YouTube Preview Image

This one was sent to me with a note that the song reminded the submitter of some of our commenters (w/o mentioning any names)

The above was rude of me to include, and should have been completely left off. My apologies, if anyone was offended.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 18th, 2010 at 11:15 pm and is filed under It's Friday, Open Thread. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

280 Comments(+Add)

1   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 6:14 am

It reminds me of some of the writers here. (w/o mentioning any names)

2   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 6:58 am

Funny song.
(not mentioning any names, but re: #1),

if you counted them up I bet most of the comments on this site are from the writers.

3   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 8:20 am

I have not been reading Greg Boyd’s blog lately but was intrigued when I read a quote from him that a friend put on another friend’s blog.

Phil, I wonder if you saw this – it has to do with our past conversation about violence and the OT. Boyd is saying exactly the same thing I was saying.

http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/jesus-repudiation-of-old-testament-violence/

here is a snippet:

I’ll leave you with this teaser thought: Is it possible that some divinely inspired material is not supposed to reveal to us what God is like but what he is not like? Is it possible that some material is inspired precisely because God wants us to follow Jesus’ example and repudiate it?

4   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 8:45 am

I was thinking of sharing this on my blog, minus Chris L’s commentary at the end. I try not to show such disrespect towards my guests, whether I agree with them or not. They come by and read what I am thinking and take time to comment.

5   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 10:04 am

A) It wasn’t my commentary – it was that of the submitter.
B) If I had to guess, a person this offended is likely the one intended.

6   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 10:10 am

I wear it as a badge of honor!

(BTW – Since you included it without comment we assume you agreed.)

Do you have any grapes? :cool:

7   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 10:34 am

Not offended. I just thought it in poor taste.

8   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 10:43 am

If the submiiter had said he was reminded of some of the writers would that have made the final cut?

Yea, right… (And not naming names is cowardice and leads to evil surmising)

9   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 11:06 am

If the submiiter had said he was reminded of some of the writers would that have made the final cut?

I’m wondering how that would actually work out… Selling lemonade, being asked for grapes, finally buying some grapes, and then having them complained about….

OK. I don’t know about the submitter, but I’d say that it reminds me of what the writers go through, as well…

10   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 11:19 am

you poor writers…

11   Brendt Waters    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
March 19th, 2010 at 11:19 am

This is just silly. Ducks can’t talk.

12   Mike    
March 19th, 2010 at 11:25 am

Okay, just to stay in keeping with the thread.

“Of course ducks can talk. You just aren’t listening to them correctly”

:)

13   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 11:36 am

“Of course ducks can talk. You just aren’t listening to them correctly”

If only they made collars for them like Doug the Dog in Up

*SQUIRREL!*

14   Robbo    http://goldcoastbereans.blogspot.com
March 19th, 2010 at 12:27 pm

OPEN THREAD PSALM

How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!

It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard,

running down on Aaron’s beard, down upon the collar of his robes.

It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion.

For there the Lord bestows his blessing, even life forevermore.

Psalm 133 (NIV)
A song of ascents, of David.

15   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 12:40 pm

A good reminder, Robbo.

Just a side note on cultural differences: Having oil poured on your head and all over your clothes has all sorts of meaning, in context, but every time I read about it, I wonder to myself “would anybody today actually find that to be something pleasant?”

16   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 12:49 pm

Having watched President Obama’s speech on healthcare today, I believe it will be the single most compassionate and fiscally responsible piece of legislation passed in my lifetime. Those that oppose it will answer to YHWY face to face someday.

:cool:

17   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

I think so, too, Rick.

A few hours ago I called my rep in NC to encourage him to continue supporting reform. Anyone can call and I encourage everyone to do so

http://advocacy.barackobama.com/healthcare/campaigns/18/call_scripts/95/call_sessions/new?source=20100319_call_FB

18   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

Of course my comment had a sarcastic and disingenuous flair! :lol:

19   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 1:41 pm

Mine did not.

20   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 1:58 pm

How about we call our congressmen and ask them to legalize spending federal funds for sacrificing children to Molech, while we’re at it?

Oh wait – The Grim Speaker’s already got us beat.

21   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Hot Air is a great title for that site – and your comment.

22   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 2:07 pm

Actually my comment was an evil attempt to make weaker brothers stumble. Sadly, it worked.

I repent. :cool:

23   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 2:07 pm

The truth hurts sometimes, and Nancy the Butcher’s out for blood.

[NOTE: Even if this abortion of a bill passes, it'll be repealed and the Dem's will pay for it for years to come - especially since none of the "benefits" kick in for about 5 years or so, but all the taxes do. DC's seen nothing yet compared to a citizenry forced at gunpoint to buy a product that they then can't use because nobody will accept new patients. Brilliant!]

24   Paul C    http://www.thepath.cc
March 19th, 2010 at 2:10 pm

Here we go again…

Chris L puts out a distasteful post. Unnecessary in my view.

Chad’s knee jerks (as was probably intended by the post-er).

And we’re off to the races!

I found this common rather rich:

I try not to show such disrespect towards my guests, whether I agree with them or not.

Should have continued…

“But open the door to your house and I’ll come in and pee all over your carpet and tear up your furniture.”

I agree with Rick – Obama was spectacular. Not an ounce of politics on either side – both, as they claim, are just out for the good of the American people. :)

25   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 2:17 pm

….followed by more of Paul’s Pointless Pontifications

:)

26   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 2:19 pm

Apparently he pees on the legs of other guests and tears up their furniture, as well…

27   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 19th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

Did Obama say once more that all has needed to be said about healthcare has been said? I always thought that was perhaps the most ironic thing you could say about the subject you were just about to give a speech on.

28   Neil    
March 19th, 2010 at 2:26 pm

Chris L.,

Given the difficulty in getting it passed – do you really think it will be repealed? I figure America’s best hope is in the fact that it very well could be struck down as unconstitutional.

29   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 2:28 pm

I figure America’s best hope …

America’s best hope???

Hail Nation

30   Neil    
March 19th, 2010 at 2:39 pm

Chad,

You know what I mean…

31   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 2:39 pm

Our so-called “Christian” nation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-t-hughes/glenn-becks-christian-ame_b_505950.html

32   Neil    
March 19th, 2010 at 2:43 pm

Any “Christian Nation”

http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/04/30/christian-insert-noun-or-verb/

33   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 2:43 pm

Neil:

1) If they use DemonPass the whole thing may be struck by the SCOTUS b/c it is not identical to earlier uses of the procedure (which kept the two bills together, unlike this one which splits them and sends one to the Senate and the other to POTUS), and likely violates the Constitution.
2) There are about 4 provisions in the bill, itself, which might be struck down. The most visible is the “individual mandate” (which has a couple of unconstitutional angles associated with it), but the price controls on insurance have a number of legal analysts on the right and left suggesting they would be struck down easily, along with a couple of other provisions which apply in an inconsistent manner across states.
3) Repeal in 2011-2012 is unlikely, unless the projected 700,000 job losses caused by the bill, along with the double-digit premium increases become front-loaded, and the Dems give enough votes for a supermajority to override our dear leader’s veto. [Which isn't as unlikely as you think, remembering back to Dan Rostenkowski being chased down the street by an angry bunch of seniors back in 1983, leading to a quick repeal of a Dem HC bill.]
4) With 3 years of increased taxes on the middle class, job losses, premium increases and a double-dip recession, there’s a decent chance our dear leader will become Jimmy Carter II, in which case his opponent (I’m hoping Mitch Daniels) would likely have repeal as the first legislative item requested for his signature. ZeroCare can be treated as a budget item at that point and repealed by reconciliation (in a bit of ironic poetic justice), since killing it at that point would be a budget savings (since the years of taxes-without-benefits would be behind it).

So, best case (besides 40 Dems having the courage to act in a manner of good, godly stewardship and killing it outright) is SCOTUS (which our dear leader has already picked a public fight with) killing it based on Demon Pass in a couple of months. Worst case (besides it staying on the books until the economy collapses in 2016-2019 from the weight of entitlements) is that the next president kills it off ASAP.

34   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 2:45 pm

No, Neil, I don’t.

The writers on this site will lament the day this bill passes while millions of the “least of these” will feel someone is speaking for them. I’ll cheer alongside the latter group while you all cry in your cheerio$

35   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 2:47 pm

Translation: It’s better to have good intentions, even if they don’t actually accomplish anything, and instead make things worse for all..

36   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 2:58 pm

That’s how people translate it to soothe their conscious, yes.

37   Paul C    http://www.thepath.cc
March 19th, 2010 at 2:58 pm

remembering back to Dan Rostenkowski being chased down the street by an angry bunch of seniors back in 1983

That sounds absolutely terrifying. :)
It’s a very wonder he got away and lived to speak about it.

The things these politicians – both Dem & Rep – are forced to endure for the good of the people!

38   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Here’s the video:

And a newspaper link. Needless to say, the law was immediately repealed.

Now we just need an angry mob of seniors… (which won’t be all that difficult once their Medicare Advantage coverage is stripped from them by ZeroCare).

39   M.G.    
March 19th, 2010 at 3:09 pm

Chris L.,

Regarding the mechanics of the bill’s passage, even if it is unconstitutional, it won’t be touched by the Supreme Court. The law is pretty settled that the Judiciary doesn’t involve itself with the inner workings of the legislative branch.

40   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 3:11 pm

MG – the constitutional requirement for the legislation will not have been met, so it will be part of SCOTUS’ business, and no longer an “inner working” of the legislative branch.

41   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 3:12 pm

Noting that several previous Attny Generals & Staff members have weighed in this past week, suggesting that there’s a case to be made for a constitutional challenge to this bill’s passage via Demon Pass.

42   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 3:16 pm

But hey, there should be a little bit of job stimulus from this: 15,000 new IRS agents to check up on you and make sure you’ve purchased health care.

“Hi, I’m from the IRS, and I’m here to help you with your healthcare needs.”

Hope and change, baby. Hopeanchange.

43   M.G.    
March 19th, 2010 at 3:23 pm

Chris L.,

I’m aware of the debate, and that there’s a lot of back and forth.

That being said, the mere fact that something may or may not be unconstititional is not itself some type of necessary and sufficient condition for judicial review.

In this instance, the enrolled bill doctrine is settled law, and I personally would be surprised if SCOTUS stepped in (not to mention that there are issues of standing as well).

44   Neil    
March 19th, 2010 at 3:31 pm

No, Neil, I don’t.

The writers on this site will lament the day this bill passes while millions of the “least of these” will feel someone is speaking for them. I’ll cheer alongside the latter group while you all cry in your cheerio$

OK – so it is clear that you do know what I mean by “America’s best hope”… that I was using the term in a narrow context, not spiritually.

As for the least of these. I have agreed repeatedly that something must be done to improve the system. But I stop at “anything” being done… particularly when it’s pretty obvious that a) this is more about power than helping and b) the failings of the plan are so apparent.

45   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 3:43 pm

a) this is more about power than helping

more reading into motives – something you preach against here continually

b) the failings of the plan are so apparent.

smarter people than you and I disagree on that – on both sides.

46   Zan    
March 19th, 2010 at 4:19 pm

OMG, do we have to go back and forth like children….?
“I didn’t say that”
“Yes you did”
“No I didn’t”
“Did too”
“Did not”…….AAARGH! I am not the only one on this site that gets really sick of the back and forth.

Now, Chad, I will ask you this, for the benefit of all who post/comment/read here:

What SPECIFICALLY do you like about this health care bill idea (because it ISN”T a bill yet), what details do you like, how will they impact us as citizens (low-, middle-, and upper-class), and how will they solve the problem of the X-million people without health care. ALSO, what don’t you like about it, and how would you change that?

These are thoughtful questions and answers, that deal with the subject at hand, without resorting to vindictive, hateful, rude replies (and this last sentence isn’t just to you, but also to everyone else who has participated in the sniping.)

“Love is patient, Love is kind. Love is not boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

47   Neil    
March 19th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
a) this is more about power than helping

more reading into motives – something you preach against here continually

true enough, but since there are simple, obvious, and nearly guaranteed to work things they could do – yet they choose to pursue a tact that limits our freedoms and increases their power – I figure those are easy dots to connect.

48   M.G.    
March 19th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

Neil,

I’m interested in those things that are “simple, obvious, and nearly guaranteed to work.”

I’m also interested in how legislators power will be increased in the bill. How will this bill make life more powerful for your average Senator/Congressman?

49   Paul C    http://www.thepath.cc
March 19th, 2010 at 4:53 pm

While some of us are engaged on the ‘front lines’, heavily invested in this whole healthcare debate (from a Christian perspective of course), some willy-nilly Christians prefer to slack off in green pastures. Do a search on “Son of Hamas” (or go to http://www.challies.com).

