Immigration Op Ed

[Darth Executor]

Lower wages SHOULD mean lower prices for consumable goods, but it doesn't because people spend more than they make.

It does, actually. Inflation has been growing very slowly despite the endless printing of money. It's just that lower prices for consumer goods don't mean anything when your income stagnates, or worse, you lose it, and other costs (like housing and health care) are grossly inflated.

You really need proof that consumer debt to income ratio stays the same until income reaches the top 20%?

I need proof it's spent on "boats". I further need proof that it's "wasted". As far as I can tell anything that doesn't consist of spartan living accommodations constitute waste to you. I never said people didn't take on debt.

No, I am complaining that we have a VERY skewed version of what "subsistence" entails.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0419151455.htm

Based on interviews conducted before the 2008 financial crisis, researchers found that even though consumers espouse that they should limit their debt, they take on significant debt because doing so has become normal. As one participant put it, taking on debt is "the American way."

You are missing the point. I am arguing that it is unnecessary for Americans to be on subsistence earning. They spent more because they (rightfully) believe they should have more. Americans work harder than just about anyone else in the Western world (and no, it's not wasted work, the labor laws in Europe are far worse than anything you'll find in America). In return most of the money is ear...acquired by people pushing gay marriage through the courts in defiance of the voters and openly mocking them and their culture to their faces.

I note that the reality of massive immigration killing wages and employment rates is still being ignored.

[Bill the Cat]

It does, actually. Inflation has been growing very slowly despite the endless printing of money. It's just that lower prices for consumer goods don't mean anything when your income stagnates, or worse, you lose it, and other costs (like housing and health care) are grossly inflated.

I think you and I are talking past each other, and I have seriously derailed this thread.

I need proof it's spent on "boats". I further need proof that it's "wasted". As far as I can tell anything that doesn't consist of spartan living accommodations constitute waste to you. I never said people didn't take on debt.

Experts call them "aspirational shoppers" - someone whose income isn't high enough to make them a true luxury buyer but still has an appetite for designer duds, and they have seen them begin to return to the market of luxury purchases. Fortunately, unlike before the recession, those that are returning to buy luxury items are seeking them at discounts, and not buying on credit nearly as much.

You are missing the point. I am arguing that it is unnecessary for Americans to be on subsistence earning. They spent more because they (rightfully) believe they should have more.

And I disagree. I do not think it is anyone's right to have "more" just because they want it. If they can't afford it, they shouldn't be able to have it. Just like with immigration. The illegals believe they should be granted amnesty. And the ones that want to give it to them become their creditors, expecting payment for their service. That's the entire point of the clip that I posted. So, is the left correct that these illegals have done x,y, and z, so they deserve to be granted citizenship?

Americans work harder than just about anyone else in the Western world (and no, it's not wasted work, the labor laws in Europe are far worse than anything you'll find in America).

Depends on what you mean by working harder. From a standpoint of hours worked, the US is not in the top 5.

In return most of the money is ear...acquired by people pushing gay marriage through the courts in defiance of the voters and openly mocking them and their culture to their faces.

Um, not really...

http://allfinancialmatters.com/2011/...contributions/

The 50 Richest People in America and Their Political Contributions

By JLP | March 8, 2011



I went through the 50 richest people in the Forbes 400 Richest People in America list and tracked their political donations just to see how they stack up. Here is what I found out:

NOTE: Some political contributions spanned several years. I used the total amounts given and ignored the years in which they were given.

• Of the 50 people I tracked, 26 of them made contributions to both Democrats and Republicans.

• 7 of them only made contributions to Democrats.

• 9 of them only made contributions to Republicans.

• 17 of them gave more to Democrats than Republicans.

• 24 of them gave more to Republicans than Democrats.

• 8 of them showed no contributions at all (Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, Forrest Mars, Mark Zuckerberg, Blair Parry-Okeden, Steve Jobs, and Donald Newhouse).

• Total contributions to Republicans totaled $1,874,574.

• Total contributions to Democrats totaled $1,400,936.

• $473,638 more was given to Republicans than to Democrats.

• The largest Republican contributor was Jim Walton at $181,300 (he also gave $4,700 to Democrats).

• The largest Democrat contributor was George Soros at $236,250 (he gave nothing to Republicans).

• The average contribution to Republicans was $37,491.48.

