It's Crisp Outside, What Are Your Plans For Christmas?

[Kathianne]

It's coming fast. The economic news is not good, the Dow drops week after week. The 401k's are shrinking, though admit it, you've made a bundle. Still and all you are concerned. So, are you leaving coal for your kids and loved ones?

Me? Well I am cutting back. A conglomeration of things. My home costs are increasing, while my kids are now adults, but living at home, literally or by address. I'm still paying their auto insurance which goes up each year.

I've decided to gift them their choice of tickets to plays/events/concerts. Plus dinner. It's less than 1/2 of past gifts, but seems fair. 1 is working full time. 1 is student teaching. 1 is going into internship in January.

[retiredman]

last year, my three grown children agreed with my wife and I to start havning much less materialistic Christmases than we had had in the past, My wife and I don't need any more "things" in our life and neither do our kids, really. I gave them a modest check and then, the rest of the Christmas presents were solely those things that we made for each other. My wife and I gave each child several tins of Christmas cookies that we had made for them. My oldest son made a CD of the community chorus that he conducts singing Christmas songs. My daughter knit stocking caps, and my other son made home brewed beer. We are planning another simple family oriented Christmas again this year... a Christmas Eve afternoon meal and then going to our candlelight service together as a family.... this year, I'll be preaching which will be pretty special.

[Kathianne]

last year, my three grown children agreed with my wife and I to start havning much less materialistic Christmases than we had had in the past, My wife and I don't need any more "things" in our life and neither do our kids, really. I gave them a modest check and then, the rest of the Christmas presents were solely those things that we made for each other. My wife and I gave each child several tins of Christmas cookies that we had made for them. My oldest son made a CD of the community chorus that he conducts singing Christmas songs. My daughter knit stocking caps, and my other son made home brewed beer. We are planning another simple family oriented Christmas again this year... a Christmas Eve afternoon meal and then going to our candlelight service together as a family.... this year, I'll be preaching which will be pretty special.

Good for you. To me, Christmas is about children, those that believe without proof. None of them in my life right now, at least directly. I don't have children or grandchildren of that age. I don't teach to that age. Yet, there is a piece of me that 'believes'. I'll go with that.

[retiredman]

Good for you. To me, Christmas is about children, those that believe without proof. None of them in my life right now, at least directly. I don't have children or grandchildren of that age. I don't teach to that age. Yet, there is a piece of me that 'believes'. I'll go with that.

absolutely. Christmas is about children of all ages.... Christmas is about a little baby. Christmas is about gathering close round the manger and experiencing that baby. It is NOT about more "things".

[Yurt]

jesus was not born around "christmas"

[Kathianne]

jesus was not born around "christmas"

Ya think? When? Personally it's all way out there. None of us are really 'in the know' regarding such. More of the props to the Catholic take, it's interpretation.

[retiredman]

jesus was not born around "christmas"

but nonetheless, the Advent season and Christmas is the time in the Christian calendar when we chose to annually celebrate the miracle of his birth, and all that happened as a result of it.

[Yurt]

did i say something that is not true?

[Kathianne]

did i say something that is not true?

I dunnoh. Did you say something authoritative on topic?

[No1tovote4]

jesus was not born around "christmas"
Is the point of the holiday the precision and accuracy in the dating process, or the understanding of what happened in a manger in Bethlehem?

[hjmick]

Is the point of the holiday the precision and accuracy in the dating process, or the understanding of what happened in a manger in Bethlehem?

As I understand it, the original intent of Christmas and the idea of holding it in December was an effort to bring Pagans into the Christian fold. The Pagans (as well as other cultures) celebrated a winter festival and the heads of the early Christian movement felt that it would be easier to convert them if they felt some of their traditions coincided with Christianity.

Or something along those lines. It's been more than a couple of years since I heard this information... Probably on the History Channel.

[Yurt]

what is christmas then? i don't know, i thought you guys/gals had an answer.



what is more important:

the birth or the death of christ?

[No1tovote4]

what is christmas then? i don't know, i thought you guys/gals had an answer.



what is more important:

the birth or the death of christ?
Both would be equally important. The birth as it is how they prove that he fulfills prophecy, the death as it was the goal of the "New Covenant".

Christians changed the date they celebrated Christmas, but not the reason for it. The date of the celebration isn't important, what is important (to them) is understanding the importance of the moment. The resurrection is even more important than the death as it marked the fulfillment and creation of the "New Covenant" releasing men from the strictures of "cleansing" laws and allowing for all people, and not just the 'chosen' to receive the same reward.

[Kathianne]

Both would be equally important. The birth as it is how they prove that he fulfills prophecy, the death as it was the goal of the "New Covenant".

Christians changed the date they celebrated Christmas, but not the reason for it. The date of the celebration isn't important, what is important (to them) is understanding the importance of the moment.

Leave it to the Buddhist. ;)

[No1tovote4]

Leave it to the Buddhist. ;)
That's me. But I have a unique perspective being raised in a Christian environment.

[Kathianne]

That's me. But I have a unique perspective being raised in a Christian environment.

Yep, you add perspective. Glad you are around. :cheers2:

[Yurt]

Both would be equally important. The birth as it is how they prove that he fulfills prophecy, the death as it was the goal of the "New Covenant".

