Chuck Asay by Chuck Asay

Tags: Donkeys Never Learn, Tagged it right Chuck, pigeons, wishing on a star. Add Tags

Comments (102) Jump to Comments Form

anatheist2009 said, about 1 month ago

(Fill In Blank) = Give up no tariffs.
oldlegodad said, about 1 month ago

OF course not, ‘crats don’t see stealing as taxes, only their right as our betters.
scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

Health care is not a “right.” America’s Founders were crystal clear that rights are–and by nature MUST be:

(1) unalienable–handed down from God rather than man, and thus beyond man’s reach to alter.

(2) free–meaning nothing which costs or requires the hard-earned labors of other people can be considered a “right.” Obviously, the time and efforts of doctors, the usage of buildings, vehicles, medicines, laboratories, etc ad infinitum, COSTS MONEY. and lots of it. And thus cannot possibly be construed as a “right”.

And thats just for starters.

The left–aka the statists, the liberals, the post-modern fascists-keep declaring that things which require the labors of other men are “rights.” Which really translates into slavery of all of humanity, with each man held in bondage to the demands of his fellows, with politicians ruling over them all.

Health care is NOT a right.

Government must NOT control health care because the Demoncrats prove that they will ALWAYS structure things so that only THEIR voters benefit. And the power of controlling health care is the literal power of life and death over every human being–both born and unborn–in the US.

KEEP YOUR DAMNED DIRTY HANDS OFF MY LIFE, DEMONCRATS!! :(
michael said, about 1 month ago

I’ve talked to people upset that the government ends up paying for poor people’s use of the emergency room, which ends up costing a lot more than a regular doctor’s visit, and clogs up the emergency rooms.

Making people pay for health insurance is nothing more than making sure these freeloaders pay their fair share.

The idea that you can “go it alone” without health is a farce anyway. Once you get really ill, you’re forced to go into a hospital sooner or later, and taxpayers end up picking up the tab.

Please explain to me how in the world there’s any way someone can choose to not purchase healthcare and the taxpayers don’t end up paying for their decision one way or another.
olfart said, about 1 month ago

Hey Scott! Name one of your “rights” that is not altered by man on a daily basis. While we are at it, name one that has not been crushed by one filthy religion or another. Try to think before you rant.
kensurg said, about 1 month ago

Notice that the car insurance panel shows state law, while the health insurance bill is federal. Would that the fed gov’t would remember that little item in the constitution that says, those powers not specically given to the federal gov’t are reserved for the states. That’s a provision that both parties ignore at their whim.
ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

You don’t have to get car insurance, and you don’t have to get health insurance. If you don’t get car insurance and you have an accident or get pulled over, you pay the price.

If you don’t get health insurance, you pay a fee to cover your part of the bargain. You don’t have to get the insurance, but you don’t get a free ride at the ER if you get hit by a bus. What part of personal responsibility don’t you get?
harleyquinn said, about 1 month ago

michel said
“Making people pay for health insurance is nothing more than making sure these freeloaders pay their fair share”
Really? and just how would that work? Rob from peter to pay for paul? Sorry I just do not see it.
Good point Kensurg, States rights, what a concept.
Wow ezed personal responsibility another lost concept. Of course you do not even get it. Personal responsibility is not letting the federal government take the money from you to pay off someone else. It is about having the most options and not one “public option” that would drown out all others.
Loco80 said, about 1 month ago

kensurg - good point. I’m afraid this topic is too far gone to come back to the state level though.
oldfart - Are you saying that you approve of and support our rights being altered by man just because it is the status quo? Also, I’m not sure about “filthy religions,” but my religion teaches that we always have free will to do as we please. Will there be consequences if you please to do something immoral or illegal (usually both go together)? Yes. Does that mean that you cannot do it?
Also, it is very rare indeed that I agree with Scott, but it seems to me that he exercises his right to free speech often and openly. Do you want to deny him that right? We should be defending that right. I exercise MY right to pass by his posts when I see his name.
ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

For HQ, personal responsibility for other people is to shape up.

Personal responsibility for him is to not be robbed.

OK.
olfart said, about 1 month ago

I seem to have ignored my own advice about thinking before ranting. Thank you for calling me on that. The point I intended to make is that rights are fragile things, requiring constant maintainence and frequent protection. In many cases , they must be protected from religion.
Scott’s enthusiasm is admirable. His religion-based hatred is not.
M Kitt said, about 1 month ago

How about the ‘toon propose to give up Reagan & W’s personal and Corporate tax cuts for the wealthiest?

