Nope. No theocracy here.
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
I agree it's a waste to send them a bible. Most of them won't read the stuff they do believe in, let alone what they don't.
It was an attempt to get Congress to return to their Founding Roots.
You don't have to believe the Bible is a book written by God to get something out of it. I don't. But I do believe there are a lot of parables in there Congress would do well to follow.
As a bleeding heart liberal devoid of common sense, you should want this as the Bible's parables will make politicians more open to the idea of helping their fellow man.
Hasn't had much effect on TPs: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/the_candidates_werent_the_only032157.php
Positively shocking levels of "asshatery" in that article. No facts at all, just hyperbole and opinion (way, way left of center).
The author "assumes" the Fed is trying to "help the economy" and knows what it is doing. I would bet dollars that the author is a clueless moonbat who has no idea how the Fed works.
Wolf Blitzer posed a hypothetical scenario to Ron Paul, asking about a young man who makes a good living, but decides to forgo health insurance. Then, tragedy strikes and he needs care. Paul stuck to the libertarian line. âBut congressman,â the moderator said, âare you saying that society should just let him die?â
And at that point, some in the audience shouted, âYeah,â and applauded.
And at that point, some in the audience shouted, âYeah,â and applauded.
I'll try to explain it to you, though I have a feeling you lack the horsepower to understand it.
First of all, the article never talks to Paul's response - just mentions that some person shouts "yeah". Wow, certainly proves your point! Not.
Paul's answer to the question is that in a society of welfare and socialism, people DO things like waive insurance because they believe themselves to be healthy. What's the risk? Even if they need insurance, the government will step in and cover them, or the hospital will foot the bill - someone else will pay for it no matter what.
In a society that is freedom based, it also means you make these decisions knowing that there is no safety net to catch you if you fall. So the risk is that if someone in a good job who is 30 and healthy doesn't take out insurance, but then needs it desperately will have to take out a large number of loans or rely on family to pay it for them.
How does it work with car insurance? If you want to drive, you have to get insurance. If you get in an accident without insurance, you are liable - both financially and criminally - for the accident. You can go bankrupt for life if you have the wrong accident and have to pay for it. That is the risk you take. For car insurance, we are ok with it. But in the Wolf question during the debate, it's a travesty. Talk about lack of consistency!
What else ya got?
Those incompetent assholes won't even read the bills they vote on