Thursday, July 1, 2010

Obama and other Democrat politicians....A STARK contrast to other administrations?


In case some of you missed seeing this on TV Wednesday night, please watch this.....you only have to watch into the third minute to get your nose full (as they say in Germany), believe me. Is THIS awful, belittling sarcasm what we need to help our country? Do any constituents deserve this treatment, especially thoughtful constituents intensely worried about illegal immigration?
Then we have Obama talking about "calling their bluff" about Republicans. What kind of talk is that from a President of these United States? Let's not talk content this time, that's a whole other post, but let's talk
ATTITUDE, DECORUM, DIGNITY. And I believe he said this in Toronto in front of the world; is this helpful?










California Congressman Pete Stark addresses people worried about the border. Obama addressees people about the economy. These are really important subjects Americans are very worried about, why can't the Democrats address the people better than this? Whether you're a Bush fan or not, please find an example of his using demeaning sarcasm or thug talk ... I'd like to see that. I don't believe it exists. Even Democrats will admit he took a terrible beating by the left constantly...yet he held his tongue, even when the Dixie Chicks insulted our country IN EUROPE! Bush's comment was ''the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind,'' adding, ''they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street," to which Maines of the Dixie Chicks responded with "he's a dumb F...," to which he had no public response. Martin Sheen called Bush's quote 'bullying!' You think Sheen thinks Congressman Stark is a bully? (smile)
Why must Democrats like Stark and our own President do what they do? Like when Joe the Plumber got SO hosed for only asking a polite question, and like the custard guy who Biden called a "smart a$$"... WHY?
z (thanks, Mustangxx)

72 comments:

beamish said...

I'm voting for the candidate that tells Obama to his face in 2012 that he's an imbecile.

Z said...

I think a LOT of people would, Beamish!

Linda said...

The people need to vote for someone that is grounded in the every day problems of life. When they get elected they lose all perspective, and look down their noses at the 'little people'.

LASunsett said...

Every time I think I have seen the most smug-but yet dumbest-politician on the face of the earth, another one comes along to take his/her place. Last week... it was the Milwaukee Area Technical College graduate, the county supervisor, who did not know that AZ bordered with Mexico. This week it's this bastard.

This is one stupid SOB. I cannot wait to see who next week's idiot will be and what they will say.

Chuck said...

Z, you can answer this - you know CA politics better than I do. What's the odds of knocking this bastard off at the polls?

Debbies Choice said...

Hope and Change, huh? Well we got Hopeless and a big change.

LASunsett said...

Chuck, I can answer that. His district is very liberal and once again, he is running against a candidate with no name recognition and no war chest of money to campaign with.

WomanHonorThyself said...

I am so weary of all this madness Z!

FairWitness said...

Democrats are positively consumed with themselves, the ultimate power trip. They don't even try to hide their contempt of us. Hell, they're proud of it.

Hope all Americans are watching this. The level of hubris is staggering.

Brooke said...

The left consistently shows a complete lack of class.

I'm with Beamish.

Ducky's here said...

Palin/Snooki. 2012

cube said...

Every voter in Stark's district should watch that video. What a display of arrogance and elitism.

That said, every voter in the country should watch that video for the same reason.

Look at candidates in YOUR districts and weed out the ones that ignore the needs of their constituents.

Dan said...

In most Democrat districts like this if every voter watched it would make no difference.

It's not until the rest of the crowd chimes in that this guy realizes that he's not in Washington surrounded by a doting press.

Z said...

LASunsett, thanks for the information...it's a darned shame about his running against a no-name with little money. I guess maybe that's what prompts him to show his real, horrible side....he's thinking "who cares?"

Let's all remember also that the sarcasm he showed while taunting the questioner ..saying things like "Oh, sure, you just want to kill more people, don't ya!.." and "...we'll just arm you all and let you shoot!" is perfectly acceptable as liberals all feel that way.
Don't forget, I'd wager most liberals would believe this equation:

Illegals coming over the border=sympathetic

Border Guards=Gestapo

Concerned Citizens=xenophobes and happy would-be murderers.

We know this is how much of the left feels and Stark knows that, too...many circles will applaud his stance. What gets me is how even liberals wouldn't be highly offended at his manner, his sarcasm and belittling comments to American citizens with valid complaints and suggestions...shouldn't that send warning signals to ANY decent American?

Linda, I've never seen quite THIS much 'looking down their noses' but you're right.

Cube, we do have to get rid of politicians like this........
Dan, I think he must feel secure in his liberal bastion and couldn't care less what people think.

Let's HOPE this has gone viral on youtube and more and more people wake up. I've rarely seen THIS nasty a piece of work in a politican...wow, the hand gestures dismissing speakers, the looks on his face. it was amazing.

But, then, of course, when a president takes this stance, the little congressman might be just playing to his base...knowing his pres and all the libs will find him amusing, "above the fray" "brave to show his contempt for gun totin', non political riffraff" ..
typical.