If only this young man knew where the true battle lay.

Would to God our passion for things temporal would be for things eternal. That’s my hope and prayer for myself.

50   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 19th, 2010 at 6:15 pm

Zan,

You did not say that, did you?

You DID say that!

Hmph!

jerry

PS–I miss the good old days when we could just ‘beat up’ Pastorboy or Ken for three or four hundred comments…

51   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 19th, 2010 at 6:15 pm

Oh, and, :-)

52   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 7:38 pm

Zan,

I appreciate your questions. To be sure, I believe you are the first to even ask them.

I don’t want to seem as though I am not answering all your questions but I think I cover the reasons I support this bill as well as I can HERE.

I don’t support it for political reasons but theological ones. All of which are explained there.

But I will add this much: Sharon Welch wrote a wonderful book in the 80’s (recently updated) called A Feminist Ethic of Risk. . You can read most of it online even (I wish I had known that months ago but it was worth buying). One of her main themes from a Christian standpoint is that we need to embody a way of being that risks. She argues that these risks, though they may not work in the short term (or even long term if you consider a life span as long term) are necessary to take because they lay the groundwork for future generations to have the courage to risk, where those risks mean bringing about justice for others and peace on earth (she was writing in the 80’s during the height of the nuclear arms race and Cold War. Obviously, it would be very, very risky for a “super power” nation to lay down their arms).

My parents are in from PA today and through the weekend. My mom, who is more outspoken than me, is against the health care bill for a lot of the same reasons you all are. But your reasons, nor my mom’s, will convince me that this is a bad idea. It’s the right idea….and though it not perfect (I would like to see the full robust bill that was proposed last year) and though it may not even work in the long run, I support it because it gives a voice to people without one and shows that Christians are not just looking out for their own or trying to conserve the status quo but do in fact fight for the “least of these” even when it may effect their bottom line. It paves the way for future generations of leaders to say, “They tried it this way then, we can do better now.”

53   chris    
March 19th, 2010 at 10:28 pm

Chris L. your blog links and frothing over this is really interesting. You cited the Catastrophic Health Care law of 1983 as an example of the potential impact of The Health Care bill. Unfortunately I’m guessing you know little, if anything, about that original law or why it was repelled. So I did a little digging and it discovered that the “angry mob of seniors” were actually upset that they were going to be charged a surtax on their medicare. Ultimately it would have saved them money (by limiting skyrocketing costs) but they were whipped into a frenzy over mis-information.

All of that said; you linked to that article and video and the irony, once I discovered the true issue, is almost comical. A group of seniors who were getting government funded health care (read “Free” health care) got upset when the government told them that they now had to pay something for it. And you use that as your case against “Government Health” and “Rising Costs” and “Saddling future generations”.


From the Washington Monthly 1993.

On the universal list of Good Ideas That Bombed, the catastrophic care act ranks near the top. Designed to protect elders from the financial and mental trauma of ever-growing medical fees, the bill was enacted by Congress and signed by President Reagan with grand expectations. But within a few months, it came under sure attack from geriatric rabble-rousers who believed they were getting a raw deal. The pressure worked: Congress, fearing the wrath of hoards of angry, politically active seniors, repealed the act, ending, for all practical purposes, the effort to provide seniors with security against the exorbitant costs of long-term or debilitating illness. In the years since, Congress and the executive branch, both badly burned by the episode, have made virtually no effort to revive catastrophic care.

54   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 10:33 pm

#53

LOL

55   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 10:35 pm

Doesn’t surprise me at all. Sort of like him saying that legalizing same sex marriage leads to destabilizing a society and decrease in population. Just Hot Air.

56   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 19th, 2010 at 10:39 pm

#53

LOL!!

57   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 19th, 2010 at 10:40 pm

#55

LOL!!

58   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 19th, 2010 at 10:40 pm

#42

LOL!!

59   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 10:45 pm

she was writing in the 80’s during the height of the nuclear arms race and Cold War. Obviously, it would be very, very risky for a “super power” nation to lay down their arms

Which is funny, because what ended up winning the Cold War was the exact opposite – realizing that the Soviets were bluffing, and continuing on with an arms race the US knew would break the Soviet bank, and that, once a few cards started to fall, the whole thing would come crashing down with relatively small bloodshed.

I’m glad Reagan was in charge instead of Welsh.

One of her main themes from a Christian standpoint is that we need to embody a way of being that risks.

I have no problem with educated risk-taking. The problem is when we start making promises and risks on God’s back in ways He’s not authorized. The Bible speaks of good stewardship from beginning to end – including Jesus on many occasions. When churches go into massive debt “on faith” to build a new building they cannot afford, they are not acting on faith – they are acting on their own self-righteousness and hubris. Passing massively fraudulent legislation with dubious and deceitful means of funding it – no matter how “noble” the cause – is the exact same thing. It’s not risky. It is being crappy stewards of God’s gifts.

You can gussy it all up in “compassionate” language, but it’s no more than shellacking a turd. And that’s what you’re selling with this.

A turd.

My mom, who is more outspoken than me, is against the health care bill for a lot of the same reasons you all are. But your reasons, nor my mom’s, will convince me that this is a bad idea.

Well, since maybe it’s not a genetic issue, there’s hope for you yet.

60   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 10:47 pm

PS–I miss the good old days when we could just ‘beat up’ Pastorboy or Ken for three or four hundred comments…

Well, at least we’ve got the commonality with them that the Bible deserves more than to be treated as a collection of fables that only receive lip-service when we’ve eisegeted them enough to fit our godless liberal agenda.

61   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 10:51 pm

Sort of like him saying that legalizing same sex marriage leads to destabilizing a society and decrease in population.

Like I said – it’s basic truth. No need to continue to debate it. Mock it all you want, but the truth hurts.

62   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 19th, 2010 at 11:05 pm

The truth hurts? (even though it is not based in any facts)

A turd?

Someone sounds a bit upset.

63   chris    
March 19th, 2010 at 11:06 pm

I have no problem with educated risk-taking.

Hmmm…

When churches go into massive debt “on faith” to build a new building they cannot afford, they are not acting on faith

Hmmm….

Passing massively fraudulent legislation with dubious and deceitful means of funding it – no matter how “noble” the cause – is the exact same thing.

Ah…there it is. The biblical defense using a bad analogy coupled with loose, subjective, motives assigned.

64   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 19th, 2010 at 11:20 pm

Someone sounds a bit upset.

Not at all – actually taking it easy on the Lazyboy and playing a game…

#63 – Not at all. This is no different than borrowing for something you cannot afford – whether a new Sanctuary, a BMW, or an unpaid-for health plan. All of which are examples of poor stewardship of the gifts we’ve been given (a basic biblical principle of managing money).

65   M.G.    
March 19th, 2010 at 11:58 pm

Just to be clear, the U.S. has pursued every. single. major. initiative. in. its. history. using money it didn’t have.

You know that we didn’t have the resources to pay for the American revolution, right? That turned out ok.

Th examples go forward from there.

66   chris    
March 20th, 2010 at 12:28 am

… or an unpaid-for health plan. All of which are examples of poor stewardship of the gifts we’ve been given

With all due respect, on this subject, you are not the smartest guy in the room. The health bill is not all smoke and mirrors and in laymens terms it will pay for itself. Most economists (those that study health costs) understand that currently the non-taxed employer health benefits cost the treasury $250 billion in revenue annually. Barring any (which the bill covers) shifting of wages the cost to the American people will be a push.

Jonathan Gruber is an excellent economist and well versed in the bill effects on the American economy. Perhaps a better resource than a “Hot Air”. Your reference to “Going Galt” previously is a great talking point in this Gruber piece.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0905.gruber.html

67   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 6:41 am

All of which are examples of poor stewardship of the gifts we’ve been given

And even if this were all true, where is the government biblically mandated to be a good steward of God’s gifts and where are Christians told to hold the gov’t to good stewardship practices?

Are you saying that Rome was an excellent steward of her resources in every way therefore allowing Jesus to say “Render to Caesar what is Caesars”?

I’m interested to hear a response to #53

68   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 20th, 2010 at 7:08 am

The health bill is not all smoke and mirrors and in laymens terms it will pay for itself.

You’re so full of crap you breath stinks.

The CBO score is full of double-counting, purposely leaves out the “doc fix” (which erases any of the phantom “savings”), and the actual cost over the first 10 years of benefits is $2.5 Trillion (not $1 Trillion). The only way this looks “in the black” on paper is because you’ve got 10 years of taxes and 5 years of benefits with all sorts of savings that won’t materialize, “savings” from a government takeover of student loans, and robbing from an already insolvent Social Security.

Fiscal stewardship is something we all should espouse – whether on the government or individual level. That you all are totally on board with it just shows your moral bankruptcy and the proof of the old adage that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Maybe we should create a bill and call it the “solve world hunger bill”, borrow trillions of dollars and burn them, while pretending to solve world hunger. That way we could feel good and run the country further into the red just for the fun of it.

Sheer stupidity and bankruptcy (literal and moral) – that’s what you espouse (and BtW, Chris – Gruber is a hack. This bill will kill about 700K jobs and all sorts of small business. The “job locks” we’ll be talking about will be the ones shuttering all of the businesses that were killed by this abortion of a bill.

69   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 7:13 am

I didn’t want to have to tell you that people who believe in safety belts are killing America

70   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 7:16 am

You’re so full of crap you breath stinks.

it just shows your moral bankruptcy

What frickin idiots you are.

Well, now we know who Zan was referring to when she said this:

These are thoughtful questions and answers, that deal with the subject at hand, without resorting to vindictive, hateful, rude replies (and this last sentence isn’t just to you, but also to everyone else who has participated in the sniping.)

71   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 7:24 am

Maybe we should create a bill and call it the “solve world hunger bill”, borrow trillions of dollars and burn them, while pretending to solve world hunger.

apples and oranges

If it actually DID solve world hunger I would be for it. This is not like that in that it actually WILL provide health care for millions who do not have it.

72   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 20th, 2010 at 7:32 am

OK. So if the President’s plan is fatally flawed, and if he is insidiously attempting to make America communist, and if his fallen nature is worse than Beck’s or Limbaughs, and if the other side really does care about people like me who will go bankrupt with any serious illness, then where is the passion about your plan?

The Dems and Reps have both controlled the Presidency and both houses of congress at some point and yet still no legislation. It is impossible to prove accuracy with either the future predictions of a “It pays for itself” or a doomsday scenario.

So far, only the Dems have pushed for a bill which woul for better or for worse address the problem. And if some senators submitted a “feed the world” bill that seemed to borrow trillions of dollars, how would we as Jesus followers look if we ranted and raved about national debt and the horror of liberals and a laundry list of protecting our country’s essence as envisioned by our ofrefathers, and yet any passion about people who are starving is somehow very tepid and without any sacrificial momentum?

The answer is we would look like conservative Americans and not much like a cross bearing and neighbor caring follower of Jesus Christ. Just the tone, verbiage, hatred, and emotional angst reveals an unpleasant underbelly that should never be associated with believing followers of Jesus Christ.

Our salt is no more tasteful than unbelievers who rally to these banners that have issues as their king. I hope people get healthcare who do not have it because God Himself knows that I both have not cared about them in the past and He also knows that my hope is severely poisoned by my own situation.

But my hypocrisy only goes so far (Doc Holiday), I would not vote nor lend and real support to anything the government does because I am not personally interested in giving my life for the poor, to say nothing of giving my life for Jesus, and both of those just may be Siamese twins. How can I take to legislative speck out of the government’s eye when the mote in my own is a redwood?

73   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 20th, 2010 at 7:44 am

In general, I do not believe true and genuine Christianity is being practiced in America due to a continuing metamorphosis that incorperates the very things Jesus told us to avoid, and ignores the very things Jesus said to do.

Idolatry, nationalism, and the love of money are three giants that have consumed much of what should be manifested as unique and peculiar characteristics (fruits) that authenticate Who we live for and are so remarkable in a culture of spiritual darkness that sinners run to us with curiosity, their emptiness, and indeed like moths to the light.

Since little light is being shined, these moths run towrd issues WITH us and are virtually unaware that we claim to have eternal life and that our lives are supposedly hid with Jesus Christ in God.

In short – we are shallow religious verisions of them.

74   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 7:51 am

FTR,
While I have had some serious disagreements with Chris L, I don’t believe I have ever (nor anyone else here who disagrees with him) been as mean or belittling to him with my words as the examples in #70.

