Posted on 03/26/2010 10:56:40 AM PDT by worst-case scenario
Shoot, I can never view anything on YouTube because of my setup here. Maybe the Parkinsons guy was legit, it’s just interesting that his medical issue is irrelevant to the debate. Nobody explored that. Trotting out your disability to invoke sympathy for a cause to which your disability is not relevant is fairly despicable. A parallel is that the Bible says courts should not favor the rich, but it also says they should not favor the poor. Surprised me when I read that, but it informs me once again that G_d’s ways are not our ways.
I have a soft spot for people with Parkinson’s as I have a neurological disorder and my grandfather died a very slow death from this disease. That being said, right now the left will use anything they can to discredit Tea partiers. I would rather have seen this guy take out his “anger” on an SEIU thug or whatever..However, maybe he should have sat next to him and asked him why he feels the way he does and then move on.
Believe me, I am as frustrated and ticked as the next guy... have been to a half dozen Tea parties, ran down to DC for the last rally, town halls, phone calls, emails, etc. But unfortunately one of those “wrong place at the wrong time”. I can’t stand the tactics of the left as they are despicable. However, we need to show that we are for and of the people and that we represent all the good citizens of the USA.
The ‘progressives’ herd the clueless to the voting booth with the politics of envy. Trying to get something for nothing by taxing the ‘wealthy’.
Someday the clueless will find out for themselves that taxes roll downhill. Tax busineses and prices will rise, thus the clueless are paying themselves with their own money. It’s a vicious circle.
Alexander Hamilton was amazed at the way the British Crown could tax their citizens to just the point shy of impoverishment and yet keep them from revolting. I don’t think they ever learned the concept of liberty. But Americans have that ingrained in them. And they will revolt. We’re having a good old fashioned tax revolt now.
You can see it in the eyes of all the ‘progressives’ in Congress. ‘Progressives’ declare victory and move on. But when Obama told us to ‘Go for it’, we say, “Game On”!
Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more....
Then what??
He should lay low and get a CWP. Ann Coulter is a much more attractive target and she does not cower.
It’s unfortunate this guy lost his cool. That was his individual character flaw or mistake not the error of the entire opposition in attendance. He should address the issue with the individual party he offended not the entire ‘progressive’ collective crowd.
Unfortunately, the ‘progressives’ plan to push us over the edge. Their warfare tactic of choice, moral sanction.
The left have no moral standing to implement any opinion of right or wrong. We should never let the morally corrupt ‘progressives’ lecture us as to what is acceptable to society.
Hehe...There is another word in that song...insanity!
I’ve been saying for over a year now that what the clueless are going to find out very soon is this; You don’t get more, you are already getting all you are going to get.
Then What? When the above stated realization dawns on the clueless it will be the “progressives” they go a hunting for and that will be they day “progressives” come to know that even they cannot escape justice. You reap what you sow.
Yep, you can see it in the eyes of Congress and it really is “Game On”! “Progressives” pushed it to the point of no return. The message coming to them in November, “Nope, this wasn’t my bad it was yours!”
Dang. Reminds me of Don Imus and Michael Richards.
But we need to be an example to the public. I really don't give a crap what the far left thinks because they will hate us regardless. But I do care about what the GOOD people of the public think... for the most part.
Well I have a ton of sympathy for Parkinson’s patients. They have a horrible and eventually fatal disease that renders them unable to care for themselves eventually.And they have it trough absolutely no fault of their own.
Lecter makes the point that he wasn’t trying to bait anyone. He never said anything, just sat there in front of them with a sign about his disease as a way to remind them that sick people need help, not anger or derision. He didn’t fight back when they started to mock him, or say anything. And on the video that seems to make somew people angrier.
Lecter’s disability is relevant to the debate because there are a lot of people who are ill through no fault of their own, who can’t work, and who stand to lose everything, including their homes, in order to get so impoverished that they can qualify for Medicaid. And most doctors won’t accept Medicaid patients anymore because the payments they get are far too low. It’s not despicable to remind folks of that.
I’ve always read that Bible injunction as saying that the courts should favor the truth and justice, no matter who is rich or poor. Our ways seem to me to be far too much about wealth and income and caring about how much money we have, or don’t have, or might have someday, or somebody else has. Justice and truth before the Law of God should be men’s ways, not the man-worshiped Mammon. What would be just, in this case?
Yes I’ve also dealt with unfeeling bureaucracy in a government, with people who stuck by their rules and that was it. With a tax system so complicated I can’t understand its written communications and then penalize you. With waiting for a response or a phone pickup or a turndown. Yes.
