The Death of a Presidency

[BDBoop]

Hey, we don't know that! Maybe he checked the 5000 first, to decide who was 'entitled' to be fed.

 

[Freewill]

The health care problem could be fixed if we got serious tort reform. Provided insurance that did not cover routine health care. Allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Costs would drop significantly. Then we wouldn't need obamacare.

Why we even have insurance that covers routine doctor visits is ridiculous anyway. Your auto insurance doesn't cover wiper blades or oil changes.

Frankly, we should also stop mandating that EVERY insurance policy has to cover EVERY damned thing under the sun. Let insurance companies have more room to innovate and tailor policies to what the consumers actually WANT to have. If a healthy 24-year-old wants to get just catastrophic coverage, fine. Make that available. We live in a nation of 300 million people, and I will never for the life of me understand why leftists think they were all stamped out by cookie cutters in a factory somewhere, and therefore all want, need, and like the same things.

OK, everyone is bitchin' that birth control and abortion has to be covered. Yet if I read the material correctly or even understand it a little bit health care plans are tailored to the person. For example if you smoke you are going to pay more. Therefore a 62 year old man has no need for birth control or abortion so even if covered his cost should be less. If that is how the damn thing works. The whole Obamacare centers around what health care always centers around. Not health care but MONEY. Everyone could have the palladium policies if they can afford them. But what if they can only afford the bronze policy? Does that mean they mis-out on some sort of care? Or merely that their deductible is higher?

What I personally think the government should have done is start offering health care in competition with the insurance companies. Kinda like what Medicaid and Medicare is all about. But instead of like today those two programs taking people the insurance companies don't want be in competition for the rest. I think that would naturally drive down prices.

They also should not have gotten in bed with the drug companies but that is another story.

 

[JoeB131]

[]

You do not want to try and use the Bible to defend your position, you aren't smart enough.

Lot smarter than you are...

And frankly, the problem really is, "conservative Christian" is an oxymoron..

 

[JoeB131]

[q

his 'viewpoint' was that Jesus would not be a Republican nor a Christian.....throwing out those passages was just Joe stupidly flailing away....

first....Jesus said 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's'.....so why does Joe think he made some great claim that Jesus wouldn't be a Republican.....other than just being a stupid leftie....?

second....'Christianity' is derived from Christ.....so Joe's second claim is left field stupidity as well...

No, Christianity is what you guys call yourselves, but Jesus, if he ever existed, would have probably looked at you like you were retarded or something.

Second- if you want to cite the "Render unto Ceaser" passage, what Jesus was being challenged about was the Pharisees trying to trick him into speaking out against the temple tax.

Where upon Jesus asked, "Whose picture is on the money."

"Caesar's"

And thus the quote.

If he were alive today and some teabagger tried to get him to denounce taxes- he'd say, "Whose picture is on the money?"

"Washington's!"

"Render onto Washington what is Washington's and to God what is God's".

 

[JoeB131]

Only because Obama decided not to let you know how bad it is by enforcing the employer mandate.

First, my insurance is pretty good. Deductable is only $1500, covers all doctors appointments, preventive care tests like colonoscopies, etc. So, no, even after the cheap ass companies that aren't providing insurance to the wage slaves have to start doing that (and getting pretty generous tax breaks when they do), it really, really will not change what my company does.)

It more than qualifies under all the stringents of ObamaCare.

Now, yeah, if it were a private policy, it would probably cost me about $5000.00 a year. I pay in $500 and my company pays in the rest.

I swear, you're just retarded, because I've explained this to you about six times and you keep standing there saying "Corky no understand!!!"

Does it provide parity for mental health and medical treatments? If not, it isn't complaint, and will be cancelled next year.

No, it won't be. Look, guy, I work for a REAL company, not some fly by night Cleetus care company like you guys all work for.

 

[KingOfCars]

Oh, I wouldn't get your jockey straps hiked up too high, after all GHW Bush survived "Read my lips, no new taxes".

Actually..."Read my lips, no new taxes." is what got Bill Clinton the Presidency. Do you really not know that? Sad reflection on you, NoTea...

Read My Lips coupled with a dose of H. Ross Perot got Clinton elected.

 

[Geaux4it]

First, my insurance is pretty good. Deductable is only $1500, covers all doctors appointments, preventive care tests like colonoscopies, etc. So, no, even after the cheap ass companies that aren't providing insurance to the wage slaves have to start doing that (and getting pretty generous tax breaks when they do), it really, really will not change what my company does.)

It more than qualifies under all the stringents of ObamaCare.

Now, yeah, if it were a private policy, it would probably cost me about $5000.00 a year. I pay in $500 and my company pays in the rest.

I swear, you're just retarded, because I've explained this to you about six times and you keep standing there saying "Corky no understand!!!"

Does it provide parity for mental health and medical treatments? If not, it isn't complaint, and will be cancelled next year.

No, it won't be. Look, guy, I work for a REAL company, not some fly by night Cleetus care company like you guys all work for.

Oh, Im sure indeed

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

I honestly have to ask, have any of you guys actually READ the Gospels?




