Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on June 13, 2012, 02:37:28 PM
-
for you to not vote for him? Seems most who want Obama gone are dead set on voting for Romney no matter what. Is there anything over the top that would keep you from voting Romney? Or could he pretty much be revealed as an alien homo vampire and you would still vote for him?
-
for you to not vote for him? Seems most who want Obama gone are dead set on voting for Romney no matter what. Is there anything over the top that would keep you from voting Romney? Or could he pretty much be revealed as an alien homo vampire and you would still vote for him?
According to Newsweek, Obama's the first alien-homo-vampire president.
Short of his committing human sacrifice on national TV (or something similar), he's got my vote.
-
According to Newsweek, Obama's the first alien-homo-vampire president.
Short of his committing human sacrifice on national TV (or something similar), he's got my vote.
LOL
Didn't expect a reply to this thread, kinda silly thread, so thanks ;D
providing Romney was still running after killing someone on national TV, I bet 3333 would still vote for him!
-
LOL
Didn't expect a reply to this thread, kinda silly thread, so thanks ;D
providing Romney was still running after killing someone on national TV, I bet 3333 would still vote for him!
If you think about it, my statement is somewhat accurate.
He's for amnesty and the DREAM Act (alien)
He just flip-flopped....ahem....evolved toward gay "marriage (homo)
He want to raise taxes, so people can "pay their fair share" (vampire).
-
If you think about it, my statement is somewhat accurate.
He's for amnesty and the DREAM Act (alien)
He just flip-flopped....ahem....evolved toward gay "marriage (homo)
He want to raise taxes, so people can "pay their fair share" (vampire).
lol, true! but I was thinking alien from outer space kinda thing :D
-
If you think about it, my statement is somewhat accurate.
He's for amnesty and the DREAM Act (alien)
He just flip-flopped....ahem....evolved toward gay "marriage (homo)
He want to raise taxes, so people can "pay their fair share" (vampire).
:D
-
According to Newsweek, Obama's the first alien-homo-vampire president.
Short of his committing human sacrifice on national TV (or something similar), he's got my vote.
Win.
-
What could he possibly do worse than the last four years?
-
What could he possibly do worse than the last four years?
I seriously have to wonder when people say "he couldn't do worse".
Of COURSE he can do worse... There's a shit ton of things he could do to be worse.
There's a shit ton that Obama could do that would be worse also.
-
I seriously have to wonder when people say "he couldn't do worse".
Of COURSE he can do worse... There's a shit ton of things he could do to be worse.
There's a shit ton that Obama could do that would be worse also.
face it Tu as far as the economy is concerned a person would have to purposely try to do worse than obama has done.
-
romney could hold 33 down and ejaculate on his face - and he's still get his vote.
ABO.
-
face it Tu as far as the economy is concerned a person would have to purposely try to do worse than obama has done.
I disagree. I don't think Romney would do anything different at all...
I ask people this all of the time, what would Romney do different? Please tell me... because so far, I haven't heard a single thing that would make me think he would do ANYTHING differently.
The only thing I do know is that Obama didn't do a lot of the things he SAID he would and that shit pisses me off... especially when it comes down to liberty.
-
face it Tu as far as the economy is concerned a person would have to purposely try to do worse than obama has done.
to do worse all Romney will have to do is generally stay on the same course which is what he will fucking do.
-
I disagree. I don't think Romney would do anything different at all...
I ask people this all of the time, what would Romney do different? Please tell me... because so far, I haven't heard a single thing that would make me think he would do ANYTHING differently.
The only thing I do know is that Obama didn't do a lot of the things he SAID he would and that shit pisses me off... especially when it comes down to liberty.
There is absolutely nothing in Romney's past that indicates he will do anything different when he is president. All indications are that he will do as told and the same shit will go on and on and on as usual. There will be little shitfits that keep the left freaked and keep the right supporting and then it all fucking flips again down the road... oh fucking joy ::) morons.
