Liberals hate free-speech

[widebody911]

Who would Jesus bomb?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by kang
What needs are being met by your fanaticism?

attention

[Moneyguy1]

Rick

The word "conservative". The root "to conserve"..i.e., not to change or to change in a minimal manner. Think "conservation".

The word "liberal". From the latin "to free". Bastardized over recent years into something that it is not. Think "liberate".

Now look up the word "obstructionist" and see where that falls on the political spectrum.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by widebody911
Who would Jesus bomb?

Upon the second coming, just about everyone that doesn't believe...I think he is coming for the Democrats first.

[Moneyguy1]

That dosn't deserve a comeback.

It is anti Chiristain, totally inane and insulting to just about everyone.

A typical "mullism".

Get a grip, lad........

[Nathans_Dad]

Moneyguy I understand the root of the word, however just like liberals today aren't all about freeing people, conservatives are not all about maintaining the status quo. To dumb either camp down to single buzz words does them a disservice, IMHO.

DD74, I think that Jesus would have a significant influence today, it wouldn't take too many miracles for people to sit up and notice.

Of course today's liberals would be shouting him down at the top of their lungs....

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Of course today's liberals would be shouting him down at the top of their lungs....

We'd never get a chance - the conservatives would have put him to work sewing soccer balls @ 7 years old.

[Moneyguy1]

Rick.

Agreed, at least in part. It is, as I have said, the bastardization of the word(s). The concepts are far too complex for that, except for people like mul who see the world in pure tones of black and white.

And, it is just possible that "conservatives" would be just as upset with the savior because he would not fit their also narrow definition of what he should be!!

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by widebody911
We'd never get a chance - the conservatives would have put him to work sewing soccer balls @ 7 years old.

RIMSHOT!!

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally posted by widebody911
We'd never get a chance - the conservatives would have put him to work sewing soccer balls @ 7 years old.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
I agree, Jesus would steal from the fat cat government and give tax breaks to the people.

Give to Caeser that which is Caeser's?

Rick said:
Exactly where do people think that Jesus was a liberal? Is it just because he said that we should help the poor? That doesn't make him liberal, conservatives think we should help the poor too, just not through a mandated government program fed through our taxes.

But what other solution is there? I'm talking something that works...

Private charity works well when it works like taxes (equal contribution wrt to income). When you notice your neighbour is buying a 42" LCD instead of giving to charity, your resolve starts to waver. When it becomes apparent that you now have to cover your neighbour's share because there is a 42" sized shortfall in the charity funding, then its pretty much the end.

Plus, people would only give to charities they agree with. I'd bet that this would marginalise a lot of people who are "unworthy". Unworthy is not a Christian term when it comes to charity, IMHO.

[Nathans_Dad]

Charity should be just that, CHARITY.

Forced charity=socialism.

[CamB]

Also Rick - I agree that the "conservative" vs "liberal" definition is a red herring.

You ask for a Bible passage advocating socialism - it doesn't really apply. 2,000 years ago, the concept of a social system - a concept I'd probably find has Christian roots if I could be bothered checking - didn't exist. The NT is full of stories of marginalised people - beggars, the sick, etc - with no apparent social system to help them.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Charity should be just that, CHARITY.

Forced charity=socialism.

Well, that's my point.

If charity isn't forced, there'll be a massive shortfall or a burden on those who do "pay in". Human nature and market forces will steadily erode the will and ability of those paying in to be able to do it at a level high enough to get a good outcome for people in need.

Look around your place of work (assuming there are people there) - ask yourself how many would donate 10% of their income to charity if they had a 15% reduction in tax.

[Nathans_Dad]

Understand and agree to your point, Cam. I just don't think socialism is the answer.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by CamB
Private charity works well when it works like taxes (equal contribution wrt to income). When you notice your neighbour is buying a 42" LCD instead of giving to charity, your resolve starts to waver.

The solution is for both you and your neighbor to forsake your 42" TV's so some poor slob executive at the American Red Cross can get a 90" LCD.

Actually, that's pretty much the way American charitable organizations work...

[CamB]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Understand and agree to your point, Cam. I just don't think socialism is the answer.

I'm not that excited about it myself, but would rather pay the extra taxes/waste while someone thinks up a better idea. I totally understand the other viewpoint.

[Buddy]

I wonder....if there is such desperation among these pissant administrators of our public schools to keep religion out of some little kid's valedictorian speech, why does the president rest his hand on a bible when he's sworn into office?

I guess we should be thankful some school administrator isn't in charge of THAT ceremony.

Good golly, here's these supposedly "adults" in charge of little kids and acting like playground bullies themselves by cutting off a microphone. What a bunch of sick control freaks! But they can't seem to keep kids from having sex in the bathrooms and doing pot on school grounds or having gang fights outside the buildings everyday. They're too busy making sure no one is having a "religious moment".

Good grief!

[FrayAdjacent911]

I think this incident was too far in the 'separation of church and state'. The girl was going to mention HER beliefs. NOT try to proselytize or force the audience into prayer. As if just SAYING 'Lord' or 'Jesus' is going to voilate anyone's rights.

[CamB]

What bothers me is that it is petty. WTF is that teaching children about tolerance?