If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   If the levers of State are to be wielded to enforce the commands of Scripture, such as not allowing gay marriage, then why the hell are we opposing Obamacare - which is the most Christ-like thing the government has ever done?   (redstate.com) divider line 522
    More: Interesting, obamacare, No Regrets, no compromise, protest vote, eternal life, same-sex marriages, Bob Dole, Biden  
•       •       •

4072 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Mar 2013 at 6:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



522 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-01 07:57:23 AM
CanisNoir: I stated it shouldn't be considered a "good work" because it's removing a persons free will.

So if ever I was to receive medical coverage due to obamacare or any other gov't mandated program I should refuse it for lack of your free will? Hell, It is my free will for all Americans to have coverage and I've never even been to church or read the bible. Does it concern you that I'm more christ-like than you?
 
2013-04-01 08:10:00 AM
I want Drake to murder my vagina
 
2013-04-01 08:11:53 AM

Philbb: skilbride: Hi!  Christian over here!

I really want to talk politics with you guys, but I don't feel like I can particularly   It's not that I am a person who goes around trying to convince people to join my church, or I spend a lot of time talking about my personal relationship with God... but I get the feeling that among the liberal crowd in fark I'm not welcome.

Never mind that I think there should be some sort of baseline healthcare (although I don't agree forcing us to pay insurance companies is the way to do it), nevermind that I actually think gays should be allowed to marry (and have picked a church that supports my views) but the mere fact that I believe in God, and Christ, has made me feel like - in these threads at least - even if I get into the nitty gritty and explain to you why the people really hate this kind of stuff, you would disregard and attack me because of my faith.

So if you really want to know, I can tell you how it contradicts with the Christian values - but if you're just trolling and getting on the Christian hate train, I won't waste my breath.

I followed your posts and discussions through much of the thread. There seem to be a few things that you aren't considering. One would be the label "christian". Being a christian wasn't a thing throughout most of the last millennium or two. There have been a great many different sects that have fallen under the umbrella of Christianity, but they have considered themselves as different and separate until very recently.
Wiki Reference here.
 
It seems that a great many Americans these days don't understand that the differences exist and also lump them all into a large group they call Christians. For instance, I've seen people surprised that evolution was taught in Catholic schools, even though the Catholic church officially accepted evolution in 1950. Others seem to think that snake handling is an accepted practice among Christians without understanding that the practice exists mostly among Penteco ...


I agree with you whole heartily on the fact that Christian's need to separate themselves from under the umbrella of "Christian" and into their smaller sects.  I think it's interesting though that in this thread the majority of us ended up identifying not as whatever we were (for instance, there was a Pentecostal  I'm Episcopal, and I think there was a Methodist somewhere earlier in the thread.)   I know from experience that when I say to someone that I'm Episcopalian, they often give me the puzzled look - which drives me nuts because we are one of the oldest churches in the United States (formed shortly after the revolutionary war) and I think we're the 14th or 15th largest denomination in the states as well.   But it seems to me like a significant amount of the population believes Christians are "catholic" or "other" - and don't research other.  
 
Good morning everyone!
 
2013-04-01 08:14:57 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: Playing victim is fun, ain't it? Man, nothing satisfies quite like a persecution complex.
 
Very, very few people disregard and attack us because of our faith. We've been told this our entire lives, but unless you're unfortunate enough to live in the tribal areas of Pakistan or somewhere similar, this is simply not true. Most people that disregard and attack us do so because we act like utter douchenozzle know-it-alls trying to tell everyone how to run their lives.
 
But you're busy hanging up there on that cross of yours, so I won't take any more of your time.

/The least-preachy Christian you'll probably ever meet.


I think if you look earlier in the thread, right before and after I posted it, the general attitude was "because Christian's suck".  And - to be a honest - a significant amount of the past week on facebook has been "Christian's suck" because of the douchenozzels you speak of that would restrict rights to others based on race.  I was just pointing out that it's hard to jump in that arena when the attitude is so negative towards people of faith.
 
2013-04-01 08:20:02 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Derp. The world didn't know squat about free market individualism at that time. Jesus was preaching to individuals Jewsabout individual Jewishmorality, not corporations (which didn't exist then) or governments. As I said, morality is/must be individual action.


