(2007-05-30) — Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, unveiled a universal health care plan yesterday, which would boost taxes on the rich to fund care for the poor and would mandate involuntary organ donations from healthy, wealthy Americans to their ailing, impoverished counterparts.
“Taking money from the wealthy to fund care for the rest of us is no real sacrifice,” said Sen. Obama. “The rich know how to make money and they’ll just go out and get some more. In Obama’s America, if the lower middle class suffers, the upper class should feel their pain. That’s the philosophy behind my health plan, and in fact, it is the ideology upon which this great Democrat party stands.”
Mr. Obama said that during his first term in the White House he would institute a lottery system for transferring the well-maintained lungs, kidneys, livers, spleens and “other giblets,” from well-to-do citizens to the bodies of “the people who need them, and in fact deserve them, the most by virtue of their inadequate income production.”
At the same time, Congress would establish the Obama Universal Care Health Initiative Endowment to fund development of artificial, mechanical organs that the federal government would then sell at a premium to the rich as replacement parts for the natural organs they gave to the poor.
The Illinois senator said his health care proposal is “revenue neutral” because once it’s implemented, “that will be the best gear to describe the pace of U.S. economic growth.”
191 responses so far ↓
1 University Update // May 30, 2007 at 7:21 am
Obama Health Plan: Give Organs of Rich to Poor…
…
2 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 7:22 am
Being rich himself, I wonder if Obama would submit himself and his family to such a plan? … Naaaaaah! He’s a liberal Democratic elitist, what was I thinkin’?
I mean, taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers can only lead this country to prosperity, right?
3 JamesonLewis3rd // May 30, 2007 at 7:23 am
God Bless America
4 DasPoetica // May 30, 2007 at 7:33 am
OUCHIE! Your too good, Mr. Ott!
5 DasPoetica // May 30, 2007 at 7:34 am
“Ouchie”! Your too good, Mr. Ott.
6 MargeinMI // May 30, 2007 at 7:47 am
Hillary could donate her heart. Um, wait, oh darn.
Nevermind.
7 MargeinMI // May 30, 2007 at 7:49 am
Is there a need of hamhocks? There you go Hill. That’s where you can help. Bill’s got lots of giblets too! (That’s Newspeak for cojones isn’t it?)
8 Roguet55 // May 30, 2007 at 7:50 am
Scott;
You nailed in a very simple way the true plans of ANY democratic solution.
Take from those that can make and move their lives ahead and give to the lazy and misdirected instead of actually asking them to be part of the solution.
Be it universal healthcare to TAX THE RICH BAS@#$% they deserve to have all they have taken to help you poor folks! Problem is rich is such a low threshold to this group of rich folk. Since they don’t have to deal with health insurance issues themselves. Nor do they need to worry about Social Security since they have a much better plan funded by US, Voted for by THEM!
What a bunch of reprobates!
9 MargeinMI // May 30, 2007 at 7:51 am
And just THINK what the lovely Mr. Edwards could do for The Men’s Hair Club!
10 MargeinMI // May 30, 2007 at 7:52 am
And when you think of the size of Teddy’s liver, why it could be divided to save many, many, many, many, many people!
11 RedPepper // May 30, 2007 at 8:10 am
This plan seems ill-thought-out to me. Ever hear of the Law of Unintended Consequences?
Imagine some poor schlub who wakes up in a hospital room and discovers that he’s received Lindsey Lohan’s liver? Sean Penn’s lungs?!
Paris Hilton’s brain ?
Paging Doctor Frankenstein …
12 MargeinMI // May 30, 2007 at 8:24 am
At last! The Democrap campaign theme song! (With heartfelt apologies to Janis.)
Didn’t I make you feel
Like you were the only one?
Yeah, and didn’t I give you nearly everything
That I possibly could?
Honey, you know I did!
But each time I tell myself
That I can’t stand the pain.
Will you vote me into power?
I’m singing once again…
I said, “Come on, come on,
Come on, come on
And take it!
Take another little piece of my heart now baby.
Take it!
Take another little piece of my heart, my heart, yeah.
Take it!
Take another little piece of my heart now baby.
You know you’ve got it,
If it makes you feel good!
Oh yes. Indeed!
You’re out on the street looking good [Edwards]
And feeling deep down in your heart,
I guess you know that it’s alright.
Now, now, now, now
Hear me when I cry at night.
People I cry all the time!
And each time I tell myself
That I’ve had enough,
I want to tell you baby,
The going will be tough!
I want you to come on, come on,
Come on, come on
And take it!
Take another little piece of my heart now baby.
Take it!
Take another little piece of my heart,
My heart, my heart, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Take it!
Take another little piece of my heart now baby.
Yeah, you know you’ve got it,
If it makes you feel good!
O.K., I’ll stop now. heehee
13 Rock Slatestone // May 30, 2007 at 8:31 am
Our church had an organ donor.
14 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 8:49 am
Give Organs of Rich to Poor
Would that also include keyboard lessons?
15 gafisher // May 30, 2007 at 9:12 am
Hey, blood’s an organ too, and the Dems have been sucking that for years “to help the poor.”
16 tomg // May 30, 2007 at 9:19 am
Only the rich get to be bionic? Not with my vote!
17 Laughing@You // May 30, 2007 at 9:21 am
Yesterday Darthmiester said his son is seeking an appointment to West Point.
I just realized he also said that he had just graduated with honor from a community college.
Well apparently the Darthmiester doesn’t know the USMA is a four year institution which doesn’t accept transferee students.
You see Henry, what they teach there is not limited to academics, and they want four years to teach cadets the lessons in life some of them never got at home. They have an honor code which attempts to instill in cadets the value of good character and honesty. Foremost among these is honesty.
You have been the most judgmental of all at Scrappleface. You have decried the lack of virtue of your opponents. You have distorted history, and hidden behind a twisted view of both United States Citizenship and Christianity. You have declared a greater knowledge of the scriptures than others, and taken what can only be called a self-righteous stance on almost everything. You have accused your opponents lying and distorting the truth. Hypocrite you are, and have always been, you are also a LIAR!
And I’m proud to say that’s my boot your on your neck.
18 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 10:47 am
I’m laughing at you, L@Y. You’re caught in another liberal lie/revisionism: The myth of “Goldwater conservatism”.
BTW, L@Y. My son spoke with the admissions office at West Point several weeks ago and was indeed informed that his two years at the community college or from any university would not count toward his four years at West Point. He knows that going in.
He was also informed (as I had previously informed him) that he would need to be nominated by the senator(s) of his home state and by his U.S. representative to be considered for a “congressionally nominated admissions” to West Point. Having received credit at either a two-year or four-year institution of higher educations does not disqualify anyone from attending West Point if his/her nomination goes through. Josh is more than willing to attend four years of West Point despite the fact he already has an associates degree or even if he had a BS or BA degree from a four year college … ya divisive, ignorant moron.
He was also told that though Annapolis was typically the gateway to a Navy or Marine commission in those respective services, there have been West Point graduates who have made it into the Marine Corps as commissioned officers. Failing that, Josh (having already been accepted at a Division 1 university) will finish his schooling and plans to enlist in the Marine Corps and complete OCS/OCC training.
Josh understands that America is engaged in a “generation war” and will probably see action at some point in his career - which is a very informed on his part since you and bober/rf believes he’ll miss “all the fun” if he plans out his military career in a sensible and rational manner.
L@Y, you’re to be pitied for your self-righteous ignorance with which you try to use to disrespect people and their good intentions. You stand condemned by your own mockery and self-imposed ignorance. Did you go off your lithium?
19 Obamability :: Obama Health Plan: Give Organs of Rich to Poor // May 30, 2007 at 10:49 am
[...] Read the original here: Scott Ott [...]
20 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 10:51 am
You have been the most judgmental of all at Scrappleface. You have decried the lack of virtue of your opponents. You have distorted history, and hidden behind a twisted view of both United States Citizenship and Christianity. You have declared a greater knowledge of the scriptures than others, and taken what can only be called a self-righteous stance on almost everything. You have accused your opponents lying and distorting the truth. Hypocrite you are, and have always been, you are also a LIAR!
Given my previous response to your absolutely ignorant rant, you need to look in a mirror, L@Y. You’ve described yourself perfectly. LOL!
21 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 11:00 am
Here’s the admission requirements to USMA which does not prevent anyone with an associates degree or a BS/BA/MA degree from attending.
Excerpted:
Q: What are the academic requirements?
To qualify academically at West Point you should have an above average high school or college academic record. A complete transcript of your academic achievement will be evaluated to determine your qualification.
So I can only conclude one of two things, L@Y is an ignorant liar or an ignorant buffoon given what he self-righteously pontificated about in his post #17.
22 gafisher // May 30, 2007 at 11:08 am
Hey, speaking of the self-righteous being hung on their own petard, it appears the not-so-spooky Valium Plame may have some ‘splainin‘ to do.
23 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 11:42 am
gafisher,
Note how the lamestream media is running interference for Valium Plame by spinning: Yeah, she has three different versions of how she was, then wasn’t, then sorta was involved in sending her husband, the liar Joe Wilson, to Niger BUT it’s not her lies or faulty recollections that are the real issue but the purported “lies” of the White House and Karl Rove. Buwahahahahaha, what morons!
I sent a letter to the editor of USA Today and told them they were guilty of regurgitating the same ol’ tired media meme and wasn’t it interesting that not one time did the author ever mention the fact it was anti-war DICK ARMITAGE of the State Department who first “outted” Valerie Plame, not the White House. I also referred the USA Today editor to the Senate Select Committe Report which unequivocally state that Joe Wilson was untruthful (lied) when he said his report debunked the Administration’s claim about Saddam’s regime and its inquiries into Niger yellowcake when in fact in some parts of the CIA and intelligence community his report actually reinforced their view that such a thing actually did happen! Oh, what a tangled web liberals weave …
BTW, despite the tone and tenor of his post, I can’t wait for L@Y to whine that he never explicitly said someone (my son) who graduated from a community college couldn’t attend USMA/West Point. The more he lies the more he thinks I’m the one lying. There must be some kind of psychological pathology associated with that behavior … oh, it’s called “projection” - something lying liberals are very adept at engaging in given their penchant for the politics of personal destruction.
24 Laughing@You // May 30, 2007 at 11:57 am
Having checked your link, it is clear I was wrong!
I am shocked, and disappointed; but I guess if they now accept felons in the Army I should not be surprised. But, I still bet they don’t know about that switcheroo you two have cooked up.
After all you did lead us all to believe your heterosexual honor student son was in high school and was just waiting for graduation to join the Marines. Does he need more education to join the Marines, and go to Iraq?
Since my son served in both Desert Storm and Somalia know what it’s like to wake up repeatedly in the same nightmare of Soldiers at the door. You do remember Blacklion31, don’t you?
So like his daddy, it looks like young Dick will miss the war; but still he’ll make a fine officer; and I’m sure we will have the continued benefit of your telling us all about the glory of combat, and how we should fight till the last of other people’s sons and daughters.
PS My own Dad arrived at the Army recruiter’s station at 0430 8Dec1941, times have changed, indeed.
25 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Why should I bother in continuing to respond to a filthy liar like you who will only twist my words and hold me accountable for assumptions and inferences you make in your abject ignorance, L@Y? I’m tired of trying to shame honest introspection out a depraved troll like you who has to live vicariously through the exploits of better men than he. Still citing your pedigree like its some kind of royalty, eh? How pitiable.
26 Hawkeye // May 30, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I think I feel an “ouchie” about to come onto my wallet…
(:D) Best regards.
27 onlineanalyst // May 30, 2007 at 12:17 pm
An arm here, a leg there, in the world of entitlement victimology, Obamarama asks so little of us “rich people”…
At the rate we are being bled dry with income redistribution, I may only have a few toenail and fingernail parings on offer for the indigent. (Will this contribution have the unintended consequence of leading to voodoo health care?)
Ah, well, if Adam could spare a rib to create the better half, then who am I to refuse donating my wisdom teeth?
BTW Marge, you stole my thunder regarding the Tedster’s contribution to Liver-Aid.
28 Laughing@You // May 30, 2007 at 12:35 pm
About 25,
Is that really your notion of prose? Kinda tinny ain’t it?
I think it would be best if you didn’t respond to me; because frankly Henry, it only makes you look worse. I bet most here can see you for what you are already.
29 woodnwheel // May 30, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Much as I’m enjoying the squabbling between Darth & L@Y (those of you who know me can probably guess which side I’d be on if I was to pick sides), since Scott’s piece has to do with organ donation, I was wondering what everybody thinks about the new Danish show where people compete for a dying person’s organ(s). Anyone wanna tackle that one?
30 conserve-a-tips // May 30, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Scott, I have several questions…Did Obama indicate what classifies a person as rich? I mean, would it be on a scale of 1-10 with all the people of the world being rated, or would only the people in our country be rated? And would that be “rich in money” or “rich in intellligence” or “rich in joy” or “rich in kindness”? Who will be establishing the basis for “rich” and what qualifications will make that person appropriate for the position? Can one apply for this position and if so, where might one apply? So many questions. So little time.