Faith said...

Because of your headline and your intro it took me a while to work up the guts to watch it, since I really can barely stand this stuff these days, but I finally did. The guy is unbelievably obnoxious and goes on with that evil attitude despite what that great group is saying to him. They are great. They made it worth watching for me.

Getting through Obama's stuff was harder.

Ducky's here said...

I was interested that Stark made reference to the Minutemen. I'd like to know who comprised that audience. The Minutemen leaders were discredited as a bunch of embezzlers quite a while ago and I doubt a concrete conversation with the group is possible.

I'm in Massachusetts, most of the illegals here just overstay their visas by 15 or 20 years so this idea of "border security" strikes me as more of a drug then immigration problem.

As for Obama telling the likes of John Boner (R - Tanning with Snooki) and McConnell (R - Put in your teeth, Mitch) to make his day ... I doubt Obama has that kid of juice.

Ducky's here said...

Why has illegal immigration been much higher under Saint Ronnie Raygun and Chucklenuts than it was under Clinton? Just curious.

Here it really took off under Chucklenuts but it may have been a delayed reaction to NAFTA. Adult replies requested

Z said...

Faith, it is difficult to watch, isn't it. The more horrid thing about Obama is he speaks like this on the world stage; apparently, he doesn't understand that we don't air our dirty linens in public to the world. At least we didn't in the past. No president EVER spoke like he does, anyway..

Ducky, Bush was a disaster on the border and I'd like to know why, too. Reagan's wasn't nearly as disastrous, we had the bracero program then and it worked pretty well..tho now we see the safeguards weren't in motion.
What you have to remember is context; we hadn't the huge problem we did then, and, of course, Mexicans coming in weren't bent on taking over our land back then. it's liberals here who've made that a possibility by offering sanctuary and sympathizing more with them than our own country, of course.

Boehner is a disaster except that he's better spoken than say, someone like Obama. I've met him and spoken to him for at least 30 min and he's a drunk and a jerk. I admire McConnell very much.

Craig and Heather said...

Why has illegal immigration been much higher under Saint Ronnie Raygun and Chucklenuts than it was under Clinton? Just curious.

Here it really took off under Chucklenuts but it may have been a delayed reaction to NAFTA. Adult replies requested


Our two party system has been "we the people" and "the ruling elite" for as long as I've been old enough to care. We fight back and forth about which official political party is best while they do whatever they want.

That's not to say that all of our leaders have risen with the express purpose of destroying the US. I expect many have had good intentions and, as far as human leadership goes, they have done what they thought was best.

But "good intentions" that are being directed by nothing but human "wisdom" are destructive.

The Bible is clear that people were not designed to function apart from a reliance upon God's care and guidance. We're proving Scripture to be correct and He's allowing it.


Sorry, no expletives.

Hope my answer's "adult" enough to pass muster ;)

Heather

FairWitness said...

I didn't know Boehner was an alcoholic, Z. Good grief! We don't need a drunk leading the House if we retake it. Everyone is touting him as the next Speaker. Alcoholics are awful leaders, alcohol permeates every facet of their lives and adversely impacts all the people unlucky enough to surround them. My dad used to say that alcohol wins all battles. My stepmother is an alcoholic. My dad was right.

Z said...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39219.html

I just know he likes his drink and can get childish when he is drinking...he shared some things with me and Mr. Z we thought inappropriate. Not sure he's a full-out alcoholic, but might be.
He speaks well when he's sober and hasn't done a terrible job when you compare him to some others, but he's a souse.

I enjoy wine and cocktails but this guy was overboard...it had been a long day for him, talking to a group I belong to at a luncheon and then joining them at a watering hole in West Hollywood and it was about 8pm by the time we ended up with him, but he should watch himself when he's with constituents.

Dan said...

This post reminded me of a post I did a while back. This is why this guy can go in there and make fun of his "constituency".

Side note: it should make no difference if every person present was a member of the minutemen group. A Republican could never get away with this kind of behavior in a hostile environment, nor should he. But then again, as the post I linked points out, Republicans are in office for a whole different set of reasons than Democrats.

Craig and Heather said...

General observation:
When an arrogant person runs out of substantive commentary about his perspective, it's only a matter of time before the condescending attitude starts oozing out.

h

Mustang said...

“The Minutemen leaders were discredited as a bunch of embezzlers quite a while ago and I doubt a concrete conversation with the group is possible.”

You see … this is a good example of Stalinist/Chomsky/Alinsky strategies: discredit people in such a way that nothing they say or do is worthwhile. What this means is that the speaker or writer is incapable of putting forth a credible argument and therefore must rely upon the tactics of intimidation. Even if it is true that some one was guilty of embezzlement, fairness and logic precludes us from assuming everyone was equally guilty. If were therefore extend Daffy’s argument to its conclusion, then it becomes impossible to have an intelligent conversation with him.

