Conservative VS Liberal

[LeighaMason 19]

All that youtube video is is an advertisemet to sell a dvd @ Media Malpractice How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted anybody can make a youtube that doesnt make it real. Once again its all about the money, somebody trying to sell something.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

This youtube shows exactly how Obama got elected. You need to view it all to get the real effects of it.

Alert the media!!! Voters are stupid. I guess those people are the only ones in America not to watch Fox news because surely Fox news would have reported ad infinitum, ad nauseum that Obama made a slight slip up and said 57 states. Oh,my! Horrors! :thumbup: How can he be elected president if he thinks we have 57 states??? So what else is new? That right-wing video doesn't dispute what I posted, which I stand by.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I believe that Bush got a pass on alot of things that he did because people were not paying as close attention as they are now. Just because the American people have awakened themselves to Washington, and are now interested in the happenings there (mostly due to the effects the economy is having on everyone) doesn't mean we should ignore what Obama is doing as well, like we did with Bush. Since Obama is doing alot more of the same as Bush did, that's all the more reason to put a stop to it! You need to get off your blind, infatuated 'Love" for the man and see what he is actually doing to our nation. You need to stop comparing him to Bush and get over that. Obama is in office now and what he does is relevent, not what Bush did or didn't do. Shame on Bush if he didn't do things proper. What can we say or do about it now? Let's focus on Obama and his administration and tackle him and his agenda.

The reason people weren't paying attention to bush, as you put it, is because he was a republican and when people opposed him they were called unpatriotric, unamerican and siding with the terrorists. This includes the media. Not one person asked bush how he planned on paying for 2 wars and 2 tax cuts for the rich. NOT ONE. But with Obama - as soon as he uttered the word healthcare, the neocons were demanding to know how it would affect the deficit and how it would be paid for.

AND WHAT BUSH DID DOES MATTER NOW. DON'T YOU GET IT? :thumbup: The things that Obama is getting criticized for now are the things he has had to do to CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESS. The bank failures, the economy, the rising unemployment, the rising deficit, lack of healthcare - ALL THESE THINGS STARTED UNDER BUSH AND BECAUSE OF HIM.

Now that Obama is dealing with cleaning up the messes of bush, he is criticized, which is totally unfair.:smile2:

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I have long maintained on here that from the republicans in congress to those who take to the streets - it isn't about deficits, spending, healthcare or anything else. It's about Obama and wanting him to fail. These people have never accepted Obama as their president and just want him (and with him it would be America, too) to fail.

I offer the following as an example:

By the time Obama came into office, the U.S. was in the hole for $8 trillion dollars.

So what to do, what to do?

Well to answer that question the Senate decided to set up a commission. The commission’s job was going to be to find out what to do about all our debt.

The proposal to start this commission was bi-partisan. There were six Republican Senators that co-sponsored the bill with Democrat Senators.

And as the beginning of this article said, when it came time to vote, the same six Senators that co-sponsored the bill, voted against the bill.

The reason being that the commission was going to offer solutions, and that’s not what the Republicans want, not while there is a Democrat President and the Democrats also have the majority in Congress.

As soon as Pres. Obama supported this commission, the 6 republicans who sponsored it, voted against it.

So, Pattygreen - what explanation, other than just hating Obama and opposing everything he promotes, do you give for this development??

[pattygreen 5]

I can't think of where in the bible it says God deems taking from the rich to give to the poor, wrong.

Can you remind me?

In 2 Thessalonians chapter 3 the apostle warns against idleness starting in verse 6 and ending with verse 10, he says, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." The whole teaching is to encourage people to not be loafers who will live off of the giving of others. Paul did not say that he never accepted hospitality, but the he had not depended on other people for his living.

There is also a commandment that tells us that we should not steal. When someone takes your money unwillingly, and does as they see fit with it, it is wrong.

