ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Married To A Psychopath

I just found out that I am married to a psychopath. I feel evil all around our house, can he be possessed/oppressed?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Dating & Marriage Quiz
 ---Desp4answers on 1/6/13
     Helpful Blog Vote (8)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



Jed:

I don't need to admit that taxes weren't low on the rich - because they WERE demonstrably low (in the way that I already explained several times). The fact that they weren't low the way YOU misinterpreted it is your problem, not mine.
---StrongAxe on 1/28/13


The original question was from a woman who is having trouble with her husband.

It was not about whether the USA was psychotic, or Bush had fair tax rates that were low in themselves, or lower than other tax rates.

Can we PLEASE get back to the original question and avoid political arguments that have nothing to do with it?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/28/13


StrongAxe, that's not an answer to the question. You keep avoiding the question. You scolded me for saying you thought the Bush tax rates were too low on the rich, but yet you refuse to simply state that they were not. If you do indeed think that they were too low on the rich, then you were totally and completely in the wrong for scolding me when I said you thought they were low. It's obvious now that I was right about what you were saying, since you have refused since to simply state that they were not too low.
---Jed on 1/28/13


Jed:

Since you insist on flogging this dead horse yet again:

I said "low". I didn't specify with respect to what. YOU chose an interpretation out of YOUR OWN mind, and then criticized ME for lying, which I did not.

When I qualified what I meant, you CONTINUED accusing me.

"Lower than they used to be" (what I meant) is objective and verifiable.

Your "lower than they should be" is subjective.

Jesus said "render unto Caesar what IS Caesar's". not "what Caesar deserves". Caesar could charge what he wanted. Conquering a country and milking it dry is not a matter of "should" but Jesus didn't argue that point. Why do you?
---StrongAxe on 1/28/13


Still Strongaxe refuses to answer for what he said.

BTW Strongaxe, I didn't start the political talking on this blog. I was responding to your erroneous posts about President Bush.
---Jed on 1/28/13




"I know the Truth, not the father of the lie who you follow."
---Jed on 1/26/13

Some have blurred the line between Truth and Trash, right?
---Nana on 1/26/13


Exactly what I thought StrongAxe. You scolded me for saying you think the Bush tax rates on the rich were low (even though that is exactly what you said), and then you refuse now to clarify by simply stating that you don't believe that. I was right to call you a liar. You DID say Bush kept low taxes on the rich and that is exactly what you meant. If not, why do you refuse to state otherwise? Your deception and manipulation tactics may work on some who don't know truth, but they don't work on me. I know the Truth, not the father of the lie who you follow.
---Jed on 1/26/13


Jed:

Two messages in a row on the same day asking me a question. A bit impatient are we?

As I pointed out a fair while ago, and as Rita_H pointed out recently, this discussion is about being married to a psychopath, and not whether or not the rich are being taxed unfairly. As such, wasting any more time here on arguing about taxation is distracting from discussion about the actual blog topic. I am sure there are other blogs on this site more relevant to taxation (and if there aren't any, you're welcome to create one).
---StrongAxe on 1/26/13


Still waiting on your response to the question. Were the Bush tax rates too easy on the rich?
---Jed on 1/25/13


Okay StrongAxe, now that we've cleared up the fact that what you said is not what you actually meant. Would you mind answering the question? Does that mean then that you don't think the Bush tax rates were too low on the rich?
---Jed on 1/25/13




Jed:

I said: No. I meant "lower than what they ACTUALLY paid before Bush"...

You said: There you go lying again! Incredible! Anyone can go back and read your comment. You did not say "lower than what they paid before Bush".

You're right. I didn't say that. And I didn't SAY that I said that.


If anyone can go back and read what I actually said (for the record), i'm surprised that YOU didn't do so, because if you did, you would clearly recognize the difference between "I said" and "I meant".

But you're too dead-set on screaming at people and calling them liars to ACTUALLY sit down calmly and check the details to see if your accusations have merit.
---StrongAxe on 1/24/13


No. I meant "lower than what they ACTUALLY paid before Bush". It was your own mind filling in the blanks, and calling ME a liar for what IT had concocted.
---StrongAxe on 1/24/13


There you go lying again! Incredible! Anyone can go back and read your comment. You did not say "lower than what they paid before Bush". You said "Bush kept the rich paying LOW taxes", not lower. The reason I thought you meant "low" and not "lower" is because THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID. I did not "concoct" that. You said that. If I did not understand what you meant it was because you did not say what you meant, not because I misunderstood.

You still haven't answered the question.
---Jed on 1/24/13


Jed:

You said: that generally means too low, as in lower than what they should have paid

No. I meant "lower than what they ACTUALLY paid before Bush". It was your own mind filling in the blanks, and calling ME a liar for what IT had concocted.


Rita_H:

You said: They appear to be a political debate.

How is any of this going to help the questioner solve her problem?