Christians changed the date they celebrated Christmas, but not the reason for it. The date of the celebration isn't important, what is important (to them) is understanding the importance of the moment. The resurrection is even more important than the death as it marked the fulfillment and creation of the "New Covenant" releasing men from the strictures of "cleansing" laws and allowing for all people, and not just the 'chosen' to receive the same reward.

the date was changed. christmas is not a true celebration...

the rest is the most important aspect, for the death and the ressurrection is what? what happened to the the day in between?

[retiredman]

what is christmas then? i don't know, i thought you guys/gals had an answer.



what is more important:

the birth or the death of christ?

I agree with no1...both are important. and the resurrection of Christ is much more important than his death.... and his LIFE is also important... his teachings while he lived are the guideposts to Christian's lives.

[Kathianne]

Yep, you add perspective. Glad you are around. :cheers2:

See what I mean?

[No1tovote4]

the date was changed. christmas is not a true celebration...

the rest is the most important aspect, for the death and the ressurrection is what? what happened to the the day in between?
That's ridiculous. The date was unimportant. The fact is it was changed by a very small amount to allow for it to fall during a nearby Pagan holiday for the purpose you purported earlier.

What is important is, again, what the celebration represents not the accuracy of the dating process for the celebration.

As for what happened in between, the Bible says that Christ went and preached to the "spririts in cages" and to Hades and Sheol (those two places are not the same as the Christian Hell. Sheol is the place in Christian belief where people go to wait for resurrection, Hades (Greek) was the place in between there and where the souls of the lost go). It talks about that in the book you have apparently never read.

He returned with the "keys to Hell", with the New Covenant.

Your questions aren't even difficult, and your fixation on the relation of a "date" to the birth and the celebration means nothing in reality to the importance of the event. Christians at that time realized they likely would never know the exact date of the birth. That didn't change the importance they placed on it.

[retiredman]

the date was changed. christmas is not a true celebration...

the rest is the most important aspect, for the death and the ressurrection is what? what happened to the the day in between?

agaqin... Christmas is a VERY true celebration commemorating the birth of the messiah. Which date on the calendar we chose is irrelevant to the purpose of the celebration.

[manu1959]

what is christmas then? i don't know, i thought you guys/gals had an answer.
what is more important:
the birth or the death of christ?

the resurection......

[retiredman]

the resurection......


precisely!

but the birth is a joyous time for celebration as well. God become flesh... a pretty special time.

[manu1959]

precisely!

but the birth is a joyous time for celebration as well. God become flesh... a pretty special time.

only because of the resurection.....

[retiredman]

only because of the resurection.....

certainly.

two "r"s, btw.

[manu1959]

certainly.

two "r"s, btw.

i think you mean three.....

[retiredman]

i think you mean three.....

in total, yes. two in a row there in the middle was what I was suggesting ;)

[Yurt]

what happened between friday and sunday?

[retiredman]

what happened between friday and sunday?
he descendeth into hell

[Yurt]

he descendeth into hell

who? and what are you talking about?

[retiredman]

who? and what are you talking about?

that is what happened to Jesus between Friday and Sunday.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html

[Yurt]

that is what happened to Jesus between Friday and Sunday.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html

a link? you can't explain it to me....

he rested

see how easy that was

[manu1959]

that is what happened to Jesus between Friday and Sunday.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html

i have had weekends like that.....

[retiredman]

i have had weekends like that.....

me too. probably more than I can remember!

[retiredman]

a link? you can't explain it to me....

he rested

see how easy that was


he didn't "rest"...he descended into hell, as the apostle's creed states.

[manu1959]

he didn't "rest"...he descended into hell, as the apostle's creed states.

you can rest in hell.....

[retiredman]

you can rest in hell.....

I wouldn't know for certain.

[Yurt]

he didn't "rest"...he descended into hell, as the apostle's creed states.

i asked for a link, why is it you can't provide one...

[manu1959]

I wouldn't know for certain.

you seem to know for certain he went there for the weekend....why don't you know what he did....

btw.....why did god pick a man and not a woman.....

[Yurt]

you seem to know for certain he went there for the weekend....why don't you know what he did....

btw.....why did god pick a man and not a woman.....

for what?

[retiredman]

i asked for a link, why is it you can't provide one...

I provided you a link to the apostle's creed.

[retiredman]

you seem to know for certain he went there for the weekend....why don't you know what he did....

btw.....why did god pick a man and not a woman.....


I would not even begin to think that I could ascertain God's rationale for such a decision.

[Yurt]

I provided you a link to the apostle's creed.

never saw it

can you link me to your link?

[retiredman]

never saw it

can you link me to your link?

liar.

I posted it in #31 and you responded to it in #32

[Yurt]

liar.

I posted it in #31 and you responded to it in #32

i thought you didn't like people calling you a liar...

i never read that link...if you go back and reread the post, i questioned that all you had was a link...i never read the link and had no idea that link was what you based your post on.

don't worry, i won't wait for you to recant calling me a liar for something i never lied about

[crin63]

Actually Jesus went to Hates (hell) which is the place of the dead where both Abrahams bosom and hell were both located. Upon resurrection Jesus took those saints of old to heaven while leaving the damned in hell. Thats where the great divide was that was discussed between the rich man, Abraham and Lazurus.

