WHOOOPS!

unfortunately you will have to go elsewhere to get the real story.

Bet Fox Snooze will never say this:

Brooklyn DA: ACORN Cleared; Video Edited To Meet Conservative Agenda

So does this change the fact that we passed a law barring them from competing for federal dollars?

...a spokeswoman for the organization that has replaced ACORN's Brooklyn operation. Several of ACORN's local offices have officially disbanded and resumed operations under new names and with similar staff in an effort to escape the scandal that has surrounded the 40-year-old organization in recent months.

In Brooklyn, the newly established New York Communities for Change "is committed to moving forward with management and transparency reforms and building a strong independent organization to advocate for low-income New Yorkers," Sassine said.

What? You mean low paid and volunteer workers being punked by pretend pimps and ho's from the VRWC isn't criminal?

What does a poor people's org have to do to get convicted around here?

"What does a poor people's org have to do to get convicted around here?"

I didn't think it would need to do much at all. Pleasantly surprised to be wrong on that score. Are they still barred from competing for Federal funding?

What does a poor people's org have to do to get convicted around here?

What does a poor people's org have to do to get convictions around here?

FTFY

Couldn't find this anywhere on the Drudge so I went digging and surprise! It was posted on Foxnews.com.

That's why they're number one.

I guess underage prostitution wasn't severe enough.

The pimps should have feigned needing help with selling Black people into slavery...

...I wonder if that would have caught the ire of the DA?

The crime was committed by that pimp OKEEFE.

I hope they fry his ass good - stiff penalties are applicable for so called journalists who try to SPY on US Congressmen and tap their phones!

Mr pimp sting bit off more that he could chew! He will have new items to choke on in Prison!!

Time to dig up all the Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and other assorted filth and their fawning over O'Queef as this badass hero.

In the end, he is just what he looks like, a fucking pip-squeak.

And his girlfriend is bangin' another guy. This guy. *Double Thumb Point to Self*

Well. There you have it. ACORN is now cleared to be Housing Authority for the underage sex slave trade. There is a feather in your cap.

WHOOPSIE

#11 | Posted by KBM

Are you saying that the DA is lying? Were the tapes Edited To Meet the Conservative Agenda or not?

answer the question... yes or no.

James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles filmed the three ACORN workers as they dished out what seemed like illegal advice. However, according to prosecutors, O'Keefe and Giles edited the tape in order to meet their agenda.

It took a few young "go-getters" to expose the left wing scum at ACORN so the criminals at ACORN drew up a frivolus lawsuit that got thrown into the trash can. Good for them!

ACORN has been exposed and now has to reorganize so hopefully (I seriously doubt it) the MSM will keep a watchful eye on where our tax dollars go.

The MSM turned a blind-eye to this because they're just pawns of Barry's Admin.

C'mon November!

ACORN has been exposed and now has to reorganize...

Hmm so the new Rethug word for Slandered is "exposed" now... thx Doc.

i've yet to hear of anything that acorn actually did.

Hey KBM-they also endorsed MIKE BLOOMBERG, that radical liberal/commie that the GOP was courting to run for Prez.

You really should read your own links before posting them. That way, you'd look marginally less stupid.

And that's not an edited comment.

Reality and the right-if they don't like reality, they just make up their own.

I guess underage prostitution wasn't severe enough.

#9 | Posted by BENDOR

Where was "underage" ever mentioned? Or, is this just an exageration so that you can make it sound worse than it might be?

Can you say "cover up" - Can you say "political payoff"

Charles J. "Joe" Hynes is the current District Attorney of Kings County, New York. Now in his fifth term, Hynes, a Democrat, was first elected to office in 1989. After working for the Legal Aid Society, he joined the Kings County District Attorney's office in 1969, where he served as an Assistant District Attorney.

He opened the first Family Justice Center in New York State,and initiated the Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison Program (DTAP) on the premise that drug-addicted defendants would return to society in a better position to resist drugs and crime after treatment

He is a member in good standing for hte Working Family Party - Who is the WFP describes itself as, "New York's liveliest and most progressive political party. Formed by a grassroots coalition of community organizations, neighborhood activists, and labor unions, was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, ACORN and other community organizations,

Further, ACORN executive director Bertha Lewis is a co-chair.

It took a few young "go-getters"

"Go getters" is the new Republican code for felons, I guess.

Go getters" is the new Republican code for felons, I guess.

they are felons?

North..did you see all the information I posted above? The guy has multiple ties into Acorn and believes in what they do. It was sure to be thrown out. They broke the law..but as typical most liberals do not think Laws (like the Constitution) need to be obeyed as long as the "end justifies the means".

Which is why they do not go after Illegals, or close the boarder, or care what the Constitution says...only what THEY THINK is right matters.

Which is why we are in the sad shape we are now in.

Which is why we are in the sad shape we are now in.

#24 | Posted by foshaffer

Really? Acorn and illegals are why we are in the shape we're in? Are you a white supremacist? A Nazi?
And what does the constitution say about a bunch of right-wing clowns editing videos to slander an organization that helps the poor? I'm not getting the connection.

Acorn and illegals are why we are in the shape we're in?

do you think they are helping?

They broke the law..but as typical most liberals do not think Laws (like the Constitution) need to be obeyed as long as the "end justifies the means".

No they did not. The video was edited and the questions were dubbed.

NO LAWS WERE BROKEN by ACORN.

hat investigation is now concluded and no criminality has been found."

Giles and O'Keefe made national headlines for their video and were hailed as heroes by staunch Republican Rush Limbaugh.

"Acorn is gratified that the DA has concluded something we knew all along," ACORN lawyer Arthur Schwartz told the New York Daily News. In addition, he said it was "unfortunate" that O'Keefe and Giles used "subterfuge to convince congress and the media to vilify an organization that didn't deserve it."

But LAWS WERE BROKEN by O'Keefe and his gang of "Go-Getters" though...

The US attorney for the Eastern District is deciding whether to press felony charges against O'Keefe and three others for allegedly entering a federal office, that of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, under false pretenses.

Which is why we are in the sad shape we are now in.

We are in "sad shape" because of the ignorance like that which you are displaying right here.

do you think they are helping?

#26 | Posted by eberly

Helping how? Like blocking unemployment checks for millions of Americans? Like flying a plane into an IRS building? That kind of helping?

don't deflect Darth.

answer the question

Damn this is cool. The right wing went apeshit over these bozos, the Congress went nuts, and now it all comes crashing down as 100% unmitigated fraud. ACORN should sue the pants off O'Keefe, Breitbart and appropriate Fox "personalities."

I think people are focused differently than the da. To create a crime requies doing more than talking [in most cases], otherwise 1/2 the people in this site would be in jail [between the last oppressive gov't and the current oppressive gov't].

So, while the ACRON scum may have been ready and willing to assist someone in breaking the law [including ways to use child prostitutes as a tax writeoff] until they actually did something, like filed a false form or in some other way provide assistence, it wasn't a crime.

SLEAZY AS HELL... but not a crime.

don't deflect Darth.

answer the question

#29 | Posted by eberly

ACORN does help. Illegals are a symptom and not a cause. Now you answer mine.

Illegals are a sympton and not a cause?

another deflection. nevermind. you don't want to admit that illegal immigration is a problem I guess.

but I'll answer your deflection crap.

no. none of that helps either.

see how easy that was?

another deflection. nevermind. you don't want to admit that illegal immigration is a problem I guess.

#34 | Posted by eberly

Now you're changing the subject. Let me explain: illegal immigration is a problem and 'illegals' are not the cause. As long as there is a demand for slave labor and lax enforcement there will be 'illegals'. Blaming the illegals themselves as the cause of the problem is very popular amongst white supremacists and loony teabaggers. Kind of like the Germans blaming the Jews for their post WWI economic depression, don't you think?

SLEAZY AS HELL... but not a crime.

#32 | Posted by 1libertarian

Thank you for that clarification.

People who discuss insurance fraud are not committing a crime until they act on the plot and then collect the insurance proceeds.

Until a person takes the money--there is technically no crime.

As for ACORN--it is as corrupt as it comes.

And you can be corrupt without committing a crime.

Now you're changing the subject

bullshit. you deflected with a congressman blocking legislation and some dick flying his plane into the IRS building after being asked a simple question "are ACORN and illegals helping this nation".

my answer would be "no" on both. But to blame them only is absurd.

But then again, nobody said that....you assigned that bullshit position to someone else in the first place.

Darth...1) The blcoking of the checks was basically..."you have 500B in unspent funds in "stimulas" and we cannot keep borrowing so use that"

That is being fiscally responsible by taking money directed at something irresponsible - and putting it to good use AND NOT BORROWING ANY MORE!!!

2) the guy that flew the plane into the building was an OBAMA supporter. You WANT him to be some right wing nut..but he wasn't ..he was a LEFT wing nut.

And if you read my prior post and links you see that this DA is massively tied into Acorn...it has nothing to do with the law.

ACORN is indeed only another organization devoted to assisting the poor, and I think the only count against this body is that a couple of years ago some over-zealous voting registrar registered a Mickey Mouse. According to inside sources, this Mickey did not show up to vote. A crime?

Watching a 1947 Netflick about Vincent de Paul last night makes me aware that there was a time when people helping other people was really considered admirable. Today we hate hate any group or program that considers the less fortunate. Indeed, the rigid right calls 'em socialists. herm

The 'crime' was that idiot editing himself into the film in a pimp outfit, which he did not wear in front of the ACORN members.

Political hysteria/fraud caused congress (republicans) to violate the constitution with a "bill of attainder" by personally defunding ACORN.

Prostitution, pimping & defrauding the government
is normal behaviour for maintream black Americans.
Keet it real, nizzahz, and continue to blame whitey
for your backward, upside down, fucked up culture.

#30 | POSTED BY DEAN_BUVIA

And controlling societies through bribes, legalizing their crimes, and stacking the deck in their favor so they can stay forever on top is normal behavior for the white world. Not to mention enslaving other races, economic enslavement of other cultures, and committing the genocide of native peoples.

By the way.
YOU ARE A RACIST.
Dont reproduce.

By the way, the reason you heard so much about how BAD acorn was, is because they were an organization dedicated to empowering the underclass.
So the upperclass that controls the media was eager as shit to bring them down. You can find bad apples in every organization. You could do a 'video expose' of blackwater, or THE FAMILY, or the GOP and get the same results, but the media wont show it to nearly the same extent.

And now that acorn has been cleared, you wont hear about it.

You can edit video to look like ANYTHING. Dont believe your televisions. And the more Fox shows something, the bigger a lie it is.

Riiiighhht....ACORN is so blameless...or is it clueless?

re #42

yup... no breaking news on fox and no red banner or flashing lite on Drudge for this story.

Acorn really should sue for damages.

The only crime that would have been committed would have been if these two would have lost in court.

We should be thanking them for focusing the spotlight on the cockroaches at ACORN.

