Is Obama the second coming of Jesus Christ or is he merely Christ-like?

[tokeprep]

your intellect is dizzying.

Let me help you out again.

"The vast majority of the tax money still isn't going to charity for the poor.."

See that, Buck? Poor. P-o-o-r.

"The "poor" aren't poor."

See that, Buck? I explicitly distinguish "poor" from poor. Note p-o-o-r with quotation marks is not the same as p-o-o-r without quotation marks.

"there are genuinely poor people in the United States."

See that, Buck? In this sentence it's poor, p-o-o-r without quotation marks, not "poor," p-o-o-r with quotation marks.

Is this explicit enough for you to follow now, Buck? Is it clear to you yet that the words poor and "poor" throughout this discussion are being used consistently to mean distinct things?

 

[tokeprep]

damning to who?

you contradicted yourself and then re-contradicted yourself.

You've got the whole discussion reduced to one post. Why don't you point out these supposed contradictions in the post instead of just making a baseless claim?

 

[tokeprep]

Isn't everything God's? Therefore isn't it technically mocking that you can't render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's if it's God's in the first place?

Given that the clerics asking Jesus the question were trying to get him to say something damning against Rome, I doubt Jesus' words were or were intended to be mocking.

 

[UncleBuck]

Let me help you out again.

"The vast majority of the tax money still isn't going to charity for the poor.."

See that, Buck? Poor. P-o-o-r.

"The "poor" aren't poor."

See that, Buck? I explicitly distinguish "poor" from poor. Note p-o-o-r with quotation marks is not the same as p-o-o-r without quotation marks.

"there are genuinely poor people in the United States."

See that, Buck? In this sentence it's poor, p-o-o-r without quotation marks, not "poor," p-o-o-r with quotation marks.

Is this explicit enough for you to follow now, Buck? Is it clear to you yet that the words poor and "poor" throughout this discussion are being used consistently to mean distinct things?

we get it, you need to use a different definition every time to prop up your failed argument. you've given up on the initial points of contention and now we're just discussing your dishonesty, inconsistency, and contradictions.

 

[UncleBuck]

this has been primarily hilarious.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Given that the clerics asking Jesus the question were trying to get him to say something damning against Rome, I doubt Jesus' words were or were intended to be mocking.

Wouldn't that be reason to say something like that in such a way and fool them? Why not say, "give to Caesar the taxes he requires." If that's what was meant, it's an odd way of saying it.

 

[tokeprep]

we get it, you need to use a different definition every time to prop up your failed argument. you've given up on the initial points of contention and now we're just discussing your dishonesty, inconsistency, and contradictions.

My post combining the discussion speaks for itself. Again, you're not point out any of these supposed inconsistencies or contradictions, and the digest post dispels all of your previous claims that I was being inconsistent or contradictory.

And YOU, Buck, gave up every single one of the initial points, not me. Again, intellectually dishonest! Blatantly and shamefully so! But that's precisely what we expect from you. You're here to feign victory and insult people, not to have any honest discussions.

I do love making you look foolish in front of everyone, though, so I'm content to tolerate such pitiful and childish behavior.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

this has been primarily hilarious.

Retarded people often find many things hilarious that's only humorous to themselves.

 

[tokeprep]

this has been primarily hilarious.

As always. I approach you grinning and laughing at you in order to amuse myself.

And I smile now at your referencing your own intellectual dishonesty in using dated budget numbers in a failed attempt to attack my language.

 

[UncleBuck]

My post combining the discussion speaks for itself.

it sure does. it illustrates very well your need to change definitions to prop up your ever changing arguments.

And YOU, Buck, gave up every single one of the initial points, not me.

is that right?

so when you said that you could just be a welfare sponge, that illustrates how mandatory it is to work and pay taxes?



and when you said jesus said you should pay poll taxes, that illustrates his opposition to food stamp taxes?



i guess that's why we must be focusing on your evolving and devolving and then re-evolving thoughts on the existence (or non-existence, when it suits you) of poor people.

 

[tokeprep]

Wouldn't that be reason to say something like that in such a way and fool them? Why not say, "give to Caesar the taxes he requires." If that's what was meant, it's an odd way of saying it.

Throughout the New Testament Jesus refers to material things as fleeting and perishable, contrasting them with heavenly treasure that is eternal. I would say his indifference toward the material things in the Caesar story is entirely consistent with that message.

 

[tokeprep]

it sure does. it illustrates very well your need to change definitions to prop up your ever changing arguments.

Still not identified. Baseless and unsupported claims.

is that right?

so when you said that you could just be a welfare sponge, that illustrates how mandatory it is to work and pay taxes?



and when you said jesus said you should pay poll taxes, that illustrates his opposition to food stamp taxes?

In both cases I continued the arguments until you gave them up. You know why you gave them: I refuted your replies and then you replied to me making exactly the same arguments. I continued refuting your arguments on factual and logical grounds until you retreated and finally stopped repeating yourself and ignoring my arguments.

Anyone who looks back at the posts will see exactly that.

i guess that's why we must be focusing on your evolving and devolving and then re-evolving thoughts on the existence (or non-existence, when it suits you) of poor people.

Supposed inconsistencies and contradictions still not identified. Baseless and unsupported claims.