[Yurt]

Actually Jesus went to Hates (hell) which is the place of the dead where both Abrahams bosom and hell were both located. Upon resurrection Jesus took those saints of old to heaven while leaving the damned in hell. Thats where the great divide was that was discussed between the rich man, Abraham and Lazurus.

do you have a link for that? is that in the bible?

[crin63]

Regarding the celebration of Jesus birth. There would have been no death and resurrection without the birth. That Jesus would condescended to take on the form of a mortal human so he could face all that he already knew that he would endure that we might have an opportunity for redemption is something worth celebrating regardless of the date.

[crin63]

do you have a link for that? is that in the bible?

Theres allot more to it than a single scripture. I will try to get it back to you tomorrow.

[Yurt]

do you have a link for this...is that in the bible?

[red states rule]

I provided you a link to the apostle's creed.

You talking about God, and Jesus is like Bill Clinton talking about fidelity or Ted Kennedy talking about sobriety

[retiredman]

i thought you didn't like people calling you a liar...

i never read that link...if you go back and reread the post, i questioned that all you had was a link...i never read the link and had no idea that link was what you based your post on.

don't worry, i won't wait for you to recant calling me a liar for something i never lied about


you said that you "never SAW the link" Clearly you SAW the link. You commented upon its very existence. Whether you ever OPENED the link or READ the text contained in the link, only you can say. But clearly, you SAW the LINK. and then said that you hadn't. You lied

[retiredman]

You talking about God, and Jesus is like Bill Clinton talking about fidelity or Ted Kennedy talking about sobriety

do you have something of substance to add to this discussion of Christmas?:lol:

[red states rule]

you said that you "never SAWw the link" Clearly you SAW the link. You commented upon its very existence. Whether you ever OPENED the link or READ the text contained in the link, only you can say. But clearly, you SAW the LINK. and then said that you hadn't. You lied

Oh, boy, Here comes another sermon from the Book Of Whining and Bellyaching

[retiredman]

Oh, boy, Here comes another sermon from the Book Of Whining and Bellyaching

I'm not whining at all. I merely point out that the counselor lied. Pretty unambiguous. do you care to defend his statement or just toss insults in from the cheap seats?:lol:

[red states rule]

I'm not whining at all. I merely point out that the counselor lied. Pretty unambiguous. do you care to defend his statement or just toss insults in from the cheap seats?:lol:

You are the biggest crybaby (and asshole) on the board. I call them as I see them

[retiredman]

You are the biggest crybaby (and asshole) on the board. I call them as I see them


like I said...do you care to defend your buddy yurt by showing how he did not lie about "not seeing" the link that I included in my post and that he commented upon?

[No1tovote4]

do you have a link for that? is that in the bible?
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-in-hell-faq.htm

Yes, it is in the Bible.

[No1tovote4]

It's coming fast. The economic news is not good, the Dow drops week after week. The 401k's are shrinking, though admit it, you've made a bundle. Still and all you are concerned. So, are you leaving coal for your kids and loved ones?

Me? Well I am cutting back. A conglomeration of things. My home costs are increasing, while my kids are now adults, but living at home, literally or by address. I'm still paying their auto insurance which goes up each year.

I've decided to gift them their choice of tickets to plays/events/concerts. Plus dinner. It's less than 1/2 of past gifts, but seems fair. 1 is working full time. 1 is student teaching. 1 is going into internship in January.
Our plans are as normal, go and cook food that I cannot eat for people who celebrate a historical event that I do not...

;)

We're going over to Mom's, I am cooking because she can't. We'll open gifts and I'll use the event to teach the kids a bit more about what Christians believe. We do this every year....

[Immanuel]

do you have a link for this...is that in the bible?

1 Peter 3:13-21


13Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened."[c] 15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. [B]18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[d] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Bolded part is the answer to your question.

Immie

[Yurt]

you said that you "never SAW the link" Clearly you SAW the link. You commented upon its very existence. Whether you ever OPENED the link or READ the text contained in the link, only you can say. But clearly, you SAW the LINK. and then said that you hadn't. You lied

you're lying...no surprise...i never said the words "i never saw the link" --> you LIED

i said i never saw it <-- it referred to the apostles creed

i don't expect you to recant, nor am i surprised you trash another thread with insults, especially one that you deem extremely offensive but have no problem accusing others of such

[Yurt]

thanks for the links guys, i will review the links and the information provided

[retiredman]

you're lying...no surprise...i never said the words "i never saw the link" --> you LIED

i said i never saw it <-- it referred to the apostles creed

i don't expect you to recant, nor am i surprised you trash another thread with insults, especially one that you deem extremely offensive but have no problem accusing others of such

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=314756&postcount=43


if you knew your english grammar, you would know that the "it" in your phrase refers to the direct object of my sentence and not to the prepositional phrase which modifies that object.

that's a fact. You said you never saw it, and you, in fact, had seen "it". so....you lied.

Example: Did you see the big tree on top of the hill?

No...I never saw it. The "it" refers to the tree....not the hill.:laugh2:

[Yurt]

you LIED, i never used the words "i never saw the link"

will you recant your lie?

i don't care what you think "it" referred to, i was talking about the apostles creed, hence why i ask for the link to that link, so i could read the apostles creed, you think i just wanted to look at a link and not what the link actually links to....moron...you analogy would be correct if you said tree on the hill that contained teh apostles creed

make that a lying moron

[red states rule]

The preacher derails another thread.

