McCain Is the Only Hope of the GOP & America

[deacon blues]

He's got a stellar conservative record on abortion. He is pro family and anti gay agenda. He is an American hero. He has NEVER inserted ONE earmark in any apropriations bill in his ENTIRE Senate career. He is not owned by any lobbyist, any company, corporation, special interest.

He isn't owned by the GOP. The Republicans ruled Washington in the White House and the Congress fro six years and somehow could not even ban partial birth abortion. They could not make the tax cuts permanent. They got messed up in the Jack Abramoff lobbyist scandal. They spent money worse than the Democrats ever did. W NEVER vetoed ONE spending bill for excessive and wasteful spending. They wasted a golden opportunity in six years. The only thing they really did right was the original tax cuts, the Supreme Court appointments and the War on Terror, although Rumsfeld's advice was wrong (on a smaller force in Iraq---one which McCain originally spoke out in opposition of and one which the "surge" has proven to be right.) Their mismanagement cost us the majority in the Congress. That was on a "true" conservatives watch, one that reads the Bible everyday and is an avowed Christian.

McCain broke with his party he says whenever he felt it was in the best interests of his country. When he has had to choose between his party and his country, his country will win every time.

He will fight this war on terror right, something the Democrats will not.

Romney has a much more liberal record than McCain. He was Pro-Choice when it was convenient when running for Governor of Massachusetts. He suddenly is now pro-life? Please! The Dems will eat his lunch if he is the nominee. They will recycle those old John Kerry flip-flop commercials and paint him in a most unfavorable light. At least with McCain you know where he stands.

If you stay home this election---you are guaranteeing that the Dems will win the White House. And that, my friends, is a risk not worth taking. Don't stay home if your man doesn't get in, or the GOP nominee is less conservative than you. You might have to vote just to keep Hillary or Obama out.

Be wise. Think beyond Rush Limbaugh's radio program. I listen to him everyday and he certainly is not the bastion of godliness! Besides he admits to being right 98.9% of the time.

This time he's wrong about McCain.

We aren't always going to get Ronald Reagan every time, unfortunately.

[Cindy]

Did he win in Florida? I think Romney is gonna be gone soon.

[seguidordejesus]

What, you don't think Giuliani's gonna get the nom?

Whatever happened to Huckabee?

[deacon blues]

McCain won the Florida primary. He is in the driver's seat. Guiliani is rumored on the news that he is quitting tomorrow and endorsing McCain.

[DividedThigh]

we will se what happens but i would have preferred thompson, but he is gone, god help us, dt:tvhappy

[Aquila]

McCain is often hot tempered and and snappy. He's really toned himself down a bit recently in this campaign though. I don't think McCain is a stellar conservative. When he ran against Bush his lack of conservatism hurt him. McCain has supported Roe, though saying he's prolife, McCain even supported stem cell research. McCain's record with free trade is spotty.

When I look at the field and see who's rising to the top in both parties it's evident to me that Reganomics dead. The Republicans leading the pack are largely populist and progressive when it comes to economics. They'd make good late 80's early 90's Democrats.

I think it's time we wake up. The Republicans have no intention to address abortion and gay marriage. Some of the most powerful Republican constituents support abortion rights and gay marriage. Around every election they come out talking about life and values and then get into their pro-corporate money making schemes that nearly wreck the economy. Our economy has taken a big hit, the value of the dollar is down, the housing market is devastated...these cats are rotten to the core. They changed "deregulate", and "less governmental regulations in banking"...they got what they wanted and predatory lending practices got us here.

I don't think the Republicans are worth a lick. The Democrats aren't much better. The only thing we'd have going for us under the Democrats is that they might be grateful enough to actually listen to the American people and return to a Pro-American domestic policy that the Republicans completely abandoned.

[DividedThigh]

McCain is often hot tempered and and snappy. He's really toned himself down a bit recently in this campaign though. I don't think McCain is a stellar conservative. When he ran against Bush his lack of conservatism hurt him. McCain has supported Roe, though saying he's prolife, McCain even supported stem cell research. McCain's record with free trade is spotty.

When I look at the field and see who's rising to the top in both parties it's evident to me that Reganomics dead. The Republicans leading the pack are largely populist and progressive when it comes to economics. They'd make good late 80's early 90's Democrats.

I think it's time we wake up. The Republicans have no intention to address abortion and gay marriage. Some of the most powerful Republican constituents support abortion rights and gay marriage. Around every election they come out talking about life and values and then get into their pro-corporate money making schemes that nearly wreck the economy. Our economy has taken a big hit, the value of the dollar is down, the housing market is devastated...these cats are rotten to the core. They changed "deregulate", and "less governmental regulations in banking"...they got what they wanted and predatory lending practices got us here.

I don't think the Republicans are worth a lick. The Democrats aren't much better. The only thing we'd have going for us under the Democrats is that they might be grateful enough to actually listen to the American people and return to a Pro-American domestic policy that the Republicans completely abandoned.

i some things aquila i would agree with you, but the only way to address the abortion thing is the courts, and gwb did good with his appointees, that will be a big deal for the next president, dont you think, dt:tvhappy

[RevBuddy]

i some things aquila i would agree with you, but the only way to address the abortion thing is the courts, and gwb did good with his appointees, that will be a big deal for the next president, dont you think, dt:tvhappy

I have the same concerns as Aquila about McCain, but he may just be the only option for me. I would like him to be a tad more conservative and to oppose Democratic stupidity more...but DividedThigh, you may be right - we can't have a Reagan every time...

[DividedThigh]

I have the same concerns as Aquila about McCain, but he may just be the only option for me. I would like him to be a tad more conservative and to oppose Democratic stupidity more...but DividedThigh, you may be right - we can't have a Reagan every time...

i agree we cant no doubt, i wish, but i certainly wont vote for a socialist, so hilary and obama are not gettin my vote, lol,dt:tvhappy

[RevBuddy]

i agree we cant no doubt, i wish, but i certainly wont vote for a socialist, so hilary and obama are not gettin my vote, lol,dt:tvhappy

Vote Democratic????? That's unapostolic, unPentecostal, un"fill in the blank"...

Not going to happen here!!

[OP_Carl]

McCain is not a true conservative, and his views on the military-industrial complex, and on government authority, ought to chill any conservative's ardor for him. Alas, if he is nominated, we are left dumbfounded at the ballot box gulping, 'I hope this guy is better than a slimy socialist.' And, as we see with George W. Bush, a "man of principle" who turns out to be a big-government Republican who USED the religious right to get elected, and then turned a deaf ear to them, is not necessarily going to be an indicator of progress towards limited government and constitutional purity.

[Pressing-On]

McCain is often hot tempered and and snappy. He's really toned himself down a bit recently in this campaign though. I don't think McCain is a stellar conservative. When he ran against Bush his lack of conservatism hurt him. McCain has supported Roe, though saying he's prolife, McCain even supported stem cell research. McCain's record with free trade is spotty.

When I look at the field and see who's rising to the top in both parties it's evident to me that Reganomics dead. The Republicans leading the pack are largely populist and progressive when it comes to economics. They'd make good late 80's early 90's Democrats.

I think it's time we wake up. The Republicans have no intention to address abortion and gay marriage. Some of the most powerful Republican constituents support abortion rights and gay marriage. Around every election they come out talking about life and values and then get into their pro-corporate money making schemes that nearly wreck the economy. Our economy has taken a big hit, the value of the dollar is down, the housing market is devastated...these cats are rotten to the core. They changed "deregulate", and "less governmental regulations in banking"...they got what they wanted and predatory lending practices got us here.

I don't think the Republicans are worth a lick. The Democrats aren't much better. The only thing we'd have going for us under the Democrats is that they might be grateful enough to actually listen to the American people and return to a Pro-American domestic policy that the Republicans completely abandoned.
Ditto.

I can settle for McCain because he will stand against terrorism (the Republicans always want a foreign policy president), which has been circumvented by the economy, which isn't in that big of trouble and will right itself and teach people a lesson about their mistakes - if the government would allow it - which they won't.

Stimulus package that we don't need!

[DividedThigh]

Vote Democratic????? That's unapostolic, unPentecostal, un"fill in the blank"...

Not going to happen here!!

isnt it funny, when i was a kid all my family were kennedy dems and 20 years later were all reagan republicans, lol, what a funny world, ever changing, dt:tvhappy

[DividedThigh]

McCain is not a true conservative, and his views on the military-industrial complex, and on government authority, ought to chill any conservative's ardor for him. Alas, if he is nominated, we are left dumbfounded at the ballot box gulping, 'I hope this guy is better than a slimy socialist.' And, as we see with George W. Bush, a "man of principle" who turns out to be a big-government Republican who USED the religious right to get elected, and then turned a deaf ear to them, is not necessarily going to be an indicator of progress towards limited government and constitutional purity.

so true, bro, so true, gulp is right, dt:tvhappy

[RevBuddy]

isnt it funny, when i was a kid all my family were kennedy dems and 20 years later were all reagan republicans, lol, what a funny world, ever changing, dt:tvhappy

What's even more interesting is that there is still support for the Democratic Party in many areas of the South and with Pentecostal families. We grew up in the period when the Democratic Party was the ONLY party of the South, and many have not changed their party affiliation or voting habits, in spite of the fact the Democratic Party has long ago left its Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy roots...

But, even 20 years ago, DividedThigh, I was a Republican...what foresight and vision!!!

[DividedThigh]

What's even more interesting is that there is still support for the Democratic Party in many areas of the South and with Pentecostal families. We grew up in the period when the Democratic Party was the ONLY party of the South, and many have not changed their party affiliation or voting habits, in spite of the fact the Democratic Party has long ago left its Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy roots...

But, even 20 years ago, DividedThigh, I was a Republican...what foresight and vision!!!

me too, wow, that is almost prophetic, lol, dt:tvhappy

[Aquila]

What's even more interesting is that there is still support for the Democratic Party in many areas of the South and with Pentecostal families. We grew up in the period when the Democratic Party was the ONLY party of the South, and many have not changed their party affiliation or voting habits, in spite of the fact the Democratic Party has long ago left its Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy roots...

But, even 20 years ago, DividedThigh, I was a Republican...what foresight and vision!!!

The Republicans are selling your country to the lowest bidder...and you don't care. They wave a flag and talk great swelling words about values and it makes you feel comfortable voting for them...then they sell you and every other American family down the river. How can you even sleep at night?

The Republicans are master manipulators when it comes to religion. They have learned to use religion and phony patriotism to get blind followers. It's the same ol' thing we've seen down through history time and time again.

[rosebud]

I would vote for a Democrat before I voted for McCain:reaction. And it would be the first time in 30 years since I voted Democrat.:drama

[DividedThigh]

I would vote for a Democrat before I voted for McCain:reaction. And it would be the first time in 30 years since I voted Democrat.:drama

not good, sis, dont know what to tell you, i just cant bring myself to vote for a pro abortion candidate, cant do it, dt

[ReformedDave]

McCain is not a true conservative, and his views on the military-industrial complex, and on government authority, ought to chill any conservative's ardor for him. Alas, if he is nominated, we are left dumbfounded at the ballot box gulping, 'I hope this guy is better than a slimy socialist.' And, as we see with George W. Bush, a "man of principle" who turns out to be a big-government Republican who USED the religious right to get elected, and then turned a deaf ear to them, is not necessarily going to be an indicator of progress towards limited government and constitutional purity.

Great post!!!! McCain is no conservative.

[OP_Carl]

I think if it were between McCain and Obama, I'd seriously consider voting for Obama so the Democrats would get the blame and the conservatives would galvanize and re-unify in resistance. Kind of like the Goldwater loss led to the Reagan Revolution 16 years later.

[RevBuddy]

The Republicans are selling your country to the lowest bidder...and you don't care. They wave a flag and talk great swelling words about values and it makes you feel comfortable voting for them...then they sell you and every other American family down the river. How can you even sleep at night?

The Republicans are master manipulators when it comes to religion. They have learned to use religion and phony patriotism to get blind followers. It's the same ol' thing we've seen down through history time and time again.

Aquila, I can't say I haven't been very disappointed in the last few years. I had high hopes for GB...and in some ways, he is a victim of circumstance...with the war, economy, etc. I do adamantly disagree with the wholesale government spending...and you may be somewhat correct that the Republican Party takes advantage of the conservative right and religion.

But having said that, I would NEVER under any circumstances support the party of abortion, gay rights and same sex marriage, etc... it is the extreme liberal social issues of the Democratic Party that I loath and will NEVER support. They are a force set on destroying the family...sorry, but NO THANKS...

[Pressing-On]

Aquila, I can't say I haven't been very disappointed in the last few years. I had high hopes for GB...and in some ways, he is a victim of circumstance...with the war, economy, etc. I do adamantly disagree with the wholesale government spending...and you may be somewhat correct that the Republican Party takes advantage of the conservative right and religion.

But having said that, I would NEVER under any circumstances support the party of abortion, gay rights and same sex marriage, etc... it is the extreme liberal social issues of the Democratic Party that I loath and will NEVER support. They are a force set on destroying the family...sorry, but NO THANKS...

My thoughts, exactly!

[OP_Carl]

But having said that, I would NEVER under any circumstances support the party of abortion, gay rights and same sex marriage, etc... it is the extreme liberal social issues of the Democratic Party that I loath and will NEVER support. They are a force set on destroying the family...sorry, but NO THANKS...

Buddy, you are exactly right and I agree with you 100%! Why, when you look at all that the Republicans accomplished for the social agenda of the "religious right" during their six years of majority control, it makes you so proud . . . ohhhhhhhh, wait . . . scratch that . . . they didn't accomplish diddly squat for us. Many conservatives have made some pretty tough cases that they never intended to, either.

We need some flaming freak liberals in the majority, and in control, to shock this country back to its senses. We need gay marriage legalized and protected, and we need it made illegal to preach against homosexuality like it is in Canada. We need to start seeing what the gay lifestyle is really all about, and we need to see the homo activists start pushing for the acceptance of pedophilia. We need to experience the deprivation of socialized medicine firsthand. We need to get so sickened that when we replace the clowns with conservatives, and the first thing the "conservatives" try to do when they arrive in Washington is compromise with socialists, that we pull the rug out from under them and send in a replacement.

We need term limits for congress and a balanced budget amendment. We need to abolish secrecy for earmarks, and McCain-Feingold.

[maddy]

If you look at history, it repeats itself. We have had in office a Republican for 8 years, No way is a Republican going to win this year. It will be a Democrat. So the question is : Is America ready for the 1st Female President or the 1st Black, Muslim practicing President who will use the Karan to be sworn in???????????

Very interesting.

[Aquila]

i some things aquila i would agree with you, but the only way to address the abortion thing is the courts, and gwb did good with his appointees, that will be a big deal for the next president, dont you think, dt:tvhappy

Abortion's legality is only paperwork. The real battle is in regards to abortion RATES. For example nations in South America have very strong laws against abortion but they have some of the highest abortion rates in the world. Belgium is very pro-choice but it has the lowest abortion rate in the world.

Abortion's legality is only a matter of paperwork. The battle is in regards to abrotion RATES because that is where lives are actually saved.

Overturning Roe would only be cosmetic. Besides...right now the abortion rate in the US is LOWER than it was before abortion was legal. Interestingly abortion rates may have been lower under Clinton than our current President. Many states have reported spikes in their abortion rates. Interestingly these are states that are seeing more suppressed wages and loss of jobs. When people are broke and afraid they can't raise a family or when women are struggling to just make ends meet they are more likely to choose abortion. Address the issues bro...don't just push paper.

Jobs & Economic Stability of the family is key.

[Aquila]

Aquila, I can't say I haven't been very disappointed in the last few years. I had high hopes for GB...and in some ways, he is a victim of circumstance...with the war, economy, etc. I do adamantly disagree with the wholesale government spending...and you may be somewhat correct that the Republican Party takes advantage of the conservative right and religion.

But having said that, I would NEVER under any circumstances support the party of abortion, gay rights and same sex marriage, etc... it is the extreme liberal social issues of the Democratic Party that I loath and will NEVER support. They are a force set on destroying the family...sorry, but NO THANKS...

Let me address some points you made.

Party of Abortion: Name one woman ever forced to have an abortion by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party’s position on the issue is that the choice ultimately resides upon the individual woman in question. Few Democrats find abortion a good thing. Nearly 41% of Democrats are Pro-Life and see abortion as ultimately the taking of human life. Their angle is that the issue is so complex the government is best left out of it. My personal beef with them is funding abortion with tax dollars. However, my tax dollars have gone for an unnecessary war that has cost over 80,000 Iraqi civilians their lives. Tax dollars will always be used for something someone disagrees with. And just because the funding is there it doesn’t justify the choice if unnecessary. The ultimate blame is on the woman in question. Personally I’d like to see more churches disfellowship women who have aborted. Deny them baptism and communion. The Democrats haven’t aborted a single child. Individual women do this. Besides, most

Gay rights: As long as a person isn’t endangering the life and property of another person what they do privately is their private business. I can tolerate a degree of self expression but within reason. Like it or not this is America.

Same Sex Marriage: Private social contracts made by two sovereign citizens is a privacy issue. Liberal churches wishing to bless these unions make it a religious liberty issue. While I don’t advocate the lifestyle I do believe that in America individuals are free to choose the lifestyle they wish to live. And if a liberal church wishes to recognize such unions, who am I to deny them that religious liberty? While I DON’T AGREE and wouldn’t recognize such unions, the issue is the religious liberty of the religious institution in question. If a denomination like the Episcopals don’t classify it as sin am I to use the policy force of Government to force them to embrace my more conservative Christian interpretation of Scripture? This is America. If we use government to enforce standards of religious practice and private morality we’re in big trouble. And frankly, most same gender couples will not choose marriage. They’re too promiscuous. It would be like a train wreck and most of society would just roll their eyes at it.

Force set on destroying the family: Really? The primary cause of divorce in America is financial problems. Marriages don’t fall apart because some gay couple gets hitched in the FCWH (First Church of Wacko Hippies). Marriages don’t fall apart because a woman chose to have an abortion after her doctor briefed her on dangers to her health. I know more marriages that have fallen apart because they can’t make ends meet and they turn on each other because they’re loosing all they ever worked for. More marriages fall apart after a life shattering illness or bankruptcy than over the number of gays living in their neighborhoods. Those waging war on the family are those who are selling the jobs we need to China and Mexico. Those waging war on the family are those who stand against a living wage that can actually pay the bills. Those waging war on the family are those standing against health insurance that can keep a family out of declaring bankruptcy and loosing every dream they ever had. I know families that have lost their health insurance, jobs, homes, and everything they’ve worked for. And you tell me the biggest threat to my family is what some gay couple is doing in the privacy of their own home? You’re crazy. You’re making gays and women scapegoats for our woes. These people are sinners yes, and their sin should be addressed…but American families need a steady paycheck and health insurance. You’d sell the American family to China if it meant defeating the Democrats…all in the name of the family no doubt.

The biggest threat to the family are those who are not protecting our jobs and our family’s health. The days of being against abortion and gays and calling yourself “pro-family” are over. If you’re pro-family stand up and defend us! It’s getting to the point in America that unless you’re making over $100,000 to $200,000 a year you can’t afford a family. Help the family stay above water and stop bashing on gay people like it’s their fault. I know a family that was in dire financial straights and you know who helped them? A gay family member. Their church wasn’t even willing to help them get out from under the debt that was crushing the life out of them.

