Immigration and multiculturalism news

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
You are putting words in Jesus's mouth he did not state, that's a sin. Jesus also said things in the old testament when the Jews had an actual state. Can you show where he put a "limit" on taxes? Jesus said through the apostles OBEY THE EARTHLY RULERS unless they order something contrary to God's law, the best argument for a rebellion against the ruler for tax reasons under a christian framework is that if the ruler takes that much it would lead to the people dying and them obeying that is suicide. But that would require some very high taxes in a non rich area.
Jews were not self-ruling in that age either.
Even before, when they did have a king, well, they had a ruler, that king, who was not even an elected king, nor even a hereditary constitutional monarchy.
Fortunately for you, sucking at reading is not a sin.
Though i'm a bit curious what exactly was Jesus saying in the Old Testament of all the books, i'm sure everyone is eager to find out.
Yes that is the job of the representative, hell the absolute monarch has a duty to take care of his people to the best of their knowledge and ability though he does not have to follow their will. But here is the things you are not getting first off the representative does not represent YOU specefically he represents ALL of his constituents you make up less than 1% of that.
Yes, he represents his electorate. Yes, the dodgy situation doesn't happen when i and my 2 buddies think he's doing bullshit though most of the country thinks he's the best dude ever, the dodgy situation starts when it's hard to find any people who support his bullshit yet he's doing it anyway.
So the collective as a whole if they don't like it they can vote him out in the next election, but if he got elected once unless he hid many things what he is doing probably is not against the will of most of the people. Also even if most people disliked it in a Republic not everything is up for a vote, the unpopular actions of the leader are still legitimate, unless a recall election is possible and actually done. Until that happens a Christian MUST obey those rules.
Obey laws, yes. But that cannot be contradictory with taking political action towards deposing said politicians, propagandizing against them, lobbying against them, even prosecuting them up to capital punishment if the constitution allows that.

Well theft from the public treasury was a thing Romans had, and it was probably punished more than we do. But beside the point, first off these actions don't fit stealing from the public treasury. Using funds for something you don't like does not meet the defintion. If isolationists get in power and they prosecute people who were giving things to Ukraine for example, that would not be stealing it's being done openly it's voting on the budget. Just because you don't like how every penny is spent does not give you the right to contest it.
Stealing doesn't stop being stealing if done openly, that's a terrible argument.
Supporting Ukraine is part of foreign policy including specific goals in regard to widely recognized rival powers.
What national interest does giving away money to random shitholes serve?

Thats a very very very fine line. You can't just overthrow the ruler because he is mediocre and you have a better one lined up. Before you can even put into place your coup or treason the leader has to either be committing grave sins himself, making laws hostile to Christianity, or being actively malicious towards his own people and trying to get them to basically sin and suicide themselves. And before all that he should be warned that the effects he is doing are hurting his people and are a sin. And only if he persists THEN it is justifiable to rebel. Not many leaders in history and rebellions were this bad. The American Revolution for example did not reach this standard, the Revolutionary Army sinned and the Founding Fathers sinned greatly.
Except the people doing the overthrowing are the ones to do the judging of whether he's bad enough, not you.
Also there is a perfectly legal process for overthrowing merely mediocre rulers, at least in democratic western countries, it's called an election.


Ok this is just a shit argument. Show proof that he stole the bread from the mouths of American, that he kicked out Americans already staying there to make room for the immigrants.
There is a finite amount of resources to give to charity, what he gave to the foreign poor he didn't spend on the locals, and no one is going to argue that the local ones have too much.

That's not what happened unless that money was already earmarked for poor Americans and it was taken away you don't have a leg to stand on with this argument. No the money was from a general fund that would go towards anything, roads, the army, other government programs.
>could
No, it doesn't randomly go wherever it feels, the same decisionmakers control where every single dollar goes, wherever it goes or doesn't, it's their decision.

You say oh that money could have been used to help Americans, yes it could have but would it have been? "Fiscal Conservatives" would have bitched and moaned about anything that helped poor Americans if we took money and used it to build houses for every homeless American they'd bitch and moan. But not for a giant military, not to give lots of cash to other nations.
They have their own arguments too, and they also argue from the position of national interest, which you seem to be dodging pathologically.

I was responding to your think about Christian charity and an absolute ruler. God will reward senators who vote for helping the poor, and probably won't reward those who instead disdain that and prefer to keep giving more money for our bloated military.
So by your standards socialists are good Christians because they want to heavily tax everyone and then give away the revenue to the poor?
There is not a set number, I'm not sure if you understand but Christianity is not Judaism or Islam with their meticulous rules. Is the leader giving all the nations wealth to another nation in a parody of colonialism? Anyway let's do a parable how much funds does a father need to send out to other poor families for it to become a sin rather than a virtue? The answer is pretty obvious as long as he is making sure to feed, clothe, and home his own family it is a virtue.
So you're implying that the line is the poverty line, and Christians should give away all wealth they have beyond what is absolutely necessary for a spartan, minimalist lifestyle?
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
Why does the government need more than 10% of our income as taxes when that is all God asks for?
Funnily enough God is pretty anti monarchy since that comes from 1 Samuel and God says that if he gives Israel the king they are asking for he will do all these things including taking a tenth of their produce.

But a few things first this is the old law it applies to a specific people for a specific time. You can take elements of it and apply it otherwise, and I personally think many things should continue to be applied and this is one of them 10% is a good even tax rate. But I don't think God ever gave a limit to a tax rate, with the Romans Jesus asked whose picture was on the coin, and was responded with Caesar then said give unto Caesar what is Caesar and God what is God's.

But yeah even though I would love and support a 10% tax rate and you can make an argument that the government should have one to emulate certain religious practices from our past the other thing Christians need to be mindful of is that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. If we can make it one great, but it has never been one in the past.