FTFY
 
Also, since we're talking about who Jesus preached to and what he preached, I should point out that there is no record of a Jesus anywhere in the Roman records of the time and only a passing reference to a man named Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities. The character of Jesus doesn't appear until the "Gospel of Mark", the earliest fragments of which don't appear until decades afterwards and then in a language that "Mark" neither spoke, nor wrote. This set of documents, since there were hundreds of fragmentary and contradictory copies, were then used as a source for the other canonical Gospels.
 
2013-04-01 08:25:20 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.


Where does jesus make that distinction?
 
2013-04-01 08:38:04 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Derp. The world didn't know squat about free market individualism at that time. Jesus was preaching to individuals Jewsabout individual Jewishmorality, not corporations (which didn't exist then) or governments. As I said, morality is/must be individual action.

FTFY
 
Also, since we're talking about who Jesus preached to and what he preached, I should point out that there is no record of a Jesus anywhere in the Roman records of the time and only a passing reference to a man named Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities. The character of Jesus doesn't appear until the "Gospel of Mark", the earliest fragments of which don't appear until decades afterwards and then in a language that "Mark" neither spoke, nor wrote. This set of documents, since there were hundreds of fragmentary and contradictory copies, were then used as a source for the other canonical Gospels.


Its almost as if they took bits and pieces from other stories and cobbled them together to create a new character. What a coincidence.
 
2013-04-01 09:18:23 AM

skilbride: Monkeyhouse Zendo: So you're saying Christ didn't give a fark whether the poor were actually fed or had a roof over their head, what was important was the exercise of free will in giving to the poor. That's an interesting take on Christianity; farked up, but interesting.

Okay, I'll put it a different way.  There's an idea in the Christian Church that giving (or doing something) isn't really important unless it's at a true sacrifice to yourself.  So, there's a couple ways this plays out - first of all, you can't give and then gloat and be like, "Look how awesome I am because I gave to the poor!"  You can't give and expect something in return.  And it's not really giving if it doesn't, in somehow, take away from you.   Those are the deeds which Christian's should aim to achieve.

So, at a fundamental level, there's a very deep fear that is not well vocalized in the Christian faith that if government forces you to do all these things that Christ says you should do - you won't get into heaven - because not only was it not a sacrifice that you made willingly, for no personal benefit - but it's something that everyone else does as well.


That just means they wouldn't get into heaven regardless.  Unwilling to sacrifice is unwilling to sacrifice.
 
I'll accept Christians when they stop trying to force me to accept their beliefs.  Stay in the closet and you'll be fine.  I promise.
 
2013-04-01 09:20:28 AM

nocturnal001: Its almost as if they took bits and pieces from other stories and cobbled them together to create a new character. What a coincidence.


Not only that but what's even more amazing is how much the central figure of the One True Religion has in common with the central figures of the other mystery cults of the day.
 
2013-04-01 09:34:12 AM

skilbride: Okay, I'll put it a different way. There's an idea in the Christian Church that giving (or doing something) isn't really important unless it's at a true sacrifice to yourself. So, there's a couple ways this plays out - first of all, you can't give and then gloat and be like, "Look how awesome I am because I gave to the poor!" You can't give and expect something in return. And it's not really giving if it doesn't, in somehow, take away from you. Those are the deeds which Christian's should aim to achieve.

So, at a fundamental level, there's a very deep fear that is not well vocalized in the Christian faith that if government forces you to do all these things that Christ says you should do - you won't get into heaven - because not only was it not a sacrifice that you made willingly, for no personal benefit - but it's something that everyone else does as well.


So they're putting their pride above actually helping out the poor. They won't get to feel as proud of their charity if the government has a hand in it, so screw the poor. Helping them isn't what charity is all about!
 
I think Jesus actually had some stuff to say about attitudes like that.
 
2013-04-01 09:37:19 AM

skilbride: Monkeyhouse Zendo: So you're saying Christ didn't give a fark whether the poor were actually fed or had a roof over their head, what was important was the exercise of free will in giving to the poor. That's an interesting take on Christianity; farked up, but interesting.

Okay, I'll put it a different way.  There's an idea in the Christian Church that giving (or doing something) isn't really important unless it's at a true sacrifice to yourself.  So, there's a couple ways this plays out - first of all, you can't give and then gloat and be like, "Look how awesome I am because I gave to the poor!"  You can't give and expect something in return.  And it's not really giving if it doesn't, in somehow, take away from you.   Those are the deeds which Christian's should aim to achieve.