However, if I have said things like that to you, Chris, and if this has caused you to feel the need to respond in kind, I am sorry.

75   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 7:55 am

Rick,

Very good comment in 72. I feel much the same.

76   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 20th, 2010 at 8:01 am

Our cause should be to Jesus Christ, which is most expressively revealed in caring for others and in caring for each other. When issues other than redemptive truth, especially dealing with money and political issues, divide us it, reveals our brotherhood is less strong than those of political allies.

77   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 20th, 2010 at 9:12 am

There are millions of poor, sad people whose main career is just to get through another day. If we do not care with much more than words, we should at least have the integrity to stop using His Name.

78   chris    
March 20th, 2010 at 9:21 am

You’re so full of crap you breath stinks.

Sheer stupidity and bankruptcy (literal and moral) –

that’s what you espouse (and BtW, Chris –

Gruber is a hack.

700K jobs and all sorts of small business

.

That way we could feel good and run the country further into the red just for the fun of it.

Not that there is anything substantive that I could actually work with but…heck…I’ll try.

Gruber is the Economics Chair at M.I.T. if that is “hack” status then so be it. I’m sure M.I.T. fills it’s ranks with hack amateur economists for kicks. From his bio

Dr. Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the Director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a Research Associate. He is a co-editor of the Journal of Public Economics, and an Associate Editor of the Journal of Health Economics.

Past that I would like to say that your vitriol, towards those you disagree, is unbelievable.

Past that I would like to say that I appreciate your dismissal of my view with such eloquence and intellectual dialog. If you want to have discussion and dialog try to eliminate the opposing views with factual information and not ad hominem talking points of a speculative nature.

79   chris    
March 20th, 2010 at 9:24 am

My last comment got murdered by the blockquoting I was attempting. Hope it makes sense.

80   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 9:38 am

Perfect sense, chris.

It’s easy and convenient to just dismiss those whom you disagree with as “hacks” or just saying “the truth hurts” without providing any proof (see #61)

81   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 9:48 am

I don’t think it is an accident that the lectionary texts for tomorrow feed into a vision of something more. The gospel lesson is John 12, where Jesus says the poor will always be with you. Here is a snippet from my sermon which uses all for texts (Isa. 43:16-21, Psalm 126, Phil. 3:4-14, and John 12:1-8)

We will always have the poor with us. The status quo, the illusion we love to believe, is that if Jesus said we will always have poor people than we will. Trying to do something about that is futile, perhaps even doubting Jesus’ own words. But dreamers like Isaiah and the Psalmist and Paul would have a different angle on this. They would say that the reason Jesus said we would always have the poor among us is because so long as we are the church of Jesus Christ and doing as he did, the poor would naturally find us – they would seek us out just as they sought out Jesus. Why? Let’s let Jesus answer himself from two of his most famous sermons – First, his inaugural sermon in Luke 4, where again he quotes Isaiah: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free. He has come to bring good news to the poor. And second, his Sermon on the Mount in Matthew where he begins – his very first words are – Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

When the poor, the sick, the lost, the captives, the oppressed, the marginalized are not among us we have to ask ourselves: Are we the body of Christ?

82   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 20th, 2010 at 11:03 am

* What does it say about us when we are concerned, and even passionate, about protecting the status quo of the “haves” and comparitively dispassionate about the “have nots”?

* Can we be emotionally concerned with America’s national debt and seemingly unconcerned with the human suffering in places like Darfur and still claim to follow Jesus?

* When we actively seek to keep both our coats while others have none, are we really believers?

* When almost one millions Hatians are still without adequate food and shelter, and while they still bury a quarter million dead bodies, and while many suffer with incredibly injuries, and yet we are concerned with longer lines and maybe a decrease in medical services, are we conservative, realistic, or selfish?

* While we enjoy the thrill of comfortable debate 5000 Africans will die TODAY of AIDS after enduring much suffering. 6000 will die of malaria. Is debating the way of Jesus?

The American church doesn’t have to be worried about overlooking the plight of the poor…we’ve never really seen them at all.

83   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 20th, 2010 at 11:53 am

#48 M.G. says: I’m also interested in how legislators power will be increased in the bill. How will this bill make life more powerful for your average Senator/Congressman?

One only has to look at the Veterans Administration healthcare system. Clinics and hospitals are built mostly at the whims of our politicians. Most times clinics and hospitals are built not on need but on how much clout a politician has to bring a VA health facility into their districts. Hospitals and clinics are cash cows in any Senator’s or Congressman’s district.

Much of the time the VA is under funded and often operates under no funds while law makers take their time tacking on more pork to the VA budget. And decides who gets what.

While being under funded, compensation claims from our disabled returning vets are taking sometimes over a year to be adjudicated, often times being turned down when claims are legitimate. Then the appeals take just as long.

Just a hand full of things M.G. without even getting into the REAL horror stories. Let me know if you want to hear more.

I’ve been in the VA system since 1971 and I know all too well how our politicians use a medical system for the sake of power. To think otherwise is to be naive. Just look at the deals some of the politicians are getting just for yes votes!!!

84   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 3:28 pm

Scotty,

I don’t see how that answers M.G’s question.

85   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 20th, 2010 at 6:16 pm

“I’ve been in the VA system since 1971 and I know all too well how our politicians use a medical system anything for the sake of power. To think otherwise is to be naive. Just look at the deals some all of the politicians are getting just for yes votes!!!”

86   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 20th, 2010 at 8:59 pm

#81, that’s all nice and wonderful, but can you show me where it says in any of those Scriptures that we, Christians, are supposed to necessarily support government programs to rectify the situation? Can you demonstrate where it says in Scripture that the solution to all the world’s ills is found in the government, in taxes?

Seriously. I have said before and I’ll say it again, I think you have seriously misinterpreted/misunderstood the clear distinction between the role of church and government in this world. To be sure, they are not the same.

That’s just my opinion, and I’m sure you will disagree. Thanks, nevertheless, for listening.

:-)

87   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 9:13 pm

Jerry,

2 things. First, I said nothing of government or politics in #81 or about supporting gov’t.

Second, I make a clear distinction between the role of the church and the state and realize neither are the same (nor should be).

And third (this one is free) – I have never, ever said the solution to all the world’s ills is found in gov’t or taxes. Not sure where you get that idea from anything I have ever said.

88   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 20th, 2010 at 9:27 pm

Teabaggers use “N” word and “faggot” in protest today in D.C.

A friend of mine makes this comment, which I think is on the money:

certainly a “small federal government” may be a legitimate economic policy concern for some. but let’s be honest: that rhetoric also often masks the fact that for others “small government” is code for the white privilege interrupted by such federal interventions as the civil rights act, the war against the confederate secession, etc, etc.

89   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 20th, 2010 at 9:42 pm

#84

It’s manipulation of a system. And through that manipulation, the system is used to reward, take away or what ever the politicians in power chose to do, that’s power.

Why should I think that politicians that reward friends, manipulate bidding contracts, etc.etc. would NOT use the same processes in the new healthcare system, that’s been going on within VA healthcare system for decades.

It’s happening already at it’s not even law yet, some states are going to get a better deal than others on the costs of Medicade/Medicare. Where’s the fairness in that??!! The power to reward…….

Because of this new legislation Congressmen and Senators are, all of a sudden ,going to start to act like puppies and kittens?

I’m not pointing at you Chad, but, I am amazed at how willing people are to allow the government to run SO many things that impact our lives, not just healthcare. Republican/Independent/Democrat alike.

It’s always about power!

90   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 20th, 2010 at 10:43 pm

The only thing the New Testament says about government is that they are God’s instrument for justice. Now we know that there are many government’s that cannot under any reasonable circumstance be considered as being in direct cooperation with Jesus.

So we can safely let that alone, and seek the kingdom as followers of jesus. When you agree with or confront the government you ultimately compromise the true and only power which is in Jesus Christ. David Wilkerson said, “never before has the church made so many inroads into the culture and had so much of a percentage of the population, and had so little actual impact.

Should Jesus tarry the healthcare issue will give way to another issue which divides people and creates such consternation among professing believers. But even this issue, much less the spiritual condition of all our communities, will not demand prayer meetings on unscheduled nights at the local gatherings place.

The situation remains desperate but we remain not desperate. The devil continues to work his plan to deceive and distract the church from Christ and His kingdom. His plan has born much fruit in these days.

91   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 7:47 am

#89-

Scott, the reason I don’t think this answers M.G’s question is because you fail to show how THIS particular bill does something differently than any other bill Congress passes. While what you say may be true, it is true of pretty much everything.

Do you think what you say is NOT true about politicians who have insurance companies or other corporations in their district?

92   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 9:26 am

Today the congress will vote on the healthcare bill. Regardless of how the vote goes, one camp will rejoice and the other camp will be disgusted.

Both camps will be wrong.

93   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 12:36 pm

you fail to show how THIS particular bill does something differently than any other bill Congress passes.

This bill is doing something different than other bills in that it’s going to be in control of almost one quarter of the nation’s economy.

It makes the funds that the politicians play with for political gain in the VA healthcare system and any other budgets generated by other bills, chicken feed in comparison.

Do I trust them with this amount of money? Hardly and they’ve done nothing to garner my trust.

94   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 12:40 pm

The proof of orthodox theology can never lie exclusively with any systematic extrapolation of the written Scriptures, but there must be the corresponding actions that authenticate what the heart actually believes juxtaposed against what the Scriptures actually teach. And no one can enjoy the luxury of culling out those doctrinal truths from Scripture that do not demand observable evidence such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the penal substitution, and many others, without also being held accountable to the veracity of other Scriptural truths that demand observable evidence such as love, mercy, humility, and a passion concerning the ministry to the poor and downtrodden.

And against the backdrop of the ultimate compromise of God becoming a man in order to address the needs of His enemies, how deep are we willing to compromise our own personal surroundings in order to be used to meet the needs of others? Are the needs of others given such priority over our own needs and the needs of those with whom we have relationship that we are resolved, and even willing, to forsake our own desires and reasonable objections so as to be a selfless conduit to help the poor without finding some remonstrance which soothes our conscience but leaves the poor just as they are?

No government can either prevent us from doing Christ’s work or enhance that same redemptive labor. We should, and we must, operate in a different and unique kingdom which has no common subset with any earthly government or other organization. God can and does use and incorporate the acts of men, even the acts of unregenerate men, into His sovereign and providential scheme, but without that eternal blueprint we must adhere strictly to what we have been called to do – preach Jesus and live Jesus.

We cannot serve two masters. To embrace or assail any particular government is to fight the wrong battle with the wrong weapons against the wrong people.

95   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 12:50 pm

The western church has morphed into a company of judgmental complainers which only offer redemption on paper.

96   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 21st, 2010 at 1:42 pm

Thanks Chad. I knew you would disagree and that is fine. I guess I sort of inferred that your seemingly unconditional support for government mandated, paid for, and operated health care was your general attitude towards the world’s ill of ‘30 million’ people without ‘heath care.’ And that since higher taxes are necessary to fund it, well…

I guess I don’t understand why you think there is no solution outside the government for this ‘problem’ of ‘heath care’? That’s all I was saying.

Have a great day!

97   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 21st, 2010 at 1:43 pm

thanks Rick for your bountiful wisdom in these matters.

:-)

98   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 2:12 pm

Jerry,
Perhaps you missed the numerous times I have said that I would happily support any measure put forth by anyone that will address the health care needs of those who are without as I sit here fat and happy and secure with what I have.

I’ll say it again: If the insurance companies up and said they will insure the millions without regardless of preexisting conditions I’d be all for it.

99   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 2:23 pm

#97 – You are quite welcome, and there is no charge for just auditing the class. :cool:

100   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 2:55 pm

I guess I don’t understand why you think there is no solution outside the government for this ‘problem’ of ‘heath care’? That’s all I was saying.

What I don’t get is why those of us who support this bill are labeled as people who place all their hopes in the government to solve the ills of society. Those who oppose it would not want me to say of them that they place all their hopes in a capitalist market, would you? You would not want me to say of you that you place all your hopes in corporate America to fix the problems, would you?

Of course not. So why do you paint in ways you yourself would not wish to be painted?

101   M.G.    
March 21st, 2010 at 3:17 pm

The bill, which I view as far, far, far from perfect (and there is an excellent op-ed in the Times explaining why) will indeed cover 31 million people with health insurance.

I think that’s a pretty good thing.

And I don’t place my hopes in the government when I think that’s a good thing. It’s just that I’ve yet to see a plan offered by Christians whereby we make this a reality.

Is there a plan out there? Is there a Christian blueprint for insuring 31 million people?

