Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 89715

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…

These are people who pay no income tax.
My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mitt Romney, Mother Jones 140 Comments [10/1/2012 7:24:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 79
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4 5 6
His4Life

somecommonsense, man, I agree with you! I'm a black woman, which pretty much puts me on the "low end" of traditional American society. Yet, I do not rely on government handouts. I worked my way up from virtual homelessness after my divorce to being head librarian and earning a college degree. Obama and his welfare programs are DEMEANING to black people and other poor, working class families. I can damn well make it on my own without his help.

10/4/2012 5:14:03 PM

Jordab the Folf

Better use this in one of the upcoming debates, Obama. Kinda disappointed that you didn't bring it up last night.

10/4/2012 5:39:48 PM

Cannawope

First of all, I just want to point out that I honestly am not sure about either candidate.

Now, Romney definately put his foot in his mouth, but the gist of what he said was...well half true. He was right in that there are Americans who take advantage of our system (and more than a few who aren't American-and I'm not talking about asylum) and there are tons of them. On the other hand, many people need help for things that they can't do on their own. Does this mean the people I knew who lived unemployed in a ratty trailer with two brand new cars every two years they were able to pay for with assistance money? You tell me. Also they were hardcore fundies that hated "them liberals"

10/4/2012 8:06:34 PM

Anon

@This His4Life.

As I said before, you have benefited from government 'handouts' just like everyone else.

I quote myself: http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=89715&Page=3#1453895.
Maybe you could 'make it on your own', but many can't. But you can do far better with the help of others.

How is it demeaning to anyone to help those who are hungry, sick, or homeless?

And if you are same His4Life as the one who claims to be a Biblical literalist, I quote your supposedly-precious book:

Matthew 25:35-40

‘For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited me in; naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you, or thirsty, and give you something to drink? ‘And when did we see you a stranger, and invite you in, or naked, and clothe you? ‘When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’ “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me.’


See the contradictions between these two things that you profess to believe?

And least you say that private charity should be sufficient for the cause of reducing suffering: it isn't. This is simply returns-to-scale: it is far more efficient for a large government to provide social support than it is for any private group, although private groups can and do do a lot of very important and good work.

10/4/2012 11:56:21 PM

Malitia

"His4Life":

Receiving government aid is demeaning for the people receiving it... you're right for the wrong reasons:

Nobody should be so poor to need it.

It is as demeaning as needing any kind of charity at all or having to resort scavenging richer people's trash (I was this poor and I don't wish it to anybody... but then again I'm East-European, socialist, non-Christian. And a college degree Economist).

Dignity shouldn't be a luxury, but if you're poor enough it certainly is, it's not food, water, shelter or medical help.

Hell, if you get poor enough morals become a luxury... when (NOT if) people let go off it is a true test of character.

You write "I worked my way up from virtual homelessness after my divorce to being head librarian and earning a college degree." and apparently this experience didn't teach you empathy or humility. Shame.


"I can damn well make it on my own without his help." Good for you and DO that. But please try not to make other people's lives actively more miserable than it already is.

10/5/2012 3:45:52 AM

His4Life

It's demeaning to me personally to imply that I need white people's help to thrive.

10/6/2012 6:21:07 AM

His4Life

Anon, where did Jesus command the Roman government to give handouts? He was talking to his disciples.

10/6/2012 6:23:22 AM

His4Life

Anon, where did Jesus command the Roman government to give handouts? He was talking to his disciples.

10/6/2012 6:24:43 AM

Filin De Blanc

"Anon, where did Jesus command the Roman government to give handouts? He was talking to his disciples."

Have you forgotten the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats already? Some Christian you are.

10/6/2012 6:30:13 AM

Dr.Shrinker

His4Life is once again showing his/her ignorance of the bible.

Had this person read the prophets, he/she would know that the way governments treat the poor, the sick and the ill-favored is extremely important to the god of the bible. The abuse of the lower classes by the wealthy is one of the things the prophets use to point to the ruling class's lack of faith. The popular canard beloved by neo-cons that "Jesus said we should give to the poor, not the government" is a cop-out for the biblicaly ignorant and the dishonest.