Luke 16:13 ESV / 28 helpful votes

No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”




1 Timothy 6:17-18 ESV / 22 helpful votes

As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share,




Mark 8:36 ESV / 21 helpful votes

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?


HelpfulNot Helpful

Luke 6:38 ESV / 20 helpful votes

Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”

Yeah, for an Atheist you really love quoting the Bible. To what end? I've read the Gospels many times over. Unlike you I don't choose to nitpick it for what convenience it might bring me. I find it offensive that people like you would do such.

What you're doing is suggesting or implying that the Bible would want a man to be generous to the point where he no longer enjoys it, but is required to.

6 The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

2 Corinthians 9:6-7

God loves a cheerful giver. Emphasis on 'cheerful.' Someone who is being forced to give at the point of a gun is not cheerful and is therefore not giving God any of the glory. Giving isn't mandatory. You shouldn't force generosity out of people.

 

[percysunshine]

[]

You do not want to try and use the Bible to defend your position, you aren't smart enough.

Lot smarter than you are...

And frankly, the problem really is, "conservative Christian" is an oxymoron..

Technically, it is redundant. 2000 years is a long time to hold onto a belief system.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[]

You do not want to try and use the Bible to defend your position, you aren't smart enough.

Lot smarter than you are...

And frankly, the problem really is, "conservative Christian" is an oxymoron..

I am pretty sure I never called myself a conservative Christian at any time in my life.

Want to tell me, again, how smart you are?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yeah, for an Atheist you really love quoting the Bible. To what end?

Mostly to point out your hypocrisy and ignorance.

[
I've read the Gospels many times over.

To paraphrase Jamie Lee Curtis, an ape reads philosophy, he just doesn't understand it.

[
Unlike you I don't choose to nitpick it for what convenience it might bring me. I find it offensive that people like you would do such.

I'm sure you do. So what? The point I was making that went right over your head is that Jesus would never support the constant rationalization for selfishness that is modern conservatism.

What you're doing is suggesting or implying that the Bible would want a man to be generous to the point where he no longer enjoys it, but is required to.

6 The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

2 Corinthians 9:6-7

God loves a cheerful giver. Emphasis on 'cheerful.' Someone who is being forced to give at the point of a gun is not cheerful and is therefore not giving God any of the glory. Giving isn't mandatory. You shouldn't force generosity out of people.

Horseshit, guy....

Frankly, from Jesus own words.

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. -- Luke 16:19-25

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -- Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23-25

Jesus didn't expect his followers to just give when they were cheerful, he expected them to give everything away.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Yeah, for an Atheist you really love quoting the Bible. To what end?

Mostly to point out your hypocrisy and ignorance.

[
I've read the Gospels many times over.

To paraphrase Jamie Lee Curtis, an ape reads philosophy, he just doesn't understand it.




I'm sure you do. So what? The point I was making that went right over your head is that Jesus would never support the constant rationalization for selfishness that is modern conservatism.

What you're doing is suggesting or implying that the Bible would want a man to be generous to the point where he no longer enjoys it, but is required to.

6 The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

2 Corinthians 9:6-7

God loves a cheerful giver. Emphasis on 'cheerful.' Someone who is being forced to give at the point of a gun is not cheerful and is therefore not giving God any of the glory. Giving isn't mandatory. You shouldn't force generosity out of people.

Horseshit, guy....

Frankly, from Jesus own words.

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. -- Luke 16:19-25

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -- Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23-25

Jesus didn't expect his followers to just give when they were cheerful, he expected them to give everything away.

As Einstein once put it: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Frankly you're an Atheist trying to beat Christians over the head with a Bible and a God you claim not to believe in. What's your deal Joe? Getting into heaven isn't contingent on being rich or poor. You reveal your lack of knowledge routinely. If a rich man gives or a poor man gives, they are equal in the sight of God. Get that through your thick head, Joe.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -- Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23-25

Jesus didn't expect his followers to just give when they were cheerful, he expected them to give everything away.

As Einstein once put it: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Frankly you're an Atheist trying to beat Christians over the head with a Bible and a God you claim not to believe in. What's your deal Joe? Getting into heaven isn't contingent on being rich or poor. You reveal your lack of knowledge routinely. If a rich man gives or a poor man gives, they are equal in the sight of God. Get that through your thick head, Joe.

I thought I explained it very simply.

The wealthy have very cleverly manipulated the religious stupids into dismantling the middle class and accepting a kind of plutocracy that would have made medieval kings envious.

The ironic part being although Jesus himself never said jack diddly about abortion or gays, he was VERY explicit in saying that greed and the accumulation of wealth were deal killers in getting into this new eternal theme park he and Dad were building.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Bible -- or anything close -- but this conversation begs a question. First of all, I have no idea whether the Bible is some kind of truth or simple mythology, but since both ends of the spectrum use it as a political tool it doesn't really matter. So:

It looks to me like Jesus made it clear that we should help each other, and that riches are not necessarily a good thing. Can we stipulate to that?

Here's the question, a serious one: When I see these quotes, it seems clear that Jesus is telling us to help each other. Fine. Obviously. But liberals use these examples to justify wealth distribution imposed and implemented by government. Are there examples of Jesus supporting such a practice? Did he say that the government should take from one to give to the other?