It's like you're determined to be wrong about literally everything.

Marduk has done a fairly good take-down of your specific points, but there's one thing he hasn't addressed.


Welfare does not help, it actively makes things worse.

We have decades of proof now, about how welfare promotes intergenerational serfdom, single motherhood, high crime, and functionally turns lower classes into serfs whose only expected service to their overlords is voting.
Ah the protestant answer for ignoring Christ's commands to help the poor jerking off the Libertarian argument "Muh Wellfare does not work!"
There are arguments against the way wellfare is applied. But giving all citizens something for free does not promote intergenerational serfdom. Healthcare for example, I don't like the example of the UK, or Canada because there ARE arguments that it is bad. But Japan ALSO has universal healthcare and their people are healthy and long lived, they might have the record for the most long lived people. Part of it is genetic, but there are also social factors. Also giving people free homes is both cheaper and more moral than other conservative methods of dealing with the homeless.

Jews were not self-ruling in that age either.
Even before, when they did have a king, well, they had a ruler, that king, who was not even an elected king, nor even a hereditary constitutional monarchy.
Fortunately for you, sucking at reading is not a sin.
Though i'm a bit curious what exactly was Jesus saying in the Old Testament of all the books, i'm sure everyone is eager to find out.
Wait what? What do you mean the Jews were not self ruling at the time of the old testament? They literally had their own king not a foreign one or occupied one(yes I know sometimes they lost and were enslaved, I'm talking about in general) The Jews did rule themselves for stretches of time. Also that last sentence you are asking what Jesus said in the Old Testament? You are Catholic right, do you not know that Jesus is God? Every time God speaks in the old testament Jesus is also there? The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one. Are you some kind of Arian and say that Jesus is a separate being from the Father?

Yes, he represents his electorate. Yes, the dodgy situation doesn't happen when i and my 2 buddies think he's doing bullshit though most of the country thinks he's the best dude ever, the dodgy situation starts when it's hard to find any people who support his bullshit yet he's doing it anyway.
It's dodgy but it's still legal, because you don't vote for a perfect canidate who the people agree on their every vision. If the people voted for him because of a second policy, and they dislike the first policy. Both are still valid unless he is recalled legally.

Obey laws, yes. But that cannot be contradictory with taking political action towards deposing said politicians, propagandizing against them, lobbying against them, even prosecuting them up to capital punishment if the constitution allows that.
If all of those things are legal then yes you can do them as a Christian, depending on the policy. If the unpopular policy is something a Christian SHOULD do for example ban abortion but 60% of people are atheists and they protest this, a Christian would be prohibited from protesting this.

Stealing doesn't stop being stealing if done openly, that's a terrible argument.
Supporting Ukraine is part of foreign policy including specific goals in regard to widely recognized rival powers.
What national interest does giving away money to random shitholes serve?
TAXATION IS NOT THEFT! The government has a right to taxation! Listen theft is taking a thing that is not mine that I have no right to from someone else. You said the government earlier had a right to levy a 10% tax so if they go to high it's theft? 10% ok 11% theft? Listen if I go into your house and at gunpoint take one penny away from you I have sinned and I have stolen, the same if I go into your house and take one million dollars away from you. The penalty might be different but the law broken is the same. That is the differance there is no "I'm allowed to take a penny from you but not 1 million dollars." I don't have a right to any of it, the government does however have a right to levy a tax.

Except the people doing the overthrowing are the ones to do the judging of whether he's bad enough, not you.
Also there is a perfectly legal process for overthrowing merely mediocre rulers, at least in democratic western countries, it's called an election.
Yes, and a Christian can vote out the sitting ruler in a democracy.

There is a finite amount of resources to give to charity, what he gave to the foreign poor he didn't spend on the locals, and no one is going to argue that the local ones have too much.
>could
No, it doesn't randomly go wherever it feels, the same decisionmakers control where every single dollar goes, wherever it goes or doesn't, it's their decision.
Listen not all resources are used, That money would not have gone to help the poor. The "fiscal conservatives" are stingy penny pinchers who only care about appeasing the rich with low tax rates. No they would try to block any aid to American poor.

They have their own arguments too, and they also argue from the position of national interest, which you seem to be dodging pathologically.
I started by saying it's against Christian morals to complain about this, mostly towards hypocritical protestant conservatives. But there are some reasons why it would be in the national interest to help refugees. First off if everyone does that it improves diplomatic good will, people helping their common man are more likely to be helped in turn as opposed to some greedy asshole whose only in it for #1.

I mean why did religions that were pagans and did not have the light of God come up with ideas of guest right and Xenia? Because not only is charity towards our fellow man good morally/spiritually,etc. It also makes it more likely that others will follow that behavior and it will help everyone.

If there are greedy people trying to free ride then they can be cut off.

So by your standards socialists are good Christians because they want to heavily tax everyone and then give away the revenue to the poor?
No what a stupid question, standard socialists are atheists and are going to hell.

So you're implying that the line is the poverty line, and Christians should give away all wealth they have beyond what is absolutely necessary for a spartan, minimalist lifestyle?
What did Jesus say to the rich man? That is the ideal, but you don't have to reach the ideal. That's the beauty of grace, you don't have to live as a mendicant, you can leave enough to have a comfortable home, food, clothes, etc. But if you are being extravagant AND greedy yes God will call you out for it and chastise you. I can't believe I have to explain basic things like this to you.

Charity to your detriment isn't required, right? Revoking hospitality when your guest rapes your daughter, pisses in your foodstuffs, and murders your son, is okay, yeah? Even in ye olden days.

