Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Do you really have a problem with multifaceted thinking? Do you really think that is hypocritical?

I don't have a problem with multifacted thinking, but I do have a problem with hypocritical thinking, which is what claiming to follow Jesus, but then supporting no safety nets or very little safety nets for people amounts to.

I have my religion which I keep separately from my politics. If I where hamstrung into keeping my political views in line with my religion, I would have to follow the moral majority on issues I disagree with.

That's doesn't even make sense. All you're telling me here is that you justify having two opposing views on something by proclaiming them separate. That's not how it works. Your religious views conflict with your political views. That makes your views hypocritical.

I am assuming that you know when I first came to RF, I was against gay marriage. After debating with my friends here, I came to realise that my religion should not be imposed on others. I have always felt that abortion is wrong as well, but supported a woman's right to choose.

You may look at these things as hypocrisy, I look at them as being an American voter does not always equate to following my religion in political decisions.

I have a right to my religion, not a right to impose it on others.

This is a great example of how you get off on tangents presumably thinking you're actually responding to what I said. This has nothing to do with the fact that your views about the economy conflict with Jesus's teachings.

Perhaps my involvement in charities is an atonement for my hard handed political thinking. Remember I said "perhaps". Actually, I believe private enterprise is more efficient than the government at helping people.

No, it's weird considering your views, but you proclaim your charity work so often, I already know about it. If private enterprise is so much better than the government for this, then why hasn't private enterprise done a very good job of helping those who need it? I do understand that you think private charities are the way to go over government programs like welfare, food stamps and unemployment, but that's a very misguided view of things.

To compare me to Jesus is not only unfair, but unethical.

You either misunderstand intentionally or unintentionally. I didn't compare you to Jesus. I said you claim to follow his teachings, and yet your political and economic views go against his teachings. It's like claiming to follow Gandhi but thinking it's OK to go to war sometimes.

Unless I have misunderstood your religious beliefs, you are comparing me to someone you do not even believe in yourself. How do you square that in your mind?

You certainly have misunderstood my beliefs. I believe there was a man named Jesus. I believe he might even have said some of the things he's given credit for. I just don't believe he's anything more than a regular man. But that's beside the point. I'm not comparing you to him, nor does whether or not I believe he existed or was the son of God matter for what I'm saying. I'm saying your economic views are opposed to the teachings expressed by Jesus in the Bible. That's fine, but then you claim to be a follower of his teachings.

In the future, if you want to debate religion, we should do that seperate from political debates.

I don't want to debate religion. I just want to point out how funny it is when conservatives like you espouse these crazy economic and political views. I just want to point out how you have you claim to follow Jesus, but then go against what he taught when it comes to real-world applicability.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

Looks like you just glanced at the article and saw the experiment with the buckets, but didn't pay attention to anything else.

Nope, I read most of it. But anything that uses that as an example in their conclusion is silly. There was nothing else in the article that was any better than that.

FYI, the government is not supposed to regulate the economy. The government is only supposed to act as a referee. Anytime the government gets involved it just screws things up.

I see, so you don't oppose the government doing what it has to so much; you just oppose calling it by a certain term. "Regulating the economy" is the same as "acting as a referee". You institute rules, make sure the rules are known, and make sure the competitors abide by them. And I know it's cool and fun to think that anytime the government gets involved in something, it gets screwed up, but that's just some nonsense sold by those who want to turn you against the government when it's convenient for them. The government does plenty of stuff right. And the recession we're in is precisely because the government stopped "refereeing" and didn't get involved, or rather, got itself uninvolved by deregulating things.

What the study said is that if you agree with the statement, "Government should not be involved in operations of charity", are four times more likely to be giving to charity. Not just at their own church, but to charities outside their own church.

Well, wouldn't that make sense? "I don't want government doing charity because people like me already give to charity." The other side is "Private charities are awesome, but some things are better handled by a government body".