If the Democrats will fight to keep more jobs in America, fight to make sure American families have health insurance, and protect us from predatory lending schemes they are far in tune with what we as families need. Families shouldn’t have to choose between food and prescription drug coverage. And in America…America…families shouldn’t have to depend on charity to make it from paycheck to paycheck. Trust me…I’ve been there and the church was NOWHERE for us. When I faithfully tithed for 15 years and when I asked for assistance I was denied and it was explained to me how much the church pays for it’s bills and how it couldn’t afford to help us. It took a state government program to help us get on our feet. The church wasn’t even on the radar. That’s REAL family friendly, let me tell you. I assure you that they’re still preaching about how Democrats are the greatest threat to families. Riiigggghhhht. They don’t have a clue.

Protect our jobs from being sent overseas…we need them to feed our families and to keep roofs over our heads. Help relieve the cost of health insurance. We need it to protect our family’s health.

Or do you just not care?

Show me how abortion and gay rights is threatening my family. Also show me how the evaporation of jobs and families being unable to pay their bills and medical expenses is somehow good for the survival of the family unit.

[Aquila]

Buddy, you are exactly right and I agree with you 100%! Why, when you look at all that the Republicans accomplished for the social agenda of the "religious right" during their six years of majority control, it makes you so proud . . . ohhhhhhhh, wait . . . scratch that . . . they didn't accomplish diddly squat for us. Many conservatives have made some pretty tough cases that they never intended to, either.

We need some flaming freak liberals in the majority, and in control, to shock this country back to its senses. We need gay marriage legalized and protected, and we need it made illegal to preach against homosexuality like it is in Canada. We need to start seeing what the gay lifestyle is really all about, and we need to see the homo activists start pushing for the acceptance of pedophilia. We need to experience the deprivation of socialized medicine firsthand. We need to get so sickened that when we replace the clowns with conservatives, and the first thing the "conservatives" try to do when they arrive in Washington is compromise with socialists, that we pull the rug out from under them and send in a replacement.

We need term limits for congress and a balanced budget amendment. We need to abolish secrecy for earmarks, and McCain-Feingold.

Gay marriage is a private contract between consenting adults. I don’t like it but then again I don’t like many things people do with their freedoms.

Pedophilia isn’t going to get any traction in the United States. And those activists that push for it will be quickly marginalized.

As for the “deprivation of socialized medicine”…most of what you hear about it in the United States is myth. Let’s go talk to some Canadians and Europeans about it. There is a Canadian thread on the topic of comparative health care systems. Trust me…they laugh us to scorn when asked if they want an American-like health care system.

I firmly believe you’re playing on prejudices and not specializing in facts.

[Aquila]

If you look at history, it repeats itself. We have had in office a Republican for 8 years, No way is a Republican going to win this year. It will be a Democrat. So the question is : Is America ready for the 1st Female President or the 1st Black, Muslim practicing President who will use the Karan to be sworn in???????????

Very interesting.

Speaking of facts…Obama isn’t a “practicing Muslim”…but then again no one expects a “Christian” to be honest with politics.

[IAintMovin]

He's got a stellar conservative record on abortion. He is pro family and anti gay agenda. He is an American hero. He has NEVER inserted ONE earmark in any apropriations bill in his ENTIRE Senate career. He is not owned by any lobbyist, any company, corporation, special interest.

He isn't owned by the GOP. The Republicans ruled Washington in the White House and the Congress fro six years and somehow could not even ban partial birth abortion. They could not make the tax cuts permanent. They got messed up in the Jack Abramoff lobbyist scandal. They spent money worse than the Democrats ever did. W NEVER vetoed ONE spending bill for excessive and wasteful spending. They wasted a golden opportunity in six years. The only thing they really did right was the original tax cuts, the Supreme Court appointments and the War on Terror, although Rumsfeld's advice was wrong (on a smaller force in Iraq---one which McCain originally spoke out in opposition of and one which the "surge" has proven to be right.) Their mismanagement cost us the majority in the Congress. That was on a "true" conservatives watch, one that reads the Bible everyday and is an avowed Christian.

McCain broke with his party he says whenever he felt it was in the best interests of his country. When he has had to choose between his party and his country, his country will win every time.

He will fight this war on terror right, something the Democrats will not.

Romney has a much more liberal record than McCain. He was Pro-Choice when it was convenient when running for Governor of Massachusetts. He suddenly is now pro-life? Please! The Dems will eat his lunch if he is the nominee. They will recycle those old John Kerry flip-flop commercials and paint him in a most unfavorable light. At least with McCain you know where he stands.

If you stay home this election---you are guaranteeing that the Dems will win the White House. And that, my friends, is a risk not worth taking. Don't stay home if your man doesn't get in, or the GOP nominee is less conservative than you. You might have to vote just to keep Hillary or Obama out.

Be wise. Think beyond Rush Limbaugh's radio program. I listen to him everyday and he certainly is not the bastion of godliness! Besides he admits to being right 98.9% of the time.

This time he's wrong about McCain.

We aren't always going to get Ronald Reagan every time, unfortunately.

It is a sad day for America if McCain is our only hope..............very sad day............I dont trust him as far as he can be thrown by a two year old little girl........there is just something about him that aint right in my book............but you McCain lovers carry on..........

[Aquila]

These guys will vote the Devil himself if he were a Republican.

[OP_Carl]

I firmly believe you’re playing on prejudices and not specializing in facts.
I firmly believe the same of you.

[rosebud]

It is a sad day for America if McCain is our only hope..............very sad day............I dont trust him as far as he can be thrown by a two year old little girl........there is just something about him that aint right in my book............but you McCain lovers carry on..........

Ditto!! And I live here in Mc Cain Land "Arizona".

[ChristopherHall]

Is Obama a practicing Muslim as claimed?

[OP_Carl]

Nope. That is a myth.

He is COGIC, although you may find his devotion is only about politician-deep.

[ChristopherHall]

Nope. That is a myth.

He is COGIC, although you may find his devotion is only about politician-deep.

Do you propose to know the man's heart?

[OP_Carl]

Do you propose to know the man's heart?

Don't await any proposals from me . . . I'm already spoken for!:crazyluv

[ChristopherHall]

My point is that we are making unfair judgments against a man's character merely because he doesn't agree with us politically. In all honesty, while I don't agree with Obama on every issue, I feel Obama is more honest about what he believes than all the Republicans who are doing their very best to pretend to be the most conservative. I feel like I have to choose a leader who is honest about being liberal or a leader who is lying about being a conservative.

[OP_Carl]

I feel like I have to choose a leader who is honest about being liberal or a leader who is lying about being a conservative.

Yeah . . . . . . . . . it's just too bad about Thompson and Ron Paul, eh?

[OP_Carl]

Here is a link to the article (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1133233) I found most helpful in understanding John McCain.

[Felicity]

Now I'm not an American. I'm married to one and so naturally his interest becomes mine in regard to politics in the U.S.A.

But I just don't understand how someone can make a statement like I read in an earlier post in this thread that "Democrats want to see the family destroyed". That's a pretty broad generalization in my opinion and doesn't ring true either.

Just as there are bad Democrats there are bad Republicans. Neither do I think that you're in league with the devil if as a Christian you vote a Democrat into office. :rolleyes:

[ChristopherHall]

Yeah . . . . . . . . . it's just too bad about Thompson and Ron Paul, eh?

Thompson was just a celebrity face. He's not a real conservative.

Now Ron Paul...he's the real deal. I'm really surprised more conservatives aren't pulling for him. Our politicians typically pander, they try to model themselves after what we really want. If men like Ron Paul can't get ahead among conservatives...that tells me that those who bill themselves as "conservative" aren't really all that conservative. lol

[scotty]

Its about who can win anymore.

Watch though , if Ron Paul takes an independant ticket and then Bloomburg steps in on an independant ticket, this will be one heck of a race.

[ChristopherHall]

Now I'm not an American. I'm married to one and so naturally his interest becomes mine in regard to politics in the U.S.A.

But I just don't understand how someone can make a statement like I read in an earlier post in this thread that "Democrats want to see the family destroyed". That's a pretty broad generalization in my opinion and doesn't ring true either.

Just as there are bad Democrats there are bad Republicans. Neither do I think that you're in league with the devil if as a Christian you vote a Democrat into office. :rolleyes:

The Republicans have formed such a solid alliance with the Religious Right in the United States that anything not Republican is branded "evil". It's sad really. I used to be a die hard Republican but traveling outside of the US opened my eyes to a few things.

[ChristopherHall]

Its about who can win anymore.

Watch though , if Ron Paul takes an independant ticket and then Bloomburg steps in on an independant ticket, this will be one heck of a race.

That's one reason why I don't believe that conservatives are as sold on their principles as they say they are. If they will compromise their principles by abandoning Ron Paul and go with someone more progressive....they really aint all that conservative.

[scotty]

Now I'm not an American. I'm married to one and so naturally his interest becomes mine in regard to politics in the U.S.A.

But I just don't understand how someone can make a statement like I read in an earlier post in this thread that "Democrats want to see the family destroyed". That's a pretty broad generalization in my opinion and doesn't ring true either.

Just as there are bad Democrats there are bad Republicans. Neither do I think that you're in league with the devil if as a Christian you vote a Democrat into office. :rolleyes:

I don't know that they "want" to see the family destroyed, but their social policies can and do destroy the value of a family.

[ChristopherHall]

Now I'm not an American. I'm married to one and so naturally his interest becomes mine in regard to politics in the U.S.A.

But I just don't understand how someone can make a statement like I read in an earlier post in this thread that "Democrats want to see the family destroyed". That's a pretty broad generalization in my opinion and doesn't ring true either.

Just as there are bad Democrats there are bad Republicans. Neither do I think that you're in league with the devil if as a Christian you vote a Democrat into office. :rolleyes:


Felicity, where are you from?

[ChristopherHall]

I don't know that they "want" to see the family destroyed, but their social policies can and do destroy the value of a family.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and push to see how much truth is in your statement if you don't mind. We're often told things that are big and scary...then we rarely examine it and ask the difficult questions to see if it's true.

How do Democratic policies destroy the value of my family?

[scotty]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and push to see how much truth is in your statement if you don't mind. We're often told things that are big and scary...then we rarely really examine it and asked the difficult questions to see if it's true.

How do Democratic policies destroy the value of my family?

I never said it would affect your family, I stated the "value of a family" or family values as a whole.

Pro-choice

Gay marriage

Gay rights to adoption

Removing "God" from schools while teaching Islam for the sake of "understanding"

It is these special intrest groups that support mostly Democratic candidates, However I will be the first to admit that Romney is no roll model either.

As for my family, experience has proven that while I had a steady and secure job during Democratic times, I rarely saw increases financially. Where as the last 8 years has been rewarding for my family. Personally I have seen an increase in my wages of 84% in just the past 6 years.


BTW--miss you over at the AM forum Bro.

[ReformedDave]

The church, in abandoning culture and ceasing to be a relevant force, has left the state to be our messiah. We criticize socialism, rightly so, but we've married her twin sister.

Unless we realize that only through the Gospel and the living out of the Lordship of Christ can we bring real change to our society we are as lost as the old Soviet Union.

[Felicity]

The church, in abandoning culture and ceasing to be a relevant force, has left the state to be our messiah. We criticize socialism, rightly so, but we've married her twin sister.

Unless we realize that only through the Gospel and the living out of the Lordship of Christ can we bring real change to our society we are as lost as the old Soviet Union.Yes!

Always enjoy reading your thoughts RD. Have I mentioned that before? ;) :)

[Felicity]

Felicity, where are you from?From one of the greatest nations in the world -- CANADA! :canada

But partnered with another of the greatest seein's how I'm married to an American. :thumbsup

[Felicity]

The Republicans have formed such a solid alliance with the Religious Right in the United States that anything not Republican is branded "evil". It's sad really. I used to be a die hard Republican but traveling outside of the US opened my eyes to a few things.Really!! Haha! Like what for example? :)

[ChristopherHall]

I never said it would affect your family, I stated the "value of a family" or family values as a whole.

Pro-choice

Gay marriage

Gay rights to adoption

Removing "God" from schools while teaching Islam for the sake of "understanding"

It is these special intrest groups that support mostly Democratic candidates, However I will be the first to admit that Romney is no roll model either.

As for my family, experience has proven that while I had a steady and secure job during Democratic times, I rarely saw increases financially. Where as the last 8 years has been rewarding for my family. Personally I have seen an increase in my wages of 84% in just the past 6 years.


BTW--miss you over at the AM forum Bro.

Ok...let's continue because we didn't get to the heart of the question. We'll go into a little more detail here.

How do Democratic policies destroy the value of the family in general?

You listed a number of issues. But these issues are social issues that are with us with or without the Democratic Party. In all these subjects I can see where we Christians are offended. But I really don't see how these subjects "destroy the value of the family".

How does a woman having the final say regarding abortion destroy the value of the family? Is government the answer? Why not address the socio economic issues women are facing that cause them to consider abortion?

Gay marriage is flaky...if I were their pastor I'd advise they attend another church if they wanted to marry...but are private arrangements between private citizens my business?

Gay adoption is definately questionable...but most gays aren't going to choose to adopt.

Does religion belong in public schools?

I was in People to People International and participated in foreign youth exchange. I was also the first Junion to become President of the International Club in high school. I remember the classes on foreign cultures and languages. When it comes to the Middle East, one has to know a little about Islam to understand Middle Eastern culture.

And in closing...all these issues are state issues. Regardless...how do these destroy the value of the family?

[ChristopherHall]

Really!! Haha! Like what for example? :)

Don't get me started. lol

Let's put it this way...I had a solid "Sicko" experience before Michael Moore put "Sicko" on the market.

[ReformedDave]

Ok...let's continue because we didn't get to the heart of the question. We'll go into a little more detail here.

How do Democratic policies destroy the value of the family in general?

You listed a number of issues. But these issues are social issues that are with us with or without the Democratic Party.

Pro-Choice just means that the decision to abort is left in the individual woman's hands. This is a complex issue. I've read cases where severely deformed fetus could present a danger to the mother. The doctor advises an abortion. But the choice is left in the mother's hands. Right or wrong...do you believe the government should be making that choice for her or do you believe that life sometimes calls for life or death decisions? I had to choose to allow my mother to pass when doctors explained that the odds were against her heart recovering from a major heart attack. She wasn't a candidate for a transplant and the choice was keep pounding on her until she can't be brought back to see if she MIGHT stablize or just let her pass in peace. I chose to let her pass in peace. It was the hardest decision I ever made...but it was mine to make seeing that I am her son. I was in the military for 8 years and I've had to make other very difficult decisions. Maybe some decisions can be so complex the government is best left out of it. I'm not saying abortion is a good thing...I'm just saying that a case can be made that the government shouldn't get involved, especially if a woman's health is an issue. One might say, "But what about only allowing it in situations endangering health?" That's often the interpretation of the doctor. A woman might have one doctor advise her that an abortion might be necessary. Another doctor might interpret the situation differently and say that an abortion isn't that necessary in the situation. Notice that in each case it's outside medical professionals steering the situation. A woman could find herself in a virtual tug of war between medical professionals and government intervention. Also you have to ask if we banned abortion what is the penalty imposed on women who procure them? No one I know would advodate putting a woman in prison for an abortion. A fine just reduces the value of human life to the something like a parking ticket. The issue is ugly and very difficult...but is government the answer or should the ultimate choice be left in the hands of the woman in question?

Gay marriage...yuck. A lezbian couple lives down the street from my wife and I. Our families are not in church and we have close gay friends of the family. Like it or not...these folks are gay. Nothing is going to make them straight. They are living together and yes they are having sexual relations (again yuck). But they are American citizens and have a right to live as they choose though I disagree with the lifestyle. These people want to have a private marriage contract drawn up between them. Is it really my business? Is it your business? I'd like to sprinkle magic fairy dust and make them straight but I can't. Do we deport them? They are here like it or not. Also you have liberal churches and religions that feel that it is a violation of their religious freedom to forbid them to marry gay couples. I know it's weird...but not every religion or even Christian denomination agrees with our interpretation of the Scriptures. Must we use the police power of law to force them to practice what we believe is right? WHILE I DON'T AGREE WITH THE GAY LIFESTYLE, these are social questions I ask myself. What is the answer? Should government be in the business of telling Americans who they can or cannot marry? Is the government the answer? Right now in the United States the most dangerous threat to marriage are no-fault divorce laws. These allow couples to divorce rather easily. These laws were launched and largely supported by Ronald Reagan when he was governor of California. We have an issue in the straight community when it comes to marriage. We are dealing with epidemic unfaithfulness and financial ruin of the family. These are the issues that should be addressed. In the past 5 years I've seen five families crumble after adultery. But I've not heard a single sermon on it. I've heard 40 minute rants against gays getting married but not a single sermon on adultery. Sometimes I wonder, are we making gay people a scape goat? Are we attacking something we're all comfortable attacking because we don't want to get closer to home and address the unfaithfullness and rampant pornographic addictions in our families. I'm not Pro-Homosexual....I'm just sharing some questions I often ask myself on the issue.

Gay Rights to Adoption. I honestly hate the idea of seeing a child being raised in a gay family. But here's the deal...most gays aren't out to adopt children.

I don't think that religion is something that should be taught in public schools. I'm confident that the religious upbringing of my kids is strong enough to allow them to learn about other faiths while maintaining their Christian roots. But when it comes to Islam, I was President of the International Club when I was in High School. I was the first Junior to become President of that club in like eight years or something at the time. I was also a part of People to People International and participated in foreign youth exchange. We had classes on Islam, Animism, Buddhism and other religions. It was to garner respect and understanding between us. Islam isn't a religion like Christianity, it's a culture. You cannot understand Middle Eastern culture without understanding Islam. You also can't just say, "I'm a Muslim" and "poof" be a Muslim. A Muslim must know Arabic and many other things. All I've seen in the public schools is an exercize to understand what Muslims believe. Seeing that we are going to have to deal with them as a people politically and diplomatically in the future it might be wise that our children know who they are and what they believe. Some may argue that some kids might be swayed into Islam out of mere interest. True...but these are kids without any structured religious upbringing at home. It might be better that they become Muslim that drug dealers.

Scotty, you mentioned your economic well being. I'm curious...what do you do? I worked in information technology and I had all three of my jobs given to foreign technicians. I now work for the government. I spend most of my days tracking invoices and watching companies that are violating government contracts and ripping off the tax payer. In the past five years I've seen a virtual explosion of companies trying to violate contracts and sell the tax payer short.

In all these subjects I can see where we Christians are offended. But I really don't see how these subjects "destroy the value of the family".

First of all, as one who works every day in a NICU, there are no conditions that I'm aware of, that a baby affects the life of the mother in such a way as we MUST take a baby, that will surely die, to save the life of the mother. I've seen many babies born premature that we've saved or have tried to save. Even an ectopic pregnancy can be carried until the baby is taken via c-section or until rupture and it can be dealt with in a controlled situation.

As far as the death of an terminally ill person, you're mixing apples and oranges. Allowing nature to take it's coarse is far different from electively
ending the life a another person.

Gay adoption; you speak from ignorance again. I've seen many gay couple adopt children and I know some personally. I seen them hire a surrogate parent and take the baby(usually twins) home from my unit. It happens often.

I'd love to know your philosophical presupposition as to your interesting worldview. It does not appear to be Biblical.

[ReformedDave]

Yes!

Always enjoy reading your thoughts RD. Have I mentioned that before? ;) :)

You have but even your thinking is clouded! (LOL)


Thanks.

[scotty]

Ok...let's continue because we didn't get to the heart of the question. We'll go into a little more detail here.

How do Democratic policies destroy the value of the family in general?

You listed a number of issues. But these issues are social issues that are with us with or without the Democratic Party. In all these subjects I can see where we Christians are offended. But I really don't see how these subjects "destroy the value of the family".

True, but you can't deny that the Democratic Party's stance on these issues have not given them more press and power to stand.

Because we as christians value marriage as man and woman, we value life. If socially we become an accepting culture of these issues then our children are even more tempted by immorality. And I know there are alot of "ifs" that could follow that statement , (if you raise your child right then it won't matter, etc.).

