Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So you are seriously suggesting that you think we are talking about you personally enforcing tax laws? On what planet full of crazy people would that assumption be made?

---

The planet full of crazy people that you call home. Next.

Quote:

---

Still, I'm glad to know that you are now on record as saying, "I do NOT want to legally force others to pay higher taxes." Now why you are supporting the Harris ticket that DOES want to do that very thing is a mystery. Perhaps you can "expound" on that some.

---

I'll be glad to expound. Pay attention, if you can.

The only way to effect taxes is through the taxing authority of the government. The government gets that authority from the consent of the governed. To read that consent as "legally forcing" is to misconstrue the entire apparatus of an elected government. Are you the type that is ready to take up arms as part of a "militia" opposing that concept. I hope not.

Quote:

---

That's the only part of your comments that are worth replying to.

---

You generally avoid replying to the comments that you can't defend. This time it was hell. Abortion and socialism still await a reply from you. A re-statement of what you have already said is NOT a defense.

Quote:

---

It's just amazing how liberals, rather than simply answering a question, have to go to the place of needing a point by point analysis to answer a very simple question.

---

Pay attention, again.

That's how liberals, or anyone else, reply effectively to a claim - with a point by point analysis, especially to a simple question which, by definition, leaves so much out that is necessary. Since you can't do that, you throw it under the bus. Don't you realize how truly dopey you look with statements like that?

Quote:

---

you do not want to legally (by law) force others to pay higher taxes

---

True.

Quote:

---

and that you don't consider your tax proposals, whatever they are, to have any morally superior basis.

---

Very true!

Quote:

---

If you can get a liberal to answer a few questions, then the truth becomes plain.

---

The truth was always plain - plain as the nose on your face. It's not the fault of others you can't see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

We actually have Athos on record with some clear statements.

1. 1. "NO, I do NOT consider myself morally superior for the reason you state." (because you want to legally force others to {pay higher taxes})
   
   2. "I do NOT want to legally force others to pay higher taxes."
   
   3. "I am absolutely, positively, and completely WILLING to pay higher taxes."

---

Thank you, jl. Athos, me, has a habit of making clear statements. It's easy enough to verify that - go back a few years and see what I've written. Unlike you, Jl, most members here make clear statements.

Quote:

---

Now he is supporting the Harris ticket which supports legally forcing the wealthy to pay much higher tax rates while NOT raising his tax rates, so those seem to be hollow beliefs,

---

I'm not familiar with the "Harris ticket". I'm not even sure who he is. Although your rendition of his "ticket" seems good to me as far as it goes. I have no problem with my tax rates being raised as I've already said, and which you just quoted above. So why you say my beliefs are "hollow" is one more of your semantic mysteries. Honestly, jl, the ways of expressing English are clearly beyond your ken. Shocking for someone who claims to be a teacher.

Quote:

---

You cannot, I might add, resort to your usual, "JL misquoted me" complaint, a complaint for which you are never able to cite so much as a single example.

---

My usual complaint about you is that you are so stupid and mean-spirited - not misquoting although you probably do that, also. I think you misquote the others here more than me.

Quote:

---

I copied and pasted your quotes above.

---

Yes, you did. Thank you. I'm very proud of my quotes.

Quote:

---

I had Tal on record with a statement. "Rich people pay all the taxes". However, he then went on to admit he had misstated his position and acknowledged that poor people pay taxes, which raises the question of why he said that rich people pay "all" the taxes in the first place. Oh well. Then, quite naturally, he complained that I had taken his words "literally". As is usually the case with liberals, their mistakes are always someone else's fault. That must be a very pleasant world to live in.

---

More evidence of your tendency to misunderstand what is being written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

to JL: More evidence of your tendency to misunderstand what is being written.

---

Even I, a woman (a mere WOMAN!), understood what Tal had written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Even I, a woman (a mere WOMAN!), understood what Tal had written.

---

HEY - isn't Wonder WOMAN your mom? Can you deflect bullets with your wrist like Mother? You're hardly MERE. You are - drum beat - WONDERGIRLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

HEY - isn't Wonder WOMAN your mom? Can you deflect bullets with your wrist like Mother? You're hardly MERE. You are - drum beat - WONDERGIRLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!

---

Some men don't think so. If only they'd meet with me in a public library at 302 or even 616.

Quote:

---

The only way to effect taxes is through the taxing authority of the government. The government gets that authority from the consent of the governed. To read that consent as "legally forcing" is to misconstrue the entire apparatus of an elected government. Are you the type that is ready to take up arms as part of a "militia" opposing that concept. I hope not.