If there were *competing* plans, yes, I’d join in the chorus here and say “don’t you dare put your faith in government.” Until then, I’ll be glad that in a country as enormously wealthy as the U.S., we’ll finally get around to having near universal care.

(And for those interested, the Economist’s latest issue endorses the plan as flawed, but necessary. As I usually do, I found myself in agreement.)

102   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 3:39 pm

“Is there a Christian blueprint for insuring 31 million people?”

Don’t change the subject. King Zero is bad – stay on topic! :cool:

103   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 4:05 pm

M.G. – I agree.

I think the plan is far from perfect but is a step in the right direction.

My support of it does not mean I think the church shouldn’t care for the sick any more than my support of public schools says I don’t think the church should care about education.

104   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:13 pm

Amidst this national “debate” there have been caustic rhetoric, demeaning labels, racial epithets, and even violence. Shouldn’t this kind of darkness provide an excellent forum for the church to speak redemption and Jesus? But instead, the church has basically taken one side or the other.

Ghandi rallied hundreds of millions under opressive colonialism, but the church of Jesus Christ cannot do anything but join the chorus.

105   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 4:16 pm

I’m applauding the executive order that makes public funding of abortions a no-go.

It makes the bill all the more better

106   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:25 pm

The bill is a load of crap. If it passes (with the fig-leaf of an EO), it’ll lose in the courts on a 10th amendment challenge (for the individual mandate, which tries to regulate economic inactivity), or it will be repealed after dear leader is booted in 2013.

This won’t save a dime, and it’ll be gone before anyone is “covered” by it (which simply means buying a policy that allows you to be told that you won’t get a doctor, because nobody will take your gov’t-backed insurance).

107   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:26 pm

But Chad – Many say that executive order does not insure abortions will not be funded. See, politics reeled you in.

Politics is like catching a greased pig – a lying and power hungry greased pig!

108   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:28 pm

“Politics is like catching a greased pig – a lying and power hungry greased pig!”

And look! Chris L has caught it against all odds!! :lol:

109   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 4:29 pm

Many say that executive order does not insure abortions will not be funded

Oh rick, pleeeease.

Many say? Who are the many? The executive order was just announced 10 minutes ago.

Politics “reeled” me in? Pollsters reeled you in.

110   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 4:31 pm

The bill is going to pass, Chris L.
You don’t have to live here.

111   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:32 pm

Executive order = the paper it was written on.

112   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Executive order = the Campaign Finance Reform Bill.

No teeth.

113   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 4:35 pm

So the many = Rick F.

I get it.

114   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:35 pm

What I don’t get is why those of us who support this bill are labeled as people who place all their hopes in the government to solve the ills of society.

Uhm. Maybe because you’re just modern Herodians, who were labeled correctly 2000 years ago. While Jesus referred to them as “lost sheep” (rather than “goats”, which was their cultural nickname), he never supported their sycophancy for Caesar.

Those who oppose it would not want me to say of them that they place all their hopes in a capitalist market, would you? You would not want me to say of you that you place all your hopes in corporate America to fix the problems, would you?

Well, since there is no entity that can be classified as a “market force”. Suggesting that some put their hopes in the forces of capitalism is like saying that they put their hopes in the law of gravity to protect them from floating off into space.

I’ll say it again: If the insurance companies up and said they will insure the millions without regardless of preexisting conditions I’d be all for it.

They have supported high-risk pools for a long time, but they are still significantly more expensive than other insurance plans (which isn’t good enough for Congress). Otherwise, there’s no need for insurance until you get sick (which is no longer insurance). If “health insurance” was converted into something analogous to auto insurance (which only covers catastrophes, not maintenance and repairs), I’d be more supportive of this, because that would drive the price down for the “blocking-and-tackling” of healthcare, and allow more to be covered.

But tat has less room for graft, so DC would never support it.

115   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:37 pm

The many most = Rick Frueh

116   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:38 pm

The bill is going to pass, Chris L.
You don’t have to live here.

The Senate Bill will pass, but will the “fixes” in the reconciliation bill (or will it die in the Senate)?

There are numerous ways to gut this pig, and the inherent problems in the system will likely make its benefits never materialize. Getting BO’s signature on it is only the beginning of the fight, not the end of it.

117   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:39 pm

When is the actual vote? I enjoy the WWE atmosphere!

118   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:40 pm

Rick – the EO doesn’t require funding, but (from dear leader’s perspective) can sit on the books until the benefits kick in in 2015 (under his assumption of a second term), at which time he can safely prove that Stupak was a rube when he rescinds it.

ALL of The One’s promises have an expiration date.

119   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:42 pm

“Getting BO’s signature”

Just cannot resist. There isn’t a scrap of Jesus in this entire debate but what does He have to do with anything.

120   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:42 pm

I’ll be dead by 2015. Thank God.

121   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 4:43 pm

You’re so full of crap you breath stinks.
it just shows your moral bankruptcy
What frickin idiots you are.

to this we can now add:

Maybe because you’re just modern Herodians

and

“lost sheep”

You should listen more to your wife.

122   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:48 pm

“You should listen more to your wife.”

Kinda bad when your wife is more of a spiritual exhorter than are you. I may become an egalitarian.

123   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 4:51 pm

Well, Rick, she obviously doesn’t learn about Christian love from the “head” of her household. *gag*

124   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 4:53 pm

FTR – I am no Obama suppoter. I would never vote for him even if I did vote. But I do love and pray for him and his salvation. I admire his commitment to his family as well.

125   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Rick,
Obama is a professing Christian.

But perhaps you know his heart better than I.

126   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 5:00 pm

He believes in works salvation. I have heard his explanation so I am not judging his heart. Sun yong Moon claims to be a Christian as well. Do you believe that?

127   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 5:11 pm

He believes in works salvation

Oh. Well, obviously then, he is not saved. Everyone knows the work one must do to be saved is not believe in works. Duh.

I don’t know Sun yong Moon.

128   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 5:15 pm

“I don’t know Sun yong Moon.”

But do you know Richard H. Brodhead? :cool:

129   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 5:23 pm

FYI – “lost sheep” was a recognition that they were sheep, and not goats. I meant is as complimentary, not as a diss.

130   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 5:25 pm

Chris – you are a moron. (I meant that as a compliment! :) )

131   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 5:27 pm

129: Oh, gee, thanks, Chris. That non-diss nullifies everything else.

God forbid you actually apologize for being so hateful OR actually take your own wife’s advice. Perhaps you can’t?

132   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 5:28 pm

Chad – she’s gotten on my case about a number of my comments, but I think you’ll be the last person I take marital advice from.

133   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 5:29 pm

but I think you’ll be the last person I take marital advice from.

Why?

134   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 5:29 pm

Rick – from you, I’ll take that as a compliment. I’ll take that as a step up in the world.

135   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 5:31 pm

Will any of you who are so entrenched in your hatred of this bill at least have the gumption to admit that the President’s move to restrict funding for abortions is at least a good thing? Or does your hatred of Obama and this bill prevent you from seeing anything positive?

136   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Will any of you who are so entrenched in your hatred of this bill at least have the gumption to admit that the President’s move to restrict funding for abortions is at least a good thing?

It’s a good thing for all it is worth, which is probably about as much as the Munich Agreement. It won’t hold up to a court challenge, so (if anything) Stupak is a willing rube. Fortunately NRL, SBAL and others see through the smokescreen.

Or does your hatred of Obama and this bill prevent you from seeing anything positive?

I’ll call it “trust but verify”. Once it holds up to a court challenge, or actually prevents federal funds from being used for abortions, I’ll grant the credit.

137   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 5:43 pm

“trust but verify”

As in the reason for invading Iraq? An active nuclear and chemical weapons program? :cool:

138   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Rick – I agree, as well, in justification for military action. I believe the term was coined by Reagan in the Cold War, for deals made w/ the Russians – which prevented armed conflicts and minimized the double-dealing.

139   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 5:58 pm

“doveryai, no proveryai”

140   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 6:22 pm

IT PASSED!! No more problems!!

141   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 21st, 2010 at 7:45 pm

Congratulations Purdue!

142   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 9:23 pm

“I was sick and you took care of me”
- Jesus

143   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 10:47 pm

216!!!!

Does this mean Rush will lead a mass exodus out of here? It will be tough for him to find a developed country without socialized medicine.

144   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 21st, 2010 at 10:58 pm

#97, it wasn’t that bountiful. and i prefer to speak.

145   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 21st, 2010 at 11:00 pm

#103, how is it a ’step in the right direction’ to bankrupt the entire nation?

I don’t see that as a viable option. Show me one country, one nation on the planet that has survived, and thrived under the socialism you are promoting through your support of this ‘bill’.

146   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 21st, 2010 at 11:10 pm

“I was sick and you took care of me”
- Jesus

Or in Rev Holtz’s translation, “I was sick, and you voted for the government to take care of me by allowing them to raise your taxes to inconceivable and outrageous heights.”

Yeah. So much for the ‘you’ of Jesus’ statement. Once again, Chad defers to the government to solve a problem Jesus told him (or us) to solve. But I don’t need to take care of sick people now that the government is going to, right Chad? I don’t need to be my neighbors neighbor any longer thanks to the government.

147   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 21st, 2010 at 11:13 pm

219-212 is hardly a mandate so I’m not sure what you are cheering about Chad.

148   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 11:20 pm

Oh poo poo Jerry. You can leave the country now.

But I don’t need to take care of sick people now that the government is going to, right Chad?

No. You can continue to be an ass.

149   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 11:30 pm

But I don’t need to take care of sick people now that the government is going to, right Chad?

This is just the stupidest question.

Jerry, you would call me a dumbass if I said:

So, Jerry, I guess we can just stop taking care of sick people because insurance companies insure everyone now, right?

Stupid.

We take care of the people in our midst. If someone is sick, we help them. I have friends that all have health insurance but that doesn’t mean when they are ill I say, “Well, thank God I don’t have to do anything for you since you have insurance!” Stupid.

We take care of those we can, and I am happy to support a bill that just took care of 32 million people that I can’t care for by myself. I’m more than happy to make some sacrifices so that they can have some of the same peace of mind I have every day.

Stupid.

150   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 21st, 2010 at 11:35 pm

Jerry – you said on your FB comment to me:

That’s too bad for you because anyone who reads this thread will see that I was kind to you and tolerant of your ideas while the best you could conjure up is that I am an idiot and an *hole. I hope that’s not YOUR idea of friendship because it if is, I’ll take tolerance any day of the week. I’d prefer you tolerate me than despise me under your breath.

How funny! Should I post what I sent you that shows how you REALLY talk about your “friends” behind their back? Yeah, that’s “toleration”

I’ll say it again: you are a fake

151   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:33 am

The western church takes care of people? Please show me one church that spends more on the care of others than they do on mortgage payments, salaries, or even utilities.

There are thousands upon thousands of suffering sinners in every community and the church has more passion about golf tournements than actively seeking these that Jesus loves.

Let me know the next time your church business meeting votes on borrowing money to help the poor, even if the plan is somehow flawed.

152   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:31 am

From what I’ve read there are 38 states that are ready to challenge this thing on it’s constitutionality. With more states getting ready to jump on board.

The fist fight isn’t over yet.

153   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:48 am

Just a few thoughts.

I think it’s obvious that the bill will be costing us some money, and at a bad time. The reports I find most credible say that the bill’s cost will amount to somewhere between 500 and 600 billion dollars. But:

This amount is roughly $100 billion less than what the DoD will spend in 2010.

This amount is roughly half the total cost of Bush’s prescription drug plan.

This amount is roughly half the ultimate combined cost of Afghanistan and Iraq.

What I’m curious about is why the absolute vitriol now. Why do protesters spit on Representative Cleaver? Why do others use the N-word? Why don’t seniors, or F-22 Raptors, invoke the same passions?

My thought is that this bill is part of a very old conversation, but with a constantly changing vocab. In other words, if Lee Atwater thought it once was about state’s rights, or busing, I think it’s now about budget restraints, and government intervention.

This, of course, doesn’t explain *all* opposition to the bill. There are good reasons for thinking the bill is flawed.

However, it does explain why *some* people get so incredibly worked up over this, as opposed to other major expenditures over the last 5 years.

And it should caution all of us to rethink who we are careful to stand up with. Just as much as I think there is a foul spirit in Washington, I do believe that there is something very foul about the Tea Party movement. Very foul indeed.

Just my 2 cents.

154   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:32 am

My biggest personal objection to the bill, M.G. is that we simply cannot afford it. Fiscally the US is out of control and it seems never to end. And ALL sides on that issues are equally guilty.

The United States simply cannot go on spending/borrowing/printing money as it doing. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out!

