It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Loud Bangs heard in Manchester UK

page: 70
130
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I think it's actually a lot more than 2% honestly. There are a lot of people who either just like to say they belong to a religion or don't want to admit to being an atheist. That's just my opinion.

But other than that I don't have a problem with anything you just said.




posted on May, 23 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

On economic polices, Jesus preached charity, not wealth confiscation.




I think he'd be in favor of helping the poor and the sick/injured and elderly though. Which is where a lot of that wealth confiscation goes toward.

He certainly wouldn't be in favor of removing healthcare for millions of people just so the super wealthy could get back that 3% tax on capital gains income.



posted on May, 23 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Grambler

On economic polices, Jesus preached charity, not wealth confiscation.




I think he'd be in favor of helping the poor and the sick/injured and elderly though. Which is where a lot of that wealth confiscation goes toward.

He certainly wouldn't be in favor of removing healthcare for millions of people just so the super wealthy could get back that 3% tax on capital gains income.


I think you are wrong.

Forced taxation to help the poor is not moral.

If I chose to help the poor on my own, I am acting morally. If it is illegal for me to not pay taxes to help them, I am not acting morally by paying taxes.

It is also not a moral act to take wealth from one person and to give it to another.

Did Jesus ever say the church should require people to give a certain amount of money, despite the poverty he knew the church would be able to relieve?

Nope. He wanted people to give on their own.



posted on May, 23 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

So you're saying that Jesus would want wealthy people to just continue being wealthy and allow the poor and sick to be ignored??

Sure he wants people to give on their own and act morally by choice. But if they don't then they're not being moral by choice anyway so what difference does it make???

Besides some people don't mind paying taxes because they know that is where the money goes and they like the idea doing it that way. They don't see it as forced so much as simply an agreed upon automatic charity.

I think Jesus would weight the idea of helping those in need even if not from all donations vs. not helping them at all so people could choose greed and realize one of those is better than the other even if not ideal.

Also wasn't there something in there about rendering onto Cesar what is his?? Doesn't it say money is Government Issued or something like that??? Making those bank notes belong to the Government. Just a theory.
edit on 23-5-2017 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Grambler

So you're saying that Jesus would want wealthy people to just continue being wealthy and allow the poor and sick to be ignored??


No he would want them to help out of free will. He would have left God up to judge them. But he would not suggest stealing their wealth to give to the poor.


Sure he wants people to give on their own and act morally by choice. But if they don't then they're not being moral by choice anyway so what difference does it make???


Its not up to the government to punish the immoral. Thats up to God.


Besides some people don't mind paying taxes because they know that is where the money goes and they like the idea doing it that way. They don't see it as forced so much as simply an agreed upon automatic charity.


Thats great for those people. Some people think that it is theft.


I think Jesus would weight the idea of helping those in need even if not from all donations vs. not helping them at all so people could choose greed and realize one of those is better than the other even if not ideal.


I don't. I think first off Jesus would not think that a person who advocated taxing other to provide help for the poor as an excuse to not give more personally would not be acting morally. I think he would see through this for what it is, an excuse to shirk personal responsibility.

So when a politician or a celebrity that is worth millions lectures poor or middle class people that don't want to pay more taxes to help the poor, he would not find them to be acting morally.

Jesus wants you, the individual, to help the poor.

Would Jesus like deficit spending to help the poor? Would he be a fan of spending trillions of future dollars for entitlement programs today?

I think at the end of the day Jesus was concerned about individuals, not governments.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
No he would want them to help out of free will. He would have left God up to judge them. But he would not suggest stealing their wealth to give to the poor.


The money goes to the rich too. Only usually for other things.


Its not up to the government to punish the immoral. Thats up to God.


Only if you view it as punishment rather than helping others. Besides, when a 3% tax on capital gains equals hundreds of billions of dollars which allows for the care of millions of people it's a stretch to say that is a punishment. It's 3% or one type of investment income. Money being made from money. It's not even from their labor, it's just money from having money. And only 3% of the income made from it. Is that considered punishment???


Thats great for those people. Some people think that it is theft.


Ok. So some agree some don't. That's a wash.



I don't. I think first off Jesus would not think that a person who advocated taxing other to provide help for the poor as an excuse to not give more personally would not be acting morally. I think he would see through this for what it is, an excuse to shirk personal responsibility.

So when a politician or a celebrity that is worth millions lectures poor or middle class people that don't want to pay more taxes to help the poor, he would not find them to be acting morally.

Jesus wants you, the individual, to help the poor.

Would Jesus like deficit spending to help the poor? Would he be a fan of spending trillions of future dollars for entitlement programs today?

I think at the end of the day Jesus was concerned about individuals, not governments.


I don't know. that whole render unto Cesar thing sure seems pretty clear to me.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Render unto caeser merely meant that you should not avoid paying taxes out of a sense or religious duty.

In other words, you should obey the law, even if you find it questionable.

That does not mean that what caeser did was moral, or that caeser had the power of judgment over people.

And you are right that some taxes go to the rich. All the more reason that personal charity instead of taxation is preferred.

Here is what I think we can agree with. Jesus would not be a fan of a society that allowed people to anguish in poverty.

I think that he would rather have people voluntarily help the poor, rather than forcing others to do it.

He also would have no time of day for people taht used government programs as an excuse to do nothing personally to help the poor.

Its a neat discussion, but i Guess off topic.

