Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pope Francis gets it
Why don't conservatives?
You do realize that he is also staunchly anti-abortion and gay marriage, right? And just in case you didn't know this, conservatism at it's heart is staunchly anti-poverty.... we want people to succeed which is why we so vehemently oppose the liberal agenda which at its heart promotes dumbing down and the soft bigotry of low expectations.
so?
I'm not going to admit I'm wrong because I am not wrong. Taxation is theft. Whether the state writes down on paper it has the authority to do so, or whether most people sit by idle and comply is irrelevant to what it is. IT IS THEFT. No amount of spin, appeal to imaginary contracts or otherwise will change that fact. The same as the State deciding to amand the constitution to exterminate all individuals named John doesn't make it anything less than murder. The State doesn't have monopoly on ethical/moral underwritings, only the monopoly on the use of force and violence.
I'm a freeloader now? You really are a terrrible debate participant. You're in the right company with RWer, Wry and the others who simply do not, and can not think for themselves at all.
And yes, i do pay my taxes because if one does not, they can expect to have violence exacted on them from the State and you support that as well.
There is no collective. it's a myth perpetrated by Statists in the same fashion that a social contract actually exists when one clearly doesn't.
Speaking of which, would you mind pulling out the copy of that contract I signed? Yeah, I didn't think so. Tacit consent is compliance, not consent.
And finally, you're a citizen of the US enjoying all the benefits of citizenship yet you don't want to pay for it.
But you do pay your taxes instead of standing behind your deeply held belief that taxes are theft. You show no indication of trying to change the law, you are just compllicit in the crime.
Enough already. You bore me. You stick to your 'gov. is evil', 'taxes are theft' lines of nonsense and be secure in the understanding that intelligent people all over the country are laughing at you.
That's that darn ol' Statist Collective for you.
Why don't you take your beef up with the 50% plus of freeloaders in this country that are doing just that instead of worrying about taking more and more off of those who work for what they have? Or maybe you're one of the freeloaders who enjoy what this country has to offer without having to pay anything for it?
Sigh, sometimes you guys confound me. You spend a lot of time trashing religion, or Christians in particlar but then extol a religious figure because he purportedly conforms with your political viewpoints. Forgive me for saying so, but that's just sad.
Pope Francis gets it
Why don't conservatives?
I should qualify my statement by adding that I don't believe that's true in each and every case, especially when it comes to regular people who identify as conservative.Why conservatives just don't get Pope Francis' anti-poverty crusade - The Week
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Francis' message likely raises American conservative hackles because the American right wing has invented such a convincing façade of affinity between fiscal conservatism and Christianity over the last few decades. Though free markets, profit motives, and unrestrained accumulation of wealth have no immediate relationship with Christianity, the cross and the coin are nonetheless powerful, paired symbols of the American right wing
Douthat, for example, argues that global capitalism has been responsible for an overall reduction in poverty. But Francis' exhortation never called for an elimination of capitalism, only that states, as creations of humankind, be structured so as to alleviate the poverty that arises after capitalism has done its work. For Francis, all institutions created by humanity and yes, distributions of wealth are created, not spontaneous must be intentionally shaped to further just goals. Since Francis' notion of justice is informed purely by the teaching of Christ, just goals include establishing an equitable distribution of wealth that alleviates poverty and contributes to peace.
Conservatives, by and large, have only one religion. They worship greed.
You see, in the movie, Wall Street, when Gordon Gecko uttered that famous line about greed being good, conservatives heard it differently. What they heard is that greed is God.
Who teaches you this stuff? You couldn't be more wrong.
Why conservatives just don't get Pope Francis' anti-poverty crusade - The Week
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Francis' message likely raises American conservative hackles because the American right wing has invented such a convincing façade of affinity between fiscal conservatism and Christianity over the last few decades. Though free markets, profit motives, and unrestrained accumulation of wealth have no immediate relationship with Christianity, the cross and the coin are nonetheless powerful, paired symbols of the American right wing
Douthat, for example, argues that global capitalism has been responsible for an overall reduction in poverty. But Francis' exhortation never called for an elimination of capitalism, only that states, as creations of humankind, be structured so as to alleviate the poverty that arises after capitalism has done its work. For Francis, all institutions created by humanity and yes, distributions of wealth are created, not spontaneous must be intentionally shaped to further just goals. Since Francis' notion of justice is informed purely by the teaching of Christ, just goals include establishing an equitable distribution of wealth that alleviates poverty and contributes to peace.
Conservatives, by and large, have only one religion. They worship greed.
You see, in the movie, Wall Street, when Gordon Gecko uttered that famous line about greed being good, conservatives heard it differently. What they heard is that greed is God.
