Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Decision — Section 4 invalid

[3rdnlng]

so everywhere in the world that has national elections has more fraud and disenfranchisement than any of the us states? Is the UK a banana republic? Switzerland? Canada? Germany?... c'mon. you can do better than that. and what happened to your spelling and grammar? not that it matters but it's almost as if someone else typed this.

 

You, of all people shouldn't be criticizing someone for their spelling and grammar.

[TakeYouToTasker]

and btw, i'm no athiest nor am i godless. i'm actually a quite dedicated believer. but what does that have to do with this?

Interesting.

 

I'm assuming, then, that you're familiar with the Bible. (assuming, again, that you consider yourself to be Christian)

 

If that's the case, perhaps you can clarify a few things for me.

 

Christian means to follow Christ and his teachings. Now... I've read the Bible, and I'm familiar with the parts where Jesus confronted tax collectors, and the parts where he encouraged others to give freely of themselves to help the meek, the sick, and the powerless. I've also read the parts condemning jealously and theft...

 

I seem to have overlooked the part where He told men to forcably remove the aquisitions of other people under threat of violence, and to redistribute those aquisitions to others after a political class takes a sizable cut.

 

Can you please direct me to that passage?

Edited June 28, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

Interesting.

 

I'm assuming, then, that you're familiar with the Bible. (assuming, again, that you consider yourself to be Christian)

 

If that's the case, perhaps you can clarify a few things for me.

 

Christian means to follow Christ and his teachings. Now... I've read the Bible, and I'm familiar with the parts where Jesus confronted tax collectors, and the parts where he encouraged others to give freely of themselves to help the meek, the sick, and the powerless. I've also read the parts condemning jealously and theft...

 

I seem to have overlooked the part where He told men to forcably remove the aquisitions of other people under threat of violence, and to redistribute those aquisitions to others after a political class takes a sizable cut.

 

Can you please direct me to that passage?

 

The Book of Barabbas in the New Testament has a very good definition.

[Koko78]

Can you please direct me to that passage?

 

Brother Tasker, you know what it says in the Bible about not forgiving people?

 

...Well, it's against it.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Koko78

[Rob's House]

Interesting.

 

I'm assuming, then, that you're familiar with the Bible. (assuming, again, that you consider yourself to be Christian)

 

If that's the case, perhaps you can clarify a few things for me.

 

Christian means to follow Christ and his teachings. Now... I've read the Bible, and I'm familiar with the parts where Jesus confronted tax collectors, and the parts where he encouraged others to give freely of themselves to help the meek, the sick, and the powerless. I've also read the parts condemning jealously and theft...

 

I seem to have overlooked the part where He told men to forcably remove the aquisitions of other people under threat of violence, and to redistribute those aquisitions to others after a political class takes a sizable cut.

 

Can you please direct me to that passage?

 

Dude, the Bible's a living breathing document.

 

Brother Tasker, you know what it says in the Bible about not forgiving people?

 

...Well, it's against it.

 

In Your Face DC Tom!!! I'm not the only person who quotes Kingpin.

[birdog1960]

Interesting.

 

I'm assuming, then, that you're familiar with the Bible. (assuming, again, that you consider yourself to be Christian)

 

If that's the case, perhaps you can clarify a few things for me.

 

Christian means to follow Christ and his teachings. Now... I've read the Bible, and I'm familiar with the parts where Jesus confronted tax collectors, and the parts where he encouraged others to give freely of themselves to help the meek, the sick, and the powerless. I've also read the parts condemning jealously and theft...

 

I seem to have overlooked the part where He told men to forcably remove the aquisitions of other people under threat of violence, and to redistribute those aquisitions to others after a political class takes a sizable cut.

 

Can you please direct me to that passage?

how bout these 2?: love your neighbor like yourself.

 

 

so in everything, do unto others what you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the law and the prophets.

[TakeYouToTasker]

how bout these 2?: love your neighbor like yourself.

 

 

so in everything, do unto others what you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the law and the prophets.

Yeah, I know about those two, and those both seem like really good ideas.

 

Still neither of those seem to mention forcably removing the aquisitions of other people under threat of violence, and to redistributing those aquisitions to others after a political class takes a sizable cut. They read as polite suggestions.