North..did you see all the information I posted above? The guy has multiple ties into Acorn and believes in what they do.

#24 | Posted by foshaffer at

They talk to poor people about politics and help them get housing, etc. What a bunch of motherfuckers. Who else believes that poor people should have a place to live AND be able to vote? Isn't 1 of those things enough? The next thing you know they will want to eat and wear clothes too.

I love the "evidence" you posted there. They helped a democrat get elected? No shit??? Wait, you to tell me that a group that helps poor people sides with the democrats? Well I'll be god damned.

No crime in the ACORN pimp sting video?

Of course not.

Well, at least not by the ACORN folk.

The li'l psycho fuckstain who made the videos needs to see some time if not fer that then fer attempting to bug the office of a congress-critter.

Be Well.

Today we hate hate any group or program that considers the less fortunate. Indeed, the rigid right calls 'em socialists. herm

#39 | Posted by herm

Herm, you need the read this carefully. If you spend YOUR money helping people, that is CHARITY. If you have the IRS threaten to put people in jail unless they give you money that you can then give to someone else [minus the fat paycheck that the gov't keeps], that is called SOCIALISM.

I like that churches and such help the poor. I heard last night that American had DONATED over a billion in aid to Hatii.

"That is called socialism...."

Just when the IRS demands money? But the government demands money each time it taxes. Support of the state has never been voluntary. So, has the state always been socialistic? And why wouldn't such socialism include the US Armed Forces?

They talk to poor people about politics and help them get housing, etc. What a bunch of motherfuckers.

Obviously, you didn't watch the video where they specifically asked about using underage hookers. Or you don't mind having young girls treated as sex objects? What part of that are you ok with, exactly?

Who else believes that poor people should have a place to live AND be able to vote? Isn't 1 of those things enough?

Actually, 1 of those is enough. The state MUST have equal voting rights [with exceptions for criminals and the crazy... which does place an unfair limit on dem voters]... but you do not have a right to a place to live. That pesky thing called a constitution. I am sure, once they get threw wiping their ass with it in congress, they will just quietly toss it aside with the rest of the things that get in the way of socialism.

The next thing you know they will want to eat and wear clothes too.

Also not rights. Sucks to be you.

I love the "evidence" you posted there. They helped a democrat get elected?

Actually, if they used taxpayer money to do so, then yes, it is a big deal. How would you feel in GM or Goldman took the money they got from bailouts and donated it to a repub? [of course, in that case, you would be screaming the loudest for the laws to be enforced an the 'ebil corporation' to be punished.]

No shit??? Wait, you to tell me that a group that helps poor people sides with the democrats? Well I'll be god damned.

Most likely, you will be. However, there is no surprise that an agency that gets its money from gov't theft would use some of the stolen money to elect someone that will help them steal more.

#46 | Posted by NoGov4Me

Funniest fucking handle I have seen in a long time, since you appear to be ALL about wanting the gov't to take care of the poor... give them a house, give them food, give them a car, give them a tv, internet, drugs, sex, rock and roll, etc etc etc.... ad nauseum.

"Actually one of these is enough...."

Now, this is interesting. If people don't have a right to housing then it must follow they don't have a right to food.

You're right on track explaining why revolutions occur.

By the way, if you really want to feed these same registered voters you won't take in from out of the rain, this is a good time to say that.

"Also not rights...."

Oh, I see. You answered that. So people don't have the right to food. If that's your view of life, then you're indeed inviting people to "wipe their asses with the Constitution".

Whatever happened to all that guff that the Constiution is not a suicide pact? Just apply when you want to torture a few enemy combatants?

"Sucks be to you...."

And you. I'd worry that God might send you a nasty, life-changing surprise to help you get back in touch with your humanity, and the fact that you put your legs in your trousers one leg at a time just like that bum on the street.

Let's put this another way, not that you will respond. Let's say not only are YOU starving, but your little toddler daughter is as well. Someone then tells you your kids has no right to food.

What's your response going to be, Daddy?

"God might send you"

Hey Zed. Jesus hasn't shown up yet. It's been weeks. Looks like you don't even have the IQ of lint.

"Jesus hasn't shown up yet...."

What you mean is He hasn't shown up AGAIN. That is, not in a way you would notice. Not that you're looking.

You're just bloody-minded, ZAT. LIBERTARIAN appears to be bloody-minded AND arrogant. My thesis is the combintation explains his world-view. Jump on him.

Unless you agree with him. In that case, you tell me what a father's response to some fat-ass telling you your kid doesn't have a right to food should be.

Poor Zed, either ignorant or brainwashed. Lets hope that it is just brainwashed. Maybe that can be fixed.

Just when the IRS demands money? But the government demands money each time it taxes. Support of the state has never been voluntary.

Our founding documents DID NOT want a gov't that was large enough to "GIVE" you anything... because to do that, it had to first "TAKE" something away from someone else. That is THEFT. The original taxation was done by import duties. If taxation was voluntary, who would give up 30 - 40%? Really?

So, has the state always been socialistic?

No, not always... just my entire lifetime. And getting more so every day.

And why wouldn't such socialism include the US Armed Forces?

You must not have seen any of my rants against a standing army being unconstitutional. If we want a standing army (which I think we should have), then we should amend the constitution. Not just ignore it.

If people don't have a right to housing then it must follow they don't have a right to food.

Correct.

You're right on track explaining why revolutions occur.

Nope, I am on track to explain to you why the American Revolution DID take place.

If that's your view of life, then you're indeed inviting people to "wipe their asses with the Constitution".

Exactly 180 degrees off. Which is why I hope you are simply under educated.

Whatever happened to all that guff that the Constiution is not a suicide pact? Just apply when you want to torture a few enemy combatants?

It isn't. Who said you have to STAY poor and homeless?

I'd worry that God might send you a nasty, life-changing surprise to help you get back in touch with your humanity, and the fact that you put your legs in your trousers one leg at a time just like that bum on the street.

Actually, I have a sister-n-law in the final stages of MS... she is one of the reasons I feel the way I do.

Ok... next post I will TRY and explain my positions...

"The original taxation was done by import duties...."

Ah, I see---The theft in question just involved foreigners. Now, this TAXATION often had a direct and negative impact on the pocketbooks of Americans, as witness the fact New Engalnders considered seceeding because of it.

I do have my history on straight, do I not?

"They don't have to STAY poor and homeless..."

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but it's not uncommon for people to die because of the whole poor and homeless thing. You know, just before they were about to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

Rights are not something that you can just dream up in your fuzzy little brain. They actually mean something.

Let's go back to when you were a child for a minute. Do you remember anyone telling you that your right to swing your arm ends when it connects to my nose? Your right does not convey on me an obligation. Your right to speech does not force me to listen. It doesn't force me to buy you a soap box, it doesn't require that I build you a radio station, etc.

That is the problem with your "right to a house" or a "right to food" or a "right to good sex" or "free health care". Each of these obligates someone else.

If you have a "right" to a house, I and every other citizen have an obligation to give you that house.

Why?

If I build houses, do I have to work for free? Does the farmer have to work for free to give you food? Does the girl on the street have to spread her legs when you look her way? Does the doctors and nurses and hospitals have some obligation to spend their time on you?

The simple and correct answer is NO.

As a fellow human being, I may CHOOSE to provide something for a homeless person. I may help my sister-n-law with a handicap accessible van, etc. But that is because I choose to do so.

Now, our country was set up with a weak federal gov't and stronger state gov't. So, if you live in Conn, and they decide to provide free health care for their citizens, that is LEGAL. If you don't want to participate, you can move. If Texas wanted to force everyone who lived there to go to church on Sunday, and the church had to be Baptist, that would be LEGAL.

Welfare at the state level is legal (still wrong, in my opinion, but legal). At the federal level, it is both wrong and illegal.

But I really want you to answer for me is whether the US Armed Forces are a socialistic institution?

"Rights are not just something you can dream up in your fuzzy little brain...."

My arguments come from out of natural law, something the Founders were well acquainted with. YOU don't have the right to let my daughter starve because of a political hair you have shoved up your ass.

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but it's not uncommon for people to die because of the whole poor and homeless thing. You know, just before they were about to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

#61 | Posted by Zed

Sorry to break it to you zed, but it is possible to go from being poor to being not poor without gob't. I was poor as a child, and I worked hard to get an education, learned a skill, got a good job, and have worked my ass off almost every day since I was 12.

The problem with people having a 'right' to food is then they don't have a motivation to get off their ass and work.

Talking with you I begin to see very clearly how the Irish were FORCED to starve. You know---It used to be the Kingdom of England, Scotland, AND Ireland.

"It's possible to go from being poor to not poor without the government...."

Any real person knows this, and many real persons have experienced this.

I note you're evading most of my more pointed questions. Got a reason for that, Kemosabe?

YOU don't have the right to let my daughter starve because of a political hair you have shoved up your ass.

#64 | Posted by Zed

I don't have a right to let her starve? So, you are saying that YOU would let her starve, but I have an obligation to her? She isn't my kid, I'm not fucking her, but I have an obligation cause you are to fucking lazy to provide for her?

How great... is she going to send me a card for father's day?

"They don't have the motivation to get off their asses and work for food...."

You know, I've met more than my share of lazy people. This is not my point. My point is that you have to worry about the EDUCATED and HARD-WORKING hungry persons when you tell them they can't feed their children.

It's interesting that I just spent an evening studying Western regimes that have a adopted just your attitude, and what happened to EACH of them.

"She isn't my kid...."

If it's a question of live or die, I'm afraid your political convictions have just become an abstraction. We can discuss how lazy I am after she's been fed.

Talking with you I begin to see very clearly how the Irish were FORCED to starve. You know---It used to be the Kingdom of England, Scotland, AND Ireland.

#66 | Posted by Zed

Zed, you're making my point. A gov't that is oppressive to one group can be oppressive to ANY group.

If they have a right to take 30% of my check to pay for your daughter, then why not 40? 50? 90?

They only way to prevent oppression from gov't is to limit the size of gov't. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

I think I've reduced this argument to it's bare and irreducible essence. Rail against it if you wish. You're not the realist between the two of us.

I'm still waiting to hear from you how the US Armed Forcces could be supported by customs taxes, by the way.

"A government that can be oppressive to one group can be oppressive to ANY group...."

Only a government with YOUR ideas would, and has, gone there. The Irish starved so that the FINANCIAL interests of an elite would be protected. That elite never had the RIGHT to get money in the way that they did.

You know, I've met more than my share of lazy people. This is not my point. My point is that you have to worry about the EDUCATED and HARD-WORKING hungry persons when you tell them they can't feed their children.

That is what CHARITY is for. It worked in this country for a very long time. Churches and civic organizations and neighbors helping neighbors.

It's interesting that I just spent an evening studying Western regimes that have a adopted just your attitude, and what happened to EACH of them.

In the case of America, it was co-opted by progressives and socialist.

