Ohio Governor Kasich Angers Fellow Republicans — By Actually Making Sense

kasichIt’s not often that I’ll recognize a Republican politician for saying something intelligent because it happens so rarely, but Ohio Governor John Kasich (a Republican) did just that.

I’ve slammed Republicans frequently for falsely claiming themselves as Christians while contradicting nearly everything for which Jesus Christ represents, but Kasich actually acted like a Christian (at least for a moment) in his recent comments about expanding Medicaid in Ohio.

Though it’s still taboo for any Republican politician to support the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”), Medicaid expansion is a part of the bill and something many Republican governors have opposed.

Essentially, what Medicaid expansion does is provide impoverished residents of each state with health care coverage that, before “Obamacare,” they didn’t qualify for.

Many Republican state legislatures and governors have opposed this as a way to “keep Obamacare out of our lives.”

However, as blocking access to health care for the poor can be a very unpopular issue, some GOP governors have started to buckle under pressure and embrace Medicaid expansion.

That said, none have embraced it in quite the way  Governor Kasich has.  In true Republican form, he’s used his faith to actually support Medicaid expansion—-while of course still stating he doesn’t support “Obamacare.”

In a rare display of actual Christian values, Kasich spoke with a fellow member of the GOP legislature and said:

“I respect the fact that you believe in small government.  I do too.  I also happen to know that you’re a person of faith.  Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not gonna ask you much about what you did about keeping government small, but he’s going to ask you what you did for the poor. Better have a good answer.”

What’s this?  Common sense?  A statement that actually seems to represent that whole “take care of the poor and needy” thing of which Jesus Christ often spoke.

Now I’ve said before, whether or not you believe in God or Jesus is irrelevant, what Jesus Christ represents as a symbol (beyond faith and just towards basic humanity) should be embraced by everyone.  Being good towards others, helping the poor, providing for the needy, loving one another, accepting each other and defending those who can’t defend themselves aren’t traits that should only be found in faith—but they should be found in the most basic of human decency.

And outside of a Republican once again injecting his religious views in the implementation of law (though I doubt many Republicans appreciate this faith-based reference), what the Ohio governor essentially said is when we’re judged as people, what’s going to matter most:

  • How small you kept the government, or
  • How did you treat the poor.

A Republican who has decided to put humanity above politics—even if it’s just one brief comment.

It’s been more than enough to anger fellow Republicans.  How dare Kasich use faith to perpetuate a value which Jesus actually spoke about that just so happens to completely contradict the talking points used by the party that supposedly represents the “moral majority?”  How dare Kasich want the poor to have access to health care?!

By acting like an actual Christian — even if it was just for a moment — Kasich has managed to further expose the sad state of affairs within Republican politics, and the hypocrisy that’s rampant with so-called “Christian conservatives.”

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • hiatt111

    “Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.” (By the way, this excerpt was written by one your brother libs….titled: Bleeding heart tightwads). The truth kinda stings a little doesn’t it? Your article is a complete distortion of the truth. Are your lib readers actually that gullible?

    • Buddy Pinkham

      most likely because they have more money to give because they are the richest in America.

      • hiatt111

        Ideology about government income redistribution
        leads liberals to substitute political ideology for actual giving.

    • Cave Man

      thats because liberals arent greedy rich tyrants who make their money off the backs of the poor, liberals are usually content with the simple things in life, they dont care about 10,000 square foot bathrooms or lamborghnins, they care about HUMANs, republicans donate to get tax brakes.

      • hiatt111

        Vice President Al Gore’s charitable giving in 1997 was only $353. Because of politics, we also know that Senator John Kerry, presidential candidate in 2004, gave nothing to charity in more than one year when he was a U.S. Senator. Before his marriage to Teresa Heinz (whose reported fortune
        was half a billion dollars), Kerry’s 1991–1995 charitable contributions were ($0, $820, $175, $2039, $0), less than one-half of one percent of his income for the period. In contrast, private citizen George W. Bush gave ($28,236, $31,914, $31,292) in 1991–1993. His highest giving was 15.7
        percent of income and his average 9.1 percent. As Texas governor he gave $27,000 (6.5 percent of income) and $9,178 (2.3 percent). Please feel free to spew out many more of the liberal falsehoods. Most of people on this site will believe you without any thought process whatsoever.