Edited June 28, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

Yeah, I know about those two, and those both sem like really good ideas.

 

Still neither of those seem to mention forcably removing the aquisitions of other people under threat of violence, and to redistributing those aquisitions to others after a political class takes a sizable cut. They read as polite suggestions.

we all interpret things differently (even for quotes as unambiguous as these).. i feel the passages aren't in support of a system that concentrates wealth so disproportionally with resulting suffering. you see something else. maybe the intent was something in between. i'm pretty certain what those passages mention are not manifested in the dog eat dog country we currently have.

[TakeYouToTasker]

we all interpret things differently (even for quotes as unambiguous as these).. i feel the passages aren't in support of a system that concentrates wealth so disproportionally with resulting suffering. you see something else. maybe the intent was something in between. i'm pretty certain what those passages mention are not manifested in the dog eat dog country we currently have.

The Bible doesn't speak to systems of government and economic theory. It speaks to individuals making choices, and it preaches peace. God himself is omnipotent, and not even He takes it upon Himself to force action. He gave us free will, and the ability to make choices for which we will be judged by Him, and Him alone.

 

Infact, in the Book of Matthew he goes so far as to directly tell us not to judge others, and force change or take retribution in his place:

 

1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.

 

2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 

So, I guess I'm still a bit confused over the passage directing men to use force of violence against others.

[birdog1960]

The Bible doesn't speak to systems of government and economic theory. It speaks to individuals making choices, and it preaches peace. God himself is omnipotent, and not even He takes it upon Himself to force action. He gave us free will, and the ability to make choices for which we will be judged by Him, and Him alone.

 

Infact, in the Book of Matthew he goes so far as to directly tell us not to judge others, and force change or take retribution in his place:

 

 

 

So, I guess I'm still a bit confused over the passage directing men to use force of violence against others.

we finally agree. yes, you're confused. but keep trying.

[TakeYouToTasker]

we finally agree. yes, you're confused. but keep trying.

I'm not sure your fiat declarations about anyone else's confusion make any sense here.

 

I'm simply asking you to present me with the Biblical passages directing men to use force of violence aginst others in order to bring about wholesale economic change.

 

If there is something you've interpreted that way, surely you can present it, and explain your interpretation, as I have.

[birdog1960]

I'm not sure your fiat declarations about anyone else's confusion make any sense here.

 

I'm simply asking you to present me with the Biblical passages directing men to use force of violence aginst others in order to bring about wholesale economic change.

 

If there is something you've interpreted that way, surely you can present it, and explain your interpretation, as I have.

have no idea where you get the idea that i support the use of violence and force to accomplish anything. i don't with the exception of the concept of a justified war eg WWII. but you're not really interested in a theological discussion. you're interested in cherry picking passages that support your "every man for himself" philosophy that you've put forth so many times here. that belief in my mind is the exact opposite of the central new testament theme. and governments are comprised of individuals. yes, govt's are us.

[Gary M]

To the left, America is always the Southern states in 1965.

.

 

And which party was dominate in those states/counties at that time?

[TakeYouToTasker]

have no idea where you get the idea that i support the use of violence and force to accomplish anything. i don't with the exception of the concept of a justified war eg WWII. but you're not really interested in a theological discussion. you're interested in cherry picking passages that support your "every man for himself" philosophy that you've put forth so many times here. that belief in my mind is the exact opposite of the central new testament theme. and governments are comprised of individuals. yes, govt's are us.

No, not at all. First of all, I don't believe in every man for himself. I believe in charity, and taking care of my fellow man. I guarantee you that In addition to paying more in taxes than you do, I also donate more to charity than you pay in taxes. The difference between you and me, is that I'm a peaceful man who doesn't believe in visiting force on others to make them adhere to my own beliefs and ideology, and you're the opposite of that. A tin-pot dictator if only you could. Governments are coersive, violent, force used to make individuals holding to positions opposing those in power comply.

 

And even if I've cherry-picked, as you say I have (which is an abject lie), atleast there are direct passages, quoting Christ in the Bible, supporting my beliefs.

 

You still haven't presented me with the passages supporting violent use of force in order to enact economic change.

 

I'm still waiting.

