Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Butterbean on May 24, 2012, 02:53:36 PM
-
Most on the right and on the left want to help people but have very different ideas of how to go about this.
-
Most on the right and on the left want to help people but have very different ideas of how to go about this.
I always wonder what the true motive is behind our politicians decisions that end up hurting us.
Are Obama and Bush intentionally fucking the United States or are they sincerely trying to do right?
I believe their are only about three people in the Federal Government who are doing what's right.
Are all the people that signed onto the Patriot Act ignorant, do they really believe they're protecting us?
-
Most on the right and on the left want to help people but have very different ideas of how to go about this.
Yes I do, I think that both sides want to help those less fortunate and that need help but have different ideas on going about it.
Conservatives who dont want govt in their lives and want to be allowed to keep more of their money tend to give more to charity
Liberals may give less to charity but want the govt to take the money and distribute it.
One could argue that liberals dont want to give their own money they just want to have others who are better off take care of those who have less but they still want those less fortunate taken care of.
This idea has been lost with the constant use of "the war on woman,children,minoritie etc." I think if you ask most on the left they would say conservatives dont care about helping ppl. I think the right would probably say about the same but probably a little more would concede the left geniunly wants to help.
-
"They" don't want to help - fulfill an egotistical itch at most. Talk to people who are there "to help" others... mostly ego/money driven agendas especially among high profile folks like politicians.
-
"They" don't want to help - fulfill an egotistical itch at most. Talk to people who are there "to help" others... mostly ego/money driven agendas especially among high profile folks like politicians.
I agree with this - the desire to "help" people is usually motivated out of ego as a way of feeling less shitty about being who they are.
-
Most on the right and on the left want to help people but have very different ideas of how to go about this.
I agree, most people, i disagree most elected politicians.
-
I agree, most people, i disagree most elected politicians.
LOL scratch what I said, I agree with this
-
"They" don't want to help - fulfill an egotistical itch at most. Talk to people who are there "to help" others... mostly ego/money driven agendas especially among high profile folks like politicians.
I agree with this - the desire to "help" people is usually motivated out of ego as a way of feeling less shitty about being who they are.
Do either of you believe in a truly selfless act then? one in which the person acting gains nothing at all?
-
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."
C.S. Lewis.
-
Do either of you believe in a truly selfless act then? one in which the person acting gains nothing at all?
Yes, of course.
Theyre usually not the people that are on a "mission" to help people though.
There are exceptions, of course... some people really do dedicate their lives to the helping of others - but those that do it out of selflessness dont feel the need for everyone to KNOW or CARE that theyre lives are dedicated to helping others.
There also, is always the people that will throw their lives in harms way to help others. They also, usually, are not the kind of people who make sure everyone knows they want to help people.
With politicians, no, there is no such thing as a selfless act. Thats politics - the honest ones get thrown out for not telling everyone what they want to hear.
Ron Paul being a notable exception, but he's pretty much stalemated.
-
I think most people are out for themselves and only themselves and when the chips are down, few and far between would go out of their way to help others.
-
Most on the right and on the left want to help people but have very different ideas of how to go about this.
Hell no
Repub wants to help the riches people in the world get even richer even if it means little kids cant get health insurance and therefore die
Repub helps rich folks and says fuck you too kids and poor people. How they can label themselves Christian is beyond me.
-
Hell no
Repub wants to help the riches people in the world get even richer even if it means little kids cant get health insurance and therefore die
Repub helps rich folks and says fuck you too kids and poor people. How they can label themselves Christian is beyond me.
::)
-
::)
And how is this wrong again?
-
;D
-
;D
Good find, 3. The last true Conservative President.
-
Hell no
Repub wants to help the riches people in the world get even richer even if it means little kids cant get health insurance and therefore die
Repub helps rich folks and says fuck you too kids and poor people. How they can label themselves Christian is beyond me.
Come on, man. That's pretty big sweeping statement and it isn't correct either.
-
Come on, man. That's pretty big sweeping statement and it isn't correct either.
Whork is blacken700's gimmick and it has been documented that he is autistic and living on disability with his parents.