Like His4Life

10/6/2012 6:51:37 AM

Anon

>>His4Life

It's demeaning to me personally to imply that I need white people's help to thrive. <<

I note the 'white people'. How is that relevant here? And who was implying that? How does helping the people who are not thriving demean you in any way?

And again, you do need other people's help to live the life that you live. We are all part of society, and mutually-interdependent. Maybe you could survive out in wilderness with nothing but your hands, but it would be far less pleasant than almost anyone's life in current American society.

I've already explained how we all benefit from social support programs, but let me add a personal example: Modern medicine has saved my life four times, three of which are directly traceable to government-funded emergency medical facilities. And the bulk of my education (including undergrad and much of grad school) was funded publicly. No private charity has enough resources to fund all of the institutions that I've benefited from.

>>Where did Jesus command the Roman government to give handouts? He was talking to his disciples. <<

The Roman government is irrelevant to this.

Jesus is supposed to have said "feed the hungry, cloth the naked, tend to the sick". Social support programs do that, and more. And you're wrongly claiming that they are a bad thing. Contradiction.

And if you're claiming that other people having an easier time of things than you did is somehow demeaning to you or to them, there is another parable in your supposedly-sacred book that you a contradicting. Go re-read the Parable of the Workers in the Vinyard.

10/6/2012 7:15:50 AM

Jordab the Folf

@His
So helping people.. Is a bad thing... Why does it seem like you Christians seem to be /against exactly what your Christ did and told people to do?/ Why even identify yourself as a Christian if you do worse than ignore your Christ's teachings? This isn't even bending the Bible to have it say what you want to say, it's outright writing a new Bible with totally different teachings in it. What's wrong with you?

10/6/2012 7:34:44 AM

His4Life

What if people had to do mandatory work projects to earn their welfare checks? Such as building roads, etc.? This is similar to what Roosevelt did in the New Deal.

I am more liberal in this area than in others. I do believe in some forms of redistribution of wealth (I'm actually somewhat of a socialist). The problem is that solutions imposed from outside a community can sometimes be perceived as patronizing or paternalistic. This is what I mean when I say that, as a black woman, I find the idea of Washington coming in and proposing to "save" me like some kind of "poor negro" who can't help herself to be insulting. Remember that prior to Obama, the U.S. Government was almost exclusively oriented towards whites, with a few exceptions like Condoleeza Rice, Maxine Waters, Clarence Thomas, etc. The current welfare programs didn't come from within minority communities as solutions we discovered to our own problems, but were imposed from outside by people who, while having good intentions, do not identify with those communities or their challenges. Do blacks and other minority groups suffer from poverty in many cases - yes. Could those communities have found their own, self-initiated solutions? Absolutely.

As far as Jesus goes, again, he is talking to disciples and telling them what they are expected to do. Are Christians obligated to feed, clothes and care for the poor? Absolutely. No exceptions. Are they called to impose that onto others through social programs? I can't find that in the Bible. It's ironic that atheists often accuse Christians of wanting to institute a "theocracy," but then they turn around try to dictate that charity and compassion be mandated through the government. What gives?

10/6/2012 11:21:15 AM

Filin De Blanc

"What if people had to do mandatory work projects to earn their welfare checks? Such as building roads, etc.? This is similar to what Roosevelt did in the New Deal."

So basically you're saying "what if people who were unemployed had to get a job in a order to receive welfare?" I shouldn't need to point out how stupid that is.

10/6/2012 11:24:37 AM

Dr.Shrinker

@ His4Life

"Are they called to impose that onto others through social programs? I can't find that in the Bible."