Z said...

There are days when I'm SO SURE of why I blog...this is one of them.
What great people you are and I can't wait to get back after lunch and open your links and respond to your comments.
God bless you all xx

Craig and Heather said...

You see … this is a good example of Stalinist/Chomsky/Alinsky strategies: discredit people in such a way that nothing they say or do is worthwhile. What this means is that the speaker or writer is incapable of putting forth a credible argument and therefore must rely upon the tactics of intimidation. Even if it is true that some one was guilty of embezzlement, fairness and logic precludes us from assuming everyone was equally guilty. If were therefore extend Daffy’s argument to its conclusion, then it becomes impossible to have an intelligent conversation with him.

Are you saying we ought to use Stalinist/Chomsky/Alinsky strategies to discredit Ducky and assume that nothing he says is worthwhile?

Just asking.

Ducky's here said...

I'm sorry, mustang, was I in error to point out that The Minutemen was a fraudulent organization? In fact they were convicted on evidence that passed legal muster.

Do you prefer using a video tape that wouldn't pass forensic analysis as the far right brownshirts did with ACORN?

Stop playing the hypocrite.

Ducky's here said...

The oligarchy bugs you too, eh Heather. Yeah, I get that drift.

So why does most of the fa right support a structure tat is so at odds with the gospels?

Ducky's here said...

... note. I wasn't referring to you personally Heather.

You seem to accept that we have a more complex problem.

Back to the robber barons doesn't cut it for you either.

beamish said...

Keep you hypocrisy to yourself, Ducky.

If illegal immigrants are destroying the welfare system, they're not getting here fast enough.

Keep your Minutemen national socialists on the left where they belong.

Craig and Heather said...

... note. I wasn't referring to you personally Heather.

No worries.


So why does most of the fa right support a structure tat is so at odds with the gospels?

I don't know most of the far right.
Do you? :D

Seriously, though. If you're referencing socialism vs capitalism, you need to recognize the point that when man is not properly subjected to God's direction, his tendency is to do things that are contrary to God's nature. (ie, anti-Gospel)

On "the Left", you can see the potential for many people to be hurt and abused by a capitalistic system that is being misused by greedy people. Greed and corruption is counter to Jesus' teaching.

"The right" can see the potential for a large proportion of individuals to suffer under a socialistic regime because it wields so much power over personal welfare. Human civil govt as provider-god substitute is also contrary to Jesus' teaching.

Both "sides" are right.

Both sides are wrong if the answer is simply "change the book jacket". The base problem is still in human nature and the trick is to determine which governmental and economic system actually offers less overall potential for abuse.

Even our constitutional setup of "checks and balances" is not foolproof simply because people are involved in managing it.

Think about it.

H

LASunsett said...

//Are you saying we ought to use Stalinist/Chomsky/Alinsky strategies to discredit Ducky and assume that nothing he says is worthwhile?

Just asking.
//

Not sure where you glean that from Mustang's statement. But regardless, there's a history here that you may not be fully aware of.

Ducky does use a lot of Red Herrings and other forms of fallacious reasonings to make his arguments. Is it not fair to point out the lack of logic and the skewed methodology he sometimes uses, to make his weak claims? When he tries to distract from the real issue at hand, should we ignore him?

Just asking.

Craig and Heather said...

I tend to favor a "free market" system in which governmental regulation of trade within a state is minimal, and appropriately monitored between states and internationally.

We have laws that are meant to protect people from fraud and other forms of abuse, so those could apply in disputable cases.

As our "capitalistic" system stands today, home and small businesses often cannot compete with the larger corporations that are gobbling up the "little" guys, creating a sort of monopoly on goods and services.

I've been watching the back labels of various consumer goods and it is interesting to note that "Made and distributed by small business x" has largely been replaced by "Distributed by large corporation X"

It's not totally wrong to recognize we have had some serious problems arise within our current economic system.

We don't need a bigger govt playing societal conscience, though. We need individual citizens to have their personal consciences awakened so we will be prompted to treat others as we would like to be treated.

I think it's fair to say that everyone here would appreciate a governmental system without corruption. Not sure that is realistic, so we need to try to minimize the damage wherever we can.





H

Craig and Heather said...

Sunsett:

Ducky does use a lot of Red Herrings and other forms of fallacious reasonings to make his arguments. Is it not fair to point out the lack of logic and the skewed methodology he sometimes uses, to make his weak claims? When he tries to distract from the real issue at hand, should we ignore him?

I know there is history here of which I'm not aware. Please understand I'm not unaware of the tension that exists.

I was not entirely serious with my statement and hope I did not offend Mustang.

Yet I do wonder whether it is appropriate to be dismissive of an individual's perspective just because I can see (a lot of) illogical connections being made.

I've noticed Ducky sometimes lobs irrelevant hand grenades. I can't argue with that.

Why do you do that, Ducky?

Heather

Craig and Heather said...