It is important for Christians to give to the poor, and to help their fellow man, and noone has an arguement with that. It is just not right for the government to take your money and dole it out to every Tom, Dick and Harry who says they need it.

[pattygreen 5]

The Bible Speaks On Welfare

Since 1964 the United States Governments (Federal and State) have transferred over five trillion dollars from the middle class and the rich to the poor. Are the poor better off today or have they become more enslaved and dependent on government?

How much is five trillion dollars? A billion dollars is one thousand million dollars. A trillion dollars is one thousand billion dollars, thus five trillion dollars is five thousand billion dollars. That amount is inconceivable to the human mind. That is how much government has taken from the middle and rich class and transferred it to the poor. This money did not cost the poor anything. They did not have to earn it. It was given them.

This scenario described is why so many are up in arms about the subject of welfare. There are still over three million Americans on the welfare rolls. Some are being helped by it and learning to stand on their own feet someday. This is the goal. Others have become enslaved by it and are dependent on it. Some are second, third and even fourth generation dependents on welfare. There are special cases where some are worthy of help and compassion such as the disabled veteran, other disabled, orphans, handicapped, retarded and other extraordinary cases. These can be helped when there is no one else to help them.

The average middle class worker today works till the middle of May each year for the government. Everything they earn from January till about the middle of May is taxed and taken by the government in some form. These hard working people are feeling slighted that some of their money is given to some poor people who have not earned it and do not deserve it. Needless to say, welfare is a very volatile subject and our goal again is to find out what the Bible says.

1. No work, no eat.

II Thessalonians 3:6-12, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.”

This is the simplest answer in the Bible concerning the subject.

2. A man who does not take care of his own is despicable.

I Timothy 5:8, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

It is about the worst indictment a man could receive to be called “worse than an infidel.” This is not the governments job, but a man’s job to take care of his own. Even deadbeat dads should be hunted down and forced to care for their own as long as they live. Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota said, “It’s not the governments job to make up for your mistakes.”

3. Widows are to be cared for by their family, not government or church.

I Timothy 5:3-10,16 “Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” Leviticus 22:13, “But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.”

There is such a widow that is worthy of Church support. She is called a “widow indeed” or “desolate” in this text. As you note the requirements, she is a rare case:

• Desolate - I Timothy 5:5 (No living husband, children, nephews etc.).

• Over 60 years old - I Timothy 5:9.

• Never been divorced - I Timothy 5:9.

• Well reported of having done good works for others - I Timothy 5:10.

• Brought up her children - I Timothy 5:10.

• Lodged strangers - I Timothy 5:10.

• Washed feet, humbly served others - I Timothy 5:10.

• Relieved the afflicted - I Timothy 5:10.

• Followed every good work - I Timothy 5:10.

These are certainly extraordinary conditions before such a widow can receive welfare from the church (I Timothy 5:16).

4. The extended family is to care for all family members.

I Timothy 5:4, “But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.”

Not only should children care for their parents, but nephews should care for their aunts and uncles! We are far from this today. We do not even think like this today. Yet this is Bible.

The word “requite” means “pay back.” If parents have taken care of their children for twenty years at the beginning of their lives, then children should be willing to take care of their parents for twenty years at the end of their lives. The word “piety” means “respect” or “support.” This is God’s social security plan.

5. Government should strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, not weaken it.

Ezekiel 16:49-50, “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

One of the reasons God destroyed the four cities on the plain was that they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Government should try to strengthen the poor, not make them weaker. If the government is going to give things away, instead of giving fish, they should give a fishing pole. Then the poor would have the means to go out and catch their own fish. If government, church or individuals help the poor it should only be in such a way to get them started in helping themselves.

This principle is taught in the law of God:

Leviticus 19:9-10, “And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.”

Leviticus 23:22, “And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.”

(The widow Ruth practiced this in Ruth 2:1-3.)

