Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

A Problem Bigger than Ferguson

Bob558 Wrote: Aug 27, 2014 9:35 AM
Nope. You're wrong. End government welfare. End. It. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Make stupidity and laziness painful. You will get far less of it. Stop feeding the wildlife and they will learn to fend for themselves.
1) If growing wheat on my property for my consumption effects interstate commerce then a law that prevents me from taking my gun, legal in almost every state, into your state or district is a clear infringement of my right to keep and bear. 2) If gay marriage is 'penumbral' to marriage, then the right to buy and sell is clearly 'penumbral' to the right to keep and bear and cannot be infringed. 3) The U.S. v. Miller SCOTUS decision says us citizens can only keep and bear those arms that would have a " . . . reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . " seems to indicate that we CAN have fully automatic weapons. And Artillery. How can they can use this logic to outlaw sawed off shotgun without simultaneously granting the right of citizens to keep and bear military weapons? Simple; our legal justice system is no longer that. They are indoctrinated to defend the wealthy and powerful against the citizens. Hang them.
In response to:

Hug-a-thon

Bob558 Wrote: Aug 14, 2014 3:39 PM
uhm . . . . yeah, Rich, they don't get it. Why is it that nobody seems willing to report or state that simple fact. In their world all of the problems they are dealing with were caused by the incompetence of the former administration. They. Don't. Get. It. Putin, Netanyahu, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Kim Jong-Un will all be sneering at the sight of Barrack and Hillary "hugging it out". And all of them know that the palace is being run by gypsies. Why is it nobody here seems to want to cop to that fact?
Your last statement is an abject falsehood. Not only is that statement barely intelligible, with the meaning of "outreached to unreached people groups." a bit difficult to define, the statement itself is blatantly false. The American Catholic church spent about 171 billion dollars last year. Most of it (about $100,000,000,000)on health care, most of it charitable. Further, they GAVE almost 5 billion to charities outside the church last year, in addition to their internal charitable works and missions. The American Catholic church has spent about 3.3 billion in the last 15 years on investigations and settlements for the malfeasance of their clergy. That includes ALL investigations and ALL settlements. Further, the average US church spent 15% of their budget on missions and 8% on church programs. When you consider that 65% goes to pay for church staff salaries (40.5%), facilities (18.5%) and administrative expenses (6.1%), you are wrong to say the 90% 'stays within the local church'. Perhaps in your world it is okay to pull facts and figures out of your hind end.
How about you make a substantive argument that is not an abject falsehood? From your earlier post at 11:33am "The Church in the US spends more investigating clerical crime than it does on outreach to unreached people groups." Not only is that statement barely intelligible, withthe meaning of "outreached to unreached people groups." a bit difficult to define, the statement itself is blatantly false. The Catholic church spent about 171 billion dollars last year. Most of it on health care, most of it charitable. Further, they GAVE almost 5 billion to charities outside the church last year, in addition to their internal charitable works and missions. The American Catholic church has spent about 3.3 billion in the last 15 years on settlements for the malfeasance of their clergy. That includes all investigations and all settlements. But referring to good arguments that you made last week without actually stating them surely makes you right.
1c; appeal to authority is bad enough, you fail to even explain the position or the authoritative rejection of it in your comment. 2; While I do not support her point, it is clear that spending 2 million dollars means the mission was a failure. You could have trained two Liberian physicians in the U.S. and sent them back for that kind of money. Now I know that doesn't mean you'll accomplish what you set out to do, any more than these two set out to get ebola and bring it back to the U.S. But the point stands; they chose to return at a cost that clearly did damage to the relief effort, missionary work not withstanding. Finally; we should all repent. Every day. If you think you are a Christian and without sin, I can assure you that you are wrong. We could all use a little repentance.
It doesn't matter if you know. God knows.
So, by your argument, unless you fund enough to train all the doctors needed you're not doing anything? Each and every argument you make is worse than the last. Pretty sure this doctor wasn't teaching medicine over there. He may have been able to instigate some training, but that is far different than putting a trained physician on the ground. $100 per day to care for them? I made it through college on about a third of that. A third. Now granted, that was a while back, but it doesn't cost $3000 per month room and board to go to college. I know for a fact you can get into a residence hall at a major university for a little more than a third of that number today. Making things up to win arguments is just stupid.
As soon as you make an intelligent remark, perhaps somebody will. Pulling a bunch of fictitious numbers out of thin air and telling us "The Church" does this or doesn't do that is pretty weak. To which church do you refer? The Catholic Church? Perhaps the Catholic & Lutheran Church's combined? The aggregate of all? I can tell you straight up you are flat wrong on at least one of your statistics, if you are using the term 'church' as the aggregation of all Christian church's in the U.S. Either way; Ann's article is pretty weak today, but making things up to justify your position is as bad as it gets. You fail.
Obamacare; What Obama said; "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." What he meant was; "Fat chance, your doctor will now be determined by which doctors agree to accept your crappy new health care plan, because your health care plan is getting cancelled." Muslimcare; What Obama says; "If you like your dictator, you can keep your dictator, because we're leaving." What he meant was; 'Your former intolerable dictators, which my predecessor replaced with fledgeling democracy' will now be replaced with something entirely less acceptable and ultimately more egregious to humanity.' Hey, at least he's consistent.
In response to:

Tolerate or Be Stamped Out

Bob558 Wrote: Aug 07, 2014 3:53 PM
Well . . . at least you know its about over. When a leader of the vastly outnumbered minority extremist position is advocating for the violent attack on the vast majority and their moral beliefs, you know the kooks are about to self destruct. I won't advocate for the violent attack on gays. I am a Christian and would never advocate for violence of that nature. But lets watch them self destruct and lets react; I don't suggest we make homosexuality illegal. Not all sin should be criminal. But I do suggest that the government not be allowed to steal and pervert that which is the prerogative of God; the moral law. The laws of nature. Marriage. Family. Somebody on the LGBT side really ought to set this guy down and explain things to him, though. Not all people on my side are so willing to forgive and tolerate. Some are like him and are willing to 'ruthlessly stomp out' their perversity. I have no idea why everybody wants to do this stuff without Ruth though. What'd she ever do to you?
Previous 21 - 30 Next