My Worry List Today

I think it is just amazing how right wing republicans can flaunt thier christian values like a badge of honor and yet they refuse to support something as basic as health care. Everyone deserves the right to have a doctor and be treated for thier ailments.It seems to me that Republicans can adjust thier Christian Values to suit thier own pocket books. Excuse me , but I do not believe that is stated anywhere in any Bible!!!

Is it stated in the bible that the working class should pay for healthcare for the masses? If so, where please (and I am Jewish by the way so you can skip the lecture to me on Christian values because I have my own values, thanks).

Does the bible also say that the working class should pay for all of these extra government programs that have been put into action since Obama took office? Do you see where this has got us and how long we will pay for it?

I believe that Dems. and Reps. both adjust their Christian Values to suit their own pocket books---it has nothing to do with party lines.

Great blog Kim. Mike was that Donna I saw last night with the truck on Sunset with a car on a trailer?

Religion is a subjective matter so it will always be ripe for interpretation or misinterpretation. Textbooks being secular does not mean that they indoctrinate. History is full of examples where religion blurs the line unnecessarily.

"Jewish tradition imposes a clear duty to try to heal, and this duty devolves upon both the physician and the society." as quoted from Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff

for the full article: "Why We Must Support Universal Health Care" by Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff

http://www.jewishjournal.com/cover_story/article/why_we_must_support_universal_h...

Nope..wasn't stated in the bible and free health care for all isn't in the constitution. As a conservative, NOT a republican, I support the idea of affordable health care. But I refuse to pay my part AND your part.

Matthew 25:35 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 "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.'

41 "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; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 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.' 44 "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' 45 "Then He will answer them, '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.'

The Bible and/or religion can be twisted or manipulated to rationalize just about any point that a person wants to make. It was meant to be subjective. The gospels and other parts were meant to be subjective so that many different groups/peoples could find solace in its words. The point is that lets leave out the religion and focus on things that have no interpretation layer.

I work in the schools so hopefully those of you who have children in school have received a notice and/or permission slip for your child to view Obama's speech. If not then you should contact your school directly to find out if they are going to show it on Tuesday Sept. 8th at 12p.m Eastern Time. Remember that it is your right to either allow or not allow your child to view this.

"Matthew 25:35 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink;"

Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 9:19 PM

Mr. Thompson,

I think the key words in that passage are "you gave". I take that to mean freely and unselfishly. That is entirely different than when the government confiscates a portion of ones income through taxes and then they decide to give that money to someone else.

Hi Beau.

I posted those Bible verses in response to a question posted earlier by OpinionMissy.

I understand your point of view.

Regarding item 4. of the Worry List

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/03/arne-duncan/barac...

I've taken some time to look for some thought provoking writings and I got out Federalist No. 2.

There are parts of it that may be considered relevant to the current health care "debate" we're engaged in.

Quoting, "To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection."

Quoting once again, "Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only recommended, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to blind approbation, nor to blind reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive."

And as a Constitutional issue, quoting Federalist No. 34,

Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.

And as a Constitutional issue, quoting Federalist No. 34,

Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.

The Federalist was a revelation at that time and still holds true in most regards. James Madison had some very logical but unpopular ideas for that time. We can twist and contort these old documents to rationalize the current socialist leanings. Truth is that socialism was just theory before France of the late 1800's. No government had put into action before that and so how could Madison and his friends laid out the game plan for socialism?

Mr. Thompson...I will agree with Beau on your point. The working, middle class should not have to carry the wants of a nation...we do that more than enough.

It is years and years of welfare and government programs that have put us where we are today. Just look at CA. They are a HUGE examples of government programs that DO NOT fix it all. As a matter of fact, their state programs are what has put them in the hole.

I do not think the Obama "tale" should be shown in school and I do not think that more government programs are the answer. If parents want their children to see the Obama "tale" then show it at home. A government who does what ours has done does NOT need to be any more active in the insurance business than they already are (i.e. AIG).

Just my opinion. I fail to see your point on the Bible Mr. Thompson and agree with Tim and Beau.

Czar is just a word that inspires thoughts of absolute control. We could have used other non-russian words. The concept is that these Czars have unmitigated say over their issues. I dont fully believe that they are omnipotent. They are just advisors to the president that dont have anyone to set them straight. In the end, Congress and other groups are involved and somewhat balance out these bizaare characters.

The problem with bigger govt, in my opinion, is that it complicates life and the operations of that government. Its harder to manage 1000 people than it is 50. The bigger one gets, the more oversight that one needs. Oversight is done by upper-crust, high-expense, highly-educated types that should be working a real job. Big govt. is expensive and detracts from more substantive activities.

http://washingtonindependent.com/57977/when-is-a-czar-not-a-czar

Having czars is a way to avoid senate confirmation while adding a level of bureaucracy that screws the GP.

As Bazooka pointed out several times, Obama himself asked us to judge him by the company he keeps. Since he came into this position as the top civil servant, he naturally has to surround himself with advisors. His record number of Czars shows that Obama knew that the "Changes" that he planned to make would be impossible working through Congress so get all these people into the "Czar" position and get working without the consent of that pesky problem, called Congress. He has weakened his abilities and his namby-bamby ways have given our enemies exactly what they wished for. These are great days for those who wish to destroy us. There is no respect and even worse, there is not fear!

Now Bush had many faults that everyone can pick at, however he generally had a stubborn fierce heart for the safety of the American people. He took his job as Commander-in-Chief very seriously and he didn't make decisions based popular vote but what was the best course of action for the greater good. The enemies of our country knew that he meant business and would back up his threats. You can't argue with the decreased numbers of terrorist activity nor the fact that numerous terror plots never made it to completion. (time:6:45am)

I would say that Obama's primary fault is his lack of decisive, possibly unpopular action that will have long term gain. This admin. appears to be all about appeasing the public and foresaking the future.