Stephen King's Hypocirsy

a reply to: intrepid

Touché

originally posted by: intrepid

Or bringing up Jesus in a thread about Stephen King. Bwahahahaha.....

Lol ya I caught that as well

OK, for the sake of compromise and collaboration, and instead of arguing endlessly over the same crap we've all argued since the dawn of time, what is a solution to satisfy the moral answer and the legal answer?

He's not being a hypocrite. He's not a Christian. If he was a Christian and didn't open up his home to the children, then he would be a hypocrite. I see nothing wrong here.

originally posted by: jrflipjr
OK, so he doesn't offer his own land. I can respect that from any civil American.

What get's my goat is this asinine movement from the liberal camp suggesting that not helping the poor, downtrodden illegal aliens is hypocritical of Christians. Seriously? I thought following laws, policies and guidance is the Christian thing to do. Are they suggesting we break laws and invite all the world to habitate in our country to satisfy a percentage of the American population's moral convictions?

I love the hypocrisy of liberals. Stephen King exemplifies it...Do as I say, not as I do!


Report: Land Baron Stephen King Hasn't Offered Refuge to Border Kids

Stephen king says it...thus, you conclude that it's true for all "liberals"...rush Limbaugh says birth control is for whores, he's a conservative, therefore, all conservatives believe birth control is for whores

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

I may not agree with his political viewpoint, but I've always been a fan of his writing (I'm currently reading book 7 of his Dark Tower series for the first time).

Lucky! What a wonderful journey those books were.

That series just blew my mind repeatedly, I was so enthralled.

a reply to: Ellie Sagan

Valid point! Another touché awarded!

originally posted by: Ellie Sagan
He's not being a hypocrite. He's not a Christian. If he was a Christian and didn't open up his home to the children, then he would be a hypocrite. I see nothing wrong here.

Meh. If he's going on about how greedy I am with my own little house and he is not letting them use his huge mansions (plural), then he is a hypocrite.

a reply to: jrflipjr

In the past week or ten days I've visited ATS but discovered almost nothing worth giving a reply. Then I come across this thread that criticizes Stephen King.

Who are you to tell the man what he can or should do with his property or his money?

If he chooses not to allow a bunch of illegal activity on his land then I support his decision.

The imigrants need to get on a boat and sail somewhere anywhere besides America.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Ellie Sagan
He's not being a hypocrite. He's not a Christian. If he was a Christian and didn't open up his home to the children, then he would be a hypocrite. I see nothing wrong here.

Meh. If he's going on about how greedy I am with my own little house and he is not letting them use his huge mansions (plural), then he is a hypocrite.

Just curious. Is that because of what Breitbart told you?

a reply to: minusinfinity

Please re-read my first line in the original comment. I concur with your stance. That's not my issue...

sure helping the poor is important, but the sad truth is you can only help so many at a time. and you can not help more than you can help, no matter how much you might want to. the most you end up achieving when you try to help more than you can is in the end to be no help at all to any of them.

a small group starting a feeding program ran into this very issue. they went around and found an area where people needed help. they got permission to use a public area for the feeding, and invited those needy people to attend. they asked about 100 people. the day arrived and there were almost 200 people that showed up expecting to be fed. that was fine because they had figured something like that would happen, they had enough food since they planned for 150, and were able to stretch that out a bit by giving people less and doing without themselves, it worked out ok. the problem happened at the next one they did in that area. they again invited the 100 people. this time they had enough to feed over 200 people. now this was at the limit of both the monies they had available, as well as the help they had to prepare it and transport it. over 1,000 people showed up expecting to be fed. it didn't work out so well. they of course did their best to insure those they had invited received food and tried to get the rest to people who needed it more. of course ALL the people figured they deserved to be fed, and there was almost a riot due to not having enough. now let me ask, would taking each portion of food meant to be a healthy meal for one and dividing it by ten have helped any of them? of course the local authorities did not like this and told those running it that they had to do something to ensure it didn't happen again or they would be forced to disallow the feeding to happen. so the next time the devised a ticket program. tickets were handed out with the instructions that only those that had tickets would receive food. sounds rather harsh doesn't it? you can't say that all of those that showed up didn't need help, they did. but there was only an certain amount that they could help. they would have loved to feed all of them, but didn't have the resources to do it. and so they had no choice but to be firm on the exact people they were helping, while leaving the others without. without this control they would even have not be allowed to help any of them, so they did what was necessary to help those they could.

in a lot of ways you can say the same thing applies to a country and immigration. a country only has so much resources to help people. this is reflected in things like immigration quotas. they figure out how many they can help, and only let in that many, as to not overburden the system. those people let in are what we call legal immigrants. those that just show up, are illegal immigrants and just like those who in the above situation who did not receive tickets, have no call to get the food. and just like those without tickets need to be firmly turned away. to not do so will just encourage others to do the same. no matter how much you might want to help everyone, nobody is helped if there is not enough and you just dole out smaller portions to more and more people.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Even the experts however are capable of unintelligent remarks

We all are. But I fail to see how his remark was "unintelligent". I think it's quite witty. And Stephen King is anything but unintelligent.

a reply to: jimmyx

Valid point - I generalized, which is a failure in terms of a good discussion. I recant my comment regarding liberals. Let's substitute the word liberals with "fanatical unicorns and rainbows do gooders".