Conservatives, by and large, have only one religion. They worship greed.
your right many Conservatives are like that....but then so are many Democrats....shocking huh?....
No it is not theft. There is no intent to steal b/c our government is set up by the supreme law of the land - the US constitution- - to have governance by consent of the governed. There can be no theft by the government for two reasons, government does not formulate intent and even if it could create intent, you consent to the government acts by being a US citizen under the US Constitution.
Do you see that now? You enjoy the benefits of US citizenship and taxes pay for all those benefits that you enjoy. Just b/c you don't like some of the expenditures does not permit you to sabotage the entire tax system as a criminal enterprise.
The intent, under this context, is redistribution. Taking from one and giving to another. The very OP signals wealth redistribution that the pope supposedly advocated. Consent and compliance are two entirely different things. Consent is an individual volition, not a collective one. If 9 of you agree that taxation is fine and I disagree, did i consent, or am I simply in compliance for not attempting to stop the theft. The answer is simple. There is no 'people' and there is no 'society' in such matters, only individuals.
Do you see that now? Probably not.
What benefits I am suppose to be enjoying by having my property confiscated by the government? What consent did I give to the government or the constitution? The consent of being born here? You tyrants just love these questions.
You want anarchy which is never going to happen.
I should qualify my statement by adding that I don't believe that's true in each and every case, especially when it comes to regular people who identify as conservative.Conservatives, by and large, have only one religion. They worship greed.
You see, in the movie, Wall Street, when Gordon Gecko uttered that famous line about greed being good, conservatives heard it differently. What they heard is that greed is God.
Who teaches you this stuff? You couldn't be more wrong.
But there's a segment of the conservative movement that has sold its collective soul for the all mighty buck. Radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity come to mind. At something like $50 million per year, you don't think Rush believes everything he says, do you? Of course not. But he knows what's expected of him. That's why people like him diss the pope in favor of unbridled capitalism which it just so happens led to the worldwide financial meltdown of 2008 which hurt so many people while still enriching the people who caused the crash.
The intent, under this context, is redistribution. Taking from one and giving to another. The very OP signals wealth redistribution that the pope supposedly advocated. Consent and compliance are two entirely different things. Consent is an individual volition, not a collective one. If 9 of you agree that taxation is fine and I disagree, did i consent, or am I simply in compliance for not attempting to stop the theft. The answer is simple. There is no 'people' and there is no 'society' in such matters, only individuals.
Do you see that now? Probably not.
What benefits I am suppose to be enjoying by having my property confiscated by the government? What consent did I give to the government or the constitution? The consent of being born here? You tyrants just love these questions.
You want anarchy which is never going to happen.
You want tyranny, which is never going to happen.
The US constitution is a contract.implied consent
n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered.
Legal Dictionary | Law.com
You are selfish to the point of irrationality. You don't have the capacity for reasonable debate and that's why the concept of 'implied consent' completely evades your understanding and capitulation.
The reason "implied consent" escapes me is because I can go ahead and say you implied consent to give me all of your money when I never bothered to consult with you on it. It's not a contract, there is no consent. Tacit consent is compliance, not consent. Same with "implied consent". You're trying to make nice out of consent because you never got consent.
Now, run and find my copy of the social contract that i signed and dont come back without it.
You can keep calling me names and trying to make it out that I'm irrational, when you can not prove a single assertion you've made unless you appeal to the writings of authority. You're a sycophant, fella, and a dog-gone stupid one at that.
It's a contract that you are a party to and one which you've given your consent. You are a 'citizen' under its terms and you enjoy the benefits of its laws and governance.
You don't want unjust enrichment, do you?
I should qualify my statement by adding that I don't believe that's true in each and every case, especially when it comes to regular people who identify as conservative.Who teaches you this stuff? You couldn't be more wrong.
But there's a segment of the conservative movement that has sold its collective soul for the all mighty buck. Radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity come to mind. At something like $50 million per year, you don't think Rush believes everything he says, do you? Of course not. But he knows what's expected of him. That's why people like him diss the pope in favor of unbridled capitalism which it just so happens led to the worldwide financial meltdown of 2008 which hurt so many people while still enriching the people who caused the crash.
Riiiiigggghhhhhht. And no LOLberal or democrats are in the same position, right? They are all true angels who want to help all humans and do not sya shit they do not believe for money.
Any time you want to debate the constitution. I'm there. If my posts on the constitution are 'content free' you should have no problem putting me down. Why not show me how wrong my prior posts in this thread are? You know, the ones on Sup. Ct. review standards?