If it's a question of live or die, I'm afraid your political convictions have just become an abstraction. We can discuss how lazy I am after she's been fed.

#70 | Posted by Zed

And that is the way freedoms die. A simple "if it comes to XXXX then your freedoms mean nothing". Every new socialist program is "FOR THE CHILDREN".

The truth is, the kids would be better off seeing their parents working, instead of growing up 2nd or 3rd generation welfare with no work ethics at all.

And, as a final thought about your 'starving' child... I have a friend that worked at a food bank... they take donations from people [like me] that are already overtaxed, and provide food for needy families. Instead of demanding a new welfare entitlement, why wouldn't you go to someplace that actually gave food?

"We can discuss how lazy I am after she's been fed."

Why don't you go ahead and feed her then? Come on back afterward and we'll discuss the lazy part, OK?

"Why don't you go ahead and fed her, then...."

Not an issue. She's grown-up, successful, and well-fed. I think we were discussing a hypothetical situation which, because I HAVE been poor, I understand the reality of all-too-well.

LIBERTARIAN has no problem stealing money from me to buy a few divisions of tanks. He DOES begrudge children a few kilos of food. Just an opinion, but that's an escalator into Hell.

"And that is the reasons freedoms die..."

Not entirely. You've left out your contribution to the tango we danced that got the starving father of a starving child to the point of desperation.

I'll tell you what---Let's let the soldiers go down to the Arms Bank when they're out of ammo. Nothing wrong with charity.

Just won't go here with me, will you? For what I know you know is the obvious reason.

I think I've reduced this argument to it's bare and irreducible essence.

If it is "FOR THE CHILDREN", then no one has a right to their own property. If my child is homeless, can I break into your house and demand that you let me live there?

Rail against it if you wish. You're not the realist between the two of us.

Once freedoms are surrendered, they are never returned. Short of another revolution or the financial collapse of the country, the slippery-slope course we are on to complete socialism probably will not reverse.

I'm still waiting to hear from you how the US Armed Forcces could be supported by customs taxes, by the way.

Already said... either amend the constitution to make it legal, or scrap the military.

Only a government with YOUR ideas would, and has, gone there. The Irish starved so that the FINANCIAL interests of an elite would be protected. That elite never had the RIGHT to get money in the way that they did.

#73 | Posted by Zed

Zed, how can you claim to have studdied ANYTHING and believe that it was a minimal gov't that was oppressing the Irish? That is just... absurd. You talk about financial interest of the elite? What the fuck do you call the fat-cats in washington that rake in trillions, give billions to their crownies, line their own pockets, etc. They are somehow entitled to the money? Cause they got idiots to surrender their rights by trotting out sob stories about kids? Because the convinced a few people that just another trillion in spending will keep the unemployment rates from going over 8%?

You are the one that is supporting the same type of overreaching / powerhungry system that we rebelled against.

My Dear LIBERTARIAN----GOVERNMENT wasn't the fundamental dynamic when the Irish starved. GOVERNMENT was quite content to see the Irish just fucking leave forever rather than feed them to stay.

The fundamental dynamic was PROPERTY RIGHTS. Of which the Irish, being poor, had few or NONE.

"Over-reaching/power hungry...."

All I've advocated is making feeding kids a priority. You've burned cords of bandwith arguing against that. That's just freaking strange.

"Either amend the Constitution to make it legal, or scrap the military...."

Make theft Constitutonal? Which it would have to be from your point of view. Unless you think putting it in writing changes the fundamental nature of a thing?

States tax. That's the fundamental nature of a state. If taxation is theft in one instance then by definition it's theft in all.

Live up to your own principles, unworkable though they may be.

Ok... this will be my last attempt at this till after I get something to eat... all this talk about starving children makes me hungry.

You've left out your contribution to the tango we danced that got the starving father of a starving child to the point of desperation.

Chicken and the egg. If there was no welfare systems, and if the tax rate was something like, oh, 10%... then the amount available for charity would be MUCH greater. And the number of jobs would probably also be MUCH greater... so maybe your hypothetical starving man and child wouldn't be starving... but let's say he is. And lets further say that he is such a sorry son of a bitch that none of his neighbors will help him with a job (cause he is also a lazy son of a bitch)... ok...

Still wouldn't prevent me, as a neighbor, from giving them food... but, failing that... what?

You can either show up at my door with a gun and steal 10 bucks, or you can elect someone to show up at my job and have them steal 30, so you get 7 and they waste the rest. Theft is theft. Having someone else steal for you just makes you MORE lazy.

I'll tell you what---Let's let the soldiers go down to the Arms Bank when they're out of ammo. Nothing wrong with charity.

I don't know why you can't read. Either go back to the armies are provided directly by the states, or amend the constitution. Now, if we amend the constitution, they can address funding at that time. Does each state pay a fixed amount / year? A fix amount per citizen? A fixed number of citizens in the state is poor and cannot raise the capital? That is what can be discussed, decided, and voted on.

Just won't go here with me, will you? For what I know you know is the obvious reason.

#78 | Posted by Zed

I have been to the food bank to drop off food. I even volunteered a few times to help Amy unload, sort and distribute food around the holidays.

I have no problem with people being poor. Things happen. I have a BIG DAMN PROBLEM with people assuming that the world owes them a house, a car, food, a tv, cable, cell phones, drug money, etc. And then they bitch cause they don't get as much as they want.

If taxation is theft in one instance then by definition it's theft in all.

Exactly. All Taxation is a form of theft. It is what you have to pay to keep government from making your life a miserable hell.

"I have been to the food bank to drop off food...."

But you haven't been to the Army Bank to drop off uniforms, ammunition, and food for all those needy soldiers and their starving dependents. Dependents, I'm sure you'll add, have no right to food.

"Now, if we amend the Consititution we can adress funding at that time..."

Until that happens, you must agree that charity is the best way to support a national armed forces?

But perhaps we could let the States provide for national defense. Yeah. I wonder how much Rick Perry would budget for tanks in an election year in Texas?

RAY'S on my side. Let me savor the moment.

Make theft Constitutonal? Which it would have to be from your point of view. Unless you think putting it in writing changes the fundamental nature of a thing?

No, I didn't talk about a FEDERAL program to provide, I talked about the states deciding... which is what the constitution is all about. States deciding, states right, individual rights, weak federal gov't.

States tax. That's the fundamental nature of a state. If taxation is theft in one instance then by definition it's theft in all.

If your local grocery store starts charging you an extra $.10 for each plastic bag, you have choices. Either go to a different store, bring your own plastic bags, buy reusable bags, etc. However, if the feds say that all stores much charge this $.10, you loose the option of going somewhere else.

The idea of individual states was that some were going to be more 'liberal' than others, and some were going to be more 'Christian' than others, and that was OK... you could vote with your feet.

Live up to your own principles, unworkable though they may be.

I would love to... how soon can we get my pay check exempted from all these federal taxes? I will voluntarily sign away any rights to SS that I have paid in, as long as I never have to give them another dime. 20 years from now, having put that same 15% in the stocks or bonds or whatever, I would have a lot more cash than I will ever see from the SS ponzi scheme.

Here's the thing, which I assume you'll read after you're back from lunch---I've never heard or read a damned thing that suggested the Irish starved because they were lazy.

I HAVE read quite a bit about how they never OWNED the food they produced. I guess you can say that's a function of government because it was government that upheld THAT right of ownership and the consequent need of millions to die or migrate.

But it's nothing more than the same absolute right of ownership you advocate for and, furthermore, expect "over-reaching" government to uphold.

"Laziness" becomes just a easy word to use to distract from how contradictory and frankly hypocritical your point of view is.

Yes, I'm sure that the well-fed contributed to charities when the Irish were starving. Yes, I'm sure that eased their consciences enormously.

Didn't make them less than bastards, though.

LIBERTARIAN has no problem stealing money from me to buy a few divisions of tanks. He DOES begrudge children a few kilos of food. Just an opinion, but that's an escalator into Hell.

#76 | Posted by Zed

Zed, I've tried. I really have. I don't begrudge the children food, I begrudge the ATTITUDE that YOU are owed something. The only person with an obligation to your fucking child is you and your wife / husband. I may CHOOSE to help, but I shouldn't be obligated. Just like a woman can CHOOSE to sleep with me, but she isn't OBLIGATED.

All I've advocated is making feeding kids a priority. You've burned cords of bandwith arguing against that. That's just freaking strange.

#81 | Posted by Zed

Not strange at all. Typical approach of socialist and fascist is the sob story. Blame the jews or kids are starving, yada yada yada... oh, look, there went your freedoms along with another trillion dollars that we borrowed. But we had to have a new gov't agency to manage this starving child, and of course it needs 10's of thousands of workers, and all of them deserve time off, and sick pay and vacation and medical and... fuck, where does it end?

If feeding your child is a priority to you, as their parent, you would do ANYTHING in your power... take any job, etc. Sitting on your ass expecting a gov't check is abdicating your obligation.

Any gov't that is large enough to provide for you is large enough to oppress you.

"I have a BIG DAMN PROBLEM with people assuming the world owes them...."

Funny thing is, so do I. But this is never what I was talking about.

It's interesting the number of absolute BASTARDS I've met who crow about what self-made men they are when I KNOW, chapter-and-verse, just exactly how and when they took rank advantage of persons and institutions to get what they have.

I have a BIG DAMN PROBLEM with this. Further, I think it's the BASTARDS who always cause more hurt than the merely lazy.

"Is the sob story...."

Friend---My people came from Ireland and then the coal mines. "Sob story". What an ass.

I've never heard or read a damned thing that suggested the Irish starved because they were lazy.

Actually, I have. Remember the signs that were posted all over that said things like 'dead dogs and Irish need not apply'. They were, as a whole, drunks and violent. Not that it is germane to this discussion.

I HAVE read quite a bit about how they never OWNED the food they produced. I guess you can say that's a function of government because it was government that upheld THAT right of ownership and the consequent need of millions to die or migrate.

And if the gov't takes their "cut" out of your income before you get it, what's the difference? If they take so much that you can't afford to move to a new state, you are just as trapped as the Irish peasants.

But it's nothing more than the same absolute right of ownership you advocate for and, furthermore, expect "over-reaching" government to uphold.

Exactly, perfectly wrong. I want to abolish the over-reaching gov't. Your family might be starving, but allowing the gov't to 'reach' into my pocket, or onto my property to take the food they want, means that my family would starve. What you are advocating for is a gov't that CAN over reach, and I am saying "NO".

"Laziness" becomes just a easy word to use to distract from how contradictory and frankly hypocritical your point of view is.

Not at all. I assume that, if the system isn't broken, you would be able to DO SOMETHING to help yourself out of a bad situation. That on those occasions where thing go really bad, your friend, family and neighbors should help you. That asking the gov't to steal from me to provide for you harms both you and I. I loose what is stolen, which exceeds what went to help you. You loose in that you don't have any reason to stand on your own. Think of this like having a child that can't yet walk. If you constantly carry the child, and never let them fall down, they never learn to walk. We now have 3rd generation welfare people, who have never worked a day in their life, and wouldn't have a clue what a job is or what you need to do to get / keep one.