    • Cave Man

      if republicans are so great why do they hate the poor getting access to healthcare or food? i sure hear them WHINE about those two things an awful lot. was a republican from the 80s till the bushmoron was elected twice.

      • Thom Cameron

        It astonishes me the same people who condemn the poor
        give to a church (freely If the propoganda is to be believed) yet starve the same people. Why not give the $ directly to the poor so the church doesn’t take their cut 1st?

      • hiatt111

        Not sure where you live Thom, but if that is the atmosphere you are exposed to, I would move.
        Where I live, ALL of the food pantries and shelters are donated to and ran by volunteers from various churches in the region. Based on what your are saying, instead of volunteers donating their food and time to help the hungry and homeless, they should just walk up to a homeless guy and hand him fifty bucks and hope that he spends it on nutrition or a safe/warm place to sleep. Do you just walk away then Thom, knowing full well that the fifty bucks will benefit him/her in a healthy caring way. You live in a dream world Thom. Diluted by liberal/atheist propaganda. It is refreshing to do your own research and check topics out prior to just letting it fly out your pie hole as those libs before you have done. Try it sometime.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Give a poor man $50 and he’ll spend it, contributing to the economy. Give a rich man $50 and he’ll put it in an account in the Caymans. Hiatt, what’s your beef with poor people?

      • hiatt111

        The facts are as stated in my post Sub. You use liberally slanted hypothetical scenarios to prove a falsehood. Shame on you.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You equate all liberals with Al Gore. Who cares what Al Gore donated to charity? Obviously, you do.

      • hiatt111

        No Sub, you are making false statements again. I do not compare all libs to Al Gore, because most are much less charitable. Libs somewhere along the line thought that if they vote to have wealth redistributed from hard working people and have government establish even more entitlement programs that is giving and being charitable. We conservatives like to do that on our own.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What’s the “falsehood?” To me, it’s “conservatives are more charitable than liberals.” I think conservatives are mean-spirited, spiteful people…like you.

      • hiatt111

        Because I disagree with you Sub?. I thought libs were the tolerant ones. I suppose they are as long as you agree with them and don’t think for yourself. Come on Sub. you can do better than this. If you can prove one thing I have said is wrong based on FACTS, I will certainly rethink my stance on the issue, but you can’t Sub. that is why we are getting much closer to the liberal name calling technique you libs use. When common sense and facts don’t support your argument just call names. Geesh

    • Neil

      I read that book, and the author included IRS reporting tithing to the church as “charity”. Sorry, they are not the same thing. You remove tithing, and they give nearly nothing. That, and money isn’t the only means of which to help people, so again, your point is short sighted.

      • hiatt111

        Vice President Al Gore’s charitable giving in 1997 was only $353. Because of politics, we also know that Senator John Kerry, presidential candidate in 2004, gave nothing to charity in more than one year when he was a U.S. Senator. Before his marriage to Teresa Heinz (whose reported fortune
        was half a billion dollars), Kerry’s 1991–1995 charitable contributions were ($0, $820, $175, $2039, $0), less than one-half of one percent of his income for the period. In contrast, private citizen George W. Bush gave ($28,236, $31,914, $31,292) in 1991–1993. His highest giving was 15.7
        percent of income and his average 9.1 percent. As Texas governor he gave $27,000 (6.5 percent of income) and $9,178 (2.3 percent).

      • My best year was $17,000. I once gave a car away for which I had no use. I mean I could have sold it, for at least scrap, but probably $100 or $200; it ran, just not well. That was not reported (and was later stolen by the police)

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And you can verify that with a source that isn’t a right-wing lie machine?

      • hiatt111

        We? I did my research to prior to opening my mouth Sub. If you do your research and find out that my post lacks merit (which you will do neither) please feel free to respond. The ball is in your court.

    • dontbdumb

      I am certain that churches were counted as “charities”, which are, for the most part, just another corrupt bunch of morally bankrupt shysters getting rich off the weak-minded. Yay God!