By giving away free handouts (the fancy word today is “entitlements”) the poor are weakened. They do not learn the value and self satisfaction of industriousness. The poor should not be weakened but strengthened. People should depend on themselves not on the government.

6. Even in great distress the poor paid what they could for help from government.

Genesis 41:53-57, “And the seven years of plenteousness, that was in the land of Egypt, were ended. And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said: and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread. And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread: and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do. And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.”

No handouts here. The poor paid for what they could from the government. Remember, this was all by the directive of God through Joseph who had been sold into Egypt as a slave. He grew and by the blessing of God became second to the leader, Pharaoh, in all the land. Even in great distress the government should avoid the practice of free handouts. Some state governors are replacing welfare with workfare.

7. Government should judge the poor.

Psalms 72:2,4, “He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment. He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.”

Proverbs 31:9, “Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.”

Isaiah 11:4, “But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.”

Some of the poor need a helping hand untill they get on their own feet. This should only be in times of great distress and for as short of duration as possible. Other poor need a kick in the pants. The government should make this righteous judgment. The church should make this righteous judgment. Individuals should make this righteous judgment. Those who are worthy should be helped. Those not worthy should not be helped.

Jesus said in John 7:24, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” Righteous judgment of the poor would be included.

Helping the poor is certainly part of the Christian faith. Giving to the poor that be worthy is taught throughout Scripture. Revival in this teaching and practice in the Christian church could relieve all government welfare programs.

Let us illustrate: There are 260 million Americans. Forty percent of them attend some sort of a “Christian” church each Sunday. That is 104 million. These attend 1.5 million churches across America. There are 3 million recipients of welfare in America right now. If each church helped two families get on their feet if possible, welfare could be eliminated. Remember, there was a day when our country did not have welfare. Families and Christians helped each other. Now we have relied on the government and socialism is creeping in. Welfare seems to be the card some in government are playing to promote their socialist agenda.Pastor Kohl (a baptist minister)

[pattygreen 5]

Alert the media!!! Voters are stupid. I guess those people are the only ones in America not to watch Fox news because surely Fox news would have reported ad infinitum, ad nauseum that Obama made a slight slip up and said 57 states. Oh,my! Horrors! :smile2: How can he be elected president if he thinks we have 57 states??? So what else is new? That right-wing video doesn't dispute what I posted, which I stand by.

You are soooo hypocritical! You posted a video with mcCain voters who were asked questions about the election and Sarah Palin that made them look just as stupid, yet when I post one opposite of yours, it's sooooo wrong.:thumbup: (if it was not you who posted it a while back, then I ask your forgiveness, and I will go back and try to find it) When someone on the right says something that is stupid, you leftys jump all over it as well!

[LeighaMason 19]

Very liberal interpretation of the scripture.

Patty:"Remember, there was a day when our country did not have welfare. Families and Christians helped each other."

There was also a day, not long ago, when people starved to death on the street. That is why Social Security, public assistance, etc was founded. I am not interested in returning to these days.

[pattygreen 5]

The reason people weren't paying attention to bush, as you put it, is because he was a republican and when people opposed him they were called unpatriotric, unamerican and siding with the terrorists. This includes the media. Not one person asked bush how he planned on paying for 2 wars and 2 tax cuts for the rich. NOT ONE.

That was because they were not feeling the effects of the economy as of yet, and now they are. Isn't it funny how people will allow the government to carry on as usual and not say a word until it affects them personally?, then all hell breaks loose. They demand to the government to stop the spending!

But with Obama - as soon as he uttered the word healthcare, the neocons were demanding to know how it would affect the deficit and how it would be paid for.

AND WHAT BUSH DID DOES MATTER NOW. DON'T YOU GET IT? :thumbup: The things that Obama is getting criticized for now are the things he has had to do to CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESS.

