Originally posted by whodey
The new members of Congress show that the GOP is not the answer. They have done nothing, literally.

That is because the answers don't like in Congress, nor in the Oval office.

And this is why governments fail.

It is why Rome fell, and it will be why America falls. Personal greed, which limits prosperity to the top 1%. Everyone else can just go pound sand.

Originally posted by whodey
My response does answer your question.

The Bible even says that if you take the mark, you will be damned. It agrees with my assertion.

As the scriptures state, those who seek to save their lives will lose it and those who lose it for the kingdoms sake will find it.

That's not what I'm taking exception to! I know all about the Mark, or I would not have asked the question.


Don't MAKE me reiterate what you wrote. That is what I was taking exception to. Answer my question, AS IT REGARDS YOUR POST.

Sigh, okay you win.

You SAID: "Those Germans who sold their soul to Hitler for a higher standard of living is in better standing than a prostitute in my estimation."

There it is. "in BETTER standing than a prostitute".

My question IS: "Is the typical "man-on-the-street" trying to feed his family, who takes the Mark of the Beast, in better standing than the "prostitute" who does not?"

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Originally posted by FMF
Earlier you said taxing is "robbing" and "robbery". Now you're saying it is not "theft". Can you explain? Either the government has the right to tax you and spend the money or it doesn't. If it does have the right to tax you, then the deliberation about how it is spent belongs in democratic mechanisms and not by people making accusations of "robbery" and "theft".

I doubt you'll get a reply; Kellyjay never replies to my posts either. I think we are being shunned.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What makes charity, charity?
Is it because of who gets something, why it was given, does it cost the one giving?

There's a try. Charity: The voluntary giving of help to those in need, without intent to profit. At most, the benefit to the giver is a feeling of satisfaction of one's duty. In the context of this forum, that sense of duty can be considered spiritual or religious.

So in the context of this thread, a person who approves of his or her tax payments being used to help those in need, is being charitable WRT that help being given. Not everyone who pays such taxes is charitable about it. Some would rather not.

This is just a proposed definition fitted out for this forum, not an endorsement of government charity.

Originally posted by JS357
There's a try. Charity: The voluntary giving of help to those in need, without intent to profit. At most, the benefit to the giver is a feeling of satisfaction of one's duty. In the context of this forum, that sense of duty can be considered spiritual or religious.

So in the context of this thread, a person who approves of his or her tax payments being used ...[text shortened]... just a proposed definition fitted out for this forum, not an endorsement of government charity.

You can give as you see fit, and you can be happy about being taxed.
Giving in my opinion is Charity it is something done out of the goodness
of your heart. Being forced to give, you can be happy about or sad, does
not really matter you are going to give if forced by law! You can have a
sense of duty in your paying taxes, but is that Charity on your part or the
government? You have to give, would you if you were not going to be
forced?

I'm not talking about the regular person giving up his or her own money!
Government taking away people's money and using it as it sees fit has
nothing to do with personal choice or even giving until it hurts since with
government spending/give away they spend or give away to much, they
just go after more of someone else' money. There is never any pain for
those giving it away, there isn't ever a matter of balancing the check book
and giving till it hurts.

I don't believe watching any government spending or giving away is really
charity for that reason. There is typically always a reason for its giving and
it normally has to do with the power it has or influence it acquires.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can give as you see fit, and you can be happy about being taxed.
Giving in my opinion is Charity it is something done out of the goodness
of your heart. Being forced to give, you can be happy about or sad, does
not really matter you are going to give if forced by law! You can have a
sense of duty in your paying taxes, but is that Charity on your par ...[text shortened]... reason for its giving and
it normally has to do with the power it has or influence it acquires.

I don't know if it is same in the US as the UK, but religious institutions claim charitable status in order to be afforded tax breaks. It could be argued that your last paragraph might also apply to them. Additionally many of the religious institutions and their leaders seem to be doing rather well.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Government taking away people's money and using it as it sees fit has
nothing to do with personal choice...

That depends on whether you feel like you have an influence on your government and whether or not you feel some responsibility towards society.

If you are part of a charitable organization, and you donate your time and effort to the organization, but the organization via an internal democratic process decides to carry out charity work in an area you did not vote for. You may choose to pull out of the organization, or you can go along with the majority opinion and still feel like you are being charitable despite it not being your own first choice and you can continue to work with them.

Government is a bit different in that it is much harder to say 'I no longer want to be a part of this, I'm off to Antarctica!'. But nevertheless, you are part of society and should take some ownership of what the society does.

I guess the same applies to war. When the US attacked Iraq, whether or not a given citizen supported the move, they must share some of the moral responsibility for the action as part of the society - and must pay some of the costs.