31 Laughing@You // May 30, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Well Henry,
I’m sure you remember I’m pretty good in my own right. But, when I talk about myself, you all want to call it bragging.
What’s a young troll to do? Make that what’s a depraved troll to do?
You do know that, unlike many here, my views are exactly the same as my first post, and they being vindicated daily.
How ’bout you Dorky?
Say Woodenwheel, have you any experience painting miniatures?
32 Laughing@You // May 30, 2007 at 1:00 pm
are - Dang, Dang, Dang!
33 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I think it would be best if you didn’t respond to me; because frankly Henry, it only makes you look worse.
Living in your padded room, how would you know, L@Y? Projecting again, are we? I’ve already warned you about that.
woodnwheel,
Would the game show look more like Deal or No Deal, The Dating Game, or The Wheel of Fortune? I’d like to buy a vowel.
34 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 1:15 pm
You do know that, unlike many here, my views are exactly the same as my first post and they being vindicated daily.
Buwahahahaha. I see you have a bad case of self-aggrandizement … “vindicated daily” indeed. I thought “enlightened progressives” who were former “Goldwater conservative” (liar) didn’t believe in absolute truth - so how can you be “vindicated daily”? You know, your know-it-all delusion is too much like Christian fundamentalism when you get right down to it.
ThinkFeel about it.And you also display a long term commitment to self-imposed ignorance which you confuse with cognitive consistency, eh Laughing Gasbag? Besides, you’ve adequately demonstrated here you wouldn’t know truth if you tripped over it. About par for the course for liberal media tools like you.
35 Laughing@You // May 30, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Oh, just shut up stupid! Can’t you see how badly you are outclassed?
36 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I wonder if sHrillary will donate her lockbox under Obama’s new healthscare plan?
37 da Bunny // May 30, 2007 at 3:17 pm
In Obama’s America, if the lower middle class suffers, the upper class should feel their pain. That’s the philosophy behind my health plan, and in fact, it is the ideology upon which this great Democrat party stands.â€
Too bad common sense and intelligence aren’t “organs,” since these items are the most needed “transplants” for the lib/dim/socialist crowd.
“When you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.” B. Hussein Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton are in the business of appealing to as many “Pauls” as they can. Whoever gets the most “Paul” votes wins the dhimmicrap nomination.
38 conserve-a-tips // May 30, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Speaking of Obama’s healthplan, did anybody catch this statement in a AP News article?
“Instead, the man flew from Prague to Montreal on May 24 aboard Czech Air Flight 0104, then drove into the United States at Champlain, N.Y. He told the newspaper he was afraid that if he didn’t get back to the U.S., he wouldn’t get the treatment he needed to survive.
OK, now I thought that our healthcare system was so broken that nobody in their right mind would come here for care. I thought that Cuba was where everybody wanted to go. Just ask Mickey Mouse Moore. This makes no sense. Was the man just delusional from his TB?
39 conserve-a-tips // May 30, 2007 at 3:42 pm
L@Y, I was going to invite you to my email site to continue our discussion so as not to bore these nice people, but I am wondering now if you will play nice-nice. I don’t like the words ’shut-up’. Somehow it stifles debate. What say you?
40 boberinyetagain // May 30, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Wow, tough day at the mill eh?
You kids really need to learn to fight nice. How I got dragged into this again I have no clue but, so it goes.
I really do love you Hank, you do know that, don’t you?
XXXOOO
Funny stuff Scott!
41 tomg // May 30, 2007 at 4:27 pm
So, Sen Obama wants to let the tax cuts expire to pay for universal health care. This is to economics what burning hydrogen to save oil is to thermodynamics. Or as giving illegals status and raising the minimum wage is to free markets. Or supporting the troops and ….
Oh, nevermind.
42 Laughing@You // May 30, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Tipsy
Actually, for the record, I said: “Oh, just shut up stupid!”. Then I went on to say: Can’t you see how badly you are outclassed?
Not so nice of me, but I don’t see you saying anything to Henry about calling me a “filthy liar” and “scum”. And I think he spits at me too!
If you’ll just tell me you know his tassel is twisted too tight, I think that is technically called being a “nitwit” I’ll try to treat him like the “special person” he is.
It’s very nice of you to make the offer, but I think I should decline, I sometimes have self control issues, around conservatives. In fact, my wife leaves the room when Dumbyah begins to speak. I know many, many people who have the same problem, and I don’t do double-talk like a nitwit.
See Henry, they like me better than you!
43 woodnwheel // May 30, 2007 at 5:14 pm
L@Y: “painting miniatures”?? What does that have to do with this thread? Are you off your meds?
As for the Danish show, here’s a link:
Reality show kidney swap ‘is in bad taste’
44 Laughing@You // May 30, 2007 at 5:29 pm
woodnwheel,
Well, it looks like I may have misread your post! I must be losing my mind! Let me see did I take my meds? I guess I didn’t. Thanks for the considerate correction.
The show concept is disgusting, but perhaps if they were to could put some cash incentives in the deal, it would at least appeal to the neo-conservatives.
45 Beerme // May 30, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Show of hands: How many Scrapplers spend hours per week sending snarky responses to Daily KOS or Democrat Underground in a vain attampet to “one up” the congregation on their beliefs? I’m not talking about reading the sites to see what the lunatic fringe is up to or even responding once in a while to some spectacularly inane POV, but actually trolling at the site?
No one?
Not surprising. That behavior is simply not healthy, is it?
46 Beerme // May 30, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Oops! Make that “attempt”. Carry on.
47 gafisher // May 30, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Woodnwheel #29 (and Darth #33) — The phrase “I’d like to buy a bowel” might have a future. Meanwhile, once a contestant wins the organ of their dreams, who’s going to install it?
Regarding the Danish show, though, it must be that even bad TV has succumbed to outsourcing. Hollywood, look out!
48 gafisher // May 30, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Beerme, I think the average Scrappler has an important organ near each end of the alimentary canal to control the tendency to wander around like that. (I’d qualify the statement, but even the women here have more, um, fortitude than the bobbed one and his sneezy cohort.)
{@U!} [gesundheit]
49 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Will someone donate a brain to L@Y? Stat!
Even the brain from Abby Normal would be an improvement. Shades of Young Frankenstein!
… STAND BACK! My God he has a rotten brain!
50 camojack // May 30, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Well, since Barack Hussein Obama is one of the aforementioned “well-to-do citizens”…can I have his liver, with fava beans and a nice chianti?
51 Darthmeister // May 30, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Good point, Beerme. I drop in from time to time at the nutroots moonbat sites just to see what’s percolating, but why bother swimming in the sewer only to find out it stinks like every other sewer on the left? One would think the trolls who visit here would adopt the same attitude, but maybe they get validation when we play whack-a-troll because no one else will play with them. It’s like the person who ties a steak around their neck so at least the dog will pay them some attention. If we’re that stuck on stupid here why try to convert us? But then like their father Lucifer I suppose they like going to other people’s blogsites (or houses for that matter) and tormenting people. What a sick pathology, particularly when they’re only interested in provoking people to anger with their palpable lies and twisted “logic” and not enlightening them in any meaningful way.
52 Laughing@You // May 30, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Say is there really a turf rule here? Or is that just some thug preening? If there is a turf rule, I haven’t seen it posted by the site owner. Maybe the thug should take this issue up with Scott. As far as the things that mystify thugs goes … who cares?
53 Beerme // May 30, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Who said anything about a “turf rule”? I’m talking about mental health. See a professional for a description. Hint: the first step is recognizing you have a problem and you are powerless to stop it…I have a feeling you’re familiar with at least that rule, as a Friend of Bill (Clinton, that is…).
54 Laughing@You // May 30, 2007 at 9:50 pm
You didn’t say Turf, but that’s exactly what you meant. Maybe you’re a little to close to the problem, bull.
I suppose your color is red, do you flash signs too. Well, I got one for you!
55 EXT // May 30, 2007 at 10:00 pm
C’mon folks….
Let’s be careful about baiting the LW trolls. They tend to take it out on their spouses. Besides, there ARE mental conditions only a lobotomy can help. Not cure; just help.
56 its-just-me // May 31, 2007 at 12:56 am
I think, L@Y, is that, for most Scrapplers, this site is a light discussion with people of like mind.
If we liked name-calling and throwing around catch phrases, we’d troll at other sites and pick fights. Kind of like what you’re doing here. Seems like it would be a self-imposed high-stress type of situation (which may be O.K. if you’ve already got a stick where the sun don’t shine).
BTW, I think I speak for most folks here when I say that we have the utmost respect for Darthmeister. DON’T presume to know what we think, or with whom we agree when you obviously disagree with most of us in many other areas.
Also, it would have been beneficial if you had checked out the admissions requirements BEFORE calling someone else (who is obviously correct) a liar.
57 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 6:53 am
A Venezuelan writes a letter to Danny Glover.
These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
- Thomas Paine, 1776
Historical note. When Thomas Paine was referring to “summer soldiers”, he was speaking of those already employed in the service of their country yet when the battle came near or the going got tough, they left the ranks to attend to personal business or they refused to fight. His reference to “sunshine patriot” was as the two words suggest, Americans who only supported their country when a war went well and were excessively critical of the effort when the going got tough.
Terms like “chickenhawk” are missing from founding opinion and are in fact intellectually dishonest inventions of the summer soldiers and sunshine patriots on the left. If anything the term “chickenhawk” would essentially refer to the “summer soldier”, that is, someone who serves as a hawk by being found in the service of his country yet refuses to fight on the basis that this wasn’t his war to fight. Of course the left has long put another meaning on the word in hopes of discrediting citizens who dare support the war policies of their country.
The idea that no one should have an opinion about any war because they didn’t serve in the armed forces is as patently absurd as suggesting no one can have an opinion about law enforcement (where people also die fighting evil) unless they’ve been a cop. The thinking American understands the left’s contention would mean that all issues of war and peace should be put in the hands of only those who serve(d) in the military, a concept totally abhorrent to the founding fathers … and ironically, the left itself. But it doesn’t stop them from misuing the term “chickenhawk”.
The left’s corruption of the founding principle of civilian control of military matters would also make FDR and Abraham Lincoln “chickenhawks” since neither one served in any branch of the U.S. armed forces and yet “sent” hundreds of thousands of Americans to their deaths. Oh what a tangled web they weave …
More on the real sunshine patriots here. Also Navy veteran Bob Parks speaks out against anti-war sunshine patriots in this YouTube videoclip.
58 Beerme // May 31, 2007 at 7:24 am
Such anger and aggressiveness! And all the name calling. My sensitivities are truly offended. Remember, chief, Goosfraba!
Interesting how someone can instantly tell what another person “meant”, completely independently of the statements made. I said what I meant and it was really very simple and easy to understand. Why distort the message?
Maybe you just need a hug. Come here ya big lug!
59 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 7:38 am
Good morning. Hopefully, it will be a less contentious day??
Darthmeister, it is my observation that those who call names, snidely point fingers and do not allow others to have an opinion are insecure individuals who use these tactics to take the focus off of their own shortcomings. It is easy not to face the sins in one’s own life if one can place the focus squarely on the supposed sins in another’s life. The fact is, however, the only thing that one can change is one’s own attitudes and actions and if one is secure in a position, attitude, relationship with God, etc., then there is no need for denigrating others.
I was listening to Alistair Begg last night (I absolutely love his teaching) and one thing he said really struck me. He said that there is no way man can reason with man and make man change his mind without the Holy Spirit working within that man. All of the gimmicks, cute stories, and entertainment in the world will not instill the truth in any man unless he allows the Spirit to work in him to assimilate the truth. I had to think about that. It doesn’t mean that we stop presenting the truth because it is hopeless for some people to accept it, but that we present it, and then, if it is rejected, “shake the dust from our sandles” and move on.
Here on Scrappleface, what is so special is that we can present what each of us is secure in as truth, as most of us agree on those truths, but when someone presents something else, we discern whether it is of value or not, present what we know to be truth in response and if it is not accepted, then just let them be wrong. Though it breaks His heart, God allows men to be wrong all the way to Hell. I suppose we should too.
60 MargeinMI // May 31, 2007 at 7:49 am
Gee, I was gonna say that sometimes ugly scabs itch. Please stop picking this one and letting all that yucky pus ooze out all over Scott’s nice site.
Thanks cat and Beerme for putting it MUCH more eloquently than me.
61 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 8:08 am
Marge, thanks soooo much for that lovely picture. I will carry it with me all day!!! EEwwww.
62 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 8:13 am
Beerme, it’s a lost cause. We’ve tried humor, satire, logical argument, historical examples, documentary hyperlinks, etymological argument, shamed him with reflective argument and have tried to appeal to what is left of his intellectual integrity, and the troll continues to engage in ad hominem attacks every time he graces us with his presence. I think some professional help is in order since he can’t seem to get past his pathological hatred of us … seriously. And to add insult to injury he invariably launches into his self-aggrandizing recitation of his pedigree forgetting that such a thing as skipped generation does exist, he being the prime example of such a syndrome.
