Obama: "We're responsible for each other". Really? Since when?

[The T]

Obama: "We're responsible for each other"

Obama confuses me. In one breath he's referring to Republicans as "the enemy" and saying they can come along but have to sit in the back, can't have the keys to the car, etc... and then in the next breath we have to be responsible for one another and look out for each other.

Just depends on whom he is talking to that day, and what the teleprompter is loaded up with.

 

[Big Fitz]

In the same post we read these words..........



And then these.........





.

Sometimes you have to slap the person to get their attention. But then again, your dear and fluffy version of God wouldn't have the teeth to chew jello.

There is no "version" of God. There is only God. And anyone who honestly believes that He is opposed to using government resources to help the poor and needy is sadly mistaken. I would love for you to take the following sentence to your Pastor (or whatever you call your spiritual guide) and get his opinion...

"God is opposed to nations helping their poor and needy, particularly the sick and disabled whom cannot care for themselves".

Now if you can be honest about his response I would really, really be interested in hearing it.

Bear in mind that there is much about government spending that I oppose. But helping those who cannot is certainly not part of that. You have a point on those able bodied people who "milk the system" but there are giudelines that must be met to qualify. And if they are collecting them illegally then they should be arrested. And if you have a problem with the guidelines then you should talk to your political representative.

But to paint a picture that you are "forced" to give your money to others who refuse to help themselves is just blatantly wrong. And to try and imply that God is on your side in this is just ridiculous.

.

Try reading some C.S. Lewis someday, Watchman Nee or Joyce Meyers. Like a sick patient, you need a second opinion. I'm tossing you some meat here, and you're still looking for the milk.

But to paint a picture that you are "forced" to give your money to others who refuse to help themselves is just blatantly wrong. And to try and imply that God is on your side in this is just ridiculous.

Please point out where I said/imply "God is on our side." I am stating flatly "God is NOT on your side so quit claiming it."

 

[DaGoose]

Sometimes you have to slap the person to get their attention. But then again, your dear and fluffy version of God wouldn't have the teeth to chew jello.

There is no "version" of God. There is only God. And anyone who honestly believes that He is opposed to using government resources to help the poor and needy is sadly mistaken. I would love for you to take the following sentence to your Pastor (or whatever you call your spiritual guide) and get his opinion...

"God is opposed to nations helping their poor and needy, particularly the sick and disabled whom cannot care for themselves".

Now if you can be honest about his response I would really, really be interested in hearing it.

Bear in mind that there is much about government spending that I oppose. But helping those who cannot is certainly not part of that. You have a point on those able bodied people who "milk the system" but there are giudelines that must be met to qualify. And if they are collecting them illegally then they should be arrested. And if you have a problem with the guidelines then you should talk to your political representative.

But to paint a picture that you are "forced" to give your money to others who refuse to help themselves is just blatantly wrong. And to try and imply that God is on your side in this is just ridiculous.

.

Try reading some C.S. Lewis someday, Watchman Nee or Joyce Meyers. Like a sick patient, you need a second opinion. I'm tossing you some meat here, and you're still looking for the milk.

But to paint a picture that you are "forced" to give your money to others who refuse to help themselves is just blatantly wrong. And to try and imply that God is on your side in this is just ridiculous.

Please point out where I said/imply "God is on our side." I am stating flatly "God is NOT on your side so quit claiming it."

Do me a favor and don't "toss" me anything. And I don't blame you for not asking your Pastor (assuming you even go to Church which is increasingly doubtful). I think you already know what the answer would be.

And when it comes to using tax money for the poor and needy God either A) Approves, or B) Disapproves. And if you say He disapproves then you are, in fact, saying that God sides with you, right?

But I'll let you off the hook now. This argument has run its course. But you should be careful about stating that God would not approve of a nation not taking care of its poor and needy, as well as complaining that the money God allows you to make being used for that purpose. You may have to answer for it some day.

.

 

[Big Fitz]

Do me a favor and don't "toss" me anything.

Sorry. I can't help trying to educate those who are overwhelmed. I'll leave you to wallow proudly in your ignorance.

And I don't blame you for not asking your Pastor (assuming you even go to Church which is increasingly doubtful). I think you already know what the answer would be.

Oh but of course. You're completely in touch with the teachings of all churches, pastors and scripture the world over. You must tell me what his opinion must be! how could I ever not fall in line to your perfect teaching, rabbi? Thank you for removing the scales from my eyes.

And when it comes to using tax money for the poor and needy God either A) Approves, or B) Disapproves. And if you say He disapproves then you are, in fact, saying that God sides with you, right?

No. that is YOUR assumption, nobody else's. I know that there is no scriptural basis for your assumption that God is demanding government take care of the poor and disabled with taxes and you've made no effort to prove it does exist. Should be easy if it actually does exist. God doesn't work on collective salvation, but individually. I'm sure you can also find where Jesus took from others against their will to help someone else. You've yet to make any attempt at showing this as well. The loaves and fishes were given willingly of what people were willing to part with, and the miracle was in the way he multiplied them without taking more. So don't bother trying that one.