• The average contribution to Democrats was $28,018.72

There was no mention of other political contributions to Libertarians or the Green Party.

I note that the reality of massive immigration killing wages and employment rates is still being ignored.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041401686.html

But recent research suggests that the economic impact of immigration is not so simple. The effects are difficult to disentangle from other factors that have dampened wage growth for most workers in recent decades, including new technologies, the decline in manufacturing jobs, the drop in unionization, globalization and recessions.

Yes, an influx of immigrants has helped depress the incomes of the lowest-skilled workers in recent decades, many economists agree. But they argue about the magnitude of the effect; some say it's big while others see it as slight.

Meanwhile, increased immigration -- legal and illegal -- helps keep inflation low, boosts rents and housing values, and benefits the average U.S. taxpayer while burdening some state and local governments, other research finds.

[Darth Executor]

And I disagree. I do not think it is anyone's right to have "more" just because they want it.

No, they should have more because the money would help more people and be better spent.

If they can't afford it, they shouldn't be able to have it. Just like with immigration.

The issue is that they should be able to afford it. They don't because of destructive behavior by the de facto aristocracy (sans traditional responsibilities). The accumulation of wealth by social liberals who then use it to reform the planet into their liberal image is no different than it would be if Warren Buffet rode around on a flaming horse robbing people at scythe point. Both should be punished severely by law. Like illegal immigration (though there the primary punishment should also go to the traitors who pushed for it).

So, is the left correct that these illegals have done x,y, and z, so they deserve to be granted citizenship?

No, the illegals are criminals and should be thrown out. What you are arguing right now is that since the oligarchs obtained their wealth legally (arguably) and the dumb unlucky proles can't do the same then everything is good in paradise. What I am arguing is that the current crop of oligarchs are a moral aberration (regardless of whether every cent they got was by the book) that not only contribute nothing to society but are actively working against their interests and the law should be reformed to crush them.

Depends on what you mean by working harder. From a standpoint of hours worked, the US is not in the top 5.

The US is in first or second place, depending on whether you consider the Czech Republic "The West" or not.

Um, not really...

You can't be serious. The Republican party is a liberal farce that stays a little to the right of the Democrats to ensure it keeps receiving votes from conservative rubes it subsequently stabs in the back the first chance it gets.

The Koch Brothers are socially liberal.Republicans are currently busy legalizing over a dozen million illegals and ensuring the end of conservatism. It's better to just look up the individuals and their political beliefs. Most of the damage they do has nothing to do with political contributions.

For example, this is what my Google page currently looks like



The two richest Googlers there (Page and Brin) had no contributions. Only the lesser Schmidt shows up as a Democrat.

including new technologies, the decline in manufacturing jobs, the drop in unionization, globalization and recessions.

Manufacturing jobs are declining because they are shipped overseas. The drop in unionization is a result of labor losing leverage thanks to mass immigration and outsourcing, not the other way around. Immigration isn't the only thing boosting unemployment and dropping wages, but it's a huge part of it. The laws of economics don't magically go away.

boosts rents and housing values

This is not a good thing.

and benefits the average U.S. taxpayer while burdening some state and local governments, other research finds.

The state and local governments are funded by fairies, presumably.
I'd rather people work than be on welfare and Joe Gated Community can pay a little extra to have his grass cut.

[Bill the Cat]

No, they should have more because the money would help more people and be better spent.

At the expense of inequally taxing those who are more successful? How positively socialist of you Darth... SOMEONE is going to be treated unequally in this deal no matter which side you fall on.

The issue is that they should be able to afford it. They don't because of destructive behavior by the de facto aristocracy (sans traditional responsibilities). The accumulation of wealth by social liberals who then use it to reform the planet into their liberal image is no different than it would be if Warren Buffet rode around on a flaming horse robbing people at scythe point. Both should be punished severely by law.

Why? The CBO has stated that upward mobility is NO MORE difficult today than it was back in 1970. Obtaining wealth on your own without handouts is not a liberal plank, so I don't know where you get the idea that it is.

Like illegal immigration (though there the primary punishment should also go to the traitors who pushed for it).

On that, we agree.

No, the illegals are criminals and should be thrown out. What you are arguing right now is that since the oligarchs obtained their wealth legally (arguably) and the dumb unlucky proles can't do the same then everything is good in paradise.

Welcome to the free market.