Such blind and palpable hatred can’t be healthy and like the effects of corrosive acid it keeps getting worse and worse with the troll.
63 onlineanalyst // May 31, 2007 at 9:13 am
Count on it. The Dhimmicrat motto, regardless of their presidential wannabes or passive party voters, is "Goverment CPU- 'Central Planning Uber-Alles'". That's the Dem's recipe for health care, income redistribution,and "free" everything for the "masses" in their grand scheme. Their method destroys individuality,initiative, freedom in the pursuit of happiness, and reward for productivity. It promotes victimhood and cancels liberty.
64 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 8:18 am
Excellent points, c.a.t. It has always been true no one can be argued into heaven, but we’re still commanded to give account for the hope which lies within us.
It also appears to be true that rational argument regarding more mundane issues often bounce off the heads of trolls like BBs off the rock of Gibraltor. But of course they would see that as a good thing.
65 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 8:21 am
No, no…sorry Darthmeister…no BB’s. Those involve guns remember????? But it was a cute analogy!
66 MargeinMI // May 31, 2007 at 8:27 am
Sorry cat, and everyone else.
and, HEY! I emoticonned without even trying!
67 grunt1 // May 31, 2007 at 8:33 am
Only in America could a jerk run for President
and make stupid remarks like these.
68 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 8:48 am
National Review editors challenge WSJ’s more liberal editors to a debate on immigration bill.
As the NR editors observed: It shouldn’t be a problem for the Journal’s editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren’t “rational†on the question, have no arguments, and are “foaming at the mouth,†as they explained in a videotaped session of one of their editorial meetings last week.
Click here to see WSJ engaging in its cheapshot ad homs.
69 Ms RightWing, Ink // May 31, 2007 at 9:25 am
Stand back, lepor coming, stand back. Sorry, Marge’s post made me do it.
conserve-a-tips
Alistair Begg is one of my favorite radio pastors. His church is just north of us near Cleveland and though I never been there it would be a treat to go hear him in person. Love that Glasgow accent
70 Ms RightWing, Ink // May 31, 2007 at 9:26 am
duh, my spelling is about as bad as my eyesight. Leper, leper, leper
71 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 9:32 am
Ahh.. a typical Republican… you can’t defend your party with the truth, so you resort to outright lies. I doubt if many of your readers are interseted in the truth, but just in case, here are the links to Obama’s health care plan:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanOverview.pdf
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf
Would you care to reveal your source, Scott?
72 Laughing@You // May 31, 2007 at 9:41 am
Beerme, yes! Goosfraba! That’s the ticket; try to think of me as Dr. Buddy Rydell. Now join me in a chorus of “I Am Prettyâ€, and then I’ll do that “hug a thug” thing of yours.
73 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 9:42 am
Whoops. It seems that the
errorerrol troll can’t spell or understand satire either. Some people just have no funny bone.MsRightWing, Ink: I get his MP3’s and put them on my ipod to listen while I do the treadmill. I would love to just sit at his feet and learn. And yes, that brogue is awesome. You just want to hug him! My sister lives in Cincinatti. Maybe we will go visit her and make a trip to Cleveland! We could stop by for some of your bread.
74 JamesonLewis3rd // May 31, 2007 at 9:48 am
It is indeed a testimony to Mr. Ott’s top-quality satirical skills when folks-that obviously don’t get it-post comments here. Too funny.
75 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 9:53 am
Geee… what a cute little clique we have here. Do we all get together wearing our Bush masks every Friday and watch films of people getting blown up? Wow!!
76 GnuCarSmell // May 31, 2007 at 9:56 am
Obama will never get an organ from me, but he’s welcome to the accordion.
77 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 9:57 am
I just read the links to Obama’s healthcare and had to laugh. The government is going to fix it all! Did you know that? Just like it fixed poverty and irradicated it and just like it fixed the illegal immigration problem so that we have no more illegals in this country. There’s and old saying, “Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me.”
78 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 9:58 am
where’d my posts go? Obama got them.
79 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 10:07 am
Whatsamatta conserve-a-wimp? I thought this was satire. Now you’re getting all serious on us?
80 JamesonLewis3rd // May 31, 2007 at 10:09 am
Heh. Now it thinks the comments are satire.
81 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 10:09 am
and the saying goes: “‘Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again” — George W. Bush
82 Laughing@You // May 31, 2007 at 10:11 am
conserve-a-tips:
Thank you! You are both wise and Godly. Though we differ, I see Christ in you.
83 Laughing@You // May 31, 2007 at 10:20 am
Oh gee, I was referring to 59! I haven’t read Obama’s healthcare yet, but 76 is fine with me too.
errol_44,
Please, acquire a new target. Have you noticed Darthmeister yet? He’s alot more fun, but he spits at people.
84 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 10:20 am
JL3rd, some “visitors” need a humor transplant.
Amanda Carpenter takes on Obama’s reworked sHrillaryCare. Obama’s rhetoric on the topic is impressive, too bad schemes like this haven’t worked in the real world over the long haul.
Socialized medicine, and that’s what Obama is proferring, usually creates a two-tiered system excepting in the most totalitarian nations. The lower tier is comprised of lucky people like us who have to endure sub-standard care and waiting lists … but we’ll eventually get the government-funded care on the system’s timetable, if you’re lucky enough to survive in the meantime. The second tier is typically comprised of the wealthy who are able to still access private insurance and healthcare which typically co-exist in socialist-democratic countries like Canada, Great Britian, Ireland, Fwance, etc.. They get the best care while us peons must settle for timetabled socialized healthcare/medical care.
A cogent analysis of the (im)morality of Socialized Healthcare
Do people have a “right” to universal healthcare? The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property is a right to action and not based on the rewards of others. For example, the right to life, does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them.
But universal healthcare does exactly that. It takes from Peter/Mary to pay for Paul. Universal healthcare is not a right but rather a privilege conferred to a protected class of people by a coercive government who gets its financial backing from confiscatory taxation. Hence, universal healthcare is tyrannical and immoral. Read it all.
85 Maggie // May 31, 2007 at 10:26 am
Marge…..re#60
Double Eeewwww
86 Ms RightWing, Ink // May 31, 2007 at 10:33 am
errol_44
Where can I get some of those Friday night blow up fims. As far as the Bush masks go, I seem to have this nagging problem with latex allergies so I would rather spend my time wearing a “I love Hitler,” T-shirt and standing at the window with my arm erect screaming incoherently in broken German about oil, gays, Mexicans and the price of toilet paper.
Which brings to mind this nagging question-have you no friends?? If not, stop by for a little light conversation and homemade bread. When we are not preaching hate and world domination, many of us are delightful cooks plus we even have a beer baron in our midst.
Who knows, you may even get adopted since we love cute furry creatures. Likely though, you are probably neither cute or furry, but neither am I-just an old decrepit, rickety, run down, senile old goat like hate monger who was jilted by my liberal pot smoking lover boy back in the 60’s when he fell in love with a tattoo artist and left me hanging with 20 children to feed in our rural hippie commune.
Though in the face of adversity I became a conservative, went back to school at our local Jr College, became an economist at learned how to feed 20 children on $60 a week. My children since left me because they wanted a warm furry mother.
Bah humbug
87 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 10:36 am
hey Darth… I get it. Damn the poor! Why should they have the right to health care? Darwin’s theory at it’s best, right? Maybe if we could just outright deny health care to them, they would all die off and only the rich will be left standing. But then, of course, some of you rich will be richer than others.. and then, well… the others will become the poor, so …. damn them too, I say!! Let them suffer!
You clowns are too funny. Thanks for letting me crash your little republican party for a while. Unlike you rich folks, I have to go pay the bills, but I’ll try to come back later and join you in some good old-fashioned poor bashing.
88 a440hz // May 31, 2007 at 10:39 am
Giblets. Now that’s funny.
89 Laughing@You // May 31, 2007 at 10:41 am
We’re all paying for the uninsured now, and we have by far the most expensive health care system in the world.
Maybe it shouldn’t be against your religion to provide health care for the poor.
Luke:
10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave [them] to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among thethieves?
10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
90 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 10:41 am
Hey Ms. Rightwing.. that’s funny. Good post. But I think there are some underlying issues there. Go ahead, admit it. You want me. Hmm-mm. I thought so. It’s been fun but I gotta go. Will come back and play you kids later.
91 Maggie // May 31, 2007 at 10:50 am
Ms Righty….re errol
Hold on there a minute….maybe errol’s not furry and cute, but I’ll bet he’s plenty hairy.
92 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 11:10 am
Darthmeister, a transplant requires a donor - as in organ - and I don’t think you are gonna find any takers for those needing humor!
L@Y, I hope so. I’m afraid this is gonna be long. I read your response to my question on the other thread and I will say that you do have conservative views on some things, however, it seems that you suffer from what I call “guiltitis”. That is a disease that causes your conservatism to get waylaid by a not too uncommon feeling that somehow humans have the power to change other peoples’ lives and so you feel guilty because (1) you and others aren’t trying hard enough to accomplish that, (2) people are still feeling pain and suffering and so somebody must be at fault and (3) God’s Word doesn’t really mean what it says and He can’t be so judgemental as to be serious about sin. God most certainly does care about sin and states that sinful man is totally separated from Him. And only God has the power to change people’s lives, circumstances and peace. The only thing you or I can do is accept His Spirit, spread His Word, and allow Him to work in us, standing up for absolute, black and white truth. We are not to enable other people to avoid feeling the consequences of their own choices because in doing so, we get between them and God, instead of allowing God to take them to a place where they have to acknowledge Him one way or another.
To think that our governments can do what we, as Christians should be doing instead, makes us very lazy Christians indeed. As Christians, each and every one of us, privately and collectively, should be adopting one family close by and checking on them, helping them to do for themselves, but also showing them how to do that and providing for the short term needs.
Just as an example, I coupon shop. It means that I may get 10 or 12 bottles of detergent for free. Or like I just got 50 tubes of toothpaste for free. I got several cases of canned veggies for 20 cents a can. And so, everytime I buy something like that, I take at least 10% of my purchases and put them in a box that adds up over a couple of weeks and I give that box to a family and show them how to coupon shop. I was actually stopped at the grocery by a lady who was destitute and trying to feed her kids and was just hungry. She didn’t ask for money. She asked for food and so I took her through the store with a buggy and got her a load, showing her what I was doing with the coupons, for a whopping $15.40. Last Thanksgiving, we were able to provide 4 families with enough food for several weeks on a total of $100. That included turkeys, corn dogs for the kids, canned meats and tons of other stuff. No, you can’t take it off on income tax because it isn’t to a “charitable organization,” but so what? I don’t see anywhere in scripture that says to tithe as long as you can deduct it.
My point is, that Christian conservatism is not about the Republican party. It is about Christ and recognizing what we are in control of and what Christ is in control of. Christians have got to stop depending on their governments and their parties and must depend on Christ. Yes, I vote Republican most of the time because they have exhibited the Christian conservative values most of the time. They represent most often what this country was founded upon. But right now, I am not seeing that. I am seeing the codependency of the liberals in the Republican party and I have been there, done that, and want no more part of it. If the Republican party keeps moving away from Christian conservatism, then I won’t be moving with them.
93 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 11:20 am
Ms Rightwing, Ink~ That was a hoot! Isn’t if funny that errol caught your sarcasm and Scott’s just sailed right over his head? I have to identify with your “old decrepit, rickety, run down, senile old goat like hate monger who was jilted by my liberal pot smoking lover boy back in the 60’s” only mine was in the 70’s and it was for three other women. I think he is gay now. Funny how life is, huh?
94 da Bunny // May 31, 2007 at 11:53 am
Liberal dhimmis don’t “get it,” they lack the ability to “get it,” and they certainly don’t want to “get it.” Their attempts to insult with their pathetic little “drive-bys” should be ignored. Nothing can, or will be, accomplished by responding to irrelevant ignorance.
95 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Did anybody else notice errol’s reference to our wealth? MsRightwing,Ink, how’s it looking from that penthouse up there? Fred, how is that caviar and champagne doing on your stomach? Let’s see. I have a very wealthy conservative daughter who is raking in the dough as a single adult on a $29,000 salary and a son who is also single and looking for his second Rolls Royce on a $24,500 salary. In my case, I was disappointed to find that our income falls in the lower-middle-class category and that according to TurboTax, 80% of the people in our category make more money then we do. Sigh. I suppose that means I can’t get that Rolex for the hubby for Father’s Day. Life just stinks, doesn’t it?
96 Laughing@You // May 31, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Tips,
I have to leave for awhile. But, I will be thinking about your post. I appreciate your tone, and wish to respond in like manner. At first reading the term “Christian conservatism†leaps out at me.