What if I changed that statement to "they support issues that destroy the value of a Christian family"?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

ChristopherHall, your social views are almost as troubling ethically as your wild insistance on Government taking care of our healthcare mess.

Yes, decent Government should say that for two members of the same sex to be together is morally wrong. Any Christian I would say should also.

The taking of life is wrong. Why does it become the choice of a woman to take a life when she has made a very poor choice of morals? The Bible does condemn some things soundly. Flee fornication is an admonition that comes to mind.

[ChristopherHall]

First of all, as one who works every day in a NICU, there are no conditions that I'm aware of, that a baby affects the life of the mother in such a way as we MUST take a baby, that will surely die, to save the life of the mother. I've seen many babies born premature that we've saved or have tried to save. Even an ectopic pregnancy can be carried until the baby is taken via c-section or until rupture and it can be dealt with in a controlled situation.

I agree that it would be an extremely rare case in which a woman might need an abortion. That doesn't remove the main focus of my question. Why not address the issues women face that cause them to choose abortion instead of just focusing on banning it? If banning abortion was the answer why was the abortion rate higher before Roe than it is now? There are countries that have made abortion extremely rare while allowing women to maintain the right of choice.

As far as the death of an terminally ill person, you're mixing apples and oranges. Allowing nature to take it's coarse is far different from electively
ending the life a another person.

Let's assume we ban abortion tomorrow. What would be the criminal penalty imposed on a woman for procuring an abortion?

Gay adoption; you speak from ignorance again. I've seen many gay couple adopt children and I know some personally. I seen them hire a surrogate parent and take the baby(usually twins) home from my unit. It happens often.

What state and city do you work in? I don't doubt that you see this, I'm just skeptical as to it's overall prevalence throughout the United States. For example a person might see this more often in San Fransico California when compared to Columbus Ohio. It's very rare around here.

I'd love to know your philosophical presupposition as to your interesting worldview. It does not appear to be Biblical.

My worldview is that we live in a fallen world. We are called to be individuals that preach the gospel. The world's system will never be holy and will never measure up to God's standards of righteousness. The idea behind Christian Reconstruction of our political system is a manipulative heresy employed by right wing extremists to control our voting habits.

When visiting other countries and seeing how their people live, the socio economic policies, such as health insurance, and even considering abortion rates I was amazed. We Americans are really hokey when it comes to politics.

I don't find Democratic or Republican politics as biblical. Both are biblically bankrupt. A biblical society would be distributist in it's economics and communal in it's social structure.

[ReformedDave]

I agree that it would be an extremely rare case in which a woman might need an abortion. That doesn't remove the main focus of my question. Why not address the issues women face that cause them to choose abortion instead of just focusing on banning it? If banning abortion was the answer why was the abortion rate higher before Roe than it is now? There are countries that have made abortion extremely rare while allowing women to maintain the right of choice.



Let's assume we ban abortion tomorrow. What would be the criminal penalty imposed on a woman for procuring an abortion?



What state and city do you work in? I don't doubt that you see this, I'm just skeptical as to it's overall prevalence throughout the United States. For example a person might see this more often in San Fransico California when compared to Columbus Ohio. It's very rare around here.



My worldview is that we live in a fallen world. We are called to be individuals that preach the gospel. The world's system will never be holy and will never measure up to God's standards of righteousness. The idea behind Christian Reconstruction of our political system is a manipulative heresy employed by right wing extremists to control our voting habits.

When visiting other countries and seeing how their people live, the socio economic policies, such as health insurance, and even considering abortion rates I was amazed. We Americans are really hokey when it comes to politics.

I live in San Diego and see gay adoption frequently.

We have laws that prohibit murder but it still happens. Does that mean we abolish it just because it doesn't always deter the act?

Scripture states that abortion is murder so the mother and the one who did it should receive the punishment due to them from scripture.

Your worldview is pragmatic relativism and is arbitrary and inconsistent. You also prove that you don't have an idea of what the Biblical view of the state should be.

Your final statement "A biblical society would be distributist in it's economics and communal in it's social structure." is pure fiction. You need to study before you make these comments.

[ChristopherHall]

ChristopherHall, your social views are almost as troubling ethically as your wild insistance on Government taking care of our healthcare mess.

Government isn't perfect...but it's done a far better job in most other Westernized countries than our private system in the US is doing right now. My family would be up gainst a $370 health insurance premium a month right now if I had private insurance. That's far more than what I'd pay in taxes to support a national health insurance program. Even the American Medical Association is coming out in support of a national health insurance program. Too many people are in desperate need for treatment they need to survive...the only problem is that they cannot afford it. We need to realize that we stand together as a people....united we stand...divided we fall. Let's say a father of two has cancer and cannot afford health insurance. He has raised enough money to pay for part of his treatment but he cannot afford the second half of his treatments. Should he be allowed to die becaues he isn't wealthy enough to pay for treatments?

Let's go to the Canadian thread on health care and talk with some brothers and sisters from Canada. Most of what we hear about their system is a myth. I know first hand...I go to Canada for vacation every year.

Yes, decent Government should say that for two members of the same sex to be together is morally wrong. Any Christian I would say should also.

I 100% agree that it is immoral. But there is a big difference between saying something is immoral and saying that something should be illegal because it's immoral. Should government provide marriage licenses to divorcees who divorced on grounds other than adultery? That's equally immoral. Many things are considered immoral...playboy, nude art, tobacco, alcohol, rap music, rock music, and the list could go on forever. Is it the government's place to criminalize these things? The government's job is to protect the lives and liberties of it's citizens not to play God by criminalizing the sinner. Besides, being hard on gay marriage isn't going to make any gay people straight. While I believe homosexuality is immoral, I feel creepy making people's private relationships my business.

The taking of life is wrong. Why does it become the choice of a woman to take a life when she has made a very poor choice of morals? The Bible does condemn some things soundly. Flee fornication is an admonition that comes to mind.

I believe that the issue is very complex. After talking to women who have had abortions I realized that we failed them. We failed to address the issues they were facing. Two out of three women who procure abortion in America do so because of economic hardship. Husbands lost jobs and they already have three kids. The feel they cannot afford another one, especially in light of the fact that they lost their health insurance coverage. Most who procure abortion also live below the poverty level. If a woman feels she cannot raise a family, cannot afford a baby, cannot afford the health care a child needs, cannot secure a livable wage, or cannot even find a good paying job...she's MORE likely to choose to abort rather abortion is legal or not. We've chanted about how wrong it is to abort...but we've failed to address the issues so many women face.

I have sad news to bare...abortion isn't going to be banned in America. It's here to stay. We need a new strategy. A new perspective. The Republicans aren't going to eliminate abortion by criminalizing women who find themselves feeling so desperate they choose to abort. We as a people need to bare up women facing crisis pregnancies. When other countries offer case workers that visit the home of women, especially single women, to assist with chores and child care...when these countries make sure every woman and child has health insurance....when these countries protect jobs and sustain living wages....when these countries subsidize day care for students and working single mothers with children....it's no wonder their abortion rates are extremely low, far lower than ours, though they allow choice. They are actually addressing the needs of women. They've gone beyond abortion's politics and moved into action to reduce abortions.

When it comes to dealing with abortion government can do far more to reduce abortion rates than fighting for a "ban" that will never materialize.

[ChristopherHall]

I live in San Diego and see gay adoption frequently.

We have laws that prohibit murder but it still happens. Does that mean we abolish it just because it doesn't always deter the act?

Scripture states that abortion is murder so the mother and the one who did it should receive the punishment due to them from scripture.

Your worldview is pragmatic relativism and is arbitrary and inconsistent. You also prove that you don't have an idea of what the Biblical view of the state should be.

Your final statement "A biblical society would be distributist in it's economics and communal in it's social structure." is pure fiction. You need to study before you make these comments.
Ok...so according to you I'm a Hell bound unbeliever. That's cool. If you'd say that about me because I disagree politically that reveals more about yourself than it does me. From here out if you're uncomfortable calling me a Christian that's fine bro. But I'm still not going to allow you to use religion to manipulate me politically to vote for Social Darwinistic Conservatives who are selling America's working families down the river.

Your post implies that you would favor executing doctors who perform and women who procure abortion. Bro...that's not going to happen. You should move to Saudi Arabia...you'd be happier there.

[scotty]

I agree that it would be an extremely rare case in which a woman might need an abortion. That doesn't remove the main focus of my question. Why not address the issues women face that cause them to choose abortion instead of just focusing on banning it? If banning abortion was the answer why was the abortion rate higher before Roe than it is now? There are countries that have made abortion extremely rare while allowing women to maintain the right of choice.

In my opinion abortion is equivilant to murder, if not at least manslaughter. Maybe we should do away laws against those and just address the underlying issues. Of course that would be the absense of God in their life which we can't allow government to have anything to do with even though our soveriegn Lord is mentioned as the corner stone of our freedom in several historical documents that we now use to take Him out of our lives. (see the hypocrisy?)


My worldview is that we live in a fallen world. We are called to be individuals that preach the gospel. The world's system will never be holy and will never measure up to God's standards of righteousness. The idea behind Christian Reconstruction of our political system is a manipulative heresy employed by right wing extremists to control our voting habits.

Nobody is saying we can or even want to change the worlds ways or even our country for that matter. We are not to build up treasures here for we are just passing through, yet I still see alot of sense in trying to have as much of a hospitable place to live as I possibly can while I'm here.

When visiting other countries and seeing how their people live, the socio economic policies, such as health insurance, and even considering abortion rates I was amazed. We Americans are really hokey when it comes to politics.

Now here is where we really part ways. You think the government should not get involve in how we live our lives, yet they should, with my hard earned money take care of those who live their lives in a way that they can't take care of themselves.

I don't find Democratic or Republican politics as biblical. Both are biblically bankrupt. A biblical society would be distributist in it's economics and communal in it's social structure.
.

[ChristopherHall]

Felicity, the stuff Bro. Dave is saying to me is typically of what we have here in the US. I even had a brother like him try to pick a fist fight with me in the parking lot of Bob Evans because I insisted that John Kerry may have been a better leader than George Bush.

[ReformedDave]

Ok...so according to you I'm a Hell bound unbeliever. That's cool. If you'd say that about me because I disagree politically that reveals more about yourself than it does me. From here out if you're uncomfortable calling me a Christ that's fine bro. But I'm still not going to allow you to use religion to manipulate me politically to vote for Social Darwinistic Conservatives who are selling America's working families down the river.

Your post implies that you would favor executing doctors who perform and women who procure abortion. Bro...that's not going to happen. You should move to Saudi Arabia...you'd be happier there.

You just prove that you don't like the rules of Scripture. That's your prorogative.
To think that politics, or any other subject, is without religious presuppositions is philosophically naive. To develop one's political outlook based of some alleged "neutral" stance is in fact going against Christ. Neutality is a myth and if you are not for Him you're against Him. To relegate His Lordship to the realm of the church and salvation alone is saying that He's not Lord of all.

[ReformedDave]

Felicity, the stuff Bro. Dave is saying to me is typically of what we have here in the US. I even had a brother like him try to pick a fist fight with me in the parking lot of Bob Evans because I insisted that John Kerry may have been a better leader than George Bush.


You might be interested to know that I'm NOT a Republican, or voted for GWB, or will vote for any of the front runners on Tuesday.

For the record I think that the GOP is as bankrupt and the Democrats.

"Brother like him"? Funny. You don't even know me and you make the assertion?

[scotty]

Government isn't perfect...but it's done a far better job in most other Westernized countries than our private system in the US is doing right now. My family would be up gainst a $370 health insurance premium a month right now if I had private insurance. That's far more than what I'd pay in taxes to support a national health insurance program. Even the American Medical Association is coming out in support of a national health insurance program. Too many people are in desperate need for treatment they need to survive...the only problem is that they cannot afford it. We need to realize that we stand together as a people....united we stand...divided we fall. Let's say a father of two has cancer and cannot afford health insurance. He has raised enough money to pay for part of his treatment but he cannot afford the second half of his treatments. Should he be allowed to die becaues he isn't wealthy enough to pay for treatments?

But the health care is lower in quality and some have waited in line to get the care, thats suffering. I will gladly pay for mine, besides our health care cost is due to frevilous lawsuits(ask any doctor) so we need to get to root of that issue. No wait, that would mean cleaning up the false witnessing which might mean putting God in someones life. Can't do that.! Our "universal healthcare" as being proposed will be based on income tax. Those with lower in incomes would pay less toward this insurance (i.e. be put at the bottom of the list and recieve the less quality healthcare options--kinda like an HMO )

Let's go to the Canadian thread on health care and talk with some brothers and sisters from Canada. Most of what we hear about their system is a myth. I know first hand...I go to Canada for vacation every year.



I 100% agree that it is immoral. But there is a big difference between saying something is immoral and saying that something should be illegal because it's immoral. Should government provide marriage licenses to divorcees who divorced on grounds other than adultery? That's equally immoral. Many things are considered immoral...playboy, nude art, tobacco, alcohol, rap music, rock music, and the list could go on forever. Is it the government's place to criminalize these things? The government's job is to protect the lives and liberties of it's citizens not to play God by criminalizing the sinner. Besides, being hard on gay marriage isn't going to make any gay people straight. While I believe homosexuality is immoral, I feel creepy making people's private relationships my business.



I believe that the issue is very complex. After talking to women who have had abortions I realized that we failed them. We failed to address the issues they were facing. Two out of three women who procure abortion in America do so because of economic hardship. Husbands lost jobs and they already have three kids. The feel they cannot afford another one, especially in light of the fact that they lost their health insurance coverage. Most who procure abortion also live below the poverty level. If a woman feels she cannot raise a family, cannot afford a baby, cannot afford the health care a child needs, cannot secure a livable wage, or cannot even find a good paying job...she's MORE likely to choose to abort rather abortion is legal or not. We've chanted about how wrong it is to abort...but we've failed to address the issues so many women face.

All of the issues you have presented above are easily solved through faith and walking in Gods light. (oh yeah , thats not allowed)

You seeing the repeating "God is the answer to all problems" thing going on here?

I have sad news to bare...abortion isn't going to be banned in America. It's here to stay. We need a new strategy. A new perspective. The Republicans aren't going to eliminate abortion by criminalizing women who find themselves feeling so desperate they choose to abort. We as a people need to bare up women facing crisis pregnancies. When other countries offer case workers that visit the home of women, especially single women, to assist with chores and child care...when these countries make sure every woman and child has health insurance....when these countries protect jobs and sustain living wages....when these countries subsidize day care for students and working single mothers with children....it's no wonder their abortion rates are extremely low, far lower than ours, though they allow choice. They are actually addressing the needs of women. They've gone beyond abortion's politics and moved into action to reduce abortions.

When it comes to dealing with abortion government can do far more to reduce abortion rates than fighting for a "ban" that will never materialize.

As for your last paragraph , maybe you should read the latest news release (http://www.worthynews.com/news/telegraph-co-uk-core-Content-displayPrintable-jhtml-xml--news-2008-02-01-nabort201-xml-site-5-page-0/)from one of your other westernized countries, I like their way of doing things too.

[Felicity]

McCain isn't my pick. I'd go for Romney. So what if he's changed his mind a few times? They all do that. There's not much difference between most of those guys anyhow.

Has there ever been a better looking presidential candidate? Besides, he does have intelligence, proven track record, success, & great leadership ability too.

Hehe. :mal

[ReformedDave]

McCain isn't my pick. I'd go for Romney. So what if he's changed his mind a few times? They all do that. There's not much difference between most of those guys anyhow.

Has there ever been a better looking presidential candidate? Besides, he does have intelligence, proven track record, success, & great leadership ability too.

Hehe. :mal

Some would say JFK was pretty sharp. Romney does have great hair and has presence then he starts talking.......

BTW, you're correct. There's not much substantial difference anymore.

[ChristopherHall]

Scotty,

In my opinion abortion is equivilant to murder, if not at least manslaughter. Maybe we should do away laws against those and just address the underlying issues. Of course that would be the absense of God in their life which we can't allow government to have anything to do with even though our soveriegn Lord is mentioned as the corner stone of our freedom in several historical documents that we now use to take Him out of our lives. (see the hypocrisy?)

Scotty, you're jumping to extremes. Murder and manslaughter are a little different than abortion. In a pregnancy two lives are so intertwined they cannot be separated. Most people would agree that the health and wellbeing of the mother trumps the rights of the fetus legally. On a moral level I hate abortion. I would love to see abortion eliminated from our society. I don't think that a mere ban on abortion will resolve things. We need to address the issues that cause women to feel they need to abort. By doing so we can greatly reduce the rate of abortion in our country. Once the abortion rate is low enough it will be far easier to place legal restraints on it. My point is...put women first. Address their needs. Reduce the need and occurance of abortion. Then focus on legal restraints. Countries have banned abortion and still had very high abortion rates. I'm proposing something more akin to a step by step resolution that will focus on reducing abortion rats and end with legal restraints on abortion.

Comparitive studies on abortion rates demonstrate that abortion's legality has no bearing on the abortion rate of a country. For example, our abortion rate is lower today in the US than it was before Roe. How do we explain this? We're addressing more issues women face today than we were back in the 60's and 70's. There's still some work to be done however.

Nobody is saying we can or even want to change the worlds ways or even our country for that matter. We are not to build up treasures here for we are just passing through, yet I still see alot of sense in trying to have as much of a hospitable place to live as I possibly can while I'm here.

I've been outside of the US. Let to assure you Canada is far more hospitable than the US. We hate eachother here. The gays hate Christians and Christians hate gays, Republicans hate Democrats and Democrats hate Republicans, Conservatives hate liberals and liberals hate conservatives. It's crazy here in the US. You can't even watch the News without feeling the "strife". My wife and I have been visiting Canada nearly every year for about six years. I can honestly say they are more laid back, open, friendly, and seem to have a greater sense of unity than we do in the US. I predict that the US will fall far behind Europe and Canada in economics, health care, education, and in over all quality of life within my son's lifetime.

Now here is where we really part ways. You think the government should not get involve in how we live our lives, yet they should, with my hard earned money take care of those who live their lives in a way that they can't take care of themselves.

Here's where you're not seeing the "big picture". We have nearly 50 million uninsured in the United States. These people still go to the emergency rooms when sick or injured. And guess what...they get treatment and they're billed for it. But here's what happens...they cannot pay their bill. The health care providers aren't going to just eat the loss...the increase the cost of health care to make up for the loss. When the cost of health care increases health insurance companies have to increase premiums to pay for the increased cost of health care. When the insurance premiums go up...more people find that they cannot afford health insurance. So now you have more uninsured people going to the emergency room when sick or injured. They get treatment. Then they can't pay their bill. The hospitals don't eat the loss...they increase their cost of health care yet again to cover the loss. When the cost of health care increases again health insurance companies have to increase their health insurance premiums again to cover the increased cost. When companies increase their health insurance premiums MORE people find that they cannot afford health insurance and now you have MORE uninsured...guess what...they go to emergencies rooms....and the pattern repeats itself. The truth is...YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE UNINSURED. That's why your premiums are so high. But here's the deal. The uninsured aren't getting regular inexpensive treatment. They're going to emergency rooms (the most expensive form of care) and finding more advanced health problems that require more expensive treatments. On top of that profit margins come into play...the companies tack on a percentage to make a profit. So in the current system you're not only already paying for the uninsured...you're paying for them in the most expensive manner possible.

