|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
posted November 08, 2010 03:22 PM |
|
|
You can and will win by pure defense alone.
If the attack becomes too costly it will not be continued.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2010 03:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, the New Testament specificly says for Christians NOT to support those who will not work.
Quote:
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
I have to say that it's a pity that you lean to the interpretation of the likes of Hitler and Stalin, who BOTH somewhat misquoted this, saying that if any did not work, neither should he eat.
You of all people should know, that this is meant that way, that any who does not WANT to work, should not eat, which is all the difference in the world, because it means, that Christians are not to support who do not WANT to work (as opposed to those who want, but can't for one reason or another.
Which makes your whole point either moot - or you stand in line with these two who you abhor so much.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 08, 2010 03:26 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 15:35, 08 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
Sorry, I disagree that the US governemnt spending is geared towards business. I guess you are talking about the unconstitutional "bail outs." The US has one of the highest taxes on businesses in the world.
That is no small thing on several points but I can't go any further here in this thread at the moment.
You make many good points Elodin that are worthy of debate but honestly, I am unable to keep-up.
I live with Chronic pain and I am finding this on-line stuff not-so-easy as it once was. IOW, I've bitten more than I can chew. Sorry about that. I've made a couple of posts that are bone-headed beyond belief...more than normal. So, this morning I am realizing I have to "dial-things-back". Stick to my beginner's-map-making-help-thing and come out to play a whole lot less.
Make a great day...for someone else
Edit= One last comment: Shyranis mentioned an important topic. "Fraud in fundraising" IMHO, "Ask FIRST" any Org. what % of your donation goes to where they say it's going?" Then make your decision.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 08, 2010 06:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What is unnatural is to say "I'm going to let try to punch me as much as they want to. All I'm going to do is try to dodge the punch."
Something like Jesus?
A defansive nation would have broken the arm that was attacking, then just left the attacker alone with sanctions.
It would actually be hillarious.
And while we are first on posting:
Quote:
Sure he was lying. If poverty produced terrorism there should be large numbers of terrorists coming out of the slums that exist in America. That is not happening.
You got blind people people, and gangstars actin' lik' nigga'. Just send in some motivated recruiters and you got your army.
Quote:
How so?The enemy uses industry to produce more war machines to attack you with.
If japan had been smart back in the days they would have partially wiped Pearl Harbor of the map, reused anything they did not break, and started a massive assault on the mainland USA.
Why? Because the indistri wheels was not yet in action, and it would take quite some time before they would be able to properly fight back,
With the way tech works today, once the logistics are worked out, wars will be even shorter, any well planned army would only produce more for the sake of having a backup or to fight another war, unless something goes beyond wrongly wrong, its not needed for the war itself. The exceptions would be when under and overestimating things really really bad, which should not have happened in the first place.
blizzardboy: Nice post 
Quote:
Quote:
So.... then I would like to hear your argument on why jobs and prosperity does not stop terrorism.
it's not exactly terrorism, but there are many common points. nazi germany, fear of losing the privileges granted by the system.
I would say I want to see more of an argument than that to be "convinced".
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 08, 2010 06:32 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 08:46, 14 Nov 2010.
|
@JJ
Quote:
I have to say that it's a pity that you lean to the interpretation of the likes of Hitler and Stalin, who BOTH somewhat misquoted this, saying that if any did not work, neither should he eat.
Sorry, but it is false to say I lean to any teaching of Hitler or Stalin.
I said "Also, the New Testament specificly says for Christians NOT to support those who will not work." "Will not work" includes those who think "menial" labor is "beneath" them even when they are seeking aid from others. A person seeking the aid of others should be doing everything in his power to help himself.
I lean to the Bible teaching that a man is the eat his own bread, not the bread of others. And if a man is not willing to work that he shold not be provided for. And that charity is to be done by individuals who help others out as they want to.
Giving to those who are unwilling to help themselves adds to their "entitlement" mentality and will not result in anything productive from them. In fact, it is harmful to the person because the person haas no incenive to change. It also takes away resources that could be used to help others who are trying to thelp themselves but who could use a helping hand.
@Markkur
Quote:
Edit= One last comment: Shyranis mentioned an important topic. "Fraud in fundraising" IMHO, "Ask FIRST" any Org. what % of your donation goes to where they say it's going?" Then make your decision.
You can research what their overhead is yourself on the internet. That is better than asking a fundraiser what the overhead is.
I think everyone made statements that they later regret. Well, except for me, since I am always rigt  I hope you continue to post in the OSM.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2010 07:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
I have to say that it's a pity that you lean to the interpretation of the likes of Hitler and Stalin, who BOTH somewhat misquoted this, saying that if any did not work, neither should he eat.
I have to say that it is a pity that your reading comprehansion skills seem to be poor.
