Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Who Shut Down the Government?

Mr. Right Wrote: Oct 04, 2013 6:10 AM
If you offer someone a dinner that doesn't include dessert and the recipient refuses to eat dinner unless you include dessert, it is not your fault if the ungrateful recipient is hungry.
Christians are indeed called to serve the poor. There is absolutely no mandate to eschew obscene wealth. There are proscriptions against loving money more than God. Obscene wealth only means you have a mandate to be equally obscene in your charity. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
You have to love folks that quote little parts of a Bible verse or quote one out of context and use that to bolster an argument. A favorite pastor of mine used to debunk those folks (and some zealots who insisted on the inerrancy of every word in the Bible, even though the best we have is a translation. There was a devout man whose practice was to just open his Bible and read the first verse that he saw and base his day on that, believing God would guide him. So one morning, the first verse he happened to turn to was Matthew 27:5 which says Judas "went and hanged himself." Since he was not sure how this verse applied to himself, he flipped to another passage and the Bible fell open to Luke 10:37: "Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise." The man was quite upset and thought he ought to try a third verse to see what God wished him to do. His Bible fell open to John 13:27 where he read, to his horror, "Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly."
Every single Biblical reference to helping the poor and the needy is in the singular sense. In other words, YOU need to dig into YOUR pocket to help the poor. It is immoral to dig into someone else's pocket and give it to the poor. Government welfare programs are immoral from the perspective that they take someone else's money to give it to another. In so doing, they rob from the individual both the opportunity and the ability to fulfill the mandate to charity. They also rob us of the ability or even necessity to see need. Why do we have to bother our pretty little heads with that when there are plenty of welfare programs, food stamp programs, etc. etc. The Good Samaritan helped the man who had been beaten and robbed, then left money for his continued care when he had to leave. He didn't drop him off at the nearest free clinic, he didn't put him in touch with a social worker. He did it himself. Go thou and do likewise. Also, vote for people who understand this and move the country in the right direction.
In response to:

Don't Cry About Lady Liberty Now

Mr. Right Wrote: Oct 03, 2013 7:08 AM
Why does the WW II Memorial need to be closed when it requires no attendant but there are plenty of armed guards available to put up the barriers? Just another example of government not being able to just leave well enough alone but always mustering the resources (at taxpayer expense) to hinder life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In response to:

Escaping 'Government' Schools

Mr. Right Wrote: Oct 02, 2013 3:34 PM
But "everybody" knows that home-school parents are one of only two types: either they are fundamentalist whackos who want to control their kids and make sure they don't learn anything in the real world or they are child abusers who pretend to home school their kids but really just want to keep the teachers from seeing their emaciated bodies covered with bruised and open sores. So which are your kids? At least that is what liberal NEA members assure me of. And no, I don't believe it and I'm not accusing your kids. Just highlighting the demonization that is rampant against home-schoolers.
In response to:

Are Guns the Problem?

Mr. Right Wrote: Oct 02, 2013 6:02 AM
Whenever conservatives wish to ban a particular behavior, liberals point to Prohibition as an example of how you cannot ban things; you cannot legislate morality. They are correct in that it is very difficult to ban things. But all legislation is, in one way or another, about morality. But compare Prohibition and alcohol and guns. During Prohibition, whole new levels of organized crime (gangs, anyone?) rushed in to fill the void. Drinking went underground and caused a lot of criminal activity along the way. Prohibition was repealed. With the exception of drunk driving, drinking related activity isn't regulated much. And look at drunk driving. I am old enough to remember when that was given a wink and a nod unless there was a serious accident involved. Nowadays, the police and courts are pretty serious about it, we have technology to monitor drivers convicted of DWI, fines have increased exponentially, and drunk driving has been significantly reduced. So why don't we try Dr. Williams' recommendations about pursuing morality and ethical behavior when it comes to guns? There should be few limits on guns, just as there are few limits on alcohol. What we need are much more severe punishments for abusing guns. But Williams is even more on point when he writes about standards of behavior adopted by society. I remember very clearly that a classmate of mine, back in elementary school, was the son of a man who was convicted of being part of a major auto theft ring. He ran a car salvage business and served as a chop shop for an organized crime group that stole cars and transported them several hundred miles to his shop where he either changed VIN or chopped them for parts. (it should be remembered that this was 50s and 60s when computerized tracking was non-existent). His entire family was shunned because his crime was considered unacceptable to society. By today's standards, that punishment seems terribly harsh and judgemental. But, of his 3 kids, I know the two sons rather well. Both of them extremely upstanding and law abiding citizens. Both of them will tell you that the virtual shunning their family received and the understanding of why it occurred had motivated them, along with admonishment of their mother who knew nothing of the nefarious activities, to become model citizens. Their desire for acceptance led them to good behavior. We all know peer pressure works. Direct it in the proper direction.
There is plenty of corruption on both sides of the aisle but Reid is well above average. The only thing wrong with this situation is that Reid and Whittemore don't have adjoining cells.
In response to:

Destroying Household Jobs

Mr. Right Wrote: Oct 01, 2013 6:11 AM
Sowell is right, as usual. Minimum wage laws have been a proven disaster every time they've been passed. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? So are Democrats insane or are they callously and maliciously against poor, unskilled workers? The only way to avoid minimum wage laws is to circumvent the government completely. If you need help in your home, hire someone as an independent contractor on a fee-for-service basis (instead of hourly) and pay them in cash. That way there is no filing of W-2. The worker is self-employed and can decide how much to report to the IRS. Of course, the IRS hates that kind of arrangement because they lose control but I don't lose much sleep over it. As an example: hire the neighbor kid to mow the lawn and tell him you'll pay him $20. He can do it in an hour; he can do it in half a day. There is no hourly wage to worry about and the amount isn't large enough for a 1099. Since he's not your employee, he is free to mow as many of your neighbors' lawns as he can. A system that's been working for centuries.
In response to:

Destroying Household Jobs

Mr. Right Wrote: Oct 01, 2013 6:00 AM
Have you noticed that liberals doggedly pursue theories that have never been proven correct; always unworkable at best, murderously disastrous at worst? Meanwhile, they ridicule systems that have always worked and have a long, unbroken record of success. Why is that?
In response to:

Destroying Household Jobs

Mr. Right Wrote: Oct 01, 2013 5:57 AM
Last night she was only making $72/hour. Did she get the raise as a result of the government shutdown?
Previous 11 - 20 Next