BTW, the Oakland police shot an Iraq war veteran in the head. Occupy Marines is now protecting the protesters from police brutality. I hope you armchair critics who sit on your ass while people put their life on the line are happy. Maybe you want to tell the critically injured Iraq war vet he needs to come up with specific legislation or "just work harder" before you support them.

So to go back to the question in the OP. It doesn't say if Jesus was a socialist but his apostles at least used communist rhetoric as a way to justify and popularize a scheme that sounds an awful lot like a protection racket.
Specific thing I'm referring to? Acts 4:32 - Acts 5:11, illustrated with Legos.
http://www.bricktestament.com/acts_of_the_apostles/accept_communism_or_die/ac04_32p34-35.html

"Concerning the Bush tax cuts, I'd like to point out that these cuts lowered taxes for all citizens."

The cuts benefited the rich disproportionately, and they cost us 1.7 trillion in revenue. You can't claim to be against deficit spending while promoting the Bush tax cuts. Without the Bush tax cuts we would not be having this problem.

"I'd also like to point out that the wealthy already pay a higher percentage than the other demographic groups."

You're very brave, you continue to stick up for the wealthy. They obviously need your help. No the wealthy do not pay a higher percentage in the effective tax rate. There are other taxes besides income tax, and other sources of "income" besides what is taxed in the income tax. Again, you can't whine about deficits while continuing to support massive tax cuts in times of war.

")? Obama has done a remarkable job of getting us less involved in wars. Move troops out of Iraq, move them into Afghanistan! Let's help NATO in Libya, but don't send actual men! Let's aid Turkey in their invasion of (where else?) Iraq! They're going after a terrorist group that we recognize."

So you're criticizing him for getting out of Iraq? I'm sorry but did Obama start the war in Afghanistan? I am staunchly staunchly opposed to the intervention in Libya, but you're complaining that he is spending more money but also complaing that he didn't send troops. No matter what he does, you will complain. In terms of defense spending, Obama's defense budget is expected to decline after the initial increases, after which it basically supposed to stay at the same level and not increase. Bush's defense budget went from 306 billion in 2001, to 657 billion in 2009. Obama is basically going to stay at the 2009 level and not go up. You still bitch, though.

"How? What do you propose that we do? What does the Occupy Movement propose? I have yet to hear any practical plan that may be implemented to "target the people." All I hear is people complaining. Perhaps I am underinformed, and you could enlighten me."

So you want Occupy Wall Street to behave like every other lobbying group, like an interest group, to become part of the system. So they can co-opted and told to go home, so everything goes back to being the same. The aim of the movement is to creatw a paradigm shift, a complete change in culture. The OWS movement is trying to create conversation, not become a lobbying group. It is declaring that our political process is broken, and seeking to replace with citizen assemblies. OWS is currently more preoccupied with creating a governance system so that it can be self-sustaining, and not just go home after a few months.

Putin, where would you suggest I go to find an unbiased news source? There is no such thing. Concerning the Iraq war veteran, he was not shot as you claim. The San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/27/BAD61LN3LM.DTL) lists his injury as coming from a tear gas canister. The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/iraq-war-veteran-injured-during-oakland-protests/2011/10/27/gIQAa4JlLM_video.html) lists the object as a "projectile" and that "It is unclear what the object was or who threw it." The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/APee3d154ac527442399da06cf8a70c75a.html) describes how police began launching tear gas canisters and the protesters throwing rocks and bottles. Speaking of the vet, "It's not clear what struck him." There is little to no proof to say that the police where at fault (as opposed to the protesters). There is absolutely no mentioning of him being "shot."

Concerning the right to "peacefully assemble," I do not deny that right. However, I would like to state that "peaceful" does not include lobbing rocks and/or bottles (as numerous news sources state) and police who are in riot gear. Furthermore, protesters had been told several times that their protest was a form of disorderly conduct and had been asked/told by police to disperse. Several sources have described that the protesters formed barricades beforehand.The police force are the enforcers of the law, and as citizens of the United States of America, we are subject to their authority.

By the way, the "critically injured Iraq war vet" is doing much better. He is now listed as being in "fair condition."

