Liberal snowflakes flee Pence speech. So triggered. What are they afraid of? Typical libs.

[Boomboom521]

The Left claims they indeed did reject them boom, in favor of naming Slaves 3/5th of a Man.

So is the Left correct on that, or is the Left wrong that the Constitution did have concepts of equality that were not defined by the Founders?

Which incorrect assumption from the Left about our Founders is correct?

Where is the error, besides how Democrats and the Left deny this what they really believe?

Can you tell me which Socialist societies actually encourage Religious Worship alongside or equal to allegiance of supremacy of the State?

OK, how far ahead of Biblical accounts were their histories written? Who wrote them? Where can we find them. how were they dated? How much time had passed before the Bible's civilizations supplanted their hisorical records?

What happend to those? (Native American historical records that pre-dated the Bible)

You are close to insanity

 

[atlkvb]

You are close to insanity

Well that answered my questions didn't it boom?

 

[Boomboom521]

Well that answered my question didn't it boom?

How about this: pick one question that I hav not already answered.

 

[atlkvb]

How about this: pick one question that I hav not already answered.

Try any or all of them boom!

 

[Boomboom521]

Try any or all of them boom!

Most of them I didn't understand. So let's try again:

 

[atlkvb]

once again, in your opinion, the Bible trumps all. But it just isn't true.

Why not? I've asked you what superceded it? Still waiting for your answer.

 

[Boomboom521]

So you'd deny their hard work & efforts beyond others who didn't work as hard to acquire those advantages for themselves and you'd simply remove those advantages because you don't think they earned them and poorer people don't have them? That's "compromise"?



Again, they worked hard, had talent, achieved, and purchased these benefits as a direct result of their own initiative. Who prevented anyone else from working just as hard or harder to achieve even more? Who is restricted from producing superior effort to wealthy folks who've produced to achieve their particular advantages, and why are they not allowed to enjoy the fruits of their hard work? Why do you think they have an unfair "advantage" simply because they worked harder? What's 'compromising" about that philosophy?




These are again direct results of reward and effort. If there is no ancillary reward for individual effort, what is the other incentive? Why do you want to remove the benefit of reward from individual effort? Where's the "compromise" in that philosophy?



If one works hard to achive these benefits, who else should benefit from them other than the person who worked hard to achieve them? Taking that effort away from the achievers removes their incentive to achieve. Where is there "compromise" removing an individual's personal incentive to achieve for themselves?



That's fine, but you would rather force those who worked for themselves to provide their rewards for those who did not work as hard to achive their lower results? Where is the "compromise" in that approach?



Perhaps, but those who worked even harder also achieved some measure of success for themselves and do get to see their families... yet you want to remove their initiative and give their results to those who didn't work as hard or perhaps didn't achieve as much from whatever hard work they did put into their efforts. Where is there a "compromise" for the ones who deserve the fruits of their labor before having it taken away and given to someone else who didn't work as hard?



Who defines the "help" and who defines what qualifies for it? Where is there "compromise" if those who are simply in need can demand the efforts of someone else to provide for them what they either can't or didn't provide for themselves? What sort of "compromise" is that?



Where is the "compromise" if those benefits are paid by those who already worked to acheve that for themselves? Why would anyone work harder if their effort is taken away and given to someone else, and why would those who are not motivated to work harder feel they even should try if "help" will always be provided to them regardless of how hard they work? Where's the "compromise" in that scenario?



A "fair" tax system would not require any "breaks" for anyone, since all would be paying the same rate. Where is the "compromis" if under your system those who have more money are the only ones who get a "break" and that tax break means those who earn less end up paying pay more? Where's the "compromise" in that?

There's no compromise in your way either now is there? You talk the talk

 

[Boomboom521]

Why not? I've asked you what superceded it? Still waiting for your answer.

What? IMO, common sense.

 

[atlkvb]

Most of them I didn't understand. So let's try again:

OK, from what traditions superceding Biblical accounts of Mariage did the institution emanate?

