The 46. President of the United States...

[Benvolio]

Not in that post, but I have said it, and I stand by what I said. Past posts on Benvolio's part are enough evidence that what I claimed is true. He has posted no evidence anywhere that I know of to dispute it.

His policies are things the Republicans and conservatives has generally opposed: high taxes, excessive regulation of business, socialism, abortion, massive immigration, anti-majority etc. There is no reason to imagine racist opposition.

 

[Kulindahr]

To the extent that the government subsidizes premiums, it is socialism, and that will be expanded to provide free care for at least half the country, and it is only the beginning. Price controls, comprehensive regulations etc are all socialism, especially when the total effect is considered.

If it's socialism, it's national socialism because it creates a cozy pact of interest between powerful corporations and government at the expense of the people.

 

[Kulindahr]

His policies are things the Republicans and conservatives has generally opposed: high taxes, excessive regulation of business, socialism, abortion, massive immigration, anti-majority etc. There is no reason to imagine racist opposition.

Except this is not true. On the matter of taxes and the deficit, Obama was a traditional conservative because he believed that a country should pay its debts, not carry them along for generations. Republicans used to be the ones who understood the Judeo-Christian principles of thrift and that wealth was allowed by God for some for the sole purpose of being used to benefit others, so that in times of need those with more resources should shoulder the burden and eliminate debt.

But other than that, your ability to utterly ignore the reason a substantial portion of people hated Obama was racism is disgusting.

 

[Benvolio]

Except this is not true. On the matter of taxes and the deficit, Obama was a traditional conservative because he believed that a country should pay its debts, not carry them along for generations. Republicans used to be the ones who understood the Judeo-Christian principles of thrift and that wealth was allowed by God for some for the sole purpose of being used to benefit others, so that in times of need those with more resources should shoulder the burden and eliminate debt.

But other than that, your ability to utterly ignore the reason a substantial portion of people hated Obama was racism is disgusting.

Traditional conservatives do not spend like drunken sailors and one does not get credit for being conservative by wanting to spend other people's money for you own extravagance.
I am not a believing Christian, but I believe our Christian culture should be retained. Your notion of the "sole" purpose of wealth being to be dissipated in time of need has never been part of that culture, notwithstanding the musings of theologians hoping for a share. With 6 plus billion people in the world, and expanding rapidly,m it is always a time of need. Since free enterprise capitalism benefits the people the most, by far, it is the most moral system.

 

[ballcaphair]

Traditional conservatives do not spend like drunken sailors and one does not get credit for being conservative by wanting to spend other people's money for you own extravagance.
I am not a believing Christian, but I believe our Christian culture should be retained. Your notion of the "sole" purpose of wealth being to be dissipated in time of need has never been part of that culture, notwithstanding the musings of theologians hoping for a share. With 6 plus billion people in the world, and expanding rapidly,m it is always a time of need. Since free enterprise capitalism benefits the people the most, by far, it is the most moral system.

I do not consider myself a "traditional" conservative, but I whole-heartedly agree that conservatives do not spend any money for the sake of appearance or self-aggrandizement. However, I personally believe in freedom of religion. It's none of the State's business. It's a basic right.

 

[Kulindahr]

Traditional conservatives do not spend like drunken sailors and one does not get credit for being conservative by wanting to spend other people's money for you own extravagance.
I am not a believing Christian, but I believe our Christian culture should be retained. Your notion of the "sole" purpose of wealth being to be dissipated in time of need has never been part of that culture, notwithstanding the musings of theologians hoping for a share. With 6 plus billion people in the world, and expanding rapidly,m it is always a time of need. Since free enterprise capitalism benefits the people the most, by far, it is the most moral system.

Sorry, but the concept that wealth is to be used for the benefit of others was standard teaching in colonial churches -- for the Pilgrims and others, to be wealthy and not use it for the benefit of others was regarded as idolatry, i.e. the worship of Mammon.

Further, it was considered that such things as fortifications to protect harbors were to be funded by those who benefitted from them: the wealthy who owned ships or import and export businesses.

Finally, the history of the U.S. demonstrates that "free market capitalism" is not the system that "benefits the people the most".


Oh -- and traditional conservatives wouldn't care how the debt was acquired; that it was accumulated legally would be all that mattered -- and they'd tax to pay it.

 

[Benvolio]

Sorry, but the concept that wealth is to be used for the benefit of others was standard teaching in colonial churches -- for the Pilgrims and others, to be wealthy and not use it for the benefit of others was regarded as idolatry, i.e. the worship of Mammon.

Further, it was considered that such things as fortifications to protect harbors were to be funded by those who benefitted from them: the wealthy who owned ships or import and export businesses.

Finally, the history of the U.S. demonstrates that "free market capitalism" is not the system that "benefits the people the most".


Oh -- and traditional conservatives wouldn't care how the debt was acquired; that it was accumulated legally would be all that mattered -- and they'd tax to pay it.

You are contradicting yourself. There could be no wealthy if the wealth had to go for the benefit of others--or if it was sacrificed for the profligate spending of others.

 

[gsdx]

There could be no wealthy if the wealth had to go for the benefit of others--or if it was sacrificed for the profligate spending of others.

Ummm. No.

Pioneering American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie once set the standard for giving back: "No man can become rich without himself enriching others," he said. "The man who dies rich dies disgraced."

Scores of the world's wealthiest people have taken to his philosophy, donating their riches to hundreds of causes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-generous-people-in-the-world-2015-10

Twelve Wealthy people who prove you are wrong. (There are 8 more in the article. There are many, many others.)