      • hiatt111

        The enormous differences are not a simple artifact of conservatives giving to their churches. Conservatives are more charitable with secular causes, too. For example, in 2000, conservatives were 10 percentage points more likely than liberals to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. The value of the average conservative household’s gifts to nonreligious charities was 14 percent higher than that of the average liberal household, even after correcting for income differences.
        Conservative people were also far more likely than liberals to give in informal, nonreligious ways. For example, in 2000, people belonging to religious congregations gave 46 percent more money to family and friends than people who did not belong. In 2002, Conservatives were far more likely to donate blood than liberals, to give food or money to a homeless person, and even to return change mistakenly given them by a cashier. (put that in your bong and smoke it)

      • Dan Enlow

        Could that possibly be because their income is such that they are more able to give and not because they are charitable or poor people being uncharitable? A person who can’t feed their own children are less likely to give to those who have more than they do?This really surprises me.

      • hiatt111

        Yeh, Dan that’s it…lol. People with greater incomes are forced to pay, not because their charitable. Where do you come up with this stuff?

      • Dan Enlow

        Not forced to simply able to.

      • boatkitten

        Conservatives are most likely to volunteer……FOR THOSE THINGS THAT PERSONALLY AFFECT THEM. (Like their own employee’s spouse funeral fund, their own personal shell corporation; volunteering for their own child’s baseball team or donating to the grandaughters cheerleader camp, or donating to join in a charity golf tournament; etc)
        Conservatives are 82% most likely to cheat on taxes
        Conservatives are 59% more likely to shoot at an intruder that is actually a neighbor chasing a cat.
        Conservatives are 81% more likely to commit a financial crime that harms his own investing customers.
        Conservative doctors are 72% more likely to submit a bill to Medicare for services never performed.
        Conservatives are 79% more likely to use politics for personal gain.

      • hiatt111

        Liberals are 97.4% more likely to use false statistics in a much too obvious manner. OMG

    • Lappy the Laptop

      Hmmm it appears the GOP has sent over a troll.
      Remove religious organizations that act as tax dodges and I betting us “libs” give more money to places it really makes a difference at.

      • hiatt111

        What is your definition of “troll”. Someone who’s beliefs, moral integrity and overall decency is different than yours? If so, call me a troll or anything else your liberal mind can muster up. If you all simply congregate in your own little venom filled cesspools and lie to each other, how will you ever evolve? A simple “thank you” will be sufficient for my dropping by.

      • hiatt111

        ps. I am not a member of the GOP, I vote a split ticket. I base my voting decision on my research and what the candidate promises to bring to the table as well as their past leanings. Libs on the other hand would most likely vote for a tortoise if it ran on the dem. ticket.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And THAT is the kind of generalization that makes you a troll.

      • Adam

        Nah, a troll is someone who posts a reply to every single message in a given thread, including things like “You tell em pam. You original thinker you.” as you did roughly an hour ago, as means of looking for a negative reaction out of people.

    • dwsNY

      Only if you count religious donations as “charity”. If you exclude tithes, liberals actually donate a bit more. More interestingly, the POOR donate a greater proportion of their income to charity than the richest do.

    • Justin

      And just so we’re clear. Money is not the only way to be charitable… It’s easy to write a check, going to food banks and homeless shelters and donating your time and compassion can go a lot further than you may think…

      • hiatt111

        Every single food bank and shelter around where I live are faith based organizations. They are 100% ran by the various churches in the region. Once again, all of the lies you libs have been fed has completely ruined your ability to research and think for yourselves.

    • Scooby154

      Of course they give to charitys that support their views plus from giving money to chaitys republicans can pay less in taxes
      I wish i could only pay 15% or less in taxes

    • Vivi

      With all due respect that’s a load of crap. From what I see working for a charitable foundation, Conservative ‘names’ in town give large $ to politics and to churches and a VERY few give large money to causes that help the poor. Also, our city is majority black and mostly Democrat – ‘LIB’ to you, you clever one- yet we are consistently listed as top givers by philanthropic organizations. So, yes, there is large giving by the people who can afford it most to their churches, not their communities.

      • hiatt111

        Every point you made is completely false and misleading. What are your feelings when you learn that Dick Cheney gives 77% of his total income to charity? You know, the man you libs refer to as “Darth Cheney”. Just one example of how misled libs are. Like sheep to slaughter.

      • Apparently, with the sudden increase of his donations using Halliburton profits which he denied he was associated with, he was due a whopping tax refund in exchange. Don’t quit reading the facts because you don’t like them.

