Lol! Welcome to yesterday!
If you had paid attention you would know just how hollow that boycott effort of Cracker Barrel is!
As I pointed out yesterday, they are not exactly boycotting since all they are doing is removing the Duck Commander Product that has Phils picture on the packaging! More of an attempt to hide their support than it is an attempt to cause Duck Commander or Duck Dynasty any trouble.
Just like A&E is not really removing Phil from its broadcasts either. They are running Duck Dynasty marathons...with him in it. They are finishing the current filming schedule of the next season of episodes...with him in it. And fully intend to air the season on schedule! Hell, if his contract has any compensation tied to ratings they effectively just gave him a raise as well as boosting sales for Duck Commander product!!
So it looks like the A&E efforts, and the Cracker Barrel efforts are about as genuine as Obama's promise we could all keep our plan and doctor!!
Oh well, whatever appeases the left I guess. Substance be damned, just pose for the picture and utter some empty rhetorical bluster and they keep tuning in (or voting for you)...
Slick, it is my experience that few people grasp that God did not change from the Old Testament to the New. The Bible is a whole. Old Testament principles still apply, and as the Bible says these things were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Things still work the same way. The ONLY thing that has changed is that God's people are now under a new and better covenant with God, under which he has dealt with the requirements of the old specifically Himself, and His people have access directly to Him in His Son. Pitting the New Testament against the Old is a common religious mistake, but it's very, very ignorant.
In direct answer to your accusation about treating Old Testament law unequally, it's because various laws are obviously not equal in their purpose. You're fond of bringing up shellfish... does God hate shellfish? God created shellfish! Does God hate sodomy? God created them male and female... God had a reason for the dietary laws in the Old Testament, and they specifically apply to his stated desire that his people were to be Holy, as a reflection on Him to each other and to the rest of the world. So why do I eat shellfish but I don't condone sodomy? It's because the people of God now have a new and better way to be Holy than keeping the law, but God's opinion of Sodomy has not changed... God still created them male and female... And now in the New Testament we see that people involved in Sodomy will not inherit the kingdom of God, but have their place in the lake of fire (gee, maybe in the final analysis it didn't make such a difference how often it was mentioned...).
snoopy, this is for you when you asked me to look a litter harder at Phil's statements. Not only do I still think what he said is ignorant and vile, so do others:
CUDA wrote:do you not understand the reason the bible talk against wealth in those texts. It is because it becomes their god. I understand this might be a difficult concept for you to understand. But give it a shot. I dare you. See if you grasp it.
Huh, hasn't money become worshiped as a God in America NOW? Aren't we so enamored with Capitalism that anything or anyone that attacks it speaks heresy, or is a "gasp" Marxist? Even the Pope? Hasn't the Christmas Holiday turned into a blatant excuse to blast people with advertising 24/7 to make them go out and buy crap for the sole reason that they HAVE to buy crap to make people and businesses happy during the season? Yea, bow down to your Wall Street Gods and verily go out and spend lots of money to appease those Gods for one more year.
[youtube]t3eVeT0zKW4[/youtube]
[youtube]FZOfY7ZS59o[/youtube]
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
tunnelcat wrote:Huh, hasn't money become worshiped as a God in America NOW? Aren't we so enamored with Capitalism that anything or anyone that attacks it speaks heresy, or is a "gasp" Marxist? Even the Pope? Hasn't the Christmas Holiday turned into a blatant excuse to blast people with advertising 24/7 to make them go out and buy crap for the sole reason that they HAVE to buy crap to make people and businesses happy during the season? Yea, bow down to your Wall Street Gods and verily go out and spend lots of money to appease those Gods for one more year.
I find this whole paragraph to very odd. You just laid all greed, and the commercialization of the holidays at the feet of capitalism. Greed has been around a lot longer than capitalism... I think you have an ideological axe to grind and you see things in light of it. I don't like big business and commercialism any more than the next guy, but you know it's not all bad, it just seems to be an apt vehicle for greed where greed exists, and there doesn't seem to be anyone with the moral authority to deal with that distinct part of it. It's not the only vehicle for greed, by any means, but it is the vehicle we have.
What it comes down to, really, is the person or person's who start a business, and what their goal is. Capitalism serves a good man very well. I say we have a surplus of men who are not good men. You seem to be trying to say that moving away from capitalism will change that. Take away a man's power to prosper, and you keep the evil men from prospering to evil ends, eh? Is that really a solution?
CUDA wrote:do you not understand the reason the bible talk against wealth in those texts. It is because it becomes their god. I understand this might be a difficult concept for you to understand. But give it a shot. I dare you. See if you grasp it.