Now if the government presented a national health insurance plan covering all Americans, all health care providers would be paid. This means they wouldn't be passing on increasing losses to you in higher costs. This will bring the cost of health care down. Private companies would then be able to afford lowering premiums because health care would be less expensive. Right now in the United States a national health insurance program would cost us less in taxes than the current system is costing us in premiums. Also in a national health insurance program records and paper work are centralized and accessable by whatever doctor you choose to see. No so right now. Right now you have to fill out all the same paperwork every time you visist the doctor. Your records are scattered throughout health care providers. In the United States over 30% of health care costs are in relation to redundant administrative functions of multiple private industries. All of these factors are why the United States pays nearly 16% more on health care than any nation in the world yet doesn't provide the quality that found in Europe.

So in closing...you're already paying a "hidden tax" that cares for the uninsured. Also you're paying more in premiums and over all costs and co-pays than you would in taxes if we moved to a national health insurance program. And as the cost of health care in the US continues to rise this becomes even more relevant. That's why it's becoming more and more of an issue.

[scotty]

McCain isn't my pick. I'd go for Romney. So what if he's changed his mind a few times? They all do that. There's not much difference between most of those guys anyhow.

Has there ever been a better looking presidential candidate? Besides, he does have intelligence, proven track record, success, & great leadership ability too.

Hehe. :mal

You can't vote , right? :toofunny

I love you Sister Felicity...but lets take another look at Romney shall we?

--Romney supports abortion in general, and believes in sustaining Roe v. Wade.
--Romney campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, and was endorsed by a pro-abortion political group
--Romney is willing to support some embryonic stem cell research
--Romney Approves of Abortion Pill and Supports the Legalization of RU-486
--Romney signs "Right to Privacy" Proclamation celebrating birth control availability(this includes the right of public schools to provide children with it without parental consent or knowledge)
--Gov. Romney has a long history of promoting and furthering the homosexual agenda, and working closely with leading gay activists
--Romney twice sought and received the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republican Club
--Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's "Gay Pride" events


Image Insert (11.66 KB):
http://am.upci.org/forum/data/scotty/2007121912521_RomneyPrideFlier.jpg

--Romney advocates homosexual couples' adoption rights be recognized by the government
--Romney supports homosexual domestic partnerships
--Romney supported and promoted legalizing homosexual civil unions
--Romney Opposes the Boy Scouts' Ban on Homosexual Scoutmasters. Romney barred Boy Scouts from public participation in 2002 Olympics. (this had never been done before and has never been done since by any governor)
--Romney appointed prominent homosexual activists and Democrats as judges
--Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
--Romney's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth used huge taxpayer funding to promote homosexuality in the public schools


Image Insert (20.7 KB):
http://am.upci.org/forum/data/scotty/20071219121149_comm_banner.jpg

--More recently Romney proposed allocating $250,000 for the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth for fiscal year 2006
--Romney's Commission organized public gay "Youth Pride Day" parades and "transgender proms" which promote unhealthy and risky behavior
--Romney's Department of Education promotes the homosexual agenda
--Romney opposed federal legislation that would stop public schools from promoting homosexuality
--Romney refused to endorse the original 2002 Mass. constitutional amendment absolutely defining marriage as one man and one women
--Romney unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) implemented homosexual marriages in Massachusetts
--Romney had marriage licenses changed to allow same-sex marriages
--Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual "marriages" when asked - or be fired!
--When requested of him, Romney personally issues special one-day certificates to allow otherwise unqualified people to perform homosexual "marriages"
--Romney imposes "socialized" health care on Massachusetts
--Romney's plan, which is backed by such liberals as Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, Mass.), is being pitched as a compact between citizens and the state.


Sources
Boston Herald, 5/19/1994 (re: morning after pill) - archive

Boston Herald, 8/1/1994, "Gays split in Governor race; Both Weld and Roosevelt are laying claims for support," - archive

Bay Windows, 8/25,1994, "Romney: I'll be better than Ted for gay rights."

Boston Globe, 10/17/1994, "Kennedy, Romney continue trading charges over facts" - archive

Boston Globe, 10/27/1994 (re: Boy Scouts) - archive

Lawyers' Weekly, 2/14/2000 (re: Stephen Abany)

NewsMax, 12/18/2000, "2002 Salt Lake Committee Bans Boy Scouts From Olympics" by David M. Bresnahan

Boston Globe, 3/19/2002, "Supporters want to see real Romney" - archive

Boston Globe, 3/22/2002, "Romney kin signed petition to ban same-sex marriage" - archive

Bay Windows, 3/28/2002, "Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community"

Romney 2002 Campaign web site

Associated Press / South Coast Today, 10/3/2002, "O'Brien, Romney tout abortion rights credentials"

Bay Windows, 10/24/2002, "Don't dismiss Romney, gay Republicans say"

Washington Times, 11/20/2003, "Romney pursues law on gay unions"

Wall Street Journal, 2/5/2004, "One Man, One Woman - A citizen's guide to protecting marriage," by Mitt Romney

Patrick J. Buchanan, 2/9/2004, "Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge"

Boston Globe, 3/11/2004, "Republican gay rights group hits Bush, Romney Stances" - archive

Agape Press, 3/30/2004, "Nobody Happy; Proposed Mass. Amendment Backs Marriage, Endorses Civil Unions; Massachusetts' Voters 'Blackmailed,' Say Supporters of Traditional Marriage"

Boston Globe, 3/30/2004, "In crucial shift, governor sways 15 in GOP to support measure"

Boston Globe, 4/11/2004, "Weeks ahead crucial for foes, supporters of gay marriage"

Associated Press, 4/12/2004, "Clerks to receive training on gay marriage licensing, while governor weighs options"

Boston Globe, 4/18/2004, "Justices of the peace confront dilemmas on gay marriage; Opponents face wedding quandary"

Associated Press, 4/24/2004, "Mass. Seeks Compliance on Gay Weddings"

WorldNetDaily, 4/24/2004, "Bill seeks ouster of Massachusetts justices; Last-minute effort to remove 4 who ruled for same-sex marriage"

New York Times, 4/26/2004, "Obey Same-Sex Marriage Law, Officials Told" - archive

WorldNetDaily, 5/8/2004, "9 Days to Same-Sex Marriage"

Boston Phoenix, 5/14-20/2004, "Schiz Romney: Do national aspirations explain the governor's switch from nice guy to anti-gay-marriage activist?"

National Review Online, 5/17/2004, "The Missing Governor," by Prof. Hadley Arkes

New York Times, 5/19/2004, "Governor Moves on Non-Massachusetts Couples" - archive

U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004

Citizen (Focus on the Family), 7/2004, "Massachusetts Marriage Chaos; Gay Marriage a Reality in Massachusetts; No Opt-Out Clause for Justices of the Peace" (archived)

MassNews, 12/2/2004, "Article 8 files bills in Massachusetts legislature to remove 4 SJC judges and eliminate homosexual marriage"

National Review Online, 2/11/2005, "Romney vs. Harvard" by Kathryn Jean Lopez

American Spectator, 2/23/2005, "Mitt Romney's Choice" by W. James Antle III

Associated Press / WIS-TV10 News, 2/23/2005, "Some say Gov. Romney changed tune on gay civil unions in Spartanburg Mon."

Bay Windows, 3/3/2005, "Mitt Romney's secret gay history!"

Boston Globe, 3/25/2005, "Roe v. Wade omitted from proclamation"

Governor's Office, 5/14/2005, "Romney Names Stephen Abany to Wrentham District Court"

State House press conference, 6/15/2005, transcript

Boston Globe, 7/1/2005, "Governor's vetoes raise more questions on national run" - archive

Boston Globe, 7/3/2005, "Clarity sought on Romney's abortion stance"

Boston Globe, 7/7/2005, "Eyes on Romney as morning-after pill OK'd"

Boston Globe, 7/22/2005, "Birth certificate policy draws fire; Change affects same-sex couples"

Boston Globe, 7/25/2005, "Romney jurist picks not tilted to GOP; Independents, Democrats get call"

WBUR (PBS) Radio Boston / AFA Michigan, 12/9/2005 "Romney changes position on morning after pill"

[ChristopherHall]

You just prove that you don't like the rules of Scripture. That's your prorogative.
To think that politics, or any other subject, is without religious presuppositions is philosophically naive. To develop one's political outlook based of some alleged "neutral" stance is in fact going against Christ. Neutality is a myth and if you are not for Him you're against Him. To relegate His Lordship to the realm of the church and salvation alone is saying that He's not Lord of all.

This world isn't my home Dave. The world is the world. It's like living in ancient Rome. The Romans allowed far more brutal and inhumane social practices than what we see in the US...yet Paul doesn't advocate political activism. He preaches the gospel.

You're clearly a Dominionist. I disagree with the Dominionist Facists and their insistance on subverting liberty and instituting Right Wing Religious law.

[scotty]

Scotty,



Scotty, you're jumping to extremes. Murder and manslaughter are a little different than abortion. In a pregnancy two lives are so intertwined they cannot be separated. Most people would agree that the health and wellbeing of the mother trumps the rights of the fetus legally. On a moral level I hate abortion. I would love to see abortion eliminated from our society. I don't think that a mere ban on abortion will resolve things. We need to address the issues that cause women to feel they need to abort. By doing so we can greatly reduce the rate of abortion in our country. Once the abortion rate is low enough it will be far easier to place legal restraints on it. My point is...put women first. Address their needs. Reduce the need and occurance of abortion. Then focus on legal restraints. Countries have banned abortion and still had very high abortion rates. I'm proposing something more akin to a step by step resolution that will focus on reducing abortion rats and end with legal restraints on abortion.

Comparitive studies on abortion rates demonstrate that abortion's legality has no bearing on the abortion rate of a country. For example, our abortion rate is lower today in the US than it was before Roe. How do we explain this? We're addressing more issues women face today than we were back in the 60's and 70's. There's still some work to be done however.



I've been outside of the US. Let to assure you Canada is far more hospitable than the US. We hate eachother here. The gays hate Christians and Christians hate gays, Republicans hate Democrats and Democrats hate Republicans, Conservatives hate liberals and liberals hate conservatives. It's crazy here in the US. You can't even watch the News without feeling the "strife". My wife and I have been visiting Canada nearly every year for about six years. I can honestly say they are more laid back, open, friendly, and seem to have a greater sense of unity than we do in the US. I predict that the US will fall far behind Europe and Canada in economics, health care, education, and in over all quality of life within my son's lifetime.



Here's where you're not seeing the "big picture". We have nearly 50 million uninsured in the United States. These people still go to the emergency rooms when sick or injured. And guess what...they get treatment and they're billed for it. But here's what happens...they cannot pay their bill. The health care providers aren't going to just eat the loss...the increase the cost of health care to make up for the loss. When the cost of health care increases health insurance companies have to increase premiums to pay for the increased cost of health care. When the insurance premiums go up...more people find that they cannot afford health insurance. So now you have more uninsured people going to the emergency room when sick or injured. They get treatment. Then they can't pay their bill. The hospitals don't eat the loss...they increase their cost of health care yet again to cover the loss. When the cost of health care increases again health insurance companies have to increase their health insurance premiums again to cover the increased cost. When companies increase their health insurance premiums MORE people find that they cannot afford health insurance and now you have MORE uninsured...guess what...they go to emergencies rooms....and the pattern repeats itself. The truth is...YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE UNINSURED. That's why your premiums are so high. But here's the deal. The uninsured aren't getting regular inexpensive treatment. They're going to emergency rooms (the most expensive form of care) and finding more advanced health problems that require more expensive treatments. On top of that profit margins come into play...the companies tack on a percentage to make a profit. So in the current system you're not only already paying for the uninsured...you're paying for them in the most expensive manner possible.

Now if the government presented a national health insurance plan covering all Americans, all health care providers would be paid. This means they wouldn't be passing on increasing losses to you in higher costs. This will bring the cost of health care down. Private companies would then be able to afford lowering premiums because health care would be less expensive. Right now in the United States a national health insurance program would cost us less in taxes than the current system is costing us in premiums. Also in a national health insurance program records and paper work are centralized and accessable by whatever doctor you choose to see. No so right now. Right now you have to fill out all the same paperwork every time you visist the doctor. Your records are scattered throughout health care providers. In the United States over 30% of health care costs are in relation to redundant administrative functions of multiple private industries. All of these factors are why the United States pays nearly 16% more on health care than any nation in the world yet doesn't provide the quality that found in Europe.

So in closing...you're already paying a "hidden tax" that cares for the uninsured. Also you're paying more in premiums and over all costs and co-pays than you would in taxes if we moved to a national health insurance program. And as the cost of health care in the US continues to rise this becomes even more relevant. That's why it's becoming more and more of an issue.

Just one comment, in this elaborate post you have written with all its answers and comparisons to the better lives of others not a single time, not once above have you even hinted at God.

That my friend is what is wrong with the world we live in.

[ChristopherHall]

John McCain is as soft on abortion and gay marriage as any Democrat. The Republican establishment is going to give him a major makeover in the next few months...you watch.

[scotty]

It wont matter, IMHO. I think either way the moral standards of this country will continue to fall, the hatred will increase. Its that time. JMO

[ReformedDave]

This world isn't my home Dave. The world is the world. It's like living in ancient Rome. The Romans allowed far more brutal and inhumane social practices than what we see in the US...yet Paul doesn't advocate political activism. He preaches the gospel.

You're clearly a Dominionist. I disagree with the Dominionist Facists and their insistance on subverting liberty and instituting Right Wing Religious law.

I'm a "facist"? Your ignorance is showing. It's the big government liberals who are closer to their facist's forefathers.

BTW, I believe the world will be won from the bottom up and not by legislation. I don't believe that American is or was a Christian nation. But I do believe that Scripture demands that we ascribe to God what is rightfully His and to do less is sin. We're to think His thoughts after Him and bring ALL thoughts captive.

The truth be known all political theory has religious underpinnings. Even secularism. The key is to have a theory(religion) that is not arbitrary, inconsistent, and can provide the preconditions for understanding what is reality, what is right, and how do I know what I know. On your worldview you can't answer these questions with being arbitrary and inconsistent.

Scripture shows that all areas of society have their place and boundries and they are not to overlap. Civil government in the USA has overlapped the family, church, and the individual. It is our messiah and savior.

[ChristopherHall]

Just one comment, in this elaborate post you have written with all its answers and comparisons to the better lives of others not a single time, not once above have you even hinted at God.

That my friend is what is wrong with the world we live in.


An average of 18,000 people die every year in America because they cannot afford life saving medical treatments. Do you think God approves of that?

Here's something interesting that brings God into the picture. Canadians voted Tommy Douglas as being the greatest Canadian that ever lived. Tommy Douglas is a Baptist minister who got into Canadian politics. He's the one who moved the Canadian government to impliment a national health care system. He did this because his Christian sense of social compassion led him to do so.

I believe God wants us to do what's right for all of us...not just those of us who can afford it.

[ReformedDave]

John McCain is as soft on abortion and gay marriage as any Democrat. The Republican establishment is going to give him a major makeover in the next few months...you watch.

They will try......

[ReformedDave]

An average of 18,000 people die every year in America because they cannot afford life saving medical treatments. Do you think God approves of that?

Here's something interesting that brings God into the picture. Canadians voted Tommy Douglas as being the greatest Canadian that ever lived. Tommy Douglas is a Baptist minister who got into Canadian politics. He's the one who moved the Canadian government to impliment a national health care system. He did this because his Christian sense of social compassion led him to do so.

I believe God wants us to do what's right for all of us...not just those of us who can afford it.

What is scriptures position? It in no way promotes social compassion by the state at the expense of stealing from others. Private social compassion is the Biblical manor. In fact Paul commends some of the churches for giving offerings to him to give to those hurting in Jerusalem.

[Felicity]

You can't vote , right? :toofunny

I love you Sister Felicity...but lets take another look at Romney shall we? Thank you :) .... but I'd have to read all those articles for myself and check for bias and agenda and consider the author's own political stance. Context has to be taken into consideration as well.

Besides, I doubt McCain is a whole lot different. If you take the U.S. Constitution and democracy seriously then you have to extend equal right for all citizens regardless of their morals otherwise you get in trouble with the whole "discrimination" thing.

It's a mess.

And no, I can't vote. :)

[OP_Carl]

So in closing...you're already paying a "hidden tax" that cares for the uninsured. Also you're paying more in premiums and over all costs and co-pays than you would in taxes if we moved to a national health insurance program. And as the cost of health care in the US continues to rise this becomes even more relevant. That's why it's becoming more and more of an issue.

We cannot afford the underfunded and un-funded mandates for the social programs we have now, and your solution is to SPEND MORE MONEY? You do know where they get the money for this stuff, right? They take it from people who work at jobs and feed their families, and when that's not enough, they print it off of presses just like it was Monopoly money.

If you were to use the same tactics to fund your health insurance on a local, microeconomic level, you'd go to jail. Specifically, walking over to your neighbor's house with a gun and confiscating a sum of money for your insurance premium and "administrative overhead." But having a law passed so that a police officer and an IRS agent do your dirty work for you, now somehow that's ethical????

Your faith in the efficiency and benevolence of government bureaucracy is both quaint and horrifying at the same time.

[ReformedDave]

We cannot afford the underfunded and un-funded mandates for the social programs we have now, and your solution is to SPEND MORE MONEY? You do know where they get the money for this stuff, right? They take it from people who work at jobs and feed their families, and when that's not enough, they print it off of presses just like it was Monopoly money.

If you were to use the same tactics to fund your health insurance on a local, microeconomic level, you'd go to jail. Specifically, walking over to your neighbor's house with a gun and confiscating a sum of money for your insurance premium and "administrative overhead." But having a law passed so that a police officer and an IRS agent do your dirty work for you, now somehow that's ethical????

Your faith in the efficiency and benevolence of government bureaucracy is both quaint and horrifying at the same time.

Fantastic post.

[ChristopherHall]

I'm a "facist"? Your ignorance is showing. It's the big government liberals who are closer to their facist's forefathers.

You stated that you believed that doctors who perform abortions and women who procure them should be penalized for murder as the Bible would require. That means execution.

Would you support the execution of homosexuals and others too? Your statement implies that you would.

And for the record...I called Dominionists dedicated to imposing right wing religious law on our country facists...not you personally.

BTW, I believe the world will be won from the bottom up and not by legislation. I don't believe that American is or was a Christian nation. But I do believe that Scripture demands that we ascribe to God what is rightfully His and to do less is sin. We're to think His thoughts after Him and bring ALL thoughts captive.

We are strangers and pilgrims down here. We're not called to take over and rule by religious law.

The truth be known all political theory has religious underpinnings. Even secularism. The key is to have a theory(religion) that is not arbitrary, inconsistent, and can provide the preconditions for understanding what is reality, what is right, and how do I know what I know. On your worldview you can't answer these questions with being arbitrary and inconsistent.

I agree somewhat. Political philosophies will always serve as vehicles to express values deeply rooted in religious convictions.

Scripture shows that all areas of society have their place and boundries and they are not to overlap. Civil government in the USA has overlapped the family, church, and the individual. It is our messiah and savior.

Scripture is rather interesting on the issue. I've spoken to a Rabbi about Israel, which is socialist by the way, and how their rabbis pushed for national health care based on Torah principles. The Law of Moses requires that if anyone be in need the nation isn't to withdraw their hand from them. The entire nation is called upon to assist those in need. There are even laws requiring land owners to allow the poor, fatherless, widows, and the needy to glean their crops. These laws are essentially foundational early distributist thought as found in Scripture. The principle at work was that all shared a burden for eachother in the society. In ancient Israel a land owner who refused to allow the poor to glean from their crop was to be called into the gates before the magiestrate. However, as we see in the book of Amos and others land owners often made deals with magistrates and denied what God calls, "the right of the poor". God even prounounced strong judgment against the nation for doing this.

Many who believe in more progressive politics pull from the OT sense of social justice and equity in their political worldview. The principles underlining things such and gleaning and the poor tithe teach us that the basic necessities of survival were to be shared by the nation...not horded by the wealthy.