[retiredman]

you LIED, i never used the words "i never saw the link"

will you recant your lie?

i don't care what you think "it" referred to, i was talking about the apostles creed, hence why i ask for the link to that link, so i could read the apostles creed, you think i just wanted to look at a link and not what the link actually links to....moron...you analogy would be correct if you said tree on the hill that contained teh apostles creed

make that a lying moron

why would you need a link to the link when all you needed to do was to scroll up and click on it? you had clearly seen "it" the first time when you commented upon it.

And I merely replaced your "it" with the word that it grammatically referred to for ease of understanding. I told no lie.

You saw the link... and they you said you had not seen it.

Either you can't write the english language above the level of a third grader, or you are a liar. take your pick. I assumed, given your status as an attorney, that the first option seemed unrealistic which is why I opted for the second. If I was wrong, and the first option is correct, please forgive me.

oh..and if I had asked you if you had seen the tree ON the hill THAT contained the apostle's creed.... and you had said that you had not seen it, you would STILL be referring to the tree, and not to the phases that followed both which serve to modify "tree".

[red states rule]

why would you need a link to the link when all you needed to do was to scroll up and click on it? you had clearly seen "it" the first time when you commented upon it.

And I merely replaced your "it" with the word that it grammatically referred to for ease of understanding. I told no lie.

You saw the link... and they you said you had not seen it.

Either you can't write the english language above the level of a third grader, or you are a liar. take your pick. I assumed, given your status as an attorney, that the first option seemed unrealistic which is why I opted for the second. If I was wrong, and the first option is correct, please forgive me.

and the derailing continues

[Yurt]

why would you need a link to the link when all you needed to do was to scroll up and click on it? you had clearly seen "it" the first time when you commented upon it.

And I merely replaced your "it" with the word that it grammatically referred to for ease of understanding. I told no lie.

You saw the link... and they you said you had not seen it.

Either you can't write the english language above the level of a third grader, or you are a liar. take your pick. I assumed, given your status as an attorney, that the first option seemed unrealistic which is why I opted for the second. If I was wrong, and the first option is correct, please forgive me.

you mean english like this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by manfrommaine
there are a lot more that one black person in Maine. I would never riot over an election.

so...you admit that you're all hat and no cattle? Why am I not surprised?

:lol:

you won't admit you lied, you falsely changed my words to say something i never did, you even carefully put the words in quotes to emphasize the truth of them...you lied, you won't admit it

let's get back to thread, enough of discussing more mfm lies

[retiredman]

and the derailing continues

actually, it was yurt who derailed this thread by denigrating the celebration of Christmas....but do feel free to jump on in and protect your dear dear "friend" yurt!:lol:

[Yurt]

actually, it was yurt who derailed this thread by denigrating the celebration of Christmas....but do feel free to jump on in and protect your dear dear "friend" yurt!:lol:

liar, i denigrate nothing you little closet wussie

oh well, looks like mfm has taken another thread or part of to the cage

[retiredman]

you mean english like this:



:lol:

you won't admit you lied, you falsely changed my words to say something i never did, you even carefully put the words in quotes to emphasize the truth of them...you lied, you won't admit it

let's get back to thread, enough of discussing more mfm lies


so you admit you saw the link that you said you didn't see?

fine.

Now...go click on it and read it so that you can see what Christians have been professing since at least the fourth century A.D.

[Yurt]

so you admit you saw the link that you said you didn't see?

fine.

Now...go click on it and read it so that you can see what Christians have been professing since at least the fourth century A.D.

you sneaky honestly deceptive poster...you ask a question, then conclude that the question has been answered with a "fine"....you are lying, i never admitted anything, you are making a huge issue over nothing, but you had to call me a liar...so petty...so pathetic...

and good lord, why is it you focus on minutia? why do you have to derail nearly every thread you enter? grow up

[Immanuel]

and good lord, why is it you focus on minutia? why do you have to derail nearly every thread you enter? grow up

Because he can't stand on the issues. He knows the elimination of 401(k)'s is wrong for the country. He knows the "Fairness Doctrine" = suppression of free speech. He knows Obama's health care plan and redistribution of wealth is wrong for the country, but by G.. er by Obama, he'll defend it until the day that he dies, because he believes the only right course is the Democratic course.

Immie

[red states rule]

Because he can't stand on the issues. He knows the elimination of 401(k)'s is wrong for the country. He knows the "Fairness Doctrine" = suppression of free speech. He knows Obama's health care plan and redistribution of wealth is wrong for the country, but by G.. er by Obama, he'll defend it until the day that he dies, because he believes the only right course is the Democratic course.

Immie

With Rev MFM, it is the Dem party before country. He sold his heart and soul to the party - nothing else in life matters more to him

[Abbey Marie]

Kath, our family is so scattered these days, I don't even know yet what we are doing for Thanksgiving.

[retiredman]

Because he can't stand on the issues. He knows the elimination of 401(k)'s is wrong for the country. He knows the "Fairness Doctrine" = suppression of free speech. He knows Obama's health care plan and redistribution of wealth is wrong for the country, but by G.. er by Obama, he'll defend it until the day that he dies, because he believes the only right course is the Democratic course.

