Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest 2smart4u

"A little freedom died today".

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
That's what I thought. You won't answer the question. Ok, I'll rephrase. In your opinion what would Jesus do?

You might as well ask your goldfish what Jesus would do. If 2stupid4words knew what Jesus do, he wouldn't act like such a jackass all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Burst Your Bubble
Fair enough. I believe Jesus would agree with the founding fathers ideals of less government and more personal responsibility to make your own way through life.

Really?? So the Gospel of Matthew is irrelevant and we should instead believe the Gospel of 2smart??

Mt. 25:31-46: "... Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'

Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite you in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'

And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'

Then they themselves will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'

Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Really?? So the Gospel of Matthew is irrelevant and we should instead believe the Gospel of 2smart??

Mt. 25:31-46: "... Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'

Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite you in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'

And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'

Then they themselves will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'

Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Bubbles, I didn't realize you were such a bible thumper, good for you. But feeding the hungry is another story for another day. Less federal government intrusions into private lives, taking personal responsibility for your own life is what the Founding Fathers envisioned in the Constitution.

I don't want to pay for Bubba, who would rather drink a six-pack a night and sleep all day than work for a living. Nationalized healthcare should be limited to

those unable to work for physical reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Burst Your Bubble
Bubbles, I didn't realize you were such a bible thumper, good for you. But feeding the hungry is another story for another day. Less federal government intrusions into private lives, taking personal responsibility for your own life is what the Founding Fathers envisioned in the Constitution.

I don't want to pay for Bubba, who would rather drink a six-pack a night and sleep all day than work for a living. Nationalized healthcare should be limited to

those unable to work for physical reasons.

Oh come on, at least be honest and discuss the apparent inconsistency: that is, how you can be opposed to expanding healthcare/coverage and still believe in Christianity which tells you to take care of the sick?:

Then they themselves will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'

Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Oh come on, at least be honest and discuss the apparent inconsistency: that is, how you can be opposed to expanding healthcare/coverage and still believe in Christianity which tells you to take care of the sick?:

Then they themselves will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'

Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Reading comprehension a problem? Re-read my last sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Fair enough. I believe Jesus would agree with the founding fathers ideals of less government and more personal responsibility to make your own way through life.

But unlike you, Jesus would have recognized that everything has to be taken in context. He would have understood that there is a time and a place for everything, including government, and that there are times when people need help from other because they can't make it on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Bubbles, I didn't realize you were such a bible thumper, good for you. But feeding the hungry is another story for another day. Less federal government intrusions into private lives, taking personal responsibility for your own life is what the Founding Fathers envisioned in the Constitution.

I don't want to pay for Bubba, who would rather drink a six-pack a night and sleep all day than work for a living. Nationalized healthcare should be limited to those unable to work for physical reasons.

Dear Stupid,

You can't limit a health care system to a few people. The whole point of an insurance system is to spread the risk among many. The private insurance companies have proved they are not the answer. They have been gouging us. We pay 17% of our GDP for health care, while countries that have completely socialized medicine pay 10% and they live longer than we do.

The Founding Fathers didn't live in a nation of 350 million people with advanced health care. They lived in a country of 4 million people where bleeding was still considered a medical treatment. If they were alive today, they would tell idiots like you that a nation has to change its government to suit the needs of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Fair enough. I believe Jesus would agree with the founding fathers ideals of less government and more personal responsibility to make your own way through life.

In other words, you think Jesus would be as blind and as narrow-minded as you are. Not that those principles aren't important but they are not the only ones.

Do you think Jesus would be in favor of letting insurance companies charge huge premiums for health insurance and then cut off your coverage if you get sick?

Do you think he would be willing to let people die or go without important medical care because they don't have coverage?

Do you think he would say there is a difference between access to good medical care and the right to accumulate wealth?

But the bigger question with you is . . .

Do you think at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
The hysteria doesn't work. If Social Security and Medicare are Socialism, then your battle was lost almost 70 years ago.

And in fact that's exactly what the Republicans said about both of those programs before they became law!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
And in fact that's exactly what the Republicans said about both of those programs before they became law!

Then why didn't they repeal them when they were in power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Burst Your Bubble
Reading comprehension a problem? Re-read my last sentence.

If your last sentence is your answer, then that's even more irrational. There are millions of "physically able" people who do work and don't get benefits and are uninsured. There are also millions of "physically able" people who are unemployed and uninsured. So your answer to them is 'too bad'?? I disagree and so does most of America. And so does the Gospel of Matthew, which doesn't say... "Lord, when did we see You sick and physically unable to work?". I guess Jesus would be uninsured if he were alive today and your rules applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
If your last sentence is your answer, then that's even more irrational. There are millions of "physically able" people who do work and don't get benefits and are uninsured. There are also millions of "physically able" people who are unemployed and uninsured. So your answer to them is 'too bad'?? I disagree and so does most of America. And so does the Gospel of Matthew, which doesn't say... "Lord, when did we see You sick and physically unable to work?". I guess Jesus would be uninsured if he were alive today and your rules applied.

Then those "physically able" people who work but don't get employer health benefits should buy their own health insurance. Work a second job if necessary

to afford it, but don't reach into my pocket to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith
Then those "physically able" people who work but don't get employer health benefits should buy their own health insurance. Work a second job if necessary

to afford it, but don't reach into my pocket to pay for it.

So, which insurance company do you work for anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Then why didn't they repeal them when they were in power?

Because the people wouldn't stand for it. Now that people have seen Social Security and Medicare work, they won't allow their repeal, and any party that did it would be voted out at the first opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Then those "physically able" people who work but don't get employer health benefits should buy their own health insurance. Work a second job if necessary

to afford it, but don't reach into my pocket to pay for it.