So, at a fundamental level, there's a very deep fear that is not well vocalized in the Christian faith that if government forces you to do all these things that Christ says you should do - you won't get into heaven - because not only was it not a sacrifice that you made willingly, for no personal benefit - but it's something that everyone else does as well.


Unless you're part of a sect that says faith alone will get you into heaven.
 
Why have good works if you believe REALLY hard?
 
2013-04-01 09:38:14 AM
heavymetal:
Heck in reality if God is "punishing" the U.S. like the religious right likes to claim, because the U.S. is a "Christian Nation"; it sure as heck isn't due to the actions of the "liberals" or "gays".  It's the un-Christ-like actions done in his name by those who claim to speak for him.
 
It's worse than that.  Any fundamentalist will tell you that Sodom was destroyed because of "teh ghey" - it's implicit in the term "sodomy".  But they completely ignore what their God said directly concerning it:
 
Ezekiel 16:
 
49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
 
50And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
 
 
If the US is under judgement like Sodom, the bolded part is where we would fail first, imo.
 
2013-04-01 09:43:35 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

This being Fark, I suspect there are a lot of people - many being confirmed uber-liberals - here whose lives have not gone though a lot of changes. Perhaps, when you do, you will have the intellectual honesty to reassess your own opinions and politics.

I think you're wrong assuming your experiences translate to everyone and to the entirety of good works, including government managed social programs.

It was the people of the USA, collectively through our government that gave ME welfare aid, healthcare, and an educational stipend that allowed me as a homeless single mom to get back to college and finish my undergraduate degree, and from there i was off aid and on to a self sustaining PhD stipend. No church would have done that, as I refuse to belong to religious or even social groups. I won't go begging to any small organization.

Now I pay 2 to 3 times my total yearly aid for those four years in taxes every year and I'm going on now for over a decade. I give gladly, and for those of you who would like people like me to go begging to a church or private charity for help, screw you.

Social safety nets are collective charity that I now donate to. If I don't like it, I am free to leave the USA...nobody is keeping me here. I choose to live here. I choose to pay taxes and I choose to elevate our poor through my labor. I also give to charity, but I'm no Christian, and I give to charity to make this society, and thus my own experience of it, better. However, my charitable contributions are deductible from my taxes because my government recognizes the collective good through tax law.

There's plenty of "free" nations to our south for the hardcore libertarians. Enjoy.
 
2013-04-01 09:44:33 AM

ox45tallboy: Green Scorpio: Jesus never suggested that the government should take from some, and give to others. All He ever said on the subject was to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Rather He said God helps those who help themselves.

So.... you don't believe that Rome at the EXACT time Jesus said this was using tax money from the rich to provide food for the poor? And had been doing so for many years? And that this was definitely a very significant part (i.e., known to everyone, and a significant percentage of the budget) of the Roman government at that time?

Are you sure about that one?


I really wonder if this one is a troll, or just incredibly deluded and/or unread in their own religion.  Especially since he quotes Aesop's Fables and calls it Jesus.
 
I'll give him a hint:  "God helps those who helps themselves" is nowhere in the Bible, and certainly can't be attributed to Jesus.
 
2013-04-01 10:00:21 AM

sheep snorter: [sarcasm]Damn cripples messing up the line to salvation!!![/sarcasm]


[i.imgur.com image 850x565]

 
Wow.  What a powerful image.  Must be Lutherans.
 
/I live in Lutheran country (in Wisconsin)
//I work for a Lutheran organization
///My constant mantra is "Damn Lutherans!"
////One would think that if you incorporate your brand of religion in your company name, you would make an extra effort to behave as "christian" as possible.
//slashies are odd numbers.............always.
 
2013-04-01 10:35:11 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.


Even if the Gospel's admonition that healing is an INDIVIDUAL mandate, I only have so much money. I can't heal everyone who is sick. But I also happen to possess a vote, and when the choice comes between voting against healing them, or to vote for healing them, I as an individual cast it to heal.
 
2013-04-01 10:37:49 AM
I never thought I'd hear a Christian try to defend their opposition to universal health care because then it "won't count" on their heaven tally since they're being forced to do it. Good luck explaining that one on your judgement day, I've never heard of something more selfish.
 
2013-04-01 11:18:03 AM
The way the right has moved the goalposts on healthcare reform is a master lesson in political machination. There was a time when we debated the morality of single payer, providng healthcare to all Americans as a basic need.
 