-
lol, true! but I was thinking alien from outer space kinda thing :D
Maybe because no one can establish that he was born in this country, he was actually born on Mars? ;D
I disagree. I don't think Romney would do anything different at all...
I ask people this all of the time, what would Romney do different? Please tell me... because so far, I haven't heard a single thing that would make me think he would do ANYTHING differently.
Romney has said plenty of things that are quite different than anything Obama has done. Just go to his website and look at the documents on foreign policy and economic policy for examples. Whether he'll actually do them, of course, is another story. But I think presidents actually try to carry out what they say, if for no other reason than to avoid looking like total hypocrites. For example, Bush said he'd expand Medicare in the original 2000 debates and presaged his more aggressive foreign policy in the 2002 National Security Strategy, and the majority of Obama's policies were presaged in The Audacity of Hope. So, some things will likely change if Romney gets in.
-
Die?
-
Romney has said plenty of things that are quite different than anything Obama has done. Just go to his website and look at the documents on foreign policy and economic policy for examples. Whether he'll actually do them, of course, is another story. But I think presidents actually try to carry out what they say, if for no other reason than to avoid looking like total hypocrites. For example, Bush said he'd expand Medicare in the original 2000 debates and presaged his more aggressive foreign policy in the 2002 National Security Strategy, and the majority of Obama's policies were presaged in The Audacity of Hope. So, some things will likely change if Romney gets in.
Are you kidding? Romney has so many flip flops in his policies that he makes Kerry look like a flawless angel. On the bit about presidents actually trying to carry out what they say, yea, we haven't had much luck in that area for a long long ass time. Obama backstabed most of what he promised, Bush completely blew it but people forgive him because hey, 9/11 changed everything ::) Slick Willy just went with it and slid past capitalizing on work he didn't do and grandpa Bush shit on his promises too.
-
Are you kidding? Romney has so many flip flops in his policies that he makes Kerry look like a flawless angel. On the bit about presidents actually trying to carry out what they say, yea, we haven't had much luck in that area for a long long ass time. Obama backstabed most of what he promised, Bush completely blew it but people forgive him because hey, 9/11 changed everything ::) Slick Willy just went with it and slid past capitalizing on work he didn't do and grandpa Bush shit on his promises too.
I've given you specific examples of presidents walking the talk when it comes to specific policy proposals, and you haven't done anything to refute them. If you actually read Obama's book the majority of what was said has come to fruition -- in his first (and perhaps only) term, no less. Now, that doesn't mean everything goes through -- Obama's promise to close Guantanamo being one obvious example -- but that isn't the same thing as him "backstabing" (sic) most of his promises. Specific examples would be helpful.
-
Maybe because no one can establish that he was born in this country, he was actually born on Mars? ;D
Romney has said plenty of things that are quite different than anything Obama has done. Just go to his website and look at the documents on foreign policy and economic policy for examples. Whether he'll actually do them, of course, is another story. But I think presidents actually try to carry out what they say, if for no other reason than to avoid looking like total hypocrites. For example, Bush said he'd expand Medicare in the original 2000 debates and presaged his more aggressive foreign policy in the 2002 National Security Strategy, and the majority of Obama's policies were presaged in The Audacity of Hope. So, some things will likely change if Romney gets in.
What SPECIFIC politics/changes have Romney said he would pursue? and how would he do?
-
What SPECIFIC politics/changes have Romney said he would pursue? and how would he do?
Ryan budget, Simpson Bowles, repeal DeathCare, keystone, etc.
-
Ryan budget, Simpson Bowles, repeal DeathCare, keystone, etc.
Make the rich richer and the poor even more poor despite we have a income equality like a state in friggin Africa( see the thread startet by Straw: America you should be mad about this)
Take away health insurance for x millions of people
Sounds great excellent plan if you are a inhumane rich guy
But it was specific so respect from me
-
Make the rich richer and the poor even more poor despite we have a income equality like a state in friggin Africa( see the thread startet by Straw: America you should be mad about this)
Take away health insurance for x millions of people
Sounds great excellent plan if you are a inhumane rich guy
But it was specific so respect from me
Again - this is an easy forumla.