-
Hell no
Repub wants to help the riches people in the world get even richer even if it means little kids cant get health insurance and therefore die
Repub helps rich folks and says fuck you too kids and poor people. How they can label themselves Christian is beyond me.
who gives more to charity again?
why do you get to decide who needs help and who doesnt?
why dont we let the ppl giving their help decide it?
-
Good find, 3. The last true Conservative President.
He would be considered a Liberal by todays standards for sure. Especially his tax rate at over 90 percent of income for the wealthy. My Grandfather was hit by this and refused to pay and decided instead to take jail time rather than pay 90 percent.
-
who gives more to charity again?
why do you get to decide who needs help and who doesnt?
why dont we let the ppl giving their help decide it?
Atheists give the most to charity.
-
Atheists give the most to charity.
Can you say BS? I knew that you could.
Talk to the people who've actually been helped by charitable organizations and see how many atheists you find.
-
Can you say BS? I knew that you could.
Uh, Bill Gates alone has given away more money than all of your Jesus Bullshit Churches.
-
Uh, Bill Gates alone has given away more money than all of your Jesus Bullshit Churches.
Not even close!! There are churches and members that have given to charity long before Bill Gates even existed.
-
Atheists give the most to charity.
Really? Never heard that. Not sure if it's true, but here is something I just read:
Atheism and charity
Per capita atheists and agnostics in America give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists.
Concerning the issue of atheism and charity, charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the Barna Group:
“ The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.[1] ”
A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.[2][3] The study revealed that forty percent of worship service attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[4][5] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).[6][7]
Arthur C. Brooks wrote in Policy Review regarding data collected in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) (data collected by in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research):
“ The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.[8] ”
ABC News reported the following:
“ ...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:
"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."[9]
”
Given that atheistic evolutionary thinking has engendered social darwinism and given that the proponents of atheism have no rational basis for morality in their ideology, the immoral views that atheists often hold and the low per capita giving of American atheists is not unpredictable.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_charity
-
Conservapedia. LOLOLOLOLOL You should check out their entry on Evolution for a laugh. Oh wait, you are a stupid Creationist so that won`t work.
That is by far the worst site on earth.
-
Conservapedia. LOLOLOLOLOL You should check out their entry on Evolution for a laugh. Oh wait, you are a stupid Creationist so that won`t work.
That is by far the worst site on earth.
Did you read the article?
And you calling someone stupid is pretty funny. ;D
-
Did you read the article?
And you calling someone stupid is pretty funny. ;D
No point since its a blatant lie and full of shit, totally made up.
-
Atheists give the most to charity.
LOL ;D
Ah, NO.
Who gives the most to charity?
"Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations"
"The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."
"it's in fact low-income employed Americans who give the highest portion of their income, or 4.5%."
"low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income."
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."
"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."
"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230
Who Gives The Most?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html
Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730
-
"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"
Roy Hattersley
The Guardian, Monday 12 September 2005
Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.
The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.
The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.
Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.
The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.
Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.
Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.
Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.
The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.
It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.
The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/12/religion.uk/print
-
LOL ;D
Ah, NO.
Who gives the most to charity?
"Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations"
"The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."
"it's in fact low-income employed Americans who give the highest portion of their income, or 4.5%."
"low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income."
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."
"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."
"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230
Who Gives The Most?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html
Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730
The world would be a much better place without all of the religious people.
-
No point since its a blatant lie and full of shit, totally made up.
Really? Even the part that cites the study done by a Harvard professor?
-
LOL ;D
Ah, NO.
Who gives the most to charity?
"Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations"
"The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."
"it's in fact low-income employed Americans who give the highest portion of their income, or 4.5%."
"low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income."
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."
"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."
"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230
Who Gives The Most?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html
Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730
Bwahahahaha!!!! Let that be a lesson to you "True Adonis." Don't mess with El Profeta. He will bring the smack down, in the name of Jesus. lol . . . .
-
"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"
Roy Hattersley
The Guardian, Monday 12 September 2005
Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.
The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.
The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.
Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.
The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.
Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.
Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.
Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.
The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.
It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.
The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/12/religion.uk/print
[still laughing] ;D
Atheists give the most to charity.
-
Bwahahahaha!!!! Let that be a lesson to you "True Adonis." Don't mess with El Profeta. He will bring the smack down, in the name of Jesus. lol . . . .