Now, we are debating the Christian moral implications of making people take responsibility for their own care and not allowing them to just show up at a hospital and receive free (expensive for the taxpayer) emergency services, an idea that was once very much the brainchild of the right wing.Personal responsibilty and all that, numerous people repeating the fable of the ant and the grasshopper.
 
Healthcare,
 
1 - is it ethical to not provide care to everyone that needs it?
2. Is it just good business to provide healthcare as part of a solid saftey net, ensuring a healthy population (therefore produtive) that is willing to take risks in the free market by starting businesses, buying homes etc. as opposed to being terrified of catostrophic failure leading to their poverty.
 
1. Not all Americans think they believe #1, but dollars to donuts if presented with a sick child whose parents didn't buy health insurance 90% of them would say "yes, go ahead and give that kid some medicine".  A lot of people claim they want everyone to be responsible for their own actions, but the reality is that people will never be turned away from the hospital in the US, and we will not have starving people dieing on the streets no matter what.  The vast majority of Americans are not as cold as that.
 
2. I think this one is even easier.  Our economic system is as close to ideal as I can imagine (close not perfect) where we mostly have a free market with exceptions given to reduce monopolies, and protect cosumers.  The so called libertarians see this and scream about it, but the reality is that our system is WAY more productive and efficient than a libertarian system.  Imagine if we did not have an FDA.  People would never risk buying a product from a new company, sure companies would go under if they killed people but who among us would be willing to take that chance? What if restaurants were not inspected? Same thing, it would be incredibly hard to start a new restaurant. People wouldn't risk starting a new career as a failure would mean their family starved, few would go to college and pass up a shiatty but steady income. Healthcare is just like that. As technology advances there are more opportunities to save people, at an increasing cost. More people are becoming bankrupt due to major illness, and that is sapping the energy of our people bit by bit.
 
If you reduce the potential downsides of taking a huge risk, then more people will take those risks.  Those leaps of faith are what drive our economy to innovate and improve.
 
2013-04-01 11:46:55 AM

ox45tallboy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: But they are individual actions. They have collectively (and voluntarily) contributed to that action of shoeing the shoeless. None of them could do it by themselves, so they combined their various specialties to accomplish the action.

I understand what you're saying. But the fact is that none of us are forced to live in this society. There are other countries to immigrate to, especially if you are trained in a technical field. One of the rules of our society is to help out those less fortunate, and since most of us don't know where to begin, we instead pay in tax money and pay some of that money to people who identify those who need help, and others who provide it. It's something we do because it makes our whole society better, and whether you receive food stamps or a meal from a soup kitchen, you are still being fed. If you feel that the soup kitchen was a more morally satisfying meal because it was provided through donations, and the meal from the food stamps was provided through involuntary taxation, you are free to feel that way, but you're still fed.

I'm not going to argue that assistance to the needy provided through taxation is a moral action; my only argument was against your statement that moral actions must be from individuals and not from a collective. You yourself provided examples of times in which you were helped by a collective, as no individual possessed the skills or resources to provide you with assistance on their own. The end result was still that you got fed, and it was the direct result of individuals acting in a collective manner, all of whom did so voluntarily.

I still feel the government's actions of providing for those less fortunate don't necessarily stem from a moral imperative of society, merely a survivalistic one - either you feed them or they will kill you and put someone in power who will, just like the French did. But you can't discount the motivations when the end result is the same - the hungry sti ...


You are offering up some interesting arguments, and - frankly - I'm not entirely sure you are wrong, or that my rebuttals are entirely correct. I think part of the issue may be semantics, but I'm gonna think about this stuff for a while. Good job; I may include some of this in the novel I'm writing. Point and set to you in this thread.
 
2013-04-01 11:51:42 AM

roadmarks: heavymetal:
Heck in reality if God is "punishing" the U.S. like the religious right likes to claim, because the U.S. is a "Christian Nation"; it sure as heck isn't due to the actions of the "liberals" or "gays".  It's the un-Christ-like actions done in his name by those who claim to speak for him.
 
It's worse than that.  Any fundamentalist will tell you that Sodom was destroyed because of "teh ghey" - it's implicit in the term "sodomy".  But they completely ignore what their God said directly concerning it:
 
Ezekiel 16:
 
49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
 
50And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
 
 
If the US is under judgement like Sodom, the bolded part is where we would fail first, imo.