People who think that it is government's purpose to redistribute wealth are less likely to give to charity, because they think it is someone else's job. If you really think the government would do a better job at charity than the private sector, then you are really proving the point of the study I linked to.

OK, let's break this down. You used a crappy article to support your claim that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Now let's just say this extremely unscientific and horribly unsupported claim is true.

In this discussion charity would then be irrelevant. There are some things that the government can do better than private enterprise. Welfare, food stamps and unemployment are some of those things. It's good to have charities to help out, of course, but whether or not conservatives give more to charities isn't really relevant.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

Government should be only allowed to grow at the same rate as the economy. Thus ensuring it will only serve as a referee (keeping the peace and enforcing laws), not meddling in the free market (such as bailing out banks which engage in risky investments). If government grows faster than the economy, then we get the situation we have now...total stagflation. The government cannot create jobs. 800 billion on a stimulus bill, at the cost of $400,000 per job and guess what...no net jobs were created. Its as if it never happened. It would have been cheaper to just give those people hired 100k each, they would at least still have money in the bank.

The fact is, government cannot produce anything. It can only take away from what other people produce. So, if the government becomes over-regulatory, in order to maintain its same rate of growth despite a downturn in the economy, then it winds up diminishing the part of the economy which is actually turning a profit.

Did a government stimulus program create the iPad?...Nope. The iPad was created by innovation and demand, it sells so well because people just love the durn thing. They dont have to use tax credits, or gov incentives to buy it. People will stand in long lines to get it! Now thats real economic growth!

But don't worry. Give it time, and the government will find a way to pass legislation which will make people not want to buy the iPad, and will make it more fair to Apple's competitors, making everyone equally miserable.

Ummm.....

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Your religious views conflict with your political views. That makes your views hypocritical.

No is doesn't. If I told you not to do something and then I did it, that would make me a hypocrite. At best you could make an arguement for an inconsistency. The thing is, if you did that then you would also expect me to be against same sex marriage or a woman's right to choose. Nice try Matt, you flunk.

Actually I would think that your superior mastery of the English language would have served you better than this. Do I need to quote you the definition of hypocrite?



P.S. How is the weather up your way? You staying warm?

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Ummm.....

Troublemane is right Matt. If the government still ran AT&T, we would still be talking on black heavy phones with short wires attached to them. Gotta love that rotary dial phone!

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

No is doesn't. If I told you not to do something and then I did it, that would make me a hypocrite. At best you could make an arguement for an inconsistency. The thing is, if you did that then you would also expect me to be against same sex marriage or a woman's right to choose. Nice try Matt, you flunk.

Actually I would think that your superior mastery of the English language would have served you better than this. Do I need to quote you the definition of hypocrite?



P.S. How is the weather up your way? You staying warm?

I wish you had provided the definition so that you could see that you're wrong. I'll provide it for you, though, from dictionary.com:

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Amazing how that fits exactly what I'm saying. You pretend to have moral or religious beliefs that you don't actually possess (you believe in Jesus's teachings supposedly, but your actions concerning the economy belie those beliefs). So, it seems you flunk, Rick, not me.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Troublemane is right Matt. If the government still ran AT&T, we would still be talking on black heavy phones with short wires attached to them. Gotta love that rotary dial phone!

Yes, government should not run all businesses or industries. I doubt you'll find many people even here who say they should. But that's not what Troublemane was saying. He was off on a tangent about some weird stuff with that point thrown in there, even though it didn't relate to anything that has been talked about.

[Reverend Rick]

No comment on the weather?

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Yes, government should not run all businesses or industries. I doubt you'll find many people even here who say they should.

I feel the same way about helping people. I believe the Lord helps those who help themselves.

Actually, I believe the private sector does a better job than the government at just about everything, including helping people.

My attitude with our government does not stop me from being a good Christian.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Your religious views conflict with your political views. That makes your views hypocritical.

Then why do atheists on this site always say that theists should separate their religious beliefs when dealing with politics? Are they saying that theists must be hypocrites to participate in the political process?