King Arts' fundamental position is wrong just based on that.
My fundamental position is not wrong just because you are adding in a bunch of shit, that was not part of the original discussion. It's like coming in to someone saying genocide and concentration camps are wrong then you say "But what if the people who are in the concentration camps deserve it because they are all pedo rapists, and terrorists, and sabatoged the nation they were in."

Anyway to answer your question it is perfectly fine to revoke hospitality when your guest disrespects you like that, ideally a Christian should only punish the actual guilty party. But historically killing the whole clan of the people responsible for breaking guest right by raping your daughter or killing your son, or stealing from you was accepted.

I'm a traditionalist so I would not object to such actions but many faux conservatives will "But muh constitution muh 8th ammendment, this sounds like Sharia! We are civilized Westerners!"
 

Skitzyfrenic

Well-known member
Anyway to answer your question it is perfectly fine to revoke hospitality when your guest disrespects you like that, ideally a Christian should only punish the actual guilty party. But historically killing the whole clan of the people responsible for breaking guest right by raping your daughter or killing your son, or stealing from you was accepted.

And how is causing damage to the hotel, destroying it's furniture, and ruining and leaving food waste not poor guest behavior breaking hospitality?

As an ideally Christian move, we should deport them, not keep them in four star hotels where they can continue to piss and shit all over what we give them.

These people, in this particular instance, have broken guest right to the point where they should be deported. As they are actually guilty of these acts, we should punish them.

Then we can worry about the migrants who are 'guests' in our country, receiving tax based hospitality by your logic, who are incredibly disproportionately rapists, murderers, and more.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
ALSO has universal healthcare and their people are healthy and long lived, they might have the record for the most long lived people. Part of it is genetic, but there are also social factors. Also giving people free homes is both cheaper and more moral than other conservative methods of dealing with the homeless.
Japan has the advantage of the legal and social system being perfectly able to intervene into personal matters beyond what western ones are willing to, which is of great use towards limiting exploits people may perform against all these socialist housing, healthcare or welfare policies.
As in for example businesses getting punished for their employees being fatsos (yes, they have to measure that), and in turn being not just allowed, but encouraged to discriminate against them.
Whether you want the government to have this level of authority over personal lives or not is a political matter, but you have to admit that giving it to existing governments would just result in them wielding it in not exactly socially beneficial way.

Likewise if you think "just give the homeless homes" is a solution that gives you away as either ignorant of the issues involved or a socialist shitposter if you think it is serious.

To point at these issues, i will give you something that could be a valid compromise, that will, however, will be utterly unacceptable to the typical people pushing this non-solution:
a) The government gets to decide where the free housing in question is located, and it does not need to be, in fact shouldn't be an area where ordinary citizens pay a lot for real estate on the free market.
Instead it should be an area of cheap real estate, with good availability of unskilled labor jobs.
b) If the free housing receivers damage that housing beyond the degree of reasonable wear due to ordinary use, they will be required to pay for the repairs. Continuing destruction of the free housing way beyond reasonable levels and/or constant and stubborn non-payment for it will result in a sentence of hard labor until the damage is repaid twice.
c) Abandonment of the free housing in favor of being homeless in a large city to pursue classical homeless activities like crime or panhandling will result in a hard labor sentence.

Wait what? What do you mean the Jews were not self ruling at the time of the old testament? They literally had their own king not a foreign one or occupied one(yes I know sometimes they lost and were enslaved, I'm talking about in general) The Jews did rule themselves for stretches of time. Also that last sentence you are asking what Jesus said in the Old Testament? You are Catholic right, do you not know that Jesus is God? Every time God speaks in the old testament Jesus is also there? The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one. Are you some kind of Arian and say that Jesus is a separate being from the Father?
Jews were absolutely not self-ruling at the time of Jesus, and before that, they were only self-ruling in the terms of absolute monarchy, rather than any sort of self-rule by citizens, direct or representative.
I'd like to note that the Old and New Testament have a bunch of contradictions that have been a controversy between Jews and Christians for ages, but however you explain that, it's something for a different discussion.
It's dodgy but it's still legal, because you don't vote for a perfect canidate who the people agree on their every vision. If the people voted for him because of a second policy, and they dislike the first policy. Both are still valid unless he is recalled legally.
What if most people wanted policy A, the candidate said he will do policy A, got elected, and then doesn't do policy A, does policy B that had 10% support because screw you?

If all of those things are legal then yes you can do them as a Christian, depending on the policy. If the unpopular policy is something a Christian SHOULD do for example ban abortion but 60% of people are atheists and they protest this, a Christian would be prohibited from protesting this.
Well of course why would you protest something that you agree with, the rest, well, it's a matter of interpretations of religion and whether someone is a hypocrite about it or not.

TAXATION IS NOT THEFT! The government has a right to taxation!
Then why can't i proclaim myself a king and tax you?
The government, in a democracy, has whatever rights the sovereign/constitution says it has, and they are in no way unlimited.

Listen theft is taking a thing that is not mine that I have no right to from someone else. You said the government earlier had a right to levy a 10% tax so if they go to high it's theft? 10% ok 11% theft? Listen if I go into your house and at gunpoint take one penny away from you I have sinned and I have stolen, the same if I go into your house and take one million dollars away from you. The penalty might be different but the law broken is the same. That is the differance there is no "I'm allowed to take a penny from you but not 1 million dollars." I don't have a right to any of it, the government does however have a right to levy a tax.
Only in some reasonable degree and circumstances. The government can't go "we will levy any fucking tax we want and spend it however we want, fuck you, none of your business what we spend it on", by the standards of western world that would be a tyrannical government and is not legitimate.
That's the idea of limits - 10% taxation is small government, 50% taxation is big government i'm not happy with, 99% taxation is communism with the label taken off and should be treated accordingly.
Yes, and a Christian can vote out the sitting ruler in a democracy.
So what are we arguing about again?