I said "Also, the New Testament specificly says for Christians NOT to support those who will not work." "Will not work" includes those who think "menial" labor is "beneath" them even when they are seeking aid from others. A person seeking the aid of others should be doing everything in his power to help himself.
I lean to the Bible teaching that a man is the eat his own bread, not the bread of others. And if a man is not willing to work that he shold not be provided for. And that charity is to be done by individuals who help others out as they want to.
Giving to those who are unwilling to help themselves adds to their "entitlement" mentality and will not result in anything productive from them. In fact, it is harmful to the person because the person haas no incenive to change. It also takes away resources that could be used to help others who are trying to thelp themselves but who could use a helping hand.
I direct your attention to the underlined word. I wasn't talking about those who do not WANT to work - after all, that's what the bible says. I was talking about those who DO NOT work, but not because of a lack of will to do.
If those who do not want to work are INCLUDED in those who "will not" work, I'd be thankful for further clarification here, so that you can safely distance yourself from the likes of Stalin and Hitler. In this case I would welcome an explanation what people who do not work should receive help and by whom/which money.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 08, 2010 09:10 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:12, 08 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
I direct your attention to the underlined word. I wasn't talking about those who do not WANT to work - after all, that's what the bible says. I was talking about those who DO NOT work, but not because of a lack of will to do.
If those who do not want to work are INCLUDED in those who "will not" work, I'd be thankful for further clarification here, so that you can safely distance yourself from the likes of Stalin and Hitler. In this case I would welcome an explanation what people who do not work should receive help and by whom/which money.
1) You did not underline any words.
2) I said "Also, the New Testament specificly says for Christians NOT to support those who will not work."
It is not my obligation to make a living for you or your family. It is your obligation to make a living for yourself and for your family.
Neither society in general nor the church nor any individual is obligated to help anyone who is unwilling to work.
3) I have repeatedly stated that charity is not a matter for the government. So if a person is willing to work but can't work for whatever reason he should seek aid from the private sector not from the government.
Charity is an individual (or a group of individuals) helping someone because they chose to do so.
The Bible teaches charity, not the government redistributing wealth. Futhur, redistribution of wealth is not a power that the Constitution grants Congress.
Those who do not work for whatever reason are free to seek aid from whatever private source they can get it from. Ideally charity from friends and family or local groups that can hold them accountable for trying to help themselves.
I mentioned a post or two ago that the church I go to helps people who need help. We get to know the person and if we find the person is unwilling to help himself he is cut off from furthur aid.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 08, 2010 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) You did not underline any words.
Look again.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 08, 2010 09:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) You did not underline any words.
Look again.
Ok, I see the word "includes" underlined. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about the statement however.
Quote:
I said "Also, the New Testament specificly says for Christians NOT to support those who will not work." "Will not work" includes those who think "menial" labor is "beneath" them even when they are seeking aid from others. A person seeking the aid of others should be doing everything in his power to help himself.
If a person is out of work and is unwilling to work jobs that he considers to be beneath him then he is not doing everything in his power to help himself and should not be aided by others.
It is an individuals responsiblity to support himself and his family by whatever honest means are available. He does not have to like the job.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2010 10:25 PM |
|
|
Let's sum this up to see, whether I did understand everything right.
1) People who for some reason have no job and who do not make every conceivable move to find one, should be left to themselves. This would obviously include their family members, children, and so on.
2) People who have no job and make every conceivable move, but can't get a job, for example for the following reasons:
a) too old
b) sick
c) handicapped
d) children and left alone by spouse
e) no or bad education; illiterate
and so on should either ask family/friends for help, and if there is no family/friends or those have no job either they may go begging to a church or to private caritative organizations - who, of course, would have to check one way or another, whether the beggars had made every conceivable move to find a job, because if not, since the bible teaches those shouldn't eat, they would be rejected.
Now, there was a time like that. It's called The Dark Ages, for one reason or another. Ah, the good old times.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 08, 2010 11:52 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:04, 14 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
Let's sum this up to see, whether I did understand everything right.
1) People who for some reason have no job and who do not make every conceivable move to find one, should be left to themselves. This would obviously include their family members, children, and so on.
Yep. Except that the children would be removed from the household and provided for through being placed with relatives or if no relative is willing to take care of them then they would be placed with a foster care.
Refusing to provide for your children is child neglect and endangerment.
Quote:
2) People who have no job and make every conceivable move, but can't get a job, for example for the following reasons:
a) too old
b) sick
c) handicapped
d) children and left alone by spouse
e) no or bad education; illiterate
and so on should either ask family/friends for help, and if there is no family/friends or those have no job either they may go begging to a church or to private caritative organizations - who, of course, would have to check one way or another, whether the beggars had made every conceivable move to find a job, because if not, since the bible teaches those shouldn't eat, they would be rejected.
