OT: HE's a sick man, not a man of God.

[LinkC]

Another boring generalization, most solutions to any problem have side effects or induce other problems, government initiated or not. No news here

Someone twisting your arm to read it? Surely you don't "bore" yourself on purpose...

No news here

[DreamStalker]

<snip>...

Government interference in markets resulting in damage to the economies of our poor neighbors and contributes to damage of our population's health. When government "solves" one problem it usually creates several additional larger problems.

...<snip>

Right. Why don't we just let private industry take care of the disaster relief for those poor misfortunate Hatian people and see how quickly it can all turn into a mad rooster world .

[roster]

When government "solves" one problem it usually creates several additional larger problems.

Another boring generalization, most solutions to any problem have side effects or induce other problems, government initiated or not. No news here

UB, Slinky did not write the sentence you attributed to her. I wrote it and you edited out and ignored the very specific example that went with the generalization. Do you have any comments on the specific example?

[DreamStalker]

When government "solves" one problem it usually creates several additional larger problems.

Another boring generalization, most solutions to any problem have side effects or induce other problems, government initiated or not. No news here

UB, Slinky did not write the sentence you attributed to her. I wrote it and you edited out and ignored the very specific example that went with the generalization. Do you have any comments on the specific example?

I have a comment on the specific example.

Who pushed for those government corn subsidies? Let's see was it the Haitians? or maybe it was the 2/3 of the overweight-obese US population consuming 40% of their calories from HFCS?

Surely the unregulated Wall Street investor's desire for profit from the corn market had nothing to do with it and much less so the big-agra corporate corn producers.

[coffeedrinker]

Back to the OP comment, in my humble opinion, Robert's words were very uncalled for, hateful, and not unexpected. It seems he has chimed in with his opinion on the last several natural disasters. I suppose his followers expect and appreciate his "words of wisdom".

[jnk]

[thread got too hot and burnt my post]

[roster]

Who pushed for those government corn subsidies? Let's see was it the Haitians? or maybe it was the 2/3 of the overweight-obese US population consuming 40% of their calories from HFCS?

Surely the unregulated Wall Street investor's desire for profit from the corn market had nothing to do with it and much less so the big-agra corporate corn producers.

There is something quite well known and even a background assumption of people who believe in free markets. It is usually misunderstood or entirely unknown by those who believe in big government to order our economy, our society and even our lives.

What is known is that capitalists (businessmen) do not believe in free markets, do not want to innovate and do not want to compete. They will seek protections and advantages from governments. And of course they do this to make their lives easier; to make their businesses more profitable and more powerful; to entrench their positions for long periods of time and hold innovative competition at bay; and to lessen their dependence on the preferences of the customers.

There is something that forces capitalists to innovate; to provide high-quality/low cost products and services; and to cater to every whim and preference of their customers. "This something" puts capitalists in a powerless position at the mercy of their customers. "This something" is competition in a free market. Competition that brings the risk of failure if the capitalist does not make his customers happy by being servile to every need and want of the customer. Competition that kicks out management and employees and brings an end to companies.

So what are we to do if we believe free markets are the most beneficial economic system for our society? We should elect politicians who take seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution; politicians who do not interfere in markets; and politicians who are not easily corrupted by money, power and unholy alliances. These politicians we elect will surely stumble and fall short. It is our duty to make sure that they fail at reelection.

If we keep turning these people out of office, we will stop the capitalists from winning protection and favors. We need to lower the incumbent reelection rate. “We get the government we deserve.”

(*For my friends who look to the government to provide for them and solve all problems, it is necessary to include a note about the protection of individual rights. No, when we say free markets, we do not mean “the chaos of totally unregulated markets”. That refrain is tiring and comes from the opposition, not us.

Our fundamental precept is that individuals have the right to live free and no man should impose his will on another – it is evil to do so. We believe that the most important function of our government is to protect these rights of individuals. That means laws against commercial fraud, deception, theft, breaking of contracts, property damage, etc., should be enforced against companies that violate them. These laws are already on the books for the most part.)

