Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Tax Refund Siezure

bigbill10 Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 11:28 AM
Our fathers and grandfathers voted in the distant past for politicians that then borrowed money to finance their friends and interests and buy votes. Do current events mean that the Feds are now going to start collecting back taxes from us that SHOULD HAVE been collected from our forefathers? That makes at least as much sense as what they are doing today. If so, then I, and every other American Citizen currently owe the Government about $60,000. Get ready to pay-BIG.
In response to:

Statistical Frauds

bigbill10 Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 11:07 AM
Such a pay discrepancy is unsupportable (read impossible) in a free market economy. If a businessman could pay women 33% less and still get the same job done, he would-at least in numbers large enough to cause under-employment among the men and over-employment among the women. Men would soon have to accept lower pay if they wanted to work, until the averages began to move together. Such a pay discrepancy could be sustained, but only with the heavy-hand of government. I find it interesting that the only agent that can produce such discrimination claims it is the only one that can end it.
Unequal pay for women is one of the three Progressive Gifts that Keep on Giving. The other two are Climate Change and Income Inequality. They are all perfect in that they can be claimed regardless of the truth of the situations and can be claimed to exist permanently, regardless of government or cultural progress, since none are subject to objective, meaningful definition.
In response to:

Tax Refund Siezure

bigbill10 Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 10:30 AM
Every bill, every sentence in every bill, should have connected to it the name of the person who added that provision/sentence/word and the date and time it was added. Without such a rule, everyone simply denies he did it and it goes on and on forever.
In response to:

The Politics of St. Paul

bigbill10 Wrote: Apr 12, 2014 3:14 PM
The failure of a secular government to follow God's laws should never be used as a pretext for general rebellion. Rebellion rejects ALL of a government-and often brings on anarchy-No Government-and a lot of death. The proper Christian response is first to PRAY-PRAY-PRAY, then look clearly at the issue. If a government is intentionally braking God's :Laws, the Christian must refuse to go along with those transgressions, but no farther. The old saying "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water" applies here. Each of the original British colonies sought to maintain an orderly government at the same time they were declaring independence from Britain. Gandhi was very close to the right approach here. He never advocated a general rejection of the rule of the British Empire, only organized, peaceful resistance to specific onerous measures. His objective was freedom for India. His methods were peaceful, but annoying to the Brits. Being mostly gentlemen, they couldn't prevail over the long term. If he had had the Germans Empire to deal-with, the results might well have been much different. Above all, remember Confucius' powerful admonition: Better 24 years of tyranny Than 24 hours of anarchy. Amen.
In response to:

Big Football Is Taking Over

bigbill10 Wrote: Apr 12, 2014 2:49 PM
I lost interest in pro football several decades ago. Too many over-paid super-heroes. As college ball gets closer to pro, I expect I'll lose interest in them, too. Talk about cooking the goose that lays the gold.
In response to:

Enforcing Islamic Law at Brandeis

bigbill10 Wrote: Apr 11, 2014 5:28 PM
Her crime? She just gored the wrong ox. These raging idiots have all of the bravery....and honesty of Neville -"Peace for our Time!"-Chamberlain. Except, I think he knew he was just putting off the inevitable. I don't think that they have even a hint of an idea where their arguments lead.
What does the Bible say about a prophet being without honor in his hometown? The Biblical parallels just keep marching on. The first big one I noticed is when the Democratic Convention voted three times-THREE TIMES-to exclude the mention of God from their political platform in 2012.
In response to:

Shiller Drinks the Kool-Aid

bigbill10 Wrote: Apr 10, 2014 11:00 AM
People have been trying to predict the future ever since....forever. I follow the George Burns method of predicting the future. He once said that his doctor had advised him to stop smoking cigars-that they could kill him. Since he was currently smoking one, the interviewer wondered what George's doctor had said about Gorge no following that advice. "Nothing", replied George, "He's dead" The man who can successfully predict the future, even for only a short time in a small area, will soon take over the world-or destroy it. That's why God invented death.
Much had been made of Jefferson's use of the term "separation of church and state" which he wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Jefferson also wrote the following passages on the general topics of religion, freedom, and power. And can the liberties of a nation Be thought secure When we have removed their only firm basis, A conviction in the minds of the people That these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated But with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country When I reflect that God is just: That his justice cannot sleep forever. I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, By the Constitution, Nor prohibited by it to the States, Are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries Thus specifically drawn Around the powers of Congress Is to take possession Of a boundless field of power, No longer susceptible of any definition. I agree with Jefferson's sentiments: Increased government power, far beyond the limits permitted by the Constitution, will eventually drive out all sentiments for the Christian God (the Living God) or any other god, -other than the god of power-from our government. I too, tremble for my country.
In a free market, people values things as they want to; often differently than others. To be required to pay one person the same rate as another person for the same job is, in-effect forcing them to value that job equally, regardless of their personal interests and objectives. A person who wants a lower-stress job with more variable hours won't be able to find that job, when everyone must be equal. Equality and freedom are NOT the same thing; They are polar opposites. Requiring more equality can only be gained by accepting less freedom, and vice-versa. Life consists of each person finding a balance of the two concepts in their life-some of each. Some require more security or more equality and they will tend to need or accept less freedom. That's their free choice. What a sad world it would be if everyone were considered the same-almost interchangeable parts in a vast social machine. And isn't that that exactly what we are being sold?
Previous 11 - 20 Next