    • karen_green

      There is more than one way to be charitable. This study leaves out volunteering time. Maybe on average liberals have less wealth so we find other ways to help.

    • “reported” LOL ie kept track of for tax write offs ie government program to encourage charity through official channels that actually help the poor minimally. I know I have never reported any of the sandwiches I’ve bought for people, or the five spots I hand to them, for instance. BTW this mealy-mouthed underhanded passing off “tithing” to a church as the Biblical instruction to give to the poor is ludicrously pretentious and vile.

      • cwmat

        mealy-mouthed? underhanded? pretentious? gosh, you sure do seem upset about something. Please allow me to clarify the concept of “tithing”. God commanded His chosen people, the Jews, to return the first fruits of their labors (10% of their harvest) to Him. Since sacrifices to God in expiation for sin could only be made in the Temple, these tithes were sent to the temple priests for their own use and for use as sacrificial offerings. Thus the concept of returning first fruits (10% of income) to God remains in the form of tithing as charitable giving.

        You are correct that many misconstrue this as a need to give the money to a church but, since the final sacrifice has already been made, Christians are free to give the Lord His due through any charitable giving, with preference given to those charitable acts listed in the book of Matthew. Most church congregations also “tithe” – 10% of the donations from the congregants is donated in some way (food pantry, homeless shelter, child sponsorship, etc.) back to the Lord’s work.

        I truly don’t feel that this act of faith is in any way mealy-mouthed, pretentious, underhanded or vile. I believe it simply shows an obedient and grateful heart that recognizes that all that we have is not truly ours since it comes from and belongs to God. Those who tithe are just giving back a little bit of what is really His to start with.

      • what you describe is NOT the usual way of it in USA and giving money to the church and it’s humans is NOT giving to God, nor to the needy. I encounter churches routinely that DEMAND 10% to be a member, and the “pastor” leads a fat Yuppie lifestyle, rather than living in the temple half-exposed to the elements and eating depending for food upon the flesh of sacrifices and freely given shares, like a true priest. Now, I have no issue against real, sincere Christians whatsoever, but they are quite rare in USA, where the vast majority claim to the term, and not just among the “lip service” Christians or the agnostics raised Christian who keep on with it out of mental and cultural malaise, but quite rare among the Phariseeonic hypocrites who dress in showy finery and go to church as a social club with an in-group/out-group attitude and a hierarchical domination structure.

    • Thom Cameron

      Conservatives think they can buy their way to heaven

      Plus the income disparage will account for that!

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      And that is crap when one realizes a lot of that “charitable” giving is to one’s church, something I like to call “self-serving generosity.” Take religion out of it and the liberals are more generous. We don’t limit our giving to those most like us or those of whom we approve.

  • Cwmat

    Yeah, it does sound like you think it’s OK to have religion in politics as long as “the ends” are ones of which you approve. Personally, I think the St. Peter thing is a total myth. I expect to come face to face with my God. I live my life accordingly but that doesn’t mean that I expect non-Christian U.S. citizens to fund charity based on my obligation to care for the sick, feed the poor, clothe the naked, and visit those in prison. I prefer to engage in Christian charity outside of government – let Caesar keep what is his, and God get his due share.

    • Thom Cameron

      Get Christianity out of Government
      Get Virtue and caring In
      We do not need a bible to tell us right from wrong.
      We all know in our hearts what is right.
      The bible does not make right
      and it does not judge wrong.
      Ans as for God getting his share….
      This is ALL God’s already
      and he is pissed at using his name to get your way.

      • brad

        Christianity should be in the government. all of you non-christian’s will be burning in hell because of your rejection of the True GOD plus you have sinned way to much without repenting. I hope the Holy Spirit empowers the Law makers to make a Biblical education system and a Christian themed government. Atheist fuck off burn in hell.

  • Buddy Pinkham

    Funny how the cry “small government” but they want to govern a woman’s body and choice!

    • Vivi

      They want the government just small enough to fit in a woman’s uterus or a gun holster. That’s about it.

    • hiatt111

      Women govern their own bodies when they spread their legs. Killing innocent babies in the womb is not choice like; which pair of shoes will I wear with this outfit, you small minded buffoon.

      • Gross and disgusting way to describe how women get pregnant.