155   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:46 am

If the U.S. lowered its defense spending to TWICE the amount spent by China (which is currently in second place for total money spent), then we’d be able pay for the ENTIRE cost of this healthcare bill EVERY single year.

It’s pretty sobering to think about.

I think James Madison said it best:

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . . ”

Important question: Why have Christians forgotten this lesson? Why are we okay with preemptive and unilateral war (which isn’t war so much as execution), perpetual conflict, and spending as much on the tools of warfare than the rest of the world combined?

But we despise healthcare for the poorest?

How is that Christian in any meaningful sense?

156   Mike    
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:57 am

At the risk of being flip, I’ll answer M.G.

Going to war = protecting the poorest, who can not protect themselves. Justice, something that does fall under the Biblical mandate of the government.

Healthcare = something not covered by the Biblical mandate of the government, so therefore open to opinion.

Not saying I agree, just saying…

-Blessings

157   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:01 pm

Important question: Why have Christians forgotten this lesson? Why are we okay with preemptive and unilateral war (which isn’t war so much as execution), perpetual conflict, and spending as much on the tools of warfare than the rest of the world combined?

Well, I don’t know that I’d say that all Christians are OK with those things, but I’ll grant you that there is more outcry over the healthcare issue than defense spending.

From a purely political perspective, I’d say that at least defense spending is in the purview of the federal government from a Constitutional perspective.

From a personal perspective, I’d say that one reason many people are wary of the healthcare issue is that when you look at the survey of insured people about their satisfaction with their care, the majority of people are happy with it. I think people are genuinely worried about things like not having access to their family doctor when they needs it, or having to pay more out-of-pocket for things or higher taxes. And people simply don’t trust politicians to have their best interest at heart when dealing with these issues. So, yeah, I think most people will acknowledge that the healthcare system needs reformed in some way, but they just don’t like the idea of this.

I just think that there’s a strong distrust of government that runs deep in Americans, and I’d say that includes Christians who are Americans as well.

158   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:25 pm

Chris L,

Since my last comment I was unable to access this site, being told I was forbidden by your server. My gut told me that you had banned me, perhaps at Jerry’s request (given that I know he has lobbied for my moderation in the past). Turns out it was some internet fluke and so I want to apologize for assuming you banned me. I’ll add it to the apology I offered in #74 which I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you never saw, given that your comment in #114 seemed to not care what I said.

I’m still curious though: Why am I the last person you would ever take marital advice from?

159   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:27 pm

Phil,

I agree, there is a deep distrust in the American people about the government.

But what I simply can’t understand, is why it is so limited? Why were Christians so completely on board the invasion of Iraq, and why do we still continue to mimic the government’s incessant message that it was solely about the desire to free the Iraqi people (recognizing that the WMD issue didn’t work out so well)?

Simply put: the government says “let’s extend healthcare to the poorest” Christians interpret that to mean “you hate me and want to ruin my life.”

But the government says “let’s free the Iraqi people,” Christians think “yes, you’re right, you are good and noble, government, indeed, let’s free the Iraqi people. This certainly has nothing to do with oil, global hegemony, or the military-industrial complex.”

So, I think that the distrust is a surface-level issue, (as is the biblical mandate, issue because, surely, that’s not a *sufficient* condition for a government’s actions to be just, correct? The government cannot commit war crimes, for example, simply because war is within the clear purview of the government).

There is more here than meets the eye. That’s the only way I can begin to understand most Americans’ selective rage over 1.) budget issues and 2.) the supposed wickedness of the U.S. government.

160   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:37 pm

But what I simply can’t understand, is why it is so limited? Why were Christians so completely on board the invasion of Iraq, and why do we still continue to mimic the government’s incessant message that it was solely about the desire to free the Iraqi people (recognizing that the WMD issue didn’t work out so well)?

Well, I knew a lot of people who were in the military and who on the right side of the political spectrum who had many questions about the Iraq war. I just don’t see the same type of blind support you seem to be describing. Sure, there were some people who were lockstep with Bush, but I can’t equate that group to represent the majority of American Christians.

There is more here than meets the eye. That’s the only way I can begin to understand most Americans’ selective rage over 1.) budget issues and 2.) the supposed wickedness of the U.S. government.

It could well be that this issue simply is more personal for people. The vast majority of Americans are completely unaffected by the wars. The percentage of families that have someone in active duty is actually pretty low – I don’t know exactly what is offhand, but I think it was less than 10% last time I read about it. So, really, with the wars, I think many people feel it doesn’t directly affect them and there’s nothing they can do about it anyway.

I’m not saying that’s a right attitude, but I do think that people perceive this issue as more of a personal threat. I don’t think most people actually give a rip about the federal budget or the deficit, but they do care if they start hearing that they may have to pay more in taxes.

161   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:52 pm

By the way, MG, I would say the apparent hypocrisy and selective rage could be observed by the other side as well. During this whole debate, Obama has been attacking the insurance companies as being just a step below pure evil, but now this bill effectively adds 30 million or so people to their books. There isn’t really anything like a “public option” anymore in the bill, it just makes it law that everyone has to buy health insurance. There are subsidies of course, but still, they’re subsidies that will eventually end up in the coffers of the insurance companies. How isn’t this just another type of corporate welfare?

162   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Phil,

Of course, there were Americans, even on the right, that were skeptical of the war.

However, I think it’s entirely fair to say that the subsection of Americans who trusted Bush and his words about our nation’s intent, motive, and justification for war is *very* similar to the subsection of Americans who now distrust *everything* Obama says about our nation’s intent, motive, and justification for expanding healthcare.

Some of its politics, naturally. Some of it is self-interest as well, of course.

But when you look through American history, whether it’s the framing of the Constitution, the Civil War, Jim Crow and the Plessy era, all the way through Civil Rights, it seems to me that the current *intense* passion this debate is invoking surely plays into that long-standing narrative arc.

And the kicker, I truly believe, is the the fact that Obama is black. There is a section of America that feels absolutely spit on by this whole turn of events. They want “their” America back, and healthcare reform is just another concern that it’s gone forever.

163   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:00 pm

Chad:

1) #74 I missed. Your apology is accepted.
2) #132 was in regard to your egalitarian/complementarian views, nothing else (Christian reminded me that my comment could have been taken differently, which I had forgotten)
3) #158 I’ve checked both the server and the moderation queue – your email/IP/etc. are not in either (and the server queue is empty, in terms of banned IP’s).
4) In general, for the time being, I am not going to reply to any of your queries, because (at least w/ where I am right now on multiple fronts) I am incapable of not escalating the rhetoric in response to the same. This is as much my issue as it is yours, but either (or both) of us could defuse it, and this is the only way I can right now.

164   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Phil,

What’s also largely funding the healthcare bill is fees and other funds extracted out of the healthcare industry. Corporate welfare is a bit extreme, but yes, you’re right, Obama was able to get the healthcare lobbyists to sign on.

And I don’t think that there is too much hypocrisy on the left regarding this point. The true American left hates this bill, and the few genuinely liberal congressmen were quick to point out that they were holding their noses as they voted for the bill.

165   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:03 pm

But when you look through American history, whether it’s the framing of the Constitution, the Civil War, Jim Crow and the Plessy era, all the way through Civil Rights, it seems to me that the current *intense* passion this debate is invoking surely plays into that long-standing narrative arc.

Well, there have always been a dualistic nature to American politics (there is in almost any Democratic system, really) where the power ebbs and flows between the individualistic notions and populism. I suspect the power struggle will continue on in the future.

And the kicker, I truly believe, is the the fact that Obama is black. There is a section of America that feels absolutely spit on by this whole turn of events. They want “their” America back, and healthcare reform is just another concern that it’s gone forever.

Well, how does that explain the reaction that Bill Clinton got when he tried doing something similar in the 90’s? Oh, I forgot, he was really the first black president… :-)

166   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:08 pm

What’s also largely funding the healthcare bill is fees and other funds extracted out of the healthcare industry. Corporate welfare is a bit extreme, but yes, you’re right, Obama was able to get the healthcare lobbyists to sign on.

Well, assuming the promised cuts in the way of “waste reduction” in Medicaire actually come to pass. I don’t know, I gotta question the wisdom of believing a group of people who oversee one program that supposedly generates so much waste and fraud to wisely reduce that waste and fraud and re-invest it into another program.

I guess that’s the thing about these CBO projections – they are pretty much always based on the best-case scenario. That’s why when Bush first took office they were talking about a “projected” surplus. Well, much of what’s projected simply ends up being dead wrong. I guess I don’t put much trust in the current ones either.

167   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Chris L,

Your apology is accepted, as well

re: the marital quote – I don’t believe you, but so what.

168   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:27 pm

Phil,

The Medicare cuts and the 80 billion dollar pharmaceutical industry fees are two separate things. I don’t think there is any doubt that the drug industry will pay the new fees as required by law.

As far as the Clinton healthplan is concerned, that was a 100% universal system which provided for regional healthcare “alliances” that were to be 100% publicly owned.

It was ambitious, and even the Democrats were skeptical. Eventually, though, it died, and without the fanfare we are seeing today.

Fast forward to present day, and we Obama wanting to pass what is essentially a souped-up “Patients Bill of Rights,” and all people can talk about is “socialism” this, and “government takeover” that.

It’s absolutely insane.

169   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:32 pm

It’s absolutely insane.

Well, ’tis the nature of political debate, I suppose. Oh well, it’s not the end of the world.

I have to admit, though, I laughed when I saw this Facebook status by one of my relatives this morning:

all i can say is that i hope the rapture happens before the people in this world end it for all of us….

I hate it when stereotypes are proven true… :-)

170   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm

If the U.S. lowered its defense spending to TWICE the amount spent by China (which is currently in second place for total money spent), then we’d be able pay for the ENTIRE cost of this healthcare bill EVERY single year.

If that were to happen tomorrow nothing would change, politicians being what they are would more than likely NOT put that money towards the healthcare bill, they would spend it on something else……history shows that to be true…….unfortunately.

171   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm

Just when I’m tempted to write the U.S. off, I’m reminded of the fact that in the late 70s, every respectable economist was forecasting that Japan’s economy would overtake the U.S.’s, marking our inevitable decline.

I hope that China likewise stalls in its own bid to overtake the U.S. economy.

172   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm

Just when I’m tempted to write the U.S. off, I’m reminded of the fact that in the late 70s, every respectable economist was forecasting that Japan’s economy would overtake the U.S.’s, marking our inevitable decline.

I hope that China likewise stalls in its own bid to overtake the U.S. economy.

173   Mike    
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:44 pm

I have to agree, Phil. You know alot of people are angry with the passing of the bill and I just don’t understand that. I feel it is the wrong move to make. I am glad it is being challenged as unconstitutional, but if it passes and gets put into affect, I will not lose a wink of sleep.

Could it cause financial hardship for my family, yup. Could it cause me to lose my job, probably not. I’m not apathetic, I am just not worried.

And when I do get worried, I remind myself that Jesus spent alot of time trying to convince people to stop worrying so much about their bellies and their wallets and focus on what is really important. Him.

-Blessings

174   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:45 pm

I should have added, they would spend on important things like, airports nobody uses, bridges to nowhere or new signs on freeways roads touting on how well they bring home the bacon…..

175   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Scotty,

For better or for worse, pork is nothing more than a blip on the radar screen for America’s budget.

We spend our money on just two things 1.) Entitlements and 2.) Defense.

If we cut those two areas in half, that would pay for enough useless airports and bridges to nowhere to fill the world about 10 times over. A lot of pork projects amount to nothing more than an hour on Air Force One.

176   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:16 pm

MG,
Have you seen this:

Your comment about pork spending reminded me of it.

177   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:32 pm

Phil,

That’s pretty remarkable. Something’s got to (and will) give.

178   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:02 pm

pork is nothing more than a blip on the radar screen for America’s budget.

If billions of dollars are just a blip to you, God bless ya!!

179   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:39 pm

Scotty,

Pork projects don’t tend to run into the billions. I think Murtha’s “airport to nowhere” cost something like $150 million.

That being said, while $150 million is quite a bit of money to *me*, it’s not really not that much money to a person like Warren Buffett, much less the United States budget.

We’re a very, very, very rich nation. We use all that money to pay for a lot of healthcare, a lot of retirement benefits, and a lot of devices designed for killing human beings.

The rest pales by comparison.

180   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:48 pm

After President Clinton’s attempt at Health reform failled due to Republican objections, I did not see the Republicans work tirelessly to present a “good” plan. Did the Reps ever offer a bill at all when they ran the government?

181   chris    
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:39 pm

Did the Reps ever offer a bill at all when they ran the government?