You should have read the prophets, like I told you to. Here are some verses to start with:

Zechariah 7:9-12
Isaiah 10:1-2
Ezekiel 16:49
Amos 5:12

If you bother to read them, consider that these verses were aimed at the people of power and influence in their societies. As Americans have a voice in their government that the people of ancient Israel did not have, it would seem that the mandate falls on us. We the people are called upon to honor our ideals of equal opportunity. We the people are called on to make sure the hard working folk can earn a living, even if it means the top 1% has to buy one less yacht this year. We the people are called on to make sure that the sick, the infirm and the neglected are not left to die. Your bible demands it, and for you and your neo-con allies to say "But Jesus didn't say that" is dishonest and hypocritical.

10/6/2012 11:51:37 AM

Filin De Blanc

"As far as Jesus goes, again, he is talking to disciples and telling them what they are expected to do. Are Christians obligated to feed, clothes and care for the poor? Absolutely. No exceptions. Are they called to impose that onto others through social programs? I can't find that in the Bible. It's ironic that atheists often accuse Christians of wanting to institute a "theocracy," but then they turn around try to dictate that charity and compassion be mandated through the government. What gives?"

So you're saying that as a Christian Romney has a duty to help the poor out of his own pocket. Which he isn't doing.

10/6/2012 12:05:13 PM

Anon

>>His4Life

What if people had to do mandatory work projects to earn their welfare checks?<<

Many of the people who benefit the most from welfare and other social support programs are already working. Of those that aren't, many are old, many are ill, and many are children.

And, as I already explained, everybody benefits from social support programs. Some people simply benefit more directly than others, because they are the ones that need the most help.

>>I find the idea of Washington coming in and proposing to "save" me like some kind of "poor negro" who can't help herself to be insulting.<<

That is not the intention of welfare programs. The intention is help anyone who needs it. Right now, the bulk of welfare recipients in the United States happen to be white.

It is true that black Americans are over-represented as a percentage of recipients. That is not an argument against welfare. It is an argument to address the inequalities of society that put more black Americans in situations where they need to use that part of the social support apparatus.

>>Could those communities have found their own, self-initiated solutions? Absolutely.<<

Perhaps they could have. But the solutions would have been far less effective than they could have been, because they would have been inside an artificially limited social structure. Governments can do things on a larger scale than any other human institution.

You say "minority communities" as though they exist separate from the society around them. But they don't. There isn't "my people" and "your people", although it is far too easy to think in those terms. There are just people, some of whom need help. Provide that help to those who want to use it.

>>As far as Jesus goes, again, he is talking to disciples and telling them what they are expected to do. Are Christians obligated to feed, clothes and care for the poor? Absolutely. No exceptions. Are they called to impose that onto others through social programs?<<

You're missing the point. Jesus is supposed to have said that X, Y, and Z are good things and that they should be done. We have government programs that do X, Y, and Z far better than private charities can, and you are saying that they are a bad thing. That is a contradiction.

The writers of the texts that were incorporated into the Bible didn't talk about social support programs because there weren't any in the times and places that they were living (although there was the municipal grain supply and rationing in Rome itself by 0 CE, that did not extend throughout the empire). But the writer of that parable understood that suffering was bad. And now we know far better ways to prevent suffering.

>>It's ironic that atheists often accuse Christians of wanting to institute a "theocracy," but then they turn around try to dictate that charity and compassion be mandated through the government. What gives? <<

The goal is to reduce human suffering. Social programs do that. Theocracy does not.

If you think "We should feed the hungry, cure the sick and prevent illness, house the homeless, and teach everyone the skills necessary for life in modern society" is a problem, then you are disturbingly short on basic human empathy and are an evil person.

And if you have a problem with charity and compassion, consider this. Even if you were an entirely self-interested opportunist, you should approve of social support, because you benefit from it along with everyone else.

10/6/2012 1:44:59 PM

Canadiest

@Hisforchurchslife

"Are they called to impose that onto others through social programs?"

Biblcally cleaned fast and easy by serveral above comments.

@Hisforlife
Read that book or stfu

10/6/2012 2:43:07 PM

His4Life

Filin, Mitt Romney is a Mormon, not a Christian, but yes, he does have that duty if he claims to follow Christ.

Edit: So does Obama, who also claims to be a Christian. So when is he digging into his wallet to help his half-brother George Obama, who lives in a mud hut in Kenya so small he can touch both walls if he stretches his arms out?