Huh, hasn't money become worshiped as a God in America NOW? Aren't we so enamored with Capitalism that anything or anyone that attacks it speaks heresy, or is a "gasp" Marxist? Even the Pope? Hasn't the Christmas Holiday turned into a blatant excuse to blast people with advertising 24/7 to make them go out and buy crap for the sole reason that they HAVE to buy crap to make people and businesses happy during the season? Yea, bow down to your Wall Street Gods and verily go out and spend lots of money to appease those Gods for one more year.
hence
1 timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil.
Capitalism, Marxism. It doesnt matter now does it. People have made money their god. They worship it. And sometimes do evil thing to attain it. That is what Christ was speaking about. Priorities. Dont love money. Love me and I will provide.
James 4: 2-3
You do not receive because you do not ask, and when you ask, you ask with the wrong motives.
God/Christ is NOT anti wealth, to the contrary, but he knows the heart of most men and knows what the acquisition of wealth will do to them.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
tunnelcat wrote:Huh, hasn't money become worshiped as a God in America NOW? Aren't we so enamored with Capitalism that anything or anyone that attacks it speaks heresy, or is a "gasp" Marxist? Even the Pope? Hasn't the Christmas Holiday turned into a blatant excuse to blast people with advertising 24/7 to make them go out and buy crap for the sole reason that they HAVE to buy crap to make people and businesses happy during the season? Yea, bow down to your Wall Street Gods and verily go out and spend lots of money to appease those Gods for one more year.
I find this whole paragraph to very odd. You just laid all greed, and the commercialization of the holidays at the feet of capitalism. Greed has been around a lot longer than capitalism... I think you have an ideological axe to grind and you see things in light of it. I don't like big business and commercialism any more than the next guy, but you know it's not all bad, it just seems to be an apt vehicle for greed where greed exists, and there doesn't seem to be anyone with the moral authority to deal with that distinct part of it. It's not the only vehicle for greed, by any means, but it is the vehicle we have.
What it comes down to, really, is the person or person's who start a business, and what their goal is. Capitalism serves a good man very well. I say we have a surplus of men who are not good men. You seem to be trying to say that moving away from capitalism will change that. Take away a man's power to prosper, and you keep the evil men from prospering to evil ends, eh? Is that really a solution?
We already have taken away most American's chances to rise above their status and prosper. We don't have Capitalism anymore, we have the stagnant stratification of an Aristocracy forming. Christmas has become another tool to feed the Aristocrat's wealth, not worship Jesus. I can no longer feel Jesus' message of love and forgiveness when sales ads to buy this or that drown out the message. Capitalism is great, when it works as it's supposed to and wealth doesn't accumulate in the hands of the few. Then it becomes a prison for those that get stuck at the bottom.
flip wrote:Capitalism only works in the absence of monopoly.
and, as has been known since Teddy Roosevelt's time, GOVERNMENT is the only thing that prevents formation of monopolies.
Except that the government actually created monopolies and the best example was Ma Bell, which was the best damn company of all time, then of course they saw fit to break up Ma Bell.
The result was 3 of the crappiest companies of all time.
You know that competition keeps prices down*…but it also keeps wages down….ahhh what’s the use…
flip wrote:Capitalism only works in the absence of monopoly.
and, as has been known since Teddy Roosevelt's time, GOVERNMENT is the only thing that prevents formation of monopolies.
Except that the government actually created monopolies and the best example was Ma Bell, which was the best damn company of all time, then of course they saw fit to break up Ma Bell.
The result was 3 of the crappiest companies of all time.
well, they make the shareholders a ton of money!
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
woodchip wrote:TC, what would you have replace capitalism? The govt.?
How about they work TOGETHER, so that the interests of people, not the corporations and elite, so that we don't get MONOPOLIES or FAMILY WEALTH aggregated in the hands of the few. In other words, have fair and strong rules that help maintain a vibrant middle class, foster business growth, but not favor movement towards a Plutocracy or Aristocracy. And woody, I am not a socialist, but government can be set up to work for the people, if we at least try. Like it or not, we are a society and a nation, not a group of tribes out to compete with one another for the scraps. You'll also notice that one date is very important in that Great Gatsby Curve and the income inequality and aggregation we have now. The early 1980's ring a bell?
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
woodchip wrote:TC, what would you have replace capitalism? The govt.?
How about they work TOGETHER,
they DO work together. that's the problem
outlaw lobbyists. but that will never happen
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
woodchip wrote:TC, what would you have replace capitalism? The govt.?
How about they work TOGETHER, so that the interests of people, not the corporations and elite, so that we don't get MONOPOLIES or FAMILY WEALTH aggregated in the hands of the few. In other words, have fair and strong rules that help maintain a vibrant middle class, foster business growth, but not favor movement towards a Plutocracy or Aristocracy. And woody, I am not a socialist, but government can be set up to work for the people, if we at least try. Like it or not, we are a society and a nation, not a group of tribes out to compete with one another for the scraps. You'll also notice that one date is very important in that Great Gatsby Curve and the income inequality and aggregation we have now. The early 1980's ring a bell?