Immie

There have been many things proposed by democratic leadership with which I have disagreed over the years, and there will be many things proposed by democratic leadership in the furture with which I will undoubtedly disagree. I have not seen any details about the 401k proposal in any non-partisan news source so I will withhold criticism or support until I do. I do not think that the fairness doctrine equates to suppression of free speech and if the new version does suppress it, I will be disagree with it as well. I agree with Obama's health care proposal and I have always been a proponent of marginal wealth redistribution. Our federal government has been in the business of wealth redistribution for almost a century now... the federal income tax has always taxed the wealthy at a higher rate than the less the wealthy and used the revenue to benefit all citizens. That IS wealth redistribution and democrats and republicans have supported it for a long long time. I happen to believe in the saying by that old Louisiana populist, Huey Long, who said, "Nobody should have too much if there is somebody who doesn't have enough". I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said something along the lines of, There is nothing wrong if our country has "have mores" and "have Lesses" ... we should, however, never get to the point were we are a country of "haves" and "have nots". I buy that... and Immie...don't you think that Jesus would agree?

[Immanuel]

There have been many things proposed by democratic leadership with which I have disagreed over the years, and there will be many things proposed by democratic leadership in the furture with which I will undoubtedly disagree. I have not seen any details about the 401k proposal in any non-partisan news source so I will withhold criticism or support until I do. I do not think that the fairness doctrine equates to suppression of free speech and if the new version does suppress it, I will be disagree with it as well. I agree with Obama's health care proposal and I have always been a proponent of marginal wealth redistribution. Our federal government has been in the business of wealth redistribution for almost a century now... the federal income tax has always taxed the wealthy at a higher rate than the less the wealthy and used the revenue to benefit all citizens. That IS wealth redistribution and democrats and republicans have supported it for a long long time. I happen to believe in the saying by that old Louisiana populist, Huey Long, who said, "Nobody should have too much if there is somebody who doesn't have enough". I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said something along the lines of, There is nothing wrong if our country has "have mores" and "have Lesses" ... we should, however, never get to the point were we are a country of "haves" and "have nots". I buy that... and Immie...don't you think that Jesus would agree?

Hell, I thought I was on your ignore list.

I agree with some of what you say... although, I think you are extremely wrong in your view about Obama. He's making nice on his plans, but when the shit hits the fan, we're in trouble.

For the record, the 401(k) plan is not his plan and to my knowledge he has not endorsed it.

Also, Jesus, would never promote the redistribution of wealth by force as is being promoted here.

And thank you for your answer. Unfortunately, with Obama's plans to silence his critics, I am not sure how much longer we will be able to discuss things. Eight days?

Immie

[red states rule]

There have been many things proposed by democratic leadership with which I have disagreed over the years, and there will be many things proposed by democratic leadership in the furture with which I will undoubtedly disagree. I have not seen any details about the 401k proposal in any non-partisan news source so I will withhold criticism or support until I do. I do not think that the fairness doctrine equates to suppression of free speech and if the new version does suppress it, I will be disagree with it as well. I agree with Obama's health care proposal and I have always been a proponent of marginal wealth redistribution. Our federal government has been in the business of wealth redistribution for almost a century now... the federal income tax has always taxed the wealthy at a higher rate than the less the wealthy and used the revenue to benefit all citizens. That IS wealth redistribution and democrats and republicans have supported it for a long long time. I happen to believe in the saying by that old Louisiana populist, Huey Long, who said, "Nobody should have too much if there is somebody who doesn't have enough". I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said something along the lines of, There is nothing wrong if our country has "have mores" and "have Lesses" ... we should, however, never get to the point were we are a country of "haves" and "have nots". I buy that... and Immie...don't you think that Jesus would agree?


You will not comment on the 401K issue because you have no rational argument to support it. You ran away from the thread despite quotes from senior Dems in DC who are backing the idea

Libs like you live for bigger government and making as manyepople as possible dependent on some government handout. You talk about ending poverty - but let someone work hard and become wealthy you turn around and punish them by taking more of their money

Or as you once posted - take as much as we can squeeze out of them

[retiredman]

You will not comment on the 401K issue because you have no rational argument to support it. You ran away from the thread despite quotes from senior Dems in DC who are backing the idea

Libs like you live for bigger government and making as manyepople as possible dependent on some government handout. You talk about ending poverty - but let someone work hard and become wealthy you turn around and punish them by taking more of their money

Or as you once posted - take as much as we can squeeze out of them


as I said, I have not read any details about the 401k proposal and will wait until I have before I say whether I think it is a good idea or not.

and I am certain that the rich will do just fine when we go back to the marginal tax rates of the 90's.

[red states rule]

as I said, I have not read any details about the 401k proposal and will wait until I have before I say whether I think it is a good idea or not.

and I am certain that the rich will do just fine when we go back to the marginal tax rates of the 90's.

I had 2 links on the public hearings Dems had - you tried the usual lame talking points then fled

Jimmy Carter and the Dems said we would be fine to with jacking up taxes across the board in a slow economy

[retiredman]

I had 2 links on the public hearings Dems had - you tried the usual lame talking points then fled

Jimmy Carter and the Dems said we would be fine to with jacking up taxes across the board in a slow economy


which thread had the links? I rarely read links from the clearly rightwing partisans sites you routinely use.

and Obama does not advocate an across the board tax increase. Only a return to the Clinton tax rates that were in place when the rich were making all their money!