Mafialligator, I see you bring up the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Isn't it interesting how the section you begin with describes how prosperous and peaceful those times were. I do not see anywhere in the passage you mention a part where people were forced to give to the church. Rather, they gave because it benefited everyone. With Ananias and Saphira, they sold land, gave part of the proceeds to the church while claiming that it was all they had. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept called lying? If by "protection racket" you are speaking of the "great fear" that "came over the whole church," I would like to point out that the Greek word for "fear" that is used could also be translated "respect." It is not a fear as in a threat, but as in worship (of God, not the Apostles).

I didn't mention anything. I just found this website which amuses me. I thought there were some other people in this thread who would also find it funny. I certainly didn't create the lego illustrations, and I can't be bothered to read the bible in enough depth anyway. It's an incredibly long, incoherent, rambling piece of crap.

"Putin, where would you suggest I go to find an unbiased news source? There is no such thing. Concerning the Iraq war veteran, he was not shot as you claim. The San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/27/BAD61LN3LM.DTL) lists his injury as coming from a tear gas canister. The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/iraq-war-veteran-injured-during-oakland-protests/2011/10/27/gIQAa4JlLM_video.html) lists the object as a "projectile" and that "It is unclear what the object was or who threw it." The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/APee3d154ac527442399da06cf8a70c75a.html) describes how police began launching tear gas canisters and the protesters throwing rocks and bottles. Speaking of the vet, "It's not clear what struck him." There is little to no proof to say that the police where at fault (as opposed to the protesters). There is absolutely no mentioning of him being "shot.""

He was *shot* with a tear gas cannister. He needs surgery. His brain is swelling. He is not conscious. He is in intensive care. We don't know if he has brain damage. Apparently his "fair condition" is supposed to demonstrate the attack wasn't that bad? What are you trying to prove? There are videos showing Olsen peacefully standing in front of a police line right before he was shot. And yes he was shot.

"Putin, where would you suggest I go to find an unbiased news source?"

Gee, I don't know, maybe something that didn't call itself "Conservative News Service"?

"The police force are the enforcers of the law, and as citizens of the United States of America, we are subject to their authority."

Yeah, that's your line on the United States. If the protest was in any other country, you'd be singing a different tune. There's ways of crowd control besides violent dispersal, and none of this was violent before the escalation. Nobody did anything to the NYPD before the random pepper sprays in women's faces. Nobody did anything to the NYPD before the deceptive mass arrests of 700 people on the bridge. So you're for the right to assembly but oppose civil disobedience. Got it. I know where you stand on the civil rights movement. You think that we got our freedoms by never inconveniencing authority and always doing what they say? Apparently you do. And how is refusal to disperse grounds for getting your skull fractured and face maced?

"I would be view Occupy Wall Street in a much more favorable light, if only they would come together and say "Boycott ___________," "Vote to pass the __________ Act," or "Vote ____________ into office." Give me a plan, not complaints, and I may actually agree with you."


maybe they will come out with some solution, and maybe you should get involved in the discussion and see if you can come up with such a solution, because at least they acknowledge there is a problem worth addressing.

Do you acknowledge there is a problem, are you going to be part of finding a solution?

European leaders (every wishing to look good in the media) announced that their 'solution' to greek debt would involve making the bankers pay (50% debt write off) And of course some claim this is action on what the occupy movement have demonstrated the people want.

Putin, you have a remarkable talent for pointing out problems without offering solutions. You tell me not to go to CNS, and when I ask you where I should go, you say don't go to CNS. In respect for your position, I have been adding other sources.

The Washington Post reports that Olsen "is believed to have been hit with a police projectile" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/occupy-oakland-veteran-scott-olsens-injuries-prompt-internal-police-review/2011/10/27/gIQAVrs1LM_blog.html). Believed to be, not absolutely. This article also features an update as of 3:00 p.m.: "Olsen's condition has been upgraded to fair and he is now in an intensive care unit."