 
 
I agree and it really describes the state of the U.S. today.  As a nation the U.S. has the money to "strengthen the hand of the poor and needy," it's just not a "priority".
 
2013-04-01 12:09:53 PM

vygramul: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.

Even if the Gospel's admonition that healing is an INDIVIDUAL mandate, I only have so much money. I can't heal everyone who is sick. But I also happen to possess a vote, and when the choice comes between voting against healing them, or to vote for healing them, I as an individual cast it to heal.


So would you then agree with the following scenario? A Mafia leader has a near-death experience and thinks that God or Jesus actually talks to him and commands him to use his organization of thugs to feed the poor. He recovers and proceeds to do just that: shaking down individuals and businesses for cash and funneling that money into soup kitchens (fun fact: one of the first soup kitchens during the Great Depression was established and funded by Al Capone). He seizes money from 3rd parties at gunpoint and in effect gives it to others. Would you support that? How is it actionably different from a government doing so?

A 3rd, moral, alternative to voting for coercion from any source would be to organize your friends and relatives into putting together a private, voluntary organization to pool your efforts and money to accomplish the same end.

Seriously, all government essentially comes from the consent of the governed, but that consent is, more often than not, scared-shiatless consent. Read up sometime on the origin of the European monarchies. Most of the lineages started out as bandit leaders who controlled a strategic area with their thugs and figured out that it was smart to leave the peasants they terrorized something for next year's crops, so they could loot them over the years instead of just once. Government - ALL government - is the legal monopoly of force over a defined geographical area. It's "legal" because the government says it is - even if you don't agree. The essential differences between a gang and a State are ones of size, complexity, and a veneer (often real, often given only lip service) of "service" to the society at large.

Hey, I know several people who work for state and county government, and one or two feds. They are generally nice people, and actually feel they are doing positive, necessary stuff. In most cases they probably are. I also met a guy when we were homeless, a 2 time loser (assault/home invasion; possession of firearms - why yes, he IS a gang member) who is one of the nicest people I've ever met (but I would not want to try to mess him over). Stand up guy; seriously, I'd trust my life with him.
 
2013-04-01 12:14:32 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Derp. The world didn't know squat about free market individualism at that time. Jesus was preaching to individuals Jewsabout individual Jewishmorality, not corporations (which didn't exist then) or governments. As I said, morality is/must be individual action.

FTFY
 
Also, since we're talking about who Jesus preached to and what he preached, I should point out that there is no record of a Jesus anywhere in the Roman records of the time and only a passing reference to a man named Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities. The character of Jesus doesn't appear until the "Gospel of Mark", the earliest fragments of which don't appear until decades afterwards and then in a language that "Mark" neither spoke, nor wrote. This set of documents, since there were hundreds of fragmentary and contradictory copies, were then used as a source for the other canonical Gospels.


Good point. Jesus may simply be a symbolic figure.
 
2013-04-01 12:19:34 PM

manimal2878: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.

Where does jesus make that distinction?


By speaking to individuals, instead of in the halls of government. Context.

Then again, if Jesus didn't really exist, then it's all symbolic, anyway.
 
2013-04-01 01:01:55 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: How is it actionably different from a government doing so?


I suspect it also needs to provide dispute resolution services between third parties in its demesne before it qualifies as a government, at least. (Though "shooting both arguing parties" would qualify, I don't think Capone did much of that.) It may also need to mediate dispute resolution between those in its demesne and agents outside it, particular agents disputing the propriety/authority of its own conduct.
 
2013-04-01 01:16:57 PM

Fubini: Matthew 25:31-46
New International Version (NIV)

The Sheep and the Goats

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
[...]
46Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.


TLDR: Sheep Go to Heaven, goats go to hell.
 
2013-04-01 02:11:07 PM
Christ fined people for not having health care, even if they were unable to afford healthcare (or the fine)?
 
2013-04-01 02:39:05 PM

Sultan Of Herf: Christ fined people for not having health care, even if they were unable to afford healthcare (or the fine)?


Like - meaning similar in attributes or motives, dick breath.
 
2013-04-01 03:06:40 PM

roadmarks: I really wonder if this one is a troll, or just incredibly deluded and/or unread in their own religion. Especially since he quotes Aesop's Fables and calls it Jesus.