Listen not all resources are used, That money would not have gone to help the poor. The "fiscal conservatives" are stingy penny pinchers who only care about appeasing the rich with low tax rates. No they would try to block any aid to American poor.
Stingy penny pinching is another term for good stewardship of public finances, so YMMV. Your attempts at mindreading and future telling are noted and duly discarded with vicious laughter. If you like hyperinflation, you can have hyperinflation, just please do it away from any of those fiscal conservatives, like Venezuela, their liberation theologians would love your argument here.

I started by saying it's against Christian morals to complain about this, mostly towards hypocritical protestant conservatives. But there are some reasons why it would be in the national interest to help refugees. First off if everyone does that it improves diplomatic good will, people helping their common man are more likely to be helped in turn as opposed to some greedy asshole whose only in it for #1.
Ah, the mythical goodwill argument, the banner of teenage internet socialists. Giving a tenth of the money as a bribe to their el presidente would give you far more effective diplomatic goodwill.
While the migrants who stay in your country... completely irrelevant to the diplomatic influence over their home country.
Also your literal karma argument for bloody international aid is hilariously unrealistic.
In reality, countries giving away money lightly will be flooded with demands for more free money, and outright butthurt from those who don't get what they wanted.
Greedy assholes are the ones who are respected and get things done.

I mean why did religions that were pagans and did not have the light of God come up with ideas of guest right and Xenia? Because not only is charity towards our fellow man good morally/spiritually,etc. It also makes it more likely that others will follow that behavior and it will help everyone.
They existed exactly in the circumstances i've described. When situations closer to modern problems have arisen, like with the Rome migrations, this attitude didn't survive.

If there are greedy people trying to free ride then they can be cut off.
Well then there you have your answer.

No what a stupid question, standard socialists are atheists and are going to hell.
May i interest you in liberation theology?

What did Jesus say to the rich man? That is the ideal, but you don't have to reach the ideal. That's the beauty of grace, you don't have to live as a mendicant, you can leave enough to have a comfortable home, food, clothes, etc. But if you are being extravagant AND greedy yes God will call you out for it and chastise you. I can't believe I have to explain basic things like this to you.
Yet the medieval kings and nobles, of the age that seems closer to your idea of social organization, who were taking religion far more seriously than most of us, universally had quite a different idea there.
Moreover, you're applying this not even to individuals and their free will disposition of own wealth, but to the government disposing citizen's wealth through taxes to make them take a step or dozen towards being mendicants whether they like it or not.
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
And how is causing damage to the hotel, destroying it's furniture, and ruining and leaving food waste not poor guest behavior breaking hospitality?

As an ideally Christian move, we should deport them, not keep them in four star hotels where they can continue to piss and shit all over what we give them.

These people, in this particular instance, have broken guest right to the point where they should be deported. As they are actually guilty of these acts, we should punish them.

Then we can worry about the migrants who are 'guests' in our country, receiving tax based hospitality by your logic, who are incredibly disproportionately rapists, murderers, and more.
Yes I have no problem with expelling ungrateful migrants but that’s not what people were complaining about they were saying “Us putting migrants in 4 star hotels! What is this?!” If they went instead with “We put them up in these nice hotels and they destroyed the. Kick out the ungrateful bastards, that would be ok.

Japan has the advantage of the legal and social system being perfectly able to intervene into personal matters beyond what western ones are willing to, which is of great use towards limiting exploits people may perform against all these socialist housing, healthcare or welfare policies.
As in for example businesses getting punished for their employees being fatsos (yes, they have to measure that), and in turn being not just allowed, but encouraged to discriminate against them.
Whether you want the government to have this level of authority over personal lives or not is a political matter, but you have to admit that giving it to existing governments would just result in them wielding it in not exactly socially beneficial way.

Likewise if you think "just give the homeless homes" is a solution that gives you away as either ignorant of the issues involved or a socialist shitposter if you think it is serious.

To point at these issues, i will give you something that could be a valid compromise, that will, however, will be utterly unacceptable to the typical people pushing this non-solution:
a) The government gets to decide where the free housing in question is located, and it does not need to be, in fact shouldn't be an area where ordinary citizens pay a lot for real estate on the free market.
Instead it should be an area of cheap real estate, with good availability of unskilled labor jobs.
b) If the free housing receivers damage that housing beyond the degree of reasonable wear due to ordinary use, they will be required to pay for the repairs. Continuing destruction of the free housing way beyond reasonable levels and/or constant and stubborn non-payment for it will result in a sentence of hard labor until the damage is repaid twice.
c) Abandonment of the free housing in favor of being homeless in a large city to pursue classical homeless activities like crime or panhandling will result in a hard labor sentence.
That sounds perfectly fine I have no problem with any of that.


Jews were absolutely not self-ruling at the time of Jesus, and before that, they were only self-ruling in the terms of absolute monarchy, rather than any sort of self-rule by citizens, direct or representative.
I'd like to note that the Old and New Testament have a bunch of contradictions that have been a controversy between Jews and Christians for ages, but however you explain that, it's something for a different discussion.
They were self ruling the king was a Jew. Fuck this worship of liberal Western representation as long as the king even if he is an absolute king is not a foreign person or religious you have self rule.

What if most people wanted policy A, the candidate said he will do policy A, got elected, and then doesn't do policy A, does policy B that had 10% support because screw you?
Are you asking me what should be done ideally? The penalty should be death for that politician, something that your precious western government system has never done.