I also said this before. Unfortunately, many say things like "this is because of XYZ" and such statements must not be unchallenged. This is common with people with pet peeves who turn all discussions into arguments about them (politics, Sabbath worship, meat-eating, evolution, deity of Jesus, etc.).
---StrongAxe on 1/24/13


All the 'so called' answers here written after the llth Jan. seem to have no connection with the question asked.

They appear to be a political debate.

How is any of this going to help the questioner solve her problem?
---Rita_H on 1/22/13


"If the country was doing SO well under Bush, why was the whole bail-out and stimulus package necessary?"
Simple... Bush followed Clinton, the robber of Social Security.
---Elder on 1/22/13


StrongAxe, when you say that the rich paid "low" taxes under Bush, without specifying what you are comparing "low" to, that generally means too low, as in lower than what they should have paid. So, since now you insist you did not say that %35 federal income tax was low. I will ask you plainly. Is 35% federal income tax on the rich too low? Is 65% of their income in total taxes too low? Should they be paying more than these rates that they paid under Bush, and have continued to pay under Obama for the past four years? Now is your chance to redeem yourself from your previous comment if you truly do not believe that the top 10% paying 98% of all taxes collected is a "low" tax burden for the rich.
---Jed on 1/21/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Jed:

"low" is a relative term. There is no absolute standard of what "low" and "high" mean. They always are always in referene to something else. There are many other words like this.

I said "low". This means low relative to something. I didn't specify what that something was (until you started arguing with me, and accusing me of lying).

You said: 20% is a high income tax.

That depends on the context. Years ago, when I was living in Canada, I remember paying 38% (and this was for an income in the low 5 digits, so NOT rich by most standards). Compared to that, 20% is very low - about half!
---StrongAxe on 1/20/13


No StrongAxe, I read that post. The one where you lied about saying the rich paid "lower" taxes instead of "low" taxes. Fact is, you said "low" not "lower". I was pointing out the fact that you lied because your exact words was that Bush kept taxes low on the rich.

5% isn't that much when your already paying nearly 40% of your income in federal income taxes alone, and about 65% of your total income is robbed from you by both local, state, and federal taxes. 35% is a high income tax. Heck, 20% is a high income tax.
---Jed on 1/17/13


Jed:

As I had already clarified in my previous reply (which you seem to have missed), I explained what I meant by "low". Under Bush, the tax rate on the rich was almost 5% lower than it had been before Bush.

Instead of implicitly accusing me of mental illness (i.e. "you're out of your mind"), perhaps you should have read my reply more carefully rather than shooting from the hip.
---StrongAxe on 1/17/13


\\Under Bush the top 2% of wage earners paid 98% of all the federal income taxes paid. And the top 10% paid 90% of all the taxes paid.\\
---Jed on 1/16/13

I think you have your 90 and 98 mixed up.
---James_L on 1/16/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


all the while pandering to the rich and powerful by keeping their taxes low, and wrapping himself in the Bible while doing so. --StrongAxe

Yes you did say the rich had low taxes under Bush. You just admitted that under Bush the rich paid 35% of their income in federal income taxes alone, not counting the countless other taxes they pay. You think that's low? Under Bush the top 2% of wage earners paid 98% of all the federal income taxes paid. And the top 10% paid 90% of all the taxes paid. The lower 49% paid no federal income taxes at all. Truth is, with all the taxes that the rich pay combined, they pay about 60% of their income in taxes. And you think that's low? You're out of your mind.
---Jed on 1/16/13


Jed:

I am curious why you told Cluny "your apology is accepted", when he corrected YOUR mis-quoting of what I said.

If you don't understand what I was referring to, Google "bush tax cuts". In particular, before Bush, the highest tax rate was 39.6%. Under bush, this dropped to 35%. This is an almost 5% difference. This is "lower than before", not "lower than everyone else". I just said "lower" - I didn't specify which kind of lower.

Also, consider the implications. 5% less from rich people (for example, those making $250K a year or more) is equivalent to 25% for people making $50K or 100% for people making $10K a year.
---StrongAxe on 1/16/13


Cluny, StrongAxe said the rich had low tax rates under George Bush. Your apology is accepted.
---Jed on 1/15/13


\\Haha! StrongAxe thinks that the wealthiest 1% of Americans paying 98% of the countries tax burden, and the wealthiest 10% paying 90% of the tax burden, while the lower 49% pay nothing, is a LOW tax rate for the rich!\\

Jed, where did StrongAxe actually say this? Please quote his exact words.

I know him fairy well in real life, and he neither says nor thinks this.

Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
---Cluny on 1/14/13


Send a Free Friendship Ecard


Jed:

The REASON the country has spent so much under Obama was to fix all the damage left over from Bush (and prevent a greater depression).