Dietmar Hopp
Lifetime donations: $1 billion
Net worth: $6.3 billion

Pierre Omidyar
Lifetime donations: $1 billion
Net worth: $6.2 billion

Ted Turner
Lifetime donations: $1.2 billion
Net worth: $2.1 billion

Jon Huntsman Sr.
Lifetime donations: $1.2 billion
Net worth: $940 million
Generosity Index: 128%

George Kaiser
Lifetime donations: $3.3 billion
Net worth: $9.3 billion

Eli Broad
Lifetime donations: $3.3 billion
Net worth: $7.3 billion

Gordon Moore
Lifetime donations: $5 billion
Net worth: $6.5 billion

Gordon Moore
Lifetime donations: $5 billion
Net worth: $6.5 billion

Sulaiman bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi
Lifetime donations: $5.7 billion
Net worth: $590 million
Generosity Index: 966%

Charles Francis Feeney
Lifetime donations: $6.3 billion
Net worth: $1.5 million
Generosity Index: 420,000%

Warren Buffett
Lifetime donations: $21.5 billion
Net worth: $61 billion

Bill Gates
Lifetime donations: $27 billion
Net worth: $84.2 billion

 

[Benvolio]

They have not given away their wealth,only some, while keeping most of their wealth.

 

[gsdx]

They have not given away their wealth,only some, while keeping most of their wealth.

As usual, I prove your statement to be false and you find away to throw it back into my face.

Might I ask how much your beloved Mr. Trump given away? Just how philanthropic is he? How philanthropic are all those people who are getting tax breaks?

While I'm at it, do you give money to charities? I do. And I donate to Ontario's Pbs stataion (TVO), too. Do you donate food to the food banks? I do. Do you give away things you don't use anymore? I do.

 

[Benvolio]

As usual you do not understand the conversation between kulindhar and I.

 

[gsdx]

That had nothing whatsoever to do with you and Kuli. I responded to your statement. You responded to mine with complete nonsense with nothing to back it up. I responded to your response to me.

And now, you have once again insulted my intelligence because I "do not understand".

It's better for you to attack than to accept what we say as truth or to supply proof to support what you say is truth, and the reason you don't supply it is because it doesn't exist.

 

[ballcaphair]

That had nothing whatsoever to do with you and Kuli. I responded to your statement. You responded to mine with complete nonsense with nothing to back it up. I responded to your response to me.

And now, you have once again insulted my intelligence because I "do not understand".

It's better for you to attack than to accept what we say as truth or to supply proof to support what you say is truth, and the reason you don't supply it is because it doesn't exist.

I am guilty of this. I tend to react rather than digest and reconsider. My emotions swell up and cloud my reason. When both sides confound me, I am not open, innocent, or able to think. I am guilty because when I dig my heels in, I don't evolve. My mind is broken. (This applies to me and may not apply to you. I must evolve because my head is in an awful place.)

 

[Benvolio]

That had nothing whatsoever to do with you and Kuli. I responded to your statement. You responded to mine with complete nonsense with nothing to back it up. I responded to your response to me.

And now, you have once again insulted my intelligence because I "do not understand".

It's better for you to attack than to accept what we say as truth or to supply proof to support what you say is truth, and the reason you don't supply it is because it doesn't exist.

Kul was claiming that the traditional Christian and Colonial American view was:"that wealth was allowed by God for some for the sole purpose of being used to benefit others." Later he argued that the wealthy should pay for the infrastructure that they use. I pointed out the contradiction in demanding that the wealthy give away all their wealth--the SOLE purpose== and yet be expected to pay for what they use. You ignored our discussion and thus did not understand what I was saying.

 

[ballcaphair]

Kul was claiming that the traditional Christian and Colonial American view was:"that wealth was allowed by God for some for the sole purpose of being used to benefit others." Later he argued that the wealthy should pay for the infrastructure that they use. I pointed out the contradiction in demanding that the wealthy give away all their wealth--the SOLE purpose== and yet be expected to pay for what they use. You ignored our discussion and thus did not understand what I was saying.

I believe that Christ would be comopassionate. I believe if he was a wealthy man, well you know where he would spend it. If he did not share that money, the State wouid have to pay. Taxes which force charity cannot buy compassion. If we care about each othrer what we have is our's alone to share the haves with the have nots. It's on us, not the State. Lets step up.

 

[gsdx]

Kul was claiming that the traditional Christian and Colonial American view was:"that wealth was allowed by God for some for the sole purpose of being used to benefit others."

Yammer on all you want, but I was commenting on YOUR comment and YOUR comment alone. Kuli didn't enter into it until I offered evidence proving your statement incorrect. I understood perfectly well what you said. You just keep changing the rules when you're losing.

 

[Benvolio]

Yammer on all you want, but I was commenting on YOUR comment and YOUR comment alone. Kuli didn't enter into it until I offered evidence proving your statement incorrect. I understood perfectly well what you said. You just keep changing the rules when you're losing.

Nonsense. Your #68 was in commenting on my 67–which you do not understand—and my 67 was expressly in response to Kul’s 66.

 

[opinterph]

69 appears intended as a response to 68

 

[gsdx]

^ Indeed it was, which was in response to his statement in #67:

There could be no wealthy if the wealth had to go for the benefit of others--or if it was sacrificed for the profligate spending of others.

 

[Benvolio]

69 appears intended as a response to 68

Yes, but gsdx did not and still does not understand. Kul seemed to be saying that ALL wealth should be given away and then argues that the wealthy should pay for ports etc which they us. I responded that he was inconsistent, since they would not be wealthy if they gave their wealth away. It was not a point which deserves all this attention.