I'll give him a hint: "God helps those who helps themselves" is nowhere in the Bible, and certainly can't be attributed to Jesus.


The whole "God helps those who help themselves" is widely considered to be the most common saying misattributed to the Bible, so maybe he's just not very well, um... versed.
 
2013-04-01 03:13:23 PM
Again, Obama was overwhelmingly elected despite the supposed (yeah right) "Americans not wanting Obamacare" disinformation.

So no, suck it haters.
 
2013-04-01 03:19:57 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You are offering up some interesting arguments, and - frankly - I'm not entirely sure you are wrong, or that my rebuttals are entirely correct. I think part of the issue may be semantics, but I'm gonna think about this stuff for a while. Good job; I may include some of this in the novel I'm writing. Point and set to you in this thread.


I guess it's another way of saying "don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

Good luck with your book.
 
2013-04-01 03:22:31 PM

whidbey: Again, Obama was overwhelmingly elected despite the supposed (yeah right) "Americans not wanting Obamacare" disinformation.

So no, suck it haters.


For the record, I don't want Obamacare. I want single payer. But we're not going to get single payer, so I'd rather have Obamacare than what we've been getting since Nixon approved Kaiser Permanente.

"Medicare for all" can happen if we want it to. We're willing to pay for it.
 
2013-04-01 03:37:40 PM

ox45tallboy: whidbey: Again, Obama was overwhelmingly elected despite the supposed (yeah right) "Americans not wanting Obamacare" disinformation.

So no, suck it haters.

For the record, I don't want Obamacare. I want single payer. But we're not going to get single payer, so I'd rather have Obamacare than what we've been getting since Nixon approved Kaiser Permanente.

"Medicare for all" can happen if we want it to. We're willing to pay for it.


Honestly, I can't even afford health insurance right now. But I realize Obamacare is a crack in the door to either SP or UHC. I don't get the hate for mandating this country take HC more seriously.
 
2013-04-01 03:58:39 PM

whidbey: I don't get the hate for mandating this country take HC more seriously.


The president's near. Kinda. Halfway near.
 
2013-04-01 04:52:28 PM
It's really pretty simple.

It is indeed Christlike to help the poor. It is not Christlike to make people help the poor.

Also, SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
 
2013-04-01 04:53:32 PM

jaybeezey: It's really pretty simple.

It is indeed Christlike to help the poor. It is not Christlike to make people help the poor.

Also, SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!


and separation of me and spelling.
 
2013-04-01 05:18:33 PM
"one's words, prayers and deeds one must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. Therefore, when instituting public policy one must always keep the 'preferential option for the poor' at the forefront of one's mind. Accordingly, this doctrine implies that the moral test of any society is "how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_for_the_poor
 
2013-04-01 05:21:44 PM

jaybeezey: It's really pretty simple.

It is indeed Christlike to help the poor. It is not Christlike to make people help the poor.

Pretty sure Christ told a bunch of his perspective followers to sell all their belongings and walk his path.

Also, SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

You're the one bringing up Christianity. Even without the church the best policy is going to be teaching our subsequent generations that they have a responsibility to be altruistic. Yes, with laws in place, if people don't wake up and get it first. Sorry if that makes you mad or something

 
2013-04-01 05:57:12 PM

RockofAges: Robin Hood. Hero or villain?


Good card player.
 
2013-04-01 05:58:28 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: vygramul: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.

Even if the Gospel's admonition that healing is an INDIVIDUAL mandate, I only have so much money. I can't heal everyone who is sick. But I also happen to possess a vote, and when the choice comes between voting against healing them, or to vote for healing them, I as an individual cast it to heal.

So would you then agree with the following scenario? A Mafia leader has a near-death experience and thinks that God or Jesus actually talks to him and commands him to use his organization of thugs to feed the poor. He recovers and proceeds to do just that: shaking down individuals and businesses for cash and funneling that money into soup kitchens (fun fact: one of the first soup kitchens during the Great Depression was established and funded by Al Capone). He seizes money from 3rd parties at gunpoint and in effect gives it to others. Would you support that? How is it actionably different from a government doing so?

A 3rd, moral, alternative to voting for coercion from any source would be to organize your friends and relatives into putting together a private, voluntary organization to pool your efforts and money to accomplish the same end.

