The Coming Fall of the Religious Right?

[hollyda]

Again, you're ignoring Warren Buffet, Jon Stewart, Barack Obama, and the like. Who'll be paying more than them?

Only conservatives are rich, remember? That's why Hollywood is notoriously conservative.

 

[MachZer0]

Okay...following this logic, I suppose the atheists (as DeathMagus' icon would indicate) who want to help the poor do it for...well, not to get into Heaven. Not to gain anything out of it for themselves...for what? Just 'cause? To stick it to the rich?

In any regard, I'd like to see some evidence of what you assert I (as a liberal in favor of social programs, and someone who would not personally benefit from it in any way) believe and the reasons for it.

What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to help the poor, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to help the poor, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them.

... And having their own resources 'confiscated' as well. Which is why it makes no sense to call it covetousness. Who covets their own resources? By definition, you can't.

 

[DeathMagus]

What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to help the poor, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them.

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to defend the nation, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to protect consumers, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to prevent corporate abuse, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to defend free speech, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to prevent crime, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to build a common infrastructure, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to protect the environment, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to improve the nation, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

I'm still not seeing the problem. You're simply taking the same rationale for every bit of taxation ever and dressing it up with scary words like "covet" and "confiscate".

 

[MachZer0]

But, and this is crucial, they acknowledge that if they themselves had a greater income that they too would pay more, or to use your words, have more 'confiscated' from them. So I once again ask... how is it possible for someone to covet their own wealth and their own possible future wealth?

That's rather irrelevant. If a man says, "If I someday get married to a super model, I won't covet my neighbor's wife anymore", that doesn't mean that it's OK for him to covet his neighbor's wife now.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's ratehr irrelvant. If a man says, "If I someday get married to a super model, I won't covet my neighbor's wife anymore", that doesn't mean that it's OK for him to covet his neighbor's wife now.

Of course it's relevant. Your example, however, is not. Someone can't be meaningfully said to covet their own current wealth or their own future wealth. It's a non-sensical proposition because it's incongruent with what covetousness means.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

That's ratehr irrelvant. If a man says, "If I someday get married to a super model, I won't covet my neighbor's wife anymore", that doesn't mean that it's OK for him to covet his neighbor's wife now.

Except by your logic he is coveting his own penis. In a bib.

 

[Drunk On Love]

So the rich covet the money they can make off of other peoples labor and don't want to chip in for the general well being of the nation. Even though they make use of the public systems, laws, and programs that made there success possible in the first place? If they like "free market" and no taxes they can go to one of the many failed third world countries where the government doesn't have the power to enforce anything and everything goes. If we put a more sensible trade policy into effect they wouldn't be able to afford selling "stuff" back to the US either.

 

[MachZer0]

Of course it's relevant. Your example, however, is not. Someone can't be meaningfully said to covet their own current wealth or their own future wealth. It's a non-sensical proposition because it's incongruent with what covetousness means.

I'm sure a lot of excuses could be thought up to justify covetousness. Remember, Ted Kennedy used the excuse that he was doing it to earn his way to Heaven. Anything I guess to avoid pitching in a little more one's self

 

[hollyda]

Remember, Ted Kennedy used the excuse that he was doing it to earn his way to Heaven.

Argument aside, as we all know, Ted Kennedy=all liberals.

By the same token, should Ted Haggard=all Christians?

 

[DeathMagus]

I'm sure a lot of excuses could be thought up to justify covetousness. Remember, Ted Kennedy used the excuse that he was doing it to earn his way to Heaven. Anything I guess to avoid pitching in a little more one's self

I'm just going to keep poking you until you respond to posts #58 and #64

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm sure a lot of excuses could be thought up to justify covetousness. Remember, Ted Kennedy used the excuse that he was doing it to earn his way to Heaven. Anything I guess to avoid pitching in a little more one's self

That's the point that you keep missing... Those whom you are accusing of covetousness are, in fact, pitching in themselves and acknowledge fully that if they had a greater sum of possessions that they would be required to contribute proportionally more. And yet they still support having their wealth 'confiscated' (your words). You have a bizarre notion of what constitutes covetousness.

 

[MachZer0]

Argument aside, as we all know, Ted Kennedy=all liberals.

By the same token, should Ted Haggard=all Christians?

I used Ted Kennedy as an example, not as a representative of all liberals

 

[MachZer0]

That's the point that you keep missing... Those whom you are accusing of covetousness are, in fact, pitching in themselves and acknowledge fully that if they had a greater sum of possessions that they would be required to contribute proportionally more. And yet they still support having their wealth 'confiscated' (your words). You have a bizarre notion of what constitutes covetousness.

Meantime, they covet the wealth of others. I don't see how you're going to get around that

 

[hollyda]

I used Ted Kennedy as an example, not as a representative of all liberals

Yes, as an example of how people in favor of social programs are actually covetous. I used Ted Haggard as an example of how Christians are liars. Because both these statements have the same amount of truth: none.

 

[DieHappy]

Okay...following this logic, I suppose the atheists (as DeathMagus' icon would indicate) who want to help the poor do it for...well, not to get into Heaven. Not to gain anything out of it for themselves...for what? Just 'cause? To stick it to the rich?

In any regard, I'd like to see some evidence of what you assert I (as a liberal in favor of social programs, and someone who would not personally benefit from it in any way) believe and the reasons for it.

But you guys keep saying you do benefit from social programs because they help society as a whole.

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to defend the nation, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to protect consumers, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to prevent corporate abuse, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to defend free speech, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to prevent crime, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to build a common infrastructure, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to protect the environment, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to improve the nation, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

I'm still not seeing the problem. You're simply taking the same rationale for every bit of taxation ever and dressing it up with scary words like "covet" and "confiscate".

Your taking constitutionally derived powers and trying to apply the same logic to programs not from the constitution.

 

[MachZer0]

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to defend the nation, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to protect consumers, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to prevent corporate abuse, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to defend free speech, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to prevent crime, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to build a common infrastructure, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to protect the environment, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

"What difference does it make? They desire for one reason or another to improve the nation, they see other people that they determine have the resources to help them, and they not only covet those resources, they support confiscating them."

I'm still not seeing the problem. You're simply taking the same rationale for every bit of taxation ever and dressing it up with scary words like "covet" and "confiscate".

The covetousness to which I refer is the desire to take money from a person who earned it to give to a person who didn't earn it. Hope that clarifies it for you.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes, as an example of how people in favor of social programs are actually covetous. I used Ted Haggard as an example of how Christians are liars. Because both these statements have the same amount of truth: none.

The difference of course is that you don't see large blocks of Christians calling for people to lie, whereas we do have large blocks of liberals calling for covetousness in the area of taxation

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Meantime, they covet the wealth of others. I don't see how you're going to get around that

Get around what? You haven't shown that they do genuinely covet that wealth because, as before, to covet is to covet for one's self.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your taking constitutionally derived powers and trying to apply the same logic to programs not from the constitution.

And?