[red states rule]

which thread had the links? I rarely read links from the clearly rightwing partisans sites you routinely use.

and Obama does not advocate an across the board tax increase. Only a return to the Clinton tax rates that were in place when the rich were making all their money!

So now US News is a right wing site :laugh2:

Libs tell us they do not want to raise taxes on the middle class yet the want to repeal all the Bush tax cuts. Try again hack

It has been proven a lie that only those making over $250,000 will pay more in taxes. Nearly everyone will pay more

[retiredman]

So now US News is a right wing site :laugh2:

Libs tell us they do not want to raise taxes on the middle class yet the want to repeal all the Bush tax cuts. Try again hack

It has been proven a lie that only those making over $250,000 will pay more in taxes. Nearly everyone will pay more

post your link about the 401k proposal and I will read it.

I disagree with you about Obama's tax proposal. sorry.

[red states rule]

post your link about the 401k proposal and I will read it.

I disagree with you about Obama's tax proposal. sorry.

Read the first post on the thread - then drop down and read the next one

Obama's increase of the dividned tax will hit retired folks

Obama lifting the cap off SS will hit anyone making over $103.000

Obama's increase of the captial gains tax will hto anyone with a 401K - unless the Dems take them away from us and call them government savings accounts

Obama's increase of thecorporate tax will be another tax on us since companies do not pay taxes. The tax will passed onto us with higher prices

[retiredman]

Read the first post on the thread - then drop down and read the next one

Obama's increase of the dividned tax will hit retired folks

Obama lifting the cap off SS will hit anyone making over $103.000

Obama's increase of the captial gains tax will hto anyone with a 401K - unless the Dems take them away from us and call them government savings accounts

Obama's increase of thecorporate tax will be another tax on us since companies do not pay taxes. The tax will passed onto us with higher prices

It seems to me, from reading the USNews article that you posted, that all that has happened is that the democrats invited a lady to testify before the subcommittee about her ideas for setting up government guaranteed retirement accounts in lieu of 401ks. I don't think it has gone beyond that one lady's testimony. Do you know of any bills submitted by democrats that would propose this lady's plan?

And since when do companies not pay taxes?

[red states rule]

It seems to me, from reading the USNews article that you posted, that all that has happened is that the democrats invited a lady to testify before the subcommittee about her ideas for setting up government guaranteed retirement accounts in lieu of 401ks. I don't think it has gone beyond that one lady's testimony. Do you know of any bills submitted by democrats that would propose this lady's plan?

And since when do companies not pay taxes?

Dems are saying they ned to do something about the $80 billion the government "spends" in tax breaks for those of us with a 401K

The fact Dems would talk about something so stupid shows they are going to overplay their hand - and are drunk with power

Companies never pay taxes. They collect the taxes form their customers and pass them on to the government

Taxes are a cost of doing business that is passed on to us. Or they cut workers, or move to a cheaper location

Either way, a corporate tax increase in a tax increase on us

[Immanuel]

which thread had the links? I rarely read links from the clearly rightwing partisans sites you routinely use.

and Obama does not advocate an across the board tax increase. Only a return to the Clinton tax rates that were in place when the rich were making all their money!

Sorry, but I don't believe Obama. I don't believe any politician. Today Obama says he'll cut 95% of taxpayers taxes (many of whom don't pay income tax anyway) and on November 5th that tune will change. Most likely it will be the 95% who's taxes will be raised and the 5% who supported him like George Soros will see their taxes drop.

But just remember, it will all be for the good of the people.

Immie

[red states rule]

Sorry, but I don't believe Obama. I don't believe any politician. Today Obama says he'll cut 95% of taxpayers taxes (many of whom don't pay income tax anyway) and on November 5th that tune will change. Most likely it will be the 95% who's taxes will be raised and the 5% who supported him like George Soros will see their taxes drop.

But just remember, it will all be for the good of the people.

Immie

To Rev MFM, facts are a mere detail. here is a thread on Obama's tax and spend plans

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=19057

[Immanuel]

To Rev MFM, facts are a mere detail. here is a thread on Obama's tax and spend plans

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=19057

Well, what I posted there are not facts just concerns. Well, wait, it is a fact that I don't trust Obama or other politicians and that I don't believe him. So, I guess there were some facts in there.

Immie

[Yurt]

To Rev MFM, facts are a mere detail. here is a thread on Obama's tax and spend plans

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=19057

how true, he changes people's posts to include words they never said, puts the words in quotes to make it seem like he is quoting exactly what you said and claims you said something you never said...

[red states rule]

how true, he changes people's posts to include words they never said, puts the words in quotes to make it seem like he is quoting exactly what you said and claims you said something you never said...

Libs like Rev MFM never ever allow facts, or the truth, to get in the way of their rants

Party before all else

[retiredman]

how true, he changes people's posts to include words they never said, puts the words in quotes to make it seem like he is quoting exactly what you said and claims you said something you never said...


oh yeah...you never SAW the link that you saw.:laugh2:

[manu1959]

oh yeah...you never SAW the link that you saw.:laugh2:

it isn't hat he didn't see it ...... it just went un noticed.....