What I am arguing is that the current crop of oligarchs are a moral aberration (regardless of whether every cent they got was by the book) that not only contribute nothing to society but are actively working against their interests and the law should be reformed to crush them.

So, more government control then... again, how un-conservative of you.

The US is in first or second place, depending on whether you consider the Czech Republic "The West" or not.

Um, no. 2012 stats for average hours worked per year per worker lists the US as 11th

Mexico 2225.66
Greece 2033.9604
Chile 2029
Russian Federation 1982
Poland 1929
Israel 1910
Estonia 1889
Hungary 1888.45
Turkey 1855.0575
Czech Republic 1800.2314
United States 1789.9219

You can't be serious. The Republican party is a liberal farce that stays a little to the right of the Democrats to ensure it keeps receiving votes from conservative rubes it subsequently stabs in the back the first chance it gets.

The Republican Party is not a monolithic entity. There are social conservatives and social liberals, fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals. Calling it a "liberal farce" is pretty ridiculous, as I personally know people involved in the State Republican party here in Virginia.

The Koch Brothers are socially liberal.Republicans are currently busy legalizing over a dozen million illegals and ensuring the end of conservatism. It's better to just look up the individuals and their political beliefs. Most of the damage they do has nothing to do with political contributions.

And Democratic Senators Casey and Manchin and Donnelly are all pro-life. Again, there is no mold that anyone must fall in to support or represent a party.

Manufacturing jobs are declining because they are shipped overseas.

And why do you think that is?

The state and local governments are funded by fairies, presumably.

No. They are funded by state an local taxes and money from the Federal Government.

I'd rather people work than be on welfare and Joe Gated Community can pay a little extra to have his grass cut.

Joe Gated Community will always seek the lowest cost that offers reasonable results. That's the American Way. No one in their right mind intentionally pays more for the same (or comparable) product.

[Epoetker]

No, the illegals are criminals and should be thrown out. What you are arguing right now is that since the oligarchs obtained their wealth legally (arguably) and the dumb unlucky proles can't do the same then everything is good in paradise. What I am arguing is that the current crop of oligarchs are a moral aberration (regardless of whether every cent they got was by the book) that not only contribute nothing to society but are actively working against their interests and the law should be reformed to crush them.

Nope, nope, nope, you were on a roll for a moment there but that's precisely the wrong instinct. You do not crush oligarchies through laws. Oligarchies, whether natural or imposed, are specifically designed to impose and adapt to laws for the sake of rising above and controlling the demos. Bill Gates's father was an attorney who specialized in anti-trust law, so amazingly, none of the court cases against him ever stuck, and Microsoft was able to merrily bully its way through the 1990s with monopolies and a reputation for legal brutality on all sorts of things.

You crush oligarchies by physically crushing them-rounding up their leaders, bringing them before a tribunal, reading their crimes in public, and shooting them dead. Or siezing their assets and breaking up their companies if you don't quite have the stomach for the first. Regardless, when you're dealing with people who consider themselves God's gift to America, entitled to every legal exemption and advantage and considering them as like unto infinite indulgences for their sins against the culture and the body politic of their host country, it pays to be as punitive as possible so they get the point.

You do not need laws to fight against knaves, double-talkers, scoundrels, merchant princes, loose coalitions of those commonly interested in a certain outcome, trusts, Freemasons, or other such human power arrangements as seem natural to people in times of prosperity and enough distance from actual wars and duties that everyday socializing and competition can take on the character of a personal crusade. You need a posse, a militia, a group of the King's men, and a king who recognizes both the purveyors of corruption and their contacts on sight.

After that I think you'll find that the willingness of such people to press their advantage to the fullest, even beyond normal human decency, may become quite restricted in the future. Teddy Roosevelt's policies and actions did, in actual fact, inspire such a revulsion against shabby business practices that it created what you might call a culture of pride in ones work that lasted for decades, and required the leadership of forward-thinking progressive companies with liberal interpretations of immigration law like Tyson Foods to counteract. Still, it was done over years, and could be reversed in a day. Possibly faster if you explain the larger view, like this:

The meat-packing industry offers a vivid example of how losers are created. The industry today is dominated by immigrant workers. The tasks of disassembling America's hogs, sheep and cattle are nasty, tedious and risky. Most news stories I see about these industries state that these are jobs Americans won't do.