But I'll let you off the hook now.

That was a hook? Ummm okay, if you insist. :shrug:

This argument has run its course.

And you've lost every phase and are still losing.

But you should be careful about stating that God would not approve of a nation not taking care of its poor and needy

Again, find the scripture where God says it's government's responsibility and not yours as an individual.

as well as complaining that the money God allows you to make being used for that purpose.

If I so chose to obey God's conviction on my heart and give from my own free will fine. But when someone else's heart is convicted and then demands I share the burden for them, I have big issues. Find where that principle is in scripture where others must share the burden of paying for your conviction of the heart.

You may have to answer for it some day.

Oh sweet and innocent child... we ALL have to answer for our sins. You, me, everyone. We all sin, we all fall short. We may be forgiven if we accept Christ into our hearts, but God will not force salvation on us. Wow... strange... what a strange parallel! He won't force us to be saved, nor will he force us to give to others! It must come willingly from the conviction of our own conscience as we see fit! How odd that's the case! :::Jack Benny Pose:::

So now, Rev. Bakker... if you'd please step down off the pulpit, and go do some research, it's time you let some those with better understanding of scripture get up and speak.

 

[candycorn]

That was the quote that stood out the most. That somehow I am responsible for John Doe or anyone else for me. Yet, I'm then told I cannot be judgemental about another person's lifestyle. Well, if I'M gonna be held responsible for that person, then I better damn well be allowed to make judgement on them. For example...........

- Shaquita the welfare queen should not be able to have more kids. She won't work. Blows money on the lottery. I'm responsible for her. So...no more kids. Drug test her. And if she is driving any car valued at over $3,000, we take it, sell it, and give her 3K to buy a used car. The rest goes into the general fund.

- Bubba the redneck trailor trash should not be able to keep getting drunk every day. He's lost his job for drunkenness. And all he wants to do is watch NASCAR and shoot guns all day. He can afford ammo because I subsidize his food, housing and healthcare.

- Pedro must go back. I'm not responsible for 6 billion people, only the 300 million US citizens. Sorry Mexicans, board the bus and go home. I can only be responsible for so many people, ya know?

- FAT PEOPLE. This is the one that hits me the hardest. If I am indeed responsible for everyone else, then my mild intolerance for fat asses is now full blown hate. If you are fucking fat, I'm tired of paying for your bills. Your health bills. Your food bills. You eat more, thus causing prices to be higher. Your car burns more gas due to more weight, thus, pushing gas prices higher. You consume more healthcare, thus, cause them to go up. Mr. Obama, tell ME, the person responsible for all others, how you're gonna stop obesity. Michelle pushing carrots ain't working.



So, Mr. President, now that you've told me I am responsible for everyone else, I am demanding a few changes in the lifestyle of my fellow people that I'm responsible for. The days of tolerance and not passing judgement are over. Gay people, you spread STD's faster than others simply because you don't use protection as often. Stop being gay. Fat people, stop being disgusting fat blobs and just screwing up countless things as a result. Shaquita? No more fucking kids, get a job, line up for a drug test. Bubba? You're done, no more booze.



But wait. HOW can we control all those people's behaviors? Obviously, to share responsibility, we must pass judgement and correct it. But how can we engage in this liberal utopian shared responsibility, while also having the freedom to be Shaquita, Bubba, Pedro, fat, gay, etc, etc, etc????? You can't be held responsible for each other while at the same time enjoying the freedom to succeed or be a fuck up.

Well, we can't. Thats why left wing ideology in full bloom always turns into a regime like Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Russia, and others. Because you need an overwhelming, central force to control the behaviors of the masses in order to fairly hold them all responsible for each other.

Welcome to tyranny folks.

.........................

 

[Avatar4321]

forced wealth transfer payments, stealing the labor of one to give to the parasitic behavior of another is simply immoral


Democrats are truly evil

You want to deny help to the crippled and infirm and you say I'M the evil one.

Oh yeah.....Jesus would agree with YOU on that.

.

NO DUMBASS... We seek to DENY forced Charity.

Can't deny what doesn't exist. Charity, by definition, cannot be forced. Which is why the government fails at ever performing charity.

Charity has to be willing. Or else it's just plain robbery.

 

[Avatar4321]

You want to deny help to the crippled and infirm and you say I'M the evil one.

Oh yeah.....Jesus would agree with YOU on that.

.

No one is denying them a thing. You and your liberal friends can write out as many checks as you like

Ah, but he doesn't want to do that. He wants to steal your money and then have a bueaucrat give that money to the crippled and infirm. That way he can pretend he is doing something for others without actually doing a thing.

This is nothing like what Christ taught. He'd know that if he actually studied the life of Christ.

God wants a willing heart. That can't be forced. No government can produce that.

 

[Avatar4321]

Life isn't fair and you cannot make it fair.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Thank God that life isn't fair. If it was, we'd all be in hell.

 

[Avatar4321]

YouTube - A Christmas Carol -- Ignorance & Want

.