Govt won't work as the politicians are greedier than any business owner or corporate CEO.
CUDA wrote:they DO work together. that's the problem
outlaw lobbyists. but that will never happen
No they don't. Republicans only want a government for running the military while letting the free market do it's own thing without government hindrance and Democrats want to use it to run everything. No middle ground at all between the 2. But sadly, you're right that we will never get rid of lobbyists, unless congress outlaws the practice. Fat chance.
woodchip wrote:Govt won't work as the politicians are greedier than any business owner or corporate CEO.
There's that too. I guess we are screwed. Excuse me for being a dreamer and thinking that we can overcome basal human nature and make something work.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
callmeslick wrote:an informed, INVOLVED citizenry trumps all the whines above. Fact.
You'll never find one in this country. There is too much bull★■◆● being spread by both sides, and it takes herculean efforts just to shift through it.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I think everything we do right to that end does build to a solution. I think it is this way with everything in life. The question is will the problem wait for such a solution. Involved, informed citizenry are a solution, period, regardless of whether it's too late to save the U.S. form of government or economy at this stage. As an aside, some people's idea of "informed" is a joke equivalent to that of the people i know of who were so proud of themselves for making an "educated" decision in voting for Obama. On some level there's a need to point out the hopelessness of the situation, but throwing up one's hands doesn't do anyone any good.
The type that thinks government should be answerable to the people. Not the people answerable to the government.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Last I heard, the tea party wanted only enough government to run the military, cut taxes to the bone, get rid of all the entitlement programs and throw out all the regulations that hinder those poor, suffering markets. Oh, and they wanted to get rid of Obama at all costs. In fact, I think that was their number one idea.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
woodchip wrote:TC, you don't think that the states could do most of what the govt does now? And the Tea Party would also like to see a balanced federal budget.
Put it this way. If Civil Rights, or Women's Voting Rights were done on a state by state basis, there still wouldn't be Civil Rights or Women's Voting Rights in a lot of states TO THIS DAY. Letting the states do everything would the same as if we were a bunch of little nation states living right next to each other and not getting along. It wouldn't BE the United States at all.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
tunnelcat wrote:Put it this way. If Civil Rights, or Women's Voting Rights were done on a state by state basis, there still wouldn't be Civil Rights or Women's Voting Rights in a lot of states TO THIS DAY.
and I'm sure you can back that up assertion with evidence cant ya.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
tunnelcat wrote:Put it this way. If Civil Rights, or Women's Voting Rights were done on a state by state basis, there still wouldn't be Civil Rights or Women's Voting Rights in a lot of states TO THIS DAY.
and I'm sure you can back that up assertion with evidence cant ya.
Nope. Just my hypothesis. In fact, I'm betting that if we didn't have a federal government wielding it's power over the states, the Civil War would've split America into 2 separate nations, and the one in the South would still have slavery. Even if we'd had a Civil War and Lincoln had brought all the states in line, I'm also betting that most of the Jim Crow laws would still be in place in the South today.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Maybe, but we'll never know will we. and to speculate does a dishonor to those that fought in the south to change those laws
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
And the other side of the coin is….the elimination of having places that suit different people, and a one size fits all policy…that could be the wrong one.
The federal government exists to see that the states play nice to each other and to protect peoples rights and protect us against foreign enemies not micromanage everything possible.
The perfect example is weed…it should not be illegal at the federal level…nor should it be legal at that level either.
CUDA wrote:Maybe, but we'll never know will we. and to speculate does a dishonor to those that fought in the south to change those laws
If it hadn't been for the Federal government, all those who fought for rights would have hit a brick wall in some states. It took the Feds to force them into line. We'd still have a bunch of George Wallaces and Strom Thurmans running their states like little fiefdoms. I'm not talking only about those from the Republican Party either. The Dems have their stains that won't wash out.
Spidey wrote:The perfect example is weed…it should not be illegal at the federal level…nor should it be legal at that level either.
Well, what status should it have? No status at all? Right now, many states are thumbing their noses at the feds, and the feds are turning a partial blind eye in response.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
CUDA wrote:Maybe, but we'll never know will we. and to speculate does a dishonor to those that fought in the south to change those laws
If it hadn't been for the Federal government, all those who fought for rights would have hit a brick wall in some states. It took the Feds to force them into line. We'd still have a bunch of George Wallaces and Strom Thurmans running their states like little fiefdoms. I'm not talking only about those from the Republican Party either.
good because Wallace and Thurman were both Democrats,
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