So I stand by my remarks on the government inteference in sugar markets being an example of government interference to solve one problem causing more and bigger problems. It happens all the time. Throw the bums, Republicans and Democrats, out.

[roster]

Back to the OP comment, in my humble opinion, Robert's words were very uncalled for, hateful, and not unexpected. It seems he has chimed in with his opinion on the last several natural disasters. I suppose his followers expect and appreciate his "words of wisdom".

Thankfully I never hear from Pat Robertson unless he says something truly outrageous. Then it is blared on TV and radio news programs, printed everywhere in the mass media including the internet, and even posted on this forum.

I attend about 75 church services and events each year and have yet to hear someone say, "I heard on the 700 Club ...."

His 700 Club ratings must be very low and if he has writings, they must not be well distributed. In general, I think he should be ignored.

But if he does get coverage for an outrageous statement, I am glad that religious people speak up against the statement (but not hatefully against the man, please).

[DreamStalker]

Who pushed for those government corn subsidies? Let's see was it the Haitians? or maybe it was the 2/3 of the overweight-obese US population consuming 40% of their calories from HFCS?

Surely the unregulated Wall Street investor's desire for profit from the corn market had nothing to do with it and much less so the big-agra corporate corn producers.

There is something quite well known and even a background assumption of people who believe in free markets. It is usually misunderstood or entirely unknown by those who believe in big government to order our economy, our society and even our lives.

What is known is that capitalists (businessmen) do not believe in free markets, do not want to innovate and do not want to compete. They will seek protections and advantages from governments. And of course they do this to make their lives easier; to make their businesses more profitable and more powerful; to entrench their positions for long periods of time and hold innovative competition at bay; and to lessen their dependence on the preferences of the customers.

There is something that forces capitalists to innovate; to provide high-quality/low cost products and services; and to cater to every whim and preference of their customers. "This something" puts capitalists in a powerless position at the mercy of their customers. "This something" is competition in a free market. Competition that brings the risk of failure if the capitalist does not make his customers happy by being servile to every need and want of the customer. Competition that kicks out management and employees and brings an end to companies.

So what are we to do if we believe free markets are the most beneficial economic system for our society? We should elect politicians who take seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution; politicians who do not interfere in markets; and politicians who are not easily corrupted by money, power and unholy alliances. These politicians we elect will surely stumble and fall short. It is our duty to make sure that they fail at reelection.

If we keep turning these people out of office, we will stop the capitalists from winning protection and favors. We need to lower the incumbent reelection rate. “We get the government we deserve.”

(*For my friends who look to the government to provide for them and solve all problems, it is necessary to include a note about the protection of individual rights. No, when we say free markets, we do not mean “the chaos of totally unregulated markets”. That refrain is tiring and comes from the opposition, not us.

Our fundamental precept is that individuals have the right to live free and no man should impose his will on another – it is evil to do so. We believe that the most important function of our government is to protect these rights of individuals. That means laws against commercial fraud, deception, theft, breaking of contracts, property damage, etc., should be enforced against companies that violate them. These laws are already on the books for the most part.)

So I stand by my remarks on the government inteference in sugar markets being an example of government interference to solve one problem causing more and bigger problems. It happens all the time. Throw the bums, Republicans and Democrats, out.

Well I say if you want to discuss specifics, then uhhh ... genralization of "government" to mean "congress" is, well, not specific.

As you have pointed out, above, "government" is generally preferred over chaos. I agree with many of your points with regards to "congress", the actual "branch of government" that is responsible for the failures you mention.

For my friends who constantly bash government in general ... that refrain is tiring and usually comes from conservative opposition, not me.

Furthermore, I stand by my views that government is necessary to protect individual rights from corporate greed and chaos in general.

[Slinky]

DreamStalker, I tend to agree that "government is necessary to protect individual rights from corporate greed and chaos in general".

On the other hand I do NOT believe that government (Congress) has the right or responsibility to protect me from myself.

[Arizona-Willie]

Churches do a lot of good ... some of them.
They help the poor and the sick etc. etc.

The problem is the religions.

If you could have churches without religions you would have a winner.

