Ask Me Help Desk - Top Two Incorrect Statements by Libs

Top Two Incorrect Statements by Libs

At least they are the top two I've heard so far today.

1. "We must make the rich pay their fair share." The rich already pay well over 85% of fed income taxes and practically all of inheritance taxes. The bottome 50% pay basically nothing.

2. "Most rich people inherited their wealth." Also flatly wrong. Fidelity did research showing that 88% of millionaires did NOT inherit their wealth, and about 2/3 of those worth 30 mil or more did not inherit their wealth.

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/28...-got-rich.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybu...h=301f19fa1bac

Dan Henninger has a relevant op ed today in WSJ . He makes the case that by what Quid says ,and not how he labels himself , Quid is a democratic socialist .

Joe Biden (D., Socialist) - WSJ

Rather sad that we are so quick to throw away what allowed such great wealth to be amassed in such a relatively short period of time. The homeless in America enjoy a standard of living that was only dreamed of by most people in the world just a hundred years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The homeless in America enjoy a standard of living that was only dreamed of by most people in the world just a hundred years ago.

If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now.

Quote:

If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now.

in the days before the nanny state decided it knew better how to deal with the homeless than private charity ?

Reply

A hundred years ago, if you were homeless, you were literally homeless and hungry to boot. Now homeless people are allowed to set up tents in the middle of downtown areas, use the bathroom wherever they please, and have plenty to eat. That's the norm. There are exceptions of course, but that's the norm. In our area, homeless people only go hungry because they choose to. There are plenty of sources or clothing and food.

Interesting, JL. Had I said I'd prefer to be homeless nowadays, as was our longtime library visitor and my good friend Jerry, you would have shot that down in like manner. No matter what I post, to your way of thinking, it's wrong.

When you’re right I support you. When I think you’re wrong I try to challenge your thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

When you’re right I support you. When I think you’re wrong I try to challenge your thinking.

I've apparently never been right.

I would hope you would do the same with me.

And being right is relative, not a slam dunk. Same for being wrong. Unless you're doing math.

So if a person says it's wrong for a young man to kill and rob an elderly woman, then that statement is not right, but only "relatively" right? And the act itself is not really wrong, but only "relatively" wrong?

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly.

Good news!! The 3.5 tril spending package proposed by the dems will, according to Mr. Biden, cost us nothing. So we can, in this brave new world, spend 3,500,000 million dollars without it costing anything? If the American people believe that, then all is lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly.

Nope, you aren't. You and I constantly differ regarding opinions/points of view/ways of thinking, not morals.

Good! For a minute there I thought you had said, "...being right is relative, not a slam dunk. Same for being wrong." So I took that to mean right and wrong are both "relative". I am open to correction.

Please...no fog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Please...no fog.

You and I constantly differ regarding opinions/points of view/ways of thinking, not morals. I post something and you immediately play devil's advocate.

Give an example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Give an example.

WG: "If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now."
JL: "A hundred years ago, if you were homeless, you were literally homeless and hungry to boot. Now homeless people are allowed to set up tents in the middle of downtown areas, use the bathroom wherever they please, and have plenty to eat."

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

WG: "If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now."
JL: "A hundred years ago, if you were homeless, you were literally homeless and hungry to boot. Now homeless people are allowed to set up tents in the middle of downtown areas, use the bathroom wherever they please, and have plenty to eat."

A better response would have been: "Why would being homeless a hundred years ago be more preferable to you than being homeless now?"

If I need advice on how to respond, I will not ask the lady given to smokescreens. Sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If I need advice on how to respond, I will not ask the lady given to smokescreens. Sorry.

You get smokescreens BECAUSE your responses are those of a bully and intend to insult and intimidate.

Oh please. My responses are pointed and intended to try and clarify your murky positions. Start giving clear and concise answers, and the well-deserved smokescreen comments will amazingly cease.

It would be nice to stop blaming your problems on someone else. Just own it and move on. That's not mean; it's just true.

You are being judgmental again. Shame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Start giving clear and concise answers, and the well-deserved smokescreen comments will amazingly cease.

Be sure to start out with the question you asked me. Quote of one of my "murky" positions, and then show me what a "clear and concise answer" would be.

Sure. Here was my question. "I am asking you why it is OK to kill the baby at 7 months and not at 11 months. What is your standard?"

Your reply was, "Sad? Look in the mirror. Why are we talking about babies that have been born?"

Smoke Alert!! But you can redeem yourself. At seven months after conception, you are fine with killing the unborn child, but at 11 months after (plainly, 2 months after birth), you are not. What makes the difference for you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Sure. Here was my question. "I am asking you why it is OK to kill the baby at 7 months and not at 11 months. What is your standard?"

I thought you were talking about babies that had been born and were 7 and 11 months old.

Quote:

Your reply was, "Sad? Look in the mirror. Why are we talking about babies that have been born?"

Thus, my reply to you on this post.

Here is the entire post:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...post-right.pngYou know better, and that's the sad part. You know full well that was not the conversation. I am asking you why it is OK to kill the baby at 7 months and not at 11 months. What is your standard?
WG: Sad? Look in the mirror. Why are we talking about babies that have been born?

Quote:

Smoke Alert!! But you can redeem yourself. At seven months after conception, you are fine with killing the unborn child, but at 11 months after (plainly, 2 months after birth), you are not. What makes the difference for you?