Seriously, all government essentially comes from the consent of the governed, but that consent is, more often than not, scared-shiatless consent. Read up sometime on the origin of the European monarchies. Most of the lineages started out as bandit leaders who controlled a strategic area with their thugs and figured out that it was smart to leave the peasants they terrorized something for next year's crops, so they could loot them over the years instead of just once. Government - ALL government - is the legal monopoly of force over a defined geographical area. It's "legal" because the government says it ...


How is that different from what God is doing? Heal, or go to Hell. That's just as much a shake-down.
 
2013-04-01 11:16:17 PM

quatchi: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Moral actions come from individuals doing individual actions. They cannot be collectivized.

All collective actions are done by groups of individuals your argument makes less than zero sense.
 
Am I arguing with a philosophy major or something here? Cos that would explain a few things.


No, a Randite.
 
2013-04-02 01:21:58 AM

CanisNoir: Kittypie070: And there you have it, another contradiction of Canis' libertarian style "Free Will" argument issued by Canis himself.

I don't see the contradiction. They're two different arguments and not contradictory at all because of it. I'll take the sympathy smoke tho :)


Well, I get hardnosed sometimes about the uses of language. Sometimes I see examples of LOLwhoops, FrankLuntzing is easy!! that really do exist, and sometimes I look so hard at what I'm reading that I see double and begin foaming at the mouth.

/glad to share teh smokes
//puf puf pass
 
2013-04-02 03:25:20 AM
There is nothing Christian about borrowing money using the nations credit and distributing it to the needy at the expense of future generations.

For that matter, there is nothing Christian about using progressive taxation to accomplish the same end with a balanced budget, which has not happened in the US because it doesnt work anyway. Medicare was supposedto max out at 80 billion in today's dollars and its closer to 800 billion and one of several gimmes that is going to consume all discretionary spending.

What works is private philanthropy and charitable organizations, which are increasingly under attack by liberals because they do the job better without being under socialist govt control.
 
2013-04-02 07:57:11 AM

Animatronik: What works is private philanthropy and charitable organizations, which are increasingly under attack by liberals because they do the job better without being under socialist govt control.


Are you really this deluded?
 
2013-04-02 09:43:50 AM

Halli: Animatronik: What works is private philanthropy and charitable organizations, which are increasingly under attack by liberals because they do the job better without being under socialist govt control.

Are you really this deluded?


You really could have quoted the whole thing. It presupposes liberals want to raise taxes to pay for it rather than cut the defense budget, and it displays an astounding lack of historical knowledge because we had an era of small government, no income tax, and a large poor population, proving charity and private philanthropy doesn't work. At all.
 
2013-04-02 10:10:27 AM

vygramul: Halli: Animatronik: What works is private philanthropy and charitable organizations, which are increasingly under attack by liberals because they do the job better without being under socialist govt control.

Are you really this deluded?

You really could have quoted the whole thing. It presupposes liberals want to raise taxes to pay for it rather than cut the defense budget, and it displays an astounding lack of historical knowledge because we had an era of small government, no income tax, and a large poor population, proving charity and private philanthropy doesn't work. At all.


Er...... Since LBJ, we've had a an era of big government, high income tax, and an even larger poor population, proving government handouts don't work. At all.

OK, now that you've had a moment to think about the relative merits, both above statements are not necessarily true. Private charity and private philanthropy do work. And so do government handouts (in a manner of speaking). The psychological difference between the two is that the former is often accompanied by a self-righteous nagging which often has the effect of eventually getting the receiver to eventually do something to change their situation (stop drinking, etc.); the latter is often accompanied by venal self-aggrandizement and empire building, leading to larger and larger government. The former is arguably healthier for society.
 
2013-04-02 10:12:49 AM

UndeadPoetsSociety: quatchi: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Moral actions come from individuals doing individual actions. They cannot be collectivized.

All collective actions are done by groups of individuals your argument makes less than zero sense.
 
Am I arguing with a philosophy major or something here? Cos that would explain a few things.

No, a Randite.


Oh, my, you know how to fling labels around. Good girl. Now, if only you could think beyond stereotypes....
 
2013-04-02 10:20:18 AM

vygramul: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: vygramul: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.

Even if the Gospel's admonition that healing is an INDIVIDUAL mandate, I only have so much money. I can't heal everyone who is sick. But I also happen to possess a vote, and when the choice comes between voting against healing them, or to vote for healing them, I as an individual cast it to heal.