[ChristopherHall]

What is scriptures position? It in no way promotes social compassion by the state at the expense of stealing from others. Private social compassion is the Biblical manor. In fact Paul commends some of the churches for giving offerings to him to give to those hurting in Jerusalem.

Did Biblical Civil Law require land owners to allow those in need to glean and pick from the edges of crops? Was this not called the "right of the poor" in ancient Israel? Israel was a theocratic state...the Temple was part of the government and the prophets even served in the royal courts. The poor tithe was essentially a third year's tithe (tax) that was distributed to the poor. Government was seen as an institution ordained of God to protect and distribute justice, both judicial and social. Dave, here's an exerpt from a dictionary article illustrating my point:

Justice as defined in the Bible
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T3548

Justice in the Bible very frequently also deals with benefits. Cultures differ widely in determining the basis by which the benefits are to be justly distributed. For some it is by birth and nobility. For others the basis is might or ability or merit. Or it might simply be whatever is the law or whatever has been established by contracts. The Bible takes another possibility. Benefits are distributed according to need. Justice then is very close to love and grace. God “executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and… loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:18, NRSV; compare Hosea 10:12; Isaiah 30:18).

Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens (also called “sojourners” or “strangers”), wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick (Job 29:12-17; Psalms 146:7-9; Malachi 3:5). Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression (Micah 2:2; Ecclesiastes 4:1). To oppress is to use power for one's own advantage in depriving others of their basic rights in the community (see Mark 12:40). To do justice is to correct that abuse and to meet those needs (Isaiah 1:17). Injustice is depriving others of their basic needs or failing to correct matters when those rights are not met (Jeremiah 5:28; Job 29:12-17). Injustice is either a sin of commission or of omission.

The content of justice, the benefits which are to be distributed as basic rights in the community, can be identified by observing what is at stake in the passages in which “justice,” “righteousness,” and “judgment” occur. The needs which are met include land (Ezekiel 45:6-9; compare Micah 2:2; Micah 4:4) and the means to produce from the land, such as draft animals and millstones (Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Deuteronomy 24:6). These productive concerns are basic to securing other essential needs and thus avoiding dependency; thus the millstone is called the “life” of the person (Deuteronomy 24:6). Other needs are those essential for mere physical existence and well being: food (Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalms 146:7), clothing (Deuteronomy 24:13), and shelter (Psalms 68:6; Job 8:6). Job 22:5-9,Job 22:23; Job 24:1-12 decries the injustice of depriving people of each one of these needs, which are material and economic. The equal protection of each person in civil and judicial procedures is represented in the demand for due process (Deuteronomy 16:18-20). Freedom from bondage is comparable to not being “in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything” (Deuteronomy 28:48 NRSV).

Justice presupposes God's intention for people to be in community. When people had become poor and weak with respect to the rest of the community, they were to be strengthened so that they could continue to be effective members of the community—living with them and beside them (Leviticus 25:35-36). Thus biblical justice restores people to community. By justice those who lacked the power and resources to participate in significant aspects of the community were to be strengthened so that they could. This concern in Leviticus 25:1 is illustrated by the provision of the year of Jubilee, in which at the end of the fifty year period land is restored to those who had lost it through sale or foreclosure of debts (Leviticus 25:28). Thus they regained economic power and were brought back into the economic community. Similarly, interest on loans was prohibited (Leviticus 25:36) as a process which pulled people down, endangering their position in the community.

These legal provisions express a further characteristic of justice. Justice delivers; it does not merely relieve the immediate needs of those in dire straits (Psalms 76:9; Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 58:11; Isaiah 62:1-2). Helping the needy means setting them back on their feet, giving a home, leading to prosperity, restoration, ending the oppression (Psalms 68:5-10; Psalms 10:15-16; compare 107; Psalms 113:7-9). Such thorough justice can be socially disruptive. In the Jubilee year as some receive back lands, others lose recently-acquired additional land. The advantage to some is a disadvantage to others. In some cases the two aspects of justice come together. In the act of restoration, those who were victims of justice receive benefits while their exploiters are punished (1 Samuel 2:7-10; compare Luke 1:51-53; Luke 6:20-26).

The source of justice As the sovereign Creator of the universe, God is just (Psalms 99:1-4; Genesis 18:25; Deuteronomy 32:4; Jeremiah 9:24), particularly as the defender of all the oppressed of the earth (Psalms 76:9; Psalms 103:6; Jeremiah 49:11). Justice thus is universal (Psalms 9:7-9) and applies to each covenant or dispensation. Jesus affirmed for His day the centrality of the Old Testament demand for justice (Matthew 23:23). Justice is the work of the New Testament people of God (James 1:27).

God's justice is not a distant external standard. It is the source of all human justice (Proverbs 29:26; 2 Chronicles 19:6,2 Chronicles 19:9). Justice is grace received and grace shared (2 Corinthians 9:8-10).

The most prominent human agent of justice is the ruler. The king receives God's justice and is a channel for it (Psalms 72:1; compare Romans 13:1-2,Romans 13:4). There is not a distinction between a personal, voluntary justice and a legal, public justice. The same caring for the needy groups of the society is demanded of the ruler (Psalms 72:4; Ezekiel 34:4; Jeremiah 22:15-16). Such justice was also required of pagan rulers (Daniel 4:27; Proverbs 31:8-9).


You can't pick and choose what Biblical principles to uphold and which not to.

[scotty]

An average of 18,000 people die every year in America because they cannot afford life saving medical treatments. Do you think God approves of that?



If He didn't , it wouldn't happen. Kinda like the saying " If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise"

doesn't really matter what the creek does now does it?

[ReformedDave]

You stated that you believed that doctors who perform abortions and women who procure them should be penalized for murder as the Bible would require. That means execution.

Would you support the execution of homosexuals and others too? Your statement implies that you would.

And for the record...I called Dominionists dedicated to imposing right wing religious law on our country facists...not you personally.



We are strangers and pilgrims down here. We're not called to take over and rule by religious law.



I agree somewhat. Political philosophies will always serve as vehicles to express values deeply rooted in religious convictions.



Scripture is rather interesting on the issue. I've spoken to a Rabbi about Israel, which is socialist by the way, and how their rabbis pushed for national health care based on Torah principles. The Law of Moses requires that if anyone be in need the nation isn't to withdraw their hand from them. The entire nation is called upon to assist those in need. There are even laws requiring land owners to allow the poor, fatherless, widows, and the needy to glean their crops. These laws are essentially foundational early distributist thought as found in Scripture. The principle at work was that all shared a burden for eachother in the society. In ancient Israel a land owner who refused to allow the poor to glean from their crop was to be called into the gates before the magiestrate. However, as we see in the book of Amos and others land owners often made deals with magistrates and denied what God calls, "the right of the poor". God even prounounced strong judgment against the nation for doing this.

Many who believe in more progressive politics pull from the OT sense of social justice and equity in their political worldview. The principles underlining things such and gleaning and the poor tithe teach us that the basic necessities of survival were to be shared by the nation...not horded by the wealthy.

I would ascribe to the death penalty as dictated by scripture. What is your problem with it?

You said "We are strangers and pilgrims down here. We're not called to take over and rule by religious law." So you want to better society by your wisdom and reject Scripture's teaching on the matter? Don't forget the dominion mandate and also the command to make disciples. BTW, You ignored what I said. I said that we're to change our society from the bottom up. It comes by regeneration.

The Bible didn't give government the arbitrary right to forcibly take as much as they want from the wealthy and give it to the poor. Limits were set. And as to your rabbi friend, he disregards the New Testament I presume. Christ had much to say that help explain the Old Testament law and it's application.

[ReformedDave]

Did Biblical Civil Law require land owners to allow those in need to glean and pick from the edges of crops? Was this not called the "right of the poor" in ancient Israel? Israel was a theocratic state...the Temple was part of the government and the prophets even served in the royal courts. The poor tithe was essentially a third year's tithe (tax) that was distributed to the poor. Government was seen as an institution ordained of God to protect and distribute justice, both judicial and social. Dave, here's an exerpt from a dictionary article illustrating my point:

Justice as defined in the Bible
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T3548



You can't pick and choose what Biblical principles to uphold and which not to.

This is a hermanutical principle. Some aspects of the law were fulled by Christ, i:e- the ceremonial law, and some were changed. Under the Old Testament law there were strict limits put on the different areas of society and the civil government could not arbitrarily choose how much, who, and what to tax.

[ChristopherHall]

We cannot afford the underfunded and un-funded mandates for the social programs we have now, and your solution is to SPEND MORE MONEY? You do know where they get the money for this stuff, right? They take it from people who work at jobs and feed their families, and when that's not enough, they print it off of presses just like it was Monopoly money.

Wrong. Funding for Medicare and Medicaid would be transfered into a national health insurance program funding the program nearly 60%. Taxes needed to pay for the rest of the program would be less than your insurance primium. For example, right now in the private market my insurance primum is $365 a month. The only increase in my taxes to sustain the system would be $110 a month. Please note...with a national health insurance system my primiums as paid now would go away. I would actually walk away with $255 extra dollars in my pocket every month! I'd keep more of my money in a national health insurance program.

If you were to use the same tactics to fund your health insurance on a local, microeconomic level, you'd go to jail. Specifically, walking over to your neighbor's house with a gun and confiscating a sum of money for your insurance premium and "administrative overhead." But having a law passed so that a police officer and an IRS agent do your dirty work for you, now somehow that's ethical????

Baloney. How is it ethical to use tax dollars for anything then? Someone will always wish not to have their tax dollars spent on something. I guess everyone's being robbed. Maybe we should shut down the government and become an anarchy. Get realistic here bro. We're talking about Health Insurance. It's not like a car or computer. It's health. Do sick people have a basic human right to health care that can save their lives. Last year an estimated 18,000 Americans died because they couldn't afford health insurance. What was their only crime? Being poor.

[quote]Your faith in the efficiency and benevolence of government bureaucracy is both quaint and horrifying at the same time.

Would you like to visit a Canadian forum and talk with some Canadians about this with me?

[ChristopherHall]

I would ascribe to the death penalty as dictated by scripture. What is your problem with it?

You said "We are strangers and pilgrims down here. We're not called to take over and rule by religious law." So you want to better society by your wisdom and reject Scripture's teaching on the matter? Don't forget the dominion mandate and also the command to make disciples. BTW, You ignored what I said. I said that we're to change our society from the bottom up. It comes by regeneration.

The Bible didn't give government the arbitrary right to forcibly take as much as they want from the wealthy and give it to the poor. Limits were set. And as to your rabbi friend, he disregards the New Testament I presume. Christ had much to say that help explain the Old Testament law and it's application.

There you have it folks. Dave reveals that he would execute sinners in the United States. Dave....I know you can't see it bro. But hate filled people like you who would execute sinners is a growing problem in this country. You're distablizing our nation like the Taliban distablized Afghanistan. Hey Dave...I assume you're so holy you feel you'd have the right to pull the trigger on a homosexual?

[ReformedDave]

Wrong. Funding for Medicare and Medicaid would be transfered into a national health insurance program funding the program nearly 60%. Taxes needed to pay for the rest of the program would be less than your insurance primium. For example, right now in the private market my insurance primum is $365 a month. The only increase in my taxes to sustain the system would be $110 a month. Please note...with a national health insurance system my primiums as paid now would go away. I would actually walk away with $255 extra dollars in my pocket every month! I'd keep more of my money in a national health insurance program.

[quote]If you were to use the same tactics to fund your health insurance on a local, microeconomic level, you'd go to jail. Specifically, walking over to your neighbor's house with a gun and confiscating a sum of money for your insurance premium and "administrative overhead." But having a law passed so that a police officer and an IRS agent do your dirty work for you, now somehow that's ethical????

Baloney. How is it ethical to use tax dollars for anything then? Someone will always wish not to have their tax dollars spent on something. I guess everyone's being robbed. Maybe we should shut down the government and become an anarchy. Get realistic here bro. We're talking about Health Insurance. It's not like a car or computer. It's health. Do sick people have a basic human right to health care that can save their lives. Last year an estimated 18,000 Americans died because they couldn't afford health insurance. What was their only crime? Being poor.



Would you like to visit a Canadian forum and talk with some Canadians about this with me?

Let me get this straight. It is alright for the government to steal from me but you're not allowed to........ Or is it anything that the government says is a tax is not stealing.....

BTW, you used the term "basic human right". On who's authority can you make this claim?

[scotty]

Thank you :) .... but I'd have to read all those articles for myself and check for bias and agenda and consider the author's own political stance. Context has to be taken into consideration as well.

Besides, I doubt McCain is a whole lot different. If you take the U.S. Constitution and democracy seriously then you have to extend equal right for all citizens regardless of their morals otherwise you get in trouble with the whole "discrimination" thing.

It's a mess.

And no, I can't vote. :)

Oh he is not , don't care much for him either. Actually I really don't have alot of optimism in any of them from any party. This is by far the worst selection of candidates I've seen. Trying to vote for the lesser of two evils would be about as accurate as flipping a coin.

Heads or Tails?!?! :2cents

[ChristopherHall]

This is a hermanutical principle. Some aspects of the law were fulled by Christ, i:e- the ceremonial law, and some were changed. Under the Old Testament law there were strict limits put on the different areas of society and the civil government could not arbitrarily choose how much, who, and what to tax.

Ceremonial laws did embody eternal truths and principles we find in the NT. Therefore while we don't obey the letter of those laws we obey the spirit of those laws. For example, we don't execute or stone sinners anymore bro. But those who continue in sin are cut off from the body, thereby issuing spiritual death.

Those Laws in the Law of Moses that embodied principles of social equity throughout a society are no longer necessary to obey literally...but their principles still come into play. If it was a principle of God's Law in which the government in Israel were to enforce equity and justice toward those in need...we do well to impliment that principle in modern politics.

[ChristopherHall]

[QUOTE=ChristopherHall;377607]Wrong. Funding for Medicare and Medicaid would be transfered into a national health insurance program funding the program nearly 60%. Taxes needed to pay for the rest of the program would be less than your insurance primium. For example, right now in the private market my insurance primum is $365 a month. The only increase in my taxes to sustain the system would be $110 a month. Please note...with a national health insurance system my primiums as paid now would go away. I would actually walk away with $255 extra dollars in my pocket every month! I'd keep more of my money in a national health insurance program.



Let me get this straight. It is alright for the government to steal from me but you're not allowed to........ Or is it anything that the government says is a tax is not stealing.....

BTW, you used the term "basic human right". On who's authority can you make this claim?

The moral implications of this question will prove rather I'm right or wrong. Let's assume a loving mother of three has cancer but she has no health insurance. Does she have a basic human right to treatments that can save her life without rendering her economically bankrupt and destitute? Yes or no?

[ReformedDave]

Ceremonial laws did embody eternal truths and principles we find in the NT. Therefore while we don't obey the letter of those laws we obey the spirit of those laws. For example, we don't execute or stone sinners anymore bro. But those who continue in sin are cut off from the body, thereby issuing spiritual death.

Those Laws in the Law of Moses that embodied principles of social equity throughout a society are no longer necessary to obey literally...but their principles still come into play. If it was a principle of God's Law in which the government in Israel were to enforce equity and justice toward those in need...we do well to impliment that principle in modern politics.

We don't literally implement the ten commandments? There are many New Testament quotes where OT commandments were stated as binding.

Execution? Paul seems to think we do.

[ReformedDave]

[QUOTE=ReformedDave;377614]

The moral implications of this question will prove rather I'm right or wrong. Let's assume a loving mother of three has cancer but she has no health insurance. Does she have a basic human right to treatments that can save her life?

On what authority? Can you provide one that is not inconsistent and arbitrary.

[scotty]

There you have it folks. Dave reveals that he would execute sinners in the United States. Dave....I know you can't see it bro. But hate filled people like you who would execute sinners is a growing problem in this country. You're distablizing our nation like the Taliban distablized Afghanistan. Hey Dave...I assume you're so holy you feel you'd have the right to pull the trigger on a homosexual?

Acts 5; 4-10

4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

Was Peter hate filled, or maybe it was God

[ChristopherHall]

Let me get this straight. It is alright for the government to steal from me but you're not allowed to........ Or is it anything that the government says is a tax is not stealing.....


Paul wrote in Romans 13 that we are to pay our taxes. Paul teaches us that government is an institution ordained by God to serve the people.

I see taxes as "citizenship fees". There are certain benefits with citizenship and these fees cover these benefits. If you don't want to pay the fee...you don't want to be a member. If you don't want to be a member...move to some other country.

[ChristopherHall]

Acts 5; 4-10

4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

Was Peter hate filled, or maybe it was God

Are you saying Peter executed Ananias and his wife? God can choose to judge whom he will. This doesn't give us the right to play God walking around executing sinners.

[ChristopherHall]

Wow. Demons are coming out of the wood work now. LOL Oh well...let Hell rage.

[ReformedDave]

CH, you said "There you have it folks. Dave reveals that he would execute sinners in the United States. Dave....I know you can't see it bro. But hate filled people like you who would execute sinners is a growing problem in this country. You're distablizing our nation like the Taliban distablized Afghanistan. Hey Dave...I assume you're so holy you feel you'd have the right to pull the trigger on a homosexual?"

You have a problem with the God of the Bible? I think I'll try to live by His precepts and not by some ever changing system as yours.

[ChristopherHall]

Gentlemen you're revealing your spirits....

"52And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
53And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." - Luke 9:52-55

In your right wing ferver you're loosing your Christianity. Come back to sanity and compassion.

[ReformedDave]

Paul wrote in Romans 13 that we are to pay our taxes. Paul teaches us that government is an institution ordained by God to serve the people.

I see taxes as "citizenship fees". There are certain benefits with citizenship and these fees cover these benefits. If you don't want to pay the fee...you don't want to be a member. If you don't want to be a member...move to some other country.

Paul also says that they are to be ministers of justice and to bear the sword.....

Again, proper Biblical taxation is no problem.....Oh! I forgot. You don't like the Bible....at least certain parts.

[ChristopherHall]

CH, you said "There you have it folks. Dave reveals that he would execute sinners in the United States. Dave....I know you can't see it bro. But hate filled people like you who would execute sinners is a growing problem in this country. You're distablizing our nation like the Taliban distablized Afghanistan. Hey Dave...I assume you're so holy you feel you'd have the right to pull the trigger on a homosexual?"

You have a problem with the God of the Bible? I think I'll try to live by His precepts and not by some ever changing system as yours.

Hmmm....let him without sin pronounce the first execution.

[ChristopherHall]

Paul also says that they are to be ministers of justice and to bear the sword.....

Again, proper Biblical taxation is no problem.....Oh! I forgot. You don't like the Bible....at least certain parts.

Biblical taxes like the poor tax? Biblical social benefits like gleaning?

[ReformedDave]

Biblical taxes like the poor tax? Biblical social benefits like gleaning?

As long as it's Biblical I have no problem.

[ChristopherHall]

Paul also says that they are to be ministers of justice and to bear the sword......

Even more interesting is that Paul was defending the Roman Government's right to tax and use the sword. However, history will show that early Christians serving in Roman military and government were executed because they refused to draw blood.

[scotty]

Are you saying Peter executed Ananias and his wife? God can choose to judge whom he will. This doesn't give us the right to play God walking around executing sinners.

Now you went from talking to us in the literal sense to the spiritual sense, ..brother you can't have it both ways, The conversation was based around the fact that if there was more of God in our government there would be less problems. I believe without a doubt that people die from that very judgement. God has done so many times. Today is no different.

And the demon comment was uncalled for I believe. But I forgive you.

[ReformedDave]

Hmmm....let him without sin pronounce the first execution.

The Bible states that this is the government's job and the rules are laid down in Scripture.

[ChristopherHall]

As long as it's Biblical I have no problem.

Dave...you've advocated executing sinners in the United States. Bro...I'll be honest here...I think you're more dangerous to my children than some daisey sniffy homo.

[ReformedDave]

Even more interesting is that Paul was defending the Roman Government's right to tax and use the sword. However, history will show that early Christians serving in Roman military and government were executed because they refused to draw blood.

What God wrote and what many did are sometimes 2 different things. Some were also monastic.

[ChristopherHall]

The Bible states that this is the government's job and the rules are laid down in Scripture.

Dave...those were the Laws laid down in ancient Israel. Paul didn't endorce overthrowing Rome and instituting Biblical Law as you are in regards to the United States.

[ChristopherHall]

Felicity...

This is what Christian Americans are up against in the US. We've been hijacked by religious extremists who cloak their efforts to subvert the Constitution with mock patriotism and a extreme interpretation of the Bible they claim is biblical. They are to Christianity what Wahabbists are to Islam.

[scotty]

Gentlemen you're revealing your spirits....

"52And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
53And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." - Luke 9:52-55

In your right wing ferver you're loosing your Christianity. Come back to sanity and compassion.

Luke 9:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=9&verse=5&version=9&context=verse)
And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them

[ChristopherHall]

What God wrote and what many did are sometimes 2 different things. Some were also monastic.

Give me one biblical example of a Christian using the sword to execute sinners. Just one.

[ChristopherHall]

Luke 9:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=9&verse=5&version=9&context=verse)
And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them

Scotty...you're so blind. I'm not your enemy. I'm advocating social compassion, that's all. Dave and you are advocating executing people. If Dave had his way, trust me, eventually even you would sin and find Dave's guns turned on you. And in that moment...I'd still be advocating compassion...but toward you.

[scotty]

Felicity...

This is what Christian Americans are up against in the US. We've been hijacked by religious extremists who cloak their efforts to subvert the Constitution with mock patriotism and a extreme interpretation of the Bible they claim is biblical. They are to Christianity what Wahabbists are to Islam.

After the immorality you promote in this thread it is easy to see why the term "christian" has lost its power and separation.

[scotty]

Scotty...you're so blind. I'm not your enemy. I'm advocating social compassion, that's all. Dave and you are advocating executing people.

executing?!?! Not hardly , but neither will I advocate acceptance, or even worse would I advocate to have the solution with out God involvement. That is what scares me about your approach, you are advocating "man can fix it himself, ie; you .

[ChristopherHall]

After the immorality you promote in this thread it is easy to see why the term "christian" has lost its power and separation.

I've not promoted immorality.

In regards to abortion I've promoted addressing the issues women face and reducing the abortion rate. Once abortion rates are low enough to be rather insignificant banning abortion will be the next logical step and far more probable. You guys want to ban abortion and execute women and doctors.

In regards to gay rights, I've only stated that they are private individuals, and while it makes me sick that they do what they do, it's a free country and their private arrangements are their own. You guys want to criminalize private behavior and contracts and execute homosexuals.

I believe we in the United States are falling behind the Westernized world when it comes to health care and that we can do what other nations have done even better and cover all Americans. You guys don't care if an estimated 18,000 Americans die from treatable disease every year in the US only because they cannot afford health insurance.

[ChristopherHall]

executing?!?! Not hardly , but neither will I advocate acceptance, or even worse would I advocate to have the solution with out God involvement. That is what scares me about your approach, you are advocating "man can fix it himself, ie; you .

You're reading into what I'm saying. I've prayed about it and sincerely feel God desires that we do something as a nation to cover all Americans in regards to health care. God isn't pleased with all the people who have died simply because they couldn't afford treatments or their insurance denied them coverage. Much prayer has gone into my position on this. When I was in Canada and had some eye opening experiences I sat on a dock in Ontario searching my heart as to where I stood on the issue. I asked, "Jesus, would you want every American to receive health care? Would you be pleased if we as a nation united to care for eachother in this way?" I felt in the Holy Ghost a simple, "Yes." I know a doctor who works at Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton Ohio who is a faithful Christian who does a lot of charity work. He was explaining to me how they aren't even making a dint in the problem. He said point blank, "Chris, I support a national health insurance program BECAUSE I'm a Christian."

Tommy Douglas of Canada advocated for a national health care initiative. He was a Baptist minister and it was his Christian faith that drew him to do so.

Brother...you're trying to justify the unjustifiable by reading into what I'm sayng. Bro....you're Social Darwinist, Right Wing Extremism, isn't compatible with Christianity.

[scotty]

I've not promoted immorality.

In regards to abortion I've promoted addressing the issues women face and reducing the abortion rate. Once abortion rates are low enough to be rather insignificant banning about will be the next logical step. You guys want to ban abortion and execute women and doctors.

In regards to gay rights, I've only stated that they are private individuals, and while it makes me sick that they do what they do, it's a free country and their private arrangements are their own. You guys want to criminalize private behavior and contracts and execute homosexuals.

I believe we in the United States are falling behind the Westernized world when it comes to health care and that we can do what other nations have done even better and cover all Americans. You guys don't care if an estimated 18,000 Americans die from treatable disease every year in the US only because they cannot afford health insurance.


Geesh Bro. Hall don't you get it. why can't they afford health insurance? Cause the price is too high?
Why is the price too high?
Because there are crooked people in every chain of the system.
The wages of sin is death, like it or not.
You believe the answer is to keep feeding a corrupt system.
We believe the answer is to impose the conviction of God on the system as best we can.

You yourself said the system is broke, so why keep playing a losing game?

[scotty]

You're reading into what I'm saying. I've prayed about it and sincerely feel God desires that we do something as a nation to cover all Americans in regards to health care. God isn't pleased with all the people who have died simply because they couldn't afford treatments or their insurance denied them coverage. Much prayer has gone into my position on this. When I was in Canada and had some eye opening experiences I sat on a dock in Ontario searching my heart as to where I stood on the issue. I asked, "Jesus, would you want every American to receive health care? Would you be pleased if we as a nation united to care for eachother in this way?" I felt in the Holy Ghost a simple, "Yes." I know a doctor who works at Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton Ohio who is a faithful Christian who does a lot of charity work. He was explaining to me how they aren't even making a dint in the problem. He said point blank, "Chris, I support a national health insurance program BECAUSE I'm a Christian."

Tommy Douglas of Canada advocated for a national health care initiative. He was a Baptist minister and it was his Christian faith that drew him to do so.

Brother...you're trying to justify the unjustifiable by reading into what I'm sayng. Bro....you're Social Darwinist, Right Wing Extremism, isn't compatible with Christianity.


Why feed a lying, currupt beast though.?

Ok, you want to fix it? Why not advocate that we do something about the greedy pharmacies to bring the prices down ? Why not advocate that we do something about the greedy lawyers waiting outside hospitals and doctors offices for a chance at a frevilous lawsuit. Not to mention the greedy people who take them up on it.?

You remember the tobbaco settlements? How all that millions was going to cancer victims, hospitals, anti-smoking etc. Then a year or so later it came out that all the states had spent the money because their local governments were "broke" (what ever)

You talked at the beginning of this thread about addressing the root of the problem. Well there is the root of the problem. Its can't be solved by feeding the greed even more.

[ChristopherHall]

Geesh Bro. Hall don't you get it. why can't they afford health insurance? Cause the price is too high?
Why is the price too high?
Because there are crooked people in every chain of the system.
The wages of sin is death, like it or not.
You believe the answer is to keep feeding a corrupt system.
We believe the answer is to impose the conviction of God on the system as best we can.

You yourself said the system is broke, so why keep playing a losing game?

Look at the following list showing where the United States ranks globally in regards to it's health care system,

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia



You mean to tell me that you believe that America can't pull off what all the countries ahead of us have pulled off and do it better??????

France came in #1. Interestingly their running 13 billion dollar defecits in their system...but it's still cheaper than the private system here in the United States where we spend at least 16% more on health care costs than they do. I guess according to you we're the Western world's biggest loosers, should throw our hands up in the air, and walk away. Get real bro.

I'm saying I know we can do better. But it's going to also take Christians jumping into the frey and advocating for the helpless and those in need because BIG money powers want to maintain their strangle hold on Americas health care system. If you want to fight the "greed"....consider that Dr. William McGuire (CEO of United Health Care) made out with over 1.7 BILLLION dollars in stock options....while an estimated 18,000 Americans died that year because they couldn't afford health insurance.

[ChristopherHall]

Geesh Bro. Hall don't you get it. why can't they afford health insurance? Cause the price is too high?
Why is the price too high?
Because there are crooked people in every chain of the system.
The wages of sin is death, like it or not.
You believe the answer is to keep feeding a corrupt system.
We believe the answer is to impose the conviction of God on the system as best we can.

You yourself said the system is broke, so why keep playing a losing game?

Also consider this...our system is private. Many agencies are privately traded. A public system would be transparent. No system is perfect. But if it could save a number of the 18,000 Americans who die every year because they couldn't afford treatments I'd call it an improvement. If I'm going to tolerate a corrupt system, at least let it deliver.

Have you ever spent time in Canada or France?

[ChristopherHall]

Scotty, you've been pistol whipped by right wing extremists for so long you've not even considered that they might be wrong on this issue. I've been in other countries personally and bro...I came back to the US and was ashamed. I have two friends at Church from Italy and they are amazed at how bad America has gotten. They've talked about going back to Europe. I asked them, "So what do you like about the US in relation to Europe?" He laughed and danced around it, but he finally said, "I'm thankful that my wife found Jesus in the US, but other than that the US has little to offer." He talked about how safe the streets were in Italy. I asked him about health care in Europe and he said, "Americans are too full of pride to listen to anyone who might help them."

The man's right bro. Spend time overseas and I assure you when you come back to the US you'll be shocked at what we tolerate.

[ChristopherHall]

Felicity...you still there Sis?

[scotty]

Look at the following list showing where the United States ranks globally in regards to it's health care system,



You mean to tell me that you believe that America can't pull off what all the countries ahead of us have pulled off and do it better??????

France came in #1. Interestingly their running 13 billion dollar defecits in their system...but it's still cheaper than the private system here in the United States where we spend at least 16% more on health care costs than they do. I guess according to you we're the Western world's biggest loosers, should throw our hands up in the air, and walk away. Get real bro.

I'm saying I know we can do better. But it's going to also take Christians jumping into the frey and advocating for the helpless and those in need because BIG money powers want to maintain their strangle hold on Americas health care system. If you want to fight the "greed"....consider that Dr. William McGuire (CEO of United Health Care) made out with over 1.7 BILLLION dollars in stock options....while an estimated 18,000 Americans died that year because they couldn't afford health insurance.


Why feed a lying, currupt beast though.?

Ok, you want to fix it? Why not advocate that we do something about the greedy pharmacies to bring the prices down ? Why not advocate that we do something about the greedy lawyers waiting outside hospitals and doctors offices for a chance at a frevilous lawsuit. Not to mention the greedy people who take them up on it.?

You remember the tobbaco settlements? How all that millions was going to cancer victims, hospitals, anti-smoking etc. Then a year or so later it came out that all the states had spent the money because their local governments were "broke" (what ever)

You talked at the beginning of this thread about addressing the root of the problem. Well there is the root of the problem. Its can't be solved by feeding the greed even more.

[scotty]

Also consider this...our system is private. Many agencies are privately traded. A public system would be transparent. No system is perfect. But if it could save a number of the 18,000 Americans who die every year because they couldn't afford treatments I'd call it an improvement. If I'm going to tolerate a corrupt system, at least let it deliver.

Have you ever spent time in Canada or France?


Why feed a lying, currupt beast though.?

Ok, you want to fix it? Why not advocate that we do something about the greedy pharmacies to bring the prices down ? Why not advocate that we do something about the greedy lawyers waiting outside hospitals and doctors offices for a chance at a frevilous lawsuit. Not to mention the greedy people who take them up on it.?

You remember the tobbaco settlements? How all that millions was going to cancer victims, hospitals, anti-smoking etc. Then a year or so later it came out that all the states had spent the money because their local governments were "broke" (what ever)

You talked at the beginning of this thread about addressing the root of the problem. Well there is the root of the problem. Its can't be solved by feeding the greed even more.

[scotty]

I may have a problem with that list, there sure are alot of countries on that list that solicit Christian donations do to lack of health care. Another research item for you, out beside each country maybe you could list the amount of financial and other aid that the US gives to these countries every year hummmmm???

What could our country accomplish if started keeping that money? But then would you complain because stopped helping them?


The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
Source: WHO World Health Report -

Do you really see the source of this information as being non-bias?
An org. that wants to see America join the One World in its org. ?

What is the difference between the capitalist money/power hungry and the political money/power hungry?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoFuzn-Vy8w

[ChristopherHall]

Why feed a lying, currupt beast though.?

Ok, you want to fix it? Why not advocate that we do something about the greedy pharmacies to bring the prices down ? Why not advocate that we do something about the greedy lawyers waiting outside hospitals and doctors offices for a chance at a frevilous lawsuit. Not to mention the greedy people who take them up on it.?

The only way to bring costs down will be to intruduce outside competition. If we had an optional national health insurance program all Americans would be covered. As explained that will bring down the cost of health care because doctors will not be passing loss on to everyone else. With the public system being cheaper than the private insurance system the private insurance companies would have to bring their prices down to compete. Right now their is collusion going on between this massive companies where they secure eachother's interests and keep prices inflated so they can maintain their prophets. A national system would bring a competitive component to the system that would bring a balance.

France was #1. To the shagrin of the Canadians, the French system is a system like what Hillary is promoting, a government/private combination. This has worked to keep costs far lower in France than what we see in the US.

Also...in France doctors don't have to worry so much about malpractice insurance. The American malpractice litigation system is a mess, a nightmare for doctors. What's interesting is that we see people coming to the US to learn medicine and then leave the US to practice medicine. Doctors in the US have too much paperwork (thanks to the private insurance companies). They also have too many legal expenses. In France they have a sensible cap on malpractice rewards. This keeps the cost down and protects doctors. So yes...even a national system based on the European system would resolve the malpractice insanity.

You remember the tobbaco settlements? How all that millions was going to cancer victims, hospitals, anti-smoking etc. Then a year or so later it came out that all the states had spent the money because their local governments were "broke" (what ever)

The states are broke. I work for the government and let me tell you what's happened here. The Fed used to give us block grants and funding for various initiatives. The Bush administration cut a number of those block grands and funding initiatives. However, the Bush administration passed more laws we're required to abide by. So we have tons of unfunded mandates. We've had to raise local property taxes and sales taxes in various areas to make up for the difference and we're still in the red. Why did Bush cut funding? To give massive tax breaks to this billion dollar companies that helped him with the election. They also closed a number of middle class tax shelters and expanded shelters for those making over $200,000 a year. They shifted the tax burden to the Middle class and left the states with unfunded mandates. It's a real mess bro. Of course when the settlements came down we were already marching into the red.

You talked at the beginning of this thread about addressing the root of the problem. Well there is the root of the problem. Its can't be solved by feeding the greed even more.

Like I already said....Dr. William McGuire (CEO of United Health Care) walked away with 1.7 billion dollars in stock options....the same year nearly 18,000 Americans died because they were too poor to afford medical treatments and procedures that might have saved their lives.

[ChristopherHall]

You're an anarchist's dream bro. It was argued that government regulations in the banking and mortgage loan industry was the problem. So they deregulated the industry and expanded variable rate home loans. Well....now we see what the government was protecting us from. Get real bro. Government isn't the problem....lawless, exploitive, people who feel they don't have to obey the law are the problem.

Here's an idea...if you think government is the problem take care of your own sewage, don't call the police if you get into trouble, also if your house catches fire...don't call the local municipal fire department. Hey, since states require a driver's license just stop driving. Or...move to a place where you can get away from this American government you hate so much.

I mentioned how my wife and I visit Canada every year. Here's a clip on YouTube about a Canadian waiting room that I found entertaining....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ1lPPTPSR4

[OP_Carl]

Wrong. Funding for Medicare and Medicaid would be transfered into a national health insurance program funding the program nearly 60%. Taxes needed to pay for the rest of the program . . . These programs, and many of the state programs like them, are all cut of the same cloth. They are compulsory wealth transfers from the prepared to the unprepared. Where is the compassion in that? It actually detracts from compassion on a local neighborhood level, as people consider that their neighbor's problems are being handled by a myriad of government programs. Charity is done on an individual basis, and from a cheerful heart.

The U.S. government has a right to raise taxes to defend the shores and provide a common currency. All the rest of this mess, most of it slipping in under the much-abused "interstate commerce clause," is extraneous to the constitutional mandate for the federal government. But now all these poor sods are conditioned to receive their handouts, and are actually in worse shape than if we'd left them to sort out their own problems. It's a massive vote-buying scheme disguised as Christian charity, or civic-mindedness, or whatever, and apparently you've bought into it. It won't be so funny when we reach the tipping point of: less than 50% pay taxes AND more than 50% receive financial assistance from the government.

If you were to use the same tactics to fund your health insurance on a local, microeconomic level, you'd go to jail. Specifically, walking over to your neighbor's house with a gun and confiscating a sum of money for your insurance premium and "administrative overhead." But having a law passed so that a police officer and an IRS agent do your dirty work for you, now somehow that's ethical????

Baloney. How is it ethical to use tax dollars for anything then? Defend the shores, provide a common currency. Everything else is about currying favor with constituencies and special interest groups. And you paying for it, ya sucker you! Err, wait a minute . . . . so am I! aaaaaaaagh!

Someone will always wish not to have their tax dollars spent on something. That is true enough. Defense spending, department of energy and transportation, and other such things that benefit the citizenry as a whole are no big deal. What you are defending is the politics of personal and class envy, of confiscatory, compulsory wealth transfer. It is NOT for the common good that the man down the street with poor planning and finance abilities get a handout - it's for his good alone, and it's to the detriment of the people that pay for it. Our freedoms were based on equality of opportunity, but this socialist system attempts to guarantee equality of outcome. This defies all natural law and is nothing more than a cynical vote-buying scheme. Jesus himself said the poor we'll have with us always.


I guess everyone's being robbed. Maybe we should shut down the government and become an anarchy. Hyperbole. Wheee! what fun! hyperbole.

Get realistic here bro. We're talking about Health Insurance. It's not like a car or computer. It's health. From where do you originate a sovereign right to an insurance policy????? People that don't plan and save have suffered from the dawn of time. It's highly egotistical to think that this can be changed.

Look at our successful federal programs to end drugs and poverty . . . oops! - They've spent BILLIONS these past 40 years and the statistics have only gotten worse. How about that federal department of education? We spend more now than ever, and our students are performing more poorly than they ever have. The only thing these programs have succeeded at is building bureacracies that actively work at self-preservation and growth, like a cancer.

Do sick people have a basic human right to health care that can save their lives. Last year an estimated 18,000 Americans died because they couldn't afford health insurance. This is false. There are charity hospitals. Lack of insurance does not equal lack of treatment. The "uninsured" statistics are trumped up by the many, many people who CHOOSE NOT TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE YOUNG AND HEALTHY! Why would anybody want to subsidize the old and the sick through an insurance company, yet ANOTHER bureaucratic entity, albeit one trying to turn a profit? It used to be

It's Nixon's fault that people expect health insurance from their employers, another bad idea. All this third-party payer system has unnecessarily run up the prices.

What was their only crime? Being poor. This reminds me of that age old question, why do bad things happen to good people? I hear you about the plight of the virtuous poor, the trouble is they're scarce as hen's teeth around here. Another romantic myth bites the dust.

I believe your heart is in the right place. The trouble is that you are proposing an untenable and proven non-viable solution to a sensational, emotional problem that has been exaggerated from the word go.

Would you like to visit a Canadian forum and talk with some Canadians about this with me?
I'd feel so . . . . . . awkward. I don't speak a word of Canadian.

[scotty]

We've had to raise local property taxes and sales taxes in various areas to make up for the difference and we're still in the red. Why did Bush cut funding? To give massive tax breaks to this billion dollar companies that helped him with the election.

I can at least look at the rest of it but we will have to agree to disagree here.

This is economics one on one. Those tax breaks put more money into companies pockets (yes some did go to the big boys) Those companies reinvested that money into themselves and expanded, thus hiring more workers. My company has grown on average 38% every year for the past 4 years. That is awesome growth for an already multi-million dollar company. I myself in just the past 4 years have had 3 promotions totaling an 84% increase in pay in that same time frame. The kicker is this, Now that election year is coming up and the assumption is to have a democratic president, our company made an internal decision to limit its own growth to just 12% this year in anticipation of the tax hikes that will be coming. This will result in less spending which dampens the economy, as we are seeing. Reagan did it and Clinton inherited it, now Bush done the same thing and the Dems. will take it all back in order to pass plans to take care of others. Its not that I don't believe in what your advocating, I just don't believe in the way they want to do it. Our way may take longer, but your way will bankrupt the country AND everyone in it.

[ReformedDave]

Give me one biblical example of a Christian using the sword to execute sinners. Just one.

I love the way you misrepresent me. I never said the Christian individual is to execute. Paul said the GOVERNMENT had that responsibility. They are MINISTERS of God. If ministers, who's will and precepts are they to follow? Who appointed them? (and God wants nothing to do with government).

[ReformedDave]

Dave...those were the Laws laid down in ancient Israel. Paul didn't endorce overthrowing Rome and instituting Biblical Law as you are in regards to the United States.

CH, it is frustrating that you don't read or seem to understand what I've written.
I never advocated social uprising. I stated that the transformation is from the bottom up, by regeneration! It's all about evangelism.

I hate to say that you are blatantly misrepresenting me but come on! Read what I write if you wish to interact with me. We can disagree but let's be honest and represent the other's position accurately.

[ChristopherHall]

These programs, and many of the state programs like them, are all cut of the same cloth. They are compulsory wealth transfers from the prepared to the unprepared. Where is the compassion in that? It actually detracts from compassion on a local neighborhood level, as people consider that their neighbor's problems are being handled by a myriad of government programs. Charity is done on an individual basis, and from a cheerful heart.

I'm beginning to think you guys are brain damaged. You're already paying for the uninsured, that's why your premiums are so high. I explained this in an ealier post how this cost is passed down to YOU in higher premiums. Of course it's inflated so they can bring in a prophet. So don't argue that you're against paying for the unprepared when you're paying far more for them right now than you would be under a nationalized insurance system.

You're equating health care that could save a life to giving a bag of groceries at a charity. That's real pathetic bro. Health care for the sick and dying isn't a matter of charity it's a matter of moral mandate. Maybe you think their lives should depend on a charitable contribution here and there and if they cannot afford to complete the treatments and die it's all good. I don't. There's a story out of New Mexico about a man who needed charitable help with cancer treatments. His family were able to raise enough money for the first phase of treatments and he underwent treatment and was showing improvement. However, they couldn't raise enough money to continue the treatments and he was denied treatment on the grounds that he could not pay. He died. I guess you think that's just fine right? Fine and dandy for you. In your America if you're wealthy enough to pay for the treatments or you can afford insurance you deserve to live. If you can't...well...charity is your lot and if it isn't enough DIE! Health care is too important to be relegated to charity. Charity is a bag of groceries for a family that lost a job. Charity is putting a family up for a few nights in a hotel if their house burns down. Charity is given coats to kids during the holidays. You can't in your right mind relegate cancer treatments to charity. That's a joke, that's immoral. That's unholy. I'd go as far as to say that's unChristian.

The U.S. government has a right to raise taxes to defend the shores and provide a common currency. All the rest of this mess, most of it slipping in under the much-abused "interstate commerce clause," is extraneous to the constitutional mandate for the federal government. But now all these poor sods are conditioned to receive their handouts, and are actually in worse shape than if we'd left them to sort out their own problems. It's a massive vote-buying scheme disguised as Christian charity, or civic-mindedness, or whatever, and apparently you've bought into it. It won't be so funny when we reach the tipping point of: less than 50% pay taxes AND more than 50% receive financial assistance from the government.

Bro...you're disconnected from reality. The vast majority of people who are uninsured are considered "working poor". They work full time, often two jobs, and still can't afford health insurance. They are not sods wanting a hand out.

Defend the shores, provide a common currency. Everything else is about currying favor with constituencies and special interest groups. And you paying for it, ya sucker you! Err, wait a minute . . . . so am I! aaaaaaaagh!

Bro...my family would have been paying $365 dollars a month for the insurance we had. By the end of the year it was estimated to be raised above $380 a month. Why? Because of the drain on the system by the uninsured. Let me try to explain it to you like I did in another post....the uninsured go to the emegency room. They see a doctor for an advanced illness. They can't pay the bill. The provider takes the loss and hands it down in higher health care costs. To cover the higher costs of health care the health insurance providers increase the cost of premiums. When premiums increase in cost more people find they can't afford insurance and therefore more people end up uninsured and going to emergency rooms and the cycle repeats itself.

Now in the US we pay 16% more on health care than any other Westernized country but we're nowhere near providing the quality they provide. Up to 33% of all the money spent on health care in the US is spent on redundant administrated costs and could be eliminated by a centralized health records system.

That is true enough. Defense spending, department of energy and transportation, and other such things that benefit the citizenry as a whole are no big deal. What you are defending is the politics of personal and class envy, of confiscatory, compulsory wealth transfer. It is NOT for the common good that the man down the street with poor planning and finance abilities get a handout - it's for his good alone, and it's to the detriment of the people that pay for it. Our freedoms were based on equality of opportunity, but this socialist system attempts to guarantee equality of outcome. This defies all natural law and is nothing more than a cynical vote-buying scheme.

Dude...you're already paying for the uninsured AND it's being inflated for profits. That's why your premiums are so high.

Jesus himself said the poor we'll have with us always.

That's not meant to make us just walk away from social responsibility as a nation and a people. Since we'll always have the poor with us we all should suck it up and carry eachother through. You're a Social Darwinist. That means like Darwin you believe in the survival of the fittist. You believe that if they are poor and can't afford health care, can't get charity health care they need, it's OK that they just die. Dude....that's Satanic and just the opposite of what Jesus was trying to teach us as a people.

[ChristopherHall]

From where do you originate a sovereign right to an insurance policy????? People that don't plan and save have suffered from the dawn of time. It's highly egotistical to think that this can be changed.

Dude, do you know how expensive it is to pay for cancer treatment out of pocket? I'm so flabbergasted I'm convinced that's the dumbest assessment I've heard on this subject. We're not talking about saving up to buy a used Toyota. We're talking about health care for a family of five. Do you know how much this companies are extorting from our preachers for their health insurance? I know a pastor who pays over $700 a month for health insurance. He'd be wiped out if the church didn't help him pay for it and he was forced to work and pay for it himself like everyone else. Many ministers I know don't even have health insurance. What about their kids? I'd like to see them covered too. I know a pastor who's family was wiped out when his wife got liver disease. Was he not saving enough or planning enough. Bro...that' kind of accusation is pathetic.

Look at our successful federal programs to end drugs and poverty . . . oops! - They've spent BILLIONS these past 40 years and the statistics have only gotten worse. How about that federal department of education? We spend more now than ever, and our students are performing more poorly than they ever have. The only thing these programs have succeeded at is building bureacracies that actively work at self-preservation and growth, like a cancer.

Most countries don't focus on drugs like we do. They leave people alone as long as they aren't bothering anyone.

Welfare rolls are down to record lows right now. Unemployment is up however.

The Department of Education is suffering from a parental problem. Parents need to be more involved in their children's lives. But often it takes both parents working and sometimes if it's a single parent it takes working two jobs. Even working families have to abandon their children to work in the corporate plantation so they can afford skyrocketting costs of living and health insurance is a major cost. If you want to help kids...invest more in families not schools. Relieve families.

This is false. There are charity hospitals. Lack of insurance does not equal lack of treatment. The "uninsured" statistics are trumped up by the many, many people who CHOOSE NOT TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE YOUNG AND HEALTHY! Why would anybody want to subsidize the old and the sick through an insurance company, yet ANOTHER bureaucratic entity, albeit one trying to turn a profit? It used to be

I know of a few good charity hospitals. I also know there's a wait to get in. Yes a percentage of uninsured in America's uninsured are uninsured by choice. But when many of them are suddenly taken ill or enjured they go to the hospital and find themselves unable to pay the bill. Every year 25,000 Americans declare bankruptcy over medical bills they can't pay. Some of these are those who choose not to have insurance because they were dumb enough to gamble with their health and financial well being. While they wouldn't like it, it would be better to force them into the system. If they plan right they can afford it. Please note...when they can't pay their bills they pass the cost back down to us in higher premiums. You and I pay for them with premiums that nearly break our family budgets.

It's Nixon's fault that people expect health insurance from their employers, another bad idea. All this third-party payer system has unnecessarily run up the prices.

That's part of the problem I agree. In my opinion a single payer national health insurance system would be far better.

This reminds me of that age old question, why do bad things happen to good people? I hear you about the plight of the virtuous poor, the trouble is they're scarce as hen's teeth around here. Another romantic myth bites the dust.

Dude....wellfare rolls are down and the majority of the uninsured are working poor. What planet are you from?

I believe your heart is in the right place. The trouble is that you are proposing an untenable and proven non-viable solution to a sensational, emotional problem that has been exaggerated from the word go.

Untenable and proven non-viable solution.....

Have you been to Canada or Europe bro? I mean have you personally been in a Canadian hospital? They blow us away...and we pay 16% MORE in over all costs than these countries do.

[ReformedDave]

Scotty...you're so blind. I'm not your enemy. I'm advocating social compassion, that's all. Dave and you are advocating executing people. If Dave had his way, trust me, eventually even you would sin and find Dave's guns turned on you. And in that moment...I'd still be advocating compassion...but toward you.

I don't own a gun and have no authority to execute anyone. That is the government's role. BTW, not all sins are capitol crimes......again you are misrepresenting, on purpose, my position. You seem to have a real problem with the holiness of our God. If He says all homosexuals should be executed who am I to disagree. You have a problem with God but with an relativistic, secular, humanistic government....no problem. They're compassionate.......

[ChristopherHall]

I can at least look at the rest of it but we will have to agree to disagree here.

This is economics one on one. Those tax breaks put more money into companies pockets (yes some did go to the big boys) Those companies reinvested that money into themselves and expanded, thus hiring more workers. My company has grown on average 38% every year for the past 4 years. That is awesome growth for an already multi-million dollar company. I myself in just the past 4 years have had 3 promotions totaling an 84% increase in pay in that same time frame. The kicker is this, Now that election year is coming up and the assumption is to have a democratic president, our company made an internal decision to limit its own growth to just 12% this year in anticipation of the tax hikes that will be coming. This will result in less spending which dampens the economy, as we are seeing. Reagan did it and Clinton inherited it, now Bush done the same thing and the Dems. will take it all back in order to pass plans to take care of others. Its not that I don't believe in what your advocating, I just don't believe in the way they want to do it. Our way may take longer, but your way will bankrupt the country AND everyone in it.

Bro...what industry do you work in? It's not the same for every industry. Some industries do better when we stop giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs over seas. Some jobs can be gained if we focus on giving tax breaks to companies that stay here. But that stands only in some industries.

I worked in the information technology field. In 2002 the Federal Government begain issuing visas for foreign workers in the technology fields like they were candy. Corporations had a hay day. They started hiring foreign contractors left and right to save money. I was laid off twice one right after the other. The last private job I had I was working for a leading bank in their technical department and they brought in a company from India named Tata. Yep....I could see it happening all over again. I took the job that was offered me by the city and I've worked for the government in account and financial reconciliation since. Who ever is President needs to direct the department of labor not to issue so many senseless visas and only grant them to companies if absolutely necessary. It was a mess bro let me tell you.

[ChristopherHall]

I don't own a gun and have no authority to execute anyone. That is the government's role. BTW, not all sins are capitol crimes......again you are misrepresenting, on purpose, my position. You seem to have a real problem with the holiness of our God. If He says all homosexuals should be executed who am I to disagree. You have a problem with God but with an relativistic, secular, humanistic government....no problem. They're compassionate.......

Dave, I have no interest in talking to you. The moment you began talking about advocating the execution of sinners I should have found a way to put you on ignore. Please don't advocate the execution of sinners around me. This isn't the Old Testament bro.

[seguidordejesus]

I pay $550/mo for health insurance.

[ChristopherHall]

I pay $550/mo for health insurance.

If America went to a single payer system like Canada you'd not pay that premium. You'd most likely pay an extra $110 to $120 a month in taxes. That means you'd bring home over $255 dollars MORE each month...not to mention you'd have health insurance.

Even businesses are realizing that insurance companies are draining them dry and discovering that they'd pay less in taxes for the national system than this private system. The system as it's designed right now isn't fair on businesses.

[ReformedDave]

Seems that some here have no interest in defending their position when I've advocated capitol punishment by the state for the things that the Scripture deems appropriate punishment. This person seems to have a problem not just with my position but with God. He can tolerate a secular, relativistic, humanistic government but when it come to the edicts of God's word he has a problem. If he was born during OT times what would he have done.....Oh I forgot. It's the same God today.

By the way, I was sent this message:"Dave, I'm letting you know this as a warning of sorts.

I've tried to ignore you and couldn't find where the ignore settings are on this forum. Since I couldn't ignore you I reported you to the administrator for your offensive statements implying that you would support the execution of homosexuals and sinners. Please don't respond to this because I'm not interested in discussion on the matter."

Sounds like a free discussion except when he disagrees. He called me a 'fascist' and other negative terms, misrepresented my position but I guess that's OK.

Oh well. God's word will stand in spite of the both of us.

[scotty]

Bro...what industry do you work in? It's not the same for every industry. Some industries do better when we stop giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs over seas. Some jobs can be gained if we focus on giving tax breaks to companies that stay here. But that stands only in some industries.

I worked in the information technology field. In 2002 the Federal Government begain issuing visas for foreign workers in the technology fields like they were candy. Corporations had a hay day. They started hiring foreign contractors left and right to save money. I was laid off twice one right after the other. The last private job I had I was working for a leading bank in their technical department and they brought in a company from India named Tata. Yep....I could see it happening all over again. I took the job that was offered me by the city and I've worked for the government in account and financial reconciliation since. Who ever is President needs to direct the department of labor not to issue so many senseless visas and only grant them to companies if absolutely necessary. It was a mess bro let me tell you.


I have a different out look on the over seas thing too. One- it is over taxation that sends these companies looking overseas. Two- it is the downfall of the american worker. (I will catch Hades for that one I know)
Sorry but if the american worker wasn't so lazy and evermore feeling like the world owes them something it might be different. Had one under me make the statement "I'll do more for more money".....they don't understand that you have to show me you can do more before I will pay you more. They think they have a right to a paycheck instead of a right to work.

[ChristopherHall]

Seems that some here have no interest in defending their position when I've advocated capitol punishment by the state for the things that the Scripture deems appropriate punishment. This person seems to have a problem not just with my position but with God. He can tolerate a secular, relativistic, humanistic government but when it come to the edicts of God's word he has a problem. If he was born during OT times what would he have done.....Oh I forgot. It's the same God today.

By the way, I was sent this message:"Dave, I'm letting you know this as a warning of sorts.

I've tried to ignore you and couldn't find where the ignore settings are on this forum. Since I couldn't ignore you I reported you to the administrator for your offensive statements implying that you would support the execution of homosexuals and sinners. Please don't respond to this because I'm not interested in discussion on the matter."

Sounds like a free discussion except when he disagrees. He called me a 'fascist' and other negative terms, misrepresented my position but I guess that's OK.

Oh well. God's word will stand in spite of the both of us.

Dave I'm not advocating violence against individuals you are.

[ReformedDave]

Dave I'm not advocating violence against individuals you are.

I said I was advocating capitol punishment by the state. This misrepresentation is tiring.

[scotty]

Seems that some here have no interest in defending their position when I've advocated capitol punishment by the state for the things that the Scripture deems appropriate punishment. This person seems to have a problem not just with my position but with God. He can tolerate a secular, relativistic, humanistic government but when it come to the edicts of God's word he has a problem. If he was born during OT times what would he have done.....Oh I forgot. It's the same God today.

By the way, I was sent this message:"Dave, I'm letting you know this as a warning of sorts.

I've tried to ignore you and couldn't find where the ignore settings are on this forum. Since I couldn't ignore you I reported you to the administrator for your offensive statements implying that you would support the execution of homosexuals and sinners. Please don't respond to this because I'm not interested in discussion on the matter."

Sounds like a free discussion except when he disagrees. He called me a 'fascist' and other negative terms, misrepresented my position but I guess that's OK.

Oh well. God's word will stand in spite of the both of us.

I understand and agree with most of your position Bro.

Bro. Hall is very , "set in his intelect" shall we say. Thats what I like about the Bible. Science and politics change daily but Gods Word and Ways are forever, amen.

[ChristopherHall]

I have a different out look on the over seas thing too. One- it is over taxation that sends these companies looking overseas. Two- it is the downfall of the american worker. (I will catch Hades for that one I know)
Sorry but if the american worker wasn't so lazy and evermore feeling like the world owes them something it might be different. Had one under me make the statement "I'll do more for more money".....they don't understand that you have to show me you can do more before I will pay you more. They think they have a right to a paycheck instead of a right to work.

I agree, we need to offer more tax breaks to companies that keep jobs in America. I'm not anti-business. If you're generous to a company that keeps jobs here I think that's the right policy. But right now we're giving massive tax breaks to companies who are moving jobs overseas. What I think we should do in my opinion is take away those tax breaks being offered and hit the sale of their product. Make it too expensive to sell their foreign made product in America. Make it cheaper to sell it here if it's made here.

When it comes to national health insurance many businesses are realizing that premiums are becoming more expensive than what taxes they'd pay for the national system. Our current system isn't fair to businesses in my opinion.

[ChristopherHall]

I understand and agree with most of your position Bro.

Bro. Hall is very , "set in his intelect" shall we say. Thats what I like about the Bible. Science and politics change daily but Gods Word and Ways are forever, amen.

Anyone you ever care about denied coverage for a treatment they desparately needed?

[ReformedDave]

I understand and agree with most of your position Bro.

Bro. Hall is very , "set in his intelect" shall we say. Thats what I like about the Bible. Science and politics change daily but Gods Word and Ways are forever, amen.

The word of God is fixed and unchangeable. It is the only truly objective standard we have. I have no problem having someone disagree as to the application of a passage but to take an offense at God.....and then blame me for it. Sad.

[ChristopherHall]

I said I was advocating capitol punishment by the state. This misrepresentation is tiring.

In Afghanistan they executed a prostitute by beheading her in a soccar field. You want to turn America into that kind of nation? I won't stand for it. These people are sinners and we pronounce spiritual death upon them but cutting them off from fellowship with the church.

[ChristopherHall]

The word of God is fixed and unchangeable. It is the only truly objective standard we have. I have no problem having someone disagree as to the application of a passage but to take an offense at God.....and then blame me for it. Sad.

I take offense at your interpretation of it. In this dispensation our calling is to preach the gospel to a lost world. God is having mercy....long suffering mercy on sinners deserving of death....so that they might have their lives as an opportunity to turn to him and be saved. If they choose sin after hearing the gospel they are choosing an eternal Hell. But it is far from God's intent that we march around with Bibles tucked under our arms advocating that the government execute sinners.