[Yurt]

it isn't hat he didn't see it ...... it just went un noticed.....

exactly, i had no recollectin of the link and i was talking about the creed, but he has to lie about what i said in order to get his jollies by calling me a liar...over something so petty...how sad

[Yurt]

oh yeah...you never SAW the link that you saw.:laugh2:

did you add a word to my post and put it in quotes? a word i never said...yes or no

[retiredman]

did you add a word to my post and put it in quotes? a word i never said...yes or no

previously asked, and previously answered.

Did you see my link or did you not?

[Yurt]

previously asked, and previously answered.

Did you see my link or did you not?

no, you never actually gave an answer, LINK

i am not surprised you can't offer a simple....yes...i added a word and made it seem like yurt said something he did not say, i was dishonest by adding the word and especially trying to fool people by putting the whole thing in quotation marks

that is the truth of matter

[retiredman]

no, you never actually gave an answer, you said you did not really "add" a word, but filled in a missing word that should have been there...that is LIE

i am not surprised you can't offer a simple....yes...i added a word and made it seem like yurt said something he did not say, i was dishonest by adding the word and especially trying to fool people by putting the whole thing in quotation marks

that is the truth of matter


I added the word that your pronoun referred to, in lieu of the pronoun itself, according to rules of grammar. Why do you make such a big deal of this bit of minutia instead of just admitting that you did indeed see my link and said, mistakenly, that you had not?

and why not just read the creed and comment upon it instead of pulling your typical, ambulance chasing, pathetic hack excuse for a real lawyer game of obfuscating about the verbal inconsequentials, instead of just stepping up to the plate and being a man?

[Yurt]

I added the word that your pronoun referred to, in lieu of the pronoun itself, according to rules of grammar. Why do you make such a big deal of this bit of minutia instead of just admitting that you did indeed see my link and said, mistakenly, that you had not?

and why not just read the creed and comment upon it instead of pulling your typical, ambulance chasing, pathetic hack excuse for a real lawyer game of obfuscating about the verbal inconsequentials, instead of just stepping up to the plate and being a man?

finally admits to saying i WROTE something i never did, that is a lie

:clap:

you put the words in quotation marks clearly indicating you were copying me verbatim...you know, grammar RULES :laugh2:

i already told you i was referring to the creed, but you of course deflect the truth

i want it cleared up that you lied and put words in my post i never said, you started this by calling me a liar, yet now cowardly act as if this was my doing...

[retiredman]

finally admits to saying i WROTE something i never did, that is a lie

:clap:

you put the words in quotation marks clearly indicating you were copying me verbatim...you know, grammar RULES :laugh2:

i already told you i was referring to the creed, but you of course deflect the truth

i want it cleared up that you lied and put words in my post i never said, you started this by calling me a liar, yet now cowardly act as if this was my doing...


easy to say that you were referring to the creed when the rules of grammar prove that you are a liar. I merely inserted the word that, grammatically, your "it" referred to in order to clear up any confusion on the part of third party readers.

But, I will clearly state that you did not say "link" but said "it" instead...even though anyone with any grammatical education will know that the two are interchangeable.

I can just imagine the powerful sweep of your courtroom defenses, if this is any indication!:laugh2:loser!

[Yurt]

holy crap, it is true because it might be grammatically true ladies and gentlement...let me not remind you that intent is the key to determining guilt, intent, but let's ignore that truth and focus on supposed grammar rules that do not prove the truth of the matter, rather let's focus on rules that may or may not have been broken, and ignore that the person did not intend to lie

but when you are dealing with a liar, the truth cannot be expected

[retiredman]

holy crap, it is true because it might be grammatically true ladies and gentlement...let me not remind you that intent is the key to determining guilt, intent, but let's ignore that truth and focus on supposed grammar rules that do not prove the truth of the matter, rather let's focus on rules that may or may not have been broken, and ignore that the person did not intend to lie

but when you are dealing with a liar, the truth cannot be expected

sure. yurt.. you didn't see "it" even though the "it" you referred to clearly referred to the link that you did, in fact see. Do us both a favor...go back and click on the link that you DID see and read the fucking link and then you will know what Christians have been professing for at least 1600 years.

[Yurt]

sure. yurt.. you didn't see "it" even though the "it" you referred to clearly referred to the link that you did, in fact see. Do us both a favor...go back and click on the link that you DID see and read the fucking link and then you will know what Christians have been professing for at least 1600 years.

see, i told you i wasn't lying.... :cheers2:

all cleared up...

now about that link...

[retiredman]

see, i told you i wasn't lying.... :cheers2:

all cleared up...

now about that link...

of course you were lying. you know it and I know it and the rules of grammar prove it.

but DO read the link, in any case and let me know if it answers your heathen questions.

