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

[Azale]

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.

Come on, you know who I mean when I say jesus freak, since I attach it to the actions and words of people like Stephen Fincher.

 

[peter grimes]

i have already shown that to be wrogn, so stop being so intellectually dishonest.

Coming from a YEC adherent, that's priceless.

What you have shown - at least to the best of my understanding - is the particular way you yourself rectify contradictions. You haven't laid out a systematic methodology that anyone may apply in order to determine which passages are to be taken as literal fact and which ones are to open to contextual interpretation. Which means that two different biblical literalists may come to different conclusions when presented with the same material. That's not a rational prescriptive system - it's post hoc.

So then they should be equally as accepting of bestiality, since it is mentioned the very next verse after those condemning homosexuality.

Do you accept bestiality just because you also accept mixed fibers?

 

[Farm Boy]

Come on, you know who I mean when I say jesus freak, since I attach it to the actions and words of people like Stephen Fincher.

I do, but I have to jab a little bit at it if for only because it's a terribly ineffective criticism. Counter-productive in fact. Going after Stephen Fincher as a Jesus Freak serves simply to drive some people that identify with that religion away from reason and they write you off from the get-go. Attacking Fincher, as the Democrat in the OP did, is far more effective. So effective, in fact, that Fincher had to resort to a pretty hackneyed response. A response that will be underwhelming to some of his audience. Not the political ideologues, true, but the ones that actually have some concept of social justice as it relates to Christianity.

Leave the Jesus-freaking to your friends when referring to that delicious piece of the desired gender that turned out to be bat-crazy in the sack and then arbitrarily used religion as a shield to mess with your head when (s)he wanted to break it off. It works pretty well there. Or for Pentecostals. Now that's scary.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh and great. Another rant about crop insurance. That's new and useful.

Is that what they call "small government" farm subsidies these days?

Fifteen members of the U.S. House and Senate or their spouses benefited from federal farm subsidies last year, underscoring a personal stake for some lawmakers in a congressional debate that resumes this week over spending on agriculture programs.

Representative Stephen Fincher, a Tennessee Republican and member of the House Agriculture Committee that has approved a rewrite of farm programs, was the biggest recipient of the subsidies last year, according to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, a group that seeks lower farm subsidies. Fincher and his wife, Lynn, own 50 percent of a farm and received $70,574 in direct farm subsidies last year, the group said.

The second biggest recipient was Representative Doug LaMalfa, a California Republican and agriculture panel member who, along with his wife, Jill, is part owner of a farm that received direct payments of $62,857.

Of the 15 lawmakers, only two -- Senator Jon Tester of Montana and Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado -- are Democrats. Eight of them sit on the agriculture committees in Congress.

 

[Azale]

I do, but I have to jab a little bit at it if for only because it's a terribly ineffective criticism. Counter-productive in fact. Going after Stephen Fincher as a Jesus Freak serves simply to drive some people that identify with that religion away from reason and they write you off from the get-go. Attacking Fincher, as the Democrat in the OP did, is far more effective. So effective, in fact, that Fincher had to resort to a pretty hackneyed response. A response that will be underwhelming to some of his audience. Not the political ideologues, true, but the ones that actually have some concept of social justice as it relates to Christianity.

Leave the Jesus-freaking to your friends when referring to that delicious piece of the desired gender that turned out to be bat-crazy in the sack and then arbitrarily used religion as a shield to mess with your head when (s)he wanted to break it off. It works pretty well there. Or for Pentecostals. Now that's scary.

If I was actually developing a comprehensive political attack on Fincher, I wouldn't use the term jesus freak.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't know what you want out of "small government." I'm not a libertarian - but I definitely do think aspects of the Farm Bill need overhauled and not necessarily the lion's share of the Farm Bill in the SNAP program. Personally I'd like to see direct subsidization of prices scale down and go away depending on scale/size of operation and/or depending on who the owner/operator is. Crop insurance can be done wrong, and Congress is just such and institution to do so - but it's probably a better way to do and yes: direct subsidization is being decreased in favor of subsidized crop insurance. You have to view food production as critical national infrastructure to buy onto that one though. I suppose if someone were happy to send roads back to the feudal era and let people die burning in their homes for want of a privatized fire department contract then such a person would naturally disagree with me on that one.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You don't find it a bit hypocritical to be claiming to be in favor of "small government" to the point of trying to cripple the food stamp program, while receiving a farm subsidy from the government which is far more than what the average American family makes?