---

Never thought someone would have such an issue with the very simple concept of what "legally forced" might mean. Of course taxation is legally forced, as in "legal enforcement". Do you think people do them voluntarily? If you don't think they are legally forced, try not paying your taxes. You will fairly soon have a new understanding of the concept.

Quote:

---

This time it was hell. Abortion and socialism still await a reply from you. A re-statement of what you have already said is NOT a defense.

---

I will be happy to repost the 25 scriptures concerning hell I have posted three or four times before. Do you want to see them again? There are no outstanding questions on socialism or abortion I have not already answered. But I will be more than happy to do this. I'll engage in the "ask a question, and then answer a question" system of dialogue with you. You can ask first if you'd like, but you must pledge to answer the question that will come back at you.

Quote:

---

I have no problem with my tax rates being raised as I've already said

---

You say it now. You never said it before I raised it as a question for you. So I will be happy to accept your thanks for helping you clarify your views.

I'm very happy you did not resort to the silly allegation, completely unsupported, that I misquoted you. You've tried that before to no avail, so it's nice it didn't happen here. I'm also very happy to have you on record so you can't change your views a few weeks from now. It does make it a somewhat more rational world.

As to Tal's views, I clearly understand, as do the two of you, what he said. In most places, saying that the rich pay all of the taxes means that...the rich pay all of the taxes. If either of you knows some way he can wriggle out of that, please post it. Now you can argue that he MEANT something else, but you cannot argue that he SAID something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If either of you knows some way he can wriggle out of that, please post it. Now you can argue that he MEANT something else, but you cannot argue that he SAID something else.

---

You are truly a literalist and take no interest in context.

If you can explain how his context altered his meaning, then go for it. I've been hearing that rumor for three days now, but have seen no substance. This is your chance. Seize it, oh Wonderwoman...er, Wondergirl!

BTW, I'm completely open to the idea that Tal meant something other than what he said. It would be fine to simply come back and say, "I was using hyperbole. I did not literally mean that the wealthy pay all of the taxes." OK. That's understandable. But instead, there has to be this hyper response such as the one, right on cue, below. As I've said, it is always, always someone else's fault.

Give it up dude, quoting a part of the post is lying by omission you fruitcake. No wonder you're a loon you have spun yourself dizzy. Stop changing what I said and lying about what I meant. Twisting stuff around seems to bring you perverse pleasure so should we have pretzels instead of donuts? OOOOOH...Nice big soft warm pretzels. 8O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you can explain how his context altered his meaning, then go for it.

---

You must have not studied metaphorical language in a college English class. Ah, and no Shakespeare either? (Shakespeare's works are rife with metaphors and tropes.) "All the world's a stage" and "But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!" and "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest! —Horatio, Hamlet"

I posted this just seconds, evidently, before Tal posted his. I want to repost it. He did a splendid job of verifying what I was saying. "BTW, I'm completely open to the idea that Tal meant something other than what he said. It would be fine to simply come back and say, "I was using hyperbole. I did not literally mean that the wealthy pay all of the taxes." OK. That's understandable. But instead, there has to be this hyper response such as the one, right on cue, below (or now above)."

This was your first well reasoned, sensible, calm remark. "You're a NUT! At least be an honest one and quote me fully instead of cherry picking parts of it." Good grief. Stop the snowflake routine. As I've said, it is always, always someone else's fault.

So there can never be a well-reasoned response. It always has to be a blast of finger pointing, ignorance and name calling. And now you are being compared to Shakespeare? Hmmm.

Quote:

---

You must have not studied metaphorical language in a college English class.

---

Twice. I am very familiar with it. In what way was, "the rich pay all of the taxes" a metaphor? Probably more like hyperbole?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Twice. I am very familiar with it. In what way was, "the rich pay all of the taxes" a metaphor? Probably more like hyperbole?

---

I said metaphorical language. I'd call the sentence you are quibbling about a trope: "...its major function is to give additional meaning to the text, and allow readers to think profoundly..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Give it up dude, quoting a part of the post is lying by omission you fruitcake. No wonder you're a loon you have spun yourself dizzy. Stop changing what I said and lying about what I meant. Twisting stuff around seems to bring you perverse pleasure so should we have pretzels instead of donuts? OOOOOH...Nice big soft warm pretzels. 8O

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wondergirl

You must have not studied metaphorical language in a college English class. Ah, and no Shakespeare either? (Shakespeare's works are rife with metaphors and tropes.) "All the world's a stage" and "But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!" and "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest! —Horatio, Hamlet"

---

Two posts each renowned for their remarkable use of language expressed so elegantly. It is an honor to be residing in such a wonderfully literate home such as AMHD. I am equally (almost) grateful to Jl who, with his crudities, allows such lights as you two to shine.

“Lord Polonius: What do you read, my lord?
Hamlet: Words, words, words.
Lord Polonius: What is the matter, my lord?
Hamlet: Between who?
Lord Polonius: I mean, the matter that you read, my lord.”

― William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Read on, MacDuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I am equally (almost) grateful to Jl who, with his crudities, allows such lights as you two to shine.

---

Thank you, dear Athos. Now if only JL had crudites to share with us.

Quote:

---

I said metaphorical language. I'd call the sentence you are quibbling about a trope: "...its major function is to give additional meaning to the text, and allow readers to think profoundly..."

---

I normally concede to you in matters of grammar, but I don't see here that it gave the text any additional meaning, unless you consider saying something that is untrue amounts to giving additional meaning. I think he was exaggerating for effect. Hyperbole.

Quote:

---

I am equally (almost) grateful to Jl who, with his crudities, allows such lights as you two to shine.

---

Always nice to be appreciated. Also nice for you to give us a pretty extreme example of hyperbole. Wow.

Also nice to see how enthusiastically WG supports shaming and insults. Unless, of course, she thinks they are aimed at her. Hmmm. How do you define, "double standard"?

Do you plan on taking me up on this, oh thou elegant one, thou shining light named Athos? "But I will be more than happy to do this. I'll engage in the "ask a question, and then answer a question" system of dialogue with you. You can ask first if you'd like, but you must pledge to answer the question that will come back at you." Answers need to be relatively complete with no dodging or mud slinging.

A couple of other items you did not respond to. " If you don't think they are legally forced, try not paying your taxes. You will fairly soon have a new understanding of the concept." "I will be happy to repost the 25 scriptures concerning hell I have posted three or four times before. Do you want to see them again? There are no outstanding questions on socialism or abortion I have not already answered." Perhaps you simply overlooked them. It has been a busy day, and you have needed time to wax eloquent with your glowing compliments. I'm beginning to wonder about you two!! (For the humor impaired, that is a joke.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't see that it gave the text any additional meaning, unless you consider saying something that is untrue amounts to giving additional meaning. I think he was exaggerating for effect. Hyperbole.

---

Nope.
Don't be a dope.
It's a trope.
Yes. I know you'll mope.
I definitely have hope
That, in time, you'll learn to cope
And please don't call the Pope!
I don't want to tie you up with rope!
(Maybe wash your mouth out with soap?)

Why can't you answer a simple question? What additional meaning did it give?

Calling you and Tal "lights" that "shine"? Yeahhh, I'd say that was hyperbole seven days a week. Your poem above pretty much seals the deal and everything Tal writes REALLY seals the deal. I wouldn't suggest sending your poem to a publisher. Just sayin.

"The rich pay all the taxes." That supplied additional, true information? Really???

Hyperbole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I wouldn't suggest sending your poem to a publisher. Just sayin.

---

Naw, I write better stuff than that, have been traditionally published seven times. Now I write for fun and send my work to entertain my friends who are homebound and in nursing homes. (Our cats and my hematology team have given me lots of story ideas.) Although, I did recently send in a 100-word flash fiction to a magazine for a $1000 prize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

"The rich pay all the taxes." That supplied additional, true information? Really???

Hyperbole.

---

Nope. (Don't make me write another rap poem!) Quote the entire passage, not just a cherry-picked sentence.

Alright, Ms. Dodger. That was the sentence in question, not the entire passage. Keep up!

"The rich pay all the taxes." Hyperbole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Alright, Ms. Dodger. That was the sentence in question, not the entire passage. Keep up!

"The rich pay all the taxes." Hyperbole.

---

Hope you don't fall out of the tree, Mr. Cherry Picker.

For that sentence by itself, I'll go with irony.

Oh please. Irony? You just can't admit it, can you? If he had said, "The poor, after all, pay all the taxes," then that would be irony. What he said was an exaggeration of what is already largely true. Hyperbole.

Hyperbole? you are the master of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Never thought someone would have such an issue with the very simple concept of what "legally forced" might mean. Of course taxation is legally forced, as in "legal enforcement".

---

That was not the issue. The issue was about your view that being forced to pay for the poor by taxation was something I agreed to. My answer then and now is YES. To leave out the main issue is to lose focus. No one denies that taxes are the law and the law must be obeyed.

Quote:

---

I will be happy to repost the 25 scriptures concerning hell I have posted three or four times before. Do you want to see them again?

---

I have seen them and answered some, not all because they are really different quotes on the same topic. Answer one and you've answered them all. However, if you want me to answer one by one, I'll be glad to do it. But, and this is a huge "but", before you post them, first say precisely what your position is on the subject. The original subject that I objected to was your belief that anybody who did not accept Jesus went to hell for eternal punishment. I seem to recall you changed that slightly over time. Be that as it may, state your position and I will reply.

Quote:

---

There are no outstanding questions on socialism or abortion I have not already answered.

---

Yes, there are. Socialism - you left it with health care not being a function of government. But didn't answer how you would manage it without regulation - my previous question.

Abortion - the issue was about the zygote and how, if it was human life as you maintain, why are you and other anti-abortionists not lobbying for a way to prevent a zygote from being destroyed during menstruation. Then the thread got hijacked by discussions on menstruation, etc., etc. We never got back to the question. Not your fault - it just happened that way. I forgot about it myself.

Quote:

---

I'll engage in the "ask a question, and then answer a question" system of dialogue with you. You can ask first if you'd like, but you must pledge to answer the question that will come back at you.

---

Here's the problem with that. I already answered that. It's at the bottom of my post #62 from yesterday. To say it again, you made the same offer and did not live up to it. Will you live up to it this time?

Quote:

---

You say it now. You never said it before I raised it as a question for you. ( fm Athos - To prevent confusion, this was about taxes)

---

Another one I already answered, which your comment agrees with! Read my lips - I never said it before because IT NEVER CAME UP BEFORE! Why is that so hard to understand?

Quote:

---

So I will be happy to accept your thanks for helping you clarify your views.

---

Fat chance!

Quote:

---

I'm also very happy to have you on record so you can't change your views a few weeks from now.

---

Here's a test question for you - reference the post(s) where I changed my views after a few weeks.

Quote:

---

As to Tal's views

---

Tal can speak for himself. He sure as hell doesn't need me to speak for him. He does that quite nicely.

You answered none of them other than your contention that aionios means something less than eternal, a view held by a remarkably small minority. I never changed my view. People are judged and go to hell for sin.

Quote:

---

why are you and other anti-abortionists not lobbying for a way to prevent a zygote from being destroyed during menstruation.

---

The loss of a zygote in that fashion is not criminal any more than a stillborn child is. It is one thing for nature to take its course as it will with all of us eventually. It is an entirely different issue for a med professional to purposely kill an unborn child. This can easily be compared to a person dying of old age versus that same person being shot and murdered.

Quote:

---

IT NEVER CAME UP BEFORE! Why is that so hard to understand?

---

You never cease talking about raising the taxes of others and how the wealthy supposedly do not pay their fair share. It is mighty strange that you never bothered to include yourself in that group who should have their taxes raised until I raised the issue. Very strange indeed, but at least you are now on record with it. Of course you support the Harris/Biden ticket which supports raising taxes substantially on the wealthy but not on you, and yet you have never been critical of that position. Strange indeed.

I read your reply on post 62 and you are correct that I missed seeing it. However, first you say I didn't answer a question on hell, and then you say, " I seem to recall you changed that slightly over time." How did I supposedly change it "slightly over time" without answering it to begin with? At any rate, since I have answered it again just now, are you prepared for my question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I read your reply on post 62 and you are correct that I missed seeing it.

---

I'm not going to reply to your post # 106 - it's all repetitive nonsense. There's no point in going down that road again.

Quote:

---

You say, " I seem to recall you changed that slightly over time." How did I supposedly change it "slightly over time" without answering it to begin with? At any rate, since I have answered it again just now, are you prepared for my question?

---

This is how you changed it. In the beginning, I challenged you on your belief that those who did not accept Jesus would go to hell for eternal punishment. You supported that belief by saying "The Bible says so". Then the discussion went on with me asking you to put it in your own words. But you would never do that - always referring me to the Bible. Variations of this theme went on forever it seems until your failure to own up to your promise if I stated my belief. That's all noted in my post #62 which you have read, so I won't repeat it.

If your position NOW is "People are judged and go to hell for sin" - that is about as far as you can get from the original stated belief of yours. It makes no mention of accepting Jesus and is so wishy-washy as to have no real meaning at all.

You ask "Are you prepared for my question?" If you stick to issues, any issues under the sun, and not personal details, I'm always prepared for your question. All the members here are free to provide any personal details they want, but are not required to give them at the request of another. Fair enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

If your [JL's] position NOW is "People are judged and go to hell for sin"

---

ALL have sinned (Romans 3:23), so all are going to hell?

I thought you knew your Bible better than that, WG. Read the next three verses for your answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I thought you knew your Bible better than that, WG. Read the next three verses for your answer.

---

Oh, but I'm cherry-picking to emulate my hero cherry-picker.

Athos I have not changed my belief or answer. Hell is the judgement for sin. Are you ready for a question?

Weak weak reply WG, but at least you have your answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Athos I have not changed my belief or answer. Hell is the judgement for sin. Are you ready for a question?

---

I've already described (more than once) what your belief was as originally stated. Are you denying that your belief then was that those who did not accept Jesus are going to hell for eternal punishment? It's OK if you are.

If you have re-thought that position and changed it to "Hell is the judgement for sin" I have no problem with you changing it. Your latest definition avoids several key elements of your original - to wit: punishment, Jesus, and eternal. Actually, that's far better than the original.

As I explained above, I'm always ready for any question from anybody. Here's what I wrote.

You ask "Are you prepared for my question?" If you stick to issues, any issues under the sun, and not personal details, I'm always prepared for your question. All the members here are free to provide any personal details they want, but are not required to give them at the request of another. Fair enough?

Have at it.

Quote:

---

If you have re-thought that position and changed it to "Hell is the judgement for sin" I have no problem with you changing it. Your latest definition avoids several key elements of your original - to wit: punishment, Jesus, and eternal. Actually, that's far better than the original.

---

I haven't rethought or changed anything, but I do think I see the source of your confusion. You regard the two statements to be mutually exclusive. They are not. They are actually complimentary. It can be easily seen in the statement, posted repeatedly, of Jesus in John 16. "Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins." Now what shall they die in? Their sins. And what is the solution for that? "Believe that I am He." So you can see that sin causes death, which is to say judgement and separation from God, and a belief in Christ leads to life and forgiveness. They are two sides of the same coin. The same concept can be easily seen in John 3:18 as well. "18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [f]only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." It can also be seen in Mt. 25. "46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Who goes into eternal judgment? Those who Jesus convicted of sin. Who goes into eternal life? The righteous. And how do we become righteous? Through faith in Christ.

Quote:

---

All the members here are free to provide any personal details they want, but are not required to give them at the request of another. Fair enough?

---

That bothers me. It seems that you are saying that you will answer a question, but you will not be required to do so. Well, I'm not interested in that. We must mutually agree to participate.

relying of selective translation there Jl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I haven't rethought or changed anything,.......................................etc., etc., .................................................. .................etc ......................................... ve that I am He." So you can see that sin............................................... .............etc .......................................... .......................................etc........ .......? Through faith in Christ.

---

Nonsense. Do you want to see your original statements?

Quote:

---

That bothers me. It seems that you are saying that you will answer a question, but you will not be required to do so. Well, I'm not interested in that. We must mutually agree to participate.

---

I knew you would find a reason to back out. We've been here before and you backed out then. Do you want to see that. too?

There is another example of the complimentary nature of those two ideas that occurred to me tonight. From John 3 we read the account from Exodus of the deadly serpents. They were sent by God in judgement upon Israel for sin. He also had an image of the serpent put on a pole, and anyone who looked upon the serpent was spared from death. Now you can't really say they were dying because they failed to look at the serpent. They were dying because they had been bitten by a serpent. If they failed to avail themselves of God's means of rescue, and so died, it could not be said to be directly from that failure. Death came from the serpent, but the two ideas are certainly related. One, in fact, occurred in response to the other.

Jesus applied that lesson to Himself. When we look upon Him in faith, we are spared from judgement. Judgement concerning what? Judgement concerning sin.

Quote:

---

Do you want to see your original statements?

---

Sure.

I'm backing out of nothing. If you are willing to obligate yourself, then I'm all in. Are you willing?

Quote:

---

Nonsense

---

Wow. What a well reasoned, thoughtful, and intelligent response.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Athos:

Nonsense

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Wow. What a well reasoned, thoughtful, and intelligent response.

---

It perfectly dovetails with your nonsense about serpents.

Just in case you failed to see it.

"I'm backing out of nothing. If you are willing to obligate yourself, then I'm all in. Are you willing?"

You can back out, of course, at any time you want simply by saying so.

Quote:

---

That was not the issue. The issue was about your view that being forced to pay for the poor by taxation was something I agreed to. My answer then and now is YES. To leave out the main issue is to lose focus. No one denies that taxes are the law and the law must be obeyed.

---

That's only half true. The issue concerned having your taxes raised. You have now agreed that you are willing for that to happen. I anticipate seeing those times when you advocate for that outside of a question from me. I suspect I'll be waiting a while, but time will tell.

"I am absolutely, positively, and completelyWILLING to pay higher taxes."