Republican Lawmaker Says Teacher Pay Raises 'Against Biblical Principle,' But Not His as he Raises his Again

[DontBeAfraid]

Right. You keep telling yourself that GG. I know it helps you to feel better about yourself not being able to find a job in your supposed trained field and I know it must suck to still be dependent on mommy and daddy at your age.

Arent some of your children her age Jena?

[GamerGal]

Right. You keep telling yourself that GG. I know it helps you to feel better about yourself not being able to find a job in your supposed trained field and I know it must suck to still be dependent on mommy and daddy at your age.

Gee, if I got thousands of dollar from the government like you do I wouldn't need a job now would I?
Also, I'm not dependent on them. I just won't move to Portland with out a job. I pay rent, I buy my own food, pay for my own car insurance, every thing. They don't give me a dime for any thing. But again I don't get my pay from other tax payers like you do so I gotta have a job so I can work and pay my bills.

Now on topic(Which Jena and Co seem to not get) Is a Republican(Like ALL Republicans) claim God supports the rich and hates the poor. Obama actually quotes Jesus and... Jena and Co flip out. I can hear her screaming in Uncle Ruckus's(Boondocks) voice "White Jesus! White Jesus!" Every time she bitches about Obama quoting Jesus but not when a Republicans claims Jesus hates the poor.

[JenaS62]

Arent some of your children her age Jena?

No. Two of them are seniors in high school and the oldest is a freshman (technically a sophomore because of Advanced Placement credits) in college.

[GamerGal]

And you still have the oldest as a dependent on your taxes? Shit, must be nice having DBA and I pay for your kids.

[Lillith]

Is this somehow different from people labeling Obama a Marxist, a Muslim, or a-religious? It shouldn't matter what you are, so long as you uphold the constitution, but much of the U.S. electorate are not moved by anything unless it's religious in nature.
If you could completely convince them that jesus or God told them to adopt a surveillance amendment, they would accept it. A very large portion of voters simply are more interested in religious pandering than they are in issues that are actually important.

As far as what Obama actually said... He was correct. Technically, according to jesus, it is easier for poor people to get into heaven than for rich people. Blessed are the poor, and blessed are the meek, and pay your taxes... et cetera.

Obama actually is saying something correct. However, the cynical part of me agrees with you--that it's just a political ploy. Accuracy is good, but if you can use "accuracy" to achieve a goal... Then even better.


But relating this to the thread...

The difference between what Obama did and what the lawmaker did was that the lawmaker is deliberately inhibiting people and being a hypocrite. Obama is using neo-religious campaign rhetoric to the goal of re-election. Obama is not a lawmaker in the absolute literal sense... He can't do anything legislative without congress (am not referrencing executive orders).

So, ultimately, the lawmaker is being the douche bag. Obama is being a presidential candidate.


And then it becomes more complicated than that... If you make more, you should have more taxed from you. That's a basic principle of democracy (originally, pairing progressive taxes with free market)--the fact that Obama can use jesus to enforce this notion to the simple-minded of the U.S. is just smart political maneuvering on his part.
But if you are a teacher, it isn't clear that you should receive less pay while lawmakers increase their own pay.

There would be far fewer lawmakers and people of note if it were not for teachers. We take literacy for granted, but the fact that the vast majority of people in the U.S. can read and write, is something that has helped us considerably.

Bottom line, even though, he has began working the crowd a little late in the game.

if Obama plays his cards the way they have been played in the last 12 years, his winning hand will be to just declare that God is telling him to invade Iran and free them from Muslim tyranny. That God speaks to him and appointed him (as a newly self professed believer in the words of Christ) to lead the Christian nation of the USA and anything else he thinks justified to "protect" the nation from terrorists. It should work like a charm. He will be forgiven his treaspasses and failures, just like they did bush when he begged forgivness and repentence.


For most of what you wrote -overall commentary I'd agree - with the exception;

As far as what Obama actually said... He was correct. Technically, according to jesus, it is easier for poor people to get into heaven than for rich people. Blessed are the poor, and blessed are the meek, and pay your taxes... et cetera.

Got any technical or empirical evidence for whats underlined? A tally from heavens bean counters or just theoretical considerations? How about Govt stats - FBI, CIA, DHS, Census data?

[Beatnik Bob]

Got any technical or empirical evidence for whats underlined? A tally from heavens bean counters or just theoretical considerations? How about Govt stats - FBI, CIA, DHS, Census data?

I do have evidence that Obama is correctly representing jesus.

However, I would rather not quote the passages because they invite a certain demographic that would derail this thread.

But to keep it succinct: Matt 5:5 (Blessed are the meek); Matt 19:24/Luke 18:24-25/Mark 10:23 (Rich people have difficulty getting into heaven); Matt 13:22 (wealth makes you deceitful).
Then jesus says to render unto Caesar which is Caesar's.
That's vague, but Paul the Nescient expands the concept for Christians and states what it should mean. In Romans 13:1-2, he says: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (2) Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

Luckily, Christians do not listen to Paul--otherwise we would all be Catholic under absolutist regimes. But Paul is still reinforcing the notion that you do exactly what you are told in the government, because government authorities have been established by God. Thus, paying your taxes constitutes one of those duties.

So, Obama isn't necessarily lying, from a Christian standpoint.
Obama is smart enough to know that if you act like you have a low IQ, you will get votes.

Now, if he were really smart, he would tell Americans that Paul said you have to do everything the government says. Because if Obama decides it, then it was meant to be/ordained. So, obey the laws, because Obama was set in office by God. And if Obama told Americans this, he would still technically be correct.


...I don't think Obama is an idiot, I agree it's political maneuvering to pick and choose what tenants of Christianity you want to espouse. It just so happens that what he is saying is "correct"--from the standpoint of Christianity.

[Lillith]

I do have evidence that Obama is correctly representing jesus.

However, I would rather not quote the passages because they invite a certain demographic that would derail this thread.

But to keep it succinct: Matt 5:5 (Blessed are the meek); Matt 19:24/Luke 18:24-25/Mark 10:23 (Rich people have difficulty getting into heaven); Matt 13:22 (wealth makes you deceitful).
Then jesus says to render unto Caesar which is Caesar's.
That's vague, but Paul the Nescient expands the concept for Christians and states what it should mean. In Romans 13:1-2, he says: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (2) Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

Luckily, Christians do not listen to Paul--otherwise we would all be Catholic under absolutist regimes. But Paul is still reinforcing the notion that you do exactly what you are told in the government, because government authorities have been established by God. Thus, paying your taxes constitutes one of those duties.

So, Obama isn't necessarily lying, from a Christian standpoint.
Obama is smart enough to know that if you act like you have a low IQ, you will get votes.

Now, if he were really smart, he would tell Americans that Paul said you have to do everything the government says. Because if Obama decides it, then it was meant to be/ordained. So, obey the laws, because Obama was set in office by God. And if Obama told Americans this, he would still technically be correct.


...I don't think Obama is an idiot, I agree it's political maneuvering to pick and choose what tenants of Christianity you want to espouse. It just so happens that what he is saying is "correct"--from the standpoint of Christianity.

While he may be correctly representing Jesus via Matt, Paul or Romans what I was asking is whether you have an empirical evidence that any of this is factual or true?

How do you know how many of the "meek, by virtue of being of lesser means because they are obedient and render unto Ceasar taxes are more inclined to go to heaven. Or that the rich tend to be decietful.


I suppose my point is that any of this religous reference as it relates to politics, rule of civil or criminal law is bullshit and should be strictly segregated from government. That Obama has now stooperd to his predecessors tactics by trying to ingratiate himself with the religious voters is to me not the representation of someone who I initially thought to be a game changer. And based on his past performance he will use this to a disingenous manipulative advantage, void of promise and continue as he desires just as all the rest did......once they acquired the religious vote.

Marx said, Religion is the opiate of the masses - how true as it applies to the christians as well.

[Beatnik Bob]

While he may be correctly representing Jesus via Matt, Paul or Romans what I was asking is whether you have an empirical evidence that any of this is factual or true?

How do you know how many of the "meek, by virtue of being of lesser means because they are obedient and render unto Ceasar taxes are more inclined to go to heaven. Or that the rich tend to be decietful.

I have no proof whatsoever. Paul at least was certainly a naive idiot or just manipulative (depending how you look at it).

But proof isn't the point. Obama defended his position not by saying it was historically/logically accurate, but because he believed in jesus. I don't know if Obama (or any politician) believes in jesus (though we can give him the benefit of a doubt), but if Obama does believe in jesus, then it makes his argument accurate from a religious basis--which is the only basis he is using.
Again, actual empirical evidence is not necessary to validate the accuracy of Obama's faith-based claim (which is intended to win over the moderate/democratic religious).

I suppose my point is that any of this religous reference as it relates to politics, rule of civil or criminal law is bullshit and should be strictly segregated from government. That Obama has now stooperd to his predecessors tactics by trying to ingratiate himself with the religious voters is to me not the representation of someone who I initially thought to be a game changer. And based on his past performance he will use this to a disingenous manipulative advantage, void of promise and continue as he desires just as all the rest did......once they acquired the religious vote.

Well, if you want radical political change... Look to someone else.

Though in Obama's defense, the fact that he has tried compromise with the Republicans on numerous issues is itself radical. Many politicians are only interested in being radical to their party, so the fact that Obama actually wants to be moderate and work with Republicans is itself somewhat radical.

1/3 or so of the stimulus consisted of tax cuts. And yet, many brainwashed people are unaware of this and deride the stimulus anyway.
By virtue of the fact that Obama is "radically" moderate, he has done quite a few things that are very conservative. This has alienated him with both parties (because ultimately, the American people don't want change--apparently they like the status quo. If they did like change, you would see more conservatives openly praising Obama's conservative policies/actions--but instead, conservatives ignore the conservative policies or hypocritically critique them; and liberals ignore/criticize them outright).

What you have aren't just corrupt politicians... What you have is a retarded U.S. electorate. This applies to religion in government as well.

Marx said, Religion is the opiate of the masses - how true as it applies to the christians as well.

I never even considered that Christianity could be an exception to that, considering how it was adopted by the Romans specifically to be an "opiate" of control for the masses.