Or place a % of income tax on Social Security instead of everything above the ceiling (150K?) being free and clear?

If either (or both) of these suggestions were followed the estimated 900B over 10 years cost of the HCR program would be OVER-funded and we could afford Single Payer.
Kingoswald said, about 1 month ago

Hey Scott! …. Try to think before you rant.

Olfart, don’t you realise that your Founding Fathers gave scottf the inalienable right not to think?

That’s why he sits in his mom’s basement all day with his little laptop fighting us godless liberals with every means he knows how.

A true American hero.

Like Winston Churchill almost said “We will fight them on the beaches … we will fight them on the Faux News website and in the funny papers and on the internet blogs … we will never surrender. At least until the pizza guy brings my Margherita and my cans of Dr. Pepper …”
scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

I despise how Americans–who once upon a time solved their problems together, on a community level, using private business practices–now are mostly prey animals being fed upon by predatory politicians, who tell them that only BIG!!!!! GOVERNMENT!!! can solve their problems FOR them.

The bulk of people alive today in the US are American only in name. They have NOTHING of the American spirit–a yearning for liberty–within them, and have instead made a sick mockery of the checks-and-balances system set in place by our Founders.

Enjoy the Demoncrats controlling all of our lives. They will get their damned “health reform”, and they will wind up paying for abortions and sex changes and contraception and other garbage, they will wind up classifying “fundamentalist religious faith” as a mental illness in need of treatment, while others will die from abcessed wisdom teeth, and may all the brave men who died for this country, defending human LIBERTY, collectively spit on you from their graves…
toasteroven said, about 1 month ago

scott

Hey, scott.

“post-modern fascists”

Please define.
ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

“They will get their damned “health reform”, and they will wind up paying for abortions and sex changes and contraception and other garbage”

Scott, you crack me up. Can I get my abortion, sex change and contraception all in one procedure, with the bill sent directly to you personally to pay? Yay!!
dtroutma said, about 1 month ago

Scott, name ONE right granted by “God” in say, the ten commandments.

Also when you get run over by a car driven by a cell phone user, please remind those public ambulance crews, cops protecting your body, and possible fire department crews, to KEEP THEIR DAMNED DIRTY HANDS AWAY FROM SAVING YOUR LIFE! Die in the street like a “man”.

Over 65 are required to sign up for Medicare, which may be their first medical coverage they’ve ever had. Social Security may not amount to a lot, but it is enough to buy some food. Which was it’s intent, not to be a pension fund.

While your at it scooter, jump over to Pakistan or Afghanistan, or maybe down to Paris, and pick up bin Laden. You want him captured, do it yourself and prove to us you are worthy of your “individualism”.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

scottfreitas says: “I despise how Americans–who once upon a time solved their problems together, on a community level…”

DrCanuck points out: We still are doing just that. Here on these blogs. It is YOU who are alienated from and working against America and Americans with your constant attacks. Why don’t you become an American again and rejoin your community?
deadheadzan said, about 1 month ago

I propose a good public option be part of the eventual health care reform bill. I am optimistic that between the House and the Senate a good bill will be forged in spite of blue dog and Republican foot dragging, and it will be done by the end of November, if not sooner.
M Kitt said, about 1 month ago

DHZ, agree. A public option will provide the necessary competition to drive down costs, this is the LEAST provision needed, the litmus of reform.

Single-payer is still the best option, tho.
scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

dtrout: Your hatred towards God and Christianity sure make you into a fool. Let me repeat the same things our Founders pointed out in their own writings:

“You will not kill” = the right to life

“You will not steal” = the right to the ownership of private property, including the money you earn from your labors

“You will not covet your neighbor’s house; you will not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” = the right to be free from any negative effects caused by other people’s envy, which is preceisely why the Constitution EXPRESSLY FORBIDS everything the Demoncrat Party stands for; they are the PARTY of envy. All they DO is point fingers at “the rich” and demand their wealth be taken from them and given to others.

The Constitution was designed to protect people’s private property from being confiscated by envious people; you cannot have Liberty if Envy is allowed to dictate how much money you earn, how much property you can own, etc

“You shall not commit adultery” = a right to your marriage being sacred and inviolable, free from outside interference. Now we no longer even HAVE marriage, since the feminists and the Demoncrats teamed up to erase marriage from existance. “No fault divorce” means the government will forcefully destroy your marriage even if you’ve done nothing wrong; a woman can even COMMIT adultery, then file for divoce and get custody of both the children and the house, and also make her husband pay 25% or more of his salary to her while she fornicates with her new boyfriends. These laws LEGALIZE adultery, whereas in the Founders day government did not meddle in marriage at all. It had no power to. Marriage was a right which belonged to the people, not the government.

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” = the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury composed of one’s peers. This follows the Bible’s commands precisely, wherein anyone accused of wrongdoing must be brought before his accusers and allowed to defend himself, with only the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses or other convincing evidence allowed to prove him guilty, with a judge of course present.

Need I continue? You Godless fool leftists live in a country created by God-fearing men. You leftists can destroy this country (and are busy doing so), but you NEVER could or would have built it..
toasteroven said, about 1 month ago

Hey scott. You still haven’t answered my question,

HOW COME?
ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

Scott asks “need I continue?”

The answer is no. No need. Go away.
Kylop said, about 1 month ago

Scott,
Are you a fundamentalist conservative in the same way that Steven Colbert is?

You’re so flamboyantly theatrical and over the top about it I’m starting to wonder if its an act.
scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

@ kylop: that’s because like all leftists, you think your behavior is the norm and everyone who disagrees must be criminally insane, or mentally ill, or whatever your secular catch-phrase of the week is.

Again: people whom share my views created America. They wrote its Constitution, after having fought and won Independence, and made the nation which they had created prosper far beyond anything the world had ever before seen.

People with YOUR views create only the French Revolution and its equivalent. You create only poverty, misery and despotism, destroy patriarchy, marriage and the nuclear family, and drag everyone down to the level of not only thinking they are animals, but acting like them.
harleyquinn said, about 1 month ago

Funny after reading this I almost forgot that a “public” option and a “single payer” option will both drive UP the cost!
iamthelorax said, about 1 month ago

A public option is not really going to lower costs. It only gives competition (I mean that in the lightest terns) to the insurance companies, who are not actually responsible for the high medical bills.

Don’t forget that the insurance company only comes into play once the bill needs to be paid. The bill was already unaffordable by the time they got it, and it’l be just as high when the government gets it.

All a public option can do is refuse to pay for high-end medical care and force people to take low-end treatment. In a single-payer system they force everyone to take low-end treatment. Why do you think we go south of the border to see a doctor a whole lot more than you come north?
M Kitt said, about 1 month ago

So the 3% cost attached to VA and social services (public) in general wouldn’t provide a better healthcare “product” to us than the 30% being sucked up by the insurance industry?

And the “for-profit” option strikes you as being best since their denial of benefits and cancellation of policies translates directly into their “bottom line” profits and bonuses? Really?

If you’d like I can provide the AVERAGE income per CEO of the largest healthcare executives but here’s an example of where the money from denials and cancellations goes http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/

And something else to think about
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBi2hMK1G8Y

Are you also a Max Baucus supporter, IAM? He’s against the public option to the tune of $3 million plus in his campaign coffers.

And since the insurance companies have immunity, their cancellations (or denial of coverage) can’t be pursued http://smargus.com/2009/08/waxman-refuses-vote-to-revoke-immunity-for-insurance-companies-in-health-care-bill/

This is what’s known as a “Fixed Game” or a legal ripoff, suppose that’s OK with you too?

Corruption, Graft, Payoffs, Immunity. All legal and thriving in the current healthcare insurance industry AND our political system.

And lest we forget, people dying as a result of the above.
charliekane said, about 1 month ago

GNW: Explain to lorax how that medical billing thing works.

For the tenth amendmenters, check out that commerce clause and Supreme Court decisions relating to the insurance business.

Thank you.

Is it unamerican to try to make health care universal much like public education?
scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

Everything the government controls get politicized, especially by Demoncrats.

Govt. health care will equate into Demoncrats buying votes by dangling pay raises in front of alll the unionized medical workers, and also paying off their lobbyist groups by having abortions, sex changes, God-knows-what-else, covered by law. They’ll please the enviro-whackos by spending huge amounts to make hospitals “greener.” They’ll make all decision based solely on what benefits them and their party, and guys like me will be left out in the cold, due to whatever “exemptions” they’ll create to exclude the demographic groups which don’t vote Demoncrat.

