"Only a bush could create the mess we’re in today and now, only a bush can fix it. Vote Bush!
Don’t worry ya’ll, this one the smart one!"
Rick Perry also imploded pretty fast as well, so just because someone is a Bush doesn’t assure victory.
Maybe not, but for some bizzare reason that family name seems to have some magical Republican mojo that at least brings the Reagan coalition together.
If his last name wasn’t Bush, Jeb would be a monster. He’s a popular Florida governor who can win a sizable number of Hispanic votes. Without the millstone of his brother around his neck, he’d be dangerous.
Obviously it takes more to be governor of Florida than of Texas, if W. and Rick Perry are anything to go by.
If his last name wasn’t Bush, he wouldn’t be governor of Florida. You take the pros and the cons of being part of a big dynasty.
You mean Gingrich can’t really build a moon colony? That’s the best reason yet to support any of the GOP candidates.
Gingrich is running robo-calls in Florida saying that Romney forced holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher food.
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney’s compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012.
Timex
1868
Maybe I’m heartless too, but I’m not interested in paying extra money to facilitate people who can’t buy their own food to eat special food according to their own religious rules.
Can I start my own religion, which requires that I can only eat steak and lobsters, and only drink fine wines, and then have the government pay for that?
At some level, if you’re dependent upon someone else paying for your food, you don’t get whatever you want. As they say, beggars can’t be choosers.
On the separate note of Gingrich calls, maybe it’s just me, but I tend to just get enraged at political calls… to the extent that I’ve voted for candidates in local elections based on the fact that they didn’t bother me with calls, while the other guy did.
People on medicare in nursing homes are beggars, and making up a fake religion about eating lobsters is just like keeping kosher. Do you also think vegetarians should have to just suck it up and eat whatever is in the cafeteria? Does it hurt your brain when you say things that stupid?
I . . . I know that. I read the article.
Edit: That is to say, I’m not agreeing with Gingrich here. But Timex’s portrayal of nursing home residents as “beggars” who shouldn’t be afforded any extra effort or money for dietary restrictions just because he doesn’t agree with their religious origins is idiotic.
Timex
1872
I used the phrase, “Beggars can’t be choosers”. I didn’t literally call them beggars, just like that phrase doesn’t only apply to literal beggars living on the street.
Likewise, the imaginary religion of steak and lobster was meant to illustrate an extreme example of dietary “needs” which are based purely upon a religion that you voluntarily enter into. Those aren’t actual needs. You won’t get sick, at all, from eating non-kosher food.
It’s not the government’s job to facilitate your religious practices. Why should the government spend ANY extra money on someone, so that they can meet restrictions imposed purely by their god? Can you think of even one single argument to support that idea?
Because, frankly, I can’t.
Leaving aside the whole issue of freedom of religion and what that entails: you don’t believe in their god. You believe that their dietary restrictions were established by men, thousands of years ago. Why does it matter that it’s a religious practice? If I’m a strict vegan and fall under government care (medicare, whatever), is that a non-actual “need” that I should be expected to just drop because hey, I won’t get sick right?
Timex
1874
Leaving aside the whole issue of freedom of religion and what that entails: you don’t believe in their god. You believe that their dietary restrictions were established by men, thousands of years ago. Why does it matter that it’s a religious practice? If I’m a strict vegan and fall under government care (medicare, whatever), is that a non-actual “need” that I should be expected to just drop because hey, I won’t get sick right?
Ya, I would think so.
When you become dependent upon others for your care, you lose some of your abilities to make choices. That’s why it’s good to not be in that situation.
I’m not seeing this as some kind of crazy extreme position, but maybe that’s just my bias talking. It seems like the government is not responsible to facilitate every purely voluntary decision that you make, regardless of cost.
You have a fixed amount of money that you can spend. Dietary restriction X costs more to abide by. If you eliminate it, and it has no negative health impact on any of the people, then that means you can feed more people with the fixed amount of money you have to spend. That seems like a better choice, then trying to appease rules that have no actual impact on the wellbeing of the population.
Three hots and a cot, man, right? Fuck quality of life.
We shouldn’t waste coffins on the old, either.
Timex
1877
Well… ya. When someone else is paying for your food, the quality of your life isn’t going to match that of someone who pays for their own food.
That’s the upside of paying for your own food.
Seriously, is what I’m saying here really super extreme crazy town stuff to you?
As you said, totally aside from the idea that the government is spending money to facilitate purely religious needs, what I’m saying seems obvious to me purely from a practical perspective. You cut costs which are based on desires rather than actual needs, and that lets you provide for the basic needs of more people with the same resources.
What’s the argument in support of providing for such voluntary dietary restrictions? Why should the government provide for, for instance, vegan dietary requirements for a person who doesn’t actually have a medical basis for that dietary choice?
Unless you know something about the care and handling of old people that I don’t, it’s even worse – We’re wasting coffins on the dead!!!
Fucking hell Timex, even jails and prisons respect dietary needs/religions. Why do you always have to take the position of devil’s advocate? Staying kosher is a really big deal to some people, especially orthodox Jews. If they were told they had to eat non-kosher food, they wouldn’t eat it. They’d starve themselves. Some vegetarians and vegans are the same way. Is starvation a negative health impact? Which would cost more, feeding starving people intravenously because they now need medical care, or simply giving them the food that their dietary restrictions require?
Don’t prop up a bullshit straw man of some imaginary person who invents a cult that can only eat lobster and steak. That’s called being disingenuous, you fuck. Eating kosher goes back thousands of years for these people.
Actually almost every year a prisoner invents a religion that requires him to eat only steak and champagne and, every time, it’s rejected on the same token that convicts are required to prove they kept Kosher before prison in order to be provided Kosher meals in prison.