Mustang,

As there is potential for my comment to you to be considered offensive, I do want to apologize for not making it clear I was teasing.


Heather

Karen Howes said...

I saw this on Glenn Beck yesterday, and I wanting to effing PUNCH this guy. What an arrogant, sarcastic piece of crap!

He's only been in office since 1973. Time for his to get a boot in the butt-- literally, I hope.

Anonymous said...

What a shock that Quack-Quack is in Mass.! I never woulda guessed it.

Silvrlady

Ducky's here said...

Only a couple miles from Cambridge, slvrlady. Imagine that.

And I buy my food at Whole Foods and I'm just living the commie lifestyle large.

Craig and Heather said...

What a shock that Quack-Quack is in Mass.! I never woulda guessed it.

LOL!
I wondered why wouldn't he be in Mass.? He said he's Catholic.

Then I realized you were referring to his state of residence.

H

Ducky's here said...

I'm still trying to figure out why mustang conflates Stalin with Chomsky. Chomsky is an anarchist and the two have nothing in common.
I also love the way these right wingers heard a few rabies radio jocks mention Alinsky and suddenly they're experts. Something like the way they became long time Islamic scholars two days after 9-11.

Stalin? It always reminds me of that great scene in the theater in Masculin/Feminin when Jean Pierre Leaud gets up and yells at a heckler "Shut up you Trotskyite". Of course that was all about a population that was in love with a philosophy that it only had a shallow pop grounding for understanding.
We've moved along and LA and mustang are still listening to Glenn Beck. Watch some Goard, hes pretty good at highlighting the divides that make communication so difficult.

Stalin? Are you completely off your trolley?

LASunsett said...

I find it interesting that Ducky likes to demonize Beck (and others he disagrees with). But if he is honest with himself and others, he would recognize that Beck takes his quotes directly from the person(s) he criticizes and does not wrest them out of context.

So when he accurately quotes Obama as saying on the campaign trail that if elected he will end no bid contracts over $25,000, he usually dates the quote before showing that the promise has not been kept.

When he quotes Obama's inner circle of communistas, he provides a source and very often we get to see and hear the statement on tape, in their own words, with our own ears. How is that so dishonest?

Ducky very often cannot refute the content of the material. So when this is the case, he resorts to ad hominem attacks. This is one of the oldest tricks in modern political history and actually is quite tiring to those of us have a deeper understanding of reality.

Does Ducky get it right sometimes? Of course. Without a doubt. To say otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. He gets it right about as often as Beck gets it wrong.

But it is also important to note that stopped clocks are always right twice a day.

Faith said...

Hello Heather,
We've been around on this before and I don't want to repeat the event but I do want to put in my usual response:

On "the Left", you can see the potential for many people to be hurt and abused by a capitalistic system that is being misused by greedy people. Greed and corruption is counter to Jesus' teaching.

"The right" can see the potential for a large proportion of individuals to suffer under a socialistic regime because it wields so much power over personal welfare. Human civil govt as provider-god substitute is also contrary to Jesus' teaching.

Both "sides" are right.


Again I have to say that no, both sides are not right. You are right that any system can be misused by fallen human nature but that is not THE problem with socialism as it is with capitalism.

Socialism, as I kept saying on the other thread, is inherently wrong because it is a system of stealing. There may be benign forms of socialism that are completely voluntary that this doesn't apply to, but as we understand socialism these days it is government-administered socialism and that is institutionalized stealing. At its most benign it is "taxation without representation" but that puts a better face on it than it deserves. In some countries where it seems to work it takes something like 65% of a person's paycheck, and even then they have trouble meeting the demand for services that money is supposed to pay for.

Capitalism can be regulated by law, socialism cannot, it is inherently bad. Regulation by law is the method God gives us for dealing with fallen human nature, and the American founders seem to have had a good grasp of the problem and the solution. Nothing is perfect in this fallen world but regulation by law IS a method of redress when things get out of hand.

But again, socialism cannot be made good by regulation. It's inherently bad because it's stealing.

Craig and Heather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

It's inherently bad because it's stealing.

Well, it's stealing if the taxation is over the top or the system is requiring that those who don't want to be a part are forced to contribute. That's true.


My Aussie SIL dressed me down for dissing socialized (she calls it nationalized) medicine. She explained that they expect to pay higher taxes and are willing to do so in order to get the "free", good-quality services they do.

She also agrees with me that an attempt to implement such a system in the US is likely to be a massive failure.

I know you don't like my view of socialism, but I'd prefer to acknowledge our difference of perspective and just agree to disagree on this.


H

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

No, it's not just stealing if the taxation is over the top, it's stealing because the "taxes" do not pay for government services, which is the whole point of taxes. In the case of socialism they pay for OTHER PEOPLE. Do you see the difference?