I believe that a mix of politics, or government with Christianity, damages government badly, but it destroys the Gospel!
Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Luke 16:13.
Can you guess the damage to the witness of Christian Scrapplers in their dealings with “lost trolls†who have wondered into this site? I can, but it makes me sad, and at times angry.
I have to go now, but your post deserves better than I just gave it. I will try later, if Mr. Knowitall hasn’t already jumped up and down all over our good intentions.
97 da Bunny // May 31, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I am all for charitable giving and helping out people who are in genuine need through circumstances beyond their control. The problem is, there are ever increasing numbers of people who make sure to ALWAYS BE “needy,” so that they never have to do for themselves. This “chronic and congenital neediness” should have been cut off at the root long ago, but instead, the failed policies of our state/federal governments has been to REWARD these habitual losers. The liberal “solution” of throwing more and more money at social programs only results in more recipients. Shouldn’t the goal be to REDUCE the “need?”
Don’t worry…that’s a rhetorical question. We’ll never get a reasonable, intelligent answer to that question from our lib/socialist friends.
98 da Bunny // May 31, 2007 at 12:23 pm
c-a-t #94…muwahahaha! Yes, we “wealthy” Scrapplers have it made, don’t we? Would that we were “poor” on the scale of the Hildebeast, B. Hussein Obama, Breck Girl Edwards, sKerry, Teddy the Tuba, algore, George C.Looney, Rosie O’Blowhole, Sheryl “don’t have a square to spare” Crow, Babs Strident, and their ilk, eh?
99 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Da Bunny, Christ said, “The poor you will have with you always.” He knew that there would always be that segment of society who would never get out from under their poverty. Of course, in our country, poverty is relative because the poorest person here is better off then some of the richer people in other countries. But it is our motives, not others, that determines whether we offer our assistance or not. That is why the government should not be involved. It doesn’t matter if our overtures are appreciated or not, we still are to give to the less fortunate. However, we don’t enable them to continue without their own input. That is why I said that we are to teach as well. If they choose not to accept the teaching, then we just have to let them go and find out what hitting bottom really is. That is the only way some people learn.
100 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 12:41 pm
errol44,
Of course you would respond the way you do since you have no salient point to challenge the proposition that it is immoral for the federal government to use confiscatory taxes to coerce money from our backpockets to since into a socialist/collectivist scheme doomed to failure.
If you’re so worked up about “the poor”, then I ask, what have you personally done to share your wealth and improve the lot of the poor in your community? How many homeless people have you brought into your home? How many bags of groceries have you bought for your poor neighbor who has less than you?
Given that people on your side of the aisle believe half of America is “enlightened progressives” (since your side claims that’s what gave Congress to the Democrats in 2006), and given how charitable liberals always view themselves to be, then why hasn’t at least half of all poverty been eradicated through the charities of liberalism within our lifetime? What, it’s the evil conservatives and Republicans keeping you from personally changing the world? Remember, government may print money but it doesn’t generate money/wealth.
Why do you need to wait for government to take your money and give it to the poor like the Robin Hood you want it to be? And given that those on your side of the aisle haven’t personally made a dent in the problem of poverty, what makes you think a government filled with people like you will magically discover the answer of how to make government charity work by throwing more tax dollars at the problem? I’ll say it again, government charity was never intended by the founders and such boneheaded collectivism, no matter how well-intentioned, is in fact immoral.
Most white liberals I know are very well off in comparison to the poor. If every one of you would have acted on your rhetoric of social compassion the last forty years, there wouldn’t be a “poor” person in this country now. Don’t blame us for you acting hypocritically with regard to your own claims about being “compassionate” and sensitive to the plight of the poor. At least my church doesn’t coerce charity out of its membership and I would certainly hope the church of secular liberalism won’t resort to using the power of government to force the rest of us to buy into its bankrupt social prescriptions.
101 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 12:42 pm
ooops … that’s “SINK into a socialist/collectivist scheme doomed to failure.”
102 gafisher // May 31, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Right you are, C-A-T #94. I’m not a conservative because I’m rich — I very definitely am not — but because I want my children to be free.
103 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I believe that a mix of politics, or government with Christianity, damages government badly, but it destroys the Gospel!
Neither Christ nor a single American founder ever opined in this manner. What the Founders did not want was for Congress to pass a law establishing a particular denomination as the official religion, like what the English Parliament did in establishing the Church of England as that nation’s official religion.
Atheist bring their atheist principles to politics all the time, the secular liberals bring their worldly principles, too. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Christians bringing principles and wisdom based on the Bible to the public debate. What would be wrong is for Congress to pass a law with respect to the establishment of religion … period.
Nice try, no cigar.
104 da Bunny // May 31, 2007 at 12:56 pm
c-a-t, re: #98, I totally agree. My personal favorite charity is the Salvation Army, in addition to giving to the church.
105 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 1:19 pm
L@Y, Christian Conservatism is not political at all. It is a state of being such that one accepts scripture exactly as it is written, believes the message exactly as it is written and totally depends on God for emotional, physical and spiritual support. It is a concept that recognizes that God puts all governments into place as enforcers of the laws of society, not the caretakers of society. It is a concept that eschews government control over what is to be personal responsibilty and God’s responsibility. And it is a concept that accepts that we are to pray for our leaders no matter Christian or not. More then anything, though, it is a way of life and a way of life cannot be compartmentalized, only practicing it in particular situations. Christ in us is all day everyday and is to be practiced in our politics, our jobs, our relationships, and everything else that encompasses existence.
Christian liberals, on the other hand, do not take the Bible at its word, do not think that God could possibly be judgemental, do not understand that God’s love includes God’s discipline and God’s demand for obedience and do not understand that God is in control of every single little thing and man is not. I do not want to say that Christian liberals are not Christians, although sometimes I seriously wonder, but I will say that they are babies who haven’t experienced the full abundance of a life totally with Christ.
106 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 1:50 pm
You cannot serve God and mammon.
A total misunderstanding and application of that verse as I read post #95. We are told to be the salt of the earth, particularly with respect to the Gospel. We are also commanded in the Holy Writ to “be in the world but not of the world.”
Mammon was a term used to describe worldly financial systems and personal wealth. As a matter of practicality based squarely on God’s moral law there is no morality attached handling monetary scrip. It’s not money is the root of much evil but rather the LOVE of money which is the root cause. One can live a moral life and participate in mammon which is quite different than SERVING mammon. And to recklessly equate serving mammon with participating in political systems corrupts our understanding of Jesus’ clear meaning regarding not “serving … mammon.”
Maybe some here do worship money, though I doubt it. I fail to see why condemning government entitlements as immoral and not desiring government to pick my pocket for some liberals’ bankrupt social prescription somehow runs afoul of Christ’s admonition not to serve Mammon. Money is just a tool for me, it’s not a goal I set for myself to pursue as an end in itself. Our family gives a significant sum of our income each year to Christian charities, a few humanitarian organizations and several children abroad and I bet we generate less gross income than 70% of the white liberal collectivists out there. I don’t need government getting deeper into my backpocket to define some liberal’s sense of “compassion.”
This study and others have documented that even with lower incomes conservatives give more than liberals. Imagine that.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
107 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Darthmeister, you might find this interesting. It is an exerpt from Breach of Trust quoting a speech made by Davy Crockett:
“One of the most colorful clashes about Congress’s constitutional responsibilities occurred early in the nineteenth centery when U.S. Representative Davy Crockett had the audacity to question whether Congress had the constitutional authority to perform the charitable-and politically popular-act of appropriating money for the widow of a distinguished naval officer:
Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of public money…We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.
When Crockett took his seat, no one rose to challenge him, and the bill failed.”
108 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Excellent, c.a.t. Mr. Crockett captured the essence of the argument … but don’t think for a minute collectivists who define their compassion by how much of other people’s money they can spend on pet social theories to be persuaded.
109 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Hi all. Thanks for thinking of me while I was away. There is so much love going around this place, it’s hard to know where to begin. But since you all took time out of your day to address me, let me return the favor. ( And when you read this, try to remember how humorous you are, okay?)
Darth: My, my how pseudo intellectual of you. But for all of your heady supremacy, my simple point was obviously lost on you. You are so good as to even know what I believe! My, aren’t we all-knowing. Sure, I could spend lots of time debating specific pros and cons of universal health care with you, but no doubt that would be lost on you as well. But, I will indulge you for a moment: To follow your logic, we might as well do away with the IRS and taxes altogether, for if it is immoral to appropriate monies for the health and well-being of all of our citizens, (one of the noblest of causes), then surely it is immoral to appropriate monies for fixing roads or educating our kids or medical research (After all, someone as smart as you can surely cure yourself, right?). I know that’s awful cerebral, Darth. Let me know if I need to break it down for you. And to turn the tables on your own comment: “… and given how charitable ‘conservatives’ always view themselves to be, then why hasn’t at least half of all poverty been eradicated through the charities of ‘conservatism’ within our lifetime? And you even have the nerve to ask how much I give to charity? That is between me and my God and certainly no business of a hypocrite like you. Your insinuation that it is only rw conservatives that give to the poor, and that by emulating their behavior the poor will be taken care of is laughable on its face. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever, but I’ll give you this: You sure know how to mix one goooood bucket of cr@p.
JamesonLewis.. Hey, so what level of Dungeon Master are you, anyway?
Now, conserve-a-tip. what have I got in my bag for you?.. ahhhh.. here we go:
How holier than thou you are. OMG! How does it feel to walk on water and perform great miracles, oh benevolent one? Please pardon me for treading on your path, oh enlightened one. Sheesh! Gimme a break. It never ceases to amaze me that republican leaning folks who espouse and condone the most immoral and unethical of behaviors, come up with this “I’m so much like Christ” stuff. You take yourself waaaaaaay too seriously madam. Oh and PS: you shouldn’t bust me out for a typo (post #72) unless you are perfect; ref your post in #105: “More then anything, though, it…” (makes you a hypocrite, doesn’t it? Shhhh…)
And PPS: Yes, you are right, at first reading Scott’s so-called article, I didn’t catch it for what it was… haha.. joke’s on me. But now that I have been ensnared in the little trap, I am noticing it is kind of fun to play with you kids.
Let’s see… da Bunny.. a little drive-by is good for you all once in while, lest you all start believing your own ’satire’.
Maggie… not hairy, but nice try though.
Ms. RW: You have been the most fun to play with; not as malicious as some of your pals.
I am way outnumbered here and it would be hard for me to respond to all of your rhetoric and derision, so if I missed anyone, I’m sorry.
110 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Comparing fixing roads to nationalized healthscare? So typically trollish of you to engage in more of your apples and oranges arguments, neverthink.
“Universal” healthcare may be within the province of the individual states under the 9th and 10th Amendment, but I can’t find it in the U.S. Constitution where the federal government is empowered to collect such a largesse in hopes of establishing yet another entitlement under the guise of a “right”.
Also, the federal government has had a very bad habit of overstepping its constitutional authority in not merely “promoting the general welfare” of the People as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution but also inefficiently providing that welfare at ever greater and greater costs to the American taxpayer. Be careful what you ask for because you just might get what you deserve … and I bet you won’t like it.
BTW, brush up on your reading comprehension skills and go back to the Ayn Rand Think Tank link I posted at #83.
111 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 5:37 pm
See, Darth? You just proved my point; totally lost on you. Your belief, by implication, is that it is okay to spend tax dollars for wars, roads, education and research but not on the health care of our citizens. My, how Christian of you. But then, if you can’t see the totally flawed logic of your argument, what good it is it to explain it to you?
112 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 5:43 pm
BTW, In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the commerce clause gives Congress somewhat broad authority over the building and upkeep of interstate highways which facilitate interstate commerce.
Would you be so kind to cite the relevant article and section in the Constitution which empowers the federal government to nationalize one-fifth of our nation’s economy in order to establish socialized medicine through more confiscatory taxation?
Care to educate yourself here about the Commerce clause?
113 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Case law regarding the Commerce Clause.
Excerpt:
Commerce .-The etymology of the word ”commerce” 579 carries the primary meaning of traffic, of transporting goods across state lines for sale…
”The subject to be regulated is commerce,” Chief Justice Marshall wrote. ”The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more-it is intercourse.” 582 The term, therefore, included navigation, a conclusion that Marshall also supported by appeal to general understanding, to the prohibition in Article I, Sec. 9, against any preference being given ”by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another”…
And that would include regulating and collecting taxes for the interstate roads and waterways upon which this commerce would take place … ya think?
114 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Darth, as I see it, the underlying premise of this entire argument is whether or not it is moral to provide healthcare with our taxes. That, to me, is a moral argument rather than a constitutional one. And again, you put assertions in my mouth, such as: “…empowers the federal government to nationalize one-fifth of our nation’s economy in order to establish socialized medicine…” which is something I never asserted. What about realigning our spending priorities to fund health care rather than gay art exhibits? Ever think of that? I think you are avoiding the basic premise of this argument by trying to show how intellectually superior you are and that just doesn’t intimidate me like it may your past ‘visitors.’