Cite it, link it, show me where it was in existence prior to being codified as a Religious sacrament from almighty God named and found in the Bible?

If I'm wrong about that just show me...that's my source of it. Just show me where I'm wrong about that?

 

[atlkvb]

There's no compromise in your way either now is there? You talk the talk

I'm just comparing and contrasting the two competing philosophies YOU said there was room to compromise in boom.

I didn't say you were wrong, I've asked questions to force you to prove you are correct.

Why don't you?

Why are you attacking me and all I'm doing is challenging your assumptions about the compatibility of two competing philosophies I've emphatically stated cannot be compromised?

Where am I wrong?

 

[atlkvb]

What? IMO, common sense.

OK, that's your answer directly to my question of "what superceded the Biblical accounts of Marriage as an institution'?

Common sense?

OK, got it.kay:

 

[old buzzard]

Lib snowflakes walk out. Don't want to hear something they don't agree wth. Cowards. Libs all over the country learning not to listen to someone opinion that is different than their own.

No need for them to listen to anyone else, they just graduated from college so now they know everything there is to know.....

 

[Boomboom521]

OK, from what traditions superceding Biblical accounts of Mariage did the institution emanate?

Cite it, link it, show me where it was in existence prior to being codified as a Religious sacrament from almighty God named and found in the Bible?

If I'm wrong about that just show me...that's my source of it. Just show me where I'm wrong about that?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ancient.eu/amp/2-688/

My personal source comes from s course I took in grad school on love and marriage taught from the text: "Marriage, a brief history: How Love Conquered Marriage" by Stephanie Coontz. In which marriage predates written history, and was used commonly in Mesopotamia.

You know the Iliad correct? Written in about 700bc? Helen was married to Menelaos.

 

[atlkvb]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ancient.eu/amp/2-688/

My personal source comes from s course I took in grad school on love and marriage taught from the text: "Marriage, a brief history: How Love Conquered Marriage" by Stephanie Coontz. In which marriage predates written history, and was used commonly in Mesopotamia.

You know the Iliad correct? Written in about 700bc? Helen was married to Menelaos.

Oh...OK...cool then.

 

[Boomboom521]

OK, that's your answer directly to my question of "what superceded the Biblical accounts of Marriage as an institution'?

Common sense?

OK, got it.kay:

Maybe you meant precede? Supercede is to take the place of.

GOT IT?

 

[atlkvb]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ancient.eu/amp/2-688/

My personal source comes from s course I took in grad school on love and marriage taught from the text: "Marriage, a brief history: How Love Conquered Marriage" by Stephanie Coontz. In which marriage predates written history, and was used commonly in Mesopotamia.

You know the Iliad correct? Written in about 700bc? Helen was married to Menelaos.

We are talking before the Bible right boomer my Man, not before Christ? Your claim was it existed as an institution prior to the Bible correct?

Or am I mistating your position?

 

[atlkvb]

Maybe you meant precede? Supercede is to take the place of.

GOT IT?

No boom, I meant what I said. What superceded it prior to its entry in the Bible? What was it? You said it existed as an institution prior to being codified in the Bible and I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just asking what superceded (took the place of) it prior to us reading about it as in institution in the Bible?

 

[Boomboom521]

I'm just comparing and contrasting the two competing philosophies YOU said there was room to compromise in boom.

I didn't say you were wrong, I've asked questions to force you to prove you are correct.

Why don't you?

Why are you attacking me and all I'm doing is challenging your assumptions about the compatibility of two competing philosophies I've emphatically stated cannot be compromised?

Where am I wrong?

Where are you wrong? In first.....your idea of what compromise is. You think a compromise is both sides getting what they want? In any compromise, concessions are given.

Now I reject your idealistic notion that low income earners didn't "work as hard" or are "less talented" than others that earn more. There are conditions in life that prevent some from advancing their socioeconomic status. But......

