Does no one accept responsibility any more?

[DividedThigh]

is mow running, got a vote here, lol,dt

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

. . . I passed a Wendy’s the other day and the sign out front said, “Wraps is Here” it’s been that way for 3 weeks now.

The Taco Bell in my town occasionally puts on its sign:

NOW HIRING LOSERS

I hope it's because somebody keeps stealing the "C"

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Don’t be ignorant. I’ve told nearly everyone I’m posting with about this new handle. Ask Baron about it…he was there when I created it. You see Ferd, you, and others were calling me such names and slandering my character I decided to take on a different name so I could express my feelings without being openly slandered. Here’s what happened on another forum. I was on Apostolic Man forum and posted some things about President Bush. I was called a liberal, a commie, and all this garbage. Well a few brothers from the church I used to attend read some of what I wrote. One day after men’s prayer they approached me with political questions and said they read what I wrote about President Bush. They told me how they felt, “a communist”, shouldn’t go to church there. It turned into a shoving match as I tried to get into my car to get away from them. When you guys began slandering me under my real name I realized I better take on another alias just to give myself some anonymity. I don’t know who you are DT…and I wouldn’t want to put you in any kind of danger. So stop making fun of me and slandering me. It’s a darn shame when you can’t disagree with conservative Apostolic brothers on politics without being harassed and risking some degree of danger but that’s the world we live in. Well, when I decided it best to go by a different handle Baron had called me, “young grasshopper”, so I adopted the title in his honor. So please DT….get a life and stop trying to brow beat people you don’t agree with. And if you continue to try to connect my real name with my posts I’ll take it as an effort to expose me to personal slander and/or harm. I’m not playing with you. Please respect my wishes.

i have never slandered you, and dont associate me with what others have dont to you, i feel sorry for you, as i always have, i dont know what you mean, you are silly in my opinion, dont threaten other, and stop being so belligerent, you can post all you want, but dont brow beat others and whine when they dont agree with you, by the way, i dont play boy, dt

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

And if you continue to try to connect my real name with my posts I’ll take it as an effort to expose me to personal slander and/or harm. I’m not playing with you. Please respect my wishes.

I would suggest that if you don't want people to know who you are, that you don't reveal it yourself. (just a suggestion)

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

And if you continue to try to connect my real name with my posts I’ll take it as an effort to expose me to personal slander and/or harm. I’m not playing with you. Please respect my wishes.

Sounds like a threat. Whatcha gonna do grasshopper raise his taxes?

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Sounds like a threat. Whatcha gonna do grasshopper raise his taxes?

maybe that is why he likes the dems he wants them to raise my taxes, good one baron, dt

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Yep, it’s called robbery and crime.



I think your position is ignorant of the Bible. The Law of Moses was the law of a nation. The civil Law of Israel had what is known as the “right of the poor” or the “right of the widow”. This “right” was the right to glean the fields of wealthy land owners for basic sustenance. Also the entire nation took a third years tithe to fund the storehouse where the nations’ poor could turn in times of need. All of these things are agrarian social welfare systems. In the OT it was consider oppression to deny the poor their rights to the edges and corners of your field and they could lay charges against you at the gate (study Amos).

When the government allows exploitation, for example with the lending crisis, it has the responsibility to right the wrong.

I am not going to get into this fight. But my understanding was that a few years back the government demanded that the bar be dropped so that more folks could qualify for loans to own a home. This was the beginning of the end.


While I am not saying there are no cases of predatory lending, I believe that for the majority the responsibility still rests upon the consumer to educate themselves prior to entering into a contract. It is really ignorant to pass that responsibility to anyone other than the consumer. Every library in America has internet, and with this tool anyone can be an informed consumer prior to a purchase. IF the consumer does his due diligence, then he will be able to make an informed decision in his dealings.

Thats my 2 cents anyway.

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I don't believe I am as ignorant as you have stated in several posts now. I also fundamentally disagree with your socialist views. You can complain that I am calling you a socialist all you want the reality is you espouse socialism. I am not going down the road your essays on health scare either. You don't have a right to it. Get over it. I don't want the government forcing me to do anything...not even for if YOU think it’s in my best interest.

Government is not the answer.

Here’s an example of your ignorance. A socialist system would have a state insurance provider and force everyone to take a policy with the state provider. It would also make private insurance illegal. That’s nowhere near what’s being advocated.

In the national health insurance plan under the Democrats if you are a employer and providing private insurance for your employees you may freely continue doing so. But if you don’t provide private insurance for employees because it’s too expensive you pay a contribution to the national subsidy. That contribution is indexed to be significantly less than the current insurance rates. If you are employed by an employer who provides insurance you can keep your plan. Or you can opt for the national plan. The national plan is through private insurers and is just like that held by members of congress. The benefit in this plan is that private insurers treat you like you are a government employee in that you benefit from the lower negotiated premiums as government employees do. But ultimately the choice is yours. But in the end the goal is to have every American covered to stabilize health care costs. Insurance companies are really behind this market driven system because not only will it stabilize health care costs but it will provide tens of millions of clients who are not currently clients. This will bring a great boom to the private insurance industry. It’s like in Ohio it became state law to own auto insurance if you want to drive. Not only is everyone covered by an insurer of their choice, but it has brought a boom to the auto insurance market. The entire process is market driven…it’s nothing like a socialist system like you’d see in Canada.

Right now if you were uninsured you could just walk into an ER and get treatment. You can choose not to pay your bill too. But guess what…they will hand that cost down to me in higher costs. Bro…that’s more like socialism than a market driven system where everyone is required to carry some form of health insurance.

I think you’re just not wanting to pay for insurance because you know you can go to the ER and we’ll fit the bill in higher premiums. Now that is THEFT. The government should require YOU to carry your own insurance and that’s what the Democrats are pushing for.

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I am not going to get into this fight. But my understanding was that a few years back the government demanded that the bar be dropped so that more folks could qualify for loans to own a home. This was the beginning of the end.


While I am not saying there are no cases of predatory lending, I believe that for the majority the responsibility still rests upon the consumer to educate themselves prior to entering into a contract. It is really ignorant to pass that responsibility to anyone other than the consumer. Every library in America has internet, and with this tool anyone can be an informed consumer prior to a purchase. IF the consumer does his due diligence, then he will be able to make an informed decision in his dealings.

Thats my 2 cents anyway.

your 2 cents is correct st matt, that began the slide that let to the mess we are in now, dt

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

i have never slandered you, and dont associate me with what others have dont to you, i feel sorry for you, as i always have, i dont know what you mean, you are silly in my opinion, dont threaten other, and stop being so belligerent, you can post all you want, but dont brow beat others and whine when they dont agree with you, by the way, i dont play boy, dt

MOWs post is highly insulting to someone who is actually going through the things he's talking about. I hope he at least has to look at loosing his job, insurance, and home so he can at least feel the pressure and the horror of it all before he judges me or others in those positions again.