Of course I would get the 'taxes are theft' nonsense from you as well. Just admit you have no idea how the constitution works and I'll go easier on you.
slap crack bam zoom.
Tell me, how does my backhand taste?
Not to be offensive, but you are arguing with people who either don't know, or who just ignore, the supreme court cases discussing when an individual has a RIGHT to challange a particular tax, or funding of a particular activity. It's akin to me trying to reason with my dog in an effort to convince him there's no reason to charge and bark at the tv, when I pause a program too long, and the flying logo starts going across the screen.
Believe me, I feel dirty for doing it. I start a new job in a few days and I have some time to kill. So I'm wasting it here.
I really marvel at the effect that online unmonitored education has on people..read the Von Mises institute. I would think that it might cross their minds that I am speaking from well trained experience on the operation of the constitution. But no. I'm fooling myself with that.
So maybe it's time to move to another thread where I find more middle class people arguing against better middle class benefits and pay b/c taxation is theft. sigh.
Why conservatives just don't get Pope Francis' anti-poverty crusade - The Week
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.
Francis' message likely raises American conservative hackles because the American right wing has invented such a convincing façade of affinity between fiscal conservatism and Christianity over the last few decades. Though free markets, profit motives, and unrestrained accumulation of wealth have no immediate relationship with Christianity, the cross and the coin are nonetheless powerful, paired symbols of the American right wing
Douthat, for example, argues that global capitalism has been responsible for an overall reduction in poverty. But Francis' exhortation never called for an elimination of capitalism, only that states, as creations of humankind, be structured so as to alleviate the poverty that arises after capitalism has done its work. For Francis, all institutions created by humanity and yes, distributions of wealth are created, not spontaneous must be intentionally shaped to further just goals. Since Francis' notion of justice is informed purely by the teaching of Christ, just goals include establishing an equitable distribution of wealth that alleviates poverty and contributes to peace.
Conservatives, by and large, have only one religion. They worship greed.
You see, in the movie, Wall Street, when Gordon Gecko uttered that famous line about greed being good, conservatives heard it differently. What they heard is that greed is God.
Conservatives, by and large, have only one religion. They worship greed.
your right many Conservatives are like that....but then so are many Democrats....shocking huh?....
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
Read more: The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. by John Kenneth Galbraith
Keep in mind that it's conservatives who are constantly deriding leftists as being bleeding heart liberals in terms of caring for the disenfranchised.
Gingrich Schools Reich 'Every Major City Which Is A Poverty Center Is Run By Democrats' - YouTube
JONATHAN KARL, SUBSTITUTE HOST: And let me ask you, Mr. Gingrich, Speaker, when you look at that issue of inequality - and this is something he's put front and center, the Pope has. It's something of course that President Obama talks a lot about. We saw the story about homelessness in New York--
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Sure.
KARL: Stark reality of the gap in the nation's biggest city. Is this an issue that Republicans should be talking about?
GINGRICH: Absolutely. I mean, how can you justify the level of wealth in those big towers in New York City and the level of poverty in those alleys? And without talking about government, say, surely a society that cared, that believed every person was endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness, would come up with a better solution than 22,000 children that are homeless.
And I think that the Republican Party has an obligation to rethink some of its indifference to the very poor. And I think the Democrats have an obligation to ask themselves after 50 years of the war on poverty, isn't it clear that government is not a very good [unintelligible].
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERT REICH: The war on poverty - which next year we are going to celebrate the 50th anniversary in addition to the Civil Rights Act - the war on poverty was successful for a time. What has happened however over the last 30 years is that much of the, much of the ardor, much of the concern, much of the, what propelled that war on poverty has dissipated.
KARL: Why after five years of President Barack Obama we see the problem worse?
REICH: Well the problem is worse; I think it has something to do, perhaps, with the intransigence of the Speaker's Party, because every time there was a jobs bill, every time there was an effort to expand a low income housing, every time there was an effort to provide better opportunities for young people. We're talking about equal opportunity.
GINGRICH: Every major, every, this is baloney.
REICH: At the basis of this, what is baloney?
GINGRICH: Here's the baloney. Every major city which is a center of poverty is run by Democrats. Every major city. Their policies have failed, they're not willing to admit and the fact is it's the poor who suffer from bad [unintelligible].
Gingrich Schools Reich 'Every Major City Which Is A Poverty Center Is Run By Democrats' - YouTube
JONATHAN KARL, SUBSTITUTE HOST: And let me ask you, Mr. Gingrich, Speaker, when you look at that issue of inequality - and this is something he's put front and center, the Pope has. It's something of course that President Obama talks a lot about. We saw the story about homelessness in New York--
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Sure.