It may well be you or I sitting on the ground someday, unable to work, lost our home, in pain, too weak to stand, and we’d have someone come over and berate us for being a lazy bum for not working. But do we want a strong safety net there or not?
BTW there is an “opt-out” of the Law for states that decide to develop their own program.
You can call health insurance compassion. Other people may call it responsibility for self.
Young people think they are invulnerably healthy. They think they don’t need insurance and don’t want to buy it. They also get into accidents for the same reason. Who picks up the tab for them when they end up in the hospital? We, the taxpayers, do.
This law will make some of the freeloaders take care of themselves instead of rolling craps with tax money.
As far as “penalty of law” goes, yeah, there is supposed to be a fine. But the legislation doesn’t authorize any agency to enforce it. After Conservative groups complained, the legislation was rewritten to make sure no one got arrested. They failed to include enforcement procedures!
So there is “law”, but no penalty!
Google it if you don’t believe me.
What would be just?
"Thou shalt not steal".
Doesn't matter if you're stealing for the sake of someone who's terribly ill.
Doesn't matter if you've got a majority vote to commit the theft.
Doesn't matter if you're stealing from someone who's so wealthy, he's set for seven-times-seventy lifetimes, and who spends all his vast income on idle recreations for his own selfish enjoyment.
Theft is still, without exception, always, a crime against God.
What if the one that the government is “stealing” from stole to begin with - through manipulation of stock prices, markets, and other financial instruments? How about insurance companies that take premiums for years and then refuse to pay when a person gets sick, or when a home is destroyed in a natural disaster?
Do you include those actions in your definition of “theft”?
What if the one that the government is “stealing” from stole to begin with - through manipulation of stock prices, markets, and other financial instruments? How about insurance companies that take premiums for years and then refuse to pay when a person gets sick, or when a home is destroyed in a natural disaster? Do you include those actions in your definition of “theft”?
Absolutely.
And the Bible describes appropriate penalties for such acts.
In the case of Fiduciary Malfeasance which was not a deliberate Theft, the Bible says that the offender is to restore Principle+20% to the injured party.
In the case of deliberate Theft, the Bible says that the offender is to restore between 200% and 400-500% to the injured party, depending on whether or not the original property remains to be returned (200% repayment if the original property can be returned, 400-500% repayment if the original property has been sold or destroyed and cannot be returned).
So there's certainly Biblical principles of Justice which can be enacted in law, for the sake of recompensing injured parties. (120% in cases of Malfeasance, 200% to 500% in cases of Theft).
But the most consistent principle throughout, is restitution to the injured party. Specifically to the injured party. The communist notion of class guilt on the part of the rich and redistribution of wealth for the benefit of the poor, is utterly antithetical to Biblical Justice, and is itself a crime against God (as much as any other kind of Theft)!
Thanks for your questions. Theonomy is a passionate hobby of mine, and I'm always glad to answer any questions on such matters with whatsoever Biblical teaching the Good Book offers. (To the best of my fallible human ability).
Masterful and extremely informative answer. You really know this issue. Plus, you have taught me a new word - “theonomy” - which I hadn’t heard before, and that’s a true and rare pleasure.
Is there any movement to get these Biblical precepts enacted into law? Because it is sure tat if these were the penalties for Corporate crime, the criminals would have to think long and hard. (Of course, they might think long and hard about even better ways to hide their malfeasance.)
There is, but there is a disagreement amongst Theonomists -- between the "Reconstructionist" school, and the "Christian libertarian" school.
So, there's mutual agreement amongst all Theonomists on the value of looking to Scripture as the source of our Legal principles, but there's disagreement over whether modern Civil Governments are supposed to enforce both the Civil Laws and the Religious Laws of the Bible, or only the Civil Laws (as per Romans 13:9). You can probably tell from my biases that I'm an advocate of the latter school.
Because it is sure tat if these were the penalties for Corporate crime, the criminals would have to think long and hard. (Of course, they might think long and hard about even better ways to hide their malfeasance.)
And of course, if a financial criminal knew himself to be guilty, he'd doubtless have his defense lawyer argue that his injurious actions were merely negligent Malfeasance (requiring 120% repayment) rather than intentional Theft (requiring a 200 to 500% repayment, depending on the particulars of the case). But, that is why we have Judges and Jury Trials, to try to discern the truth and the weight if guilt in such matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.