It's interesting that you bring up "A Christmas Carol", inasmuch as it was SCROOGE'S attitude that he didn't need to provide anything in the way of PERSONAL charitable aid because there were workhouses and other GOVERNMENT programs to handle the poor. What you referenced was the spirit's response to Scrooge's championing of collective "charity" to replace personal charity.

Way to make my argument for me, fucknut.

It is interesting isn't it?

Just goes to show that he has no clue what Christ taught or what A Christmas Carol was about.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah, but he doesn't want to do that. He wants to steal your money and then have a bueaucrat give that money to the crippled and infirm. That way he can pretend he is doing something for others without actually doing a thing.

This is nothing like what Christ taught. He'd know that if he actually studied the life of Christ.

God wants a willing heart. That can't be forced. No government can produce that.

Liberals are always saying how they are willing to pay higher taxes to reduce the deficit or help the poor. What they really mean is that they are willing to make someone else pay higher taxes. Specifically, they think they can force the rich to pay for all their schemes to bring on the new Utopia. When asked to contribute some of their own swag, they all beg off.

 

[bripat9643]

It's interesting that you bring up "A Christmas Carol", inasmuch as it was SCROOGE'S attitude that he didn't need to provide anything in the way of PERSONAL charitable aid because there were workhouses and other GOVERNMENT programs to handle the poor. What you referenced was the spirit's response to Scrooge's championing of collective "charity" to replace personal charity.

Way to make my argument for me, fucknut.

Scrooge sounds just like a liberal, doesn't he?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's interesting that you bring up "A Christmas Carol", inasmuch as it was SCROOGE'S attitude that he didn't need to provide anything in the way of PERSONAL charitable aid because there were workhouses and other GOVERNMENT programs to handle the poor. What you referenced was the spirit's response to Scrooge's championing of collective "charity" to replace personal charity.

Way to make my argument for me, fucknut.

Scrooge sounds just like a liberal, doesn't he?

I wasn't going to state it THAT baldly, but . . .

 

[The T]

You want to deny help to the crippled and infirm and you say I'M the evil one.

Oh yeah.....Jesus would agree with YOU on that.

.

NO DUMBASS... We seek to DENY forced Charity.

Can't deny what doesn't exist. Charity, by definition, cannot be forced. Which is why the government fails at ever performing charity.

Charity has to be willing. Or else it's just plain robbery.

Precisely the point.

 

[bripat9643]

Scrooge sounds just like a liberal, doesn't he?

I wasn't going to state it THAT baldly, but . . .

You can't be coy with liberals. Unless you beat them over the head with your point 100 times, they won't get it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Scrooge sounds just like a liberal, doesn't he?

I wasn't going to state it THAT baldly, but . . .

You can't be coy with liberals. Unless you beat them over the head with your point 100 times, they won't get it.

Have you ever known a liberal to get the point, no matter HOW many times you beat them about the head and shoulders with it?

 

[Big Fitz]

I wasn't going to state it THAT baldly, but . . .

You can't be coy with liberals. Unless you beat them over the head with your point 100 times, they won't get it.

Have you ever known a liberal to get the point, no matter HOW many times you beat them about the head and shoulders with it?

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, but you can beat it repeatedly with a rolled newspaper.

 

[CRStar]

LMAO....I would rather be responsible for each other than be responsible for trillions in deficit and a country headed back to the stone age...thank you Odumbo....why don't you just quit and give it up as a bad job.

 

[sinister59]

You can't be coy with liberals. Unless you beat them over the head with your point 100 times, they won't get it.

Have you ever known a liberal to get the point, no matter HOW many times you beat them about the head and shoulders with it?

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, but you can beat it repeatedly with a rolled newspaper.

really , can you explain why after the Bush administration headed us off a financial clif they want to do it all over again ?
no matter how bade you neo-con butt heads screw things up you aways go right back to the same old same old as soon as you get a chance .

keep up the let them eat cake shit and see history repeat .

no how do you get bad selfish habbits out of conservatives ?

 

[Big Fitz]

Have you ever known a liberal to get the point, no matter HOW many times you beat them about the head and shoulders with it?

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, but you can beat it repeatedly with a rolled newspaper.

really , can you explain why after the Bush administration headed us off a financial clif they want to do it all over again ?
no matter how bade you neo-con butt heads screw things up you aways go right back to the same old same old as soon as you get a chance .

keep up the let them eat cake shit and see history repeat .

no how do you get bad selfish habbits out of conservatives ?

Would this be the Bush administration alone, or did anyone else have a hand in aiming the car over the cliff?

 

[The T]

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, but you can beat it repeatedly with a rolled newspaper.

really , can you explain why after the Bush administration headed us off a financial clif they want to do it all over again ?
no matter how bade you neo-con butt heads screw things up you aways go right back to the same old same old as soon as you get a chance .

keep up the let them eat cake shit and see history repeat .

no how do you get bad selfish habbits out of conservatives ?

Would this be the Bush administration alone, or did anyone else have a hand in aiming the car over the cliff?

The poster seems to forget events from 2006 onward...