Again, serious question.

.

 

[Geaux4it]

[

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -- Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23-25

Jesus didn't expect his followers to just give when they were cheerful, he expected them to give everything away.

As Einstein once put it: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Frankly you're an Atheist trying to beat Christians over the head with a Bible and a God you claim not to believe in. What's your deal Joe? Getting into heaven isn't contingent on being rich or poor. You reveal your lack of knowledge routinely. If a rich man gives or a poor man gives, they are equal in the sight of God. Get that through your thick head, Joe.

I thought I explained it very simply.

The wealthy have very cleverly manipulated the religious stupids into dismantling the middle class and accepting a kind of plutocracy that would have made medieval kings envious.

The ironic part being although Jesus himself never said jack diddly about abortion or gays, he was VERY explicit in saying that greed and the accumulation of wealth were deal killers in getting into this new eternal theme park he and Dad were building.

Man, you have to be a paid Obama shill to continually sound so communist. Please seek Obamacare assistance for daily dosages of Lithium. It has proved effective against the symptoms you display. lol

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Bible -- or anything close -- but this conversation begs a question. First of all, I have no idea whether the Bible is some kind of truth or simple mythology, but since both ends of the spectrum use it as a political tool it doesn't really matter. So:

It looks to me like Jesus made it clear that we should help each other, and that riches are not necessarily a good thing. Can we stipulate to that?

Here's the question, a serious one: When I see these quotes, it seems clear that Jesus is telling us to help each other. Fine. Obviously. But liberals use these examples to justify wealth distribution imposed and implemented by government. Are there examples of Jesus supporting such a practice? Did he say that the government should take from one to give to the other?

Again, serious question.

.

I would argue that Jesus saying "Render unto Ceasar what is Caesar's" when the pharisees were whinging about paying the Temple Tax would be that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso]What have the Romans ever done for us - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JoeB131]

As Einstein once put it: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Frankly you're an Atheist trying to beat Christians over the head with a Bible and a God you claim not to believe in. What's your deal Joe? Getting into heaven isn't contingent on being rich or poor. You reveal your lack of knowledge routinely. If a rich man gives or a poor man gives, they are equal in the sight of God. Get that through your thick head, Joe.

I thought I explained it very simply.

The wealthy have very cleverly manipulated the religious stupids into dismantling the middle class and accepting a kind of plutocracy that would have made medieval kings envious.

The ironic part being although Jesus himself never said jack diddly about abortion or gays, he was VERY explicit in saying that greed and the accumulation of wealth were deal killers in getting into this new eternal theme park he and Dad were building.

Man, you have to be a paid Obama shill to continually sound so communist. Please seek Obamacare assistance for daily dosages of Lithium. It has proved effective against the symptoms you display. lol

-Geaux

Duly noted that you couldn't refute the point made.

Sorry, man, when it comes to the Bible, you are going to find very little support in Jesus words for the kind of greed you guys advocate.

Yet the Right keeps claiming to be right with Jesus.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I would argue that Jesus saying "Render unto Ceasar what is Caesar's" when the pharisees were whinging about paying the Temple Tax would be that.

Not to mention Paul's admonishment to respect and adhere to the dictates of worldly government as long as it does not directly contradict God's law. But as for that quote, yes, Jesus is telling folks you are to pay your taxes. Not a lot of debate on that point.

As for the OP: Every President has second term woes. Most Presidential policies are designed to not really bear fruit for at least a few years so as not to ruin the re-election campaign. Because of that, the second term is always the worse part of the legacy of a President. As bad as Obama's woes have been (and they have been fairly epic), he's still not up to Clinton or Bush's level of cluster buggery yet. Even Reagan had his share of second term disasters and nobody can even tough Nixon and his second term woes.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Jesus didn't expect his followers to just give when they were cheerful, he expected them to give everything away.

Wait, there's debate about this point? Really? No one has read the passage about foxes have holes, etc, but the Son of Man has a rock for his pillow?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The health care problem could be fixed if we got serious tort reform. Provided insurance that did not cover routine health care. Allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Costs would drop significantly. Then we wouldn't need obamacare.

Why we even have insurance that covers routine doctor visits is ridiculous anyway. Your auto insurance doesn't cover wiper blades or oil changes.

Frankly, we should also stop mandating that EVERY insurance policy has to cover EVERY damned thing under the sun. Let insurance companies have more room to innovate and tailor policies to what the consumers actually WANT to have. If a healthy 24-year-old wants to get just catastrophic coverage, fine. Make that available. We live in a nation of 300 million people, and I will never for the life of me understand why leftists think they were all stamped out by cookie cutters in a factory somewhere, and therefore all want, need, and like the same things.

Insurance companies are in the business of giving you the least amount of coverage for the most amount of premium they can wring out of you. They need to be regulated with an iron fist.

In fact, there is really no need for a for profit health insurance industry. All health insurance, whether private or public, should be run on a mandate to break even, and nothing more.

Much in the way credit unions or electric cooperatives run.