Then why can't i proclaim myself a king and tax you?
The government, in a democracy, has whatever rights the sovereign/constitution says it has, and they are in no way unlimited.
Because you can’t beat the US Army if you were Superman or were a super genius who built an army of kill bots the. Killed off the previous government then declared yourself king. Then after that victory Christians would be obliged to obey you as the king. Legitimacy does not come from the consent of the governed the Bible never mentions or promotes democracy.

Only in some reasonable degree and circumstances. The government can't go "we will levy any fucking tax we want and spend it however we want, fuck you, none of your business what we spend it on", by the standards of western world that would be a tyrannical government and is not legitimate.
That's the idea of limits - 10% taxation is small government, 50% taxation is big government i'm not happy with, 99% taxation is communism with the label taken off and should be treated accordingly.
I don’t give a fuck what modern liberal western world considers legitimate or tyrannical. I was talking about from a Christian perspective if the government does pull that shit and says “We will levy any tax we want and spend it however we want.” Then it is a sin for a Christian to rebel, and if you die in the attempt you will go to hell.

So what are we arguing about again?
I was calling out what I saw as corruption.

Stingy penny pinching is another term for good stewardship of public finances, so YMMV. Your attempts at mindreading and future telling are noted and duly discarded with vicious laughter. If you like hyperinflation, you can have hyperinflation, just please do it away from any of those fiscal conservatives, like Venezuela, their liberation theologians would love your argument here.
No no it’s not especially when they spend such bloat on the military or socialist policies that they benefit from like say Medicare.

Ah, the mythical goodwill argument, the banner of teenage internet socialists. Giving a tenth of the money as a bribe to their el presidente would give you far more effective diplomatic goodwill.
While the migrants who stay in your country... completely irrelevant to the diplomatic influence over their home country.
Also your literal karma argument for bloody international aid is hilariously unrealistic.
In reality, countries giving away money lightly will be flooded with demands for more free money, and outright butthurt from those who don't get what they wanted.
Greedy assholes are the ones who are respected and get things done.
Umm no they are not, greedy assholes just do well in the current time because our shitty government protects bad actors.

They existed exactly in the circumstances i've described. When situations closer to modern problems have arisen, like with the Rome migrations, this attitude didn't survive.
Umm those migrations were more like invasions then migrations.

I’m not Catholic so I can’t tell if someone is or is not a heretic. But it seems like that is not a natural manifestation of Christianity and a thin attempt of communists trying to infiltrate the church the fact they seem to use Marxist terms shows that. It’s not them calling out the rich or caring for the poor that is the problem but that they seem to be actively political instead of faith based.

Yet the medieval kings and nobles, of the age that seems closer to your idea of social organization, who were taking religion far more seriously than most of us, universally had quite a different idea there.
Moreover, you're applying this not even to individuals and their free will disposition of own wealth, but to the government disposing citizen's wealth through taxes to make them take a step or dozen towards being mendicants whether they like it or not.
Umm the medieval kings actually were not that extravagant sure they were rich but the sheer indulgence came about in the early modern period. Medieval kings were warriors they had to be on the battlefield and lead men they could not be seen as soft and weak.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Yes I have no problem with expelling ungrateful migrants but that’s not what people were complaining about they were saying “Us putting migrants in 4 star hotels! What is this?!” If they went instead with “We put them up in these nice hotels and they destroyed the. Kick out the ungrateful bastards, that would be ok.
And rightfully so. It's ridiculous to sponsor 4 star hotels for international beggars at best, when most citizens cannot afford to stay in a 4 star hotel for a vacation. Put them in army surplus tents in podunk nowhere. If they don't like their comforts, they are free to go home.
That sounds perfectly fine I have no problem with any of that.
Then why aren't you proposing compromises like this, instead of granting support to the lavish socialist variations of these policies?

They were self ruling the king was a Jew. Fuck this worship of liberal Western representation as long as the king even if he is an absolute king is not a foreign person or religious you have self rule.
Third world says hi. "Liberal western representation" works, if you think it sucks, look at the "self-rule" in third world countries with a specific rulers, including the Christian ones, go live there if you like what you see, and leave us filthy liberals alone. If i can ask a favor, once you get there, explain to the locals why they should stop trying to get to us filthy liberals and live among us at our cost.


Are you asking me what should be done ideally? The penalty should be death for that politician, something that your precious western government system has never done.
At least lately. They used to do it historically, and not that long time ago.

Because you can’t beat the US Army if you were Superman or were a super genius who built an army of kill bots the. Killed off the previous government then declared yourself king. Then after that victory Christians would be obliged to obey you as the king. Legitimacy does not come from the consent of the governed the Bible never mentions or promotes democracy.
Well guess then you subscribe to Mao's theory on this: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". Though Mao is more honest and doesn't dress it up in flowery terms like legitimacy.


I don’t give a fuck what modern liberal western world considers legitimate or tyrannical. I was talking about from a Christian perspective if the government does pull that shit and says “We will levy any tax we want and spend it however we want.” Then it is a sin for a Christian to rebel, and if you die in the attempt you will go to hell.
Have you considered getting a job with the CCP? Heard they have opportunities for people willing to explain to Christians why should they be good subjects to a terrible government with no complaining, just saying.

No no it’s not especially when they spend such bloat on the military or socialist policies that they benefit from like say Medicare.
For one military is one of most widely recognized things government should in fact be legitimately spending money on, and it always was, literally since ancient times.
What was the government sponsored healthcare under ancient Jewish kings?


Umm no they are not, greedy assholes just do well in the current time because our shitty government protects bad actors.
How very navel gazing of you. I see plenty greedy assholes outside of the western world also doing great for themselves, in some ways even better than the ones in the western world. Of course their governments also protect them, if they don't just simply become synonymous with being the government.

Umm those migrations were more like invasions then migrations.
My point exactly, so is this one.

I’m not Catholic so I can’t tell if someone is or is not a heretic. But it seems like that is not a natural manifestation of Christianity and a thin attempt of communists trying to infiltrate the church the fact they seem to use Marxist terms shows that. It’s not them calling out the rich or caring for the poor that is the problem but that they seem to be actively political instead of faith based.
So you have nothing to say about their socioeconomic proposition, only that they choose it for what you suspect to be wrong reasons?


Umm the medieval kings actually were not that extravagant sure they were rich but the sheer indulgence came about in the early modern period. Medieval kings were warriors they had to be on the battlefield and lead men they could not be seen as soft and weak.
Most kings were not warriors, and for a good chunk of their rule they simply weren't in the physical shape to be warriors due to age if nothing else. And by the standards of their time they were as extravagant as one could technically be. The stereotypical warrior king was more of a rarity, usually found in early medieval age rather than late, and lucky to have the actual title of a king, more often being a prince, chieftain, jarl or something like that.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
And rightfully so. It's ridiculous to sponsor 4 star hotels for international beggars at best, when most citizens cannot afford to stay in a 4 star hotel for a vacation. Put them in army surplus tents in podunk nowhere. If they don't like their comforts, they are free to go home.
What is with this asshole mentality. “No give them the bare minimum fuck them.”

Then why aren't you proposing compromises like this, instead of granting support to the lavish socialist variations of these policies?
Is there No pleasing you? I already said earlier the government has the right to spend money on whatever. I don’t give a fuck about the opinions of fiscal conservatives, they along with racists are the reason that conservatives are outnumbered by the left.

Third world says hi. "Liberal western representation" works, if you think it sucks, look at the "self-rule" in third world countries with a specific rulers, including the Christian ones, go live there if you like what you see, and leave us filthy liberals alone. If i can ask a favor, once you get there, explain to the locals why they should stop trying to get to us filthy liberals and live among us at our cost.
Lol what? No they aren’t they are getting influenced and have to deal with modern day colonialism from the western nations and maybe occasionally China. Also many of those nations you decry in Africa try to be liberal western nations.

At least lately. They used to do it historically, and not that long time ago.
When?

Well guess then you subscribe to Mao's theory on this: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". Though Mao is more honest and doesn't dress it up in flowery terms like legitimacy.
Stop treating Mao as if he is some savant he merely stated something obvious winners write the history books. Why is America the legitimate government that the confederates are not because the confederates lost.

Have you considered getting a job with the CCP? Heard they have opportunities for people willing to explain to Christians why should they be good subjects to a terrible government with no complaining, just saying.
Are you a Christian I don’t think you’ve ever answered? And again Christians who live under a despotic regime are to obey it until it orders them to disobey gods laws. Communists pretty much always do this because they try to make everyone atheist they have that as their religion. But if the Chinese were merely kleptocracy like modern day Russia. Then Christian’s there should obey. Would you rather us be like Muslims and rebel against any government that is repulsive to god. Then we’d have to also do the same to the west, or do you want to convert Christian’s to be pro gay marriage and tranny priest because your religion is modern liberal secular society instead of anything from the Bible?

For one military is one of most widely recognized things government should in fact be legitimately spending money on, and it always was, literally since ancient times.
What was the government sponsored healthcare under ancient Jewish kings?
Military is important but is it ok to spend 100 percent on it? We can look to see that what we spend equals the next ten largest armies combined we don’t need that much.

So you have nothing to say about their socioeconomic proposition, only that they choose it for what you suspect to be wrong reasons?
What is their socioeconomic position? The wiki article did not say, also aren’t they going against what I’m saying by rebelling against government?
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
What is with this asshole mentality. “No give them the bare minimum fuck them.”
Because there is literally no logical reason they deserve ANYTHING in the first place, being as how they come here with literally no legal standing. Back in the 1920s, hardly anyone would cry about formally declaring them outlaws because they are not legally present. Any sentiment declaring they deserve anything from the state they have entered in violation of all legal process for such fatally wounds the concept of state responsibilities because it eliminates any coherent notion of an out-group.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
What is with this asshole mentality. “No give them the bare minimum fuck them.”
Because stray dog rules apply, if you pamper them with nice stuff, they will keep coming, and expecting more. Do you want more to come and act like this?
Why should taxpayers pay for this? For all the complaining about socialism, even if you asked the dreaded fiscal conservatives, if they had to choose, they would find millions of US citizens they would be more willing to devote this government largesse for in reward for something, rather than random foreign beggars, scammers, criminals and outright welfare cases.
Fuck it, make it a lottery for Japanese tourists, even that would make more sense. At least the mythical diplomatic goodwill gained will also be worth far more then, as not only being tourists they will go back there, due to Japan being a rich and significant country their sympathy is going to matter more than that of people from some shithole to which they don't plan on going back and didn't have political rights in anyway.
Is there No pleasing you? I already said earlier the government has the right to spend money on whatever. I don’t give a fuck about the opinions of fiscal conservatives, they along with racists are the reason that conservatives are outnumbered by the left.
The government has the right to spend money on whatever the sovereign deems it has the right to spend money on. Anything beyond that, it better has a fucking good explanation for this. It seems like you have a poor understanding of the ideological underpinnings of western governments, that would also explain your disdain for it and your own unusual ideas.

Lol what? No they aren’t they are getting influenced and have to deal with modern day colonialism from the western nations and maybe occasionally China. Also many of those nations you decry in Africa try to be liberal western nations.
Some do, some don't, feel free to pick one of the latter. I recommend Nigeria, Ghana, Zambia and Uganda.

A certain EU and NATO member country has executed its former dictator in 1989 for one.