No thanks.
Sandor_at_the_Zoo said, about 1 month ago

It *is* un-American to make healthcare like the public education system. Think of what the equivalent of a 50% dropout rate, as it is in some cities, would mean for healthcare, charliekane.

Max Baucus’s $3,800 fine for not having health insurance is worse than a three-time drunk driver in Colorado. They pay a total of $2,800. That means, to me, that Sen. Baucus thinks I’m worse than a drunk driver, since I don’t have health insurance. Being without health insurance is also 76 times worse than illegally parking in a handicapped spot.
churchillwasright said, about 1 month ago

EZDEB: I provided a link for you on yesterdays toon, but no reply. Just making sure you saw it.
Kingoswald said, about 1 month ago

Hey scott. You still haven’t answered my question,

He never does. It’s called narcissism. He thinks he’s always right. On everything. Always.

He doesn’t come here to debate but to evangelise.
anatheist2009 said, about 1 month ago

scottfreitas
Your first post was for the most part a good one with very valid points to ponder.

But on the other posts I do have a question. Why did everyone wait until the last of the founding fathers had died (literally) before they made Christmas a federal holiday?
ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

Church, a link on yesterday’s Asay toon? I don’t see it. I’d like to, though.
deadheadzan said, about 1 month ago

scott, like the energizer bunny just keeps going and going——-yada yada yada YAWN
M Kitt said, about 1 month ago

Scott, either provide links to your’ opinions or admit you’re just another screeching fundamentalist with no tolerance for any of the rest of us, this becomes especially obvious when you use absolutes like “All Liberals”, or “Demoncrats” and your’ many other pseudo-religious right wing labels.

That way, factual information needn’t ever (and typically doesn’t) come into play.

Scott, at least you’re consistent, Good Job.
bgarner said, about 1 month ago

Hey, Sottfreitas. What do you think Jesus would think of Medicare? Maybe he would think of you as one of those likely to pass by on the other side of the road.
NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

Excellent, ScottF:
“Need I continue? You Godless fool leftists live in a country created by God-fearing men. You leftists can destroy this country (and are busy doing so), but you NEVER could or would have built it.”

Hank Hannegraf also points out that Science is directly attributable to godly men. He says, with human-secularism you might have “alchemy, but not Chemistry; astrology, but not astronomy, etc.”
churchillwasright said, about 1 month ago

EZDEB: OK. I’ll compound my mistake. Asay 9/24
charliekane said, about 1 month ago

Sandor:

You miss my point. We all pay for things we may not use or which do not benefit us directly. To me, movement toward universal health insurance is a reasonable step in that direction for a modern society. I see it as analogous to universal education.
cdward said, about 1 month ago

I have a real problem with scott continually calling those on the left “Godless.” That is a lie.
I consider myself on the left of the political scale but primarily BECAUSE of my faith. You might disagree with my reading of the Gospel and my attempts to follow Christ, but for you to call me Godless shows your utter contempt for truth.
Puppy, shame on you for encouraging him with that wickedness.
omQ R said, about 1 month ago

Hmmm, I don’t consider the word “godless” an insult because that is what I am, godless.
I can understand how those with faith can consider it offensive to be called godless but I assure you, it isn’t an insult unless you also think we godless folks are a bunch of folk to be reviled and should not be associated with. Unlike some who claim faith on this forum but plainly show immoral behaviour contrary to their faiths’ teachings, the godless can have morals. ;-)
striper77 said, about 1 month ago

A few comments was on the taxes on Social Security. I hate to inform you that under Clinton when Gore was the deciding vote to have the highest tax increase in American history the taxes went up on social security.

Their was also comments on how the tax payer pays for the emergency room visits for illegal immigrants.
The solution for this would be to get the illegal immigrants out like the republicans and Bush wanted to do.
Then make it harder for them to come in. Then send the bill to Mexico. This may make them work to keep their citizens in Mexico.

If an American gets in trouble in Mexico the punishment is great. If they have money they will get out due to the country’s officials are so corrupt.
ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

Yawn, striper.

omQR, good post. I have no particular faith, but I was raised midwest Lutheran. Not attracted to organized religion; have very fundamentalist siblings. I consider myself pretty open minded, but I’m one of those people who didn’t think twice about “godless” being an insult. I agree with you that being godless does not make one moral-less or nonspiritual.