[Yurt]

of course you were lying. you know it and I know it and the rules of grammar prove it.

but DO read the link, in any case and let me know if it answers your heathen questions.

the rules of grammar don't prove your point ninny, give it up...all it proves is that i may or may not have used proper grammar in referrring to the subject matter, kind of like you using improper grammar to describe the number of blacks in maine....

you are lying and your grammar argument does not help or prove your case...imagine how different this thread would have been had you not called me a liar, that which you hate others calling you. just imagine had you asked if i maybe forgot i saw the link or maybe did i overlook the link when i saw the post, rather than i lied about it....you are so obsessed with me and so obsessed with trying to catch me in just one lie, not matter how big, that you lose all reason and go after this "lie" in order to get Yurt...it is so obsessive it blinds you and really destroys you as a person...

stop being so obsessed with me and try sticking to the discussions instead of insults

[Yurt]

great, i just noticed mfm called me a heathen or that i asked heathen questions....guess that means i am on the right track

thank you man of god for saying i am nothing like you

[retiredman]

the rules of grammar don't prove your point ninny, give it up...all it proves is that i may or may not have used proper grammar in referrring to the subject matter, kind of like you using improper grammar to describe the number of blacks in maine....

you are lying and your grammar argument does not help or prove your case...imagine how different this thread would have been had you not called me a liar, that which you hate others calling you. just imagine had you asked if i maybe forgot i saw the link or maybe did i overlook the link when i saw the post, rather than i lied about it....you are so obsessed with me and so obsessed with trying to catch me in just one lie, not matter how big, that you lose all reason and go after this "lie" in order to get Yurt...it is so obsessive it blinds you and really destroys you as a person...

stop being so obsessed with me and try sticking to the discussions instead of insults
have you read the link, or not?

If you have, then comment upon it....if not... then you prove my point.

[Yurt]

have you read the link, or not?

If you have, then comment upon it....if not... then you prove my point.

what point? that i am heathen? glad you couldn't take the time to comment on my advice to you, guess i hit the truth home and it overwhelmed you...may good things come of what i told you and may you be a better person and poster for it. :)

[retiredman]

what point? that i am heathen? glad you couldn't take the time to comment on my advice to you, guess i hit the truth home and it overwhelmed you...may good things come of what i told you and may you be a better person and poster for it. :)

have you read the link or not?

do you care to understand what Christians have been professing for centuries or not?

[Yurt]

have you read the link or not?

do you care to understand what Christians have been professing for centuries or not?

what point am i allegedly proving?

let's be honest, just because a set of christians profess something for centuries does not mean it is necessarily true or a correct understanding. so i would be very careful about accusing me of asking heathen questions and very careful about proclaiming i am proving some point that you refuse to specify exactly....

you won't have to answer to me, but to god

[retiredman]

what point am i allegedly proving?

let's be honest, just because a set of christians profess something for centuries does not mean it is necessarily true or a correct understanding. so i would be very careful about accusing me of asking heathen questions and very careful about proclaiming i am proving some point that you refuse to specify exactly....

you won't have to answer to me, but to god

I have said, and believed the apostle's creed all my life. DO you take issue with it, or not?

[Yurt]

I have said, and believed the apostle's creed all my life. DO you take issue with it, or not?

i don't believe you, you accuse me of asking heathen questions...you have lost all moral authority in this discussion and have shown yourself for the fraud you really are

next

[retiredman]

i don't believe you, you accuse me of asking heathen questions...you have lost all moral authority in this discussion and have shown yourself for the fraud you really are

next

you asked me for a link...then claimed you never saw the link I gave you. It is absolute fact that I have recited the Apostle's Creed since I was a child. The fact that you don't know anything about it, refuse to even read it, and attack me for believing in it makes the case pretty strongly that you are a heathen who not only does not believe in God, but ridicules those who do.

Have fun in your earthly life, cuz I am betting your afterlife is gonna suck, bigtime!:laugh2:

butr being a failed attorney with only a dozen clients.... I guess your earthly life must suck too!

ah well... c'est la vie!

[No1tovote4]

Only MFM and Yurt can ruin a perfectly good thread about Christmas and theology with an argument about what "it" means in a particular context...

:lol:

To get the thread back on a real topic.

What are your plans for Christmas this year?

[Yurt]

Only MFM and Yurt can ruin a perfectly good thread about Christmas and theology with an argument about what "it" means in a particular context...

:lol:

To get the thread back on a real topic.

What are your plans for Christmas this year?

staying home and the folks will come here or go to phoenix and see the folks, but "it" just depends :laugh2:

[retiredman]

To get the thread back on a real topic.

What are your plans for Christmas this year?

see post #2 ;)

[Trigg]

Only MFM and Yurt can ruin a perfectly good thread about Christmas and theology with an argument about what "it" means in a particular context...

:lol:

To get the thread back on a real topic.

What are your plans for Christmas this year?

Staying home as usual. MOST of my family and all of my husbands live within a 1/2 hour drive, which is nice.

I've started to pick up presents here and there in order to spread out the cost.

[retiredman]

Staying home as usual. MOST of my family and all of my husbands live within a 1/2 hour drive, which is nice.

I've started to pick up presents here and there in order to spread out the cost.


I assume you forgot the apostrophe in the word husbands. ;)

[No1tovote4]

I assume you forgot the apostrophe in the word husbands. ;)
Well, it would be nice to have them live within a half hour but not in the house...

I could see benefits to such a method of polyamory...

[Abbey Marie]

Well, it would be nice to have them live within a half hour but not in the house...

I could see benefits to such a method of polyamory...


Flaw in that argument:
If they're not in the house, they can't throw out the trash.

:coffee:

[Trigg]

I assume you forgot the apostrophe in the word husbands. ;)

LOL, oops:laugh2:

I swear I've only ever had one husband.

[bullypulpit]

Being one of the FNG's on the cardiac care unit, I'll be working. As for gifts, we'll do what we usually do...give cash. One size fits all and the color goes great with everything. ;)