Obama = proven disaster and failure. 100% chance of failure
Romney = 50-85% of sucking ass.
Most people in November are going to make the easy choice to get wsomeone new and if he sucks, get someone else in 2016 until we can get a REAL president who can get positive things done.
-
I dont think adding health insurance for millions of people and killing OBL is a proven disaster
However the opposite is so how can you make this statement?
Are you an AQ supporter? Do you want americans to be denied health insurance and therefore die but want OBL back so he can kill more americans? Are you even from the US?
-
Again - this is an easy forumla.
Obama = proven disaster and failure. 100% chance of failure
Romney = 50-85% of sucking ass.
Most people in November are going to make the easy choice to get wsomeone new and if he sucks, get someone else in 2016 until we can get a REAL president who can get positive things done.
I think that speaks more about the mindset of today's society... The popcorn brain syndrome.
-
I dont think adding health insurance for millions of people and killing OBL is a proven disaster
However the opposite is so how can you make this statement?
Are you an AQ supporter? Do you want americans to be denied health insurance and therefore die but want OBL back so he can kill more americans? Are you even from the US?
But jacking up healthcare prices for families, to foot the bill for other people is a disaster, which would explain why people loathe this monstrosity and can't wait for the Supreme Court to put the dagger in its heart.
And, it still hasn't dawned on you that killing Bin Laden has hardly helped Obama one bit. As stated elsewhere, about this time last year, Obama's numbers DROPPED lower than they were, when Bin Laden was still breathing. In fact, by August, Obama was in the 30s.
Killing Bin Laden sure ain't helping the president now, is it? He's either tied or losing to Romney. His base grows more disheartened by the month, fearing that not only can he lose, he might get beat to death on election day.
-
I disagree. I don't think Romney would do anything different at all...
I ask people this all of the time, what would Romney do different? Please tell me... because so far, I haven't heard a single thing that would make me think he would do ANYTHING differently.
The only thing I do know is that Obama didn't do a lot of the things he SAID he would and that shit pisses me off... especially when it comes down to liberty.
to do worse all Romney will have to do is generally stay on the same course which is what he will fucking do.
you both think romney would have passed a health care bill like obamas?
you think he would have passed a shell of a financial regulation bill like obama?
you both think he would have basically halted public drilling and make a 3000+ page oil well application out a 30 page application like obama did?
you think he would have toyed with letting the bush tax cuts expire?
you both think he would not pass the keystone pipe line?
SERIOUSLY, you two are freaking delusional.
again someone would have to try to do worse than obama has done on the economy?
-
you both think romney would have passed a health care bill like obamas?
you think he would have passed a shell of a financial regulation bill like obama?
you both think he would have basically halted public drilling and make a 3000+ page oil well application out a 30 page application like obama did?
you think he would have toyed with letting the bush tax cuts expire?
you both think he would not pass the keystone pipe line?
SERIOUSLY, you two are freaking delusional.
again someone would have to try to do worse than obama has done on the economy?
I believe so on ALL counts.
Go ahead and vote for the guy... Let him win... Then when he does ALL of the things that you claim he wouldn't do... I'll be happy to post back in this thread with a simple statement.
"I told you so."
-
I believe so on ALL counts.
Go ahead and vote for the guy... Let him win... Then when he does ALL of the things that you claim he wouldn't do... I'll be happy to post back in this thread with a simple statement.
"I told you so."
Not even close he may have done parts of these things but nothing like obama has done.
He may have passed a financial reform bill but not something that was a shell with no details.
I really dont see him doing anything else.
You think health care was a real big issue prior to obama bringing it to the fore front? it wasnt really.
you think the reps in congress would let romney get away with not approving keystone?
or letting the tax cuts expire?
again youre delusional if you think he would have been as bad as obama has been...
there wont be any need b/c unlike the typical obama supporter Ill be on here bashing the crap out of him for doing it b/c I voted for him and expected better.
-
Not even close he may have done parts of these things but nothing like obama has done.
He may have passed a financial reform bill but not something that was a shell with no details.
I really dont see him doing anything else.
You think health care was a real big issue prior to obama bringing it to the fore front? it wasnt really.
you think the reps in congress would let romney get away with not approving keystone?
or letting the tax cuts expire?
again youre delusional if you think he would have been as bad as obama has been...
there wont be any need b/c unlike the typical obama supporter Ill be on here bashing the crap out of him for doing it b/c I voted for him and expected better.
You are being very small minded.
I am exactly upset at Obama because I voted for him and thought he would do better, but has not.
During this time frame, I have realized that they are EXACTLY the same.
The economy would not be better, Romney will NOT overturn Obama's policies (we can bet on it if you want) and when it's all said and done, they will be virtually identical.
I believe Romney will be EXACTLY the same.
You call me delusional, but I simply don't see a difference in their actual actions... in the rhetoric, sure... but Romney wants to get voted in, so he's going to "say" whatever he thinks will get him elected.
You will be sorely disappointed if he wins in 4 years.
-
You are being very small minded.
I am exactly upset at Obama because I voted for him and thought he would do better, but has not.
During this time frame, I have realized that they are EXACTLY the same.
The economy would not be better, Romney will NOT overturn Obama's policies (we can bet on it if you want) and when it's all said and done, they will be virtually identical.
I believe Romney will be EXACTLY the same.
You call me delusional, but I simply don't see a difference in their actual actions... in the rhetoric, sure... but Romney wants to get voted in, so he's going to "say" whatever he thinks will get him elected.
You will be sorely disappointed if he wins in 4 years.
I never said he would overturn obamas policies, hopefully the SC will handle part or all of obamacare.
will he help keystone, I think he will
other than that he may want to but may not get a chance depending on congress.
P.S. we will all be worse off and even more disappointed in 4 years if obama wins. Im not a big romney fan but he is far better than obama.
-
tony, don't be silly... Of course he's not going to do exactly the same stuff Obama has done. I have no doubt he'll have his own brand of WTF are you thinking to hit America with and I have no doubt it'll be equally wrong for the country.
-
tony, don't be silly... Of course he's not going to do exactly the same stuff Obama has done. I have no doubt he'll have his own brand of WTF are you thinking to hit America with and I have no doubt it'll be equally wrong for the country.
Ill agree with that, and it will be extra frustrating b/c he will present it in a "conservative" light which will piss me off to no end.
In my honest opinion though I dont think anyone could hurt the economy as much as obama has and not do it on purpose.
-
It's simple, really. Obama has been this bad and he has to run for reelection. I can't even begin to fathom what this jerk-off will do without having to worry about that.
Romney will have to worry about reelection.
Easy choice. Of course, this board is full of dipshit parasites so I guess that becomes a difficult choice. Keep talking about Zimmerman. ::)
-
It's simple, really. Obama has been this bad and he has to run for reelection. I can't even begin to fathom what this jerk-off will do without having to worry about that.
Romney will have to worry about reelection.
Easy choice. Of course, this board is full of dipshit parasites so I guess that becomes a difficult choice. Keep talking about Zimmerman. ::)
;D.
-
;D.
It amazes me. He has yet to offer one viable fucking solution as to how he'll fix the economy in the second term and these clowns still want to vote for him. It all makes sense when you take into account their parasitical nature and the fact that they derive their income from government handouts.
-
You are being very small minded.
I am exactly upset at Obama because I voted for him and thought he would do better, but has not.
During this time frame, I have realized that they are EXACTLY the same.
The economy would not be better, Romney will NOT overturn Obama's policies (we can bet on it if you want) and when it's all said and done, they will be virtually identical.
I believe Romney will be EXACTLY the same.
You call me delusional, but I simply don't see a difference in their actual actions... in the rhetoric, sure... but Romney wants to get voted in, so he's going to "say" whatever he thinks will get him elected.