Any tax in general are already that compromise. The wealthy do not receive better military protection, better fire fighting services, or better roads (although questionable - and it shouldn't be) than those that pay less in taxes. They don't receive more votes. A compromise would be (for example) a uniform tax rate and programs to aid low income families OR higher tax rates for the wealthy but no programs to aid the low income families.

 

[atlkvb]

You know the Iliad correct? Written in about 700bc? Helen was married to Menelaos.

These times were prior to the rule of the Pharoh?

http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match

 

[atlkvb]

The wealthy do not receive better military protection, better fire fighting services, or better roads (although questionable - and it shouldn't be) than those that pay less in taxes. They don't receive more votes. A compromise would be (for example) a uniform tax rate and programs to aid low income families OR higher tax rates for the wealthy but no programs to aid the low income families.

A lot of what you say is correct here boomer, but you also stated that because they(rich people) have wealth, they have advantages the poor do not have so you are willing to remove some of those advantages and give them to the poor so things are more even.

That's fine if you think that way, but I am just asking where the compromise is? Compromise means someone gives up something in order for someone else to get something correct?

So what do the poor "give up" under your scenario?

 

[Boomboom521]

No boom, I meant what I said. What superceded it prior to its entry in the Bible? What was it? You said it existed as an institution prior to being codified in the Bible and I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just asking what superceded (took the place of) it prior to us reading about it as in institution in the Bible?

You have a very loaded and confusing way of asking questions. I'm not sure what you are asking. I think you're asking what marriage was (as an institution) prior to it being codified in the Bible?

It was a social institution that signified land ownership, bloodlines, clan identity, responsibility for the caringbof children and elders. A civil union that defined family.

 

[Boomboom521]

These times were prior to the rule of the Pharoh?

http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match

Could you just say what you want to say please. Stop trying to "set me up". It's really a chicksh!t way to discuss concepts.

 

[atlkvb]

I reject your idealistic notion that low income earners didn't "work as hard" or are "less talented" than others that earn more.

Imperically that is probably not true I'll agree with you on this. However in terms of results, which is the measurement I'm using to establish achievement it is most certainly true.

Wealthy people produce more, and are harder workers with more talent by in large than poorer wage earners.

Do poor people work hard? Absolutely!

Are they harder working or more talented than those who achieve more?

No.

 

[atlkvb]

Could you just say what you want to say please. Stop trying to "set me up". It's really a chicksh!t way to discuss concepts.

I'm asking questions to establish your frame of reference in answer to the question. boomer I honestly don't know. I gave you my specific frame of reference, give me yours...let's see who's correct.

You are so paranoid and all I'm doing is picking your brain, challenging your intellect...asking you to think?

Do you have have a problem with "thinking" or explaining your positions?

Good.

Let's keep talking...maybe we'll both learn something?

 

[TarHeelEer]

Homosexuals are born that way

You act like that matters.

 

[Boomboom521]

A lot of what you say is correct here boomer, but you also stated that because they(rich people) have wealth, they have advantages the poor do not have so you are willing to remove some of those advantages and give them to the poor so things are more even.

That's fine if you think that way, but I am just asking where the compromise is? Compromise means someone gives up something in order for someone else to get something correct?

So what do the poor "give up" under your scenario?

Poor people work not for themselves in a field, and reaping what the sow. They work for people that earn more off their work. What do they give up? Look at the price of cable, or attending a Yankee game. Costs go up for everyone, and low income families are giving a higher percentage of their income to enjoyment. Enjoyment of life.

But that's not the point. I don't seek these policies to "make things even", I seek these policies to make our nation stronger, safer and healthier. I believe these policies could cut crime, cut disease, cut unpaid costs to hospitals, and educate our children more thoroughly. These are benefits to all.

 

[Boomboom521]

I'm asking questions to establish your frame of reference in answer to the question. boomer I honestly don't know. I gave you my specific frame of reference, give me yours...let's see who's correct.

You are so paranoid and all I'm doing is picking your brain, challenging your intellect...asking you to think?