Yep. It is not my obligation to make a living for anyone beyond myself and my family. However I chose to give over 50% of my income to charity because I love people and want to help them.
Quote:
Now, there was a time like that. It's called The Dark Ages, for one reason or another. Ah, the good old times.
There is nothing about the idea that everyone is entitled to the money they make that is "dark." I find the idea that anyone is entitled to a "free ride" from me by the government taking what I own and redistributing it to others to be immoral and somewhat loony. What exactly entiles them to live off of me. Other than my family of course.
And unlike any Marxist I know of I actually give a rather sizable portion of my income to help others. Not because they have a right to force me to provide for them but because I love people.
The entitlement mentality produces a class of people who prostitute their votes in order to be able to have a politician steal for them what they don't want to put the effort into to work for.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2010 03:57 AM |
|
|
|
how does the bible define "work"?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 09, 2010 05:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
how does the bible define "work"?
Force times distance.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 09, 2010 06:14 AM |
|
|
Thats the 5th or 6th time Elodin takes cares to remember us he gave 50% of his income to "charity", unlike the loony etc marxists.
There is a technical detail here which makes it impossible. To give 50% of your income to charity, either you are in an extreme poverty so 50% is nothing, either you are very rich, and then it means you already pay 50%+ of your income as taxes.
No one of the rich people ever gave 50% of his income to charity because this would mean a 100% loss of his income, combined with the tax. At least that's how taxes are applied in Europe (70% max). What is the cap in USA?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2010 06:55 AM |
|
|
He probably means 50% after paying taxes. I don't know what the max tax is in the US because there are so many kinds of taxes.
If you are just talking about taxes that are deducted from your paycheck I don't know that either. It's more than 50%, but I don't think it's as high as 70%. It depends a lot on the state and city which both have their own taxes in addition to federal taxes. Some states don't have an income tax at all, but they get their money another way, like high property taxes or high sales taxes or whatever. When you add up all the different kinds of taxes it probably maxes out at over 70%.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2010 08:18 AM |
|
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 09, 2010 08:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
He probably means 50% after paying taxes. I don't know what the max tax is in the US because there are so many kinds of taxes.
If you are just talking about taxes that are deducted from your paycheck I don't know that either. It's more than 50%, but I don't think it's as high as 70%. It depends a lot on the state and city which both have their own taxes in addition to federal taxes. Some states don't have an income tax at all, but they get their money another way, like high property taxes or high sales taxes or whatever. When you add up all the different kinds of taxes it probably maxes out at over 70%.
Are you sure? Are you sure you're even living in U.S.A.?
Because I'm living in a socialist democracy(Finland) and our correspondent numbers average around 45%(55 if you're rich) from paycheck and 60%(70 if you're rich) if you count the indirect taxes.
Just an interesting calculation that popped to mind.
55% of the taxes go to helping others. So every (marxist or no)person in Finland who is getting some kind of income at the moment is giving 30% of his/her income for helping others. That's around three million people out of the five million people in Finland with the rest two being kids, retired or out of job. I'd imagine the numbers for other socialist democracies are quite close to that. And the people in those countries originally voted for that kind of laws because they wanted to help those in need. That makes 200 million willingly giving 30% of their income to help others.
*the 200 is an estimate from europe with amount of countries with similar laws, at least 50% required to pass the laws, and 2/3s in work life. I am unsure if I should count GB since it has partially abolished the general welfare system so I didn't include it.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2010 09:06 AM |
|
|
Well you have to be careful that we aren't talking apples and oranges. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of different taxes. Some are direct and some are indirect like corporate taxes (which is just another cost to a company and that cost gets passed on to the consumer like any other expense).
In regards to payroll taxes you also have to be careful with total tax vs tax bracket. Anyway, I'm almost positive that the payroll tax alone in the US can go over 50%. Remember he asked about the cap which I assume means the maximum. You don't really have to be in a super high income level to reach 50% payroll tax.
Just to illustrate how difficult this topic is, I currently pay somewhere around 1200% tax on my income. That's a guess off the top of my head without thinking too hard. And yes that's the correct number of digits. It's easy to explain. I have almost no income but still pay taxes.
You also talk about "helping others". What does that mean? You could view it like almost anything the government does is helping others, or at least that's the intention. Does education fall into that category? What about retirement benefits? I'm too lazy to double check it atm, but I think retirement benefits are the largest expense of the US government.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 09, 2010 09:15 AM |
|
|
I believe we have discussed this in the feedback thread. I've been playing nice, but that doesn't work.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 09, 2010 09:46 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:07, 09 Nov 2010.
|
Well technically it was edited, so I did as I promised. *shrugs*
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