      • hiatt111

        *ps Laure, what is gross and disgusting about a woman spreading her legs? I know that procreation can be achieved without that process, but it sure makes it easier.

      • Chuck Reed

        Again, no man took part and therefore has no responsibilities?
        Come on cave man, time you progress your way of thinking, climb out of the 19th century…

      • Lochness

        Well, I believe we can agree that women do not govern their bodies when they are impregnated from rape. And how many rapes were there last year?

        And then there are plenty of women…either through youth and/or ignorance…who spread their legs when they should not. Clearly, Hiatt, you are not one of them… but what about the rest of your gender?

        I am often amused at how self-righteous conservatives can get until it actually affects them personally. For example, they’re so many that are all anti-abortion on principle until their daughters get knocked-up by their high-school sweetheart.

      • hiatt111

        The rape argument is weak. Yes we agree that if a woman becomes impregnated by force, why should she be also forced to give birth to a child as a result of a heinous crime wherein she did not CHOOSE. But killing and innocent baby in the womb because the timing just isn’t right or for convenience sake is not on immoral but should be dealt with as murder. Especially when the fater and mother of the child made the choice to fornicate. *ps Laure, what is gross and disgusting about a woman spreading her legs? I know that procreation can be achieved without that process, but it sure makes it easier.

      • Dan Enlow

        The point is if you are going to force he woman to deliver the “baby” then YOU are responsible for taking care of it for the rest of its life not the woman YOU forced to have the child. You want to cut social programs designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy care of the poor yet force them to take additional burdens they aren’t equipped to handle. Then you wonder why so many end up breaking the law. Yet YOU have set them up for a life poverty and hopelessness.

      • hiatt111

        At what point in your life did you determine that the government (which generates no income at all) must take care of you. Its great that we live in a country that this can be done for the truly needy but it has gone too far. Generations now of people living on food stamps and welfare by choice in many instances because that is all they know. Not ALL so please don’t try distort my meaning.

      • Dan Enlow

        When YOU decide to force unwanted children on our society.

      • hiatt111

        Unwanted by whom?

      • Dan Enlow

        By the woman that wanted an abortion that you wouldn’t allow.

      • Chuck Reed

        How many adopted Children do you pay all the expenses for? That one is easy for you to lie about so let me say this, if you did adopt unwanted Children you would have already said so!

      • Donald Berghuis

        Get it straight—-no one wants tolive on food stamps and/or welare. Don’t believe that??? Try living on the amount of food and dollars that welfare provides. It is not “living high on the hog”, my friend.

      • trippinghazard

        If you make exceptions for rape/health of the mother or baby/our anything at all then you do not really opposee abortion, you are for punishing women. If abortion is murder, then it’s murder in those cases as well. What you really want is to punish women for having sex without wanting to procreate(which, btw, is not always fornication. Some married women don’t want children. Quelle suprise right! Clutch those pearls).

      • Lunae-Nocte

        Exceptions in the case of abortion being murder cannot logically stand when arguing your reasons (i.e., a woman is raped and becomes pregnant therefore abortion is acceptable versus a woman has sex willingly and becomes pregnant therefore abortion is wrong because it is murder). Either you disagree with it in its entirety or you must admit “I am a hypocrite.” Abortion is nothing to take lightly and it certainly should not involve politicians or strangers. It is an intensely personal decision that a woman need only face with herself, her god (if she has one) and her doctor. So unless you are any of those, I truly believe you should mind your own business.

      • Chuck Reed

        Why in hell are extremists so against both birth control and abortion?
        I mean really, how smart is that?

      • Thom Cameron

        Small minded?
        LOL man then you are non-minded since you assume every woman who get’s pregnant does so willingly.
        And if! you are right then why won’t you support that fetus you claim wrongly is a baby. Oh that’s right that mother you forced to deliver is supposed to pawn the baby of on her mother so she can work. But what if mom needed to work also? Now she is needing assistance. Oh yeah and baby daddy he is locked iup for having a roach.