KARL: Stark reality of the gap in the nation's biggest city. Is this an issue that Republicans should be talking about?
GINGRICH: Absolutely. I mean, how can you justify the level of wealth in those big towers in New York City and the level of poverty in those alleys? And without talking about government, say, surely a society that cared, that believed every person was endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness, would come up with a better solution than 22,000 children that are homeless.
And I think that the Republican Party has an obligation to rethink some of its indifference to the very poor. And I think the Democrats have an obligation to ask themselves after 50 years of the war on poverty, isn't it clear that government is not a very good [unintelligible].
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERT REICH: The war on poverty - which next year we are going to celebrate the 50th anniversary in addition to the Civil Rights Act - the war on poverty was successful for a time. What has happened however over the last 30 years is that much of the, much of the ardor, much of the concern, much of the, what propelled that war on poverty has dissipated.
KARL: Why after five years of President Barack Obama we see the problem worse?
REICH: Well the problem is worse; I think it has something to do, perhaps, with the intransigence of the Speaker's Party, because every time there was a jobs bill, every time there was an effort to expand a low income housing, every time there was an effort to provide better opportunities for young people. We're talking about equal opportunity.
GINGRICH: Every major, every, this is baloney.
REICH: At the basis of this, what is baloney?
GINGRICH: Here's the baloney. Every major city which is a center of poverty is run by Democrats. Every major city. Their policies have failed, they're not willing to admit and the fact is it's the poor who suffer from bad [unintelligible].
Reich went after Reagan eh? Predictable.
Gingrich Schools Reich 'Every Major City Which Is A Poverty Center Is Run By Democrats' - YouTube
JONATHAN KARL, SUBSTITUTE HOST: And let me ask you, Mr. Gingrich, Speaker, when you look at that issue of inequality - and this is something he's put front and center, the Pope has. It's something of course that President Obama talks a lot about. We saw the story about homelessness in New York--
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Sure.
KARL: Stark reality of the gap in the nation's biggest city. Is this an issue that Republicans should be talking about?
GINGRICH: Absolutely. I mean, how can you justify the level of wealth in those big towers in New York City and the level of poverty in those alleys? And without talking about government, say, surely a society that cared, that believed every person was endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness, would come up with a better solution than 22,000 children that are homeless.
And I think that the Republican Party has an obligation to rethink some of its indifference to the very poor. And I think the Democrats have an obligation to ask themselves after 50 years of the war on poverty, isn't it clear that government is not a very good [unintelligible].
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERT REICH: The war on poverty - which next year we are going to celebrate the 50th anniversary in addition to the Civil Rights Act - the war on poverty was successful for a time. What has happened however over the last 30 years is that much of the, much of the ardor, much of the concern, much of the, what propelled that war on poverty has dissipated.
KARL: Why after five years of President Barack Obama we see the problem worse?
REICH: Well the problem is worse; I think it has something to do, perhaps, with the intransigence of the Speaker's Party, because every time there was a jobs bill, every time there was an effort to expand a low income housing, every time there was an effort to provide better opportunities for young people. We're talking about equal opportunity.
GINGRICH: Every major, every, this is baloney.
REICH: At the basis of this, what is baloney?
GINGRICH: Here's the baloney. Every major city which is a center of poverty is run by Democrats. Every major city. Their policies have failed, they're not willing to admit and the fact is it's the poor who suffer from bad [unintelligible].
Reich went after Reagan eh? Predictable.
What does Reagan have to do with this, exactly?
Reich went after Reagan eh? Predictable.
What does Reagan have to do with this, exactly?
You're the one who posted the info with Reich using the "30 years" euphemism. Are you really so desperate for an argument with me that you'll start some shit just because I pointed out the obvious slam at Reagan? Fine, bring it Frodo.
What does Reagan have to do with this, exactly?
You're the one who posted the info with Reich using the "30 years" euphemism. Are you really so desperate for an argument with me that you'll start some shit just because I pointed out the obvious slam at Reagan? Fine, bring it Frodo.
Well, you as well as he, want to blame Reagan and Republican policies for income inequality, when it has been for the past 75-100 years been Democrats in major cities enacting redistributionist policy and spending their cities into oblivion which has caused poverty.
It's plain as day you're a liberal, you might as well up and agree with Reich. I can't even see your face, but I bet your agreement with Reich is painted all over it.
You want anarchy which is never going to happen.
You want tyranny, which is never going to happen.
She says it like anarchy is a bad thing. Meanwhile advocating tyrnany, violence and oppression via a government system. Then blames it on corporations.
Stupid. I mean, really stupid, but predictable all the same.