Bull! The biggest citicism with Obama has been his socialistic agenda, starting with Health care. That was his #1 goal and the people didn't want it, yet he forged ahead despite their wishes. Thankfully, we showed him! The next thing is the money he throws around and STILL continues to throw around even though the people have told him in no uncertain terms to STOP THE SPENDING!!!!!! Obama's criticizers are against his arrogance and nerve to change this country into what he deems appropriate instead of what the people want. That's his biggest criticism!

The bank failures, the economy, the rising unemployment, the rising deficit, lack of healthcare - ALL THESE THINGS STARTED UNDER BUSH AND BECAUSE OF HIM.

Now that Obama is dealing with cleaning up the messes of bush, he is criticized, which is totally unfair.:w00t:

Just how long does Obama need to be in office before you will give any of the blame to him for what he is doing? I have heard from Obama a illion times How he is cleaning up someone elses mess. Is he going to clean up his own messes, or will he leave that for the next president in 2012?:smile2:

[pattygreen 5]

I have long maintained on here that from the republicans in congress to those who take to the streets - it isn't about deficits, spending, healthcare or anything else. It's about Obama and wanting him to fail. These people have never accepted Obama as their president and just want him (and with him it would be America, too) to fail.

I offer the following as an example:

By the time Obama came into office, the U.S. was in the hole for $8 trillion dollars.

So what to do, what to do?

Well to answer that question the Senate decided to set up a commission. The commission’s job was going to be to find out what to do about all our debt.

The proposal to start this commission was bi-partisan. There were six Republican Senators that co-sponsored the bill with Democrat Senators.

And as the beginning of this article said, when it came time to vote, the same six Senators that co-sponsored the bill, voted against the bill.

The reason being that the commission was going to offer solutions, and that’s not what the Republicans want, not while there is a Democrat President and the Democrats also have the majority in Congress.

As soon as Pres. Obama supported this commission, the 6 republicans who sponsored it, voted against it.

So, Pattygreen - what explanation, other than just hating Obama and opposing everything he promotes, do you give for this development??

Look, if the federal government is eventually going to address the budget deficit, policymakers are going to have to a) bring in more money; :smile2: spend less money; or c) some combination of the two. There are no other choices. The commission would ostensibly create the conditions for some kind of grand bargain -- Democrats would have to accept spending cuts they would otherwise oppose, and Republicans would accept tax increases they would otherwise oppose.

I stand with the republicans on this issue of rejection because Tax increases during an economic time of turmoil for American's who are holding on by a thread financially without jobs is unheard of, stupid and ridiculous. But, spending cuts are wise and should be done. If the American people have needed to cut back on their spending in order to survive their own financial hardships, then the government will need to do the same in order to survive theirs! It's just common sense which the democratic spendthrifts have no concept or understanding of!:thumbup:

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You are soooo hypocritical! You posted a video with mcCain voters who were asked questions about the election and Sarah Palin that made them look just as stupid, yet when I post one opposite of yours, it's sooooo wrong.:smile2: (if it was not you who posted it a while back, then I ask your forgiveness, and I will go back and try to find it) When someone on the right says something that is stupid, you leftys jump all over it as well!

The issue that was being debated was who voted for Obama and why. You said whites wanted a black president. I said they voted for him despite his being black. They voted for him because he wasn't bush, was smart, well-spoken and people were looking forward to brains being in the white house again. His race didn't matter.

The video you posted was not at all relevant to this debate. And yes, I posted the video about the stupid McCain/Palin voters. So there are stupid voters on both sides. What's your point?:thumbup:

[pattygreen 5]

Very liberal interpretation of the scripture.

Patty:"Remember, there was a day when our country did not have welfare. Families and Christians helped each other."

There was also a day, not long ago, when people starved to death on the street. That is why Social Security, public assistance, etc was founded. I am not interested in returning to these days.

That is the only verse that you could pull out of that Ministers letter and quote me on? Well, I am not interested in returning to those days either. But that was not what he was advocating. He was pointing out that free handouts do NOT 'help' anyone, they enable them to be dependant on the giver, in this case, the government.