Originally posted by OdBod
I don't know if it is same in the US as the UK, but religious institutions claim charitable status in order to be afforded tax breaks. It could be argued that your last paragraph might also apply to them. Additionally many of the religious institutions and their leaders seem to be doing rather well.

Listen tax breaks nine times out of ten are all designed to affect our actions,
have kids, buy a house, do this, do not do that! They punish what they do
not want and allow us to keep what we already have with their tax breaks!

I'm quite sure with religious institutions as soon as they figure out a way
to force them into doing what the government wants they will there too
with or without the tax code.

I tend to agree with you on religious institutions could also be pulling the
same thing as governments do, if you are relying on an institution of almost
any kind it is run by the same driving force behind government which is
people and you know what type of buggers they can be. To stay on point
the religious institutions cannot by law force you to do anything by law and
when they run out of money force you to give them more.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Listen tax breaks nine times out of ten are all designed to affect our actions,
have kids, buy a house, do this, do not do that! They punish what they do
not want and allow us to keep what we already have with their tax breaks!

I'm quite sure with religious institutions as soon as they figure out a way
to force them into doing what the government want ...[text shortened]... law force you to do anything by law and
when they run out of money force you to give them more.

But you have to agree, that religious institutions have methods of compelling their followers to do things that are just as effective as law.

Originally posted by OdBod
But you have to agree, that religious institutions have methods of compelling their followers to do things that are just as effective as law.

Yes, I do agree religious institutions have methods of compelling their
followers to do things just as effective as law! As I pointed out institutions
like governments are ran by people, that will be where the good and the
bad will come from.

Religions cannot unless you are talking about some place like Iran or
maybe ISIS now make laws to compel. In the states that would never fly
and you'd have as many or more believers fight against that as you would
the non-believers! The only ones that would like that idea would be those
that get to make the laws or get over due to them.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And this is why governments fail.

It is why Rome fell, and it will be why America falls. Personal greed, which limits prosperity to the top 1%. Everyone else can just go pound sand.

So the 1% is why Rome fell?

Is this what they are teaching our children now in public schools?

I coulda sworn it was them Tea Party nutters who killed Ceaser and caused the collapse. You know how they whine about government take overs as someone declares themselves a king.

Originally posted by Suzianne
My question IS: "Is the typical "man-on-the-street" trying to feed his family, who takes the Mark of the Beast, in better standing than the "prostitute" who does not?"

ANSWER THE QUESTION.[/b]

Ok, Ok, let me see if I get this straight.

We have a prostitute that does not feed her family. Check.

We have someone taking the mark of the beast who feeds his family. Check.

Now if they are both on two different trains on their way to hell, one going 60 miles per hour and the other going 65 miles per hour, assuming one starts 20 miles closer to hell, who gets their first?

Hmm? Good question. I have no idea Suzy but I really enjoy your posts if it is any consolation.

Originally posted by whodey
So the 1% is why Rome fell?

Is this what they are teaching our children now in public schools?

I coulda sworn it was them Tea Party nutters who killed Ceaser and caused the collapse. You know how they whine about government take overs as someone declares themselves a king.

Caius Julius Caesar was assassinated on the 15th of March, 44BC (Julian Calendar of the time). Rome was sacked in 410 AD, 455 AD and again in 546 AD. The date for the collapse of the Western Empire is normally put at 476 A.D. when Odoacer deposed the last Western Emperor Romulus Augustulus. So the collapse of Rome had nothing to do with Caesar's assassination.

The problem with Suzianne's claim is that the impoverishment of the bulk of plebians, who'd lost their small holdings during the wars against Carthage was, basically, why the Republic fell. The Republic was replaced by the Principiate and the large expansion of Rome's territory so one may as well say that Rome rose for this reason.

Rome's problem was that they had a collection of systems problems that they were never able to resolve. The empire was huge, unwieldy, and poorly governed.

Just one little observation though. In the Roman pagan belief system, Rome's security depended on the Vestal Virgins. Theodosius I disbanded them some time around 390 A.D., Rome was sacked within twenty years. Clearly the big mistake was converting to Christianity, they shouldn't have extinguished the eternal flame, or abandoned their gods for one that didn't protect them.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Caius Julius Caesar was assassinated on the 15th of March, 44BC (Julian Calendar of the time). Rome was sacked in 410 AD, 455 AD and again in 546 AD. The date for the collapse of the Western Empire is normally put at 476 A.D. when Odoacer deposed the last Western Emperor Romulus Augustulus. So the collapse of Rome had nothing to do with Caesar's assas ...[text shortened]... t have extinguished the eternal flame, or abandoned their gods for one that didn't protect them.

Nonsense!

Rome fell because of Ted Cruzer Augustus and the Tea party nutters.

Damn that debt ceiling cap! 😠