Trip Through Your Wires

Trip Through Your Wires March 23, 2012

“Attention all GSBC members and friends of GSBC, it has been requested that you remove from Facebook and/or any other public site, any video showing footage from the Sunday Evening service of March 18, 2012.”

“The irony, of course, is that few Christians actually do any of this.”

“My objection to so many of these profiled [Doomsday Preppers] is that they are preparing to fend off their neighbors, not help them.”

“What matters is whether the five conservative justices are so intent in striking down Obama’s health-care law that they would risk a chilly and divisive 5-4 dip back into the waters of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.

“Insurance companies have been charging women $1 billion more than men for the same coverage.”

“Many people are able to look at them just as dollars on a budget line and they forget that there are real people that are affected by them.”

More oil production in the United States does not mean consistently lower prices at the pump.”

The purely economic man is indeed close to being a social moron.”

“If people you care about have lost a home, they have experienced a devastating loss. Unless they ask, it’s not the time for advice.”

Colorblindness has nothing to do with eradicating racism. It is about denying its existence and power.”

When you’re thirteen and threatened with a bullet through the chest for getting your braces tightened, it teaches you how the world works, and does it in a hurry.”

“Thanks, Jesus, for this food.” “De nada.”

“We need an understanding of what scripture is, and a reading strategy, that allows us to say, first, ‘This was not written to us,’ and then to say, with equal conviction, ‘This is written to us.'”

“What texts are we using to promote practices for which later generations will call us to account? For which of our ‘biblical defenses’ will our children or grandchildren be compelled to repent?”

"That's $1,000 a month. Still nothing to sneeze at, but still."

Rebooting …
"That could definitely be part of it. I know a few people - all men, ..."

Rebooting …
"Just a reminder to everybody, since I know more than a few people here are ..."

Rebooting …
"Many of St. Ronnie's actual policies and actions are also disavowed by Republicans, or rather, ..."

Rebooting …

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Anonymous

    That’s a silly response.  I want people to read my posts because my thoughts give them a different perspective to consider.  If you’re not interested in considering a different perspective, then it doesn’t matter to me whether you read my posts. 

    If my primary purpose were to stoke my ego, then I would write comments designed to maximize the number of Likes.

  • Anonymous

    That’s just as silly as Lori’s response. I’m happy to get a rational response, but it’s not my primary goal.  If I specifically want to get a response from a commenter, generally my reply will include a question. 

    When I reply to you, I’m not just talking to you.  I’m talking to every reader (including those who don’t respond, a.k.a. lurkers.)  And while you may be silent, many other readers have responded to my replies with rational thoughts.

  • P J Evans

    You could start your own blog, where you can say whatever you want.

  • Anonymous

    That’s true.

    But even if I were to start my own blog, I would still enjoy sharing my comments here.  And as long as our host provides discussions on the Left Behind series and allows me to participate, I will.

  • Lurker

     Are you this much of an asshole in real life, or is this something you just save for us internet denizens?

  • But he’s writing for the lurkers! :P

  •  That’s a little mean, isn’t it? Aunursa is coming here, where s/he’s outnumbered in terms of political beliefs, specifically to reach out to you. You, personally, Lurker. The least you could do is say “thanks but no thanks”.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    If your Constitution disallows society providing affordable, effective health care for its citizens, then you’ve got yourself one shitty constitution.

  • The issue isn’t really with that aspect of it. The main issue is something called the individual mandate, which is basically the rule in the PPACA (the health care reform act’s technical “name”) that requires all Americans purchase health insurance or pay a fine. The individual mandate is what makes the cost-savings part of the PPACA work; essentially, by requiring everyone buy insurance, even if they don’t think they’ll be deathly ill tomorrow, it broadens the risk pools for the insurance company and helps hold premiums lower (the young, strong, and healthy help subsidize the elderly or sick).

    Where it gets dicey legally is that it’s unclear whether or not Congress has the authority to do that. One of the issues is whether or not the individual mandate is similar enough to being a tax subsidy to fit under one of Congress’s enumerated or implied powers, or whether it’s an unprecedented power grab by the federal government.

    A single-payer system, of course, would be perfectly constitutional, since the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to tax and spend as long as it is “to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” (Article One), and even most Republicans acknowledge that Medicaid, Medicare, and programs like TANF and SCHIP are constitutional, even if they dislike them in principle.

    But for some reason we decided to take that option off the table, and the PPACA was an attempt to achieve many of the same effect by retaining a mostly privatized health care system with heavy government regulation (such as the controversial-in-the-US birth control mandate, as well as the significantly less controversial removal of caps on lifetime coverage and prohibition against denying care based on preexisting conditions). Systems like the NHS are funded through tax revenue, which is collected for the same purpose (sharing the cost keeps the burden from falling too heavily on people least able to pay for it).

    I honestly don’t know how it’s all going to shake out. The SC could rule entirely on partisan lines, but even if they don’t there’s enough gray area in this part of Constitutional law that you could make a credible case either way, I think.