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Ellie Sagan
He's not being a hypocrite. He's not a Christian. If he was a Christian and didn't open up his home to the children, then he would be a hypocrite. I see nothing wrong here.

Meh. If he's going on about how greedy I am with my own little house and he is not letting them use his huge mansions (plural), then he is a hypocrite.

Just curious. Is that because of what Breitbart told you?

Nope. Don't read Breitbart.

Steve writes cool books (although they've gone down hill as of late--he's been repeating himself both in themes and characters and plot points but what can you expect from someone who has written an bajillion books). He's always had social commentary from a left-wing point of view. Meh, didn't detract from the entertainment value and wasn't overly preachy about it all the time although he does at times go overboard. He is an expert at character development and every writer out there could serve to learn from him in that aspect.

That said, I really haven't noticed his overt politics until he joined the "I'm rich and I want more taxes bandwagon" a few years back. I find that position annoying that a guy worth hundreds of millions calls me selfish because I don't want to be taxed more on my hundreds of thousands, especially when he could write a check for his entire wealth to the treasury tomorrow--if he wants to be taxed more he can. Certainly he has been very charitable and I can't criticize him that, however, when a guy worth a hundred million and donates 10 million of that has the temerity to call me selfish, I find that very annoying.

Unless he's out there opening up his mansions (and you don't need Britebart to know he has mansions) to illegals, then he has no business bitching about the rest of us who do not want to accommodate illegals on our dime.

originally posted by: generik
sure helping the poor is important, but the sad truth is you can only help so many at a time. and you can not help more than you can help, no matter how much you might want to. the most you end up achieving when you try to help more than you can is in the end to be no help at all to any of them.

a small group starting a feeding program ran into this very issue. they went around and found an area where people needed help. they got permission to use a public area for the feeding, and invited those needy people to attend. they asked about 100 people. the day arrived and there were almost 200 people that showed up expecting to be fed. that was fine because they had figured something like that would happen, they had enough food since they planned for 150, and were able to stretch that out a bit by giving people less and doing without themselves, it worked out ok. the problem happened at the next one they did in that area. they again invited the 100 people. this time they had enough to feed over 200 people. now this was at the limit of both the monies they had available, as well as the help they had to prepare it and transport it. over 1,000 people showed up expecting to be fed. it didn't work out so well. they of course did their best to insure those they had invited received food and tried to get the rest to people who needed it more. of course ALL the people figured they deserved to be fed, and there was almost a riot due to not having enough. now let me ask, would taking each portion of food meant to be a healthy meal for one and dividing it by ten have helped any of them? of course the local authorities did not like this and told those running it that they had to do something to ensure it didn't happen again or they would be forced to disallow the feeding to happen. so the next time the devised a ticket program. tickets were handed out with the instructions that only those that had tickets would receive food. sounds rather harsh doesn't it? you can't say that all of those that showed up didn't need help, they did. but there was only an certain amount that they could help. they would have loved to feed all of them, but didn't have the resources to do it. and so they had no choice but to be firm on the exact people they were helping, while leaving the others without. without this control they would even have not be allowed to help any of them, so they did what was necessary to help those they could.

in a lot of ways you can say the same thing applies to a country and immigration. a country only has so much resources to help people. this is reflected in things like immigration quotas. they figure out how many they can help, and only let in that many, as to not overburden the system. those people let in are what we call legal immigrants. those that just show up, are illegal immigrants and just like those who in the above situation who did not receive tickets, have no call to get the food. and just like those without tickets need to be firmly turned away. to not do so will just encourage others to do the same. no matter how much you might want to help everyone, nobody is helped if there is not enough and you just dole out smaller portions to more and more people.

In short, what you subsidize you get more of.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
And Stephen King is anything but unintelligent.

He's an exceptionally talented fella who understands the business world; understands the entertainment industry; and who has a right to his political point of view.

a reply to: jrflipjr

I did as you asked and reread your thread.

I'm not judging you for being judgemental but just because a person has more is he obligated to give it away?

I've read it a third or fourth time and after each reading I become more confused.

In simple terms do you feel Stephen King should offer land to illegal immigrants?

What is your point? Just because I gave a dollar to someone doesn't mean I owe you a dollar.

hmm...

All celebrities shut up, when it comes to telling others what to do.
If you want to help someone, or something, great.
But don't preach to me about what I should be doing.

in a "nut"shell.. all shillebrities are used to advance our new world order
/twerks out

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Even the experts however are capable of unintelligent remarks

We all are. But I fail to see how his remark was "unintelligent". I think it's quite witty. And Stephen King is anything but unintelligent.

It was unintelligent because his premise was that conservatives and Christians were being hypocrites for not helping on the border.

The opposite seems to be true. It seems the conservatives and the Christians are mostly the ones doing anyhing to help the children on the border

Also I didn't call him unintelligent. I said his remarks were. There is a difference