Stephen King's Hypocirsy

originally posted by: intrepid
beyond limp.

LOL! Thanks for that! I must use it sometime.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Care to address anything else in my post that throws his commentary under the bus in regards to the border situation he's talking about?

This didn't just come out of the blue. He's been in a tweet-war (if you will) with the Tea Party over the immigration issue. So, he wasn't bashing Christians, he was bashing the Tea Party (most of whom self-identify as Christians).

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: amazing

Well said! A common sense strategy is needed for most of our problems. I am not suggesting we throw our doors wide and let everyone in, but we must acknowledge that we share partial responsibility for the failed state of Mexico, and the fate of its people, who are our brothers and sisters. From water rights to the so called "War on Drugs," we have contributed much to the problem. We owe much towards a solution. That's what Jesus would say AND do.

in a lot of ways you are right a common sense strategy is needed. there is a saying "feed someone a fish and you will feed them, teach someone to fish and they can feed themselves". a good application of this would be to go down to their countries and help them fix it so they don't have to sneak north and be a burden on the US. the first step if there is a real issue of gang problems due to the "war on drugs" would be to STOP IT, kill that prohibition that hasn't done any good. make it legal and control it just like with alcohol. that would put a huge dent into the problem all by it's self by removing that easy money from the gangs. the next step would be to send the military in both to stop these gangs by force and help rebuild the countries. a real strategy for fixing the problem. that is what real charity is, real help, not just a hand out. Jesus did not just hand out a few alms to people expecting support them. he HEALED people so they could help themselves.

a reply to: minusinfinity

Thanks for the question. No I don't believe he should provide any land if he is so inclined. My issue is his attack on people for suggesting that they are being un-Christain by not allowing the illegal aliens into the country. It's a subtle attack using religion against laws. Most folks fall prey to this when faced with moral dilemmas. As I suggested, there is a gray area and the solution lies within. It's information warfare as it best.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: intrepid
beyond limp.

LOL! Thanks for that! I must use it sometime.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Care to address anything else in my post that throws his commentary under the bus in regards to the border situation he's talking about?

This didn't just come out of the blue. He's been in a tweet-war (if you will) with the Tea Party over the immigration issue. So, he wasn't bashing Christians, he was bashing the Tea Party (most of whom self-identify as Christians).

I understand that. However he did make a broad and sweeping statement did he not?

My point is he's not accurate

Also like to add. I never thought I'd hear the term "tweet war" as an every day thing lol.

Technology is a marvel and an enigma is it not

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

He was addressing Tea Partiers. Not conservatives and not Christians. Very few Tea Partiers are helping or supportive, in any way, of the illegal immigrants.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

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

He was addressing Tea Partiers. Not conservatives and not Christians. Very few Tea Partiers are helping or supportive, in any way, of the illegal immigrants.

Well considering you yourself say most tea partiers are Christians.

And it's obvious that most tea partiers are conservatives.

Aren't you splitting hairs here?

Obfuscation it seems to me

Also if I'm not correct in my assumption of the tea party make up

How then can his or your assumptions that "most" of them don't support helping the children down there be correct?

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I understand that. However he did make a broad and sweeping statement did he not?

What broad and sweeping statement??? You're relying on Breitbart too much. Look into it from several sources. Don't EVER believe what Breitbart tells you.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Aren't you splitting hairs here?

Most Tea Partiers self-identify as Christians and conservatives, but not all Christians and conservatives are Tea Partiers. Just because he's making a jab at Tea Partiers doesn't mean he's maligning Christians and conservatives, as a lot of them are NOT Tea Partiers.

That's not splitting hairs, that's communicating clearly. If I say something about ATS members, that doesn't mean it holds true for all men and women, because ATS members are men and women...

a reply to: generik

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying that we need to own our on-going responsibility to what is happening in Mexico and in countries further south, due -- in part -- to some of our policies in South America over the past 50 years, especially if those policies continue today.

The people of Mexico didn't decide to come here because it was hipster. They are coming because illegal immigration is the best of a lot of really crummy options. That's what I mean by common sense, and you nailed it.

originally posted by: beezzer
I find it amusing that so many confuse charity with mandated theft and "forced giving".

Being robbed is not the same as donating freely.

Funny thing, during the times of Jesus, Jews were being taxed more than any others, and the Romans forced them to show their genitals to prove that they were or weren't Jews when they went to pay those taxes. Yet Jesus said to give unto Caesar, when asked about taxes.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I understand that. However he did make a broad and sweeping statement did he not?

What broad and sweeping statement??? You're relying on Breitbart too much. Look into it from several sources. Don't EVER believe what Breitbart tells you.

Cute. Yet again you're making assumptions....I don't watch brietbart (isn't he dead?) I'm going solely off his own words.

This thread isn't about me it's about kings statements

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Aren't you splitting hairs here?

Most Tea Partiers self-identify as Christians and conservatives, but not all Christians and conservatives are Tea Partiers. Just because he's making a jab at Tea Partiers doesn't mean he's maligning Christians and conservatives, as a lot of them are NOT Tea Partiers.

That's not splitting hairs, that's communicating clearly. If I say something about ATS members, that doesn't mean it holds true for all men and women, because ATS members are men and women...

So there again then. Making the sweeping statement that he did was unintelligent because it does not apply to all

Thank you for proving my point

a reply to: NavyDoc

Feel like you are taking my comments out of context.
I said that I was not calling for complete lawlessness in the names of jesus. Just not to say that laws ever stood in his way of his teachings and his desire to help those in need

originally posted by: jrflipjr
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".

ok...lol....I'm not such a fan of S. king either...his writing is sophomoric to say the least.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Making the sweeping statement that he did was unintelligent because it does not apply to all

And he did not apply it to all. He's talking to the Tea Party.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: beezzer
I find it amusing that so many confuse charity with mandated theft and "forced giving".

Being robbed is not the same as donating freely.

Funny thing, during the times of Jesus, Jews were being taxed more than any others, and the Romans forced them to show their genitals to prove that they were or weren't Jews when they went to pay those taxes. Yet Jesus said to give unto Caesar, when asked about taxes.

Thank Cuthulu that we have a secular society and what Jesus would or would not do shouldn't mean squat.

a reply to: jimmyx

Yeah, when I was young I trudged my way through "It". His sense of character development is a little over the top, in my opinion...and yes, sophomoric.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: beezzer
I find it amusing that so many confuse charity with mandated theft and "forced giving".

Being robbed is not the same as donating freely.

Funny thing, during the times of Jesus, Jews were being taxed more than any others, and the Romans forced them to show their genitals to prove that they were or weren't Jews when they went to pay those taxes. Yet Jesus said to give unto Caesar, when asked about taxes.

Thank Cuthulu that we have a secular society and what Jesus would or would not do shouldn't mean squat.

Cthulhu Is Lovecraft. Although Steve isn't above "borrowing" from anyone.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Making the sweeping statement that he did was unintelligent because it does not apply to all

And he did not apply it to all. He's talking to the Tea Party.

Yes......the Tea Party, thats a group of people..........

Why are you being obtuse about this?

I know you are a very intelligent woman, I cant for the life of me understand why you wont admit that it was unintelligent on his part to make a sweeping generalization about a whole group of people when its obviously not accurate......

When other people do this to liberals or other groups of people you agree with , you find it abhorrent........

yet strangely this to you doesn't seem to be the same thing.....

Again its just Stephen King, and in the scheme of things it really doesnt matter, this is all in the spirit of the discussion of the thread of course

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I believe what BH is saying is akin to... "All Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics."