Excellent!

Well said.

the Left are exhorting Obama to stick his hand in other people’s pockets, taking other people’s property, simply to make the Leftists feel good about themselves and their generosity. That’s a load of crap!

Acts 20:35 ESV / 17 helpful votes

In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Proverbs 19:17 ESV / 7 helpful votes

Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.

Luke 6:38 ESV / 8 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.”

2 Corinthians 9:6 ESV / 6 helpful votes

The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 ESV / 5 helpful votes

“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

Hebrews 13:16 ESV / 4 helpful votes

Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

Little H: Obviously, common sense and basic economic truth is beyond your “intellectual” accomplishments.

As Lamott illustrates, lefties are completely stuck in the politics of grievance. They won, and all they can do is complain.

Stupidest argument…….ever.

Only for those too adolescent to respect the property rights of others.

When this country becomes a Christian theocracy, in spite of the protestations of godless progressives, get back to me with all that biblical stuff.

Meanwhile, try to remember that those exhortations you’ve quoted so hypocritically, from Moses to Jesus, were for people to behave generously of their own volition… not an endorsement of government sponsored extortion. The Bible talks of giving from what we have, not taking from others. Charity doesn’t begin by sticking your hand in someone else’ wallet, bank account, or investment porfolio.

Sig hit the nail on the head. It does amuse me that the libs to use scripture to justify forced wealth distribution are also the same who say that we are not a Christian nation.

“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

He only said to sell what you possess, not sell what others possess.

SigFan:

What part of GIVE do these knuckleheads not understand?

Well said, SigFan.

Hannitized thinks he can rob from you and the act of you being robbed makes you a better person.

The Big Bang is believed to have created a flood of gravitational waves that still fill the universe and carry information about the universe as it existed immediately after the Big Bang. These waves would be observed as the stochastic background, analogous to a superposition of many waves of different sizes and directions on the surface of a pond. The amplitude of this background is directly related to the parameters that govern the behavior of the universe during the first minute after the Big Bang.

Space-time is the living stage upon which the drama of the universe plays out. The primordial stochastic gravitational waves are the warps, twists, and bends in space-time that were laid down as the universe expanded from its earliest moments to the present.

WOOF,

Not all financial types are as crass and poorly spoken as I am.

Matthew 19:21 ESV / 4 helpful votes

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

The Lord was talking to a particular young rich man, a man that wa svery careful about obeying the Law; but Jesus answered Him that if He would do perfectly well, he should sell his goods and give it to the poor, putting his spiritual needs above his great wealth. It has to do with taking up the cross personally,about sacrificing his selfish desires. It has nothing whatsover with a state social services system or wealth redistribution. Jesus was not against personal wealth, His ministry benefitted from the finnacial generosity of some of His followers and He encouraged Christians to take care of the widows and orphans, making voluntary sacrifices.

Jesus would never offer political or social welfare advice to a government and He would see forced charity as not being charity at all, because it did not come willing from the heart, but was given by means of government extortion. When Jesus gave us His Commandments, it was always personal, to those children of His Church and in the case of money in their sharing their wealth, it was always to be voluntary, which gave Him cause to commend them for their Love.

Hannitized: When people are forced to give they resent it and that resentment grows into anger and rebellion against the state. You resent being forced to support the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, while giving to social programs does not bother you so much. Most conservatives, I believe, resent being forced to give to innumerable social programs that only create a lazy, welfare minded, ever dependent lower class; while they see giving to support the common defense benefits everyone. No matter what, forced giving causes rebellion and hate and no nation can long stand once that charity by extortion bleeds the working people dry.

Not to nitpick, but if you are going to put up a picture of a baseball player, shouldn’t it be the ACTUAL Donnie Baseball ? That would be Don Mattingly, not Alex Rodriguez. Right team, wrong player and wrong decade.

Lioncourt, what you said is true. But they require the approval of the general public before they can spend it.

What appears to be unconstitutional (or bending it) to some is the attempts to side track the normally deliberative process to force this bill down people’s throats. If this is what is seen as happening you can expect 1) payback at the next election cycle and 2) a repeal of this bill.

Ramming through half-baked legislation didn’t work out so how with the mentally-defective stimulus bill. Don’t you liberals learn anything from your mistakes

Carrick,

Mighty sensitive today. Don’t sob….life goes on.

Deadrody,

If my friend’s chosen screen name was spelled the same as Mr. Mattingly’s nickname, then I suppose you’d have a point. See my response to WOOF above. But it isn’t… and you don’t.

I chose the picture of A-Rod precisely because it shows him hitting one out over the “Green Monster” (note the envy analogy, please!) on the Yankees recent series in Boston.

Wow Bat, the best your crew can do is 1) call me stupid 2) dismiss me for using the word “jejune” 3) make an ill-informed argument on general welfare grounds. The first two are obviously not worth comment. The third sounds plausible but is not true, the government does not have unlimited ability to tax and spend on “general welfare” grounds. But even if that were the case, which it is not, taxing is just one issue. The government very clearly does not have the right to force a doctor to see a patient or to seize the patent rights to a medical device or force a citizen to buy an insurance product or deny a patient the ability to contract privately with a doctor. There are a whole handful of constitutional grounds on which the current Obamacare plans are in violation of our rights.