 

[UncleBuck]

In both cases I continued the arguments until you gave them up. You know why you gave them: I refuted your replies and then you replied to me making exactly the same arguments. I continued refuting your arguments on factual and logical grounds until you retreated and finally stopped repeating yourself and ignoring my arguments.

so tell me again how mandatory work is, while conceding that you can just go on welfare instead.

i love watching you explain that irreconcilable impossibility over the course of 17 paragraphs, the last three of which are proclamations of how victorious you are.

 

[tokeprep]

so tell me again how mandatory work is, while conceding that you can just go on welfare instead.

i love watching you explain that irreconcilable impossibility over the course of 17 paragraphs, the last three of which are proclamations of how victorious you are.

Sure. Your statement was about the aggregate and my statement was about the individual. This has been explained in detail three or four times now. Feel free to consult those previous posts and reply to their substance instead of simply repeating your claims and ignoring my responses. Thanks.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

so tell me again how mandatory work is, while conceding that you can just go on welfare instead.

i love watching you explain that irreconcilable impossibility over the course of 17 paragraphs, the last three of which are proclamations of how victorious you are.

No one is victorious against those who wear helmets to post online.

Is your real name Benny?

 

[UncleBuck]

Sure. Your statement was about the aggregate and my statement was about the individual. This has been explained in detail three or four times now. Feel free to consult those previous posts and reply to their substance instead of simply repeating your claims and ignoring my responses. Thanks.

you've still never told me where i have ever said the word "aggregate". this is my second time asking you about that, dumbass.

 

[tokeprep]

you've still never told me where i have ever said the word "aggregate". this is my second time asking you about that, dumbass.

You didn't use the word aggregate and I never claimed you did. I don't recall you ever asking me about my use of the word, so I apologize if you did and I missed it somehow.

Initially you made a universal statement: all work is voluntary and thus all taxation is voluntary. I disputed this notion and you brought up welfare, suggesting that I have a choice between work and welfare. Your claim that I have a choice between work and welfare at an individual level is true, I certainly conceded that. But beyond the individual level, considering everyone together ("in aggregate"), I pointed out that if everyone has this choice and chooses welfare, the system would collapse, because there would be no sources of revenue or goods to support anyone. If everyone together cannot choose welfare, then not all work is voluntary, since it is impossible to for everyone to freely make that choice. Some level of work is necessary to support the system.

You suggested that some people choose to work, presumably providing everyone else with a free choice between work and welfare. I argued that it wasn't actually a free choice, that it was coerced by the certain knowledge that the system could not support everyone if everyone made a free choice.

Instead of addressing my reply at that point, you simply repeated your claim that some people choose to work and ignored my argument. Since you didn't substantively reply to my point, I didn't substantively reply to yours either.

 

[UncleBuck]

You didn't use the word aggregate and I never claimed you did.

ok, thanks for admitting that you're reformulating my arguments as well as your own.

Initially you made a universal statement: all work is voluntary and thus all taxation is voluntary.

that's actually not what i said, that's the argument you made up.

if everyone has this choice and chooses welfare, the system would collapse

as i've said before, it's a good thing some people choose to work.

the system could not support everyone if everyone made a free choice.

everyone does make a free choice. no one is forced to work and no one is forced to take welfare.

you simply repeated your claim that some people choose to work

that's not my claim, that's an indisputable fact. some people do choose to work, although no one is forcing them to.

shall we move on to your notion that jesus says you should pay your poll tax, but shouldn't pay food stamp or indigent health care taxes?

 

[tokeprep]

ok, thanks for admitting that you're reformulating my arguments as well as your own.

I did no such thing.

that's actually not what i said, that's the argument you made up.

Make up your mind. Is work voluntary or not? You said it was. Is paying taxes voluntary or not? You said it was. These are your arguments, so I have no need to make anything up. You didn't need to use the word "aggregate" for it to be applicable, unless you're suggesting that I must limit my vocabulary in responses to your posts to the vocabulary you used, which would be absurd.

as i've said before, it's a good thing some people choose to work.

everyone does make a free choice. no one is forced to work and no one is forced to take welfare.

And as I've said before, what you paint as a free choice is actually a coerced choice.

that's not my claim, that's an indisputable fact. some people do choose to work, although no one is forcing them to.

I already conceded that some people can choose to work. I used the example of my classmate with a trust fund. He has the choice to work (and chose not to). The vast majority of people have no such free choice. If they all chose welfare it could not possibly support them. Underlying everything is the knowledge that no work means no output, which means death. This coerces people to act despite the appearance of a free choice.

shall we move on to your notion that jesus says you should pay your poll tax, but shouldn't pay food stamp or indigent health care taxes?

Again, I never said that. I said Jesus would tell people to pay both taxes, if the civil authorities commanded people to pay such taxes. Where I take issue with you is your assertion that Jesus' saying people should pay the tax constitutes an endorsement of it, in either case. It does not. "Render unto Caesar" does not mean "Fuck yeah, Roman taxes! Best thing ever! I support them 100%!" All it means is "You cannot object to paying this tax because you're a Jew." Evidently you don't comprehend the difference.

To be clear, I realize that you do understand the difference and are purposely acting dense. Everyone realizes it.

 

[UncleBuck]

nice try kiddo.

but everyone still has the choice to work and pay taxes or go on welfare and not pay taxes. no one is forced to do either.

you can keep trying to change my words and my arguments, and you undoubtedly will. but it won't change this simple reality.