      • hiatt111

        Yes sometimes raising the BABY can be a real hassle Thom, sometimes almost impossible therefore adoption would likely be required. Better off to just suck its brains out on the delivery table or maybe even twist its little (FETUS) head off? Amazing how much fetus looks like a baby, If it doesn’t grow to be a baby then what? Oh that’s right a little glob of meat to be thrown in the trash. Those are pretty much your two options Thom.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        NO, a fetus does NOT look like a baby. It looks more like a tadpole or a kidney bean. But the bigger issue is people like you who are against abortion are often against contraception. They are vindictive people who want pregnant women to pay for the sin of enjoying sex out of wedlock and without a desire for children. Admit to that and then I will consider your argument to be genuine.

      • hiatt111

        Doesn’t take much effort to make things up does it? You comment about my opinion on contraception and also that I want to punish people for sex. You, my friend are way off base. If you make things up to win a debate, do you really win? I don’t see the miracle of child birth as a punishment so I am not real sure how to address your comment.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Forcing a woman to bear the child because you don’t like abortion is the punishment. If you don’t like abortion, then make damned sure you are willing to take the child off her hands the minute it is born and support it.

      • hiatt111

        Don’t like abortion you say? That is a rather shallow assessment of what I feel is the most wonderful thing a human being can be a part of. But maybe you are right Sub. if it turns out that raising a child or allowing loving adoptive parents to do so, you should just suck their little brains out or maybe twist their little heads off. Suck em out in little pieces and trash them. A rather inhumane option in my opinion, however it appears to be one you are fond of.

      • Chuck Reed

        “Doesn’t take much effort to make things up does it?”
        You would know…
        And BTW if you don’t know how to address the comment then don’t.

      • Chuck Reed

        Well then go ahead and make a woman’s day and sign on to pay all bills as a fetus then when born raise the child until adulthood!
        Very nice of you to offer. hahaha (we all know better, you just stand on the sideline complaining about the real players in the game…

      • hiatt111

        Hey Thom, I have a challenge for you. See if you can go a whole day without resorting to typical liberal name calling and nasty hateful comments used by liberals when “big people” words escape them or the facts simply don’t jive with their ideology. Based on many of your previous posts, this should prove to be interesting.

      • Donald Berghuis

        Coming from someone who describes the act of love and /or procreation as a #woman spreading her legs”, I am not impressed with your indigantion about liberals and name calling.

      • Chuck Reed

        Oh come on, ust because you and your ilk parrot extremist talking points doesn’t mean the rest of us do so…

      • Donald Berghuis

        That is a distasteful statement. I like to think my wife “spreads her legs” (your words, not mine) because she loves me, not because she is making a political statement or point.

      • Chuck Reed

        Oh my, are you saying men have no responsibility in this at all?
        You claim it’s women opening their legs how about men keeping their little peckers out of their vagina’s!
        BTW you stole “small minded buffoon” from me you small minded buffoon!

      • hiatt111

        Wow! Where in the world did you come up with this? You must be reading something on another page. Men are just as responsible as women and should also be included in choices re: the baby. You are lost. Oh and re: the small minded buffoon, never saw your post, I don’t stalk you like you do me. Never the less, don’t worry, nobody has stolen your title away. You will still be the #1 small minded buffoon in my eyes. If you are unable to comprehend simple English, please don’t waste time and respond to something I didn’t even HINT at. This will be all the time I waste on you SMB!

      • Chuck Reed

        It’s called discus, you want to call it stalking i can understand why with your paranoid and narcissistic personality. Anyone who reads your posts can see you have serious issues with your desires to bully, your NOT going to be able to bully me with your babble. I do like that you pick up little catch phrases I use, I take that as a compliment.
        If you can’t see where women catch the blame from Republicans, the brainwashing is strong in you.
        PLEASE USE FACTS, Nobody in here has yet to hear you use a single fact, perhaps you do not understand the idea of citing your work!.

  • Robert Albrecht

    Who cares if its the christian thing to do, its the right thing to do. One day man kind will figure out that in order to truly advance we need to work together to end hunger, disease, homelessness and other problems plaguing our society. If we became a society that worked towards the accumulation of knowledge instead of wealth imagine how advanced we would be. We can’t have that if we hold onto archaic beliefs such as religion though. When you are taught it is better to tolerate than it is to accept someone different there is a serious flaw in your thinking.

    • Donald Berghuis

      When contraception is universally acceptable, thenI will say that abortion is totally wrong. When it is used as a means of birth control, it means you were either lazy or were forced, bot unacceptable in regards to sexual intercourse.