I am disappointed. Tell your crew to come at me with something a little better.
Yours,
DB

Bat-
My apologies for lack of clarity – I obviously didn’t meant to associate you with the trolls and lesser intellects that you attracted with your post!
Best,
DB

Congress mandates its will on the populace at its peril.

Carrick,

While I agree with this, I wonder just how far this extra-Constitutional Congress and administration will push their Coup agenda, and what practical measures the populace will have to resort to to assert the Constitution and Freedom in this country?

The extreme Leftists have taken over government and they mean to retain power.

They are setting us up for a confrontation.

Wow Bat, the best your crew can do is 1) call me stupid 2) dismiss me for using the word “jejune” 3) make an ill-informed argument on general welfare grounds. The first two are obviously not worth comment.

SPECIFICALLY

The first two are obviously not worth comment.

No kidding. We live with this idiot every day.

The Federalist Papers aren’t law. They are the opinions of some of the founding fathers, not even all of them.

The government very clearly does not have the right to force a doctor to see a patient or to seize the patent rights to a medical device or force a citizen to buy an insurance product or deny a patient the ability to contract privately with a doctor.
-Donny Baseball

Cite where this is in the health care bill.
-Lioncourt

Lioncourt,

I believe you’ve got this backwards. Its not incumbent on the us to prove what the government is NOT authorized to do, but up to you (and the government) to demonstrate its legal and/or constitutional authority to do what it has proposed.

We’ve had this argument before, several years ago, when the Left insisted that the government has the authority to force a pharmacist to dispense medicines, specifically the so-called “morning after pill”, against his personal religious convictions.

I’m in awe of the disingenuous dexterity with which those of you on the Left invent rights and authorities that clearly are not in the constitution, or uncover them among the shadows and penumbras whenever it suits your political convenience, while studiously ignoring those that are written in plain sight.

ObamaCare is nothing more than the Napster of health care, taking from one group of individuals and companies, without just compensation, and dispensing to those unable or unwilling to pay for what they want.

lioncourt:

I believe you’ve got this backwards. Its not incumbent on the us to prove what the government is NOT authorized to do…

Conservatives have never understood the concept of “the burden of proof.” You cannot expect them to grok it anytime soon.

That is actually the opposite of how our system works. Congress’ laws are deemed to be Constitutional unless shown to be otherwise.

Lioncourt,

In the first place, we aren’t in a courtroom, are we? And I’m not the least bit impressed with the fact that you have, purportedly, sat in a law school classroom for 3 years. My experience tells me that the arrogance of attorneys at law is rarely justified. Especially those on the Left. But then, I didn’t think much of David Boise’s arguments in Bush v. Gore either.

The challenge here isn’t after the fact of passage but beforehand. Kinda like the the pre-passage brouhaha from the Left over The Patriot Act. You remember that, don’t you?

This post is asinine. No sane person is making the argument that a public option makes the health care reform bill unconstitutional on multiple levels.

This isn’t a debate, this is sheer stupidity.

Nobody is bothering to waste their time arguing with a moron who is creating straw men and attempting to narrow the debate to his limited ability to see things clearly.

You’re right! I don’t see anyone arguing with you here, Wankertized! I think we’re simply ignoring you!

Proof, I think you missed the subtlety of his point. He was saying that “nobody” is arguing with you, yet he’s arguing with you. Hence he’s nobody, nothing, nada. Simply agree with him and move on.

I am not debating this issue, I am mocking the post and the argument.

It’s really about the dumbest thing I have seen written intelligibly.

H,

The idea that government confiscation and redistribution is equivalent to charitable contributions is both naive and laughable. Your bible quotes are out of context and therefore irrelevent.

If what I write is really beyond your comprehension,

It was your friend, Donny Baseball who wrote the incredibly stupid argument that Obama didn’t offer us healthcare, he offered us his property.

That is just pathetically lame, surely you know this?

So does this mean Pilgrim didn’t offer to serve and protect, and instead he took my property???

Your dumb assed arguments (even if offered through your friends mouth) come back to bite you in the ass. As they should.

Yeah Bat, his argument, or the “heart of the matter” amounted to “you can’t spend my tax money and my childrens tax money on health care, because it’s MY PROPERTY”….was soooo beyond my comprehension.

Hahaha.

Please. Your faux intellect is boring….and trite.

Little H: What Donny said was that Obama was offering us something he does not possess: the property of others.

Your faux intellect is boring….and trite.

Then by all means, move on. Find someone else who might be willing to stoop to your level. I’ll take no offense at any lack of attention from you. I promise.

Let’s not debate your constitutional philosophy. You will quote Madison, I will quote Hamilton and we will get nowhere. Let’s discuss the current state of the law. Universal health care would not be unconstitutional.

Let’s not debate your constitutional philosophy. You will quote Madison, I will quote Hamilton and we will get nowhere. Let’s discuss the current state of the law. Universal health care would not be unconstitutional.

Right. Let’s not debate the constitution when debating constitutionality. Gotcha.

Asking whether the court would uphold it is not the same as asking if it’s constitutional. So just say what you mean Lion.

right, kenny, neither Hamilton or Madison believed that the Federal governments powers were unlimited, that they were not limited to what was specifically spelled out for them in the constitution. Neither believed that the general welfare clause was open ended.

Baseball uses the word jejune, calls Anne Lamont and elitist.
Send him back to the cigar bar.

Charity doesn’t begin by sticking your hand in someone else’ wallet, bank account, or investment porfolio.

Exactly right Bat!!