Your friend doesn't understand this rightly. Her system is apparently tolerable for her and manages to supply services well enough. Fine. Apprently the Australian system is one of the benign versions I mentioned, but I don't know anything about their system. We could talk for some time comparing the Canadian system to the American though.

It's still stealing, the government stealing from its citizens to help out other citizens. Since it also pays for your own care I guess this basic fact doesn't get noticed.

I can't agree to disagree when the matter is something as clearcut as stealing being stealing. I can only agree not to pursue the topic till the last dog dies.

Craig and Heather said...

Faith,

I know what stealing is.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

H

Z said...

Faith, my Canadian friends and relatives say that their healthcare is mostly just fine, admit their taxes are outrageous, and have trouble admitting that when you get very sick, you're in REAL trouble.
It covers such lovely things asphysical therapy ...neck problems, knees, etc..NO PROBLEM.
But don't have a heart problem or need a CAT SCAN or surgery, etc etc.....
You will wait for a LONG TIME, even if it's a timely test. I'm tired of hearing people rebut this, it's useless, why else would Canadians come here for tests?

Not to say I haven't had friends who did get timely, good care, but it's very hit and miss....still, I suppose it's better than what Obama's bringing us.

The Truth Project, Faith, covered socialism and stealing so beautifully........do you remember that?

What Conservatives have to remind nonConservatives is that we DO want to help, it's our nature to help...when they steal all we've got, there won't be much to help WITH.......

Craig and Heather said...

Z,

I don't want my comment here to be considered pro-socialized medicine, but the Canadian and Australian systems are apparently quite different as far as the quality of care people receive.

And, I would also like to clarify that when I said both sides are "right", I meant that both perspectives can identify potential risks and failures in the opposing view.

I was recognizing that when Ducky talks corporate greed etc. that the problems do indeed exist. I was not saying that shifting over to socialism would fix anything.

Regardless of where the failure occurs, the common denominator for corruption within either governmental/economic system is that of human nature.

H

LASunsett said...

Faith,

You make a very good argument. Socialism steals on so many levels. Not only does it steal from the rank and file taxpayer to subsidize lazy behavior, it is getting ready to steal once again down in Venezuela. Bro. Hugo is getting ready to nationalize 11 oil rigs that were built by the U.S.

Because Obama is of like mind when it comes to nationalization or private property , it will come with little (if any) protest. The big evil capitalist U.S. can afford to be ripped off, because they are already so filthy rich they do not deserve to keep what is theirs.

Heather,

Form what you say, I think your Aussie SIL does not realize that nothing comes for free. If they are taxed for it, they are paying for it. Government is good at creating the illusion that something comes for nothing.

Just like the income tax, for example. When I ask you you what you made on your paycheck last week, do you think net or gross? Government has us used to thinking that what we earn is theirs before we even see it. So most people will tell me the net.

BTW, the Mrs. and I have some very good friends in Australia. Not all of them like the idea of paying more taxes so they can have healthcare. But like anywhere else in the world that has raised more than a couple of generations on nanny state programs, they are too tired to fight it. It's lousy and in many cases inadequate. but what can you do when the government has created a state of dependency.

Just so we are clear, I am not talking about help for the truly indigent here. I am in healthcare, so I empathize with people who get sick and have no insurance because they are not able to afford it. But again, the government has created the illusion that people are dying everyday because of this. They have access to medicaid if they will only get off of their lazy asses and fill out the paperwork.

Z said...

Heather, I couldn't agree with you more ...as for the Aussie healthcare, I haven't a CLUE and would rely on the information you provided...sounds better than some of Canada's care. Look, if they're happy with it, that's what matters!

I never ever thought you were suggesting "let's try Socialism!" Absolutely not. I don't like to say this much here, but Ducky is right in some ways on some things, even the economy(ssshh!) :-)
The problem is, if I give in an inch, he takes a mile and so I usually toe the line with my more conservative way of looking at things.

I did write that column about Capitalism Without Christianity and I stick to what I said........(in my thinking anyway), that Capitalists have to think of those who don't have.........or it doesn't work. Not GIVE THEM all they need but HELP THEM to succeed on their own and, those who REALLY can't go it alone for health reasons, etc, must be GIVEN TO somehow. I know that's not popular here on the Conservative blogosphere, but I stick to it....and it's been confirmed in finer writing than mine among some our blogger friends in various ways.

Z said...

LA SUNSETT>..thanks for that...excellent thinking.
It seems that H's SIL doesn't mind paying the higher taxes for her healthcare, this is something I'd object to GREATLY here, because I feel that our level of healthcare will be even less than other countries would accept were we to actually embrace this nightmare plan that passed (Please, let wiser heads prevail and shelve the whole darn thing)

Faith said...

Yes, Z, I did indeed notice that the Truth Project called socialism stealing. It's given a boost to my usual argument along these lines.