Yes, I'm sure that the well-fed contributed to charities when the Irish were starving. Yes, I'm sure that eased their consciences enormously.

Didn't make them less than bastards, though.

#88 | Posted by Zed

No, they were the ones STEALING. Of course they were bastards. YOU are wanting the fat-cats in washington to replace the fat-cats in LONDON. Same type of people, same type of theft. Same bastards. In this case, you want to be one of the bastards that are doing the stealing.

"I have a BIG DAMN PROBLEM with people assuming the world owes them...."

Funny thing is, so do I. But this is never what I was talking about.

Did I miss something when you said in #70 that my rights to my property went out the window when your child was hungry? You made the assumption that the world (in this case, ME) owed her food or a house or clothes or whatever. I have a BIG PROBLEM with my incurring a debt just because she is breathing.

It's interesting the number of absolute BASTARDS I've met who crow... I have a BIG DAMN PROBLEM with this. Further, I think it's the BASTARDS who always cause more hurt than the merely lazy.

I agree, there are a lot of self-important bastards. Don't agree that they cause more problems than lazy... as the lazy often vote for them in exchange for more of my money. So, which is the bigger bastard? The one stealing from me or the one who hired the thief? Matching bastards, in my books.

Friend---My people came from Ireland and then the coal mines. "Sob story". What an ass.

My family are mostly Irish and Indian. Both have been mistreated in the past. Both have a history of drinking too much and working too little. Luckily, neither of us are constrained by ancient history.

"By the way, the reason you heard so much about how BAD acorn was, is because they were an organization dedicated to empowering the underclass."

Actually, I heard more about them when Bertha and Issa were being interviewed and she refused requests from Congress to open up her books before another federal dollar was handed to them. I also remember they were accused of voter fraud and John Conyers was handcuffed by party leaders to do his job as Chair and open an investigation. I know Obama was recently caught on tape lying about his association with ACORN and I am sure he wouldn't like anymore threads being started by donner and other libs here. Not that he should be worried the MSM would have the guts to do their jobs and look into this. Much like Jeremiah Wright, Ayres... etc., etc., etc,...

Actually, I have. Remember the signs that were posted all over that said things like 'dead dogs and Irish need not apply'. They were, as a whole, drunks and violent. Not that it is germane to this discussion.#92 | Posted by 1libertarian
==========================
1L...do you seriously believe this?

"The problem with people having a 'right' to food is then they don't have a motivation to get off their ass and work."

It's not life, liberty and the pursuit of property, propertarian. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an empty slogan without food. As a member of the community you have an obligation to share. Otherwise, we vote you off the island.

another cover up maybe as large as the crime in acorn..

ah but libs here dont give a fuck about even thinking about looking into that

so much for thier rule of law stance when it comes to the gop

once again

LETS FOLLOW THE MONEY

bus*

#97 | Posted by afkabl2
==============
No crime as far as NY

Breitbart throws his "future of journalism" under the buss.

#98 | Posted by YAV
============
he has no credibility left

No crime as far as NY

#100 | Posted by mmike at

with all of the tenticles that acorn and its other parts have...there is no telling where a money trail on them would lead..my point, although clumsily made. was to say that someone with balls should look into every aspect of acorn and its hundreds of subsideraries.....but NO...cant do that because they are mainly minority and thus untouchable except for DEVILS like brietbart and beck

and what happens when they DO look into it..

well just read posts about thier chraracter and heritage.

...there is no telling where a money trail on them would lead..someone with balls should look into every aspect of acorn and its hundreds of subsideraries.....

#102 | Posted by afkabl2
==============
Here's a start...
Congressional Research Service Report on ACORN

"Federal funding received by ACORN. You asked for a description of all federal
funding received by ACORN over the last five fiscal years and a description of instances
where ACORN violated the terms of federal funding. The following memo by Meredith
Peterson (x78990) presents information on federal funding received by ACORN. A
search of reports of federal agency inspectors general did not identify instances in which
ACORN violated the terms of federal funding in the last five years."

and my point is that acorn has shown they move that around and use other names of things for cover and such
like the place in new orleans that had about 200 different names to it but they all ended up as acorn...

just saying that anytime a group like this is outed or even talked about..the same old tired bullshit occurs..the person asking the questions is stupid and evil and all of the usual nonsense from progressives and thier lapdog media...

JUST like democrats in washington

I dont trust them at all...and gop is on thin ice and a real short leash

"You want to be one of the fat cats wanting to do the stealing...."

Uh, no---All I've done is suggest that it's good social policy not to starve one's own citizens.

You're the one who has suggested that peoplean (and their children) sometimes deserve to starve because they are "lazy" and decline to go to "any lengths" to find food.

I'm the person who told you that "to any lengths" the starving (deserving and undeserving) will in fact go.

As a "libertarian", I'd have thought you have a better and more realistic grasp on human nature. Now, that was stupid of me, because you're the same fellow that thinks the Constitution could possibly make theft legal.

"Actually I have heard (the Irish were lazy)...."

And therefore they deserved to starve. Yes, I get it. No, you can relax, you have made the grade---You are one royally evil son-of-a-bitch.

I did tell you that all the Irish in my family worked coal mines? Yeah. Lazy people.

"I have a BIG PROBLEM incurring a debt because she (your child) is breathing...."

Yah. And I have a BIG PROBLEM with the idea you wouldn't care if she did breathe.

One of us is a barbarian.

"I want to abolish over-reaching governments...."

But not quite to the extent of actually and always preventing genocide. What a loon.

...Not that it is germane to this discussion.#92 | 1L...do you seriously believe this?

#94 | Posted by mmike

Believe which part? That my ancestors were irish and indian? Yes. That there were a large enough number of drunk irishmen and drunk indians to create a stereotype? Yes. That either of those matter to the discussion of whether someone is OWED something... no.

It's not life, liberty and the pursuit of property, propertarian. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an empty slogan without food. As a member of the community you have an obligation to share. Otherwise, we vote you off the island.

#95 | Posted by nullifidian

Null... that is FUCKING stupid. Pursuit means getting off your lazy ass. It doesn't mean having the gov't send you a fucking check. If you have a right to my money, what of yours do I have a right to? Or are you somehow empowered by your poverty? Does the fact that you are alive obligate me to pay for you and your children? Don't you have an obligation to do anything.

Jesus said to feed the poor. He also said to heal the sick, help widows and orphans, and give of ourselves to others freely.

Today's conservatives seem on one hand to be the most vocal in aligning themselves with or professing to be "Christians", then on the other hand gripe about how the poor don't deserve to eat because they're 'lazy'. Easy stereotypes always.

Then there's healthcare. "They're just lazy!! Not on my dime!!". I'd bet most of the loudest voices receive health care coverage from someone else. You know. "Freely given" to them.

All I've done is suggest that it's good social policy not to starve one's own citizens.

Its good social policy, IF YOU ARE A SOCIALIST. If you think that all good comes from govt and that you should look to govt to provide for you and your family, because all the people (you included) are too stupid and / or lazy to provide for themselves. The fact that govt has to steal this from other people doesn't matter to you at all. You are the one getting the largess of the govt.

You're the one who has suggested that peoplean (and their children) sometimes deserve to starve because they are "lazy" and decline to go to "any lengths" to find food.

No, you can't read. I said that YOUR starving does not OBLIGATE me to pay. I may CHOOSE to help, but it is from CHARITY. I know, libs equate charity with govt, but it isn't. If a starving man came to me, I might give him a meal. More likely, I would try and figure out what he can do to provide for himself and help him. Ya know, that give a man a fish analogy? You have heard about the bible, right? God, Christ, etc?

I'm the person who told you that "to any lengths" the starving (deserving and undeserving) will in fact go.

Yes, lots turn to crime cause they think (incorrectly) that you can make more money for less work. Its called LAZY. Your plan REWARDS and ENCOURAGES people to be lazy.

As a "libertarian", I'd have thought you have a better and more realistic grasp on human nature.

I do. I know people like you want to set on your ass and get shit that has been stolen from someone else. You think that govt is god, it is source of all goodness and if those ebil rich people would just be punished a bit more, your life would be so much better.

Now, that was stupid of me, because you're the same fellow that thinks the Constitution could possibly make theft legal.

#106 | Posted by Zed

That is exactly what you are supporting... and what I wish to prevent. Right now, they steal a large chunk of my check. You are not happy until they steal more of it.

"Actually I have heard (the Irish were lazy)...."

And therefore they deserved to starve. Yes, I get it. No, you can relax, you have made the grade---You are one royally evil son-of-a-bitch.

You are one grade-a-moron. If you chose to starve, how is that my business? If you chose to drink, or swear, or fuck your pet poodle... none of them are my business. They are only my business if you expect me to pay for your food, or your drugs, or to buy you a new poodle when your current one runs away.

I did tell you that all the Irish in my family worked coal mines? Yeah. Lazy people.

#107 | Posted by Zed

And I did say that my ancestors were also Irish? Not all Irish were lazy. But what difference does it make if they were Irish or black or from mars... unless you think that you are owed something TODAY for your grandpappy's hunched back.

And I have a BIG PROBLEM with the idea you wouldn't care if she did breathe.

There are how many millions of people in the US? There are 4 billion people on the planet. Do you care that they all breath? How many homeless people did you bring home today to live in your house? How many illegals did you smuggle over the border? Did you cook your own food and pass it out on the street corners? Why do you think I should be robbed, but your house / food / goodies are off limits? Oh, I know, cause I have a good job.

One of us is a barbarian.

#108 | Posted by Zed

And one of us is a fucking thief.

Jesus said to feed the poor. He also said to heal the sick, help widows and orphans, and give of ourselves to others freely.

GIVE.... NOT STEAL FROM SOMEONE ELSE. Give your money... give your time... don't give MY MONEY. Giving your money makes you charitable. Giving my money makes you a thief.

Today's conservatives seem on one hand to be the most vocal in aligning themselves with or professing to be "Christians", then on the other hand gripe about how the poor don't deserve to eat because they're 'lazy'. Easy stereotypes always.

Because you lefties have NO CLUE about god. His instructions were to PEOPLE... not the ROME.

Then there's healthcare. "They're just lazy!! Not on my dime!!". I'd bet most of the loudest voices receive health care coverage from someone else. You know. "Freely given" to them.

#111 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

If I have health insurance from my employer, it is because it was offered as a "perk". To entice me to take that job instead of a job with one of the competitors. Same with the number of sick days, number of vacation days, pay amount, etc. A contract between employer and employee is not the same as a govt mandate for me to buy your food or pay for your health care coverage.

Jesus didn't teach the multitude to fish. He served them fish to eat.