You will be sorely disappointed if he wins in 4 years.
You still haven't said what Obama did to disappoint -- he carried out the majority of his agenda as stated in his second book.
Also there's some ambiguity here: I'm not sure if you're saying "Romney wouldn't have done anything different these last fours years," or "Romney won't do anything differen these next four years."
-
You still haven't said what Obama did to disappoint -- he carried out the majority of his agenda as stated in his second book.
Also there's some ambiguity here: I'm not sure if you're saying "Romney wouldn't have done anything different these last fours years," or "Romney won't do anything differen these next four years."
He did not repeal the Patriot act.
He did not truly have that "transparency" he claimed he would have.
He did not promote liberty as he stated he would return to the people.
I am saying both btw... Romney would not and will not do anything different.
I'm not even saying I'm voting for Obama... I'm pretty sure I'm not... BUT, when I vote for Romney, I know full well, I'm voting for the EXACT same shit I voted in last time.
-
You still haven't said what Obama did to disappoint -- he carried out the majority of his agenda as stated in his second book.
Also there's some ambiguity here: I'm not sure if you're saying "Romney wouldn't have done anything different these last fours years," or "Romney won't do anything differen these next four years."
Look at this imbecile.
Obama is not a disappointment? What the hell??
-
Look at this imbecile.
Obama is not a disappointment? What the hell??
Tell me where in my post it says 'Obama isn't a disappointment,' the claim you are apparently attributing to me.
You need to amp up your reading comprehension, to the extent that that's possible: I asked why tu was disappointed with Obama, given that he voted for him and given that Obama has in fact achieved or attempted the majority of the policy outputs he said he would. In other words, I'm asking why tu is disappointed given the man he voted for more or less did what he said he'd do.
-
.
-
.
Since Jesus was hardly a socialist (see the parable of the talents), file this in the foolishness category for Garebear.
-
He did not repeal the Patriot act.
Ok.
He did not truly have that "transparency" he claimed he would have.
He did not promote liberty as he stated he would return to the people.
These are vague promises rather than specific policy proposals, and thus it shouldn't be any surprise they weren't fulfilled. You have to evaluate presidents based on the actual policies they say they are going to implement, not content-free promises to "make America better," and so forth.
So, you've mentioned a single specific policy goal Obama failed to achieve. There are others, of course, but I encourage you to read his second book, which contains dozens of proposals and gives a pretty clear indication of what Obama was going to do as president. The majority of these proposals were enacted once he got the job. I think your disappointment may be in expecting the impossible, in conjunction with the state of the economy, rather than any set of policy failures on Obama's part. I don't blame you, since most people do this rather than only evaluating the policy.
-
Since Jesus was hardly a socialist (see the parable of the talents), file this in the foolishness category for Garebear.
Yep. Jesus hated the poor and he certainly didn't want anyone helping them.
File this in the 'MCWAY makes another great point' category with his "religion".
-
Ok.
These are vague promises rather than specific policy proposals, and thus it shouldn't be any surprise they weren't fulfilled. You have to evaluate presidents based on the actual policies they say they are going to implement, not content-free promises to "make America better," and so forth.
So, you've mentioned a single specific policy goal Obama failed to achieve. There are others, of course, but I encourage you to read his second book, which contains dozens of proposals and gives a pretty clear indication of what Obama was going to do as president. The majority of these proposals were enacted once he got the job. I think your disappointment may be in expecting the impossible, rather than any set of policy failures on Obama's part. I don't blame you, since most people do this rather than only evaluating the policy.
I have no desire to read any of his books.
I listened to his debate. I watched and heard his speeches.
There are tons of things he didn't do that I and many others were told he would do.
They were not.
None the less. It does not change te fact that McCain would have been virtually the same and Romney will be as well if elected.
-
Yep. Jesus hated the poor and he certainly didn't want anyone helping them.
File this in the 'MCWAY makes another great point' category with his "religion".
Helping the poor has nothing to do with socialism. Tell me where Christ stated that the government should take other people's money to help them again.
Thanks for playing!!!
-
Helping the poor has nothing to do with socialism. Tell me where Christ stated that the government should take other people's money to help them again.
Thanks for playing!!!
Nevermind that.
Tell me the part about the talking snake.
-
Nevermind that.
Tell me the part about the talking snake.
Tell me where Christ stated that the government should take other people's money to help them again.
-
Tell me where Christ stated that the government should take other people's money to help them again.
Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
So here, we have a very good example of Utopian Socialism in action with Jesus telling the wealthy young man the only way to follow him and gain heaven was to give away his great wealth to the poor, in other words redistribution of personal wealth to those with great need from those with great riches. Naturally, this must be very difficult for some to swallow, notice that the young mans face ‘fell’ when told he must give away his wealth to follow Jesus. Here though is our first proof, we must have no personal wealth beyond our needs; Socialism seems to be de rigueur
-
I have no desire to read any of his books.
I listened to his debate. I watched and heard his speeches.
There are tons of things he didn't do that I and many others were told he would do.
They were not.
You just can't name any of them, that's all? Memory plays funny tricks on us and I think it's more likely you're imagining this huge list of unfulfilled promises, plus taking vague and content-free ones like "promoting liberty" seriously; again, those sorts of promises everyone makes and can't be evaluated as fulfilled or not because they are too subjective. Only the specific policy proposals matter, and, once again, the majority of them were fulfilled (for better or worse).
-
Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
So here, we have a very good example of Utopian Socialism in action with Jesus telling the wealthy young man the only way to follow him and gain heaven was to give away his great wealth to the poor, in other words redistribution of personal wealth to those with great need from those with great riches. Naturally, this must be very difficult for some to swallow, notice that the young mans face ‘fell’ when told he must give away his wealth to follow Jesus. Here though is our first proof, we must have no personal wealth beyond our needs; Socialism seems to be de rigueur
Not really! Look at the same book, a few chapters later, to Matt. 25:
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
(Imagine that!! A businessman wanting to make a PROFIT....OH THE HUMANITY!!!).
Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Hmmmm....that don't sound like socialism to me. And, neither the master nor the two servants, who doubled their talents, were ordered to give all their money away. And why didn't the master "redistribute the wealth" from the other two servants to the lazy one?
Nicodemus, the Pharisse: Rich guy, not ordered to give his money away. Jesus told him he had to be born again to be saved, NOT give away his money.
Zaccheus, the tax collector: Rich guy, not ordered to give his money way (but did so of his own accord and gave it DIRECTLY to people, not the government).
Then, there's that pesky verse in 2 Thess. 3:10, If anyone would not work, neither should he eat
Socialism? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!
-
Not really! Look at the same book, a few chapters later, to Matt. 25:
Sorry, but this doesn't work. It appears to be conflicting statements here. Doesn't disqualify what he said here.
I absolutely hate it when Romney says economy is getting better one month, but since he said the opposite a month later, the original statement somehow doesn't exist. Sorry, he said both things. And it appears to be conflicting statements here too.
So yes, Jesus supported it in my verse and not in yours. Your verse doesn't DISPROVE or PROVE anything. It's a book of recollections, either or both could be false. But my quote stands, and it's pretty clear. Your "finding something saying otherwise" doesn't help.
-
Was Jesus a flip-flopper?
-
Was Jesus a flip-flopper?
There are lots of conflicting statements in the bible, a collection of 'recollections' from a dozen people who tracked the life of someone a little sketchy historically.
But for any getbigger to say "Jesus supported this political party or belief" is laughable. I remember "liberals cannot be christians" and other statements haha. We have no freaking clue. Period. It's all faith and guesses and hopes we don't just become worm food upon death. Laughable to assign an invisible man in the sky to "your party".
-
Sorry, but this doesn't work. It appears to be conflicting statements here. Doesn't disqualify what he said here.
I absolutely hate it when Romney says economy is getting better one month, but since he said the opposite a month later, the original statement somehow doesn't exist. Sorry, he said both things. And it appears to be conflicting statements here too.
So yes, Jesus supported it in my verse and not in yours. Your verse doesn't DISPROVE or PROVE anything. It's a book of recollections, either or both could be false. But my quote stands, and it's pretty clear. Your "finding something saying otherwise" doesn't help.
There's no conflict whatsoever.
If Jesus supported socialism, then EVERY SINGLE RICH PERSON whom He encountered or referenced would have been given the same command.
Again, Nicodemus and Zaccheus were rich. Why weren't either of them ordered to give away all their money? Same goes for Jairus (whose daughter Jesus healed)?
Your quote falls, because this young man apparently was tooting his own horn. Some people like Matthew, also a tax collector, were willing to give up their riches, to follow Jesus. But, at no time was such a requirement.
And, socialism requires giving money TO THE GOVERNMENT, not directly to those in need. Jesus never told that young man to cough up all his riches to Rome. Socialists break their necks to make sure that people don't get direct aid to people but that it goes through their government filter.
Here's Nicodemus, from John 3:
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
All this "Born again" talk. Where's the edict for him to give up all his money?
-
maybe he only supported it in some situations. Or people listed in Forbes who "touted" their own wealth. So trump Yes, but quiet millionaires, no?
Now that we're down to arguing it's not socialism to require ppl to give to fellow man, but is socialism when it involves a govt body...
haha argument getting weak here. You normally have good pointed MCWAY, and while I think you ignore common sense sometimes (ZImmerman cred and cain inappropriate in 43 years) I usually see you as someone who gets the best out of me in most arguments.
Maybe we can agree jesus was down for some sort of taking from rich and giving to poor, a shade of socialism?
-
maybe he only supported it in some situations. Or people listed in Forbes who "touted" their own wealth. So trump Yes, but quiet millionaires, no?
Now that we're down to arguing it's not socialism to require ppl to give to fellow man, but is socialism when it involves a govt body...
haha argument getting weak here. You normally have good pointed MCWAY, and while I think you ignore common sense sometimes (ZImmerman cred and cain inappropriate in 43 years) I usually see you as someone who gets the best out of me in most arguments.
Maybe we can agree jesus was down for some sort of taking from rich and giving to poor, a shade of socialism?
No, we can't agree on that, because that occurs NOWHERE in Scripture. It's not giving to the poor, if it's being done by force or government edict.
-
No, we can't agree on that, because that occurs NOWHERE in Scripture. It's not giving to the poor, if it's being done by force or government edict.
On could argue that it's logistically impossible for 3 million people to distribute the financial assistance to 305 million people without the assistance of a group qualified and skilled and with that ability. If jesus has to distribute $ assitance to 300 mil people, he might have specified.
-
.
-
No, we can't agree on that, because that occurs NOWHERE in Scripture. It's not giving to the poor, if it's being done by force or government edict.
Correct. Private charity does not equal socialism.
-
To enter heaven you have to give your possession away, thats pretty liberal
Why would he force people to give their riches away? Jesus was non-violent remember?
-
There's no conflict whatsoever.
If Jesus supported socialism, then EVERY SINGLE RICH PERSON whom He encountered or referenced would have been given the same command.
Again, Nicodemus and Zaccheus were rich. Why weren't either of them ordered to give away all their money? Same goes for Jairus (whose daughter Jesus healed)?
Your quote falls, because this young man apparently was tooting his own horn. Some people like Matthew, also a tax collector, were willing to give up their riches, to follow Jesus. But, at no time was such a requirement.
And, socialism requires giving money TO THE GOVERNMENT, not directly to those in need. Jesus never told that young man to cough up all his riches to Rome. Socialists break their necks to make sure that people don't get direct aid to people but that it goes through their government filter.
Here's Nicodemus, from John 3:
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
All this "Born again" talk. Where's the edict for him to give up all his money?
Because Jesus doesnt give orders
He did say that a rich mans chances to enter heaven was about the same as a camel.. well you know the story
So you can be rich of course but it means you will spend your eternity in hell
Does that sound republican to you?
-
Things that Romney would have to do in order to lose my vote:
1. Support bailouts.
2. Support deficit spending as stimulus.
3. Support George W. Bush's record.
4. Have a terrible record of leaving his state with a massive entitlement program that is bankrupting it.
5. Support indefinite detention and the so-called PATRIOT Act.
Wait a second...
-
Because Jesus doesnt give orders
He did say that a rich mans chances to enter heaven was about the same as a camel.. well you know the story
So you can be rich of course but it means you will spend your eternity in hell
He also said, with God all things are possible. Once again, if giving up riches were a requirement for salvation, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, the centurion, Jairus, and other rich people whom Jesus encountered would have been told to give up their wealth on the spot. That didn't happen.
Jesus referenced Abraham as a righteous man (BTW, Abraham was LOADED). Jesus was called the "son of David" (as in KING David).
-
great, now what did superman say :D :D
-
He also said, with God all things are possible. Once again, if giving up riches were a requirement for salvation, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, the centurion, Jairus, and other rich people whom Jesus encountered would have been told to give up their wealth on the spot. That didn't happen.
Jesus referenced Abraham as a righteous man (BTW, Abraham was LOADED). Jesus was called the "son of David" (as in KING David).
Have you even read the book you quote?
Jesus didnt tell anyone they should give up their wealth he told them they would not get into heaven unless they gave them up. Cant you tell the difference?
-
.
-
Things that Romney would have to do in order to lose my vote:
1. Support bailouts.
2. Support deficit spending as stimulus.
3. Support George W. Bush's record.
4. Have a terrible record of leaving his state with a massive entitlement program that is bankrupting it.
5. Support indefinite detention and the so-called PATRIOT Act.
Wait a second...
Read a funny editorial today.
Do you support the policies that got us into this mess or the policies that haven't gotten us out of it.
Tough call.
-
Read a funny editorial today.
Do you support the policies that got us into this mess or the policies that haven't gotten us out of it.
Tough call.
Policies that got us into this mess were bi-partisan credit bubble to prop up housing and enrich backs at the banks, F&F, construction, etc.
Funny too - whenever I ask people who blame bush alone i ask them - WHAT EXACTLY DID BUSH DO TO COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY? what law, what policy, be specific.
Usually all I get back is a word salad of nonsense.
-
Policies that got us into this mess were bi-partisan credit bubble to prop up housing and enrich backs at the banks, F&F, construction, etc.
Funny too - whenever I ask people who blame bush alone i ask them - WHAT EXACTLY DID BUSH DO TO COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY? what law, what policy, be specific.
Usually all I get back is a word salad of nonsense.
You really melt down a lot bro.
The point it makes to me is just that both sides will guaranteed not change a damn thing.
The economy will recover eventually. It's just going to take as long as it takes. Whatever that may be.
At the end of the day. Neither Romney nor Obama are going to do anything differently and as long as we vote with the establishment, then nothing will EVER fucking change.
-
You really melt down a lot bro.
The point it makes to me is just that both sides will guaranteed not change a damn thing.
The economy will recover eventually. It's just going to take as long as it takes. Whatever that may be.
At the end of the day. Neither Romney nor Obama are going to do anything differently and as long as we vote with the establishment, then nothing will EVER fucking change.
I agree mostly. The only thing that I am hoping if romney wins is that he does nothing at all. Sitting as a potted plant in the WH would give reason alone for business to grow and expand as opposed to what we have going on now.
-
I agree mostly. The only thing that I am hoping if romney wins is that he does nothing at all. Sitting as a potted plant in the WH would give reason alone for business to grow and expand as opposed to what we have going on now.
If that's the case you should vote for Obama.
With congress being republican and Obama on his way out then zero will get done. At least that's what I'm hoping.