Michele Bachmann wants poor people to "have faith in God," then they won't need welfare.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
As long as the First Amendment stands, they have every right, candidate or president, have a right to believe what they want.

Absolutely correct.

However, they have no right to tell people from office to accept Jesus to avoid welfare.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Undertough

 

But you didn't truly respond. You cherry picked his comments to make your point.

Actually I asked a question about specific statements and left the entire post intact just one post above. I wanted to know more about those details so I asked about those details. I never even made a point. I asked a question and then expressed an opinion. I have many and I will express them whether you like that or not.

Your contention was rather obtuse and is evident via a different post that you have serious contentions towards those who prescribe to the Bible.

That had nothing to do with the bible even a little.

It is what that person believes. It probably is what Michele Bachmann believes, but that isn't for us to judge. Individuals make up the government. As long as the First Amendment stands, they have every right, candidate or president, have a right to believe what they want.

As such, I don't agree with her on her stance, but I will defend her right to express her opinion and guard against others that want to demonize solely on that belief.

You should read that bible sometime. Get back to me when you find the part where Jesus told the poor to go fend for themselves. Please go argue with someone else. I asked another poster a question and you cannot answer it. I have nothing to say to you on the subject of someone else's post.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
As long as the First Amendment stands, they have every right, candidate or president, have a right to believe what they want.

Absolutely correct.

However, they have no right to tell people from office to accept Jesus to avoid welfare.

Sure they can. They are representatives. What they say is not law. Their opinion may be that of her constituents. Should she not express what they desire? She isn't pushing for a state recognized religion, but rather offering her representation of her constituents or maybe just what she things will get her elected....either way, she is not committing any great sin nor stepping upon the Constitution.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
She isn't pushing for a state recognized religion

No, but when you represent the state and use the power of that office as a platform for not only your beliefs, but political actions based on those beliefs.... you've merged religion and government. A big no-no according to the Constitution.

The irony of it all is she is for Nafta, and Cafta-outsourcing of America, but hey, you broke uneducated individuals that lost your low skilled jobs to Mexico, India, and China, you need to starve to death as the government i would like to be in charge of has no place for you
Ignorance is surely bliss

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
She isn't pushing for a state recognized religion

No, but when you represent the state and use the power of that office as a platform for not only your beliefs, but political actions based on those beliefs.... you've merged religion and government. A big no-no according to the Constitution.

Not necessarily. The Constitution states that Government itself (that being the institution of Government) will not establish an official religion. The persons making up the offices of Government will not push to establish such official recognition, but they are free to practice and express their represented persons as such.

The structure of government is to be secular, that the people nor the people that inhabit Government itself. It provides a pretty good barrier as I would oppose any measure that involved a movement that pushed recognition; her statements fall short of such recognition on a Government level.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
She isn't pushing for a state recognized religion

No, but when you represent the state and use the power of that office as a platform for not only your beliefs, but political actions based on those beliefs.... you've merged religion and government. A big no-no according to the Constitution.

On a side note, I am an officer of the United States. Should I not be afforded my First Amendment rights because I may be able to influence others?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

The structure of government is to be secular

Indeed. And how is that possible when a presidential forerunner and representative is commanding religious activity as a solution to political problems?

If we were to elect a muslim to office, and he/she shamelessly instructed us to accept Allah to replace our wealth, we'd rightly be outraged.

It is extremely important that our representatives' beliefs not become matters of policy.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
On a side note, I am an officer of the United States. Should I not be afforded my First Amendment rights because I may be able to influence others?

If you work for the federal government you are restricted by the First Amendment, not afforded it.

And if you're advising religious activity as a political solution you are likely in violation.

[quoteThe more I read about this lady the more I think she is evil. Not because of what she says here. Let me clarify it seems nice. But she is against welfare...and the fact is people need welfare.

People don't need to depend on welfare...but they do need it.




with the economy down the drain, a totally dysfunctional congress, many families are going to need help.

what angers many about welfare is the amount of abuse in the system.
i live in Massachusetts, so i hope your State has a better system.
if these programs were intelligently run, fewer people would be against them.

here are a few situation i have seen:

a young couple at work had government subsidies on two apartments, both claiming to be single parents.
the bureaucracy did not notice the kids being used twice to qualify.

a young couple with no children had not only housing, but claimed their imaginary children on their taxes.
both worked, but by lying could take very fancy vacations to their country every year.

a worker in his early 20s turned out to have stolen someone's id, so i don't even know what country he was from.
when i asked if he had taken the company's dental program, he said no, he prefers the State program cause they paid for everything.
unless he had more ids, he did not qualify for any State assistance.
but would take expensive vacations to Canada and elsewhere, told me he had to do something with his money.

when visiting a local production plant, the owner's son told me that at least dozens of their employees were temps.
they offered to make them permanent employees, they refused.
by working as temps, they could keep getting their government benefits.
since all their temps were working under phony ids, he didn't know the real names of any of them.

a local prostitute was telling me about how to scam the food stamp system, everybody does it she says.
she is under a restraining order and can't come within 150 ft of this building.

this could be the Massachusetts mentality of getting as much federal money into the state as possible.
making this criminal behavior a cultural event.

and then using key words, a politician attacks welfare and gains votes.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Indeed. And how is that possible when a presidential forerunner and representative is commanding religious activity as a solution to political problems?

If we were to elect a muslim to office, and he/she shamelessly instructed us to accept Allah to replace our wealth, we'd rightly be outraged.

It is extremely important that our representatives' beliefs not become matters of policy.

On the presidential scale, it doesn't matter. People, including here on ATS attribute more power to the presidency than is afforded by the Constitution. While I respect your ability to separate religion or spiritual belief of a candidate from the person, that just isn't reality.

It is people that have allowed that to become a campaign issue, when it should not be. You are correct, policy and principle should be at the forefront.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
On a side note, I am an officer of the United States. Should I not be afforded my First Amendment rights because I may be able to influence others?

If you work for the federal government you are restricted by the First Amendment, not afforded it.

And if you're advising religious activity as a political solution you are likely in violation.

I do not abdicate my Constitutional protections merely because I am employed by the government. Only if I were to use my position to influence said activities. In this, I am not. I am just making a point that I am an individual first, with full protection of the Constitution. If I were to use my position to force others, through various means (absent of speech) to prescribe to my beliefs than you would be correct.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


The government and community are the same thing (or they are at least supposed to be). The community providing welfare is no different to the government providing welfare, we're all one community and we should all contribute to helping others. If people could be trusted to take care of the poor then we wouldn't need a government welfare system.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

The government and community are the same thing (or they are at least supposed to be). The community providing welfare is no different to the government providing welfare, we're all one community and we should all contribute to helping others. If people could be trusted to take care of the poor then we wouldn't need a government welfare system.

edit on 8-7-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

The government and the community are NOT the same.
Community looks to volunteers to aid other people in need.
The government FORCES others to pay them, so they can dole out a prescribed amount of what they deem necessary to others in need.

Perhaps giving this lecture whilst standing in front of a mirror would be more appropriate, seeing as how she has no problems getting her fill from the government doles.

Source

But theMinnesota Republican and her family have benefited personally from government aid, an examination of her record and finances shows. A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state ofMinnesota in the last five years, money that in part came from the federal government. A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.

She is a far worse welfare-queen than any down-on-their-luck person I know. How many people who have had to temporarily rely on government assistance have racked up $290,000 in welfare?

People do not like hypocrites Michele.

So what is the problem? this lady is right too many are dependant on government,talk about immigrants thye real truth is it's the home grown ones who are reliant on welfare,decide they are better off just collecting welfare then having to actually work for a living,nothing wrong with that statement,I think weffare should be abolished IMO

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
While I respect your ability to separate religion or spiritual belief of a candidate from the person, that just isn't reality.

That would not be anything I'd want. Everyone has a right to their beliefs.

It is people that have allowed that to become a campaign issue, when it should not be. You are correct, policy and principle should be at the forefront.

I don't know if you're aware that the GOP is being hijacked (in several states at least) by the radical religious right. I was surprised to see it on paper. You might be interested to look at the Texas GOP platform to see how much of a christian religious agenda is in play.

The Republicans' desire to enable their social conservative ideology rather than tend to current issues is likely going to work against them.

reply to post by Misoir


Yes, that's our Michele... The Welfare Queen who is all for denying everyone else the same benefits that she has enjoyed. As long as her family can get along (with the help of her government and her god) then everyone should be able to do it! Except without the government, that is.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
If I were to use my position to force others, through various means (absent of speech) to prescribe to my beliefs than you would be correct.

Well, you brought it up.
What is it that you're doing that you believe my opinion on this matter is intruding upon?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by drew1749

 

We did not go on dependency programs. And I don’t begrudge anyone who does when I say that, but we didn’t do that.

From your OP.

She wants to promote personal responsibility and NOT entitlements?

The horror, the horror. . . .

If only she weren't such a liar. Just more of the typical hypocrisy being spewed daily by the republican/tea party. Not only is she an absolute idiot, Michelle Bachman is one of the biggest hypocrites in D.C.. She is only against "welfare" that's intended to help the poor and disadvantaged because, according to this article, she is fully in favor of "corporate welfare," especially when her family farm is a major recipient of that welfare.
www.politico.com...

Bachmann's family farm received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006. The farm had been managed by Bachmann's recently deceased father-in-law and took in roughly $20,000 in 2006 and $28,000 in 2005, with the bulk of the subsidies going to dairy and corn. Both dairy and corn are heavily subsidized — or "socialized" — businesses in America (in 2005 alone, Washington spent $4.8 billion propping up corn prices) and are subject to strict government price controls.

Not to worry though, it runs in the family. Seems her husband also enjoys being on the receiving end of another of America's social programs. Namely, Medicaid. Check it out for yourself here;
openchannel.msnbc.msn.com...

While Rep. Michele Bachmann has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the "welfare rolls," the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005, according to new figures obtained by NBC News.

Or, if you prefer the video, it can be found here; videocafe.crooksandliars.com...

Nothing the republican/tea party does could surprise me anymore. Actions speak much louder than words ever could.