What is so wrong with family taking on the responsibility of helping each other anyway? I think it's a good idea. If there is no family, then they should get help. If people knew ahead of time that the rule was "if you need assistance, turn to your closest relative." and they would be liable to help you out, they would encourage each other to work and take care of themselves.

[pattygreen 5]

The issue that was being debated was who voted for Obama and why. You said whites wanted a black president. I said they voted for him despite his being black. They voted for him because he wasn't bush, was smart, well-spoken and people were looking forward to brains being in the white house again. His race didn't matter.

The video you posted was not at all relevant to this debate. And yes, I posted the video about the stupid McCain/Palin voters. So there are stupid voters on both sides. What's your point?:thumbup:

My point is that people who voted for Obama were not informed of his lack of experience and his true agenda. They just wanted a black person to be able to achieve the high goal of becoming president of the United States.

BTW, When you posted your video about McCain voters, you criticized the stupidity of their voters as if they were all that dumb. That was wrong, and I used this video of Obama voters to point that out as well as prove my point, which is that they just wanted a black person. ANY black person would have served the purpose.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Look, if the federal government is eventually going to address the budget deficit, policymakers are going to have to a) bring in more money; :smile2: spend less money; or c) some combination of the two. There are no other choices. The commission would ostensibly create the conditions for some kind of grand bargain -- Democrats would have to accept spending cuts they would otherwise oppose, and Republicans would accept tax increases they would otherwise oppose.

I stand with the republicans on this issue of rejection because Tax increases during an economic time of turmoil for American's who are holding on by a thread financially without jobs is unheard of, stupid and ridiculous. But, spending cuts are wise and should be done. If the American people have needed to cut back on their spending in order to survive their own financial hardships, then the government will need to do the same in order to survive theirs! It's just common sense which the democratic spendthrifts have no concept or understanding of!:thumbup:

Once again, you didn't answer the question. Why did 6 republicans who co-sponsored the bill vote against it after Obama supported it? They were for it until Obama was for it. Then they were against it. Not only is that hypocritical but shows their anti-Obama sentiment and they desire to have him fail.

And when bush entered into two wars that we couldn't pay for he did so while also enacting 2 tax cuts for the rich - which were pushed through congress by the republicans through reconciliation. NOW THIS IS UNHEARD OF, STUPID AND RIDICULOUS and contributed to the huge deficit bush created. But did you hear anything about this from the so-called liberal media? No, once again he got a pass. And I was paying attention, even if you weren't.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Just how long does Obama need to be in office before you will give any of the blame to him for what he is doing? I have heard from Obama a illion times How he is cleaning up someone elses mess. Is he going to clean up his own messes, or will he leave that for the next president in 2012?:thumbup:

Until he is able to deal with an agenda that doesn't involve cleaning up bush's messes.

The unemployment was rising in 2008 (under bush) and continued to do so in 2009 (under Obama), but the stimulus helped keep the unemployment from reaching 15%. Economists from both sides of the political spectrum agree on the benefits of the stimulus.

Even McCain's campaign economic advisors are out there saying that if he had been elected the unemployment rate would still be 10% or higher.

The bank bailout started under BUSH, but Obama gets blamed for it. But the banks are paying it back with interest. And it kept them from completely collapsing which would have been a disaster for our economy.

Healthcare: Well, of course bush couldn't be blamed for anything here. He just ignored the problem. Go to the ER, he said. Like Obama said, if you want to score points on polls, just do nothing. And you can't be criticized.

I blame Obama for not pushing harder for the public option and taking control of this issue rather than letting congress handle it. People turned against healthcare when the public option was removed.

Don't ask, don't tell: Obama should have just issued an executive order to remove this. So, I blame him for not doing this.

I blame Obama for trying too hard to get bi-partisan support when it is clear that the republicans have no intention of supporting anything he does.