  • hiatt111

    The enormous differences are not a simple artifact of conservatives giving to their churches. Conservatives are more charitable with secular causes, too. For example, in 2000, conservatives were 10 percentage points more likely than liberals to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. The value of the average conservative household’s gifts to nonreligious charities was 14 percent higher than that of the average liberal household, even after correcting for income differences.
    Conservative people were also far more likely than liberals to give in informal, nonreligious ways. For example, in 2000, people belonging to religious congregations gave 46 percent more money to family and friends than people who did not belong. In 2002, Conservatives were far more likely to donate blood than liberals, to give food or money to a homeless person, and even to return change mistakenly given them by a cashier.

  • Nurse Poloma

    Let’s stress that “even if for just a moment” phrase — I’m an Ohioan, and aside from this one brief moment, he’s been horrible. Anti-labor, anti-choice, anti-education…name just about any issue, he’s been right there along the right wing. He’s just now starting to reach toward the center because he’s up for re-election next year. Don’t be fooled.

    • pam

      i am also from ohio and i agree with everything you have said. i think he is afraid of the 2014 election!

      • hiatt111

        You tell em pam. You original thinker you.

    • hiatt111

      Let me translate that Nuse Poloma…… he is against forcing the American worker to join a labor union and pay dues for lobbying against what they believe. He’s against murdering innocent babies in the womb. (Anti Education) Really? Not even gonna touch that one, you have managed to show your own intelligence with that reference.

      • You mean the laborer doesn’t believe in a fair wage, 40 hour week, overtime pay? But you force women to give up their right to decide because you have decided fetal cells equals a baby?

      • hiatt111

        No Laure Olson, what the laborer would like is a JOB. I live in area where union demands have closed down both GM and Ford manufacturing plants. The union did so good at negotiating those $30.00 unskilled labor wages and the finest health insurance known to mankind that they no longer have jobs. Don’t start with the typical liberal distortions….. anti clean water, anti education, anti labor anti women. Sad but typical Laure.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Those things are liberal but NOT distortions. And don’t be fooled into thinking unions closed those plants. GM and Ford made bad decisions. Why should the unions work for far less to pay for their mistakes while the CEOs still get their fat paychecks?

        Amazing how you and yours like to blame union excesses. “Be quiet, or the bosses might come for OUR jobs.” Rather than everyone being paid better, you want everyone to share a miserable existence.

      • Donald Berghuis

        Kind of like the cartoon I saw. A CEO, a guy labeled Public r, and a Union guy are sitting at a table. There is a plate with 10 cookies on it. The CEO grabs 9 of them. Then he looks to the Public and says”Better watchthat Union guy, he’s going to grab your cookie.”

      • Chuck Reed

        The facts say different, If the entire Country was labor friendly GM and Ford wouldn’t have relocated down the road.
        All you have to do is look at how wealth re-distribution is systematically ruining the working middle class,what is wrong with labor having good health insurance if that’s what Management gets from the same company?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The demise of the American labor union is the reason worker’s wages have stagnated for 30 years, there is no security, and those at the top insulate themselves from the havoc they sow among those below.

    • motherunit

      Count one more Ohio “D” vote here! But, nice try, Kasich. Thank you for playing.

  • Mark Gavin Sr.

    I’m Ohio, born and raised. John Kasich campaigned on making sure Ohioans didn’t have to live under the tyranny and regulations of ObamaCare. It was 2010 and Republicans had a field day that year. During Gov. Kasich’s state of the state address this year however, He claimed he was expanding Medicaid and later explained his plan as if the Medicaid expansion was his Idea. He’s just trying to win his election next year, which he knows won’t happen after he tried to bust the unions.

  • Rita Smith Whitaker

    I’m hoping Kasich stands his grounds and goes through with the Medicaid expansion. Our state really needs it.

  • Intercaust

    How is this common sense? The guy is babbling along about St. Peter and judgement and so-called values based on the writings that were done centuries after-the-fact. This is just him trying to not look like as much of an ass hole as the rest of his fellow Plutocrats.

  • Sharon

    Why not keep God out of it. If you are a decent human being, you have empathy (its hard wired into our brains by the way) and care for the plight of the less fortunate. God has enough problems-lets make her job easier.