1LIB

At least you don't profess to be a "Christian".

So, no one should expect you to live up to Christian principles.

he served them a meal, then told the story about teaching them to fish... he didn't offer to come back every day for the next 2000 years and feed them another meal.

Its called a helping hand... not a hammock.

Jesus never turned down anyone who asked for His help. Ever.

Comparing Roman occupation to a democratic government based on Christian principles are two entirely different concepts.

At least you don't profess to be a "Christian".

So, no one should expect you to live up to Christian principles.

#115 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

I would say my position is much more Christian than yours. I think PEOPLE should help people. You think that govt should help people.

Did god say 'Ceasar should give them fishes... today and tomorrow and for the next 2000 years'. He said "teach them to fish". He expected people to try and take care of themselves... and for their neighbors to help when they needed it. He said to the people to help the old, the widows, the children. Not 'Ceasar, take care of ...'

The problem, 1LIB, is people are stereotyped. That isn't reality.

I'll give you a for instance in recent years: SCHIP
The very administration elected with the help of the Gary Bauers and Jerry Falwell's of the world refused to enact legislation to help provide medical care to children. Were they 'lazy' too?

Sorry, the 'conservative' movement paints in a broad brush when it comes to helping anyone but rich fat cats and corporations. THEM they helped through welfare to the tune of trillions. But, kids? No no no no no no!!

And Jesus said, "As you do unto the least of these so you do unto Me."

Read the Beatitudes again.

#118 | Posted by 1libertarian

Roman occupation to American democratic government based on Christian principles are two entirely different concepts.

Let's take education:

During the GOP rule of D.C., college loan programs became private and interest rates skyrocketed. How helpful is that in 'teaching a man to fish'?

One of the first programs Reagan cut when he was elected President was called something like CETA (?). It paid for college tuition or vocational training plus a small stipend that was enough to pay for gas and food. How is that helpful in 'teaching a man to fish'?

It seems like every program that helps people better themselves suffered during the Bush/GOP Congress years.

Very antithetical to the principle of 'teaching a man to fish', don't ya think?

The problem, 1LIB, is people are stereotyped. That isn't reality.

Sure, some Irish were drunks... Note I didn't say "ALL Irish were drunks". Just a large enough percentage that the stereotype was started.

I'll give you a for instance...

Why is it that EVERY 'for instance' you have is the govt stealing money from my check to give to someone else?

...SCHIP. The very administration elected with the help of the Gary Bauers and Jerry Falwell's of the world refused to enact legislation to help provide medical care to children. Were they 'lazy' too?

No, churches can provide support. When taxes are increased, then donations go down (less money left in the pockets of all those working poor who contribute such a large percentage of charity).

Sorry, the 'conservative' movement paints in a broad brush when it comes to helping anyone but rich fat cats and corporations.

Absofuckinglutely wrong... again. You paint "RICH" as evil, and "conservatives" as being against children. Neither of these are close. It is a matter of how you see the world. Conservatives think YOU should spend your money... or give it away, as YOU want. Liberals think that GOVT should take your money and spend it how they want, on what they want, cause people are stupid and evil and wouldn't spend their money correctly.

THEM they helped through welfare to the tune of trillions. But, kids? No no no no no no!!

#119 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Note the libertarian part... I think the repubs are too far to the socialist agenda for me as well. Both steal. Dems want more welfare so people can sit on their asses. Repubs want more welfare for business to create jobs (hopefully in the US, but not likely).

I think both repubs and dems are fucking thieves. They just want to spend what they steal (and borrow) for different things.

Well, here's a little 'WWJD' for ya:

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Luke 3:11. "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."

Matthew 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Luke 14:12-14. "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Matthew 19:20. The young man said to Him, "All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

James 5:1-6. Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

Luke 6:24. "But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full."

Luke 16:19-25. "Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs would come and lick his sores.

Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.'

But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony...'"

Acts 2:44. All those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began to sell their property and possessions, and share them with all, as anyone might have need.

Acts 4:32-35. And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.

Prov. 19:17. He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and He will repay him for his good deed.

Prov. 14:31. He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him.

Mt. 25:31-46. "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on His left.

Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite you in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'

And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'

Then they themselves will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'

Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

"No, churches can provide support."

If you actually believe that, you're unaware of the scale.

"When taxes are increased, then donations go down"

Link?

Jesus wasn't a conservative; he was a revolutionary. He not only takes the side of the poor; he puts himself in their place. In the very alarming parable of the sheep and the goats he speaks of salvation as depending on how we treat the poorest and the most afflicted.

I could go on with what the namesake of "Christianity" said and did, but you know that already.

It just surprises me no end how unChristian in practice the folks who make the biggest deal about being Christians can be. Any justification at all to NOT follow Christianity seems to be the rule rather than the exception when it comes to right here in America.

Do you think Jesus would have though it right for billionaires to buy their third $10,000,000 home while bitching about paying taxes, providing hot meals to people, or health care in their hour of need?

He'd have THROWN THEM OUT OF THE TEMPLE! THAT's what he would have done.

And Jesus said, "As you do unto the least of these so you do unto Me."

Again, what part of YOU can you not read. YOU take care of children. Not YOU elect some thief to steal from someone else to use part of the money to help the children.

Let's take education:

I wish they would... scrap the Dept of Ed, end all of the money they spend, and return that to the taxpayers.

During the GOP rule of D.C., college loan programs became private and interest rates skyrocketed. How helpful is that in 'teaching a man to fish'?

Why is the govt involved in any form? You have this mindset that EVERYTHING must be done by govt. Do you have a govt agent that comes by in the morning to shake your dick for you when you take a piss? If not, did you learn to do that for yourself or do you walk around all day with your shorts full of dribble?

One of the first programs Reagan cut when he was elected President was called something like CETA (?). It paid for college tuition or vocational training plus a small stipend that was enough to pay for gas and food. How is that helpful in 'teaching a man to fish'?

Don't know about the program... but still not something the govt should be doing. If your grades are not good enough to get a "free ride", then maybe you should get a job and pay for your education? Wonder how many less people would waste a year or two getting drunk and wasted at college if they had to pay for it? Wonder how much less it would cost if the schools had to compete for people who were spending their own money?

It seems like every program that helps people better themselves suffered during the Bush/GOP Congress years.

Cut to the chase... you want to be nursed on the govt tit from the moment you are popped out, until they throw dirt in your face. Somewhere along the way, you expect that you will work, but you will probably never contribute as much as you cost. If all of this actually cost you money, you wouldn't spend so freely.

Very antithetical to the principle of 'teaching a man to fish', don't ya think?

#122 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

No, cause part of the teaching a person to fish is that fishing to feed yourself is work, unlike fishing as an excuse to drink beer.

"No, churches can provide support."

I live in the 'Bible Belt'. Most churches are empty all week... HUGE churches everywhere you look. Churches with lots of older women who could provide day care to single, struggling moms, churches rich enough to build gaudy edifices, but find themselves unable or unwilling to help provide free day care, vocational training, diapers, gas, food to help someone lift themselves up out of their situation.

They don't. Oh, 'save the embryos'.

"Screw 'em once they're born. Don't ya know we have to spread Jesus' Word (we don't take to heart ourselves) to China! We can't put ourselves out to help those in our own communities with our tithes and time. Oh, no! We gotta save for a bigger church, don't ya know?"

The only people I've ever met who didn't want to work had alcohol or drug problems. Where's the rehab and then vocational training to help them get on their feet? Pfft.

Conservatives act as though half the population doesn't want to work or be useful. Baloney. People are working their asses off for $10 an hour all over this country just to keep 'food on their families' (Bushism). If they can find a job.

Why do you think unemployment was 4% when Bush came into office? Because 96% of Americans were getting up every morning and doing what? Going to work.

Jesus wasn't a conservative; he was a revolutionary.

True, to a point. But he wasn't living in the same world we are. He was opposing an oppressive govt. In fact, the govt he opposed is a lot like the one you are busy trying to build.

He not only takes the side of the poor; he puts himself in their place. In the very alarming parable of the sheep and the goats he speaks of salvation as depending on how we treat the poorest and the most afflicted.

I treat them by HELPING them myself. I give a large portion of my income to helping them. I do it out of my own check. I do not do it out of your check. That is the difference. That you don't see it is sad, but expected of liberals.

I could go on with what the namesake of "Christianity" said and did, but you know that already.

I was raised in a strict Christian environment.

It just surprises me no end how unChristian in practice the folks who make the biggest deal about being Christians can be.

It is not for me to judge if you are a Christian. That is between you and your GOD. Would you support the govt rounding up people and forcing them to attend Church?

Any justification at all to NOT follow Christianity seems to be the rule rather than the exception when it comes to right here in America.

the RIGHT? Hell, the LEFT does everything they can to remove Christ from everything. They don't help the children because it is god's will, they help them so they get voters for life. Keep them poor and uneducated and reliant on govt handouts.

Do you think Jesus would have though it right for billionaires to buy their third $10,000,000 home while bitching about paying taxes, providing hot meals to people, or health care in their hour of need?

I am not the one who should judge. But, if you want my opinion, then NO. However, before you go nutz, I also think he will have a space next to your billionaires in hell for the liberals that support using theft and coersion. Charity is a personal act, not a govt function.

He'd have THROWN THEM OUT OF THE TEMPLE! THAT's what he would have done.

Yes, he would. They were there for something other than God. Can you say with a straight face that the libs in congress are setting up these "programs" to bring the children to GOD? I think he would cast the socialist and communist and power-hungry politicians out of the churches as well.

1LIB

I'm going back to bed. Read what Jesus said. "WWJD?". It's a nice slogan for "Chrisitians", but rarely put into practice in practical or political terms when 'conservatives' have their way.

His words and philosophy are paradoxical to American 'conservative' philosophy.

Right wing radio hosts who make tens of millions a year - many, like Limbaugh, born into privilege - have convinced people to vote against their own best interests so the fat cats can get even more wealthy.

Look how the wealth in this nation has shifted from the middle class to the richest 1% of Americans since Reagan, THEN tell me how conservatives want anything good for the vast majority of people in this nation.

"Null... that is FUCKING stupid. Pursuit means getting off your lazy ass. "

If you don't want to contribute to the tribe, leave. Go create some libertarian utopia in the middle of nowhere, John Galt. We don't need you selfish moochers who do nothing but whine about taxes anyway.

Gee, 1LIB, I thought we were talking about the poor, the hungry, the people Jesus talked about helping to the point of giving away EVERYTHING you own to help. There were no caveats.

Ah, let's be honest; most 'Christians' pay lip service to Jesus' philosophy they rarely practice in practical terms.

Jesus takes the issue of poverty personally. A church or a nation that ignores its poor or places stumbling blocks in their way, whose supreme god is Money, is very far from the spirit of God or His Son, who he sent here to deliver a simple message and philosophy of unconditional love and giving to others.

