..the difference is a question of: should it be incumbant on us as individuals to help others in the spirit of volunteerism / generosity, ... as opposed to using the force of gov't to impart some "morality", welfare/redistribution, etc... the church has always had tradition of helping the needy, ..but, as you see now w/ the bad economy and more obtrusive gov't, charitable giving has retreated as the shadow of "big" gov't looms...

Uhm...You're wrong. So wrong that not a single statement in that paragraph can be substantiated. Except for the part where you find it very amusing. I believe that. Ignorance generally does equate to bliss.

It seems to me Christ was much closer to a long haired hippie Democrat than say... McCain, Kasich, Bush, or Romney.

The rest of that is generalizations that probably aren't true. Hell we just passed 50% believing in evolution a few years back, so I doubt most democrats are atheist/agnostic. Most elitist Democrats who use the government to control poor/uneducated... Probably yes.

The very concept of democracy was not recorded until the 4th or 5th century in Athens. In the time of Jesus monarchy and dictatorships were the norm. Jesus himself was called the king of the Jews.

There was extreme separation in classes from totally insignificant and expendable slaves that were nothing more than property to the ruler of entire civilizations that claimed to be a god or appointed from God or gods. It was the opposite of democracy.

Jesus himself was a passive and charitable individual but he was all about helping those that help themselves. Thou shall not covet anything that is thy neighbors pretty much wrecks your socialism theory. Self pity, gluttony and other self inflicted acts of debilitation rewarded you nothing in the Jesus gospel era.

It is chronologically impossible for Jesus to have been a hippie no matter what definition you use. There is no example of what Jesus looked like unless you use references in the bible from the only people who ever met him. The apostles. One very obscure reference gives a historical reference to "long" hair. He didn't have long hair. Long hair was commonplace of the Nazareth for some at the time but he was far removed from that culture during his fame.

Shall I go on? I'll only flaunt my knowledge of the bible and history when people believe falsehoods or make stupid comments. I promise!

I thought that would piss some people off. I went to a catholic school for a long time and I was taught that God wants us to always give to the needy. That the poor have the place in heaven. To give up everything for the true riches are in heaven. I can't remember which stories or exact quotes but you get the idea. Im not sure if Jesus had long hair and of course he wasn't dancing like a moron on acid and being all about free love, but it seems like he has been represented as a peace loving free spirited kind of person. So thats why I used the hippie thing.

I know a fairly good writer who told me her favorite thing to cite in a persuasive piece is the bible. She has several versions and uses the online searchable ones also. I thought that funny as she is an atheist, so I asked her about it. She very matter of factly replied "there is no other credible source that can so easily support ANY viewpoint." Read about the Jefferson Bible a bit last week and I thought it is a great example of what she was talking about.

Libertarians are for legalizing drugs because the Mega banks and pharma companies that are exempt from taxes and punishment grow the drugs over seas, ship them in illegally with an inflated price and make mega profits that are given back to the politicians. Its just a big ponzi-scheme and the longer the drugs are illegal the more money you are keeping out of the economy and in the pockets of Soros, Rockefeller, etc. Rockefeller got rich off of bootlegging alcohol in the 20's and the family is doing the same thing off the drugs now.

Um, I think you're mixing up some history there youngliberty. The Rockefellers were already very very rich--mainly from crude oil/petroleum products--well before the 1920s ever hit. They wouldn't have had a need to bootleg booze either domestically or import it from Europe. The latter is how Joseph (father of John, Bobby and Ted) Kennedy made some of his family's fortune. To make it more profitable the alcohol was smuggled here and then the boats were filled with guns to take back to Ireland, or so many people claim.

While I'm all for the idea of legalizing drugs I'm not sure how ell it would work out in actual practice given the irresponsibility quotient of so many Americans today.

You are right Brian, thats my mistake I confused them with the Kennedy's. It doesn't matter what name you put on it the principle is still there and it is happening today with the mega rich and the drugs.

"given the irresponsibility quotient of so many Americans today." My prediction is one solves the other and many would argue for generations over nature of the causal relationship.

Please show me some print information about the "mega rich" making money in the drug trade.


Bill

I read some of the stuff at the link, there seem to be some contradictions, IE if people in the US are being harmed and killed by Heroin, legalizing it is going to make that situation WORSE, until the addicts kill themselves with overdoses. I still do not see how "wall street" ties in, or how the mega rich come into it either, most of us have 401k's, thus we have money in "wall street" and most of us are not "mega rich".

Bill

Ever watch the movie Water World? How long before it becomes a crap hole ruled by the Smokers?

Its not saying that legalizing opiates will eliminate all opiate related deaths. It is simply pointing out that our troops are guarding producers of the stuff. If the U.S. is truly trying to eliminate drug use through illegalization why are they spending tax payer dollars growing it and trying to protect it? And I don't know of any substance made illegal that made situations worse, usually legalizing solves more problems than it creates. You can change the argument to guns if you want, does making guns illegal help with violent crime? No. And legalizing drugs doesn't create more druggies, the people who want the drugs are going to get them anyway. On the wall street issue, it is well known that people like Soros, Rockefeller, Rothschild, JP Morgan, other foreign mega banks who have billions to invest manipulate economies and governments via Wall Street. This is about Soros in particular, but all the names up there are responsible for the same thing. "A large part of Soros' multibillion-dollar fortune has come from manipulating currencies. During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad accused him of bringing down the nation’s currency through his trading activities, and in Thailand he was called an “economic war criminal.” Known as “The Man who Broke the Bank of England,” Soros initiated a British financial crisis by dumping 10 billion sterling, forcing the devaluation of the currency and gaining a billion-dollar profit.". He and other elite have the U.S. government by the nuts and when they are mega-profiting off of the illegal trade they just pay off the politicians to keep it illegal.