Stop treating Mao as if he is some savant he merely stated something obvious winners write the history books. Why is America the legitimate government that the confederates are not because the confederates lost.
So were not on the issue of legitimacy, but of power, which is self-explanatory.


Are you a Christian I don’t think you’ve ever answered? And again Christians who live under a despotic regime are to obey it until it orders them to disobey gods laws.
Not really. And that does sound like a smart idea for a Christian in year 300 or so...
Not necessarily in other circumstances.
Of course Christians as you imply them will never overthrow a despotic government who does accept this stance, and in fact will help protect it, as that is naturally what said government will order them to do.
Long story short, if everyone was the odd kind of Christian you claim yourself to be, all Christians would be living under despotic regimes now.
Communists pretty much always do this because they try to make everyone atheist they have that as their religion. But if the Chinese were merely kleptocracy like modern day Russia. Then Christian’s there should obey. Would you rather us be like Muslims and rebel against any government that is repulsive to god. Then we’d have to also do the same to the west, or do you want to convert Christian’s to be pro gay marriage and tranny priest because your religion is modern liberal secular society instead of anything from the Bible?
As you may have noticed from history of the more eastwards parts of Europe, even actual "secular religion" has no inherent need for catering to trannies and gays, so who are you trying to fool here with this association.
If you would rather be a serf to kleptocratic despots than rebel against them, i'm just happy to not share a country with you.
Military is important but is it ok to spend 100 percent on it? We can look to see that what we spend equals the next ten largest armies combined we don’t need that much.
No, that would be ridiculous and unnecessary?
And good job again proving that you have no idea what are you talking about and falling for financial trickery. Hint, China does not supply and pay its military at western market prices, so it can get a lot of things much cheaper - meanwhile armies don't fight with numbers on spreadsheets, and a soldier paid 100k USD a year does not have the combat value of ten paid 10k USD a year. The absolute number looks big only due to how rich was USA made by the "greedy assholes" you complain about, in terms of percentage of GDP it's barely above average 3.2%.
What is their socioeconomic position? The wiki article did not say, also aren’t they going against what I’m saying by rebelling against government?
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
Because there is literally no logical reason they deserve ANYTHING in the first place, being as how they come here with literally no legal standing. Back in the 1920s, hardly anyone would cry about formally declaring them outlaws because they are not legally present. Any sentiment declaring they deserve anything from the state they have entered in violation of all legal process for such fatally wounds the concept of state responsibilities because it eliminates any coherent notion of an out-group.
You talk about out groups while your own supposed in groups are bringing in the people and are calling you a racist Nazi. Your ideas are stupid and will lead to failure. Better to bring in those who can agree with you and then those people who all share the same ideals would be the in group.

Because stray dog rules apply, if you pamper them with nice stuff, they will keep coming, and expecting more. Do you want more to come and act like this?
Why should taxpayers pay for this? For all the complaining about socialism, even if you asked the dreaded fiscal conservatives, if they had to choose, they would find millions of US citizens they would be more willing to devote this government largesse for in reward for something, rather than random foreign beggars, scammers, criminals and outright welfare cases.
Fuck it, make it a lottery for Japanese tourists, even that would make more sense. At least the mythical diplomatic goodwill gained will also be worth far more then, as not only being tourists they will go back there, due to Japan being a rich and significant country their sympathy is going to matter more than that of people from some shithole to which they don't plan on going back and didn't have political rights in anyway.
You act like it ever happens all that happens is the can gets kicked down the road this is the weakness of democracy. No one stands up and makes the final decision.

The government has the right to spend money on whatever the sovereign deems it has the right to spend money on. Anything beyond that, it better has a fucking good explanation for this. It seems like you have a poor understanding of the ideological underpinnings of western governments, that would also explain your disdain for it and your own unusual ideas.
You seem to be naïve if you think you are actually sovereign western nations don’t actually work like you say they do.

Some do, some don't, feel free to pick one of the latter. I recommend Nigeria, Ghana, Zambia and Uganda.
All of them are influenced by the west remember ugandas gay bill during Obamas time.? The only nations that are not subordinate to the west are China and Russia and each have their own problems.

A certain EU and NATO member country has executed its former dictator in 1989 for one.
Romania and ceaucescu? Yeah that’s not what happened he was a dictator and the nation became poor because of his policies and then the people rebelled. That’s not what I asked I asked when has a politician promised something during an election won the election then, did the opposite and got punished for it. For christs sake ceaucescu did not even have legitimate elections it was a communist dictatorship him and the communist party was the only name on the ballot. Lol

So were not on the issue of legitimacy, but of power, which is self-explanatory.
Those who have power will have legitimacy, the longer it goes on the more people will accept it. What’s your point.

Not really. And that does sound like a smart idea for a Christian in year 300 or so...
Not necessarily in other circumstances.
Of course Christians as you imply them will never overthrow a despotic government who does accept this stance, and in fact will help protect it, as that is naturally what said government will order them to do.
Long story short, if everyone was the odd kind of Christian you claim yourself to be, all Christians would be living under despotic regimes now.
Ahh I see you think that Jesus was a wise man but you are culturally Catholic. So to you the Bible was good and influential for its time but now it’s outdated you don’t see it as the words of god and that it stands now just like it did then valid for all times and all places.

As you may have noticed from history of the more eastwards parts of Europe, even actual "secular religion" has no inherent need for catering to trannies and gays, so who are you trying to fool here with this association.
If you would rather be a serf to kleptocratic despots than rebel against them, i'm just happy to not share a country with you.
Funny that you don’t think that secularism won’t lead to your children or grandchildren being trannies. I predicted 20 years ago what gay marriage would lead to but people just stupidly don’t believe. Maybe some of these conservatives deserve what’s going to happen.