Of course not Rick. The bounds of hypocrisy are limitless when you can demonize your opposition for trying to do that which you haven’t even attempted.

182   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:45 pm

“Your plan to go overseas to that mission field is rechless, unfair, and will bankrupt this church!”

“OK, why haven’t you come up with a plan in times past?”

“Because I was waiting to criticize yours, but I do care about the people you want to reach, it’s just that you are going about it the wrong way.”

(A flawed plan carried out is better than a perfect plan never attempted – Rick Frueh)

183   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:50 pm

After President Clinton’s attempt at Health reform failled due to Republican objections, I did not see the Republicans work tirelessly to present a “good” plan. Did the Reps ever offer a bill at all when they ran the government?

Well, GWB had his massive prescription drug bill, and that was a big-ticket item as well.

I guess I don’t understand when we started thinking that the job of senators and congressmen was to fix all of our problems. I just don’t like the idea that says doing something is always better than doing nothing. It’s like we have the idea that the next law Congress passes is going to be the one that really fixes things.

184   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:53 pm

(A flawed plan carried out is better than a perfect plan never attempted – Rick Frueh)

A flawed plan carried out poorly can be a lot more dangerous than simply doing nothing. It reminds me of that old joke about many a redneck’s three last words being, “hey, watch this!” or “hold muh beer…”

Sometimes restraint is better than action.

185   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:54 pm

“I just don’t like the idea that says doing something is always better than doing nothing.”

I hope that includes military action as well.

186   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Sometimes restraint is better than action.

Yeah, the first two guys in that Good Samaritan story were the ones who really got it right.

187   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:59 pm

For what it’s worth Rick, here a some of the proposals and a bit of history of what Republicans have offered here

188   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:03 pm

Yeah, the first two guys in that Good Samaritan story were the ones who really got it right.

Well, if you want to believe the federal government is akin to the Good Samaritan, go right ahead.

All I’m saying is that wisdom dictates when action should be taken and when it shouldn’t. I was responding to Rick universal edict that acting is always better than not. Acting without wisdom can simply be foolish, whether it’s invading a country or passing legislation. Just because your guy’s the one at top doesn’t mean you should root him on to do something.

The cry of “we have to something”, at least coming from Washington, is largely motivated by the caveat, “or else the voters will see as not doing anything”.

189   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:04 pm

I do not profess to understand the massively complex issue, however if these Republicans had a better plan why did they not intoduce it during the Bush years when they controlled everything?

Answer: It only became a front burner issue when they saw the Dems making progress on theirs. Like a child who doesn’t care about a toy until another child wants it.

190   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:04 pm

#179

I’m speaking in cumulative terms, M.G. Sorry, it’s still big money! Every buck adds up to sumthin’

191   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:05 pm

I guess I don’t understand when we started thinking that the job of senators and congressmen was to fix all of our problems

I don’t understand why just because someone supports a bill that provides health care for people without it are suddenly branded as people who want the gov’t to “fix all their problems.”

Would you say the same thing during civil rights legislation or over legislation that de-segregated schools?

You certainly don’t seem to mind that the gov’t fix all your national defense problems. I don’t find the convenient loophole that “well, that’s what they are supposed to do” very convincing. You applaud when they kill people for you (to prevent blood from being on your hands) but cry in disgust when they bring health care to people you can’t help yourself?

192   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:06 pm

Phil _ I cannot see how not responding to human need and suffering is what Jesus would want, unless you are the one who is not suffering and if addressing someone else’s need will be costly.

193   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:09 pm

The church has adopted the “Don’t do anything” policy as it applies to human suffering. We do make convenient overtures sometimes and make sure we let the congregation know what we are doing, but when do we sacrifice and give one of opur two coats to the poor and downtrodden?

Never. Biblical Christianity has been lost in the western culture.

194   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:13 pm

Would you say the same thing during civil rights legislation or over legislation that de-segregated schools?

Well, it depends…

As you know, passing those laws did not solve those problems. I think there are some people who really do have the idea that it should have. As far as those laws prevent one citizen from depriving another from his or rights, they are good.

As I read some of the responses from different places around the web about this bill from some Christians, I see two things. First, there are some who seem to think that Jesus Himself sponsored the bill and it is a gift dropped from heaven. On the other hand, I see people who think it’s the end of the world. Personally, I think it may accomplish some good, but I also think it will bring with it a bunch of unintended consequences. In other words, more of the same…

You certainly don’t seem to mind that the gov’t fix all your national defense problems. I don’t find the convenient loophole that “well, that’s what they are supposed to do” very convincing. You applaud when they kill people for you (to prevent blood from being on your hands) but cry in disgust when they bring health care to people you can’t help yourself?

I said nothing of the sort. I’ve never applauded anyone for killing anyone else. I do believe that from a Biblical standpoint, the one function of the government is to limit the amount of chaos on the earth at a given time. It is a restraining force to prevent all out anarchy.

195   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:23 pm

Phil _ I cannot see how not responding to human need and suffering is what Jesus would want, unless you are the one who is not suffering and if addressing someone else’s need will be costly.

If you really think that is the real motivation behind anything coming out of DC, you are more optimistic than me. I simply do not have that sort of trust.

I do believe that God can use misguided motivations to bless people, and I do pray that’s the case here somehow, but I don’t know we need to blindly accept all aid or not question motivations.

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter. Obviously people see things differently than I do. I’m OK with that. I just honestly do try to see things from others’ perspectives sometimes, and with this issue, there simply hasn’t been something that’s made me be like, “oh, I see what you’re saying now”.

196   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:28 pm

I was referring to the church which is practically doing nothing ecept being verbose against the actions of others.

197   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:33 pm

I was referring to the church which is practically doing nothing ecept being verbose against the actions of others.

Well, of course I’d say the Church needs to do more in the way of caring for the sick and the poor. That is part and parcel to the Gospel.

I was mainly talking about the idea that the government doing anything is better is always better than doing nothing.

198   M.G.    
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Phil,

You can choose to believe me or not, but I’ve spent a lot of time around people who consider themselves to be progressives (many of whom work in government), and the overriding motivation behind the healthcare push is the thought that it’s rather scandalous that a nation as rich as the U.S. can’t provide basic healthcare coverage to its citizens.

It’s really that simple. The idea is basically “well, gee whiz, every other industrialized nation has managed to do it, it’s pretty stupid for us to be stuck in 1950s.”

I think if one simply looks at D.C., it can be easy to be a sceptic. But when you look at, you know, every other industrialized western nation on planet earth, it’s less a conspiracy, and more a no-brainer.

199   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:38 pm

“I was mainly talking about the idea that the government doing anything is better is always better than doing nothing.”

I agree. But is it appropriate to demean, scandalize, and dismiss others simply because we do not agree with their method? How can some be so “balanced and charitable” when dealing with unbiblical statements from some preachers, but so virulent against President Obama?

I do not get the difference.

200   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:47 pm

Well, if you want to believe the federal government is akin to the Good Samaritan, go right ahead.

Actually, I hadn’t thought of it that way until you said it.

It is interesting that one of the main points of the parable is that justice often comes from the most unlikely source.

So I guess you are welcome to cross your arms and stick up your nose and say along with Israel, “WE know how to show compassion and love far better than the ugly Government Samaritans” As Jesus simply says, “See that? Go and do likewise.”

201   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:58 pm

The role of gov’t ought to also be, ideally, one that looks out for the needy, the marginalized, the poor, the sick, and the oppressed. Good gov’t can and should do those things. We are crazy when we say ONLY the church ought to do these things (which it ought) but we should also pray that our actions and the light we shine is like leaven in the earth.

There are millions today who have been cared for in ways the church can’t. There are millions today who feel a sense of peace of mind and body that I have had all my life and take for granted.

SOmetimes the right thing is not always the easiest thing.

202   chris    
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:03 pm

It’s like we have the idea that the next law Congress passes is going to be the one that really fixes things.

I’ve never thought that nor had I suggested it.

My issue has and will continue to be that WE (the church) continue to look to the government to protect our freedoms or amend our constitution when it serves our purposes but when they tread on us then we want to scream “Separation!”

My broad brush view of government is the protection and safety (well being) of the populace. In my view Health Care falls into that category.

It’s not political for me, in the sense that I’m motivated by party lines. I voted for Obama and I voted for GWB (twice) both have flaws and strengths. Neither operated without the input or process of Congress. So to make this an Obama issue is ridiculous. Just like Iraq was Bush’s war.

203   chris    
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:05 pm

“I’m NOT motivated”

204   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:06 pm

Today I am happy for people like my mother-in-law, who at 58 has never had a mammogram let alone a physical check up because she has never been able to get health insurance due to being told she had pre-diabetes by a doctor nearly 20 years ago. Not a single insurer would touch her and she has tried everything.

When the bulk of the people screaming the loudest against this bill are the same people who tomorrow will go see their family doctor because they have the sniffles and not think a thing about how that visit might limit the food on the table or make it impossible to pay their rent, than the real evil here lies not with the “liberal” government but in ourselves.

205   chris    
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:08 pm

#204

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thMm7RFsm0

I feeeeeeellll fineeeeee!

206   chris    
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:21 pm

Scotty,

Thanks for the link on Republican proposals. I’ve read through all of them. I really did.

I find two things interesting.

1) None of those proposals were issued until 2009.

2) Not a single one has been signed. They are all sitting in sub-committees or review.

Now far be it from me to understand politics or assign motivation but it appears that none of the proposals even change anything. Again I’ve read them all. I particularly liked this passage from Sam Johnsons proposal:

“First and foremost, we need to make health care more affordable and accessible. That is why my goal is to get every American insured. Nearly eight in ten Americans in working families lack health insurance. In fact, Texas has the highest rate of uninsured residents among all employed or self-employed adults — 27%. Enacting Association Health Plans is the best way to increase the number of insured Americans,” said Johnson.

Sounds ominously familiar.

207   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:26 pm

You think that the healthcare bill wastes a lot of money?

Have you ever seen a church budget? An American refrigerator? Malls? Clothes? Cars? Swimming pools (I have one). Spending on pets? Hair products?

The speck/mote principle applies nicely here. I believe a frugal and humble person would not be concerned with what the government did or did not do. Anyone who takes political sides has no eyes to see and no ears to hear.

If God is directly us to get involved with such a virulent, hateful, and self elevating genre He would have to erase a whole lot of the New Testament. “Bless those who despitefully use you” is no more real in western Christianity than the gospel according to the Brothers Grimm.

If someone began to read the New Testament aloud in front of all of us, how long would it take before he reached a verse that no one even attempt to believe and follow? I would suggest that somewhere around Matt.5:3 the words would openly reveal that we are great doctrinal exegetes, but we are really uninterested in entering the sacrifice required to walk according to those teachings.

They are nice sounding words that have not found a place in the evangelical community. We all are massive hypocrites who are embarrassinly comfortable in our hypocrisy. We might be saved, but we in no way resemble Jesus or His words.

208   Chad Holtz    http://www.chadholtz.net
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:36 pm

The “graciousness” of Chris Lyons:

[Personal content redacted]

and when I said I might consider this if he would apologize for how he continues to demean and insult me, even after I was apologetic on this thread (despite his continued barbs), he replies with this:

Chad,

[personal content redacted]

Funny how you ask me to just leave you alone as a “Christian” after you call me a “godless” liberal, etc., etc….

If anyone should be on moderation it is you, Chris L. As for being responsible for what is on this site, how do you justify your vitriol, insults, and just ass-iness towards me and others whom you dislike? I have never called you an “idiot” or “moron” or even questioned your salvation. You do this repeatedly to me, however.

Look in the mirror if you are really worried about the content on your site.

209   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:41 pm

“Pastor” Holtz is now on permanent moderation, due to his inability to follow simple requests.

210   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 pm

Hey Chris – I just heard Ben Stein say he likes the bill and that pharmaceutical companies will enjoy a boom. Drug and insurance stocks went up today. Is it true that your company (for example) will profit from this bill?

211   nathan    
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 pm

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

212   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:24 pm

That David Frum piece is pretty much indicative of what I was talking about earlier. It seems to me that if your honest opinion on an issue is that passing legislation is not the way to bring about change, or that the legislation proposed is heading down the wrong path, why should you compromise with those proposing an idea. I guess in some things I think it’s OK to take hard line on an issue. That doesn’t mean you have to demonize your opponents, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with voting based purely on principle if that’s truly your motivation.

213   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:36 am

“That doesn’t mean you have to demonize your opponents, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with voting based purely on principle if that’s truly your motivation.”

Especially if you are a professing believer. In the midst of hateful and demeaning politics, Christians who participate should exhibit an observably different way of speaking and acting.