But until this recent renewal of mass immigration, those were jobs done almost entirely by native-born Americans. Until immigration levels began rapidly increasing in the late 1970s, they were jobs that Americans not only would do but formed lines to get hired to do.

Workers with few skills and little education could earn up to around $18 an hour in today's dollars. Strong unions guarded the health and safety of the workers.

People held on to their slaughterhouse jobs like gold. And they pulled strings to get their relatives and children into the plant. Because nearly all packing companies offered handsome pay and benefits, no company had trouble remaining profitable while treating its workers well.

But by the 1980s, the pool of foreign workers had grown so large that relatively new companies could use them to undercut the established unionized firms. The new corporations busted unions and slashed wages so that the old giants of the industry - Armour, Swift, Wilson and Cudahy - could not compete while honoring their contracts to provide safe, middle-class jobs to their workers. All four eventually got out of the slaughterhouse business.

Jobs have so deteriorated that it is difficult to keep workers - whether native-born Americans or immigrants. Stress-related disorders and injuries drive many workers off the jobs within months. During the 1990s, annual turnover rates of 50 to 100 percent have been common. Meatcutters now are injured 400 percent more often than workers in the average U.S. industry. In terms of injuries, meatpacking in the 1990s had become the most dangerous industry in America.

But profitable!

No, I'd say you should have little to no trouble taking punitive action against those rich people who willfully, repeatedly, and shamelessly destroyed a perfectly good American industry and perfectly good American businesses because they wanted to win the Great White Status Game in their neck of the woods. If you consider this 'your' country, the people who persisted in such long-term evil against both the letter and spirit of the law while going unpunished in court or in the press should be first on the chopping block. Arrest them on their own premises and you won't even have to go that far to find suitable instruments of punishment.

[Darth Executor]

You crush oligarchies by physically crushing them

Well, that's what I had in mind, but I'm a civilized person so I'm gonna read them their rights first.

[Darth Executor]

At the expense of inequally taxing those who are more successful? How positively socialist of you Darth... SOMEONE is going to be treated unequally in this deal no matter which side you fall on.

Currently those "who are most successful" are successful in the same sense a plundering army would be successful. And many are taxed at a lower rate, under the guise of their being "job creators" while they're busy doing their best to destroy jobs.

If someone's gonna be treated unequally no matter what, better they be Google big wigs.

Why? The CBO has stated that upward mobility is NO MORE difficult today than it was back in 1970. Obtaining wealth on your own without handouts is not a liberal plank, so I don't know where you get the idea that it is.

Well, if the CBO said so, who am I to argue?

An increasing segment of the population does not have the intelligence or general mental capacity to compete. Social mobility can be just as easy in general and still be impossible for people whose traditional avenues of work no longer exist.

Welcome to the free market.

If the free market inevitably leads to bad results, it should be discarded. Of course, I'd rather just contain some of its more obvious and dangerous flaws instead, but that's the argument you're essentially making.

So, more government control then... again, how un-conservative of you.

Ohh boy, where to start.

1. I don't view government as inherently good or evil, so "more government control" may be a cool buzzword at the local Tea Party but it does nothing for me.
2. It's the government's duty to crush evildoers.
3. I'm not a conservative, except in the broadest of senses. Conservatism, like Communism, requires that one suspend disbelief and believe people will act contrary to their nature.
4. I've been labeling myself a totalitarian imperialist for ages.
5. Conservatism is lethally allergic to liberalism. When the two clash conservatism almost always loses in the short run and always, without exception, loses in the long run. So being un-conservative means one might escape the upcoming reckoning.

Um, no. 2012 stats for average hours worked per year per worker lists the US as 11th

Mexico 2225.66
Greece 2033.9604
Chile 2029
Russian Federation 1982
Poland 1929
Israel 1910
Estonia 1889
Hungary 1888.45
Turkey 1855.0575
Czech Republic 1800.2314
United States 1789.9219

I said Western world. None of those (except arguably the Czech republic) qualify.

The Republican Party is not a monolithic entity. There are social conservatives and social liberals, fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals. Calling it a "liberal farce" is pretty ridiculous, as I personally know people involved in the State Republican party here in Virginia.

It doesn't matter if some cogs are conservative (and quite a few are). The party as a whole exists to serve the march of Progress. I'm glad your friends are slapping away at the wheels of the juggernaut with bamboo sticks but they won't get anywhere.