[birdog1960]

 

No, not at all. First of all, I don't believe in every man for himself. I believe in charity, and taking care of my fellow man. I guarantee you that In addition to paying more in taxes than you do, I also donate more to charity than you pay in taxes. The difference between you and me, is that I'm a peaceful man who doesn't believe in visiting force on others to make them adhere to my own beliefs and ideology, and you're the opposite of that. A tin-pot dictator if only you could. Governments are coersive, violent, force used to make individuals holding to positions opposing those in power comply.

 

And even if I've cherry-picked, as you say I have (which is an abject lie), atleast there are direct passages, quoting Christ in the Bible, supporting my beliefs.

 

You still haven't presented me with the passages supporting violent use of force in order to enact economic change.

 

I'm still waiting.

convenient that we have no way to confirm or deny this contention but it doesn't matter. you might recall this: "thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets that they may be praised by others. truly, i say to you, they have received their reward. but when you give to the needy do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing..."

 

and that's the last biblical reference or post i'll exchange with you. this is going nowhere fast. you're as likely to embrace religious based efforts for social justice as i am to embrace a flat tax.

[TakeYouToTasker]

convenient that we have no way to confirm or deny this contention but it doesn't matter. you might recall this: "thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets that they may be praised by others. truly, i say to you, they have received their reward. but when you give to the needy do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing..."

 

and that's the last biblical reference or post i'll exchange with you. this is going nowhere fast. you're as likely to embrace religious based efforts for social justice as i am to embrace a flat tax.

The contention was yours, I've simply disputed it. You assert that I believe in an "every man for himself" philosophy; and I've explained that I believe in helping those in need, but unlike you refuse to enact violence on those who disagree with me. I'm content to let God, who has a far better view of the situation, judge them when it's their time. I fix what I can fix, and let others choose for themselves. Free will is at the crux of our humanity, which God gifted us with. He did not make us mindless, subservient, automotons; and if He didn't force us to His will, how can you insist that He intended for you to?

 

Again, please direct me to the passages in which Jesus directs us to use force of violence on others to bend them towards "social justice".

 

It's a simple request, and as you've built your entire ideological, and religious belief structure on that interpretation, you should have them readily available.

[Rob's House]

have no idea where you get the idea that i support the use of violence and force to accomplish anything. i don't with the exception of the concept of a justified war eg WWII. but you're not really interested in a theological discussion. you're interested in cherry picking passages that support your "every man for himself" philosophy that you've put forth so many times here. that belief in my mind is the exact opposite of the central new testament theme. and governments are comprised of individuals. yes, govt's are us.

 

What do you think happens when you don't do what the Feds tell you to do?

[birdog1960]

What do you think happens when you don't do what the Feds tell you to do?

ya see, we have these things called laws. there are many of them. they protect society from anarchy. and if you don't follow them, there are punishments including prison. this helps dissuade anarchy. i'm against capital punishment and torture. so, no violence in that model. ya'll aren't seriously proposing a society without laws, are you?

[TakeYouToTasker]

ya see, we have these things called laws. there are many of them. they protect society from anarchy. and if you don't follow them, there are punishments including prison. this helps dissuade anarchy. i'm against capital punishment and torture. so, no violence in that model. ya'll aren't seriously proposing a society without laws, are you?

That's an absurd strawman.

 

You are intentionally ignoring the fundamental differences between negative laws (laws which do not act to compell action, but rather state that there are some actions which cannot be undertaken in order to protect individual's rights), and positive laws (laws which act as slave masters, using force of violence to compell actions).

 

There are huge differences between laws which respectively state "you cannot muder other human beings" and "you must give me 40% of everything you earn".

 

Furthermore, you've falsely equated Law with justness; which is, of course, the antithesis of 95% of every non-Obamacare argument you make.

Edited July 1, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Rob's House]

ya see, we have these things called laws. there are many of them. they protect society from anarchy. and if you don't follow them, there are punishments including prison. this helps dissuade anarchy. i'm against capital punishment and torture. so, no violence in that model. ya'll aren't seriously proposing a society without laws, are you?

 

Are you familiar with the distinction between negative & positive law? One protects rights, the other imposes obligations through use of force. You've provided the basis for the former (poorly I might add), but can you justify the latter? Or should I just expect another bi-polar false choice from you?