1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Clark's Two Dads

tcarlyle Wrote: Jun 15, 2013 12:52 PM
I love the movie, but did NOT think it to be the "blockbuster of the decade" (that honor went to Avatar). Didn't realize the critics had panned the film until reading this and checking .... sure enough, the critics WERE dishonest and distorted about this one. But surprise there.
Let me get this straight: you have ALWAYS believed and said, "Heterosexuals are the source of all the evils in the world." Is that right? Bigot much, Oh Master of Bigotry?
OK, so I'll try to address some of the errors in your analysis: 1. ANY kind of an ultra-simplified flat or fair tax would, by definition, be stimulatory. Administering either would require a far smaller bureaucracy. Every dollar the federal government collects is a dollar removed from the real economy; federal bureaucracy jobs are economy dampeners. An "IRS" shrunk to 1/10th it's current size would be highly, highly stimulatory. 2. "Selling goods & services" is partially correct - because doing so equates to jobs - but doing so DOMESTICALLY is simply an economy standing in a pail and tugging on the handle in a vain attempt to lift the pail. EXPORTS of goods and services would be a true economy stimulator. A national sales tax would not hinder exports. 3. Both a national sales tax and a flat-rate income tax have advantages and disadvantages - primarily in that both can be gamed and thus require a federal bureaucracy of some sort to administer. Many believe a sales tax would be less easily 'gamed' and thus could theoretically be administered with a smaller bureaucracy. However, either would be preferable to the current mess. 4. A flat tax is not more likely to generate a steady revenue stream since both fair & flat depend on economic activity. 5. The key unspoken problem with both fair & flat is the liklihood of "The Enemy" (those in Washington DC) to simply layer the new tax ON TOP OF the existing system rather than replace it. I consider this almost a certainty (though, initially, the scoundrels would probably at least reduce the current tax rates so as to appear to the masses to not have done the above). Given time I see both Fair & Flat as simply a way to INCREASE government revenue and thus support more government spending. Perhaps a Flat Income Tax has a slightly higher chance of being a complete replacement for the existing system ... but I'm not optimistic the scoundrels would not 'find a way'.
Yes - I imagine most people winced a few times when reading the list. We are certainly not used to blunt, non-apologetic straight talk. Harsh realities and truths are sometimes harsh. That said, I am hard pressed to actually disagree with much of what he wrote.
So, it's OK (according to you) to have someone in high office that eschews God ... but someone who submits to the Creator frightens you. Curious.
Actually, I see Christians as normal, fallible and imperfect human beings just like everyone else - subject to all the same flaws and sin nature as, for example, are you. Of COURSE "Christians" are nasty and hateful .... perhaps not as often or badly as non-Christians, but nasty and hateful nevertheless. However, I take umbrage with your apparent notion that disagreeing with you constitutes hate. THAT, I find, to be quite nasty and hateful.
You seem to conflate an INDIVIDUAL caring for other humans with THE STATE caring for other humans. Have you actually found in The bible a passage in which Jesus said, "Government should take from the people and redistribute part of what it takes to those it decides it should give to"? The closest I can think of is "Render unto Caesar ..." - which absolutely, precisely does NOT say GOVERNMENT should be the caretaker, but, rather, INDIVIDUAL people should be.
male-on-male sexual lust IS HOMOSEXUAL BY DEFINITION! Geesh! Yes, I'm aware the APA has sought to 're-label' gay pedophilia so it does not appear to be gay. However, when hearing such things from the APA I try to keep in mind that the APA surrendered to the gay activists in 1973 when "homosexual" was removed from the DSM-2 without a single shred of scientific basis for the change - simply bowing to the lobbying assault on the convention. Since then gay psychologists have concocted a host of supposed "research studies" designed, it seems, to recreate reality in a more gay-friendly visage. You seem to want to give gay pedophiles a pass simply because they are fixated on children. ALL pedophiles are fixated on children! The fact gay pedophiles like children does not make their homosexual lusts somehow 'not gay'.
I don't think ANYONE$ should be ashamed to be called a "follower of Christ". As for your comment about "disagreeing = hate" - I disagree with murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and a host of people who behave in other ways I find repugnant. Never though that made me a hater. Similarly - to those of us who are first-hand knowledgeable, Communism (or communism-light, aka socialism) is a soul-destroyer. The saddest thing I have witnessed in my life was to spend a great deal of time in the former USSR after the wall came down, and so to see an entire generation of human beings who had been made into zombie robots, unable to make a self-created decision or fend for themselves. Of the things I despise, communism has to be at the top of the list - and people who (through ignorance, generally) support communism or it's lighter cousin ARE ignorant and stupid (in that belief). Does that make me a 'hater'? I certainly do not feel ashamed to be a follower of Christ.
Just so I understand your analysis: you say there is evil in the world, so having God in the world means he condones evil. That IS what you just said ... right?
1 - 10 Next