115 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Darth, as I see it, the underlying premise of this entire argument is whether or not it is moral to provide healthcare with our taxes. That, to me, is a moral argument rather than a constitutional one. And again, you put assertions in my mouth, such as: “…empowers the federal government to nationalize one-fifth of our nation’s economy in order to establish socialized medicine…” which is something I never asserted. What about realigning our spending priorities to fund health care rather than gay art exhibits? Ever think of that? I think you are avoiding the basic premise of this argument by trying to show how intellectually superior you are and that just doesn’t intimidate me like it may your past visitors.
116 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 6:25 pm
My. I come back and find that the errol troll is nastier then ever. I will wear my “errol ad hominem vicious attack” as a badge of honor. What about you others? Scott, I am so sorry that you didn’t get one. You need to try harder.
Errol, as I said before, those who level attacks at others, are just trying to take the focus off of themselves. Do you remember that post of mine to Darthmeister about “shaking the dust from your sandels”? Well, consider them shaken.
117 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Hahaha.. you are a fine one to talk conserve-a. You attacked me first, then went on to spout about what a magnanimous Christian you are. It’s kind of fun unmasking you kids. Hey, where is that famous funny-bone of yours now?
118 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Look, neverthink, given your obvious passion on the subject, why don’t you and thousands of others like you band together (and why haven’t you done it already?) and create a clearinghouse funded by all those concerned, very well off liberals who obviously have tens of thousands of dollars to donate to the healthcare cause. As I’ve stated before, if your passion and that of a hundred million liberals would overcome the resistance of your hands to reach into your backpockets, you would eradicate poverty and universal healthcare wouldn’t be an issue.
BTW, where in the Bible does Jesus, the pinnacle of moral authority, say healthcare is a “moral” issue? And you don’t find it odd that those on your side of the aisle have long railed against Christians imposing their morality on people yet here you are arguing that you have a right to not only impose your “morality” on the rest of us BUT TO MAKE US PAY FOR IT TOO? How utterly arrogant.
I think it unfair you condemn me for not wanting to “appropriate monies for the health and well-being (whatever that means to a liberal … abortion? Oh, never mind, we already to that) for ALL our citizens.” There is a very simple remedy if this is such a “moral” cause based on some heretofore unknown unalienable right to healthcare … in fact there are two. Let’s do the democratic and constitutional thing and let the American people decide. First, there is an amendment process to the Constitution. Let the people speak across this land as to whether they will consent to being
fleecedserved by a universal healthcare system with a commiserate rise in taxation.Or second, the individual states have it within their power THROUGH THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE to establish state-wide healthcare systems. In the process we might find out which system of care is most efficient and efficacious if we have at least twenty or thirty healthcare experiments happening in America instead of one federalized sHrillaryCare /ObamaCare. Those systems of healthcare which provide the most bang-for-your-buck would ultimately be adopted by other states.
But it won’t be long before you libs begin claiming its this nation’s moral imperative to provide clean needles to drug addicts and for federal government to provide a USDA version of clean brothels for the “well-being” of the American people (read: male). Sheesh.
119 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Darthmeister, I am sure that you know the answers to your own questions, but I thought that I might guide you to the issue of the tax cuts…I have been waiting for what, six - seven years for the liberals to voluntarily give their tax cuts back since they are so opposed to them. I thought that surely Hillary and Edwards would do so just so they could crow about it, but surprise, surprise…and I don’t know a soul who did it. Do you? BTW, you got on sandels?
120 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Hahaha.. Darth, your tap-dancing ability is exceeded only by your imperious ego and extreme density. Are you intentionally obtuse or is that an inbred thing? Are you really insinuating that because Jesus did not say, “tax the citizens to pay for the healthcare of all” that it is not a moral issue? I won’t even legitimize your comment by pointing out passages to you. People like you have alot of nerve bringing the name of Jesus into a conversation where you attack with such venom and refuse to defend your immorality.
You all accused me of having no sense of humor and now have been exposed for the hypocrites you are. Now that’s funny.
121 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Hey Einstein, check this out: Your post, #99; “Of course you would respond the way you do since you have no salient point to challenge the proposition that it is immoral for the federal government to use confiscatory taxes to coerce money from our backpockets to since into a socialist/collectivist scheme doomed to failure.” You said this, moron. You made this about morality. Come on genius, can’t you do better?
122 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I made the salient point about morality and then you back-track and start all of this, “where in the Bible does Jesus…” stuff. You are a real hoot! hahahaha….
123 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Anybody want a good cookie recipe?
124 errol_44 // May 31, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Well, kids, I am off to my real life again. Wish I could play with you some more. Sorry for unmasking your evil hero, Darth, but he goaded me into it. You kids play nice and no burning my effigy while I am away, now.
I’ll look in on you all later for a little humor check. Hope I didn’t spoil your little republican party.
Bye for now.
125 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Seriously, where in any past religious writing, or secular for that matter, has healthcare (or people’s “physical well-being) been expressed as a “right”?
I’m not the one tap dancing and you’re now engaging in outright ad hominem attacks. I’ve have not responded to you in a similar manner to your new errol_44 persona. So here you go again starting up with the ad homs. Typical. Tsk, tsk.
I did not attach a moral position to universal healthcare but rather I was condemning any branch of the federal government establishing by fiat such a universal entitlement in the name of “public morality” and then coercing ALL Americans to “contribute” through confiscatory taxation. I find that an egregious violation of the principle of taxation without representation. Why your hateful venom on this self-evident point?
Read The oxymoron of “universal healthcare” and be forewarned.
What liberals mean by “universal healthcare” is actually “public” or “socialized healthcare”, which would be the death knell of quality care for nearly 80% of Americans. If by direct consent of the governed or by the free market a true workable universal healthcare system can be created, I’d be all for it. My family could only benefit. What Americans don’t need is more failed “socialized” medicine or healthcare.
126 Laughing@You // May 31, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Tips
Let’s try this in small pieces.
You said to dabunny: “Christ said, “The poor you will have with you always.†He knew that there would always be that segment of society who would never get out from under their poverty.â€
It seems to me that part which says: “The poor you will have with you always.â€, is frequently quoted by “Christian conservatives. It always seems misleading to me not to at least quote the whole verse.
Christ said:†The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.†Matthew: 26-11-NIV
And even better to put it in contextâ€
Jesus Anointed at Bethany
Matthew 22:
6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper,
7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. Why this waste? they asked.
9 This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.
10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me.
11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.
12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.
13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.
There’s is another verse that is often used in the same way: “For the poor shall never cease out of the land.†Deut. 15:11
But the whole verse seems to give it another meaning:â€For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy landâ€. Deut. 15:11
This is a quote, but I lost it’s origin: “The context within which this observation occurs is revealing; it helps explain the Sabbath year when debts are to be canceled and forgiven. After seven years, Israelites are commanded to forgive the debts of fellow Israelites. The passage includes a comment that suggests the Sabbath-year provision should be extraordinary and not often required: “However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the Lord your God†(Deut. 15:4–5a). It is in this context that we are told “there will always be poor in the land.—
Jim Bakker, late of PTL (I was never a fan until after he got out of jail). Has a book on the “Prosperity Gospel” entitled: “I Was Wrong”. In it he says:
“The more I studied the Bible, however, I had to admit that the prosperity message did not line up with the tenor of Scripture. My heart was crushed to think that I led so many people astray. I was appalled that I could have been so wrong, and I was deeply grateful that God had not struck me dead as a false prophet!”
127 Laughing@You // May 31, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I think errol_44 is a lot smarter than that stupid neverthink! But, that’s just my opinion.
ET did, however, remind me of George Clooney.
128 Darthmeister // May 31, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Pope Laughing@You. Now I’ve seen it all. Beware applying promises made to the nation of Israel and applying them to the new covenant churches spread throughout a world of nations.
Such glib hermeneutics can give rise to false teachings like Replacement Theology. One aspect of Replacement Theology suggests that the promises given to the Jewish nation of Israel have now been appropriated by the Church.
Even in context, Jesus clearly meant what he said, “The poor you will always have with you.” However, it is also self-explicating that the Lord’s statement was never meant to be taken that the poor should never be helped or that there is something virtuous about maintaining a cadre of poor. Rather, given the finite resources available to mankind, the inefficiences and flaws inherent in any human governmental institution, or the lack of a work ethic among some, there will always be the poor.
Private givers in Churches and Synagogues have done far, far more to come to the aid of the poor and downtrodden than ANY atheist or secular humanist philanthropy. At the same time it can certainly be argued Christians, especially American Christians, can still do far more with respect to personal charity in caring for the widows and orphans and those who are physically incapable of working due to infirmity or age. These are the truly poor.
However, you do make some good points.
129 Laughing@You // May 31, 2007 at 9:13 pm
No Henry, not yet, but you probably will live to see it all. Maranatha!
130 Fred Sinclair // May 31, 2007 at 9:31 pm
L@Y & ET
I find the “special” dictionary in use by you liberals to be very interesting.
Looking up “Hypocrite” I found:
hypocrite |ˈhipəˌkrit| noun; a person who indulges in telling the unvarnished truth and uses nothing but verifiable facts, wherein those truths and facts are at variance with whatever you happen to perceive as your truths and your facts.
i.e. anyone who disagrees with you, is automatically and naturally a hypocrite.
Heirborn Ranger
131 Ms RightWing, Ink // May 31, 2007 at 9:33 pm
News just in from RightWing News Ink
In order to boost their ratings CBS just announced their new fall line up will include a new talent show to run against American Idol.
Each week the network will call in folks of all ages to audition for American Liberal. No previous experience is needed for tryouts, just get in front of the camera and ramble incoherently about Bush, oil, Bush, oil, Bush, war, Bush and oil.
If Bush and oil doesn’t show how liberal one can be, the contestant can pick passages out of the Bible to show even liberals can be religious and their standards, as a liberal, will prove even a Bible thumper can be an American Liberal.
The judging will be performed by Da’ Dog Rosie O’, Dennis Kucinich and to do the Paula gig, the network has signed on Paris Hilton, whom they hope will be out of jail by the time the cameras begin to roll.
132 Laughing@You // May 31, 2007 at 9:42 pm
““Seriously, where in any past religious writing, or secular for that matter, has healthcare (or people’s “physical well-being) been expressed as a “rightâ€?†Henry, again.
How about the Christ Jesus’ parable called “The Good Samaritanâ€
It grants no right to the sick and injured, but it does create an obligation for believers, and you insist America was intended to be a Christian nation.
Luke 10:25-37
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. Teacher, he asked, what must I do to inherit eternal life? 26 What is written in the Law? he replied. How do you read it?
27 He answered: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.
28 You have answered correctly, Jesus replied. Do this and you will live.
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 In reply Jesus said: A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half-dead.
31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33 But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him.
35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.
36 Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers? 37 The expert in the law replied, The one who had mercy on him. Jesus told him, Go and do likewise.
133 conserve-a-tips // May 31, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I am not going to be able to deal with your whole post L@Y because it seems that we have severe storms headed our way and I have to go prepare the new “fraidy hole” even though it isn’t quite ready. We have had so much rain that we haven’t been able to get benches put in, etc. So I will finish tomorrow.
I just wanted to say that you are absolutely correct to add the rest of the verse that I quoted and it goes exactly along with what I was saying to Da Bunny. Why did Christ say that to his disciples? It was because they were chastising him about wasting money that could have gone to the poor. His point was that the poor was always going to be there with their physical needs, but he would only be there a little while and so he was being honored for who he was. We can apply that to today in that people are always going to have physical needs in their lives, but there is only a short chance to know Christ. We do not know if we, or others around us, even have the next minute and so our primary focus must be on boldly speaking the truth of Christ and him crucified, honoring him. You see, there are very many well-fed, well-clothed, and healthy people, cared for by charitable souls, who will be going to Hell because people were so focused on “fixing” the physical “ills”, while many hungry, naked, hurting people who have come to know Christ will have riches in Heaven. Christian charity comes from a heart that has been changed by Christ. It can’t come from the government because the government has no heart to change. Hence, government programs always end up in corruption and misuse.
When Christ fed the multitudes, he did so after he presented the Truth in no uncertain terms, and in loooonnnnngggg sermons.
Paul was equally longwinded and spent his life preaching while teaching others how to be charitable. He was not afraid to stand in the public square and speak truth, even when the officials were threatening him with prison and worse. Today, we Christians have complacently sat back and said, “Wellllll, maybe we shouldn’t be praying in schools because we might offend somebody. Welllll, maybe we shouldn’t allow Bible studies on campuses because it might offend somebody. Welllll, maybe we shouldn’t have the 10 commandments out because it might offend somebody.” And then, when one Christian soul stands up and says, “Wait a minute!! This is wrong,” we wring our hands and say, “Hmm. He’s a fundamentalist and is dangerously kooky.” We are going to have to answer to God for our complacency. If Christ is supposed to be working in us and through us, then we had better be prepared for that to happen at every point in our life. And we had better be ready for the ridicule that it will bring.