I'm also sure that our system needs improvement, since capitalism does too easily leave the poor out of the benefits. If Christians stopped building big churches and Christian entertainment theme parks and used the money to help the poor we could probably handle it, and the Christians would be laying up treasures in heaven. It's our job, really, not the government's. And we may get socialism because we're not doing enough of what we should be doing.

Craig and Heather said...

Faith and Sunsett,

I truly am sorry my view seems to bother you.

I understand what stealing is, honest!

In the US, under our Constitutional rule, a socialized medical system may well be considered stealing. Is this the standard you are using to measure Canadian and Australian systems?

Is there a specific Biblical instructive against a socialistic (according to Faith's Wikipedia definition) society? I think it is interesting that the Mosaic Law required that landowners make provision for the poor.

And there's
Deuteronomy 15:11
For the poor shall never cease out of the land. Therefore, I command you saying, You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor, and to your needy, in your land.


Now, while I understand this is a foreshadowing reference to the future Messiah's generosity and care of the "poor in spirit" whom He references in Matthew 5, the Israelite nation was still required by Law to communally provide for it's poor and (in Leviticus 19:10) even "the stranger".

LASunsett said...

Heather,

Your views do not bother me in the least. You are entitled to them. But I have many years in the games of healthcare and politics... and just wanted to share part of how I arrived at my conclusions.

Craig and Heather said...

I don't like to say this much here, but Ducky is right in some ways on some things, even the economy(ssshh!) :-)

LOL!


I mean "snicker quietly to self"


The problem is, if I give in an inch, he takes a mile and so I usually toe the line with my more conservative way of looking at things.

Well, you've been acquainted with him longer than I have. He hasn't yet run over me for agreeing with him, so I guess I'm more comfortable with letting him be right about some things.

H

Craig and Heather said...

Sunsett,

But I have many years in the games of healthcare and politics... and just wanted to share part of how I arrived at my conclusions.

I'm good with that. I don't claim to be omniscient and tend to enjoy learning from others.

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

Hi Heather, I don't know if your view "bothers" me particularly, but since I disagree with it I try to persuade you out of it, that's all.

In the US, under our Constitutional rule, a socialized medical system may well be considered stealing. Is this the standard you are using to measure Canadian and Australian systems?

No, stealing is taking from some to give to others who haven't earned it. It's Biblical at least.

Is there a specific Biblical instructive against a socialistic (according to Faith's Wikipedia definition) society?

There is specific Biblical instruction against stealing. That is what I would refer to.

The poor are not exonerated from the sin of stealing in the Bible (although I'm not really blaming the poor in the case of today's forms of socialism, since it's government doing the stealing), and the Bible is clear they are not to be given any partiality in any transaction. I'm not good at locating verses when I want them, but I believe there are a few in Proverbs to that effect.

The only remotely socialistic arrangement in the Bible was the Jerusalem church's temporary arrangement during the period when extra thousands of Jews were in town for Pentecost and stayed because they became converted. The church all rallied together to take care of each other, and it was 100% voluntary.

I think it is interesting that the Mosaic Law required that landowners make provision for the poor.

Yes, the Bible is very clear that the rich -- really, all who can -- must make provision for the poor. And Christians are also to give to the poor.

There's nothing socialistic about that, is there? Are you trying to say there is?

Well, perhaps you think so, I just realized, because in our last discussion you did seem to confuse voluntary giving with socialism. I'm not saying these things to be critical, I really think these are important issues that it would be nice to get clear and I think some things you say are very unclear. Giving is the opposite of HAVING TO pay into a system run by the government. God commands it, yes, but He doesn't coerce, while government will send the IRS agents after you if you refuse.

And there's
Deuteronomy 15:11
For the poor shall never cease out of the land. Therefore, I command you saying, You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor, and to your needy, in your land.


Again a command to give, not government taking your money to do the "giving" for you.

Now, while I understand this is a foreshadowing reference to the future Messiah's generosity and care of the "poor in spirit" whom He references in Matthew 5, the Israelite nation was still required by Law to communally provide for it's poor and (in Leviticus 19:10) even "the stranger".

Communally? It's a command to the community as individuals, the way I read it, unless it is supposed to be understood as part of the tithe that the priests had charge of? The first command is to landowners, not the whole community, the second to anyone who has means. No government or priestly agent is going to come around and TAKE the money God commands you give, it's intended to be given.

Do you really think this has anything to do with socialism?

Craig and Heather said...

Faith,

We're not connecting. I'm talking about principles and motives and the way people try to imitate God's goodness with government-as-god.

You are insisting I adopt the attitude that socialism is evil.

Let's take it to this level:

Has anyone here benefited from the public education system in our country? Either as a student or parent of one?

I'm not sure how your local district handles things, but we get "levied" nearly every election season. Most people don't want their property taxes to increase, but there's enough manipulation and pestering that eventually the levies pass.

I home-school my kids. We pay for it out of our own pocket. Yet I'm paying for the socialized education of all of the children whose parents send them away for the state to train. Is the govt stealing from me in order to give those kids an education?