Some interesting facts about ICU's... roughly 20% of hospital beds in the United States can be classified as ICU's. ICU's are used for patients who require specially trained staff. If they are not in immediate danger and are on the road to recovery, patients may be found in an ICU. If they are still in danger and require immediate surgery or similar operations, they will be found in an Emergency Department or Operating Room. I'd also like to point out that the HIPAA Privacy Rule "sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization" (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/privacyrule/index.html).

The Associated Press (http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1743701) affirms this, saying "Olsen's condition improved on Thursday, with doctors transferring him from the emergency room to an intensive care unit."

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/occupy-protesters-rally-around-1210962.html) reports that "It was not clear exactly what type of object hit the veteran or who might have thrown it." There are too many discrepancies between news sources to definitively say that Olsen was injured by the police or by the protesters. The APC also that "officials initially supported the protests... But tensions reached a boiling point after a sexual assault, a severe beating and a fire were reported and paramedics were denied access to the camp." When the police moved in on Tuesday, "they were pelted with rocks, bottles and utensils from people in the camp's kitchen area." Some of the protesters where arrested using plastic handcuffs on "suspicion of illegal lodging." Protesters later attempted to retake the plaza.

In Atlanta, police arrested 53 people who had been camped out in a park for weeks. Mayor Reed twice issued executive orders allowing them to remain. However, "he had no choice to arrest them because he believed things were headed in a direction that was no longer peaceful. He cited a man seen walking the park with an AK-47 assault rifle." This man did indeed exist and an AP reporter talked to him. The man identified himself as "Porch" and doesn't agree with their views, but "said that he was there, armed, because he wanted to protect the rights of people to protest."

These protests are shifting more and more towards being of a violent nature. I was not opposed to the initial New York movements, as long as they remained peaceful. However, this "civil rights movement" has begun to move from a Martin Luther King, Jr.-like movement to one more along the lines of Malcolm X. I support nonviolent civil disobedience.

Mafia reptile: The Bible is your instruction manual, but you can''t see the truth in it because you reject it entirely. 1John 4:6 NLT: "But we belong to God, and those who know God listen to us. If they do not belong to God, they do not listen to us. That is how we know if someone has the Spirit of truth or the spirit of deception."

Putin et al., saying something vehemently, repeatedly, or with dubious references that support your position doesn't change what is true and what is not.

"The Bible is your instruction manual" [citation needed]

The bible is a load of crap, but you can't see the truth because you accept the bible entirely. 1Mafialligator 4:6: "It's all made up."

Proverbs 3: 5-7, NIV: 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. 6 Seek his will in all you do, and he will show you which path to take. 7 Don’t be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the LORD and turn away from evil.

I'm sorry, this actually makes me angry. Have you read the bible? You want me to use a book that tells me to stone people to death as an instruction manual? You want me to use a book that tells me that women should be treated as subservient to men, as an instruction manual? Have you read the fucking thing? If you want to believe in the Bible that's your affair (just so long as you don't do anything it recommends, lest you be a murderer) but don't go around sanctimoniously telling other people that they're wrong to not accept the message of a book that condones and encourages bigotry, violence and genocide.

Proof positive of Christianity's celebration of ignorance and unreason.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding." - Do you not see how crazy that is? "Don't think for yourself, just do what this book tells you." That's fucking insane!

And you know what, even if I am wrong and the Bible is true, I refuse to worship a God that jealous, petty, violent and cruel.

Don't worry Mafia, no matter how plain as day the atrocious language of the people, Mujus et all will simply say you're "mistranslating" or "misinterpreting" it and that we can't possibly fully understand the nuance of God telling people to slaughter all the Midianites save the virgins who would be kept as sex slaves.

*Bible, not people. I need sleep.

did you read the part before the whole stoning bit that makes it almost impossible to administer the death penalty?