Do you have have a problem with "thinking" or explaining your positions?

Good.

Let's keep talking...maybe we'll both learn something?

What? Another high and mighty Christian response. I've got something against thinking now?

MARRIAGE PREDATES WRITTEN HISTORY! Do you have a rebuttal of that statement?

 

[Boomboom521]

Imperically that is probably not true I'll agree with you on this. However in terms of results, which is the measurement I'm using to establish achievement it is most certainly true.

Wealthy people produce more, and are harder workers with more talent by in large than poorer wage earners.

Do poor people work hard? Absolutely!

Are they harder working or more talented than those who achieve more?

No.

A lot of generalities in that post. Some that are wealthier were more opportunistic and live with less integrity too.

 

[atlkvb]

You have a very loaded and confusing way of asking questions. I'm not sure what you are asking. I think you're asking what marriage was (as an institution) prior to it being codified in the Bible?

It was a social institution that signified land ownership, bloodlines, clan identity, responsibility for the caringbof children and elders. A civil union that defined family.

That's all I asked. Remember I said my reference of it as a "Religious" institution was in the Bible. That's my frame of reference. You said it existed prior to Biblical times so I simply asked where? How? In what form?

That article you linked me to was very interesting, and it does indeed show Marriage was a form of social organization but not prior to it being mentioned in the Bible, just during a different time reference.

I'm not sure you read that whole article but I did and it had some interesting ideas on what traditional Marriage was during those time references. For instance "pro creation" between a man and woman? That's totally anti-"PC" by today's standards boom wouldn't you agree?

Here (from your linked article)
"As the primary purpose of marriage, as far as society was concerned, was to produce children, a man could add as many concubines to his home as he could afford. The continuation of the family line was most important and so concubines were fairly common in cases where the wife was ill, in generally poor health, or infertile"


Now I don't know about you, but I find that fascinating.

What would the LGBTQ crowd say about that? And the whole idea of Men being able to screw whoever they wanted to keep their Family bloodline going is something even I might get used to boom...I'm just saying.

It was a good piece, but it doesn't disprove my origninal thought about where Marriage as a Religious sacrament came from, and where it first appeared to us ( in the Bible)

But honestly, it was an interesting read. Thanks for linking it.

 

[atlkvb]

A lot of generalities in that post. Some that are wealthier were more opportunistic and live with less integrity too.

All True...but we are speaking in generalities for the purposes of our comparison to see where we can compromise OK?

 

[atlkvb]

What? Another high and mighty Christian response. I've got something against thinking now?

MARRIAGE PREDATES WRITTEN HISTORY! Do you have a rebuttal of that statement?

No, because that's all we have to compare. But 700BC does not predate the Bible boom.

The Egyptian Pharohs existed thousands of years prior to Christ, and Marriage was very prominent in that society which also pre-dates Greek mythology.

 

[Boomboom521]

That's all I asked. Remember I said my reference of it as a "Religious" institution was in the Bible. That's my frame of reference. you said it existed prior to Biblical times so I simply asked where? How? In what form?

That article you linked me to was very interesting, and it does indeed show Marriage was a form of social organization but not prior to it being mentioned in the Bible, just during a different time reference.

I'm not sure you read that whole article but I did and it had some interesting ideas on what traditional Marriage was during those time references. For instance "pro creation" between a man and woman? That's totally anti-"PC" by today's standards boom wouldn't you agree?

Here (from your linked article)
"As the primary purpose of marriage, as far as society was concerned, was to produce children, a man could add as many concubines to his home as he could afford. The continuation of the family line was most important and so concubines were fairly common in cases where the wife was ill, in generally poor health, or infertile"


Now I don't know about you, but I find that fascinating.

What would the LGBTQ crowd say about that? And the whole idea of Men being able to screw whoever they wanted to keep their Family bloodline going is something even I might get used to boom...I'm just saying.