They can't afford it. That's why the system was just reformed. The new law may not be enough. If it isn't, Congress will have to make more changes.

I know other people seem like a big inconvenience to you, but some of us believe that as Americans we should all pull together.

Because if the 47 million uninsured never obtain insurance, you're going to pay for their medical care anyway, only it's going to be more expensive because more of them will be sicker than if they had coverage.

Your problem, Mr. 2smart4u, is that you don't think beyond the narrow borders of your ideology. If you want to make sense, you have to think about how things actually work, not just how you want them to be.

In other words, you have to stop being so stubborn and you have to start listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
They can't afford it. That's why the system was just reformed. The new law may not be enough. If it isn't, Congress will have to make more changes.

I know other people seem like a big inconvenience to you, but some of us believe that as Americans we should all pull together.

Because if the 47 million uninsured never obtain insurance, you're going to pay for their medical care anyway, only it's going to be more expensive because more of them will be sicker than if they had coverage.

Your problem, Mr. 2smart4u, is that you don't think beyond the narrow borders of your ideology. If you want to make sense, you have to think about how things actually work, not just how you want them to be.

In other words, you have to stop being so stubborn and you have to start listening.

Your problem, Mr. Far Left Loon, is that YOU don't think beyond the narrow borders of your far left ideology. Like I said already, if you can't afford health insurance, work a second job, cut out the cigarettes and booze, do whatever you have to do to pay for it. Stay out of my pockets. Go live in France if you want a nanny state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Burst Your Bubble
Then those "physically able" people who work but don't get employer health benefits should buy their own health insurance. Work a second job if necessary

to afford it, but don't reach into my pocket to pay for it.

So under your rules Jesus would be uninsured if he were alive and preaching today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith
So under your rules Jesus would be uninsured if he were alive and preaching today?

Yes, but he would have to pay for his own cross. Blue Cross would have a little different meaing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith
Your problem, Mr. Far Left Loon, is that YOU don't think beyond the narrow borders of your far left ideology. Like I said already, if you can't afford health insurance, work a second job, cut out the cigarettes and booze, do whatever you have to do to pay for it. Stay out of my pockets. Go live in France if you want a nanny state.

Don't you get it D**bA**!. The insurance companies will make sure you can't afford to pay for it. Their doing it right now. I hope your happy in your smug little existence. Christian my ass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
So under your rules Jesus would be uninsured if he were alive and preaching today?

Alive and preaching today? Are you talking about Jesus or Obama??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Don't you get it D**bA**!. The insurance companies will make sure you can't afford to pay for it. Their doing it right now. I hope your happy in your smug little existence. Christian my ass!

Dumb reasoning. Insurance companies exist to sell insurance. Open the borders to interstate sales and let the free-market system work. Of course, LoonyLeft socialists wouldn't understand that concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Burst Your Bubble
Alive and preaching today? Are you talking about Jesus or Obama??

Well, some people do say Obama has Messiah-like qualities.

But 2Smart, you fail to acknowledge that your political view on health care is contrary to the Gospel of your religion. So the way you deal with this dissonance is by ignoring it (and dodging my question).

Hey, peace be with you anyway on this most holy of Christian holidays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Dumb reasoning. Insurance companies exist to sell insurance. Open the borders to interstate sales and let the free-market system work. Of course, LoonyLeft socialists wouldn't understand that concept.

Dear Stupid,

(1) The free market system was meant for those that contributed something to the economy. All the insurance companies do is make a profit betting on how many people are going to get sick. They don't contribute anything.

(2) Even if we let the insurance companies sell across state lines, we would still have to nationalize their regulation. If we didn't, states would compete to draw the insurance companies into their states by offering them sweet deals with loose on non-existent regulatory systems. The state with the least regulation would have all the insurance companies, there'd be a race to the bottom and the consumers would still get screwed.

Happily for us, we have a President who understands that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ko

I just read a lot of the comments here for the first time. Why are we arguing with this guy? He's telling people who can't find jobs in the first place to get second ones? Then telling us to "cut out booze and cigarettes"? ?? ?DAS>AKLDSAJ) This guy has little sense and zero compassion. Yes, his political ideology and his religious beliefs clash. Yes, he doesn't realize what hard work gets people in a lot of cases (an unlivable minimum wage). He doesn't realize that the the Capitalist Superstructure is designed like a lottery. He got lucky. Congratulations. Now, what are your kind words of wisdom for a New Jersey teacher that just lost their job because Chris Christie doesn't want to think of creative deficit solutions (a campaign promise if I recall)? Do you tell this person--who worked through college and maybe even a master's program to get his/her position, and who maybe worked for decades to hone their craft--that they haven't tried hard enough? That they should find a second job? I'm sorry, a first job because they just lost the one they thought they had. A government shouldn't FAIL their people, but if it's going to on a regular basis and create an enormous lower class, it should have social programs to help support its losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Dear Stupid,

(1) The free market system was meant for those that contributed something to the economy. All the insurance companies do is make a profit betting on how many people are going to get sick. They don't contribute anything.

(2) Even if we let the insurance companies sell across state lines, we would still have to nationalize their regulation. If we didn't, states would compete to draw the insurance companies into their states by offering them sweet deals with loose on non-existent regulatory systems. The state with the least regulation would have all the insurance companies, there'd be a race to the bottom and the consumers would still get screwed.

Happily for us, we have a President who understands that.

A classic example of why you can't have a debate with a bucket of rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...