'If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death.' - Leviticus 20:13

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father or his mother even when they punish him his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you." - Deuteronomy 21:18-21

"If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him. You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow. Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death." - Deuteronomy 13:6-10

"If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot. That town is to be a ruin for all time, and never rebuilt." - Deuteronomy 13:13 - 13:17

And that's just a few of the killing parts in the Old Testament. And don't give me the "But then Jesus came and changed everything." canard. For everything to have changed God would have had to have said all this in the first place. I mean, granted saying this and changing your mind is better than just saying it, but not saying it at all would have been better... And also:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law. So anyone who breaks the least of these commandments or teaches others to do so will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven. But whoevever practices these commandments and teaches them will be called "great" in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19

you need 2 witnesses who are not related to the accused (men of course) and the accused needs to have been warned that what he was doing was illegal and punishable by death and the accused would have had to do it anyway. It was said that if a death penalty was carried out once in fifty years it was a "blood thirsty court."

And then Jesus came and Christians killed everyone they disagreed with

I'm not arguing that religious people are bad people, not in the least. I'm not saying that all religious people actually do go around stoning people to death and being intolerant and violent and committing genocide. I'm arguing that they need to stop telling other people to use their scriptures as "instruction manuals". Clearly they aren't. Or they would be doing all those things.

the torah makes it nearly impossible for it t be done, you condemn the bible saying that people should be killed a certain way, rave about how we don't read it, but don't mention in practice the torah makes it nearly impossible for a court of men to carry out the punishment.

this is from wikipedia because im too lazy to find the scripture but if you want to be an ass i can find the scriptural base.

Two witnesses were required. Acceptability was limited to:
Adult Jewish men who were known to keep the commandments, knew the written and oral law, and had legitimate professions;
The witnesses had to see each other at the time of the sin;
The witnesses had to be able to speak clearly, without any speech impediment or hearing deficit (to ensure that the warning and the response were done);
The witnesses could not be related to each other or to the accused.
The witnesses had to see each other, and both of them had to give a warning (hatra'ah) to the person that the sin they were about to commit was a capital offense;
This warning had to be delivered within seconds of the performance of the sin (in the time it took to say, "Peace unto you, my Rabbi and my Master");
In the same amount of time, the person about to sin had to:
Respond that s/he was familiar with the punishment, but they were going to sin anyway; AND
Begin to commit the sin/crime;
The Beth Din had to examine each witness separately; and if even one point of their evidence was contradictory - even if a very minor point, such as eye color - the evidence was considered contradictory and the evidence was not heeded;
The Beth Din had to consist of minimally 23 judges;
The majority could not be a simple majority - the split verdict that would allow conviction had to be at least 13 to 11 in favor of conviction;
If the Beth Din arrived at a unanimous verdict of guilty, the person was let go - the idea being that if no judge could find anything exculpatory about the accused, there was something wrong with the court.
The witnesses were appointed by the court to be the executioners.

There was something later about the court being able to kill using creative methods despite the evidentiary rules, but Ive never hear of that or read it and it certainly isnt in the scripture.

OK fine. But again, even if you need a very ridiculously high standard of proof in order to stone someone to death, that doesn't mean it isn't still recommending a stoning death for homosexuality or mouthing off to your parents. It may not happen much in practice, but in theory stoning someone to death is still recommended for these "crimes". Also, to be entirely fair my rant isn't aimed at you. You're not telling me that the "good book" is an instruction manual.

And at any rate, by that standard of proof there, that should still be a fair number of gays being stoned to death. I mean, a noisy couple in an apartment with thin walls, both of their neighbours probably heard them. And I mean, everyone has been told what the bible says about it, time and time and time again. Very very easy ways to satisfy those conditions, and yet I can't help but notice you aren't stoning gays and lesbians to death. (I'd probably have read about it somewhere if you were.) Could it be perhaps that you think this penalty is perhaps a little excessive and draconian?

Maybe because you can't even find where in the Bible this is allegedly written.

i didnt even look

Well it's kinda hard to yell at people about supposedly 'not reading' the part in Deuteronomy or wherever where it says all this when you can't even find it, and the Bible is the easiest book in the world to search line by line.

OK Santa. That is a nearly impossible standard of proof, granted. But not actually impossible. Just nearly impossible. Let's say, hypothetically that someone did meet that standard. And you really did have all those conditions met, and now you (and a bunch of 22 other men) get to decide whether or not this unruly teen should be stoned to death. Would you do it?

Ill do it just for you Putin