[t-bone]

From the moment I saw the thread title, I knew there would be rancorous discussion over the politics and religious basis of Robertson's tirade.

I find MOST of Pat Robertson's pontificating (pun intended) to be base, baseless, tiresome and without logical support. Parsing any of his proclamations would yield a treasure trove of logical failures--enough for a couple of semesters of logic courses' "This is what NOT to do" examples.

I'm quite glad to read of so many Christians who feel likewise about his ranting lunacy.

As for Haiti: words cannot express. The level of devastation is horrendous, and that's just what we've seen so far. Wow. Just. Wow.

[roster]

Well I say if you want to discuss specifics, then uhhh ... genralization of "government" to mean "congress" is, well, not specific.

I never complained about generalization. Read the posts again. That was Uncle Bob complaining about boring generalizations (and using a generalization in his complaint).

I like discussing generalizations, like God made every man a unique individual and for another individual to attempt to control him is evil. Plenty of specifics can flow from that generalization and I like discussing specifics also.

As you have pointed out, above, "government" is generally preferred over chaos. I agree with many of your points with regards to "congress", the actual "branch of government" that is responsible for the failures you mention.

For my friends who constantly bash government in general ... that refrain is tiring and usually comes from conservative opposition, not me.

My comments about government should not be construed as being limited to Congress. Sitting here working at the computer this morning, a local radio news station is playing while I hope to hear some local officials have announced today their resignations in order to save the county commission the time, effort and expense of firing them. If these guys are kicked out quickly and unceremoniously it will give me a tiny bit of confidence in our local government.

BTW, in this case their evil was a tit-for-tat alliance with a corporation. The corporation seems to be guilty of a civil violation and IMO they should receive the prescribed penalty.

Furthermore, I stand by my views that government is necessary to protect individual rights from corporate greed and chaos in general.

As far as I know, this has never been in question in the forum as there are no anarchists posting here. However many who take positions on the left have often accused (falsely) others of holding positions of “no government/no regulation”. That is not what free markets are about.

DreamStalker, I tend to agree that "government is necessary to protect individual rights from corporate greed and chaos in general".

On the other hand I do NOT believe that government (Congress) has the right or responsibility to protect me from myself.

It would be interesting, on another day in another thread, to discuss what we see as the government’s role and the role of citizens in preventing crime. Taking a less complex example, such as preventing break-ins at our home, would be a good start with the idea of progressing the discussion toward regulation of businesses.

[packitin]

deleted

[JohnBFisher]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/13 ... 2717.shtml

This is one of the most shameful, horrendous quotes from an alleged clergy person. It doesn't get anymore offensive than this!

Okay, as a previous poster noted, just the titled led me to believe this post would be full of arguments. I'll just stick to the Off Topic Topic "He's a sick man, not a man of God".

I am a Christian. I believe his stance is wrong and does not represent my faith. I offer the following biblical "criticism" (meaning an analysis of his statements versus what is written in the Bible). If we look at biblical references we find the following attributes that you should find in someone who tries to live a life that is transformed by their faith in Christ.

Galatians 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness ..."
Matthew 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? ..."
1 Corinthians 13:4 "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, ..."
Colossians 3:12 "So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; ..."

Is it little wonder people claim Christians can be hypocritical? We find those statements of how a faithful person should live, yet find someone like Pat Robertson exploiting the grief and misery of others. How can we not find this hypocritical?

I do. It does not represent my faith. Nor does it represent the faith of most people who try to follow the teachings of Christ.

But this is no different than those radical Muslims who believe it is acceptable to kill others. I know from both my own reading and long discussions with others that this is not acceptable under Islam. Still people distort the teachings of their faith for their own purposes.

Another posted posited that "religion" itself is bad. Rather, I offer another thought. It is what some people do with religion (any faith) that is wrong. Many people try to live by their faith and thus make the world a better place. That is what we should all try to do.

So, we should hold folks such as Pat Robertson accountable. We can compare his action to his faith statement. If they don't connect, it does not mean the faith statement is wrong. Rather it means he does not follow his faith. And that is offensive to everyone. Hate is hate, regardless of how we dress it up.