Our overarching allegiance is to Jesus the Christ, and we should distance ourselves and even reprove those who may even be on the same side but act and speak in a way contrary to Christ and your convictions.

214   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:45 am

Chris L. – Without getting into weighing who is more reckless in their verbiage and treatment of each other, I would request (with no authority whatsoever) that you retract Chad’s moderation. It seems completely out of character for you and your blog, and I think it would help all of us continue to grow via pruning.

To be sure Chad has no platform from which to cast stones, but I have always admired you consistency even when I have pressed you to moderate some in the past. You have shown incredible fairness in the past, even when I would have cut and ripped. It seems you and he have issues, and direct interaction may be unwise at this time on blog threads, but I think we should all be able to rise above it – at least I would hope so.

As one who can get his feelings hurt, I still contend I have learned things about myself through my participation on PPP. I have gotten very frustrated with you and Chad and others from time to time, and I am under no illusions about the effects of my own flesh as well.

I never thought I would be advocating for someone like Chad given his particular theology, but as I have said, I believe I have grown even at this late age. I am openly requesting you reconsider Chad’s moderation, not because of him, but because of Him.

Your friend, Rick

215   nathan    
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:14 am

@ Phil,

i hear what you are saying and agree to a point. I also think that part of politics is working things out. learning to live with people who don’t share your same values. it’s not one philosophy of government dominating another.

it’s the simple fact that the creative strength of our system and the West is derived from the tension between the so-called “conservative” vs. “liberal” streams.

Frum is right that there is much in the bill that GOP could have supported, that it was historically closer to previous GOP proposals.

It’s hard to not see this as more about “power” than “principles” and pragmatic governance.

then again, i was raised in a “rockefeller republican” home that voted for Reagan when the time came.

Do i like the healthcare bill? Yes and No. for all the reasons Frum outlined.

But this “all or nothing” approach demonstrates a real basic misunderstanding of what “politics” is really about.

216   Eric    
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:17 am

“The church has adopted the “Don’t do anything” policy as it applies to human suffering.”

Rick,

These type of overly-hyperbolic statements that you continually make do not serve to advance legitimate discussion. If this is truly what you believe then you have been sorely sheltered from the many local, national, and international efforts sponsored, engaged in, and run by Christians. To say that the church has decided to “do nothing” about human suffering is to profane the prayers and self-sacrificial giving and work of many American and worldwide Christians.

Your zeal for the church to do better as a whole has caused you to openly castigate the work of many Christians. I think you can do better than the continued hyperbolic statements.

217   nathan    
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:21 am

@214:

I agree. Chris L and Chad need to reconcile.

and the “accountability” people (whoever they are) for this site need to calm down about people expressing perspectives with which you disagree.

the real test is how to engage and discuss without calling names/accusations/recriminations.

that’s where the failure is.
not some need to stop the proliferation of mistaken views.

please don’t compound it by creating an echo chamber.

it’ll only reveal an unwillingness to grow and move beyond some real demonstrated immaturity on some things.

which is not consistent with the larger benefits/strengths of this site and the community of writers here that have challenged me and taught me a lot.

thanks.

218   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:23 am

Rick & nathan,

There are a number of issues involved w/ Chad, and right now I’m asking for a ‘cooling-off period’. I’d asked for it voluntarily, but since it wasn’t granted (and, in fact, completely dishonored by expanding the conversation beyond the two of us), I’ve had to do it systematically.

I do consider this a failure on my part: 1) For not dealing with it in a more mature manner, earlier on; and 2) for allowing the animus between Chad and I spill out into my comments w/ others and some RL irritability, as well.

A community like this one can only self-police if people are able to disagree w/o quickly sliding into contempt, race-baiting, etc. It has reached a point where few are able to disagree w/ Chad w/o it becoming a case of racism, misogyny, promotion of slavery, etc. and I do know a number of infrequent commenters who have said they don’t comment here b/c they can’t deal with him and/or one other individual (who has not been around in months, thankfully). I know there have been a number of articles that I (and other writers) have not written/posted, simply because I/we don’t have the bandwidth/patience/desire to deal with his response.

I’m not trying to create an “echo chamber” – I think every one of us – writers and commenters – have areas (significant and insignificant) where we disagree, and where we have disagreed respectfully in the past.

However, in this particular case, I believe that – at some point – Titus 3:10 and a number of the Proverbs apply.

I hope that Chad and I can patch things up to some degree in the future, but I do not think it is healthy for us to interact here for the time being…

Sorry.

219   chris    
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:29 am

I hope that Chad and I can patch things up to some degree in the future, but I do not think it is healthy for us to interact here for the time being…

And yet that’s what I tried to do with the Joe and Jerry situation and that was deemed wrong.

It is every more interesting to me that when I suggested that I didn’t appreciate how I was approached or dealt with I was supposed to “get over it” and “forgive” yet the only thing that was held against me was my perceived non-communication. Water under the bridge for me but is rather confusing to which standard you hold.

220   M.G.    
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:26 pm

Scotty,

Speaking of Republican proposals… one interesting fact for you is that the 1993 plan put forward by Republicans in response to the beast that was, and will always be, HillaryCare is very similar to the bill that was just signed by Obama.

So, for those of you keeping score:

Republicans in 1993=Democrats Today

Republicans in 2010=????

I think in my heart of hearts that many Republicans would have been willing to work with Obama, but for a section of the American population (30% maybe?) that despises Obama and everything he stands for. They won’t let any cooperating Republican survive a primary battle from the right.

So while the Democrats will certainly lose seats in November, reports of the Democrats’ deaths have been greatly exaggerated, especially when people see some of the practical changes that are coming. The majority of Americans who voted for Obama won’t abandon the Democrats…yet at least.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

221   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:12 pm

The majority of Americans who voted for Obama won’t abandon the Democrats…yet at least.

Too bad.

I think in my heart of hearts that many Republicans would have been willing to work with Obama, but for a section of the American population (30% maybe?) that despises Obama and everything he stands for. They won’t let any cooperating Republican survive a primary battle from the right.

On the other hand, there’s a Democrat in my area who has already been informed by the Unions that they are abandoning him because he voted against the ‘bill.’

It wasn’t a strictly partisan demonstration against Obama, MG. I believe 30 some Democrats also voted against the bill. 219-212 is hardly a mandate for change on the scale the White House is celebrating.

This isn’t about dislike of Obama. It’s about dislike of poor fiscal policy. It’s about an idea. I’m sure there are people who despise Obama simply because he’s Obama, but I don’t think that is true of all who oppose this plan for reform.

222   M.G.    
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:37 pm

Jerry,

You’re absolutely right, of course, that there are blue dog Democrats who voted against the bill for fiscal reasons, and there are other Democrats who voted against the bill because they live in conservative districts. Obama has many critics.

That being said, I think that the political discourse in this country is off the rails, and that a relatively small percentage of people whose hatred for Obama is irrational are hurting America more than they are helping it.

In the end, here are some basic facts:

* The Democrats have passed a plan very similar to what Republicans pushed in the 1990s on several occasions, and very similar to Mitt Romney’s plan that he passed while governor of Massachusetts.

* Obama’s plan, using even the most critical assumptions, will end up costing the U.S. half as much as Bush’s prescription drug plan.

* Obama’s plan will likewise cost half as much as the eventual cost of Bush’s two wars.

* Obama’s plan will cost less than 10 times as much as the F-22 Raptor program has cost us thus far… a 65 billion dollar plane that the U.S. has even *used* in combat yet. Not once.

The Tea Parties, the “Socialist” labels, the Anti-Christ stuff… it’s tilting the Republicans too far to the right, and it’s preventing people from getting a sense of what really is happening.

223   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:07 pm

The Republican Party has a long way too go before I’d ever describe it as “too far right”… If anything it needs to stop trying to be the “Democrat Light” party – “half the nanny state, doble the nagging!” I’d have much more respect if it actually did get back to its small government, free market roots and stayed out of the morality police and social program business.

224   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:15 pm

I guess what I’m saying is that partisanship in and of itself doesn’t bother me – I think the only way things can honestly be debated are when the ideas behind both sides are honestly and openly presented. What I see happening in DC now is more along the lines of politicians trying to convince their constituents they’re something they’re not. Democrats are trying to convince people they don’t really believe in big government and Republicans are trying to convince people that don’t mistrust the government – it’s an exercise in foolishness.

I’d actually have more respect for politicians if they laid all their cards on the table. Sometimes I think that term limits would not be a horrible thing for the Congress, at least for the House.

225   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:24 pm

MG,

Key to your points is my main opposition: Cost.

‘End up costing the US’. Cost. Over the long-haul, say 20 years worth of this, it will cost us more than we can imagine. Just look at how medicare and medicaid costs have inflated through the years since their inception. These things never stay within their budgetary confines. Never. That’s not opinion, that is history.

And keep history clear: the war wasn’t ‘Bush’s’. That was a bi-partisan vote. Someone brought war here. President Bush gave it back with the support of congress.

It wasn’t until the patriotism wore off that people got cold feet about the war.

I simply do not see how it is even remotely possible to pay for what is proposed without sinking this nation, and its citizens, into complete, utter, ruin.

jerry

226   M.G.    
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:26 pm

Phil,

While I would agree that the Republican party, under Bush at least, was as (or more) fiscally irresponsible as the Obama administration, when I think about the GOP tugging rightward, I’m referring specifically to the Tea Party stuff.

And it’s not really about economic issues, either. It’s more the populism, flashpoints of racism, and complete lack of rationality in public discourse.

When Glen Beck (or Rush) is your spokesman, and you think that he’s a stand-up guy, then something has gone horribly wrong.

I asked Chris L. these questions, and I’d be curious as to your response. In terms of your libertarian bona fides, I’m assuming that you’re not pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, in favor of legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc, either are you?

227   M.G.    
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Jerry,

The thought that this bill *specifically* will be the ruin of America is a non-starter.

At this point, we are all just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. As a result, bill or no bill, major budget cuts (or tax raises) will have to occur to get the economic house in order.

228   M.G.    
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Jerry,

Not to derail things, but I would strongly disagree that changing positions on the Iraq war are solely a function of patriotism having “worn off.”

I know that a lot of people were dismayed that a war entirely predicated on the existence and destruction of Weapons of Mass Destruction ended up finding no WMDs whatsoever.

And I am also perplexed what 19 Saudis crashing planes has to do with the nation of Iraq. So the thought that the Iraq war “coming to us” is a strange one.

229   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm

While I would agree that the Republican party, under Bush at least, was as (or more) fiscally irresponsible as the Obama administration

I honestly don’t understand this claim. How is proposing a budget that adds another $1 trillion above and beyond Bush’s $700 billion expansion being more fiscally responsible?

I asked Chris L. these questions, and I’d be curious as to your response. In terms of your libertarian bona fides, I’m assuming that you’re not pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, in favor of legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc, either are you?

As far as abortion goes, I’d say that I don’t see it much different than murder. It’s the taking of a life – one person using her right to deprive another of theirs.

As far gay marriage goes, I tend to think that the government should not be what defines what a marriage actually is. If it decides to say that two men are married that does not mean they are married in God’s eyes. So I do not see the point of getting all up in arms about it.

Drugs – I think that legalizing certain drugs makes sense. Other drugs are so dangerous that there’s no practical reason they should be available to anyone.

Prostitution isn’t really an issue that the federal government is involved in. I think that it’s perfectly OK for states to outlaw it. Of course it will always be a crime that is by nature more difficult to actually police.

As far as Beck goes, he’s an idiot. Rush has gone too far. I will turn him on for five minutes from time to time, but quickly get irritated. I do think Rush is a genuinely talented and funny guy, though. It’s a shame he is so vitriolic, because I think if he just talked about the actual issues, he would be a good communicator.

230   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm

M.G.

#227, Agreed.

#226, I consider myself a conservative Republican (mostly) and I agree 100% with your Glenn Beck/Rush statement as well at your comment about the Tea Parties. This country was born out of rebellion and has been experiencing adolescent rebellion for generations.

231   M.G.    
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Phil,

Here’s my basic math… it’s my understanding that the drug plan will cost about 1.2 trillion when things are said and done. Add to that almost a trillion for the two wars (only one of which was necessary, if you ask me) and you get upwards of 2 trillion spent by Bush.

It’s my understanding that ObamaCare will cost in the neighborhood of 500 billion over the next ten years. Plus, we are finally getting around to taxing health plans (eventually), which strikes me as an utterly, utterly sensible idea.

232   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:27 pm

“without sinking this nation, and its citizens, into complete, utter, ruin.”