10/6/2012 5:07:07 PM

His4Life

And to be honest, I see no evidence that either Obama or Romney is a follower of Christ. Jesus said "you will know them by their fruits." I don't see any fruit. Just a bunch of fruits. I don't see the gospel being promoted. I don't see steps being taken towards building a more peaceful world (and don't you dare tell me about Obama's peace prize, when he is bombing half the middle east and marching us towards war with Iran).

10/6/2012 5:13:09 PM

His4Life

Jesus was sitting in the top of the tree. There were white doves in the branches, and golden bells were hanging from the leaves like flowers. They would tinkle gently in the wind. Jesus said you are blessed, beloved, because you have followed me and given my word to the nations.

10/6/2012 5:15:05 PM

His4Life

The green will become the black. The black will be two and not one before it becomes the red. The red is the blood of the cross and the rose. So it always is and always will be before the end of time, and then all shall be the green again and the two will be one and not three.

10/6/2012 5:18:13 PM

His4Life

And I saw the axis turning and the world rotating slowly, and Jesus sat upon the tree, contempating the world, the one and the many. And I heard a note fall from the skies of the five and the seven, and the flower was born at his feet, as he had wished and commanded in the silent presence of his mind.

10/6/2012 5:19:58 PM

His4Life

Then I looked and away in the distance, on the white sands sat the lion, and it was gazing at the flower, and contemplating its end. Then behold, before and behind, above and below, between the five and the seven, crowed Abraxas the rooster, and the lion was silent, and the flower withered, and its seed fell into the white sands, and the ten were born from it.

10/6/2012 5:22:35 PM

Anon

@His4Life:

The last several posts are under your name are entirely incomprehensible. They all read like the output of a random phrase generator fed on Gnosticism, European alchemy, and generic fantasy. Are you trying to write free-verse poetry? Regardless, they are irrelevant and also possibly an attempt at trolling.

You have invoked the "No True Scotsman" fallacy with regards to Obama and Romney. Logical fallacies are not admissible. In other words: Obama and Romney are both Christian as long as they each claim to be. The definition of a Christian is "somebody who claims to follow the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth". It happens that Mormonism's origins as Joseph Smith's fandom are far better documented than the particulars of the non-denominational Christianity that Obama professes, so it is much easier to point out the problems with Romney's religion. (I call Obama's religion non-denominational because while he was a member of the United Church of Christ, he has not attended it for several years.)

Obama's Nobel was awarded in large part for his work on non-proliferation, particularly nuclear and chemical weapons but also conventional arms (the Lugar-Obama initiative), which has unambiguously helped to make the world a safer place. You can argue that the award was politically motivated (e.g. why weren't Richard Lugar and Sam Nunn also included on the award), but that is often a concern with the Nobel Peace Prizes. I do not have the information necessary to say if the Obama administration's foreign policy has aggravated the Iranian government more than would have otherwise happened, and all evidence available to me says that you do not have that information either.

And you are mistaken about George Obama. He went through a rough time some years ago, including a stay in one of the more unpleasant prisons in Kenya on a robbery charge. But he currently lives in the Mathare slums of Nairobi by choice. He works with a small foundation to improve the lives of children there, with a focus on using football as a way to get the kids involved and give them a place with access to a social safety net that is largely lacking in Kenya. George Obama does not want charity for himself, but for the kids in the slum. You can read about it in his book: http://www.hurumacentreyouthgroup.org/homeland.php. I do not know if President Obama has donated to his brother's charity or not; he did donate a large sum from the Nobel to Africare, which may have overlapped with their work.

And all of that is irrelevant to the contradictions in what you claim to believe. On too many things, you assert both 'X' and 'not X'. This automatically makes you a liar and a fool. You are a liar because you say you believe two entirely opposite things that cannot simultaneously be true. You are a fool because you refuse to acknowledge the contradiction. These are both independent of which if 'X' is true or not.

10/6/2012 5:32:19 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6