Have a good night! Ours appears to be bringing a very, very windy one!
134 Harry Daschle // Jun 1, 2007 at 1:16 am
God’s promise to deal with the “proud” was shown to the veiwers of game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals.
After 2 overtimes, the Pistons dragged themselves off the court with their tales between their legs, a sharp contrast to the cockiness they showed pregame. Hopefully, it will happen again in game 6!
I was not a LeBron James fan until, after the game, (and after one of the finest preformances I have EVER seen), he said he was “blessed”, and gave the praise to GOD, when asked about what he attributed his great preformance to!
I cannot imagine God getting the glory from ANY player on the Piston’s roster.
135 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 5:59 am
Very good. The story of the Good Samaritan. Please note: You’ve only advanced my argument. The parable is about individual people (not government) coming to the aid of their fellow man. Just like the story of the fish and loaves. In neither story are we told that “moral government” (Caesar) should be the one coming to the aid of individuals by way of some safety net and that is why Caesar must collect taxes for that purpose. The Bible does not teach redistributive taxation. Also, don’t fall into the error of drawing false parallels between the actions of King David under a theocratic monarchy and that of a constitutional republic existing as one nation under God. The point of both parables is not what government can do for the individual but rather what an individual can do for his/her neighbor.
Also note we are just as clearly told in Romans 13:8, “This is why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governoring.” This principle is directly delivered in context of national governments bearing the sword against evildoers to defend the whole People and nation against evildoers, hence one of the reasons why the Founding fathers themselves authorized our federal government to gather taxes for the purpose of defending and securing the interests of the American people.
I suppose one could try to argue that community law enforcement represents local government’s attempts to be the Good Samaritan, but once again, under our system of constitutional government, we’re speaking of local or state law enforcement authorities and not the federal government … unless, of course, someone wants to advance the notion that the FBI or CIA has a special mandate to come to the aid of any and all individual citizens … which simply isn’t the case.
Are you really insinuating that because Jesus did not say, “tax the citizens to pay for the healthcare of all†that it is not a moral issue?
A complete red herring. What I am saying is neither the Bible nor Jesus teaches any kind of redistributive tax scheme on the part of secular national governments in order to give entitlements to the poor. Of course you won’t find the words you used in Holy Scripture, but more importantly you WON’T FIND THE PRINCIPLE. If so, produce it.
The Bible is pretty clear, individuals coming to the aid of their fellow man is a moral act, and government promoting or encouraging such activity should be commended. Note again, our Constitution only authorizes our government in its Preamble to “promote the general welfare” and not “provide for welfare.” A boxing promoter doesn’t do the boxing, he promotes his boxer to do the boxing. Similarly, the elders of churches are not to do all the work of the Gospel, but rather train up its congregants to accomplish “the work of service.”
Again, the Bible does not promote a principle that secular governments (Caesar) should engage in redistributive tax schemes in order to create a nanny government. At least L@Y gave it an honest shot though it didn’t result in a ceeeegar.
136 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 5:59 am
…pushin’ on through.
137 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 6:17 am
Christian charity comes from a heart that has been changed by Christ. It can’t come from the government because the government has no heart to change. Hence, government programs always end up in corruption and misuse.
c.a.t., you’re exactly right. I’ve never really thought of it quite in those terms though I’ve propounded a similar principle. One merely needs to look at the cynical actions of the Democratic Party in claiming to be about addressing the poverty of certain people, yet it becomes clear over the decades such rhetorical pandering is only about getting another constituent on the Democratic plantation.
For example, in my estimation, it’s not the typical liberal Democrat elitist’s “compassion” which drives their desire to allow illegals into our country (though they may certainly “feel sorry” for them), but rather they see another voting bloc which can be bought by a government largesse through such pandering. If they personally cared about Mexican illegals, they’re own pocketbooks would have been doing some pretty loud talking the last couple of decades. Instead these illegal aliens are tempted by the promises of legitimacy which would further enhance their ability to suckle off the teat of government … at least in a significant number of cases that might be found true though not in all cases. “Free” government money and “services” ALWAYS have a corrupting influence, ALWAYS. Republicans have also been learning this the last six or seven years as they’ve bungled their way into trying to be Democrat-Lites.
138 Laughing@You // Jun 1, 2007 at 6:49 am
“It is important to note that Samaritans were despised by the story’s target audience, the Jews. The Samaritans were also largely taught by their interpretation of history to hate Jews. [8] Thus the parable, as told originally, had a significant theme of non-discrimination and interracial harmony. But as the story reached those who were unaware of the status of Samaritans, this aspect of the parable became less and less discernible: fewer and fewer people ever heard of them in any context other than this one. To address this problem with the unfamiliar analogy, the story is often recast in a more recognizable modern setting where the people are ones in equivalent social groups known to not interact comfortably. For instance instead of a Jew being helped by a Samaritan one could place a Palestinian in that role, or even a member of Hezbollah aided by an orthodox Jew. One could also have a racist helped by a member of another race, a sexist man helped by a woman, or a devoutly religious person helped by an atheist, or any reverse or combination thereof. The message’s essential point is that humanity’s bonds in brotherhood transcend social and cognitive segmentations which we adopt in our lives.â€
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan
139 Laughing@You // Jun 1, 2007 at 6:58 am
“Please note: You’ve only advanced my argument.” Darthmeister
It seems everything I say does, isn’t that helpful of me?
All that bending and twisting would wear a body out if they weren’t used to it like you.
140 Hawkeye // Jun 1, 2007 at 7:03 am
L@Y,
Very good. So what you’re saying then, is that in a spirit of Christianity and following the example of the Good Samaritan, Liberals will now start treating their “sick” Conservative brethren with compassion and kindness?
(crickets chirping)
141 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 7:12 am
#137,
Absolutely, and that dimension of the parable has been taught in evangelical and Protestant churches as long as I’ve been attending them across this nation. I’m sure even the Roman Catholic church teaches similarly. You aren’t telling us something we don’t already know, but thanks for posting the wikipedia note on the issue. And isn’t it interesting that something so socially sophisticated was first taught by Jesus nearly 2000 years ago. Kind of like the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
…and the Greatest Commandment: Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind and soul … and the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself.
Note, the latter is not a call to love yourself more so you can love others, but rather it establishes that we already love ourselves and in that same manner we should love others. Once again a call for individuals to live moral and serving lives. And yes, Christians still have a long way to go in living up to our Savior’s commands for us.
142 Hawkeye // Jun 1, 2007 at 7:29 am
Darth,
Amen brother. Those who want the government to “feed the hungry, clothe the naked” etc. are merely abdicating the personal responsibilities which Christ demanded of them.
Regards…
143 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 8:35 am
Hawkeye,
And sadly that dynamic has resulted in the Church abdicating its reponsibility in feeding/helping the poor because at an institutional level many Americans who believe themselves to be Christians have been corrupted into believing that government “charity” is a legitimate moral alternative. It’s also been my experience that my liberal acquaintances certainly look at redistributive taxation as a form of tithing to the government to address issues of poverty and personal need. That’s why liberalism does rise to the level of a religion given its own Democratic Party priesthood, their oracle (the Supreme Court), sacraments (abortion, busing, etc.), liturgy (the liberal political platform) and system of tithing (redistributive taxes to government).
There is a certain accountability that gets lost when people begin looking at the state as their savior … in effect its easy money and the recipients of this government largesse begin believing its something owed them by mere fact of being an American. But don’t get me wrong, there are any number of programs into which Americans have personally paid (like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment etc), and despite the wisdom of such in the long term, a person who has vested themselves in these programs and are now availing themselves of the benefits accrued them are not to be placed in the same category of able-bodied people with sound minds who are generational welfare recipients … that is, those on the dole as a matter of lifestyle.
In America churches, synagogues and local communities should be the first line of defense for those who are physically stricken or through no fault of their own find themselves in poverty. It is part of our Christian witness. Such charity still exists but in a much diminished form than was around a century ago.
Unfortunately, over the last 100 years, more and more of this kind of charity is being usurped by an ever rapacious government - aided and abetted by politicians seeking another constituent - which seeks to control more and more of its citizens’ lives. That is what I find immoral on the part of government coercing ever increasing levels of taxation from its citizenry in playing Robin Hood and in the Church itself for not demanding governmental accountability and addressing the issue of poverty more directly. But even the term “poverty” is relative since obviously the American poor lives in a state of existence which is light-years ahead of the poor during Jesus’ time or even in third world countries today.
144 errol_44 // Jun 1, 2007 at 8:41 am
Good morning kids! I see you still haven’t cleaned up the mess from yesterday. You let the darth character continue to scribble on the walls and preach individual morality while advocating an amoral (or, in my opinion, immoral) government that is representative of the people. Tsk tsk
L@Y . IMHO, in your humbleness and simplicity, you have a much better grasp of the written Word than those from whom you seek opinions and those who offer their counsel to you. You are already light years ahead of that pompous darth character. He is ever hearing but never understanding, ever seeing but never perceiving.
] You have much more patience than I do for that sort of thing. Also, I want to commend you. In your subtle, yet thoughtful way, you do more to highlight the flawed reasoning of some than I do with my crass rants.
As you can guess, I wouldn’t be able to put up with the condescending remarks that he shoots your way for long. [Mom says its not good for my blood pressure
Darth, why does your moniker conjure up evil images for me? Are you evil, darth? Hey! Quit smearing your food on the floor!
145 conserve-a-tips // Jun 1, 2007 at 9:38 am
Good morning, all! Well, the big, bad tornadoes never made it here - nor did the rain - but the son had a long night. We ended up calling him at midnight to wake him up for a tornado warning. He had taken nyquil for a cold and was not happy with us. When we finally cut through the fog, he figured out that there was a tornado headed straight for his little hovel and acted accordingly. Kids!!
Darth and Hawkeye, exactly. Increasingly prominent government welfare is the result of lazy individuals. It only enables those individuals to remain lazy. And I am talking about those who are supposed to be loving their neighbor, not the recipients. It is no different from the Christian parent who knows that the scripture teaches, “Train up your child in the way that he should go, so when he grows old, he will not depart from it,” and then turns that child over to a nanny or daycare, etc. for the majority of the day. It is abdicating a God ordered responsibility.
L@Y, I have been reading your post and I will take one issue at a time. First, this statement: “I think Americans, and particularly you here have confused free enterprise with greed.”
Greed is nothing new in America or any other part of the world. Greed started with the first man on earth when he and his wife were greedy for the knowledge of God. And so, to be surprised that some Americans are greedy is naive. And greed knows no boundaries. It affects every race, religion, political bent and sex. Our capitol is full of it and is out there for all to see right now. But to accuse us, here, of greed for seeing our personal responsibility and others’, rather then expecting someone else to do the work for us, is just plain wrong. Free enterprise works, but it doesn’t mean anarchy. We have regulations, societal expectations and a God who is in charge of it all, to keep personal shortcomings in check. Just ask Ken Lay. I see liberals as thinking that they can keep anything bad from happening. They can keep anyone from doing bad things and they can keep everyone from feeling any pain. They haven’t that much power in this universe. God allows bad things and pain in order to teach us. If we don’t suffer the consequences of our actions, we don’t learn. Just look at the spoiled brat kid who has never been corrected. He turns into a spoiled brat jailbird. And so, for liberals to think that they can solve all the country’s or the world’s ills with their continual government intervention is foolish on one hand and arrogant on the other. Believing this is not greed. It is an acceptance of God’s authority and our responsibility.
This country has operated on a free market system for over 200 years and is the most influencial, wealthy country out there. But we will not stay that way if we go the way of South American politics which is what Hillary is starting to sound like. I have a quote that rattled my world when I read it, and I think that it is appropriate here: “[A Democracy] can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship…These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.” Arnold Toynbee and Alexander Tytler
I think that it is interesting that the countries out there who are envious of our wealth and want to bring us down, are the very countries who are benefiting from our wealth and generosity. No different from those in this country who are so jealous of the wealth accumulated by some and yet are the beneficiaries of that wealth through jobs, charities, scholarships, etc. This class envy has got to stop. Every society needs its wealthy. I believe there is an old saying…something about biting the hand that feeds you?
Don’t be discouraged over people’s shortcomings. We live in a fallen world and Christ told us that things were not going to get better, but worse.
146 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 9:48 am
For those who are interested, a family friend of ours, Dr. Bill Burtness, has written a very good book on the subject of moral government titled, The Third Alternative: Christian Self-Government.
He often travels to former Soviet client states and gives student and citizen groups lectures about those important and enduring governmental principles found in the Bible. Though Bill and my views aren’t precisely convergent on all the topics he covers in his book, I still highly recommend his book to everyone interested in governmental theory. It’s actually fairly easy reading, about the depth we get into here about important issues regarding the rights of man and our rights being a gift from God that no power on earth can eclipse unless we let it.