It was a good piece, but it doesn't disprove my origninal thought about where Marriage as a Religious sacrament came from, and where it first appeared to us ( in the Bible)

But honestly, it was an interesting read. Thanks for linking it.

Are you saying to me that ancient Mesopotamia doesn't predate the Bible?

 

[Boomboom521]

No, because that's all we haver to compare. But 700BC does not predate the Bible boom.

The Egyptian Pharohs existed thousands of years prior to Christ, and Marriage was very prominent in that society which also pre-dates Greek mythology.

Wasn't the Bible written in the 6th century BC? The Old Testament that is.....the one that is often thrown out do to the massive contradictions within it?

 

[atlkvb]

Are you saying to me that ancient Mesopotamia doesn't predate the Bible?

Honestly as I stated boom I'm not sure. There is a debate about that. Personally no I don't believe it did, but there is a legitimate debate about that.

Here:
http://www.creationstudies.org/articles/who-is-god/341-ancient-sumerian

 

[atlkvb]

Wasn't the Bible written in the 6th century BC? The Old Testament that is.....the one that is often thrown out do to the massive contradictions within it?

It began to be compiled by then sure boom. but parts of it were written well before then. It's actually a fascinating study how it all came together. Across thousands of years, yet all the stories were consistent (prophecies) even Exodus was written well before it actually happened and the prohecies in it all were fulfilled to perfection thousands of years after those stories were written!

Here's the other thing boom...those authors didn't know each other. There was no "collusion" to borrow a popular phrase from today. They were writing only from their own revelations about events they had no idea were going to happen EXACTLY as they predicted.

Isn't that amazing?

 

[atlkvb]

Poor people work not for themselves in a field, and reaping what the sow. They work for people that earn more off their work. What do they give up? Look at the price of cable, or attending a Yankee game. Costs go up for everyone, and low income families are giving a higher percentage of their income to enjoyment. Enjoyment of life.

But that's not the point. I don't seek these policies to "make things even", I seek these policies to make our nation stronger, safer and healthier. I believe these policies could cut crime, cut disease, cut unpaid costs to hospitals, and educate our children more thoroughly. These are benefits to all.

That's all fine boom, but you can't "force" people of higher means to pay for your utopia?

What do they want to do with their money that's different from your plans? Why do you get to dicate how they should spend what they've worked hard to earn and achieve?

 

[Boomboom521]

That's all fine boom, but you can't "force" people of higher means to pay for your utopia?

What do they want to do with their money that's different from your plans? Why do you get to dicate how they should spend what they've worked hard to earn and achieve?

i elect people that vote on how the revenues are spent.

 

[atlkvb]

i elect people that vote on how the revenues are spent.

Yes, we all do boom, but we're debating on what should it be spent on, and more importantly who does the spending?

I favor the people who earn the money. Forced complaince for social philantropy only benefits the politicians who can promise to take from one group and give to another. All of us like free stuff and the politicos know that so they promise to take from those who have to give to those who want or demand, setting themselves up as arbitrators over who gets to spend what's confiscated to redistribute.

There is NO compromise in that scenario.

 

[Boomboom521]

Yes, we all do boom, but we're debating on what should it be spent on, and more importantly who does the spending?

I favor the people who earn the money. Forced complaince for social philantropy only benefits the politicians who can promise to take from one group and give to another. All of us like free stuff and the politicos know that so they promise to take from those who have to give to those who want or demand, setting themselves up as arbitrators over who gets to spend what's confiscated to redistribute.

There is NO compromise in that scenario.

Very simplistic way of looking at social welfare programs

 

[atlkvb]

Very simplistic way of looking at social welfare programs

boomer, unfortunately that is the way business is done today with our modern tax and spend social welfare programs. They do not exist to emancipate people from need into independence. They exist to trap people into a life of dependence on Government, and the politicians who promise to keep the umbilical cord attached for free stuff at the expense of others who are villified for not paying their "fair share".

There is no "compromise" in that formula boomer.


I know you don't like it described that way, but I don't like it being run that way either.