Wrong for so many reasons. Atheists in America only make up around 10-16 percent of the population, yet the money donated by them EXCEED Christians Per Capita. Also, broaden your search to the world and you will find Atheists in Scandinavian countries (where most of the population are Atheist), European Countries when coupled with the United States 10-16 percent, exceed the miserable Christians.
Furthermore donating to a Church does not count at all as donating to charity.
-
We need to define what "Help" means in this context.
-
Wrong for so many reasons. Atheists in America only make up around 10-16 percent of the population, yet the money donated by them EXCEED Christians Per Capita. Also, broaden your search to the world and you will find Atheists in Scandinavian countries (where most of the population are Atheist), European Countries when coupled with the United States 10-16 percent, exceed the miserable Christians.
Furthermore donating to a Church does not count at all as donating to charity.
::) Slither away dum dum. Put some ice on that swelling. lol ;D
-
QUESTION:
If being Jewish is a religion, how can an atheist be a Jew? Or are they a race? Reason I ask is whenever its claimed Jews are not white the argument made by ignorant people is that being Jewish is not about race, it's about a religion. What utter horseshit!
-
QUESTION:
If being Jewish is a religion, how can an atheist be a Jew? Or are they a race? Reason I ask is whenever its claimed Jews are not white the argument made by ignorant people is that being Jewish is not about race, it's about a religion. What utter horseshit!
Cultural Identity. Most Jews are Atheists.
-
Furthermore donating to a Church does not count at all as donating to charity.
Do you think all the $ that is given to churches goes to upkeep/maintenance/salaries etc? Wrong. Much of the $ given to churches goes to helping others in many ways....ways which even you would agree is "charity."
BTW, if you could please post the recipe for the crackers in the Brio bread baskets, I'd appreciate it :D
-
I'm not sure if the text I'm quoting here is yours, or part of the copy-paste.
Given that atheistic evolutionary thinking has engendered social darwinism and given that the proponents of atheism have no rational basis for morality in their ideology, the immoral views that atheists often hold and the low per capita giving of American atheists is not unpredictable.
I only have one thing to say about this: BULLSHIT.
-
Wrong for so many reasons. Atheists in America only make up around 10-16 percent of the population, yet the money donated by them EXCEED Christians Per Capita. Also, broaden your search to the world and you will find Atheists in Scandinavian countries (where most of the population are Atheist), European Countries when coupled with the United States 10-16 percent, exceed the miserable Christians.
Furthermore donating to a Church does not count at all as donating to charity.
Are you still posting in this thread? lol. You are so full of crap.
-
Cultural Identity. Most Jews are Atheists.
Proof?
-
I'm not sure if the text I'm quoting here is yours, or part of the copy-paste.
I only have one thing to say about this: BULLSHIT.
It's obviously not my quote.
-
It's obviously not my quote.
OK. It's still bullshit :)
-
OK. It's still bullshit :)
So?
-
So?
I just find it interesting that you'd post bullshit.
-
I just find it interesting that you'd post bullshit.
Really? You post it everyday, so it should make you feel right at home. :)
-
Really? You post it everyday, so it should make you feel right at home. :)
Tisk tisk! And just a day or so ago you were trying to call me out for supposedly making ad hominem attacks.
-
Tisk tisk! And just a day or so ago you were trying to call me out for supposedly making ad hominem attacks.
That wasn't ad hominem. That was attacking what you post, not you the individual. If said were to say you are a doofus who posts BS every day, that would be ad hominem.
No, I'm not calling you a doofus.
-
QUESTION:
If being Jewish is a religion, how can an atheist be a Jew? Or are they a race? Reason I ask is whenever its claimed Jews are not white the argument made by ignorant people is that being Jewish is not about race, it's about a religion. What utter horseshit!
In addition to being a religion (Judaism) I think it's a bloodline thing.
Have never heard Jews referred to as "not white." The Jews I know are whiter than me.
-
Hell no
Repub wants to help the riches people in the world get even richer even if it means little kids cant get health insurance and therefore die
Repub helps rich folks and says fuck you too kids and poor people. How they can label themselves Christian is beyond me.
whork, do you really believe this or are you playing?