… and no, I don’t get a cut of the profits.
errol_44. Speaking of your mother, why did she let you out of your sandbox so early this morning? You remind me of someone who reads the ingredients off the back of a bubblegum wrapper and then runs around telling people how you’ve managed to unlock the secrets of the universe. Nice going, Mr. Know-it-all.
… crass rants?
Finally some self-enlightenment. There still might be some hope for you … but I’m not betting on it. Mirror-to-you and all that.
147 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 9:54 am
Just ask Ken Lay.
Kind of hard to do, c.a.t. since he’s dead. So I assume you were speaking rhetorically.
148 conserve-a-tips // Jun 1, 2007 at 10:14 am
Darthmeister: “So I assume you were speaking rhetorically.”
Yes, rhetorically speaking.
I noticed something yesterday about a particular post by a particular person who shall go unnamed but is known by all…have you noticed that we are darned if we do and darned if we don’t with liberals? If we suggest that we must become more individually responsible for charity, and leave it at that, the liberal yells, “You hypocrit! You tell everybody to be charitable but what are you doing?” And if you suggest that we must become more individually responsible for charity and give an example of how it might be accomplished by something you are doing, the liberal yells, “You hypocrit! How holier than thou are you. OMG. How does it feel to walk on water and perform great miracles, oh benevolent one.” You can’t win for losing.
149 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 10:28 am
I ignore it, c.a.t. Typical leftist blather. It’s SOP with libs. They’re contrarians at heart. Despite whatever position you might take, they’ll take the opposite and bend heaven and hell with their rhetorical flourishes just to one-up you. And when you attempt to advance the argument they’ll accuse you of changing your position and being a hypocrite … blah, blah, blah. In moments of weaknesses I can get very angry at their pseudo-intellectual preening and fingerpointing, but I’m learning to laugh at what are essentially children of wrath devising mud pies and claiming they’re as good as what can be bought from the bakery.
Think about it, the very thing we’re accused of doing they do in spades. Who are the most posturing, pontificating faux experts in Washington? Isn’t it the liberal Democrats who are always passing themselves off as the final word on “compassion” and defenders of the little people from the “corruptions” of big evil Republicans. And they do this when they’re engaged in the same kind of corruptions. And this kind of self-righteousness trickles down through the rest of the party, particularly the moonbats on the radical left.
150 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jun 1, 2007 at 11:17 am
Allow me to wade into the murky waters of the Christian/politics debate. As we have seen in the above postings the passions and beliefs run high on both sides, which, if those beliefs are sincerely deep in their hearts, it is a good thing, for understanding God’s word begins there.
If then, the belief is only in the head and mind and is used to drive a political cause then the users of The Holy Word are nothing more than the Pharisees of old who created so many religious rules that soon no man could abide by them all.
So what do we do with the neighbor who is down and trodden. In comparison we learn by the Bible that if you don’t work, then you don’t eat. Does the Good Samaritan break that rule if he feeds a lazy man? What of the disabled and who is the disabled. Is the drunkard who beats his wife and takes food from his children disabled. By man’s law he is. So the twists and turns of who needs the hand of the Samaritan become a menagerie of confused idealism.
The Bible tells us homosexuality is wrong, so if a gay man or woman is hungry do we feed them?
The religious web wove by man kind is often intertwined for his own good intentions, to be seen as a good man to favor votes for political gain. Sometimes a pastor or church leader may do what looks honorable before his congregation but at home sighs at the thought of taking personal time to call on the sick and aged.
I very little trust a politician who speaks like a silver tongue believer but does not back up his life with his heart. A trip through a soup kitchen or a rousing speech in a black church by a white man shows me nothing, and worse yet, God’s eyes see the intent of such.
So will I sit here and pick out which a politician is doing God’s work and the statesman who is the noisy gong. Nope, nada, absolutely not, as that will only intensify the argument about who is “good” and who is not. The man who wins God’s favor is he who lets not the right hand no what the left hand is doing. By doing such, much of his goodness will shine through.
I remember a number of years ago an escapee from the Soviet Union telling the reason the Gospel was not allowed in the Soviet Block was because of the secret messages contained within, like the time Jesus told Peter to cast his net to the right of the boat. The hidden meaning was the right wing side of politics gave an abundance of great things to the people. I often think we too use the Gospel as a political mandate instead of a cleanser of man’s iniquity. Yes, we so need men and women driven by the Holy Spirit in our government, but not “religious” sounding boards.
Who helps feed the those of limited income? The following is a ministry that I use and depend on to help keep my cupboards full. Yes, I pay, but the rewards are greater than the sum I give.
angelfoodministires.com
151 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jun 1, 2007 at 11:20 am
I’m sorry I meant angelfoodministries.com
152 conserve-a-tips // Jun 1, 2007 at 11:28 am
MsRightwing, Ink~ Angel Food ministries is awesome! And I liked your piece. It echoes what I have been trying to say that our Christianity is not something that we can check at the door. It is a way of life and we can’t be afraid to live as such. We can’t determine a politician’s heart, but we can sure ask God to guide us in our political decisions and then trust that He is in control of the results. I know that everything has a purpose for those who love God and are called according to His purpose, and so, as hard as it is, we have to turn it all over to Him.
Bless you.
153 its-just-me // Jun 1, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Re: #137…
O.K., not that disagree directly with the exerpt you quoted, but -
Really, Wikipedia???
Since when is that a trustworthy source for ANYTHING?
Can’t people post whatever hooey they want to on there?
154 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Ms. RightWing, you’ve done a wonderful job of validating founding opinion.
American founder Noah Webster: “In my view the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed … No truth is more evident to my mind than the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” From the preface to Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
This was his analysis just 40 years after the birth of this nation. He wasn’t advocating establishing Christianity as the official religion in violation of the First Amendment but rather recognizing the beneficient aspect of the Christian cultural milieu which existed at the time of the founding of America.
Most other founders embraced similar propositions as did the father of our country, George Washington, “Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”
155 its-just-me // Jun 1, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Oops. I meant “not that I disagree with…”
156 conserve-a-tips // Jun 1, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Going back to the original topic of this thread, I am still wondering what constitutes “the rich” and what and who determines the guidelines. If “richness” is based on a worldwide standard, then I don’t want any part of it. My measley lower-middleclass income will probably lose me an eye or a stomach or a couple of fingers to somebody in Zimbabwe. However, if “richness” is based just on the incomes in this country, I might actually get me some new ankle and leg bones to replace my bum ones. And just think about what I could do with a new hairpiece from a younger person. No gray!!!
157 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I am still wondering what constitutes “the rich”
c.a.t., in America it’s anyone making over $85,000/year and isn’t a Democrat.
158 conserve-a-tips // Jun 1, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Darthmeister ~ Cool! That means I qualify for a whole new body!! Look out Paris Hilton!!!!
159 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Homeschooler wins Scripps spelling bee and lamestream media ignores the fact as noted here. And a videoclip of Tim Russert blowing the spelling of the word “Iraq” … I … R … A … K! Quick recovery but he would have blown it in a spelling bee. And poor Tim had the aid of a teleprompter to boot! Buwahahahahaha! Don’t get me wrong, I generally like Tim Russert because he’s not a partisan airhead like Chris Matthews or some other faux journalists.
Imagine how the media would have played it up if George W. had done the same thing with the word “Iraq”. Remember Dan Quayle and his spelling of potato which caused him so much grief, even though “potatoe” is a variant spelling from the 19th Century? The media bashing was endless. Media double standards … ho hum, what else is new?
160 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jun 1, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Two hours and thinking.
This just in from The RightWing News desk
A whale collided with the Golden Gate Bridge earlier today. Nobody was injured, but the local Eskimo community declared this day as Road, er Bay Kill Barbecue Day. How would you like your blubber?
161 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Gives new meaning to blubbering in your beer at the barbie, eh Ms. RightWing.
Interesting developments here. Sunni militiamen, Iraqi National Army and U.S. Army forces are banding together and killing al Qaeda in Baghdad.
162 Darthmeister // Jun 1, 2007 at 4:59 pm
… al Qaeda ate my post.
163 conserve-a-tips // Jun 1, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Darthmeister, re: the last part of #160 ~ didn’t you know? It takes a village.
164 Laughing@You // Jun 1, 2007 at 9:34 pm
errol_44,
Your comments are very much appreciated.
While I have to have some R&R from time to time, I do now how “Chickenhawks” hate those who “cut and run”.
165 Effeminem // Jun 2, 2007 at 12:35 am
Well, we already know Hillary wants socialised health care, so the questions now before us are..
Should I wear a mask to the street riots?
Who will bring the main dish, and who will bring side dishes?
When the police come, do we throw rocks, get ACLU attornies, or both?
Should we vote for Giuliani and lose the second amendment, McCain and lose the first amendment, or Romney and lose some kooky amendment that we’ve never heard of?
Or throw away our votes on Ron Paul?
Will Bill use his “First Gentleman” title to pick up chicks?
These questions, and more, will be answered next week…
166 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jun 2, 2007 at 9:14 am
Good morning all you wealthy Rebub’s. Anybody got a twenty so I can light my dinner candles?
167 conserve-a-tips // Jun 2, 2007 at 9:36 am
Good morning, MsRightwing, Ink ~ Sorry, but I threw all my twenties in the trash because they looked dirty. Only crisp new ones for me. I could lend you my 24 kt gold Bugatti cigarette lighter, though.
168 Darthmeister // Jun 2, 2007 at 9:41 am
Would a fifty suffice, Ms RightWing? You could light both candles then.
169 conserve-a-tips // Jun 2, 2007 at 9:51 am
Shoot, when I get that new Paris Hilton body under Obama’s reign, I’ll be able to give you all $50’s Darthmeister. You see, I am smart. Under the Democrat’s socialist system, only Hollywood people are allowed to keep their money, hence, my desire for Paris Hilton’s parts. Wouldn’t that just be a hoot? In Hollywierd, a Paris Hilton body and a C-A-T mind.
170 conserve-a-tips // Jun 2, 2007 at 10:02 am
By C-A-T mind, I meant ‘conservative’….not smart….just wanted to clear that up!
171 Darthmeister // Jun 2, 2007 at 10:11 am
200 million Christians being targetted for persecution by fundamentalist believers of the “religion of peace.”
Given the palpable hatred liberal religionists and secular “progressives” have for Christian believers here in the United States (that abject hatred being skillfully plied here by certain trolls), good thing libs are for the most part anti-gun and conservatives are pro-Second Amendment.
But then again some anti-gun liberals are also the biggest hypocrites on the gun issue since many are illegally armed without the proper paperwork or hire gunslingers as bodyguards as in the case of many in the anti-gun Hollyweird crowd or illegally possess and then attempt to sell full-automatic weaponry as recently happened in the case of the founder of an anti-gun group! BTW, never trust a leftist former gangmember whose middle name handle is “Big Weasel”.
172 RedPepper // Jun 2, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Ouch!
As if Katie Couric’s ratings weren’t depressing enough to begin with … now, this !
173 onlineanalyst // Jun 2, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Like his Marxist co-travelers Madame Hillary and John Edwards, Obama appeals to the bleeding-heart liberals by offering a Hammond® out.
174 mig // Jun 3, 2007 at 2:09 am
Government Hospitals to go with Governemtn Schools… yepper, that works. Can you imagine the health care as they start lowering the test scores to be a doctor? Or if affirmative action got involved? Heh heh. What a picture.
175 mig // Jun 3, 2007 at 2:14 am
Governemtn schools : yikkers!
So I spelled that one backwards. Sorry. But I make my point for Government regulations. I am a product of my upbringing. Ima Public School Grad, salutatorian to be exact.
176 mig // Jun 3, 2007 at 6:31 am
From Micheal Yon, perhaps AQI are also selling organs. ” Al Qaeda (AQI) terrorists who had brazenly made Anbar province a home base…reputation for hiding bombs intended to kill parents in the corpses of dead children they’d gutted.”
Disgusting.
Oops. This must be a mistake: AQI are freedom fighters defending thier pro choice rights.
177 Darthmeister // Jun 3, 2007 at 7:41 am
Democrats Hide Pet Projects From Voters
Say it ain’t so!
WASHINGTON - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress’ pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.
Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify “earmarks” — lawmakers’ requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.
178 Darthmeister // Jun 3, 2007 at 8:45 am
BTW, trolls, that’s what we call HYPOCRISY!
Note: I’ve made it a policy to generally ignore troll comments which ignorantly claim Scrapplers are “hypocrites.” I’m not aware of any Scrappler who has publicly preached one thing and then engaged in an opposite behavior so how can they be hypocrites, at least hypocrites here at Scrappleface?
Also, hypocrisy is different than engaging in double-standards, having one set of rules for you and then having another set for the opposition. Liberals are adept at being both, hypocrites and people who incessantly engage in double-standards when it comes to issues of race or holding others to a higher moral standard, a standard which they often disagree with btw!