Thank you for reminding me that, as the saying goes, one can be “good for goodness’ sake”! : )

Just as we should guard against people who say that secularism is a danger to our secular republic, we should be skeptical of those who say that only god-inspired good acts are acceptable.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

I found this rather enlightening to the topic at hand:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111154
deadheadzan said, about 1 month ago

DrCanuck, very good link, I myself am a UU pantheist who believes very strongly in secular morality and good works. UU is about as unorganized as a religion can get. One of my candidates for secular sainthood is Margaret Sanger.
NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

cdward, Scott makes good points on the 10 commandments equating with natural? Law.
senorbullwinkle said, about 1 month ago

Fat@ss, Sounds like you fear the Democrats more than God.

You know, God ain’t here, and if you just keep your fat mouth shut, he ain’t never gonna know nothing !
When you see him, just smile and say, …HI Ya POP’s !

PS, it ain’t know wonder your wife left you.
cdward said, about 1 month ago

Puppy, scott has abused the scriptures, falling into that abhorrent practice called proof-texting. That is, he decides what he wants it to say, then cites it such that it says what he wants. He is horribly wrong. To start off, the Hebrew translation is not “commandment” but “saying”. They are not “You shall not” phrases but “You do not” phrases. They are statements of what it looks like to follow God. Now, to look at each saying.

You shall not kill. The Hebrew word used, “rasah” means murder. Or maybe not, since most biblical scholars can’t agree to the extent of its prohibition against killing another. Perhaps it means any killing at all, or only killing of one’s neighbors (Israelites in this case). Some argue that it argues against capital punishment. Most agree that it certainly precludes any form of vengeance killing. Still, if scholars can’t agree,why should anyone listen to scott?
Having said that, it’s clear that later on there is sanctioned killing, including infanticide. In fact, Deuteronomy gives permission for parents to kill unruly children. Think of it what you may, abortion is not specifically condemned in the bible. There’s more on this one saying, but this would become a book.

You shall not steal: Indeed, there is a right here to some private property. One should not steal it. But, to quote the Interpreter’s Bible (one of the most highly regarded commentaries), “This command cannot be used as a defense of ‘private property’ without reference to the kinds of sharing that are required for a viable human community.” That is, private property must be shared in community if the community is to survive. New Testament passages are far more adamant about this. If scott, as it seems, is trying to show that this means taxes are bad, he is way off. That particular community taxed from the very beginning and saw the communal good as taking primacy over individual privilege.

Covet: Now that’s an interesting one, and one scott particularly abuses. Covet does not mean envy but desire. Not just a mild desire but one that eats away. One that will be acted upon. It is a desire of goods, as the Interpreter’s Bible says, it “pertains primarily to economics. Its concern is to curb the drive to acquisitiveness.”

Ironically, acquisitiveness is the American way. Acquisition of private goods is the god of the Republican Party. If you want to see something designed to drive people mad with desire, just turn on your TV and watch any commercial. It is the very definition of what this command fights against. How he fits the Democratic Party into this is a feat of theological gymnastics worthy of the Olympics.

A adultery: I knew this one would get scott salivating. Too bad he doesn’t understand. This command is specifically talking about violation by a man of the wife of another man – remember that wives were considered property at the time. A man could also have more than one wife at the time. Our understanding of adultery has changed through history – in fact, it even changed within scripture itself, allowing women the right to also be condemned of adultery. Now, a man who has one wife and wants another woman is an adulterer, regardless of whether she is married. Marriage is not allowed between more than two people (at a time). Divorce, which Mosaic law allowed (the man simply had to say three times to a woman, “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you”) has changed and is actually harder now than in biblical times.
Scott is clearly worried about gays – it’s his obsession. But whatever the state decides, the churches will make their own rules.

false witness: This command is specifically limited to the legal courts of the day. It is recognition that any society will have conflict, and that it should be regulated by the society itself. Not sure what scott’s point is with this one since we actually do a fairly good job of it now. Except, of course, for prosecutors who manufacture evidence to condemn someone just so they can get a “W” on their record. How many innocent people are incarcerated or killed because the DA has let intentionally sloppy work pass as evidence.

Now, scott has gotten them all out of order, but since we’re out of order anyway, let’s look at another. Keeping the sabbath. Why doesn’t scott rail against American commerce which has completely ignored the sabbath. Or how about American sports? These are not the government, not mandated to be religion-neutral. Why doesn’t he complain that most corporations don’t give their employees sabbath off?

Here’s the thing.

The commandments, divided into two parts that talk about how we love God and how we love our neighbor, are not to be used as the political tool scott wants. They are for us to use to live as a community of love.