Also, when you say Repub are you talking about Republican Political Leaders or do you include Republicans in the general population?
-
I'm not sure if the text I'm quoting here is yours, or part of the copy-paste.
I only have one thing to say about this: BULLSHIT.
Actually, that is true. You idiots believing that you know what morality is and actually living it are two different things. Atheists are the most immoral, selfish people in this world. Humanity wouldn't have lasted this long if it wasn't for TRUE PIETY.
Que the idiots who will mention the crusades and other events from centuries ago, while overlooking my statement on TRUE PIETY.
-
Come on, man. That's pretty big sweeping statement and it isn't correct either.
Yup you are right i just got sick of all the neo-con ass kissing on this board
But you are right the above statement is BS
-
who gives more to charity again?
why do you get to decide who needs help and who doesnt?
why dont we let the ppl giving their help decide it?
Because i dont want kids to not get able to get health insurance because some bastards wants to get even richer
Kids lives ranks higher than rich peoples $ in my book
-
whork, do you really believe this or are you playing?
Also, when you say Repub are you talking about Republican Political Leaders or do you include Republicans in the general population?
Part playing but there is some truth to this
Preventing kids from getting health care in the name of freedom(Dollars) makes me sick
-
Part playing but there is some truth to this
Preventing kids from getting health care in the name of freedom(Dollars) makes me sick
But forcing people to paying for stuff in the name of "fairness" is ok?
LOL!!!!
-
But forcing people to paying for stuff in the name of "fairness" is ok?
LOL!!!!
Forcing already massively rich health care companies to give up a fraction of their profit to help kids? Hell yeah
But you would apparently rather put a bullet in a sich kids head if it were the cheaper option for you rich idols? Fuck you
-
Forcing already massively rich health care companies to give up a fraction of their profit to help kids? Hell yeah
But you would apparently rather put a bullet in a sich kids head if it were the cheaper option for you rich idols? Fuck you
-
Yeah death kids is hilarious
-
Actually, that is true. You idiots believing that you know what morality is and actually living it are two different things. Atheists are the most immoral, selfish people in this world. Humanity wouldn't have lasted this long if it wasn't for TRUE PIETY.
Que the idiots who will mention the crusades and other events from centuries ago, while overlooking my statement on TRUE PIETY.
Atheists didn't attack on 9/11. Those were some hardcore religious people.
-
Actually, that is true. You idiots believing that you know what morality is and actually living it are two different things. Atheists are the most immoral, selfish people in this world. Humanity wouldn't have lasted this long if it wasn't for TRUE PIETY.
Que the idiots who will mention the crusades and other events from centuries ago, while overlooking my statement on TRUE PIETY.
So you are a moral person and the rest of us are just idiots, yes?
-
QUESTION:
If being Jewish is a religion, how can an atheist be a Jew? Or are they a race? Reason I ask is whenever its claimed Jews are not white the argument made by ignorant people is that being Jewish is not about race, it's about a religion. What utter horseshit!
Who is a Jew?
Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used. Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion; those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent); and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F
-
Actually, that is true. You idiots believing that you know what morality is and actually living it are two different things. Atheists are the most immoral, selfish people in this world.
OH! YOUR! GOD! I'm dying from laughter here.
Humanity wouldn't have lasted this long if it wasn't for TRUE PIETY.
Humanity is lucky to have come out of the dark ages that your ilk and the belief system that you ascribe to plunged it in.
Que the idiots who will mention the crusades and other events from centuries ago, while overlooking my statement on TRUE PIETY.
And after them, can we, maybe, cue the dictionary? You know, for good measure... Jesus H. Christ (or is that Immanuel H. Christ? I'm confused.)! The inability of people to spell even the simplest of words never ceases to amaze me.
-
Actually, that is true. You idiots believing that you know what morality is and actually living it are two different things. Atheists are the most immoral, selfish people in this world. Humanity wouldn't have lasted this long if it wasn't for TRUE PIETY.
Que the idiots who will mention the crusades and other events from centuries ago, while overlooking my statement on TRUE PIETY.
Haha you really dont know shit about your own religion do you?