Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Michele Bachmann: If You Don't Work, You Don't Eat

You ever listen to Ron Paul? Did you notice that sometimes he seems to be making sense, and you go, "Yeah! We should do that!" And then a little later, after you've noodled it around for a while, you start to notice the flaws in his argument?

That's what I liken this Michele Bachmann moment to. I work to maintain my lifestyle, and if you boil it down, that means I earn my keep. I'm not particularly fond of the idea that some people get to skate by without having to work for it. In fact, I'd say there maybe should be a strict set of standards to be able to receive public assistance.   [Article continues below]

But here's the thing. The Number One fear of hard-core Republicans (besides the gay, of course) is that somebody is going to get something they don't deserve. But when they go all nuclear on the freeloaders' assess. . .they're forgetting something. Well lots of things, but we'll focus on this one:

Many poor people are children. For the most part, children have no say in their economic status. Michele Bachman is obviously not capable of being President of the United States (or "Prez of the 'Nited States" as she often says), based on this video alone.

And as a sidenote, this is just further evidence of how many rabidly "pro-life" politicians don't give a rip about a baby after it is born.


  1. I didn't know it was the "rabidly 'pro-life' politicians" to care for and raise all of the children of the 'Nited States.

  2. It isn't. But when they cavalierly say that poor people are basically on their own, they're punishing the children that they claim to care so much about. If they can be ready to declare an unimplanted, fertilized egg a complete human being, what about the already-born children?

  3. I suggest you read 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, which is the scripture that Bachmann was referencing. Maybe this will give you a more clear idea of what she meant. Taking what people say out of context is wrong, and shameful, especially when you do it knowingly. I'm not going to discuss MS Initiative 26 because it does not pertain to this subject, nor has it been honestly represented by the media and pro-abortion institutions.

  4. Sorry. Atheistic agnostic here. Thessalonians are villains on Star Trek, right? Your religious text means absolutely ZERO to me. And Michele isn't taken out of context. The video of her speaking is RIGHT THERE. I paraphrased her, and got the gist.

    Religion should have NOTHING to do with law in the United States.

  5. So because you don't believe anything the Bible says, you won't even look to it as a reference? I'm not asking you to believe, just to read. By not referencing the scripture for the complete idea of what she is stating, you have chosen to comment on what she said out of context. Based on your comment, "I'm not particularly fond of the idea that some people get to skate by without having to work for it. In fact, I'd say there maybe should be a strict set of standards to be able to receive public assistance." I think you would agree with this:

    We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good. Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

  6. After all that, I'm still not seeing what YOU think her message was that was so different than what I gleaned from it.

    Tell me succinctly: what did she mean?

  7. Ha ha, seriously? I believe she meant if you CAN work and you choose not to you should not receive handouts from those of us who DO work.

    If parents who can work choose not to, and put their children in danger because of their laziness, who is really to blame?

  8. I believe our Dear Editor is making a point about the poor children. With or without parents.

    @ Anonymous:
    So which is it? What she meant or what the bible says??? You're trying to have it two ways here.

    What if mom dies giving birth... What if dad isn't around & mom can't get a job right away?
    Does the child then "not eat" because they themselves are unwilling to work?

    Utilizing your biblical reference I am assuming that we should make these particular children get a job right out of the sack. Right? Maybe they could clean up the newly soiled hospital room they just arrived in for a scrap or two?

    Ahhh... I should have kept reading... I see in the passage there is a fix for it. You do not associate with them. Then top it off by making them feel shame. But then you redeem yourself because you're kind enough to warn them... if you don't work, yer not gonna eat & then yer gonna die.

    To me the passage sounds more like... fuck 'em if they don't work. Let 'em starve... but don't say we didn't warn you. Oh & by the way... You're not my enemy. Now, fuck off.

    I think it is egotistical & presumptuous of religious people to think that just because a re-re-re-rewritten book has all of the answers for them personally means it also has the answers for seven billion people on earth... in seven billion different situations.

    That is the problem using the bible & religion, especially in politics. It's too contrite, too sweeping, too easy.

    Unfortunately, the children seem to be a religious & political tool whilst in the womb & something to be made an example of when they're out.

  9. Thanks, Monkey. Yes, my point is, while we dither over whether or not the parent is "deserving," the kids starve. I'm one of the least paternal people I know, and I can see that.

  10. I was asked what did I think she meant by your Dear Editor. I responded I think she meant what the Bible says about the topic (seeing how she is referencing a passage in the Bible). What gives you the idea that newborn babies should be put to work? Do you have a specific verse that says that?

    Have you ever had a friend who destroys their life and everyone's life they come into contact with? If not, follow me. You try to help them, but they keep taking advantage of your kindness. You realize you are only enabling them to continue with their destructive lifestyle. So you tell them, I still love you and I will be here for you when you decide to change for the better, but until then, I have to depart from you.

    Now rethink your vulgar interpretation of the verse I presented to you.

    Obviously following what the Bible says is not "too easy." If seven billion people loved the Lord with all of the heart, soul, strength, and mind, and loved their neighbor as they love themselves, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

    I'm curious, what is "contrite" about using the Bible and religion?

  11. Your biblical example and Michele Bachmann both still ignore the kids of the people you're talking about. Every single good program has its abusers and scofflaws. You do not shut them down because of the few people who "don't deserve it."

    I'm all for getting rid of waste, duplication and fraud in government programs. But the Republican way seems to be "nobody gets anything, if anyone is getting something they don't deserve."

    There is a harsh, mean edge to many of the Republicans' programs. One that does not befit the alleged "party of God."
    It would seem that the Monkey and I are more moral than your bible story.

  12. @ Anonymous... You still aren't getting it.

    We're referencing the children without a choice. Nowhere in your passage does it give an age or circumstance group. So, does she or the bible care about the kids or what?

    Since you're the bible-thumper here, I would rather ask you... Do you have a specific verse that says new born babies don't have to work in order to eat? There seemed to have been quite a bit of pressure on Baby Jesus from day one... (I can already tell sarcasm is lost on you as is logic. As already demonstrated... I just can't fucking help myself.)

    I explained my interpretation of the passage you bestowed upon us. Since you presumed that our Dear Editor would agree with it... I presumed I could define it my way, for you.

    There is not a commandment you can say to me to make me re-think my take of the passage. And utilizing an example story, of which has nothing to do with the main point, does nothing to sway me to think any differently.

    I ask you... What if your destructive friend has a starving child at home? Tough shit for them??? Or get a fucking job kid!!??

    I never mentioned following the bible... I mentioned using the bible. There is a large difference. And, to me, using the bible is quite contrite & too easy. Most people I see use it, don't really follow it.

    As far as what is contrite about using the bible... You are providing that demonstration here & now. Applying a sweeping statement to 7 billion people & circumstances.

    However, there is one thing you are right about... If the world were filled with 7 billion lord loving, bible-thumping, blinded christians like yourself we wouldn't be having this conversation. I would have taken a long walk off a short peer... Straight out of the womb.

  13. A bible CAN be very useful. Our spare bed has a broken caster, and the bible is jusssst the right height!


Have something to say to us? Post it here!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...