Coffee Party Movement

[Hawk]

Hey lets all go to Weedville and start the Weed Party. I'm in.

Yes! April 10th The Weed Party movement will meet at Doug's Elk Back Bar - in Weedville - starting at 10:00.

We think everyone in congress should just take a deep breath (of weed of course) and mellow out... Write a letter to your congressmen and tell them to chill out in Weedville . Music will be provided by The Hawks.

Now this is a REAL GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT! Stop in and show your support!

Bill, I thought that was on 4/20 ?

We're starting on the 10th: http://www.rockpage.net/bands/thehawks.html

Who know's when it will end...

[zman1200]

There goes Canadas monopoly on hem p

[songsmith]

Jesus is a liberal? That was already debunked.

On the healthcare question, it depends on what you mean by healthcare.

If you mean healthcare delivery, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that Jesus would have personally turned anybody away. You might say he was the coolest doctor in history. I didn't read anything about him being on Pilate's government healthcare staff, so we don't really know anything about his management style with government healthcare delivery.

If you mean healthcare insurance, it may have been difficult for him to do anything, since the concept wasn't around until the 17th century A.D.

Suppose there was such a thing as health insurance in ancient times and that it is a "God given right" as many progressives claim. What would Jesus do? Since it is a "God given right" wouldn't it be logical to assume that Jesus would have prayed to God for health insurance policies to fall like Manna from Heaven?

Perhaps at large gatherings, He would take a single health insurance policy and miraculously tear from it enough policies to insure the whole multitude?

Warning: This post contains sarcasm to illustrate the absurdity of the question.

Please read carefully.

Jesus not being a liberal must have been that sarcasm part. The rest of your post was the very definition of confirmation bias, filtering the Bible through Fox talking points, but I have to hand it to you, you really put some effort into your wild swings at reality, unlike some here.
Now, to the meat of your post:
Jesus Christ was not A liberal, He was THE liberal. There's a famous passage in Matthew, chapter 6 (you didn't know I once taught Sunday School, huh?) that all the Beckheads should read.
25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. KJV

That means that liberal thought is acceptable and, indeed, necessary to enter into Heaven. Those aren't Songsmith's words, and they sure aren't Beck's.
A chapter before, in Matthew 5, Christ gives the Beatitudes, which are a set of Christian rules that basically DEFINE liberalism:

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. KJV

There you have it, LW. Jesus didn't need health insurance because he had attained perfection, and therefore there was no need to exploit anyone for profit. He didn't excoriate the poor and look down on them as lazy, he just helped them.
I'd like to end today's sermon with a Bible verse for PStl and other conservatives who believe obscene profit is a God-given right:

Mark 10:25 (King James Version)

25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

...and again in Matthew 19:

Matthew 19:24 (King James Version)

24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

... and in case you didn't understand, or forgot, or just plain ignored it so it dovetails into your Fox talkshow:

Luke 18:25 (King James Version)

25For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Obviously, someone will mention my nonbelief in Christianity (Rockpagers are nothing if not predictable) and that will somehow serve as an argument against me... so I'll save everyone the trouble and point out that whether I believe or not, I quoted via cut and paste from the King James Version of the Bible, and did not edit in any way other than to boldface the pertinent passages for clarity and relevance to the discussion. I encourage anyone to look it up themselves, and to discuss it with their pastor. I didn't write the Bible, I simply reported it's content. You can also look up Bible verses that deny my point, there are some in the Old Testament that might help you, but they are mentioned by Christ in Matthew 5 and 6, and are the basis of His defiance of old-school Jewish doctrine, the REASON He was crucified.

In short, Glenn Beck can rave for cash all he wants here on Earth, but he and the Tea Party Patriots will have trouble finding an air-conditioned place to wig out where they're going. --->JMS

ps-- Oh, and yes, I went there.--->jms

[whitedevilone]

Wow.Life must blow being your own best friend.Got picked last a lot i bet.That's a shame.