No, that would be ridiculous and unnecessary?
And good job again proving that you have no idea what are you talking about and falling for financial trickery. Hint, China does not supply and pay its military at western market prices, so it can get a lot of things much cheaper - meanwhile armies don't fight with numbers on spreadsheets, and a soldier paid 100k USD a year does not have the combat value of ten paid 10k USD a year. The absolute number looks big only due to how rich was USA made by the "greedy assholes" you complain about, in terms of percentage of GDP it's barely above average 3.2%.
Wait you think the reason we have a higher budget is because we pay the soldiers more? Bahahahaha the infantryman does not get 100,000 dollars it’s the equipments especially the things for our navy and airforce the next gen stuff and the training that costs a lot. The Chinese may their soldiers 10.000 and we pay them 100.000 lol.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
You act like it ever happens all that happens is the can gets kicked down the road this is the weakness of democracy. No one stands up and makes the final decision.
The status quo is the final decision. In different time in USA, and also in different places, it wasn't the case. But a decision was definitely taken. The problem is that it's the bad decision.
You seem to be naïve if you think you are actually sovereign western nations don’t actually work like you say they do.
What i said is how they theoretically are meant to work, of course they aren't working like that, some diverge from the theory more, some less, i live in one of the latter group.
All of them are influenced by the west remember ugandas gay bill during Obamas time.? The only nations that are not subordinate to the west are China and Russia and each have their own problems.
Stop idealizing the enemies of the West, this only makes you look silly. Naturally third world countries are less westernized, especially so the oldest ground zero of marxist destruction, Russia - in many metrics it's actually even worse than the West - see fertility rates, STDs, drug addiction, ordinary corruption.
The less industrial, more backwards countries inherently resemble the West less.
Romania and ceaucescu? Yeah that’s not what happened he was a dictator and the nation became poor because of his policies and then the people rebelled. That’s not what I asked I asked when has a politician promised something during an election won the election then, did the opposite and got punished for it. For christs sake ceaucescu did not even have legitimate elections it was a communist dictatorship him and the communist party was the only name on the ballot. Lol
But he was a legitimate ruler by your standard, a weird religious kind of communist at that...
Want elected politicians?

Apparently we're talking 2000's.
Those who have power will have legitimacy, the longer it goes on the more people will accept it. What’s your point.
The world moves too fast now for most to take advantage of that effect. Those who have power and no legitimacy usually create a failed state where power is all that matters and none of a dozen contenders for being the government have much legitimacy.

Ahh I see you think that Jesus was a wise man but you are culturally Catholic. So to you the Bible was good and influential for its time but now it’s outdated you don’t see it as the words of god and that it stands now just like it did then valid for all times and all places.
There are many things Jesus didn't talk about and couldn't have because they didn't exist yet. The whole divine mandate of monarchs, and a lot of other things, just matters of creative interpretation by latter religious authorities.

Funny that you don’t think that secularism won’t lead to your children or grandchildren being trannies. I predicted 20 years ago what gay marriage would lead to but people just stupidly don’t believe. Maybe some of these conservatives deserve what’s going to happen.
Of course not. The rainbow flag subculture is one of a particular kind of secularists, or more accurately, non-theistic zealots who can rival the likes of you in strength and irrationality of their convictions. For one they make no distinction between whose children they would indoctrinate, yours, mine or theirs, they will go for it all.
For the record, i'm not a fan of the idea behind gay marriage, it raises more question marks over the very existence and purpose of marriage in general than it solves.

Wait you think the reason we have a higher budget is because we pay the soldiers more? Bahahahaha the infantryman does not get 100,000 dollars it’s the equipments especially the things for our navy and airforce the next gen stuff and the training that costs a lot. The Chinese may their soldiers 10.000 and we pay them 100.000 lol.
Yes, building things and hiring people in USA, in absolute dollar values costs far more in USA than in China. If it didn't.
I've used exemplary figures, yes, an average infantryman will get less than 100k a year, but not that much less once he gets a couple ranks and skills, while a Chinese one will only dream of 20k a year.
One Chinese yuan is worth approximately 16 cents in American currency. That means a colonel in China’s People’s Liberation Army makes around $3,105 per month, or about $37,260 per year. In another report penned by Dr. Marcus Clay at China Aerospace Studies Institute, he explained how the Chinese equivalent of a Brigadier General in the U.S. Army makes under $42,000 per year.


“In 2018, a division-leader grade PLA officer, roughly equivalent to a U.S. O-7, makes roughly ¥264,000 ($41,969) annually in total compensation.”
A fucking general in PLA earns less than a fresh private in US army. Amazon warehouse staff can sometimes earn more than high ranking PLA officers.
That means a brand new Marine with a spouse, stationed aboard one of the nation’s largest military installations, makes more money per year than a General in the Chinese military.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
You talk about out groups while your own supposed in groups are bringing in the people and are calling you a racist Nazi.
Them doing this is a clear indicator they fail the basic needs for preferring the advancement of who they're supposed to represent to be trusted with such powers, but they remain US citizens and thus their basic rights remain something for the government to assure.

Better to bring in those who can agree with you and then those people who all share the same ideals would be the in group.
The point is that being willing to ensure this is the single most fundamental requirement for them. If they are not willing to go through the official process of entry to have little hangup for assisting in in-group/out-group distinction, then it's counterproductive because you're not providing a filter to keep out the ones who don't share the vital ideals.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member


What in- I, just…the fuck is wrong with you people!? He was an adult who willingly attacking and killed people, not a toddler who threw a fun-sized Lego brick at your face during a temper tantrum!

Didn't you know, outbreaks of berserkergang are part and parcel of living in a Germanic society, he was just trying to assimilate.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top