Rep. Stephen Fincher: “If the Poor Want Their Children to Eat… Sell them as Slaves.”

FriendlyFire

Codex WMDicanious
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
21,761
Location
Sydney
Rep. Stephen Fincher: “If the Poor Want Their Children to Eat… Sell them as Slaves.”

Appearing on Fox News, Tennessee Representative Stephen Fincher addressed the charges of hypocrisy and callousness leveled at him by Democrats, again quoting the Bible to justify his positions. “Leviticus 25-45, ‘the children of the strangers that do live among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land and they shall be your possession.’ And what’s stranger than poor people? Am I right? Right?” He said grinning and raising his hand for a high-five, which was answered quickly by a smiling Eric Bolling.

The controversy started two weeks ago while a debate was taking place in the House Agriculture Committee over $4.1 billion in cuts to the food stamp program, now known as SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Stephen Fincher made his position clear that the government should not be in the business of feeding children or helping the poor, quoting the Bible for added emphasis. “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” (The quote is actually about warning people against waiting for the second-coming, not as a justification to deny food to those in need.) The callousness is evident to anyone; the hypocrisy became obvious when it was found out that Mr. Fincher has taken millions from the government personally. The $3.5 million he has collected for his farm in subsidies, is from programs that he supports and has voted to increase funding for.

“Look, I’m a Christian and I’m far better than those atheists on the other side of the aisle who want to use the government to feed the poor,” Stephen Fincher said to the Fox panel. “That’s how Hitler and Stalin started out - feeding the poor. But I’m not heartless at all; it’s all about tough-love. And it’s also a win-win situation. We all know God wants to help the rich and powerful, or they wouldn’t be rich and powerful,” he said to the beaming and nodding hosts on The Five. “That’s why the government should give more money to people like me who know how to spend it. We could buy the poor people and then we would be obligated to feed them… if they work hard enough.” After a thoughtful pause. “I’ll say it again, this is other people’s money that Washington is appropriating and spending. It should go to me.”

“I have to say thank you on so many levels Steve,” said Greg Gutfeld. “Not only for figuring out how to feed those douche-bags, and for trying to bring back slavery, but as a comedian too. I have so many hungry children and slavery jokes I’m dying to tell… See, that’s why right-wing humor works, it’s… it’s gettable!”

“Tell your big news,” Andrea K. Tantaros said. “We’re all just dancing around it.”

“Okay, here’s my plan. I’m going to introduce a bill next week. It will eliminate food stamps and give that money to well-off white Christian males, and legalize the buying and selling of those who can’t feed themselves. It’s called, The American Patriot’s Love of God and Country, bill.”

“I’m a Democrat and I love this bill!” Bob Beckel announced. “What could be better than helping the wealthy and the poor at the same time?”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...sonally-pocketing-millions-in-farm-subsidies/
EDIT: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...-food-stamps-as-stealing-other-peoples-money/

This is the Onion right ?


GOP Congressman Stephen Fincher On A Mission From God-Starve The Poor While Personally Pocketing Millions In Farm Subsidies

Tennessee GOP Congressman Stephen Fincher, swept into office in the Tea Party wave of 2010, is on a mission from God.

Armed with an array of proverbs and quotes from the Holy Bible, Congressman Fincher is pressing his fight to dramatically curtail the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—better known to most Americans as food stamps—relied upon by 47 million Americans for some or all of their daily sustenance.

Why?

Because the Bible tells him so.

Appearing this past weekend at a gathering at a Memphis Holiday Inn, Fincher explained his position on food stamps by stating, “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.”

The Congressman’s remarks come on the heels of his taking the biblical route when responding to Representative Juan Vargas’ (D-Calif.) somewhat different take on the teachings of Jesus. During a recent House Agriculture Committee debate over the Farm Bill (which contains the food stamp budget), Vargas, citing the Book of Matthew, noted, “[Jesus] says how you treat the least among us, the least of our brothers, that’s how you treat him.”

Vargas also noted that Jesus directly mentions the importance of feeding the hungry.

Not to be outdone by a Godless Democrat, Congressman Fincher responded with his own Bible quote taken from the Book of Thessalonians—“The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Nicely played, Congressman.

While the biblical back-and-forth is interesting, I wonder if Congressman Fincher would be good enough to refer me to the part of the Bible revealing to us how providing adequate food stamp assistance to those in need violates the teachings of Christianity but venerates accepting government hand-outs in the guise of farm subsidies?

Maybe the Congressman can instruct heathens such as I on how pocketing huge sums of taxpayer money in the guise of farm subsidies is a righteous act, while accepting government subsidies to feed one’s family is an act of—to use Fincher’s own words—stealing from those in the country to give to others in the country?

I don’t ask these questions of Congressman Fincher indiscriminately. I ask them because of Fincher’s unique qualification to provide us with the appropriate proverb intended to instruct.

You see, Representative Fincher happens to be the second largest recipient of farm subsidies in the United States Congress—which might explain why Mr. Fincher would like to decimate the food stamp budget in order to do the Lord’s work when “supporting a proposal to expand crop insurance by $9 billion over the next 10 years.”

How much money are the taxpayers forking over to Congressman Fincher via farm subsidies?

While Fincher may only come in second amongst his congressional peers when it comes to pocketing huge sums of taxpayer money, he has the distinction of being one of the largest recipients of subsidies in the history of the great State of Tennessee.

Still pretty silly but at least it wasnt bat[censored].

EDIT: The first Article is a onion style mocking the new report of the second.
The second Article is the original news/opinion report.
 
I can't find that quote.
 
If they re-elect this clown its just further evidence we are getting the government we deserve.
 
I've never seen any American politician stoop lower. May the media publicly eviscerate this monster's image. Truly despicable in so many ways. I'm shocked.
 
I've never seen any American politician stoop lower. May the media publicly eviscerate this monster's image. Truly despicable in so many ways. I'm shocked.

Depending on what district he is in that might only make him stronger, can just feed off the "oh man look at that liberal media picking on me" mantra.
 
Bad thread title is bad, but worse politician is worse.
 
This HAS to be satire, or a politician making a joke. No sane person advocates the return of institutionalized slavery.

Edit: Just read the links, and never mind, just a politician being hypocritical.
 
It is, or at least most of the first is. A quick Google search gives this as the author.

The second isn't, though.
 
Don't make an onion article the title of your thread >_<

I would still rather see a biblical literalist in Congress than a randbot. This man is less dangerous and less sociopathic than Paul Ryan.
 
Don't make an onion article the title of your thread >_<

I would still rather see a biblical literalist in Congress than a randbot. This man is less dangerous and less sociopathic than Paul Ryan.

The problem with biblical literalism, as I've gone on for days about in other threads, is that the 'literalist' is still reduced to picking and choosing which lines to use in any given situation.

I know a ton of christians who would say that Leviticus doesn't have any bearing on us today because of Jesus or something, and I know an equal number who use Leviticus to defend separate but [un]equal treatment of homosexuals.

Biblical literalism is not a method of decision making.

I'd rather have a randbot in congress than a biblical literalist.

One is like trying to herd a couple of rams, the other is like herding a flock of kittens.
 
The problem with biblical literalism, as I've gone on for days about in other threads, is that the 'literalist' is still reduced to picking and choosing which lines to use in any given situation.
:rolleyes: i have already shown that to be wrogn, so stop being so intellectually dishonest.

I know a ton of christians who would say that Leviticus doesn't have any bearing on us today because of Jesus or something, and I know an equal number who use Leviticus to defend separate but [un]equal treatment of homosexuals.

So then they should be equally as accepting of bestiality, since it is mentioned the very next verse after those condemning homosexuality.
 
The problem with biblical literalism, as I've gone on for days about in other threads, is that the 'literalist' is still reduced to picking and choosing which lines to use in any given situation.

I know a ton of christians who would say that Leviticus doesn't have any bearing on us today because of Jesus or something, and I know an equal number who use Leviticus to defend separate but [un]equal treatment of homosexuals.

Biblical literalism is not a method of decision making.

I'd rather have a randbot in congress than a biblical literalist.

One is like trying to herd a couple of rams, the other is like herding a flock of kittens.

Randbots have a pseudo-intellectual gloss to them and a frightening number of "respectable" people have been influenced by randian "thought", like Alan Greenspan.

No one actually takes the jesus freaks seriously as economic policymakers and seekers of national office (see Rick Santorum), even if they have political clout in other ways.
 
So then they should be equally as accepting of bestiality, since it is mentioned the very next verse after those condemning homosexuality.

Alternatively, we could base our opinions of what sexual practices are okay on things other than a book written 3000 years ago.
 
Neither are they.

Some are. Just like some colored folks have managed not to steal my TV set.

Oh and great. Another rant about crop insurance. That's new and useful.
 
Oh he's a dbag that's for sure. But I'm not entirely convinced that using the crop insurance program(in the light of decreasing direct subsidization but that's never actually brought up as part of the full picture since it's inconvenient) as evidence of upward redistribution of wealth is a particularly effective example of that in the Republican Party platform.
 
The problem with biblical literalism, as I've gone on for days about in other threads, is that the 'literalist' is still reduced to picking and choosing which lines to use in any given situation.
Well, to be fair, when so many parts of the Bible contradict each other, the literalists have no other choice than to pick and chose. Based on the social and cultural morality they grew up in.
 
Top Bottom