Goodnight

If you need a refresher course in what Christ said, I posted a few pertinent verses in previous posts.

The only people I've ever met who didn't want to work had alcohol or drug problems.

Either you know very few people, or an unusual set of people.

Where's the rehab and then vocational training to help them get on their feet? Pfft.

Again, what makes this ONLY possible with a federal program? Why couldn't a church help people get off drugs or alchohol?

Conservatives act as though half the population doesn't want to work or be useful.

Don't know if it is up to 50%... probably damn close. Getting closer every day.

Baloney. People are working their asses off for $10 an hour all over this country just to keep 'food on their families' (Bushism).

Sure, in all 57 states. So some people are working hard. Great. Do you think they will ALWAYS only make $10 an hour? Never get a raise?

If they can find a job.

True. Which is why I think we have TOO much govt. They suck up lots of resouces, make lots of bad rules and laws, and harm businesses. If we had 1/2 the govt, we might have double the number of jobs.

Why do you think unemployment was 4% when Bush came into office? Because 96% of Americans were getting up every morning and doing what? Going to work.

#130 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Not true. Unemployment rates are based on the numbers that are considered in the right age range, not in school, not working part time, not on any of the dozens of welfare programs, etc. Never close to 96%.

All that has happened is that the bloat of govt and the excess of regulation, combined with global markets have caused a lot of jobs to move to foreign countries. You may not like it, but creating another generation of welfare babies isn't going to change it for the better. Another welfare program (health care for everyone) isn't going to create MORE jobs, other than govt jobs. As the cost increases, more and more business will move offshore or collapse because they cannot compete.

There might be solutions, but more and bigger govt is not it. All that will do is make the situation worse.

Read what Jesus said... but rarely put into practice in practical or political terms when 'conservatives' have their way.

Very true. Not usually done by conservatives, and almost NEVER done by libs. Jesus expected people to do what was right... not sit on their ass and expect someone to give them a handout. He also expected people to help their neighbor, not sit on their ass and wait for someone else to help. Libs fail both tests.

His words and philosophy are paradoxical to American 'conservative' philosophy.

Only because you have a twisted concept of what Jesus would do. Would Jesus stand in a welfare line? Would Jesus go begging the govt agency (that said his name is not allowed to be spoken in front of children) to educate his children? Would he give your child free condoms and an abortion on demand (without parental consent)?

Right wing radio hosts... - have convinced people to vote against their own best interests so the fat cats can get even more wealthy..

Again, absolutely wrong. So typical. You think conservatives are voting against their interests because they are brainwashed by fat cats. However, the fat cats that rip off the govt systems [ie YOUR fat cats] are all saintly and walk on water. In my best interest, financially, is to keep my money. I pay in more than I will EVER get from the system. So far, no conflict. If you collect more from the govt than you pay in, voting for a lib is no conflict for you. However, if you believe that PEOPLE should help people directly [by choice] as opposed to collectively [via socialism at the point of a gun]... then you are voting for the wrong candidates.

Look how the wealth in this nation has shifted from the middle class to the richest 1% of Americans since Reagan, THEN tell me how conservatives want anything good for the vast majority of people in this nation.

#132 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Apples and Quasars. Not even in the same universe. When Reagan was president, outsourcing call centers to India wasn't possible, the technology didn't exist. Outsourcing manufacturing jobs was not common, as there were few competitors. That US companies have been hamstrung by govt policies and regulations, while other countries haven't, is a large part of the cause. Retirement of the 'greatest generation', being replaced by the free-sex-free-drugs-hippies of the 60's being in charge, and the wild growth in govt spending, has also contributed. Changes in treaties, such as NAFTA, has increased foreign competition. Changes in buying patterns have also occured. We could have an entire thread on WHY this country is sliding towards 3rd world status... but the slide has gone hand-in-hand with socialism.

If you don't want to contribute to the tribe, leave. Go create some libertarian utopia in the middle of nowhere, John Galt. We don't need you selfish moochers who do nothing but whine about taxes anyway.

#133 | Posted by nullifidian

How about if you want to live in a socialist country, MOVE YOUR ASS THERE intead of destroying this one? Yeah, didn't think you would actually move... your too damn lazy. And moochers? They take about 50% of my check to support people like you.

Gee, 1LIB, I thought we were talking about the poor, the hungry, the people Jesus talked about helping to the point of giving away EVERYTHING you own to help. There were no caveats.

In the opposite order. EVERYTHING? Don't remember reading that you should be homeless and nakid just to help the poor. Still, the key is GIVING... as opposed to theft. I believe that Jesus was a real supporter of personal choice. You appear to oppose choice. If your daughter chooses to sleep with someone, that is her choice. If someone rapes her, they took away her free choice. Why you think having the govt take away someones choice is a GOOD thing, I don't understand.

Ah, let's be honest; most 'Christians' pay lip service to Jesus' philosophy they rarely practice in practical terms.

#134 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

People are flawed. Doesn't matter the religion.

Jesus takes the issue of poverty personally... or places stumbling blocks in their way

Such as, I don't know, welfare requirements that wouldn't provide assistance unless a woman left her husband. That was policy for a long time? Why? Did it make FEWER poor people? No, it kept the welfare rolls up, and justified growing govt.

... a simple message and philosophy of unconditional love and giving to others.

#135 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Giving YOUR stuff is a GOOD thing. Giving someone else's stuff is not good. Why you think that GOD would approve stealing "because it for such a good cause" just boggles the mind.

I live in the 'Bible Belt'.

Congrats.

Churches with lots of older women who could provide day care to single, struggling moms,...

Ah, in most cases, the state requires day care workers to take test, meet state and federal standards, etc. Case in point, a lady a few months back in MI I believe watched her neighbors children for something like 1 hr a morning, for free, and the welfare department stepped in and said she had to stop. Threatened to put the old lady in jail and take the kids. Gotta love those 'for the children' systems.

churches rich enough to build gaudy edifices,...

Did I ever say that ALL churches were perfect? Nope. I have a problem with the rich churches, and have railed against them as well... but don't get any support other than from the anti-god crowds.

but find themselves unable or unwilling to help provide free day care, vocational training, diapers, gas, food to help someone lift themselves up out of their situation.

List is partially true. Day care, vocational training, etc. are probably all regulated and they would have to agree to not mention GOD [oh, the horror] if they are going to help the poor. As for the diapers and such, most churches (even the big ones) help the community. I have a friend that has gone to some of them in OK for help paying electric bills and such.

"Screw 'em once they're born.

No, just don't try and isolate them from GOD, don't tell them that drugs are OK and abortions tickle. And don't teach them that their parents are idiots.

We can't put ourselves out to help those in our own communities with our tithes and time...

Well, if my tax rate was 10% instead of 50%, I could help a lot more. If you are one of the 50% that pay no federal taxes, than it probably wouldn't impact your ability to donate. Or, wait, did you say you had already donated everything you own, walk to your 3 jobs nakid and will probably die from starvation soon [cause you know some kid somewhere is probably hungry].

Oh, no! We gotta save for a bigger church, don't ya know?"

#129 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Well, bigger churches on the one hand, or bigger govt buildings full of people paid to waste time and taxpayer money... guess if those were the only choices, bad as they are, I'd take the churches. If for no other reason, someone MIGHT accidentially find GOD in a church. All they are going to find from the govt agency is the best way to put on the free condom and which teacher to ask when they want their next abortion.

"Jesus wasn't a conservative; he was a revolutionary. He not only takes the side of the poor; he puts himself in their place. In the very alarming parable of the sheep and the goats he speaks of salvation as depending on how we treat the poorest and the most afflicted."

AU, salvation is NOT dependent upon anything we do. If that were the case, Christ would not have had to suffer and die to atone for our sins. We could have saved ourselves!

Furthermore, Scripture tells us that we can do nothing to earn our salvation lest no man can boast.

The ONLY way to salvation is belief in Jesus as our Savior.
It's that simple.

However, early followers of Christ used to take all they had and share it with other followers to help them.

As followers of Christ we are to help the needy, but our salvation does not depend on it!!

I am not defending those who do not help others, I just wanted to correct your statement.

My church is not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but we contribute to so many in need... in and out of our church community, to ministries, anywhere that we can help.

I personally am not wealthy, but we contribute to peope who are in need.

We do so because it is the right thing to do....not to earn our way into Heaven.

Thank you, Lisa.

In all the discussion about helping the poor being a personal choice vs govt assistance, we failed to point out that neither will buy you a seat in heaven.

Lisa raises a good point.

For me, a good analogy is our relationship with our spouse. We do good deeds not to earn their love, but our good deeds are a reflection of the love which already exists. Same thing for us in our relationship with Christ. Good deeds are a manifestation of our love for Him.

Punching your ticket to Heaven isn't akin to a scale where your sins are on one side and your good deeds are on the other.

"Same thing for us in our relationship with Christ."

Same thing for us in our relationship with The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
FTFY

Jesus is a myth for idiots. Difficult to have a relationship with a myth unless you are one pathetically stupid moron.

"One patheticallly stupid moron"---Unlike ZATOICHI, who counts for two.

"One of us is fucking thief...."

I've never stolen anything from you. It's interesting and strange that you morph the fact that it's difficult to have a realtionship with six billion people into the idea you shouldn't give a shit about any one of them.

Let me re-phrase myself---You are a barbarian, a smug one at that. And, for all I know and could suspect, a thief as well.

"It's good social policy (not to starve one's own citizens) IF YOU ARE A SOCIALIST....."

There's something wrong with you. I'm not sure what further evidence is needed.

"Do you think they'll ALWAYS work for $10.00 an hour....?"

I think there's evidence to support the idea that there's a class of people who would ASSURE workers never make more than $10.00 an hour (or less), if by doing so they thought they could keep that much more for themselves.

I think you're probably one of that class.

AU: Conservatives act as though half the population doesn't want to work or be useful.

1LIB: Don't know if it is up to 50%... probably damn close. Getting closer every day.

Can you fathom how ridiculous that statement is? Do we have an unemployment rate of 50%? Uh, no.

AU: Baloney. People are working their asses off for $10 an hour all over this country just to keep 'food on their families' (Bushism).

1LIB: Sure, in all 57 states. So some people are working hard. Great. Do you think they will ALWAYS only make $10 an hour? Never get a raise?

Oh, the worn out '57 states'. Gessh.

Check around and see what the vast majority of help wanted ads pay per hour and get back to us. Raises? Ya, sure, everyone's been getting them left and right. Have you read real wages actually fell for the first time during Bush's Presidency. The only people who got substantial raises were upper management. Used to be a 27 to 1 ratio between CEO's and average hourly. Now, it's 10X's that number.

"Conservative governance" has actually meant "Corporate Welfare" to the tune of trillions.

LISA and OOHRAH

Hey, I just posted what Jesus said. If you want to argue what He meant take it up with Him :-)

1LIB, so what there are laws about Day Care? You think a church couldn't get licensed?