It depends upon your view of “ruin”. If you mean a serious decline in our present prosperity then that is always a real possibility. But perhaps God Himself is significantly less concerned with preserving any nation’s prosperity or avoiding its ruin.

Then again, if God does view nations in the light of ruin, it just may be possible He already sees America in a state of ruin.

233   M.G.    
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:31 pm

Interesting video from the Buckeye state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXsRH73Cnw8

234   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:35 pm

interesting fact for you is that the 1993 plan put forward by Republicans in response to the beast that was, and will always be, HillaryCare is very similar to the bill that was just signed by Obama.

I’ve looked into the 1993 plan. While an overview of the plan, especially the example you gave, would make one tend to believe they were similar, the devil is in the details. While a goal for an expected result might be the same, the path that leads one there can be a whole other matter. It’s all moot, they couldn’t get enough takers then either.

235   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:42 pm

One more thing, I’m fascinated by many that compare what Republicans have done in the past to now, as if that’s a justification. I see so many of the talking heads, defending the other side with, well, the republicans did it! I rings a little hollow.

236   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:59 pm

In the Book of Acts Paul and Barnabus had an argument over taking John Mark with them on a missionary journey. John Mark desired to go, Barnabus desired to take him, but Paul objected because John Mark had left them on a previous journey.

The contention was so deep that Paul and Barnabus split up. But all it would have taken was one person to budge and the division could have been avoided.

* Paul could have said, “Although I still have my reservations, I will submit to you, Barnabus, and we will take John Mark.”

* Barnabus could have said, “John Mark, I have faith in you that you would not leave us this time. But Paul is still doubtful so you stay and pray for us and perhaps next time God will open Paul’s heart to you again.”

John Mark could have said, “Barnabus, I appreciate your faith in me but I do not want to cause a rift between you and Paul. I will stay back and pray for both of you and wait on the Lord to open a door for me again.”

All it would have taken is 1, or 2, or all 3 of them to show some grace. The only number that would cause a division is 0. That is the number of them who would not budge.

237   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:40 pm

MG,

I don’t want to belabor the point so this will be my last comment on the issue. There were a whole bunch of people and/or nations that agreed something had to be done about Iraq and it’s dictator for violations. There were numerous resolutions passed in the UN–resolutions no one did anything about at all until the president did do something.

Maybe he used September 11 as a pretext for such an offensive; maybe not. The point is, he did do something and his decision was supported by a bi-partisan congress. That’s the only point I was trying to make whether we agree with it or not.

That’s all. Thanks for a civil discussion. What remains true is that there are two sides of the story and both probably carry some validity in some way and the interpretation of date is probably colored by one’s political persuasion.

Thanks again.
jerry

238   M.G.    
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:40 pm

Jerry,

Thank you for the discussion. You raise several valid points, and one certainly cannot condemn Bush without condemning a whole lot of other people in the process.

239   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 24th, 2010 at 9:28 am

MG – We should not condemn anyone. What we should realize is the absolute conformity of all sides in most governmental constructs concerning power, politics, and the strategy of personal diminishment.

No one knows whether this healthcare bill will be better or worse. What we do know is that people suffer and God is calling us to go. Let God handle the government, after all, He wrote Romans 13. :cool:

240   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
March 25th, 2010 at 8:31 pm

Unknown to the writers here I still have access of the comments being left on the private blog.

Trust me when I say that what is written here pales in comparison. Ultimately why I was banned from writing.

241   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 25th, 2010 at 9:20 pm

You have access to the posts you subscribed to. That’s it, we only commented on it to see if you actually did have access.
Prove me wrong, tell me what we wrote and talked about today. What post is coming soon?

242   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
March 26th, 2010 at 8:02 am

Joe, you are such a calloused jerk to some people, me included. It disgusts me to see how you treat Chris.

Oh yeah…Love wins…

Whatever.

243   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 26th, 2010 at 8:26 am

I actually think Joe is one of the most even-handed people here. His personality reminds me of my wife’s, honestly. It’s the refusal to accept BS from anyone that makes him endearing, IMHO…

244   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 10:04 am

The way blogs and comment moderations and who can moderate things are treated like some Holy Grail.

Who cares? Not God. I still believe the wide open comment policy (minus grevous profanity or personal information) best provides for the iron sharpening mechanism to work.

245   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
March 26th, 2010 at 1:30 pm

I actually think Joe is one of the most even-handed people here. His personality reminds me of my wife’s, honestly. It’s the refusal to accept BS from anyone that makes him endearing, IMHO…

Really Phil? That’s interesting.

Joe, you are such a calloused jerk to some people, me included. It disgusts me to see how you treat Chris.

He’s not all that calloused. Opiniated, strongly opiniated. He only gets to be a jerk when you don’t tolerate the barrage of sideways comments. But don’t believe just me. Ask Julie, Iggy, Chad, Evan, Rick, Debbie, and yourself.

That’s it, we only commented on it to see if you actually did have access.

Joe such a clever ruse on your part. Boy am I embarrassed. Not really. You’re little enclave cheering fest you do in the private blog is nothing less than extraordinary. Regardless of what you say here you’re all, yes all, a little less than to be desired as examples of even handedness.

246   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 1:43 pm

#242. Oh John Chisham, you’re just mad b/c I caught your lie yesterday. BTW, I see I asked you an honest question about Sex God and all you gave was crickets.

Just like I caught Chris’s lie. Chris, why don’t you quote 4 comments from yesterday on a thread from yesterday.
Maybe I could post some of your old posts. You remember the ones where you called John Chisham “dumb”–your word not mine. Maybe the one where you went off about others you seem to be friendly with now.

247   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 1:45 pm

BTW Chris, why don’t you show me where I was mean to Chad, or even Evan or Iggy. Iggy and I are friends to this day.
You’re behavior is nothing less than extraordinary.

248   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 2:08 pm

Well, I’m sorry but I have to go to meetings the rest of today.
John Chisham, I’m not going to lose a whole lot of sleep over you calling me names.
Chris, I think it’s sad to see you go sideways like this. All you have is innuendo and vague accusations. Like I said, if you have access to all of the quotes, tell me what Brendt said yesterday.
It’s not a ruse, it’s asking for proof of an accusation.
BTW,
Thank you Phil

249   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
March 26th, 2010 at 2:24 pm

#246 I am glad that you know my motives. I really didn’t mean to link your name. It had nothing to do with Rob Bell

#246,47,48

Love Wins.

Whatever.

250   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 2:29 pm

#249.
OK, John I believe you. I apologize for accusing you of lying before I asked what was going on. I could have done that differently.

251   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

“I actually think Joe is one of the most even-handed people here.”

If I did not know better I would think you were joking.

252   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 2:42 pm

#251.
Rick, it’s always good to see how much you love me and how you put into those wonderful words you write about loving those we don’t like.

253   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 2:42 pm

**into action***

254   Neil    
March 26th, 2010 at 2:49 pm

I feel dirty…

255   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
March 26th, 2010 at 2:57 pm

I feel dirty…

Photobucket

256   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
“I actually think Joe is one of the most even-handed people here.”

If I did not know better I would think you were joking.

I don’t think he was joking, and I would agree. I’ve never seen Joe apply a standard to a group of folks he normally disagrees with that he didn’t apply to those he might normally agree with, and vice-versa.

257   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:00 pm

I feel dirty…

Somehow, that reminded me of this:

[mild language warning]

258   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:10 pm

Those assessments illustrate how far relationships can render us, all of us, hopelessly subjective when evaluating others. The only other choice is that it can reveal some of the same shortcomings in ourselves that blind us to other shortcomings that nirror our own.

I would say Phil, Neil, and Christian are the most fair and even handed writers here.

259   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:12 pm

“It’s the refusal to accept BS from anyone that makes him endearing”

I would hardly classify that description as being “even handed” to say nothing of being, well, Christian.

260   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
March 26th, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Rick, if he acts that way to everybody, then it certainly can be classified as “even-handed.” And he does. Joe is as equally abrasive to everybody as Phil, Neil, or I am equally (whatever) to everybody. I think you are confusing even-handed with something else.

261   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Rick,
Would you say your manner of always finding something to pile on to me about is “Christian”?
Could you show me one place in Scripture where Jesus accepted BS? You write really nice comments about loving people and how the church falls short but any chance you get to kick mud at me you take it.
When that’s pointed out, you usually say something to the effect that I’m a jerk so you can do what you want to do, which doesn’t sound all that Christian to me.

262   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Joe does not treat everone the same – i.e. you, Chris L., etc. But if you mean he is equally abrasive to many commenters than I would have to agree with your assessment. That is a unique way of defining fairness.

Fairness: To attempt to be equally abrasive.

Brilliant!

263   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 3:32 pm

thank you for being so Christ-like Rick

264   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:33 pm

Joe – Honestly if I saw that I was the only one who incured your abrasiveness then I would have to wonder why. But you have had many confrontations with a host of past and present commenters. All of us have had our moments, it’s just that you seem to have more moments with more people.

I am confident you will dismiss my perspective.

265   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:34 pm

“Could you show me one place in Scripture where Jesus accepted BS?”

The cross – among many others.

266   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 3:36 pm

I am confident you will dismiss my perspective.

It’s so hard to dismiss when it you have been so faithful to your own written word and shown me so much love.

267   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 3:37 pm

The cross – among many others.

You and I have different definitions of what it means to accept BS. Jesus called the religious leaders BS all the time. Paul called BS when he saw it.

268   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:38 pm

I am offering loving correction from an elder. :cool:

269   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 3:40 pm

I am offering loving correction from an elder. :cool:

WOW!!! Imagine what it looks like when it lacks love.

270   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Yours is the first time I have ever seen a definition of Jesus as not accepting BS. It sounds similar to PBs sometimes.

Turn the other cheek seems to be lost in this post modern generation. But I think I now understand your approach.

271   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:43 pm

I am placing Joe on mederation. I feel the power!! :lol:

272   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
March 26th, 2010 at 3:44 pm

Rick, I can’t speak for the other guys, but Joe has been the same way with me as he is with others.

Fair: free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception.

Fairness isn’t about personality.

273   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 3:45 pm

I think honesty tends to be lost in the generation of Modernity.
I really do. Preach whatever you want, but treat your whoever like crap. Write whatever you want but when someone you don’t like comes along, just say what you want and cover it in “I’m elder.” As my mom used to say, “Being older doesn’t make you elder.”

274   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:45 pm

“I can’t speak for the other guys, but Joe has been the same way with me as he is with others.”

That would be an indictment as well as evidence of being even handed.

275   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Rick,
When you’re treatment of those you don’t like matches your written words, I’ll consider what you have to say.
When Jesus called the Pharisees white washed tombs, was he being mean? When he called the woman at the well out on her sin was he being unkind? Was he accepting BS?

276   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 3:47 pm

You are on moderation, Joe, and I cannot read your comments. :lol:

277   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
March 26th, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Well, at least you’re consistent. I have to run. My 3:00 cancelled but my 4 just got here. I’ll be out all night.
Have a good night one and all.
Rick, thank you for modeling what it means to be Christian.

278   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
March 26th, 2010 at 4:15 pm

BTW Chris, why don’t you show me where I was mean to Chad, or even Evan or Iggy. Iggy and I are friends to this day.
You’re behavior is nothing less than extraordinary.

Well for starters I don’t really need to go tit for tat with you. My claims aren’t needed as proof.

I wasn’t lying about seeing the comments on the private blog. Never did I say I can see everything written. I only said the comments.

Chris L. and you are pretty consistently inconsistent when it comes to moderation of people and even worse when it comes to moderating yourselves. Chad gets banned because Chris L. can’t “take him”. You say allow everything, but not really everything only that which doesn’t offend you; which granted is little.

279   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 5:15 pm

Yours is the first time I have ever seen a definition of Jesus as not accepting BS. It sounds similar to PBs sometimes.

I would say that the vernacular definition of “BS” would be “untruth with an agenda” (which seems to be the way Joe has employed this particular term). As such, I don’t see anywhere that Jesus sat back and accepted “BS”, but rather confronted it – whether from the zealots, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, (possibly) the Essenes or the Herodians.

Rick, I might suggest you are taking a different definition of “BS” as “unfairness” (which, with such a multi-utility word, can also be valid), but one that is out of context. I would also suggest that your response to Joe is markedly different than to other writers here (as has mine been w/ Chad). Step one is recognizing the problem, even if the journey from Step One to the end is a long one.

280   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2010 at 10:10 pm

“I would also suggest that your response to Joe is markedly different than to other writers here.”

That is because I do not take any BS from him. Do you not find that “endearing” and Jesus-like? :cool: