrine teacher. He cannot even somewhat adequately explain Mosiah 3 and 4, and how those chapters inform poltics, theocracy, and duties of citizens to other citizens. I have even had LDS scholars review some of his comments, and every one of them agree that Avatar4321 is an extremist reactionary following cult principles instead of the LDS gospel principles. Avatar4321, outside of this cult obsession, however, is a truly neat person, whom I like a lot.

So because we are encouraged, even commanded, as individuals to help other people, you presume that means we should outsource that responsibility to the government where, instead of giving of ourselves, we take from our neighbors in an effort to "help" causes we want?

I don't care how you try, but the scriptures don't teach that. The scriptures teach that we are to voluntarily give of our own free will. And when we voluntarily serve others, we serve God. They teach us to minister to the needs of our neighbor, not to have someone else take care of others with someone elses money.

The responsibility to take care of others is not the government's. It's the Individual's responsibility to take care of their neighbor.

But this must be done with a willing heart and a willing mind. Otherwise, it counts for nothing. The ends are not as important as the means.

 

[Steelplate]

the Federalist Papers are NOT the US Constitution. Stop trying to equate them. in fact in Federalist 84, Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of rights being in the constitution. Apparently with good cause. Because people in the future would misconstrue it to mean that only the rights listed were valid. Seems as though Hamilton was speaking directly towards modern day Conservatives.

Another foolish comment.

They actually are in that they have been utilized to support decisions handed down from the start of time.

You misread Hamilton. His questions is why would you need a Bill of Rights to outline or guard against powers which clearly have NOT been given.

You make the mistake of oversimplifying something you don't understand.

no...you make the mistake if reading into it what you want. and if the Federalist papers ARE the Constitution....why weren't THEY ratified? oh...that's right...because they aren't. they are a collection of essay pertaining to the Constitution but they are not ratified documents and shouldn't be treated as anything more.

 

[Avatar4321]

no...you make the mistake if reading into it what you want. and if the Federalist papers ARE the Constitution....why weren't THEY ratified? oh...that's right...because they aren't. they are a collection of essay pertaining to the Constitution but they are not ratified documents and shouldn't be treated as anything more.

Ignoring context to interpret important documents seems foolish to me.

BTW im rather grateful for the Bill of Rights. Without which, alot of stupid and oppressive laws would exist.

 

[Steelplate]

Avatar obviously is no gospel doctrine teacher. He cannot even somewhat adequately explain Mosiah 3 and 4, and how those chapters inform poltics, theocracy, and duties of citizens to other citizens. I have even had LDS scholars review some of his comments, and every one of them agree that Avatar4321 is an extremist reactionary following cult principles instead of the LDS gospel principles. Avatar4321, outside of this cult obsession, however, is a truly neat person, whom I like a lot.

So because we are encouraged, even commanded, as individuals to help other people, you presume that means we should outsource that responsibility to the government where, instead of giving of ourselves, we take from our neighbors in an effort to "help" causes we want?

I don't care how you try, but the scriptures don't teach that. The scriptures teach that we are to voluntarily give of our own free will. And when we voluntarily serve others, we serve God. They teach us to minister to the needs of our neighbor, not to have someone else take care of others with someone elses money.

The responsibility to take care of others is not the government's. It's the Individual's responsibility to take care of their neighbor.

But this must be done with a willing heart and a willing mind. Otherwise, it counts for nothing. The ends are not as important as the means.

It doesn't discourage it though....as you said earlier. so basically...because you're not willing in heart and mind to support social programs...God doesn't want us to do it....the Gospel of Avatar 1:1.

 

[MuadDib]

the Federalist Papers are NOT the US Constitution. Stop trying to equate them. in fact in Federalist 84, Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of rights being in the constitution. Apparently with good cause. Because people in the future would misconstrue it to mean that only the rights listed were valid. Seems as though Hamilton was speaking directly towards modern day Conservatives.

Another foolish comment.

They actually are in that they have been utilized to support decisions handed down from the start of time.

You misread Hamilton. His questions is why would you need a Bill of Rights to outline or guard against powers which clearly have NOT been given.

You make the mistake of oversimplifying something you don't understand.

no...you make the mistake if reading into it what you want. and if the Federalist papers ARE the Constitution....why weren't THEY ratified? oh...that's right...because they aren't. they are a collection of essay pertaining to the Constitution but they are not ratified documents and shouldn't be treated as anything more.

You don't seem to understand what the The Federalist was. It was a collection of essays written to argue in favor of the adoption of the Constitution. Most of them were written by Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution.

As for Hamilton, he was the guy who favored a President for life and promoted heavy taxation and government subsidies. Aaron Burr could have saved us a lot of trouble if he'd shot Hamilton years earlier.

 

[Listening]

no...you make the mistake if reading into it what you want. and if the Federalist papers ARE the Constitution....why weren't THEY ratified? oh...that's right...because they aren't. they are a collection of essay pertaining to the Constitution but they are not ratified documents and shouldn't be treated as anything more.

Ignoring context to interpret important documents seems foolish to me.

BTW im rather grateful for the Bill of Rights. Without which, alot of stupid and oppressive laws would exist.

It is no longer worth it.

They know the answer.....they just need to find the support.

 

[Avatar4321]

Avatar obviously is no gospel doctrine teacher. He cannot even somewhat adequately explain Mosiah 3 and 4, and how those chapters inform poltics, theocracy, and duties of citizens to other citizens. I have even had LDS scholars review some of his comments, and every one of them agree that Avatar4321 is an extremist reactionary following cult principles instead of the LDS gospel principles. Avatar4321, outside of this cult obsession, however, is a truly neat person, whom I like a lot.

So because we are encouraged, even commanded, as individuals to help other people, you presume that means we should outsource that responsibility to the government where, instead of giving of ourselves, we take from our neighbors in an effort to "help" causes we want?

I don't care how you try, but the scriptures don't teach that. The scriptures teach that we are to voluntarily give of our own free will. And when we voluntarily serve others, we serve God. They teach us to minister to the needs of our neighbor, not to have someone else take care of others with someone elses money.

The responsibility to take care of others is not the government's. It's the Individual's responsibility to take care of their neighbor.

But this must be done with a willing heart and a willing mind. Otherwise, it counts for nothing. The ends are not as important as the means.

It doesn't discourage it though....as you said earlier. so basically...because you're not willing in heart and mind to support social programs...God doesn't want us to do it....the Gospel of Avatar 1:1.

Charity only occurs when individuals fulfill their responsibilities. When they abdicate those responsibilities to someone else who uses violence to take from one person to give to another (Which usually just happens to be the taker and or his friends), then that's not charity. You don't have to use force when a willing heart and a willing mind are at play.

 

[Listening]

Another foolish comment.

They actually are in that they have been utilized to support decisions handed down from the start of time.

You misread Hamilton. His questions is why would you need a Bill of Rights to outline or guard against powers which clearly have NOT been given.

You make the mistake of oversimplifying something you don't understand.

no...you make the mistake if reading into it what you want. and if the Federalist papers ARE the Constitution....why weren't THEY ratified? oh...that's right...because they aren't. they are a collection of essay pertaining to the Constitution but they are not ratified documents and shouldn't be treated as anything more.

You don't seem to understand what the The Federalist was. It was a collection of essays written to argue in favor of the adoption of the Constitution. Most of them were written by Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution.

As for Hamilton, he was the guy who favored a President for life and promoted heavy taxation and government subsidies. Aaron Burr could have saved us a lot of trouble if he'd shot Hamilton years earlier.

Hamilton turned out to be quite a liar.

He wrote what he thought people wanted to hear and then turned around and did it differently.

The election of 1800 shows you just how much people wanted a strong central government NOT.

 

[Listening]

It doesn't discourage it though....as you said earlier. so basically...because you're not willing in heart and mind to support social programs...God doesn't want us to do it....the Gospel of Avatar 1:1.

Where is it written that the government is the only place "social programs" or good work with people can be accomplished.

And, if you can be shown where government programs have gone bad (specifically because they are government programs which are subject to the politics of re-election), does that hold any water with you.

I don't get why you would accuse anyone of being less Christian than you simply because they, like the founders, are fearful of government power.

 

[Listening]

the Federalist Papers are NOT the US Constitution. Stop trying to equate them. in fact in Federalist 84, Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of rights being in the constitution. Apparently with good cause. Because people in the future would misconstrue it to mean that only the rights listed were valid. Seems as though Hamilton was speaking directly towards modern day Conservatives.

Another foolish comment.

They actually are in that they have been utilized to support decisions handed down from the start of time.

You misread Hamilton. His questions is why would you need a Bill of Rights to outline or guard against powers which clearly have NOT been given.

You make the mistake of oversimplifying something you don't understand.

no...you make the mistake if reading into it what you want. and if the Federalist papers ARE the Constitution....why weren't THEY ratified? oh...that's right...because they aren't. they are a collection of essay pertaining to the Constitution but they are not ratified documents and shouldn't be treated as anything more.

I only read them and quote them. If you have argument with them, please point it out.

I quoted #45....O.K., let's take your point of view.

Then the Bill of Rights has the 10th amendment. You would argue with that ?

From the net......

This brief essay attempts to remedy that omission. In what follows, I list in ascending order the five Federalist Papers most frequently cited in opinions of the Supreme Court. Readers will no doubt have their own judgments as to which Papers are most deserving of citation, and their own predictions as to which are actually in the Top Five. I suspect that Federalist No. 10 (Madison) on the role of factions in the proposed regime and Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton) on judicial review are likely to make many of these reader-generated lists. Those who make these two guesses about the contents of the Top Five list will be half-right.

Which only points out that they were used as justification of SCOTUS decisons.

I am only pointing that out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mosiah 3 and 4 contradict your beliefs. Benjamin clearly stated that it was the peoples duties to take care of their neighbors. We the People represent the peoples' interests and King Benjamined represent his peoples' interests. The scriptures clearly do not teach as you suggest, and Christ's admonition on "to Caesar's what is Caesar's" is exceptionally clear. I am sorry, you are clearly and completely wrong on this issue.

The scripture is clear that you and Listening to not interpret the worthiness of the needy: that it is not part of your mortal assignments.

Avatar obviously is no gospel doctrine teacher. He cannot even somewhat adequately explain Mosiah 3 and 4, and how those chapters inform poltics, theocracy, and duties of citizens to other citizens. I have even had LDS scholars review some of his comments, and every one of them agree that Avatar4321 is an extremist reactionary following cult principles instead of the LDS gospel principles. Avatar4321, outside of this cult obsession, however, is a truly neat person, whom I like a lot.

So because we are encouraged, even commanded, as individuals to help other people, you presume that means we should outsource that responsibility to the government where, instead of giving of ourselves, we take from our neighbors in an effort to "help" causes we want?

I don't care how you try, but the scriptures don't teach that. The scriptures teach that we are to voluntarily give of our own free will. And when we voluntarily serve others, we serve God. They teach us to minister to the needs of our neighbor, not to have someone else take care of others with someone elses money.

The responsibility to take care of others is not the government's. It's the Individual's responsibility to take care of their neighbor.

But this must be done with a willing heart and a willing mind. Otherwise, it counts for nothing. The ends are not as important as the means.

 

[MuadDib]

no...you make the mistake if reading into it what you want. and if the Federalist papers ARE the Constitution....why weren't THEY ratified? oh...that's right...because they aren't. they are a collection of essay pertaining to the Constitution but they are not ratified documents and shouldn't be treated as anything more.

You don't seem to understand what the The Federalist was. It was a collection of essays written to argue in favor of the adoption of the Constitution. Most of them were written by Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution.

As for Hamilton, he was the guy who favored a President for life and promoted heavy taxation and government subsidies. Aaron Burr could have saved us a lot of trouble if he'd shot Hamilton years earlier.

Hamilton turned out to be quite a liar.

He wrote what he thought people wanted to hear and then turned around and did it differently.

The election of 1800 shows you just how much people wanted a strong central government NOT.

Yep! They didn't call it the "Revolution of 1800" for nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The elections of 1860, 1896, 1900, 1912, 1916, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1948, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 2001, 2004, and 2008 demonstrate how wrong you are in the modern age.

Both parties are large, statist progressive parties: one to the left and one to the right being the only difference.

You don't seem to understand what the The Federalist was. It was a collection of essays written to argue in favor of the adoption of the Constitution. Most of them were written by Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution.

As for Hamilton, he was the guy who favored a President for life and promoted heavy taxation and government subsidies. Aaron Burr could have saved us a lot of trouble if he'd shot Hamilton years earlier.

Hamilton turned out to be quite a liar.

He wrote what he thought people wanted to hear and then turned around and did it differently.

The election of 1800 shows you just how much people wanted a strong central government NOT.

Yep! They didn't call it the "Revolution of 1800" for nothing.