What about GED classes, sponsoring a single mother's expenses so she can attend college? There are a myriad of ways churches could be helping their own communities, but it seems as though they're more concerned about missionaries in Africa and China than those living within a mile of their own churches.

I've pointed out to OOHRAH a couple times how the "Christians" I know have been adopting babies from China and Russia while hundreds of thousands of foster kids right here in the U.S. need homes.

Several things Jesus said about the poor start at #124 in case you need a refresher course,

OOHRAH and LISA

My posts were direct quotes from Jesus about helping the poor. I didn't bring up 'Salvation'. Whatever Jesus said about helping the poor or the rich getting into Heaven were His words.

If no crime then just a lack of ethics which is par for the course among dems/libs.

#158

Forgot:

Abramoff
Delay
Foley
Vitter
on
and
on
and
on

They had to remove 6 years of grime off the brass plate at the Ethics Office in 2006.

The GOP changed longstanding House rules to allow Delay to continue as House Speaker even after indictment.

We do good deeds not to earn their love, but our good deeds are a reflection of the love which already exists. Same thing for us in our relationship with Christ. Good deeds are a manifestation of our love for Him.

Then we should be doing good deeds for our fellow Man not to earn our place in Heaven but because we Love our fellow Man. Like Jesus did.

Along those lines Libertarian...are not discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services goals that Jesus would support?

"It's good social policy (not to starve one's own citizens) IF YOU ARE A SOCIALIST....."

wow I am in agreement with ZED?

Jesus was a Socialist wasn't he Zed?

AU-
I was only commenting on LISA's post... wasn't picking on you or anyone. At least that wasn't my intent.

I'll look back and try to understand when you say you're relaying what Christ said, not necessarily what He meant. Which post number are you referring to?

Do you disagree with LISA and my interpretation? I think she and I agree that your works don't earn your ticket to Heaven.

Yes, He implores us to help the needy, etc. Yet, helping without proper motive and an acceptance of Christ isn't enough. He wants our heart. Our actions are a voluntary outward reflection of Christ within us.

"Along those lines Libertarian...are not discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services goals that Jesus would support?" - #158 DON

Jesus might very well support those things. Let me ask you this: would Christ support the government collecting taxes (IE: forcing) in order to provide those sorts of things... or would he advocate people do so of their own free will and, likely, in Christ's name?

There are many, many charities set up to address various needs. Is it necessarily the role of government to supplant the role of the early church?

Let me ask you this: would Christ support the government collecting taxes (IE: forcing) in order to provide those sorts of things... or would he advocate people do so of their own free will and, likely, in Christ's name?

Ask Him.

As much as one would like to think churches are doing all they can to alleviate poverty and help others, they aren't. They don't.

AU-
Ask him is snarky. You're not about being snarky.

Is there Biblical evidence to support having government supplant the role of the church and/or private assistance?

#160 | Posted by OohRah

I started with #124 quoting Christ on the poor (and what's expected of the rich).

Is there Biblical evidence to support having government supplant the role of the church and/or private assistance?

Where did Christ say the government shouldn't fill the needs of the poor, hungry, sick?

He talked about money. He referred to it as 'the root of all evil'. If the government has it, its citizenry should never be hungry or lack health care if no one else is filling the need. Jesus was very clear on what's expected of us in regards to the poor, the hungry, the sick, the lame, etc.

Ask him is snarky. You're not about being snarky.

I wasn't attempting to be snarky. Sorry if it came off that way. But, you ask a question only He could answer.

BTW, a government feeding its own people is referred to several times in the Bible. Look at Egypt in the Old Testament. They stored grain to feed their people. There wasn't a story in the Old Testament about anyone going hungry in Egypt, not even the Israelites.

Let me ask you this: would Christ support the government collecting taxes (IE: forcing) in order to provide those sorts of things... or would he advocate people do so of their own free will and, likely, in Christ's name?

What would Jesus say to multimillionaires who have everything a man could want, but still want lower taxes so they can hoard more money?

...Not that it is germane to this discussion.#92 | 1L...do you seriously believe this?

#94 | Posted by mmike

Believe which part? That my ancestors were irish and indian? Yes. That there were a large enough number of drunk irishmen and drunk indians to create a stereotype? Yes. That either of those matter to the discussion of whether someone is OWED something... no...Not that it is germane to this discussion.
#110 | Posted by 1libertarian
============
ILib...my full post/question is...

Actually, I have. Remember the signs that were posted all over that said things like 'dead dogs and Irish need not apply'. They were, as a whole, drunks and violent. Not that it is germane to this discussion.#92 | Posted by 1libertarian
==========================
1L...do you seriously believe this?

you statement..."They were, as a whole, drunks and violent."

Is that what you believe about the Irish?

You must not have seen any of my rants against a standing army being unconstitutional. If we want a standing army (which I think we should have), then we should amend the constitution. Not just ignore it.#58 | Posted by 1libertarian
================

1L...The Constitution does provide for a standing Navy (10-13-1775) sea contingent and Marines (11-10-1775) the sea/land contingent which at the time the consensus was the Navy/Marines was the best way to defend the US and it's commerce.

I'll look back and try to understand when you say you're relaying what Christ said, not necessarily what He meant.

OOHRAH

If Christ said something why would anyone suppose he meant anything but what he said?

#169 | Posted by mmike

According to 1LIB (and others of his persuasion) 50% of Americans (all 'libs', of course) don't work and suck the government teat.

"If Christ said something why would anyone suppose he meant anything but what he said?"

Because "doing unto others" only what you'd want "done unto yourself" is hard werk!

Stephen Colbert did a really cool thing with this story the other day. Basically, he pointed out that the pimpatriot did not wear the pimp outfit initially into the ACORN offices a fact deliberately left out of the heavily edited videos and ignored by the fuckstains at FOX.

Next, he did a fake interview with clips from Sean Hannity's show in which he made Hannity look like an eager male prostitute ready, willing and able to be tricked out by Colbert wearing a Huggy Bear-esque ensemble.

Funny stuff.

"Next, he did a fake interview with clips from Sean Hannity's show in which he made Hannity look like an eager male prostitute ready, willing and able to be tricked out by Colbert wearing a Huggy Bear-esque ensemble."

Well...you know, Colbert did dress up as a pimp...and Hannity did give those answers...

...but the New York Times swears it never said those things happened at the same time!

...but the New York Times swears it never said those things happened at the same time!

www.salon.com

TY fer THAT, Dan4th!

Modern World by Tom Tomorrow purely farking RAWKS!

The one you just linked to is an especially good one.

Required reading sez Spud.

Be Well.

"He talked about money. He referred to it as 'the root of all evil'." - AU

You're mistaken. It's the love of money. There is a difference. See the story of the rich young ruler.

I go back to my earlier point... Christ wasn't about government doing the work of the church. Whether you're talking the early deacons who tended to widows and others... or a myriad of other instances where the church or individuals pitched in to address issues with the weak/infirmed, etc.

Where do you derive the conclusion that Christ wanted the government supplanting the caretaking role of the church?

Yes, Christ told us to pay taxes... so in that sense maybe you're infering that to mean we should want to pay the government to care for us. Is that it? I'm trying to understand your take on it.

"If Christ said something why would anyone suppose he meant anything but what he said?" - AU

C'mon, AU. In communication there is an intended thought to be conveyed... and the receiver has to not only hear the words, but then assigns a meaning to those words.

Part of assigning meaning to anything in the Bible requires you to look at the passage's context.

Which Scripture are you referring to, anyway? I don't know what we're debating.

Christians have spent far too long looking for the meaning of Christ's teachings and have looked for wiggle room everywhere else in the Bible. That's my take.

What are we discussing? I was discussing the poor with 1LIB last night. I posted what Jesus said about helping them. Sadly, 'conservatives' since Reagan have done everything they can to gut or defeat every program that helps Americans who need it. Even the programs that 'teach a man to fish' like CETA, raising interest rates on student loans, etc.

Jesus would have been called a 'socialist'. Inconvenient truth.

OK...
I went back to look at those posts from #124 onward.

I think you realize Christ often spoke in parables. I'm not sure how you can come across as claiming anything regarding Christ's words if neither you nor I are supposed to try to understand what was meant.

Seems like we'd be chasing our tail.

Well, enough for me tonight anyway. I disagree with you most times, and I suspect this time as well, but you do make me think and I appreciate that. Have a good night, AU.

unfortunately you will have to go elsewhere to get the real story.

Bet Fox Snooze will never say this:

Brooklyn DA: ACORN Cleared; Video Edited To Meet Conservative Agenda

#2 | Posted by donnerboy

LOL!!!

You will go so far as to condone morally putrid behavior in order to defend ACORN? Or are you just out to get FoxNews!

Either way, you are morally in the shitter, my friend.

Just how low will you go to defend these scummy low class people?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

It's like FoxNews is a troll and you fell right into their trap!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"You will go so far as to condone morally putrid behavior in order to defend ACORN? "

Huh??? You don't think editing a video to lie about what really happened to be morally putrid?!?

(Cough...cough)...HACK!

Huh??? You don't think editing a video to lie about what really happened to be morally putrid?!?

(Cough...cough)...HACK!

#182 | Posted by Danforth

uh, editing?

Is that what you're calling it?

I saw the video.

There was no editing.

"I saw the video. There was no editing."

No editing?!?

Abso-fucking-lutely clueless.

Abso-fucking-lutely clueless.

#184 | Posted by Danforth

That's right. I'm clueless. I've been heads down on a project for the last 2 weeks.

please link.

uh, hello?

"please link."

Try the headline.

Maybe a comic strip would be more your speed:

LOL!!

Danforth,

Are you having trouble finding a credible link to your statement? I am.

I'm finding a great deal of left wing bullshit links, but can't find a single credible link.

I see what you're talking about now, but all I see is fringe noise.

Seriously, do you have something that's more credible?

uh, hello?

You looking for a credible link?

Sorry Danforth, but you are defending the low of the low.

They didn't break a local law, so it's ok with you?

Dude, I grew up in South Louisiana and the local sheriff was the law.

Are you saying you are ok with this?

Seriously, how low will you and Donner go?

#189...

Sorry to break it to you Eddie, but the tape was edited. Although it is morally putrid, as far as I know the clowns who made the film have not received millions of dollars and have not been charged with voter fraud. Somehow donner thought it would exonerate ACORN's other shenanigans.

Sorry to break it to you Eddie, but the tape was edited. Although it is morally putrid...

#192 | Posted by crispee_oc

I am looking for a credible link that discusses the "editing"

What the fuck difference does it make if it were edited? I see the 2 women CLEARLY advising on how to break the law.

Does anyone have a link discussing the editing?

"Sorry Danforth, but you are defending the low of the low. "

I'm not defending them at all. I'm calling you out for your idiocy.

Telling you don't know the difference.