If so, then it would be prudent of all those on the right side of the aisle who believe socialism is inherently evil to remove their children from the public school system and teach them at home.

Until I see those who are adamantly opposed to socialism show a willingness to take this sort of radical action to reverse what we've already got, I will have a hard time taking seriously the argument they make that "socialism is inherently evil"

I respectfully decline to debate this issue.

Heather

Z said...

Faith, I can't remember where verses are or exactly what they say most of the time, either, but I know there's some verse or some parable that suggests "No work, no eat"..

Here's how I see this thing: America was founded on hard working people from other countries who wanted freedom, independence, and to be as successful as they wanted to be......these people loved this country's opportunities and contributed to it. Most of these people were Christians whose churches and families and friends helped those in need. (so did other faiths)

Fast Forward:
That's not happening anymore.....somehow, we've allowed the left to convince our children that America's not worth fighting for, that getting freebies is
the answer, God is an old fashioned myth/crutch..and ....you all know the rest of THAT tune.

SO, churches are shrinking, hard workers are dwindling in number...
and there are still people who can't work.....due to handicaps, etc...they need as much help as they needed before my 'fast forward'...they can ONLY go to the gov't now. That's a form of socialism; Take from the hard worker to pay for the needy.

How do we stop that? Get back to strong families, strong churches..who gave willingly and lovingly, following the Word of God.

Can we get back to that? I think not...
so, "welcome, socialism.." The left won.....who knew that would happen HERE?

Faith said...

I'm opposed to public education myself, because it is soaked in the secular mindset and Christians should be free to educate their children as they see fit. A A Hodge in the 19th century -- I think he was a theologian but I'm not taking the time to look him up, he was a Christian preacher or teacher of some sort though -- warned against public education for this reason. So of course I think we need a system by which those who choose other means of education don't have to pay for public education too. But I don't think of public education as socialism because the tax money goes to pay for a service, not simply into the pockets of people who have not earned it.

Is stealing evil? That's the ground on which I've claimed socialism is evil. How one acts or doesn't act on any given social fact does not alter this fact. Stealing is stealing.

Faith said...

You may be right that it's a done deal, Z, and socialism won, the left won. But I can't help thinking the whole system is going to implode before it all gets settled down. Because it can't settle down really, because it's economically unworkable. So then what? Wait and see I guess. Pray a lot.

Z said...

Faith, seems like praying is all we've got these days...thanks be to God that that "ALL we've got" is such a big, wonderful "ALL!"

Craig and Heather said...

But I don't think of public education as socialism because the tax money goes to pay for a service, not simply into the pockets of people who have not earned it.

Is stealing evil? That's the ground on which I've claimed socialism is evil. How one acts or doesn't act on any given social fact does not alter this fact. Stealing is stealing.


I believe this statement highlights our disconnect.

I'll give this one last shot and try to show you why we come down on different sides of the socialism issue.

Those who pay into a socialized medical system tend to look at what they get very much the same as you do the public education system. They pay in, they receive services. Some services are good, others not so good.

In their mind, it's not stealing just as you do not believe state-run public education is stealing.



I will point out that the children who take part in govt funded education do not pay into the system, and yet they benefit from the offered services. There are also parents (renters and those who don't have much of a place to tax) who benefit from the system without having to foot much, if any, of the bill. That is no different than the way socialized health care is meant to operate.

The socialized medicine group would say that someone who views socialized medicine as evil thievery while excusing public education as not...they would say that is holding to a double standard. And, I believe they would be correct.



Regardless of what you want to call it, public education is a form of socialism, no less than nationalized health care.


We could look at our highway system in a similar manner. Those who pay taxes support the building and maintenance of our roads. Everyone gets to use it, including non-citizens who didn't pay a cent toward the upkeep.

City-maintained water treatment program? The street person who uses a public drinking fountain didn't contribute to the purification of that water or the upkeep of the park in which he finds it.


Ideally, a socialist system involves everyone contributing something to a pool of resources so that all citizens (regardless of how wealthy) may benefit as equally as possible. The dictionary definition does not specify whether the giving is done willingly, so that could be left to individual interpretation.

In reality, what happens is that not every citizen does contribute and so, some end up "stealing" from the system.

Throw in the fact that federal government-directed socialism is similar to a monopoly, (as far goes the concentration of control) and that govt officials in the highest echelons are often power hungry and corrupt and it's easy to see why a highly socialized system can become such a disastrous, oppressive mess.

Craig and Heather said...

(cont)

Z brought up the biblical directive that he who does not work, should not eat.
Theoretically, a socialist system involves everyone contributing.
This assumes that everyone is working in some capacity.

In reality, in addition to the truly needy, many people are lazy and often dishonest and many will milk the system. Also, when the govt starts bribing or pushing people around, much of the incentive to excel in one's work evaporates. Christians are instructed to work as unto the Lord in every situation. But not all citizens are Christians and even those of us who are often expect temporal reward for a job well-done. Overall productivity subsequently declines.