And Democratic Senators Casey and Manchin and Donnelly are all pro-life. Again, there is no mold that anyone must fall in to support or represent a party.

And the results they have obtained on that front rival those of the Republican party, I suspect.

And why do you think that is?

Because it's cheaper, of course. And sometimes it's cheaper to enslave workers (which is what frequently happens in overseas manufacturing). Getting the cheapest deal is not necessarily the best deal nor should getting the best monetary deal trump all other considerations.

No. They are funded by state an local taxes and money from the Federal Government.

Money which comes from the middle class.

Joe Gated Community will always seek the lowest cost that offers reasonable results. That's the American Way. No one in their right mind intentionally pays more for the same (or comparable) product.

Absolutely. And slavery also used to be the American way. Conservatives are still paying for the effect of that, even though the predecessors of today's liberals were far worse. There's a lesson in there somewhere. One where putting fiscal policy above social policy is a really, really bad idea. Of course to learn that lesson you'd probably need to stop being conservative.

[Bill the Cat]

Currently those "who are most successful" are successful in the same sense a plundering army would be successful. And many are taxed at a lower rate, under the guise of their being "job creators" while they're busy doing their best to destroy jobs.

If someone's gonna be treated unequally no matter what, better they be Google big wigs.

Better according to who? And who gets to set the cutoff for being "too rich" or "too successful"? One despot in charge is no different from another.

Well, if the CBO said so, who am I to argue?

Considering over 1 million Americans became millionaires last year, who are you to argue indeed?

An increasing segment of the population does not have the intelligence or general mental capacity to compete.

And that is not the fault of those who are, nor should those who are have to make up for them.

Social mobility can be just as easy in general and still be impossible for people whose traditional avenues of work no longer exist.

So, they need to diversify. Do something else. Or immigrate to another country where that avenue does exist. That's what our founders did.

If the free market inevitably leads to bad results, it should be discarded.

In favor of what? All other forms of commerce are ripe with despotism.

Of course, I'd rather just contain some of its more obvious and dangerous flaws instead, but that's the argument you're essentially making.

No, it really isn't. It is the result of freedom. From a Christian perspective, Jesus mentioned it by simply saying "the poor you will always have". There has never been a form of government or market that didn't lead to various atrocities and unbalance.

Ohh boy, where to start.

1. I don't view government as inherently good or evil, so "more government control" may be a cool buzzword at the local Tea Party but it does nothing for me.

And accusing conservatives by using "Tea Party" may be a cool buzzword for the popularists, but it does nothing for me because I am not involved with them.

2. It's the government's duty to crush evildoers.

Whose definition of "evildoers" are you using though?

3. I'm not a conservative, except in the broadest of senses. Conservatism, like Communism, requires that one suspend disbelief and believe people will act contrary to their nature.

Every form of government involves most people behaving contrary to their nature.

4. I've been labeling myself a totalitarian imperialist for ages.

So, like I said... one form of despotism traded for another. Got it.

5. Conservatism is lethally allergic to liberalism. When the two clash conservatism almost always loses in the short run and always, without exception, loses in the long run. So being un-conservative means one might escape the upcoming reckoning.

2 Timothy 3 (NASB)

1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.
2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

As expected. But we still fight the good fight. And I'd rather suffer the reckoning while holding on to what I believe in than be wishy-washy and ride the wave of outright sin disguised as "progressivism"


[quote] I said Western world. None of those (except arguably the Czech republic) qualify.

I consider the "Western World" the way the Chinese and Japanese do... and Mexico counts from their perspective. Perhaps you should define your term a bit better?

It doesn't matter if some cogs are conservative (and quite a few are). The party as a whole exists to serve the march of Progress. I'm glad your friends are slapping away at the wheels of the juggernaut with bamboo sticks but they won't get anywhere.

An outsider's view to be sure...

And the results they have obtained on that front rival those of the Republican party, I suspect.

Absolutely irrelevant to my point.

Because it's cheaper, of course. And sometimes it's cheaper to enslave workers (which is what frequently happens in overseas manufacturing). Getting the cheapest deal is not necessarily the best deal nor should getting the best monetary deal trump all other considerations.