"Sorry Danforth, but you are defending the low of the low. "

I'm not defending them at all. I'm calling you out for your idiocy.

Telling you don't know the difference.

#194 | Posted by Danforth

I'm sorry, which game are we playing here?

Like I told you, I've been out of the loop for a while and didn't know about a left-wing attempt to discredit the ACORN videos.

I did some research on your claim and came up with nothing!

I politely asked you to link and you call me an idiot?

Is that because you can't link to something?

Really, you lazy jackass, link to something credible.

"They didn't break a local law, so it's ok with you? "

No, none of it's okay with me.

Nor is ignoring that he never wore his pimp costume into the offices, yet pretended he did, or that the video was edited to the point the answers weren't necessarily to the questions asked.

Is shit like that okay with you?

"I politely asked you to link and you call me an idiot? Is that because you can't link to something? Really, you lazy jackass, link to something credible."

5 minutes after I linked?

Haskell Strikes Again.

nymag.com

#196 | Posted by Danforth

Weak.

Comon! Something more than a paragraph!!! The paragraph simply says that there is splicing. Nothing about you lie about over-dubbing from "the pimp".

LOL!!

Something credible, please.

" a left-wing attempt to discredit the ACORN videos. "

Who needs help to discredit O'Keefe?

5 minutes after I linked?

Haskell Strikes Again.

#199 | Posted by Danforth

No, haskell takes 5 minutes to make a fool out of you.

This is FUN!!!

"Comon! Something more than a paragraph!"

Read the comic strip. More your speed.

Who needs help to discredit O'Keefe?

#201 | Posted by Danforth

I really don't give a shit about him. He held a video camera that got someone in a specific organization to give advise on how to get around the law.

That's all.

A local DA has decided to not press charges. So What? This kind of corruption goes on in South Louisiana all the time (before Katrina).

"Comon! Something more than a paragraph!"

Read the comic strip. More your speed.

#203 | Posted by Danforth

Your consessions are slowing down--boring.

Comeon!

Something credible.

"haskell takes 5 minutes to make a fool out of you. "

Keep pretending all you want. If you don't know what "heavily edited" means, or what it means that he wasn't wearing the pimp costume in the ACORN offices, there's not much I can do.

"Your consessions are slowing down"

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

"Something credible."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Like the NYT isn't credible.

Carry on, Haskell.

Danforth and Donner and maintaining the moral "low" ground.

LOL!!!!

"Something credible."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Like the NYT isn't credible.

Carry on, Haskell.

#208 | Posted by Danforth

Where did you link to the NYT?

How long is this beating going to continue? You must be drinking because you can withstand a great deal of pain and embarrassment.

"If the mainstream media recognizes this as a hoax, I will consider it."

But if the Brooklyn DA, after a 5+ month investigation, dismisses the charges because the video was "heavily edited", you won't?

"Did you watch the video? "

You did, and then you claimed it wasn't edited. How moronic can you be? It's like you don't understand the meaning of the word.

"Didn't you see some really bad advise being given? '

You're also conflating discrediting the video with crediting ACORN. Nothing could be further from the truth. And it's telling you have to pretend that's the issue.

BTW...it's advice.

"Where did you link to the NYT?"

You didn't even read the comic strip, which quoted the NYT? Do I have to go slower for you?

"How long is this beating going to continue?"

Oh, God, here we go again. You're getting your ass handed to you, and you pretend you're giving someone a beating.

Sorry...I'm tired of playing your troll games.

No they did not. The video was edited and the questions were dubbed.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy

You did, and then you claimed it wasn't edited. How moronic can you be? It's like you don't understand the meaning of the word.

#211 | Posted by Danforth

I didn't say it wasn't edited! Where did I say that?

Edited? I can clearly see that the video segments are spliced, but the questions being dubbed as Donner says? No.

This is where my doubt for the whole "editing" claim comes in.

It's clear on the video that questions are asked and answers are given. There is no dispute that this is edited.

the DA's term for editing == spliced.

So what?

O'Keefe clearly asks some questions and she answers. That part is not edited and I want to see a link that shows that these parts are edited!!!

There is a HUGE FUCKING banner for ACORN on the wall in back of her. Any questions?

Just a credible link!!

Not a left-wing link

Not a link to a comic strip

Not a link to Stephen Colbert making fun!

LOL!!!

Do you have anything?

"Where did you link to the NYT?"

You didn't even read the comic strip, which quoted the NYT? Do I have to go slower for you?

#212 | Posted by Danforth

Classic!

LOL!

"I didn't say it wasn't edited! "
~Eddie, #213

"I saw the video. There was no editing."
~Eddie, #183

Classic. Haskell Strikes Again.

#215 | Posted by Danforth

Like I said,

Can you show me a link saying that O'Keefe's voice was edited?

This is what I'm looking for.

"Like I said, Can you show me a link saying that O'Keefe's voice was edited? "

When did you initially say voice?

Are the goalposts heavy when you have to move them that far?

The first time you posted the word "voice", Haskell, was post #216.

Sorry Danforth,

I see where you were confused.

No they did not. The video was edited and the questions were dubbed.
#27 | Posted by donnerboy

I was responding to this.

I can't find any proof for this. Do you have proof?

Danforth,

Just a link.

Any link!

"I was responding to this."

By claiming...and I quote..."There was no editing."

This might help:

"Just a link. Any link!"

"Like I said, Can you show me a link saying that O'Keefe's voice was edited? "

When did you initially say voice?

Are the goalposts heavy when you have to move them that far?

#217 | Posted by Danforth

You're right. I didn't say voice.

But the record shows that early in this thread that "editing" includes "O'Keefe's voice is dubbed"

I didn't mean to trick you, but that was the line that set me off.

You can call me a troll and I'll take it--I truly did that by mistake.

I still need a credible link proving that the questions were dubbed in.

"Heavily edited" means it was "edited".

#222 | Posted by Danforth

You're right. Sorry for the confusion! honest!!

Your link clearly says edited means spliced.

But, I still need a credible link showing that what was in the questions in the video were dubbed.

It is still a fact that O'Keefe was in the room and asked the questions and the 2 women answered the questions, thus advising someone on how to break the law.

...with an ACORN banner on the wall behind her.

Now, do you want to dispute this?

"I didn't mean to trick you"

Trust me...you didn't trick me.

"I still need a credible link proving that the questions were dubbed in."

I never claimed they were.

But just to see how tethered you are to reality...what does "heavily edited" mean to you? Do you actually believe the video was edited, but the audio wasn't?

"do you want to dispute this?"

No, and I never did. I've never defended ACORN at all.

Re-read post #211 as many times as it takes you to understand.

But just to see how tethered you are to reality...what does "heavily edited" mean to you? Do you actually believe the video was edited, but the audio wasn't?

#225 | Posted by Danforth

Are you saying that you have doubt that the video segments (between the splices) are not edited?

Are you saying that the questions are dubbed?

#226 | Posted by Danforth

Product of confusion.

Again, are you disputing that the segments between the splices are not dubbed?

"Product of confusion."

No shit, Sherlock.

"Again, are you disputing that the segments between the splices are not dubbed?"

How heavy are those goalposts?

Please link to the Philadelphia ACORN video you watched. The ones I've seen have heavily edited sound, and a huge portion is a voice-over.

"Again, are you disputing that the segments between the splices are not dubbed?"

How heavy are those goalposts?

#229 | Posted by Danforth

I've already accepted that there was confusion and I misled you with the word editing, but the last 20 posts are talking about your definitin of editing means splicing and mine does not.

Do you still want to discuss my original post now that you understand what editing means?

Where's Donner to defend himself anyway?

"Do you still want to discuss my original post now that you understand what editing means?"

Go fuck yourself. You're the one who didn't know the definition of the word.

Please link to the Philadelphia ACORN video you watched. The ones I've seen have heavily edited sound, and a huge portion is a voice-over.

#230 | Posted by Danforth

Go fuck yourself. You're the one who didn't know the definition of the word.

#232 | Posted by Danforth

You are caught trying to discredit me and made a fool of yourself!

You picked the fight asshole!

You lost, deal with it!

Danforth,

Did you make this argument against me without actually watching the video first?

DAMN!!!!

And you call me a moron?

You're done!

Please link to the Philadelphia ACORN video you watched. The ones I've seen have heavily edited sound, and a huge portion is a voice-over.

#230 | Posted by Danforth

Like I said all along. Show me a link that talks about "voice-over"

AND STOP MOVING THE GOAL POSTS

LOL!!!!

"Like I said all along."

No, you didn't. You changed to that argument after you got caught misusing the word "editing".

"And you call me a moron?"

Yes, I do. Since then, you've tried to pretend I claimed the questions were dubbed, which I never did.

"You're done!"

Yes, I am. I'm tired of running a road race against an inbred.

Yes, I do. Since then, you've tried to pretend I claimed the questions were dubbed, which I never did.

"You're done!"

Yes, I am. I'm tired of running a road race against an inbred.

#239 | Posted by Danforth

I'm being honest, but, you win, Danforth. You win.

You have proven that a local DA decided that there was too much editing and qualified the definition of that word editing to be "splicing". He said nothing about dubbing as was stated earlier in this thread.

Now, I've said this all along and I've already apologized for making the mistake with the word editing but you will not accept that probably because you made a fool out of yourself for 30 posts.

You win on the argument of definition of the word editing. I didn't realize I was fighting that battle. If I would have caught that earlier, I would have admitted earlier. You can read all of my posts again, if you like.

You're mad at me for stringing you along, I apologized 20 posts ago! I gave you an out but you didn't take it.

Now you have to answer my original question: "Where is a credible link discussing the 'Editing' (dubbing)"?

As you can see, the goalposts are the same, but I allow you a pass on this one, if you want it.

Huh??? You don't think editing a video to lie about what really happened to be morally putrid?!?

(Cough...cough)...HACK!

#182 | Posted by Danforth

This is your original statement. Did you mean that they lied with the splicing or lied with the alleged dubbing?

You really need to answer this.

As the video stands, the 2 women were answering real questions and advising the Prostitute to break the law by lying to the government.

I still need for you to show me where I moved the goal posts.

www.youtube.com.
#233 | Posted by Eddie
==============

Eddie..Great tape there were so many Dennis Hooper "Speed" moments in there I did not know when to ignite the bomb.

Help me here, with all the cuts and skips there was never the mention on tape of child prostitution let alone an international prostitution ring as was bannered in the tape.

Also noticed many times the ACORN HOUSING employees were answering questions in the next new segment but never heard the context for the answer.

I can see were the tape can be construed as damning but, where is the whole truth?

With all the controversy why not release the full unedited tapes?

With all the controversy why not release the full unedited tapes?

#242 | Posted by mmike

agreed.

I would like to see everything.

But, from what I've seen so far, I don't think I want my tax dollars going to this organization.

Yep - ACORN is now a legitimate operation - and HERM has changed to a pro-life stance on abortion. Hell must be freezing over about now.