Then there is disobedience, as in disobedience to the Bible or the Gospel. Trolls love saying how we’re “hypocrites” because we don’t conform to their warped interpretation of Scripture as to how they feel Christians should act. Usually what that boils down to is differences in interpretation or differences in opinion about what the whole Bible actually says about a moral behavior toward skeptics and mockers. So when trolls have a difference in opinion with us, they usually rail about us being the “hypocrites” - which isn’t true of course.
Now I personally believe there is intepretative latitude in the Bible for a Christian to demand that respect must be earned and hence name calling isn’t evil when strategically directed at incorrigible, self-righteous mockers, that there is such a thing as “tough love”, that Christians aren’t to be milquetoast cookie-cutter cannonfodder for criminals or otherwise evil people hence defending oneself with either sharp wit or a firearm is wrong, that Christians are to be fair-minded as opposed open-minded when continually confronted with self-righteous mockers of the Bible/Jesus/Gospel and are well within their right to condemn not only the mocker but also the bankrupt ideology in which the he/she is blindly entangled.
Now the fall back position of those who overtly mock Christians is to claim we are “not acting like Christians”. These are the same people who, if living in those times in ages past, would claim Bible prophets weren’t acting like God’s prophets with their pointing fingers and warning about the coming judgment. And these are often the people who cut-and-paste their knowledge of the Bible because they’ve spent maybe a couple of hours in their entire lives actually reading it!
The mocker can only claim we’re being disobedient to the Bible or to the teachings of Jesus (okay, guilty as charged, the road is long and narrow but I know God will forgive me my weakness) but we’re certainly not being hypocrites unless we personally are preaching always kowtowing to worldly liars, never raising a hand to defend ourselves, our family, our faith, or our honor from their personal attacks, and always showing the utmost respect for people who are in essence dragging one through their field of manure … none of which I’ve ever preached here or elsewhere.
However, the so-called enlightened progressives I’ve run into over the years have consistently claimed in my presence that name calling is always wrong, that everyone’s opinion must be heard even respected in the name of diversity and advancing the public debate, everyone should be treated the same, people shouldn’t judge one another, peace-at-any-cost, blah, blah, blah and the rest of the altruistic humanist mantra that liberals invariable fall into utter hypocrisy over.
And we have no greater proof of this hypocrisy than the venomous hatred and narrow-mindedness that many trolls (liberals who lie to themselves about being “Goldwater conservatives” blah, blah, blah) engage in here when judging and condemning Scrapplers because we dare contradict them and their media narrative. So, we often find ourselves afflicted with anonymous trolls who when in their own circle of friends probably thump their chest about how progressive, civilized and enlightened they are with respect to their fellow man - especially with regard to those they disagree with - yet in the presence of those like us who do disagree with them, they unleash their torrent of hate and hypocrisy as they engage in their juvenile diatribes falsely accusing us of hypocrisy because we don’t conform to their own warped view of what it means to be Christian cannonfodder.
Or maybe liberals actually do stand around regaling each other about how they’ve judged and condemned their fellow man online because we didn’t agree with them that Bush is Hitler, the war in Iraq is “illegal and immoral”, murdering unborn babies is a virtuous activity, homosexuality is a godly lifestyle, and homosexual marriage is the ultimate compliment to a civilized society. Thus they parade their own hypocrisy within their circle of progressive acquaintances, corporately reveling not only in their political lies but also their world-class hypocrisy. There is a sure reward for self-righteous deluders like that.
179 Darthmeister // Jun 3, 2007 at 8:48 am
Ooops, should read: “… that Christians aren’t to be milquetoast cookie-cutter cannonfodder for criminals or otherwise evil people hence defending oneself with either sharp wit or a firearm is NOT wrong…”
180 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jun 3, 2007 at 9:56 am
Good Morning all from my rich Republican yacht, the USS Rickety Rustbucket.
Looks like LeBron is going to make Cleveland proud. He whooped the Pistons good. sigh, if only I enjoyed biscuit ball as much as I do trolling on my yacht.
What did Nixon say about his wife’s Republican cloth coat? Wish I had that coat to stuff in all the rust holes in The USS Rickety Rustbucket.
181 Fred Sinclair // Jun 3, 2007 at 1:18 pm
If there is to be an immigration bill, I’d like it to read that America will henceforth, now and forevermore enforce all of the immigration laws currently on the books, with no exceptions whatsoever regardless of age, sex, nationality or any other consideration of any sort or type.
If there must be an immigration bill with exacting specifics, then let us obtain a copy of Mexico’s immigration laws and replicate them, word for word. Then enforce those laws with the same vigor that Mexico does. Laws without teeth are not laws at all but mere suggestions.
Personally I happen to like people from Mexico if (1.) they are in Mexico, or (2.) They are legal residents in the U,S.A. or (3.) They are legally naturalized citizens of the U.S.A.
ON THE OTHER HAND; I DON’T LIKE CRIMINALS. And like Robbers, rapist, muggers, drug smugglers, illegal aliens and murderers - criminals are those who have disrespected our laws, in one way or another.
Amnesty is saying “We cannot enforce our own laws - so here’s your free pass, you’re legal! Oh, and the $5,000.00 fine and other provisions of this bill only count if you want citizenship.”
As much as I like and respect our President, it’s time for the news to get out that the King has no clothes. On this so called “Not an amnesty bill” George W. Bush is wrong.
Heirborn Ranger
182 conserve-a-tips // Jun 3, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Did anyone read Carl Bernstein’s exerpt on Hillary? I was struck at how really, really messed up they were and are emotionally, mentally, and even physically. One reply pointed out that nobody talks about how alcoholism and addiction absolutely dominates their families and how each needs a 12 step program. I thought how ironic it is that Hillary thinks that she can fix everybody else’s healthcare “woes” but she can’t fix her own life. So typical of a codependent in total denial.
183 Darthmeister // Jun 3, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Fred, here’s one aspect of the ShAmnesty Bill which some Americans haven’t appreciated. The bill isn’t a citizenship bill! An illegal acquiring a “Z-Visa” will automatically become legal and not subject to arrest or deportation for this country. The pretense on the part of many these new (il)legals is … they don’t have to apply for citizenship yet they will have access to medical services (which they and their children already avail themselves), they can “legally” bring over family members, and they can access our Social Security and welfare systems.
The $5,000 “fine” is only required when applying for citizenship. And if there is an expiration date on the “Z-Visa”, you can bet the bleeding-hearts in Washington will at some point will sunset that part of the requirement, too.
In effect we will have perpetual “legal” immigrants under no real compulsion to become American citizens yet in a position to tap into Social Security, welfare, and other entitlement programs. Hence, ShAmnesty.
184 The Great Santini // Jun 3, 2007 at 4:58 pm
♪ ♪ ♪ WHEN YOU ARE A DEM ROCK STAR ♪ ♪ ♪
[Tune: “When You Wish Upon a Starâ€, music by Leigh Harline, lyrics by Ned Washington, performed by Jiminy Cricket (Cliff Edwards) in Walt Disney’s “Pinocchioâ€; © 2007 Santini’s Parody Serenades]
• When you are a Dem rock star
And your healthcare plan’s FUBAR
Rich are mean, excise their spleens
Lungs, kidneys, too
• To relieve poor’s sickly hue
Take organs from well-to-do
He’s Teflon™, LSM fawns
At glib buffoon
• His care plan is content-free
“Soak the rich†is sophistry
Cheesy charm and oily smarm
Make lib fondue
• In klieg lights, Barack’s a beaut
Vapid smile and empty suit
Confiscating all your loot
As Demos do
• When he claims it won’t cost much
Keep your wallet in tight clutch
His nose grows like Pinocchio’s
And Cyrano’s
• He emotes, dissimulates
Demos pucker, osculate
His wimp butt, they go dog-nuts
Howl at the moon
• His hair gel is Afro-Sheen™
Barack’s Sun King, Hillie’s Snow Quee-ee-ee-n…
[Tag]
When you are…a Dem rock star…
Your heart…bleeds…Blu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-e!
185 Fred Sinclair // Jun 3, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I’ve been seeking and searching but cannot find a company, corporation, business, or enterprise of any kind, size, sort, shape, type or description that is currently paying the insurance premiums for their employee’s Auto, Home, Fire, Flood, Hurricane, Tornado, bicycle, motorcycle, etc., etc., insurance. There are a few that pay the premium on a life insurance policy but only on their CEO and a few other high ranking muckety-mucks since it will cost a great deal to find a replacement if that person dies.
My question is: Where did the idea originate that employers should pay the premiums for an employee’s health and/or hospitalization insurance? And where they are paying the premium, why isn’t that amount included on the employee’s W-2 Form, for income tax purposes?
Who or what gives employers the right or responsibility of picking and choosing what insurance policy premium they will or won’t pay for their employees? Why don’t they increase the employee’s pay by that amount and let the employee go out into the Free Enterprise market and purchase such hospitalization insurance as he or she feels is appropriate for his or her personal circumstances? The same way they buy their Auto insurance.
Heirborn Ranger
186 Darthmeister // Jun 3, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Another G888888 Santini song parody!
• In klieg lights, Barack’s a beaut
Vapid smile and empty suit
Confiscating all your loot
As Demos do
That’s all one needs to know about Osama Obama.
MORE NUMBERS ON IRAQ
John Wixted
Having brought to you the continuing bad news about the security situation in Iraq, I did also want to remind you that, when asked, more Iraqis than not say that life is better today than it was under Saddam Hussein. This always amazes me because, if you ask around, you’ll find that almost every opponent of the invasion of Iraq believes that we have simply ruined a stable country that, as bad it was, was nevertheless much better than what it has become. But as I have noted before, if you ask the Iraqi people themselves (who should know), they disagree. . . . That tells you something that is largely missing from discussions about Iraq. What’s missing is an assessment of what things were like in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The media was not interested in that, so they did not fill in the blanks for you.
The desperation of the anti-war left was no better revealed in the thoroughly debunked John Hopkins study which claimed over 500 Iraqi citizens were being murdered every day (which the liberal global media somehow missed) since Operation Iraqi Freedom began in March 2003. Yet independent Iraqi surveys are demonstrating that the rant things are much worse now than they were under Saddam’s regime is an absolute lie. CNN’s Eason Jordan admitted the news agency did not report how bad things really were under Saddam’s regime because it wanted to maintain its credentials and access in Iraq! Now wonder the left believes Saddam’s regime is preferable to what is happening now in Iraq, just like these leftists also believe Hugo Chavez is not a despot who murders, jails or makes Venezuelans disappear by the thousands because the liberal media isn’t reporting it. Let’s face it, many of America’s left-leaning journalists were infatuated with the Soviet system of government before it failed in 1989 and we never knew how bad it was until documents from the Soviet era began surfacing a few years after its fall.
187 Darthmeister // Jun 3, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Doh!
188 Fred Sinclair // Jun 4, 2007 at 2:12 am
Not that I have total recall but I do recall reading about Major Dwight D. Eisenhower being in charge of the machine guns that opened fire on the WWI vets who marched on the white house in protest for back pay due them. This time it’ll be a couple of million with deer rifles, etc. and the liberals will learn why the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. They will learn as I’ve said before that it was better to be a Nazi in post WWII Germany than to be a liberal in America. America wasn’t founded with registered guns, but by farmers, ranchers and merchants with deer rifles. - It may come to a matter of history repeating itself. Mexico learned to rue the Alamo as they were taught by Santa Anna’s total, wipeout defeat at the battle of San Jacinto (outside Houston). Until the last 40 years of liberalism, they remained pretty quiet. The next Civil War won’t involve North vs South but more likely - Conservative vs Liberal. - and since the liberals eschew private ownership of firearms, they won’t have any guns! - Waxless Fred
The year is 1907….but the speaker knew what he was talking about. What a difference a hundred years makes.
Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here.. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
189 richrenken // Jun 4, 2007 at 10:28 am
So Obama proposes a health care plan known as:
“Obama Universal Health Care Initiative”.
It needs an acronym - “OUCHI” comes to mind, pronounced ‘Ouch-ee’.
This is most appropriate, because his plan will HURT all of society.
Obama as president is a frightening joke.
R
190 ourmontanahome.info » Blog Archive » Open Question: hannah montana episodes? // Jun 21, 2007 at 3:43 pm
[...] Then we get into some miscellaneous news. We pander-er-panda a little bit with a talk about a failed Panda reintroduction move that will no doubt be repated, despite long odds of another result. Also, a lot of folks are joining the ultra-rich. Then we talk about Scrappleface’s latest. [...]
191 Both Parties are In Trouble | Adam's Blog // Nov 2, 2007 at 5:22 pm
[...] Then we get into some miscellaneous news. We pander-er-panda a little bit with a talk about a failed Panda reintroduction move that will no doubt be repated, despite long odds of another result. Also, a lot of folks are joining the ultra-rich. Then we talk about Scrappleface’s latest. [...]
You must log in to post a comment.