But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Since 1999, he has received $3.5M in federal subsidies.

Hypocrisy, double standard or however, critics want to define it, Fincher’s action highlights a bigger problem. The food and farm policy is in need of reform, critics say. Perhaps it is most evident in the $24,000 a year cut off limit for food stamp eligibility versus the $750,000 income eligibility cap for farm subsidies.

“This is a clear-cut example of how the playing field is tilted toward the haves and not the have nots at the highest level of Congress,” Carr said. “The bulk of the money that we spend, that we send to support farmers in America, the bulk of it goes to the largest most profitable operations. It doesn’t go to the small struggling family farms like we’re sold. And that’s wrong and that is why these programs need reform.”

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I did call him a dbag already. How much more ya want? The rest was that there are probably better glaring criticisms to be had than crop insurance, a program that actually does have some good despite what I have long claimed needs aspects of reform.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with "crop insurance" instead of subsidies. And even so, don't you think it is hypocritical for wealthy farm owners and billion dollar corporations to be receiving any sort of "insurance" from the federal government when they are so opposed to socialized medicine? Why isn't this "insurance" being provided by the private sector?

 

[Farm Boy]

It is private insurance at subsidized rates. But yes, the hypocrisy would be where the label of him being a dbag came from. What are we actually discussing? Since it appears I already agree with you. Are you holding out for a criticism of the crop insurance program? I've already said that the Farm Bill needs overhaul with regard to size of operation yet I'm not going to go with the idea that food production needs to be superfreemarket any more than roads or fire departments.

 

[Gucumatz]

SNAP program under attack once again? Nothing new sadly. Its partly why we have SNAP attached to the Farm Bill in the first place, to protect it from loons like this guy and ensure continued protection for children and farmers. Another example of a let down of the Republican party is the whole SNAP debate and the issues they have had with re-establishing a long term farm bill

One day they may start to lose the heartland if they can't even help their constituents and turn everything into national political fodder against themselves

 

[Lord of Elves]

The Five is probably the most insidious and nauseatingly self-satisfied of any Fox talking head program. Those people have sold their souls.

 

[Antilogic]

Please insert generic "I don't like Stephen Fincher" insult here.

 

[Berzerker]

democrats and republicans quoting the bible instead of the establishment clause

 

[Crezth]

If I was actually developing a comprehensive political attack on Fincher, I wouldn't use the term jesus freak.

Farm Boy's argument was "you might make people feel bad, so don't do it that way," do you think it merits a response?

 

[Farm Boy]

Missed you too Crezth.

 

[Murky]

If reincarnation is real then people like this Rep. should be reincarnated into a life like the one they want to impose on others.

 

[Goodfella]

They're so stupid. And of course today Ted Cruz states:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...unintentionally-explains-why-we-need-the-irs/

We ought to abolish the IRS and instead move to a simple flat tax, where the average American can fill out our taxes on a postcard. Put down how much you earn. Put down a deduction for charitable contributions and home mortgage. And put down how much you owe.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I love how "simple flat tax" has come to mean still having the two primary deductions used by affluent Republicans to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

He also forgot to mention the party affiliation box. If you check "Republican" it is illegal for the government to prosecute you no matter how much you lied about these two items.

 

[Murky]

Flat tax isn't about simplifying the tax code. It's about reducing taxes on the rich while increasing them on low-income workers. But currently some of the richest people actually pay a lower effective tax rate than your average working class person. So if there was a flat tax, with no deductions, it might actually be a tax hike on the people who take advantage of all the tax-loopholes. Still, evil people like Sen. Cruz sometimes bask in the idea of imposing a further penalty for not being rich.