But start a thread I would be happy to discuss it further.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
so back to the original topic, a new day and new images of victims and a suppose image of the killer, the uk has a critical terror alert and a possibility of troops on the streets.
also people are split between defend islam/muslims, remain calm camp and blame all muslims we need retribution camp.
we have the likes of katie hopkins whos being investigated for inciting racial hatred while we still dont know if this guy worked alone with the high probability that another attack will happen.
love or hate this woman is it really a good use of police power at the moment and i find it will incite more people to distrust the police and turn against muslims and immigrants, in a way the powers that be are playing into the far rights hands



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:01 AM
link   
so on sky news just now they are deploying soldiers in key london locations like buckingham palace and westminister glad to see they are looking after the normal people



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I heard a guy on Radio 4 yesterday who had been at the MEN to pick up his daughter and granddaughter. His description of things was harrowing, especially the bit about how he and his wife stayed with a young girl who had shrapnel wounds all over her head and limbs, hair burnt off etc. He described checking every injured and dead person to see if it was one of his girls while his wife stayed with the injured girl in the lobby. Then her rang the girl's mum and also spoke to her dad who was separated from her...Its not often I get emotional at stuff like this but, man that was hard to listen to.

There was a member of the Muslim Women's Network on Sky news too who talked real sense about those who would seek to impede the security services in their work to break up extremist plans and those who were already trying to turn this into another "Be careful not to blame Islam" type of news story. People ought to pay a bit more attention to them I think, they do seem to be a much needed voice of reason from that community.


As for troops on the streets, I think boys and girls in green, carrying long rifles will be a god sight for many and help them to feel a little more secure. I wouldn't want it to be a standard thing though, they don't have the training of the police, for one thing. At ties like this though, they are probably just what we need to allow the cops to do what they need to do.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Grambler

On economic polices, Jesus preached charity, not wealth confiscation.




I think he'd be in favor of helping the poor and the sick/injured and elderly though. Which is where a lot of that wealth confiscation goes toward.

He certainly wouldn't be in favor of removing healthcare for millions of people just so the super wealthy could get back that 3% tax on capital gains income.


Jesus would keep the drug companies, medical suppliers, doctors and hospitals from robbing us blind. Then we wouldn't need health care insurance.

Jesus also used Cannabis in his anointing oils. If you believe in Jesus you are in favor of the decriminalization of Cannabis. And if you don't believe in that, then you are not listed in the Book of Life.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK



As for troops on the streets, I think boys and girls in green, carrying long rifles will be a god sight for many and help them to feel a little more secure. I wouldn't want it to be a standard thing though, they don't have the training of the police, for one thing. At ties like this though, they are probably just what we need to allow the cops to do what they need to do.


just a shame the troops appear to be only protecting those that are already protected nd safe leaving the average person in the same predicament



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: kerrichin

Soldiers on sentry duty at palaces etc frees up cops to patrol the peasants.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:38 AM
link   



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: ketsuko

the foyer is highly glazed and that could have lead to further seriuos injuries there has been no reports I have heard of the type of bomb yet


if it was a nail bomb then that would tend to exclude a mad single bomber, and would indicate an organised bombing because if it was just a nut case, it would have been standard bomb.

Funny how these days terros always strike at the massess who are just ordinary nobodies just like them. In times gone by if a person wanted to attack anyone, they marched on the king and attacked him and his supporters.

Funny how none of these terro attacks are aimed at or are taken up to the powers that be, the politicans, busienss figures, brearaucrats etc. Its got to be sus when they aim it at their own kind.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: 23432

No matter who's responsible, by definition this is an act of terrorism.


No, thats not correct, thats thinking the way the powers that be want you to think.

This event in Manchester is nothing more and nothing less than a criminal act.

They must be very pleased with the way you are thingking, would bring a big smile to their faces.


CX

posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Threat level has been raised to critical here in the UK....

LIVE: Military could be deployed on the streets

CX.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: User1138




i.4cdn.org...


i saw this yesterday, glad they arent wasting police time and resources to i dont know find the people linked to monday



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: kerrichin
so on sky news just now they are deploying soldiers in key london locations like buckingham palace and westminister glad to see they are looking after the normal people
That's for sure! All this increased security for venues doesn't protect our kids from these bast.rds. What is required is the introduction serious and radical preventative measures. e.g.

I don't think that added security will prevent such attacks, it may deter some and cause perpetrators to consider other targets, e.g. outdoor markets and shopping parades at times when busy and many other places which cant be defended and almost impossible to stop bombers with body belts or shopping bag bombs etc.

The only way to reduce or minimize attacks is to take proper preventative measures and that may mean changing some laws to accommodate such and in my view necessary measures!

These would be as follows:

1. All those who went to fight with ISIS should be banned from the UK regardless of their nationality and those already having returned jailed for life!
2. All those on watch lists or anyone consider to be a potential terror risk should be electronically tagged with the choice to leave the UK forever if they don't agree to that.
3. It should be made a serious criminal offense subject to a minimum of 10 years in jail for accessing and downloading material from known terrorist sympathizer websites or distributing terror hate material or preaching extremist views or recruiting others to become potential terrorists.
4. The death penalty short and swift should be introduced for those caught plotting a terror attack or having survived an attack.
5. All none UK citizens who are perceived to be a threat should be returned to their home countries immediately.
6. Use special forces to go after all those who are involved in plotting attacks from abroad and body bag them.
This would be a good start and would show to the people of the UK and the world that the UK Government means business and truly intends to takle all measures necessary to protect our children!!



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

You are on the right lines but, with regard to people returning from fighting with IS....Kill them. They aren't human. Have you seen the stuff IS did? The slave markets and suchlike? Anyone fighting for that needs taking out. no need for trials and stuff. Just shoot them in the back of the head, leave their bodies for the crows.



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join