[lonewolf]

Jesus not being a liberal must have been that sarcasm part. The rest of your post was the very definition of confirmation bias, filtering the Bible through Fox talking points, but I have to hand it to you, you really put some effort into your wild swings at reality, unlike some here.
Now, to the meat of your post:
Jesus Christ was not A liberal, He was THE liberal. --->jms

I deleted the superfluous parts for clarity.

1st of all, the "rest of my post" was 100% original sarcasm. To say that it came from fox is an insult--they aren't that good at it. You did make a good point, though...perhaps I should send it in to them as new material.

Since you are the Rockpage expert on fox, please advise me on which personality would most likely use my material?

In the modern context of liberal and conservative:

liberal -- advocates governmental charity
conservative -- advocates personal charity

You listed many verses and examples where Jesus advocates conservative personal charity and made a strong argument for my position. Please show me the verses where he advocates liberal governmental charity.

Just a listing of the verses or acts is sufficient--superfluous comment is unnecessary.

[songsmith]

Jesus not being a liberal must have been that sarcasm part. The rest of your post was the very definition of confirmation bias, filtering the Bible through Fox talking points, but I have to hand it to you, you really put some effort into your wild swings at reality, unlike some here.
Now, to the meat of your post:
Jesus Christ was not A liberal, He was THE liberal. --->jms

I deleted the superfluous parts for clarity.

1st of all, the "rest of my post" was 100% original sarcasm. To say that it came from fox is an insult--they aren't that good at it. You did make a good point, though...perhaps I should send it in to them as new material.

Since you are the Rockpage expert on fox, please advise me on which personality would most likely use my material?

In the modern context of liberal and conservative:

liberal -- advocates governmental charity
conservative -- advocates personal charity

You listed many verses and examples where Jesus advocates conservative personal charity and made a strong argument for my position. Please show me the verses where he advocates liberal governmental charity.

Just a listing of the verses or acts is sufficient--superfluous comment is unnecessary.

Conservative personal charity? Is there such an animal? I'd think that'd be a continuation of the conservative core value that only conservatives can decide who should eat and who should not. Which leads me again to the verse regarding the lilies of the field who toil not... where did Christ differentiate between personal charity and governmental charity? And since when did Rome provide anything at all for the good of the Jewish minority, other than enrich a few of them with the caveat that they had to turn in anyone with a different idea of how things work? (that sounds pretty Bush-ian to me) Also, I have no knowledge of Jews being allowed to vote in the Roman Empire, whereas, you and I have that ability, and the last election went against your views.
In order to counter your points, I'd have to first admit that there's a difference between getting help from a govt entity and help from an individual. The end result is the same... help is given, and that is social justice. Perhaps you're against govt helping society because you're swept up in the Fox-notion that government is the cause of all your problems, that government is inherently bad. That'll go away if the right assumes the majority again in the pendulum of American politics. A conservative sweep of Congress would result in the return of "faith" in the system, and you can all go back to the 2004 version of government, where dissent is un-American, and criticism of the president is an act of treason. Back to when spending a trillion-plus dollars on the wrong war was the only choice we could make, instead of saving a hundred billion on health-insurance costs. Back before America saw what damage Goldwater/Reagan/Bush "conservatism" had caused, and voted anyone associated with it out of office.
So, basically I didn't post any verses on the difference between government "charity" and personal charity because there isn't a difference. You either want to help people or you don't. If you don't, you can't call yourself Christian.
I can post a Bible verse about that, if you like. --->JMS

[lonewolf]

Jesus not being a liberal must have been that sarcasm part. The rest of your post was the very definition of confirmation bias, filtering the Bible through Fox talking points, but I have to hand it to you, you really put some effort into your wild swings at reality, unlike some here.
Now, to the meat of your post:
Jesus Christ was not A liberal, He was THE liberal. --->jms

I deleted the superfluous parts for clarity.

1st of all, the "rest of my post" was 100% original sarcasm. To say that it came from fox is an insult--they aren't that good at it. You did make a good point, though...perhaps I should send it in to them as new material.

Since you are the Rockpage expert on fox, please advise me on which personality would most likely use my material?

In the modern context of liberal and conservative:

liberal -- advocates governmental charity
conservative -- advocates personal charity

You listed many verses and examples where Jesus advocates conservative personal charity and made a strong argument for my position. Please show me the verses where he advocates liberal governmental charity.

Just a listing of the verses or acts is sufficient--superfluous comment is unnecessary.

Conservative personal charity? Is there such an animal? I'd think that'd be a continuation of the conservative core value that only conservatives can decide who should eat and who should not. Which leads me again to the verse regarding the lilies of the field who toil not... where did Christ differentiate between personal charity and governmental charity? And since when did Rome provide anything at all for the good of the Jewish minority, other than enrich a few of them with the caveat that they had to turn in anyone with a different idea of how things work? (that sounds pretty Bush-ian to me) Also, I have no knowledge of Jews being allowed to vote in the Roman Empire, whereas, you and I have that ability, and the last election went against your views.
In order to counter your points, I'd have to first admit that there's a difference between getting help from a govt entity and help from an individual. The end result is the same... help is given, and that is social justice. Perhaps you're against govt helping society because you're swept up in the Fox-notion that government is the cause of all your problems, that government is inherently bad. That'll go away if the right assumes the majority again in the pendulum of American politics. A conservative sweep of Congress would result in the return of "faith" in the system, and you can all go back to the 2004 version of government, where dissent is un-American, and criticism of the president is an act of treason. Back to when spending a trillion-plus dollars on the wrong war was the only choice we could make, instead of saving a hundred billion on health-insurance costs. Back before America saw what damage Goldwater/Reagan/Bush "conservatism" had caused, and voted anyone associated with it out of office.
So, basically I didn't post any verses on the difference between government "charity" and personal charity because there isn't a difference. You either want to help people or you don't. If you don't, you can't call yourself Christian.
I can post a Bible verse about that, if you like. --->JMS

As expected:

Superfluous, ambiguous, irrelevant and erroneous comments

zero examples

Grade: F

[f.sciarrillo]

Most things that are liberal beliefs go against the christian beliefs. So I don't find it possible to be a liberal and christian at the same time.

[songsmith]

Most things that are liberal beliefs go against the christian beliefs. So I don't find it possible to be a liberal and christian at the same time.

Explain, please. Bible verses optional, but I might be forced to again implode the falsehood that conservatism is biblical.--->JMS

[songsmith]

[As expected:

Superfluous, ambiguous, irrelevant and erroneous comments

zero examples

Grade: F

As expected: a non-answer still based on the idea that Christ would differentiate between personal charity and government help, as if He would have rather Rome kept their darned ol' charity.
Incidentally, I'm still, still waiting to know who Christ would deny healthcare or any other kindness to. Apparently, The Almighty Righties have become entangled in their own religious ideologies and personal judgement of others. Somebody tell Glenn Beck, before he steps in it again.
I'm done posting today, I have a sold-out show to play! We can continue this conversation when we reach Hell together. --->JMS

[RobTheDrummer]

Johnny, you got your sides backwards....Liberals are for big government. Liberals are the ones trying to tell you how to live. Just wait, with this new bill, they are gonna try to tell you what you can or can't eat, you know since they are in charge of your health now....I guess it's for your own good tho, right?

[songsmith]

I'm done posting today, I have a sold-out show to play! --->JMS

Sorry, Jeff. That came off as arrogant on a personal level, which I am not. I found out about the sell-out while I was posting, and was pretty happy about it. I cop to being an arrogant pr*ck politically, but on the musician-related stuff, I'm just lucky I can fool people into thinking I know what I'm doing. It wasn't germaine to the conversation, either. Again, I apologize.--->JMS

[PStl]

[As expected:

Superfluous, ambiguous, irrelevant and erroneous comments

zero examples

Grade: F

As expected: a non-answer still based on the idea that Christ would differentiate between personal charity and government help, as if He would have rather Rome kept their darned ol' charity.
Incidentally, I'm still, still waiting to know who Christ would deny healthcare or any other kindness to. Apparently, The Almighty Righties have become entangled in their own religious ideologies and personal judgement of others. Somebody tell Glenn Beck, before he steps in it again.
I'm done posting today, I have a sold-out show to play! We can continue this conversation when we reach Hell together. --->JMS

nobody is denied healthcare, and everyone is free to purchase coverage if they so wish. or, maybe not
Summary Timeline for Major Items in Senate Health Care Bill
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/ ... _chart.pdf

[songsmith]

That's correct, Phil, nobody is denied healthcare (we all pay the insurance co's plenty for that) unless they have a pre-existing condition, or unless the ins-co's feel they've payed too much to keep you alive. Until "Obamacare."
However, the Libertarian view is that if you can't afford healthcare, you are not contributing enough to society, and should not receive it. "Meritocracy," is the term, I think. It's also the libertarian/ubercapitalist view that the best way to approach the problem is to pay whatever the insurance and healthcare industries demand, as that will somehow "trickle down" to the rest of us in the form of "more competition," and therefore, "lower prices." The so-called free-market (a contradiction in terms, of epic proportions) would once again take care of us all, as it has done so well in the past, so long as our corporate benefactors choose the public good over corporate balance sheets. And Ann Coulter is crowned Miss America.
I have control over government with my vote. I do not have any control over business, not even with my dollars, because of trade organizations forming monopolies, and other predatory business practices. The "free market" is tightly controlled by people who wish to keep being overpaid for their treachery. It's a fantastic illusion, furthered by a media who's in on the scam.--->JMS

[f.sciarrillo]

Most things that are liberal beliefs go against the christian beliefs. So I don't find it possible to be a liberal and christian at the same time.

Explain, please. Bible verses optional, but I might be forced to again implode the falsehood that conservatism is biblical.--->JMS

Same sex marriage and Abortion ...

[songsmith]

I think the statement was that MOST things that are liberal beliefs are non-Christian. That's two, and they aren't mentioned in my Bible. There is an Old Testament admonition against homosexuality, but not same-sex marriage. Abortion is not mentioned. The argument that regards abortion as murder assumes that I accept the conservative stance that abortion even IS murder, which I do not, and the Bible does not define conception as the beginning of human life, AFAIK.
Another facet to this is that liberalism does not differentiate between any religion, or a total lack of religion, while modern conservatism has virtually co-opted Christianity as it's own. Don't believe me? Call in to any wingnut talkshow and say, "I'm an Atheist, and I believe we should..." and the wrath of God will rain down on you for the rest of the hour. Conservatism strictly enforces Christianity and is not open to substitutes. When reality sets in a la Larry Craig or Ted Haggard, the hypocrites just move on to another subject.
I am not a religious person. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, and realized it's just another group who wants control over what I do and say, who wants to force a choice for their ideology. I choose independence from any group who wants to control my morals and values using forced punishment and possible reward elsewhere. I also choose independence from a political group who thinks they own God.--->JMS

[PStl]

Ann Coulter is crowned Miss America.
JMS

Now I think we're getting somewhere!
I also believe that the free market would solve the problem, if not for those greedy, power-drunk bastards hell-bent on "controlling" everything.
Alas, the free-market solutions were cast off, and now will be supressed (health savings accounts).

[Banned]

Ann Coulter is crowned Miss America.
JMS

Now I think we're getting somewhere!
I also believe that the free market would solve the problem, if not for those greedy, power-drunk bastards hell-bent on "controlling" everything.
Alas, the free-market solutions were cast off, and now will be supressed (health savings accounts).

Please do not mention free market in front of johnny, you know how he will write a 1000 word post about the evils of greedy capitalists.