But this is all beside the point, and straying WAY off the topic of this particular blog, so I will say no more about it here.


shira4368:

If the country was doing SO well under Bush, why was the whole bail-out and stimulus package necessary? The country was on the brink of a financial catastrophe during Bush's last days, and the bail-out was passed UNDER BUSH. That happened BEFORE Obama was even elected!
---StrongAxe on 1/14/13


Haha! StrongAxe thinks that the wealthiest 1% of Americans paying 98% of the countries tax burden, and the wealthiest 10% paying 90% of the tax burden, while the lower 49% pay nothing, is a LOW tax rate for the rich! Amazing logic there.

And he thinks that George Bush's financial deficit was worse than Obama's? The national debt rose $4.89 trillion under Bush's EIGHT YEARS to Obama's $6 trillion in just FOUR YEARS. In just one term, Obama has added more to the national debt than all of the previous presidents combined. Current spending projections show the national debt will be well over $20 trillion before Obama leaves office in 2016. And that's with no new spending at all. StrongAxe is a real smart one, I'll tell you that.
---Jed on 1/13/13


you mean to tell me bush is responsible for the mess we are in? our country was doing fine until obama got in. debt is more than all other presidents together and welfair rolls have doubled. don't forget all the "green" energy jobs obama sent billions to and they filled their pockets and went bankrupt. yea, it is bush's fault.
---shira4368 on 1/13/13


shira4368:

Obama got elected because George W. Bush took an economic surplus left him by Clinton, and turned the economy into the most ruinous financial down-spiral in recent history, all the while pandering to the rich and powerful by keeping their taxes low, and wrapping himself in the Bible while doing so.

Remember that all the bail-outs of major corporations (at the taxpayer's expense, no doubt, and necessary because of their own reckless financial risks) started under Bush, and was necessary because of Bush's policies. Obama was just left to pick up the pieces (which led us into a painful recession only, rather than a 1929-still depression which might otherwise have occurred).
---StrongAxe on 1/13/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


Hello,may I just add if he is dangerous, abuse you or violent whether verbal or physical, violate you..my advice pray & don't let him
continue get out soon as possible. If you do not wish do that if he is none of the above. Get counseling for yourself, see if he will go with you.
Know that I will be praying for you
May the Lord speak to your heart.If.you have not give your heart to Jesus..life will never be the same.Trust Him. Love of Jesus!

Ps.91
---ELENA on 1/13/13


shira, your two answers on 11 January apply to the original question just how?

Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
---Cluny on 1/12/13


obama got in office because the entitled need to keep living off the government. his wife is finally proud of her country. wow, was she not proud of it 20 years ago. those two in washington are something else. they both need each other.
---shira4368 on 1/11/13


How do you stand it? Is what I want to know. Oppressed I am not sure. Possessed, a real possibility. You can be in a lot of trouble if you are not walking very close to the Lord, my friend. WHAT OUT!
---pat on 1/12/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


So true shira. For the first time in history, America has a president that hates his own country and it's people. I remember as a kid we thought America as we knew it would last forever. We thought we were the best country in the world and nothing could take us down. Now, I don't know if this country will last another week. Truly sad for anyone who really loved this country.
---Jed on 1/11/13


I don't know any individuals who are psychotic but we live in a country that is psychotic. If you don't believe me, look at the news. watch fox news. that is where you will get the truth. brian williams is obama's puppet. the hayden guy is another puppet. obama is gonna use him to weaken our military.
---shira4368 on 1/11/13


Desp4answers...Your husband is probably thinking the same thing about you. It would be nice to know more specifics about you and your husband. For instance, how long have you been married and are either of of you born again?
---KarenD on 1/6/13


Willie c:, being a psychopath is not a medical condition. Some mental illnesses are. Being a psychopath is not one of them.
---Jed on 1/6/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


If a person is a real psychopath > "love does no harm to a neighbor", we have in Romans 13:10. So, if a personal problem is really only medical, you can still be spiritual enough not to do any harm to anyone. So, if you do harm, this is not only a psychiatric trouble, but a problem of having character which is somehow anti-love, which would mean the problem is deeper than a physical mental trouble.

And there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience," Paul says in Ephesians 2:2. Satan's spirit makes people evil spiritually so they can do harm . . . against how God's love (Romans 5:5) would have them doing good. So, God bless him and you (c: God is able easily to change any evil person (Romans 12:21).
---willie_c: on 1/6/13


Congratulations! I am married to a psycho too. Yes, my greater preference would be to be a thousand miles away from my wife. But the good out of the evil is children.
---aaron on 1/6/13


And what makes you think your husband is a psychopath?

Did you get a medical/psychiatric diagnosis to that effect?

How long have you been married, and how long did you know him before you married him?

Finally, how do you know that YOU are not the one being tempted and oppressed by demons? One of the most subtle tricks of the devil is to get a person to think that everyone ELSE has demons.

Happy New Year!

Christ is baptized. In the Jordan.
---Cluny on 1/6/13


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.