I have NEVER said I'm "fine with killing the unborn child!"

And just like that you post number two.

I said, "But you can redeem yourself. At seven months after conception, you are fine with killing the unborn child, but at 11 months after (plainly, 2 months after birth), you are not. What makes the difference for you?"

Your reply? "I have NEVER said I'm 'fine with killing the unborn child!' " Of course you have. You have listed such silly excuses as, "Her birth control didn't work." So somehow the baby is of lessor value if he/she is the result of a woman saying she took the pill but got pregnant anyway. You have steadfastly refused to list ANY reason for an abortion you would prohibit. And then, from the smoke, you want to complain that you never said this or that.

Tell us what circumstances you would not allow an abortion for, and we can continue. Until then, the smoke has me coughing too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And just like that you post number two.

Stop jumping around! I said:

"I thought you were talking about babies that had been born and were 7 and 11 months old."

Why had you not clarified immediately?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Tell us what circumstances you would not allow an abortion for, and we can continue. Until then, the smoke has me coughing too much.

I am responsible only for myself. I (probably) would not have an abortion, but that would be MY decision to make after examining all the medical, personal, emotional, and spiritual aspects. It's each woman's decision to make.

Now that the Irish have bowled over Wisconsin - I think I'll jump in

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I am responsible only for myself. I (probably) would not have an abortion, but that would be MY decision to make after examining all the medical, personal, emotional, and spiritual aspects. It's each woman's decision to make.

Not that you need any help, WG, you're doing more than fine.

This is the essential point Jl misses - pro-CHOICE is not the same as APPROVAL. Most pro-choicers I know may or may not approve of abortion for themselves, but they do not deny that CHOICE to others.

Quote:

I am responsible only for myself. I (probably) would not have an abortion, but that would be MY decision to make after examining all the medical, personal, emotional, and spiritual aspects. It's each woman's decision to make.

That is an honest and open reply for which I give you credit. But it leaves you in the same dilemma. You are "against" abortion until it comes time to do something about it. Refusing to take a stand against that which is taking place by the hundreds of thousands amounts to being in favor of it. Being pro-choice is being pro-abortion. You are not at all prepared to stop even an abortion in the final few weeks of pregnancy. You are not prepared to stand against abortions that result in the dead baby's organs being "harvested" and sold for a profit. There is nothing you will oppose, so it amounts to being in favor of all of it. It's inescapable. It's like a southern plantation owner claiming to be against slavery, but not being willing to work to abolish it. The end result is the same.

Quote:

I (probably) would not have an abortion

You really should ask yourself, "Why not?" If the baby is a human being, then it's a horrific and immoral act. If the baby is not a human, then it amounts to nothing. Take your pick.

At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”

Now no, I was not there to see all of this, but John's mother said he "leaped for joy" in her womb. That sure sounds awfully human to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Now no, I was not there to see all of this, but John's mother said he "leaped for joy" in her womb. That sure sounds awfully human to me.

I can tell you've never been pregnant. The fetus begins "leaping for joy" around the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy. It has nothing to do with being human. This happens with other mammals too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That is an honest and open reply for which I give you credit. But it leaves you in the same dilemma. You are "against" abortion until it comes time to do something about it.

Always the "but".

I'm against abortion unless my health or the health of the fetus becomes a serious, life-or-death problem. At that point, a decision will have to be made.

Yeah. The Bible is just flat wrong. It has to be since it does not support your position.

So if the baby’s health is in danger you would kill it? I’m glad you’re not my doctor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yeah. The Bible is just flat wrong. It has to be since it does not support your position.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Quote:

So if the baby’s health is in danger you would kill it?

Did I say that?

What would you do if it were your pregnant wife?

You claim John the B did not kick for joy in his mother's womb. The Bible says he did.

Quote:

Did I say that?

Yep. "I'm against abortion unless my health or the health of the fetus becomes a serious, life-or-death problem." Well, I would say aborting the baby is pretty much life or death.

Quote:

What would you do if it were your pregnant wife?

I have answered that to the point of nausea, on many occasions. Where have you been?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Now no, I was not there to see all of this, but John's mother said he "leaped for joy" in her womb. That sure sounds awfully human to me.

This is about the most moronic thing you've ever said here, Jl, and you've said some really stupid things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You claim John the B did not kick for joy in his mother's womb. The Bible says he did.

Now you've got the Bible quotes to support your position. It gets freakier and freakier.

Quote:

I have answered that to the point of nausea,

Nausea is the right word. It's become synonymous with Jl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Being pro-choice is being pro-abortion

Then YOU, Jl, are pro-abortion. You have clearly admitted that you are pro-choice in circumstances that you approve choice. Are you trying to prove your hypocrisy by restating your phony anti-abortion position?

If you are, you are doing a bang-up job, convincing all who read your nonsense of your blatant hypocrisy. Keep hiding Jl, your words are forever etched here. Words you can't take back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yep. "I'm against abortion unless my health or the health of the fetus becomes a serious, life-or-death problem." Well, I would say aborting the baby is pretty much life or death.

What if it's MY life or death? Choosing an undeveloped fetus that very likely wouldn't survive would be murdering me. Or choosing a full-term fetus over the mother would also be murder (hers), plus the husband will be left with a tiny newborn, and maybe other children, to deal with alone.

I have already said three dozen times that saving one life is preferable to losing both lives. That still leaves you in the place of not seeing any abortion you don’t like.