In our country, underachievement is encouraged because the purpose of the ruling elite appears to be to create a uniformly helpless population that looks to government as god-provider.

Something that, under perfect, Christ-focused conditions, might actually be considered "good" (community sharing of wealth and caring for the poor among us) is being used instead to build a human-greatness worshiping tower of Babel.

I'm not "pro-socialism" and do not advocate for a completely socialist government. Yet I have had to look critically at what the stated objective of socialism (as a concept) actually is and be honest with myself about what the principles look like in practice in our society.

If socialism is inherently evil, then all forms of socialized provision need to be considered evil and we can't just give one or two things a "pass" because we happen to make use of them or don't see potential harm in a particular manifestation.

Stealing is a sin. So is lying. And I firmly believe I would be lying to say "socialism is inherently evil" while being unwilling to condemn various forms of established socialized community service.

At the moment, I cannot think of a way to make my perspective any more clear, so I'm done running in circles over this topic.

With respect,

Heather

Craig and Heather said...

z
Faith, I can't remember where verses are or exactly what they say most of the time, either, but I know there's some verse or some parable that suggests "No work, no eat"..

2 Thessalonians 3:10

And, in all fairness, the context is not one of "socialism" but of pulling one's own weight in a society.

2Th 3:11-15
For we hear that there are some who walk disorderly among you, not working at all, but being busybodies.
Now we command and exhort those who are such, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that they work with quietness and eat their own bread.
But you, brothers, do not be weary in well doing.
And if anyone does not obey our word by this letter, mark that one and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.


Working with quietness and eating one's own bread sounds nothing like govt. mandated socialism. But neither is there anything there which specifically prohibits believers from working together in an organized manner to ensure that those who are less privileged will have what they need.

Also, Paul is addressing a group which is unified by the Spirit rather than a larger audience which is intermingled with non-believers.

PS,

Did you notice the reference to "Family"? ;)

Faith said...

The difference that I see is that education is considered to benefit the nation as a whole. As do roads and other public utilities. Differential use is irrelevant when it comes to infrastructure. These are not PERSONAL services, they are supportive of the entire nation and they serve everyone by facilitating the GENERAL welfare. That's what government is supposed to do and that's what taxes are for.

I object to the secular mindset of public education so I want a different solution to education but that doesn't make public education socialism.

Now I can see some argument in favor of government-run health care along these lines too and you might want to make that argument. But the argument I want to make here is that health care is a PERSONAL service, for the direct benefit of individual citizens. Like welfare. It's not like infrastructure which is for the general good and not aimed at individuals. People don't wilfully overuse the roads or the public water the way they may wilfully overuse welfare or health care, and in principle public education also serves all students equally.

And in my definition of socialism as stealing I never determine its meaning by whether people FEEL they are stealing or not, and I never mean that "some" may steal and others not; I mean that GOVERNMENT is stealing from some to benefit others. I believe this is an objective definition.

You are free to continue or not, Heather. I haven't set any restrictions on this conversation.

Craig and Heather said...

Faith,

I've tried repeatedly to explain my perspective and, even in simplified form, you apparently don't see that I recognize that individuals who make use of the public education system benefit personally, just as those who partake of nationalized health care or road systems or municipal water systems. Contrary to your assertion, personal, willful abuses can occur in each identified realm.



I cannot alter your chosen opinion of my view and I do not wish to continue this discussion here or on another thread.

Thank you,

Heather

Faith said...

Yes, Heather, you have explained and I don't agree with your point of view. I continue to believe you are confusing some things. I've given my answers to you over and over just as you have given yours and I feel just as you do about me that you do not understand what I've been saying. Clearly neither of us is going to succeed at changing the other's mind. I think you are wrong; you think I am wrong.

Again, you are under no obligation to have a discussion with me at all, but I may want to give my opinion in answer to you at some time in the future nevertheless, if you state your position on this again, whether you answer or not. OK?

Have a good day.

Z said...

H, I disagree with some of your thoughts and, too, am thinking we're running around in circles.
Also, my verses, if I remember correctly, were a parable, and I will try to find that if nothing else but for my own confirmation and edification.

I appreciate all the thoughts by H and Faith...very interesting exchange and always something to think about, that's for sure.

Craig and Heather said...

ave a discussion with me at all, but I may want to give my opinion in answer to you at some time in the future nevertheless, if you state your position on this again, whether you answer or not. OK?

Fair enough.

I do read and consider most of the comments here, so you wont' go completely ignored.

Just wanted to be clear that if I don't respond, it is simply because I have nothing more to say.

I hope you also have a good day.

:)


Z,

I'd be interested in what else you find concerning working and eating. It may turn up in a parable or proverb. Possibly even the OT Law.

It wouldn't be at all surprising to find two or three other references as all of Scripture stands as a single unit.

H