So would you then agree with the following scenario? A Mafia leader has a near-death experience and thinks that God or Jesus actually talks to him and commands him to use his organization of thugs to feed the poor. He recovers and proceeds to do just that: shaking down individuals and businesses for cash and funneling that money into soup kitchens (fun fact: one of the first soup kitchens during the Great Depression was established and funded by Al Capone). He seizes money from 3rd parties at gunpoint and in effect gives it to others. Would you support that? How is it actionably different from a government doing so?

A 3rd, moral, alternative to voting for coercion from any source would be to organize your friends and relatives into putting together a private, voluntary organization to pool your efforts and money to accomplish the same end.

Seriously, all government essentially comes from the consent of the governed, but that consent is, more often than not, scared-shiatless consent. Read up sometime on the origin of the European monarchies. Most of the lineages started out as bandit leaders who controlled a strategic area with their thugs and figured out that it was smart to leave the peasants they terrorized something for next year's crops, so they could loot them over the years instead of just once. Government - ALL government - is the legal monopoly of force over a defined geographical area. It's "legal" because the government says it ...


How is that different from what God is doing? Heal, or go to Hell. That's just as much a shake-down.

Absolutely correct. Organized religion is simply another power play. Marx was correct about one thing: it is indeed the opiate of the people. Seriously, when you look at the intertwining, mutually supporting history of tyrannical government and guilt-laying religion, who can doubt that? (Since I've already been accused of being a "Randite" allow me to paraphrase Floyd Ferris from "Atlas Shrugged": "Whatever else you do, make them feel guilty, like it is their own fault. If they believe it, you can do anything to them and they will accept it.")
 
2013-04-02 10:26:22 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: vygramul: Halli: Animatronik: What works is private philanthropy and charitable organizations, which are increasingly under attack by liberals because they do the job better without being under socialist govt control.

Are you really this deluded?

You really could have quoted the whole thing. It presupposes liberals want to raise taxes to pay for it rather than cut the defense budget, and it displays an astounding lack of historical knowledge because we had an era of small government, no income tax, and a large poor population, proving charity and private philanthropy doesn't work. At all.

Er...... Since LBJ, we've had a an era of big government, high income tax, and an even larger poor population, proving government handouts don't work. At all.

OK, now that you've had a moment to think about the relative merits, both above statements are not necessarily true. Private charity and private philanthropy do work. And so do government handouts (in a manner of speaking). The psychological difference between the two is that the former is often accompanied by a self-righteous nagging which often has the effect of eventually getting the receiver to eventually do something to change their situation (stop drinking, etc.); the latter is often accompanied by venal self-aggrandizement and empire building, leading to larger and larger government. The former is arguably healthier for society.


The history of government and charity goes back farther than LBJ.
 
2013-04-02 10:27:54 AM

ox45tallboy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You are offering up some interesting arguments, and - frankly - I'm not entirely sure you are wrong, or that my rebuttals are entirely correct. I think part of the issue may be semantics, but I'm gonna think about this stuff for a while. Good job; I may include some of this in the novel I'm writing. Point and set to you in this thread.

I guess it's another way of saying "don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

Good luck with your book.


I'll need it. It's gonna be more than a bit controversial. I'm looking forward to calls for a ban.
 
2013-04-02 10:29:10 AM

vygramul: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: vygramul: Halli: Animatronik: What works is private philanthropy and charitable organizations, which are increasingly under attack by liberals because they do the job better without being under socialist govt control.

Are you really this deluded?

You really could have quoted the whole thing. It presupposes liberals want to raise taxes to pay for it rather than cut the defense budget, and it displays an astounding lack of historical knowledge because we had an era of small government, no income tax, and a large poor population, proving charity and private philanthropy doesn't work. At all.

Er...... Since LBJ, we've had a an era of big government, high income tax, and an even larger poor population, proving government handouts don't work. At all.

OK, now that you've had a moment to think about the relative merits, both above statements are not necessarily true. Private charity and private philanthropy do work. And so do government handouts (in a manner of speaking). The psychological difference between the two is that the former is often accompanied by a self-righteous nagging which often has the effect of eventually getting the receiver to eventually do something to change their situation (stop drinking, etc.); the latter is often accompanied by venal self-aggrandizement and empire building, leading to larger and larger government. The former is arguably healthier for society.

The history of government and charity goes back farther than LBJ.


True, but the Great Society is when it really got stoked.
 
Displayed 50 of 522 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report