From the standpoint of profit, which is the only thing that shareholders care about, it does. My wife works in the garment industry, and they frequently win bids for uniforms for major corporations based on their using foreign materials. And the reason imported goods are cheaper is that the cost of living abroad is substantially lower because salaries are lower. Yes, there is slave labor abroad, and yes there is substandard working conditions. But American businesses can not afford to reject the cheaper goods, or another business will take their clients because they ARE willing to accept them. Unless the US becomes the dictators of the third world, we will never be able to make them raise wages (and costs as a result)...

Money which comes from the middle class.

The Congressional Budget Office report stated: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.

Absolutely. And slavery also used to be the American way.

SO, you compare owning another human to seeking the lowest price for a good or service?

Conservatives are still paying for the effect of that, even though the predecessors of today's liberals were far worse. There's a lesson in there somewhere. One where putting fiscal policy above social policy is a really, really bad idea. Of course to learn that lesson you'd probably need to stop being conservative.

Not really. I've been a much stronger social conservative than fiscal.

[Bill the Cat]

You crush oligarchies by physically crushing them-rounding up their leaders, bringing them before a tribunal, reading their crimes in public, and shooting them dead. Or siezing their assets and breaking up their companies if you don't quite have the stomach for the first.

So, you too would simply trade one tyrant for another...

[Epoetker]

So, you too would simply trade one tyrant for another...

You should know better than to try those glib lines with me. I didn't say I was keeping Saruman's orcs around after I killed their corrupted master, now, was I? Try reading the rest of the article for the real-life endgame:

In fact, native-born Americans can and will do those things - if they're paid decent wages, and given safe working conditions. It's true that the welfare state, (the benefits of which are supposed to be unavailable to foreigners), takes a number of lower-class Americans out of the job market, because as Henry Hazlitt pointed out in Economics In One Lesson, if a man is paid $700.00 a month for not working, he's not going to be interested in a job paying $850.00 a month, because he'd be working 170 hours to get a $150.00 a month increase.

And hey, they seemed to have already been working there:

According to a recent American Meat Institute survey of members, 69 percent of the industry workforce is comprised of Caucasians; 10 percent is black; 19 percent is Hispanic; two percent is Asian and less than one percent is Native American. The survey also showed that five percent of the workforce overall is comprised of noncitizen workers.

From 2006, so I'm not sure how much has changed since then, but it looks like there's no danger of a shortage of native labor to pick up the slack, especially with the whole 'ongoing economic recession and jobless recovery' thing. Killing evil people and restoring the natural, national, and divine order they flouted is a Christian and a man's duty wherever he is. What need have I of Uruk-hai? After the reckoning comes the cleanup.

[Bill the Cat]

You should know better than to try those glib lines with me. I didn't say I was keeping Saruman's orcs around after I killed their corrupted master, now, was I? Try reading the rest of the article for the real-life endgame:



And hey, they seemed to have already been working there:



From 2006, so I'm not sure how much has changed since then, but it looks like there's no danger of a shortage of native labor to pick up the slack, especially with the whole 'ongoing economic recession and jobless recovery' thing. Killing evil people and restoring the natural, national, and divine order they flouted is a Christian and a man's duty wherever he is. What need have I of Uruk-hai? After the reckoning comes the cleanup.

The fact that you still think that killing people based on YOUR definition of evil isn't tyranny, and then claiming it as a Christian thing to do, is dumfounding. The sword belongs to the government, not the individual Christian. Usurping the government's place in dispensing proper justice is despotism at its finest, and it is contrary to God's Word.

[OU812]

The fact that you still think that killing people based on YOUR definition of evil isn't tyranny, and then claiming it as a Christian thing to do, is dumfounding. The sword belongs to the government, not the individual Christian. Usurping the government's place in dispensing proper justice is despotism at its finest, and it is contrary to God's Word.

New definition of despotism: taking the "sword" away from government

[Bill the Cat]

New definition of despotism: taking the "sword" away from government

Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. Taking the sword from the legitimate government in favor of one that wields it against the affluent is despotism.

[OU812]

Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. Taking the sword from the legitimate government in favor of one that wields it against the affluent is despotism.

....which isn't what Epoetker or DE are saying. What they're saying is that the government should do it's job.

[Bill the Cat]

....which isn't what Epoetker or DE are saying. What they're saying is that the government should do it's job.

No they aren't. They are BOTH suggesting that THEY would kill those who they think are to blame for the mess, were they in power. Since that's not the way our government operates, it stands to reason that they are suggesting an alternate government, led by them, naturally, that executes people based on their own version of "evil"