[ReformedDave]

In Afghanistan they executed a prostitute by beheading her in a soccar field. You want to turn America into that kind of nation? I won't stand for it. These people are sinners and we pronounce spiritual death upon them but cutting them off from fellowship with the church.

What do you do with all the capitol punishment in the OT? What about when God commanded the army to wipe out all the women and children too?

These people were sinners cut off from God.

[ReformedDave]

A very good but a little long article on the subject. It was written by the foremost apologist for Christianity at the turn of last century.

It is worth the read.

www.cambridgestudycenter.com/artilces/Machen2.htm

[ChristopherHall]

What do you do with all the capitol punishment in the OT? What about when God commanded the army to wipe out all the women and children too?

These people were sinners cut off from God.

In the OT God was dealing with a national covenant. Any threat to the nation was to be dealt with severely. God HIMSELF can command the elimination of a nation. God's Laws were also structured to secure the spiritual purity of the nation from which he was to birth the Messiah.

The Messiah fulfilled the moral requirements of the Law and died in the sinner's place. Jesus died on the cross to even take the place of the homosexual sinner.

Now God's New Covenant is a covenant based on the individual...not the nation. God no longer orders a single nation to eliminate another via a prophet. God is choosing mercy and being long suffering through this dispensation so that all men have opportunity to hear the gospel, obey, and be saved.

[ChristopherHall]

A very good but a little long article on the subject. It was written by the foremost apologist for Christianity at the turn of last century.

It is worth the read.

www.cambridgestudycenter.com/artilces/Machen2.htm

The man is a reformed Trinitarian Presbyterian theologian that has embraced Dominionist theology. He knows nothing about the Truth.

[ReformedDave]

In the OT God was dealing with a national covenant. Any threat to the nation was to be dealt with severely. God HIMSELF can command the elimination of a nation. God's Laws were also structured to secure the spiritual purity of the nation from which he was to birth the Messiah.

The Messiah fulfilled the moral requirements of the Law and died in the sinner's place. Jesus died on the cross to even take the place of the homosexual sinner.

Now God's New Covenant is a covenant based on the individual...not the nation. God no longer orders a single nation to eliminate another via a prophet. God is choosing mercy and being long suffering through this dispensation so that all men have opportunity to hear the gospel, obey, and be saved.

Same God today. He still deals with nations and individuals. He appoints ministers of the state to execute judgment. You don't think that the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was God's judgment?

[ReformedDave]

The man is a reformed Trinitarian Presbyterian theologian that has embraced Dominionist theology. He knows nothing about the Truth.

The 'Dominionist" movement wasn't even around then.

The same reason that he's 'ignorant' applies to me equally. I hope some day to be half a ignorant.

[ChristopherHall]

Same God today. He still deals with nations and individuals. He appoints ministers of the state to execute judgment. You don't think that the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was God's judgment?

Look Dave...I don't trust dominionism and I'm not interested in what you're selling.

[ReformedDave]

Look Dave...I have had quite a bit of experience with people like you and I'm not impressed. The group that I knew well was from Lebonon Ohio and was affiliated with the Arian Nation. I'm not interested in what you're selling.

I'm now a racist fascist. Amazing. You never really deal with arguments. You just name call.

[ChristopherHall]

I'm now a racist fascist. Amazing. You never really deal with arguments. You just name call.

Dave, if you look at the timing, I changed my remark because I felt it wouldn't be fair to you. I know you're not a racist. But the group of racists I knew were dominionists.

[ChristopherHall]

Dave let's just call it a truce. Let's see if we can agree on something.

As a Dominionist (which I'm assuming you are based on your posts) how would you help the 18,000 Americans who die every year because they cannot afford the health care they need?

[ReformedDave]

Dave let's just call it a truce. Let's see if we can agree on something.

As a Dominionist (which I'm assuming you are based on your posts) how would you help the 18,000 Americans who die every year because they cannot afford the health care they need?

You and I couldn't agree on the solution for the problem. I'll bail out for a while. We've generated enough heat as it is.

[Praxeas]

I don't own a gun and have no authority to execute anyone. That is the government's role. BTW, not all sins are capitol crimes......again you are misrepresenting, on purpose, my position. You seem to have a real problem with the holiness of our God. If He says all homosexuals should be executed who am I to disagree. You have a problem with God but with an relativistic, secular, humanistic government....no problem. They're compassionate.......
Does God say all Homosexuals should be executed by their respective governments?

[Praxeas]

You and I couldn't agree on the solution for the problem. I'll bail out for a while. We've generated enough heat as it is.
Hey Im fine with heat....currently here in "sunny So Cal" it's rather cold.... :stirpot

[ChristopherHall]

Dave believes that the government can't do anything right...but he trusts empowering them to execute homosexuals and sinners as the Law of God commanded in ancient Israel. Right now it is estimated that as many as 11% of those executed in the United States were in fact innocent or received insufficient legal defense. God help us if Dominionists ever subvert the Constitution and impose their version of Biblical law on the United States.

[ReformedDave]

Dave believes that the government can't do anything right...but he trusts empowering them to execute homosexuals and sinners as the Law of God commanded in ancient Israel. Right now it is estimated that as many as 11% of those executed in the United States were in fact innocent or received insufficient legal defense. God help us if Dominionists ever subvert the Constitution and impose their version of Biblical law on the United States.

Since God places the civil leaders as His ministers of justice can't he hold them accountable to His word?

[ChristopherHall]

Since God places the civil leaders as His ministers of justice can't he hold them accountable to His word?

The Law of Moses was God's Covenant to the Hebrews as established through Moses. Can you show me the national covenant God sealed with America?

[ReformedDave]

The Law of Moses was God's Covenant to the Hebrews as established through Moses. Can you show me the national covenant God sealed with America?

I thought Paul was post the OT covenant. The ministers of God he referred to were Roman. Since God puts all rulers in their places He can hold them accountable.

BTW, Under the OT covenant God held pagan countries responsible. He blessed those that followed the God of Israel and cursed others.

[OP_Carl]

Dude, do you know how expensive it is to pay for cancer treatment out of pocket? I'm so flabbergasted I'm convinced that's the dumbest assessment I've heard on this subject. Dumber than spending ourselves rich?


We're not talking about saving up to buy a used Toyota. We're talking about health care for a family of five. Do you know how much this companies are extorting from our preachers for their health insurance? I know a pastor who pays over $700 a month for health insurance. Big deal. I've been acquiring health insurance for my family the past two years via an individual policy for $960 US per month.

Bro...that' kind of accusation is pathetic. Actually, the pathetic accusations are the ones about me being demonic or satanic.

I know of a few good charity hospitals. I also know there's a wait to get in. Yes a percentage of uninsured in America's uninsured are uninsured by choice. But when many of them are suddenly taken ill or enjured they go to the hospital and find themselves unable to pay the bill. Every year 25,000 Americans declare bankruptcy over medical bills they can't pay. Some of these are those who choose not to have insurance because they were dumb enough to gamble with their health and financial well being. I have a family member that's totally uninsured. She's what you'd classify as the "non-virtuous poor." She has an unimpressive work ethic etcetera, and yet she received a replacement heart valve and a state-of-the-art pacemaker at no charge.


While they wouldn't like it, it would be better to force them into the system. If they plan right they can afford it. Please note...when they can't pay their bills they pass the cost back down to us in higher premiums. You and I pay for them with premiums that nearly break our family budgets. . . .

That's part of the problem I agree. In my opinion a single payer national health insurance system would be far better.

I've done the math and I would be light-years ahead financially if I decided to cancel my insurance and pay cash. My wife cannot work up the nerve to take such a leap of faith.

The IDEAL of the single payer system might be better than what we have now. Implementation will be anything but ideal. Think of the recent reports of the atrocious conditions at Walter Reed Army medical center. That is government health care.

Again I say (and probably for the last time) that your heart is in the right place. You just have no ability to conceive of the unintended consequences of absorbing 1/7 of the U.S. economy into the control of the government.

We don't have a problem of lack of insurance. We have a problem of an overabundance of health insurance. And lawyers. The insurance companies are running the show and calling the shots on prices, on one end, and our immoral litigious society is running up malpractice premiums on the other end. We've very nearly removed all incentive for bright young people to go into medicine.

Your hope is misguided and your faith is misplaced.

[ChristopherHall]

American Medical Association commercial...

http://www.bigshouldersdubs.com/clients/AMA/webpost/V-Sarah-w2.html

[ChristopherHall]

I thought Paul was post the OT covenant. The ministers of God he referred to were Roman. Since God puts all rulers in their places He can hold them accountable.

BTW, Under the OT covenant God held pagan countries responsible. He blessed those that followed the God of Israel and cursed others.

What was Daniel's advice to a pagan king? .....

Daniel 4:27
Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

What did God accuse his nation of doing?.....

Ezekiel 16:48-50
48As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

What would Ezekiel say to the system we currently have???

Ezekiel 22:29
The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.

What does God's Law command of the nation????!!!!

1. 'Exod 22:22-24 - Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (KJV)'

2. 'Exod 23:10-11 - And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.'

3. 'Lev 19:9-10 - And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God. (KJV)'

4. 'Deut 14:28-29 - At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest. (KJV)'

5. 'Deut 15:7-11 - If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth. Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee. '

6. 'Deut 24:19-22 - When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing. (KJV)'

7. 'Deut 26:12 - When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled; (KJV)'

8. 'Lev 23:22 - And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God. (KJV)'

9. Ps 41:1 - Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the LORD will deliver him in time of trouble. (KJV)

10. 'Lev 25:35 - And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. (KJV)'

11. Prov 19:17 - He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again. (KJV)

12. 'Prov 21:13 - Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard. (KJV)'

13. Prov 28:3 - A poor man that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food. (KJV)

14. Prov 28:27 - He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse. (KJV)

You claim to believe in national covenant...BUT YOU IGNORE IT'S PRINCIPLE REGARDING THE POOR. Bro...you're a Social Darwinist!

[ChristopherHall]

Dumber than spending ourselves rich?

Nine billion dollars a month in Iraq, an unjustified military action (Ron Paul hit the nail on the head tonight in the Presidential debates on this...it was wrong, immoral, and unconstitutional!)

Big deal. I've been acquiring health insurance for my family the past two years via an individual policy for $960 US per month.

Dude...I'd loose everything I owned paying helath care premiums like that. You're fat cat bro.

Actually, the pathetic accusations are the ones about me being demonic or satanic.

No abandoning the poor is Satanic.

1. 'Lev 19:10-15 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.'

2. 'Lev 23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.'

3. 'Lev 25:35-55 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God. And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou s'

4. 'Deut 15:1-23 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD's release. Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release; Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it: Only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day. For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee. If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee'

5. 'Deut 23:24-25 When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.'

6. 'Deut 24:19-22 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. '

7. 'Ps 10:2-14 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined. For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them. He hath said in his heart, I shall not be moved: for I shall never be in adversity. His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity. He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the secret places doth he murder the innocent: his eyes are privily set against the poor. He lieth in wait secretly as a lion in his den: he lieth in wait to catch the poor: he doth catch the poor, when he draweth him into his net. He croucheth, and humbleth himself, that the poor may fall by his strong ones. He hath said in his heart, God'

8. 'Ps 72:2-13 He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment. The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness. He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor. They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations. He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: as showers that water the earth. In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him. For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. '

9. 'Prov 22:2-22 The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all. A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches, and honour, and life. Thorns and snares are in the way of the froward: he that doth keep his soul shall be far from them. Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail. He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor. Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease. He that loveth pureness of heart, for the grace of his lips the king shall be his friend. The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor. The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, I shall be sl'

10. 'Prov 28:3-27 A poor man that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food. They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them. Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things. Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich. Whoso keepeth the law is a wise son: but he that is a companion of riotous men shameth his father. He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor. He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination. Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit: but the upright shall have good things in possession. The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out. When righteous men do rejoice, there is great glory: but when the wicked rise, a man is '

11. 'Isa 58:6-7 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?'

Friend...this was the national policy of the NATION not the voluntary generosity of private individuals!

[ChristopherHall]

I have a family member that's totally uninsured. She's what you'd classify as the "non-virtuous poor." She has an unimpressive work ethic etcetera, and yet she received a replacement heart valve and a state-of-the-art pacemaker at no charge.

Not all are that lucky. I know you don't care about them, but that's why God called me to be their voice right here before you brothers and sisters. =

I've done the math and I would be light-years ahead financially if I decided to cancel my insurance and pay cash. My wife cannot work up the nerve to take such a leap of faith.

Your wife has more brains than you do. The moment you did that you'd probably be faced with an health crisis. But go ahead...I insist...if you wiped out and lost it all and died sick like 18,000 Americans did last year maybe you'll agree with me somewhat.

The IDEAL of the single payer system might be better than what we have now. Implementation will be anything but ideal. Think of the recent reports of the atrocious conditions at Walter Reed Army medical center. That is government health care.

Spin. That was an isolated issue. My father-in-law died after waiting 8 hours in the emergency waiting room two weeks after heart surgery. It was Kettering Medical Center in Kettering Ohio. That too was an isolated issue. But if you can use Walter Reed to paint the entire system of Government health care....you have to use that to paint private health care as a whole. Of course you'll admit it's an isolated occurance.

Again I say (and probably for the last time) that your heart is in the right place. You just have no ability to conceive of the unintended consequences of absorbing 1/7 of the U.S. economy into the control of the government.

The American dollar is doing worse than many nations that have actually had the guts to do this. Bro....it would actually help business because businesses are also having a terrible time paying for this high and rising premiums. It's not fair to business.

We don't have a problem of lack of insurance. We have a problem of an overabundance of health insurance. And lawyers. The insurance companies are running the show and calling the shots on prices, on one end, and our immoral litigious society is running up malpractice premiums on the other end. We've very nearly removed all incentive for bright young people to go into medicine.

We agree quite a bit here. Insurance companies are in collusion and manipulating the system. It's going to take regulating them. And yes...litigation is crazy. In France they have caps on malpractice suits. They protect doctors quite a bit and doctors don't have the limitations they do here in the US. THAT'S FRANCE. That's what we're talking about bro. If we caught up with the rest of the world it would take care of most of the issues you're talking about here.

Your hope is misguided and your faith is misplaced.

I firmly believe that in once we have national health care it will take one generation for it to be a pillar in Christian thought just like right for black people to vote was resisted by many Christians but today racism is repugnant to most Christians. One generation and I firmly believe most Christians will look back at this issue and wonder why so many Christians didn't care to work as a nation to insure all Americans. I can feel it in my spirit.

[Neck]

He's got a stellar conservative record on abortion. He is pro family and anti gay agenda. He is an American hero. He has NEVER inserted ONE earmark in any apropriations bill in his ENTIRE Senate career. He is not owned by any lobbyist, any company, corporation, special interest.

He isn't owned by the GOP. The Republicans ruled Washington in the White House and the Congress fro six years and somehow could not even ban partial birth abortion. They could not make the tax cuts permanent. They got messed up in the Jack Abramoff lobbyist scandal. They spent money worse than the Democrats ever did. W NEVER vetoed ONE spending bill for excessive and wasteful spending. They wasted a golden opportunity in six years. The only thing they really did right was the original tax cuts, the Supreme Court appointments and the War on Terror, although Rumsfeld's advice was wrong (on a smaller force in Iraq---one which McCain originally spoke out in opposition of and one which the "surge" has proven to be right.) Their mismanagement cost us the majority in the Congress. That was on a "true" conservatives watch, one that reads the Bible everyday and is an avowed Christian.

McCain broke with his party he says whenever he felt it was in the best interests of his country. When he has had to choose between his party and his country, his country will win every time.

He will fight this war on terror right, something the Democrats will not.

Romney has a much more liberal record than McCain. He was Pro-Choice when it was convenient when running for Governor of Massachusetts. He suddenly is now pro-life? Please! The Dems will eat his lunch if he is the nominee. They will recycle those old John Kerry flip-flop commercials and paint him in a most unfavorable light. At least with McCain you know where he stands.

If you stay home this election---you are guaranteeing that the Dems will win the White House. And that, my friends, is a risk not worth taking. Don't stay home if your man doesn't get in, or the GOP nominee is less conservative than you. You might have to vote just to keep Hillary or Obama out.

Be wise. Think beyond Rush Limbaugh's radio program. I listen to him everyday and he certainly is not the bastion of godliness! Besides he admits to being right 98.9% of the time.

This time he's wrong about McCain.

We aren't always going to get Ronald Reagan every time, unfortunately.

If he is our only hope.

Then throw hope away.

Plant a new seed and then hope 4 years from now.

We have a real candidate.

He will not nominate conservative Justices.

He wants to go down one who works with the Dems.

I bet Libermann gets a job in his cabinet.

I can'e even imagine what things will be with Hillary being president.

What are we Crazy?

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush .... Clinton!

[ReformedDave]

What was Daniel's advice to a pagan king? .....

Daniel 4:27
Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

What did God accuse his nation of doing?.....

Ezekiel 16:48-50
48As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

What would Ezekiel say to the system we currently have???

Ezekiel 22:29
The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.

What does God's Law command of the nation????!!!!

1. 'Exod 22:22-24 - Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (KJV)'

2. 'Exod 23:10-11 - And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.'

3. 'Lev 19:9-10 - And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God. (KJV)'

4. 'Deut 14:28-29 - At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest. (KJV)'

5. 'Deut 15:7-11 - If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth. Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee. '

6. 'Deut 24:19-22 - When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing. (KJV)'

7. 'Deut 26:12 - When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled; (KJV)'

8. 'Lev 23:22 - And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God. (KJV)'

9. Ps 41:1 - Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the LORD will deliver him in time of trouble. (KJV)

10. 'Lev 25:35 - And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. (KJV)'

11. Prov 19:17 - He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again. (KJV)

12. 'Prov 21:13 - Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard. (KJV)'

13. Prov 28:3 - A poor man that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food. (KJV)

14. Prov 28:27 - He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse. (KJV)

You claim to believe in national covenant...BUT YOU IGNORE IT'S PRINCIPLE REGARDING THE POOR. Bro...you're a Social Darwinist!

I guess I have to answer your questions but you are so arrogant that you don't have to answer mine........

I agree with ALL these verses in the context in which they are given. Some are for the nation, some for the individual, and some for the church. But you shouldn't believe any of them. They are the Old Covenant.

When have I ignored it's principles? And please try to answer my questions.

[Praxeas]

I thought Paul was post the OT covenant. The ministers of God he referred to were Roman. Since God puts all rulers in their places He can hold them accountable.

BTW, Under the OT covenant God held pagan countries responsible. He blessed those that followed the God of Israel and cursed others.
I would like to know why we should expect a civil government to execute someone for being a homosexual...what verse

[scotty]

Nine billion dollars a month in Iraq, an unjustified military action (Ron Paul hit the nail on the head tonight in the Presidential debates on this...it was wrong, immoral, and unconstitutional!)


This line is equate to the bag of trash I took out this morning. Niether you nor Ron Paul have a clue about the war in Iraq. You might better leave that one to those who have been there. And I don't mean the few wimps they drag up to openly protest because they just signed up for the college benifits. Bro. the line above has you labeling yourself a hypocrit. You can't sit here and preach with scripture about how we need to be taking care of those less fortunate then say Iraq is immoral and wrong. Maybe you have been to France and Canada, but until you do a public service tour in Iraq you will appear smarter to just be silent.

[ReformedDave]

I would like to know why we should expect a civil government to execute someone for being a homosexual...what verse

Leviticus 20:13

10 “If a man commits adultery with the wife of [1] his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. 15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

[Aquila]

I think God commanded Israel to do so but we are not part of that covenant. God would have us preach the gospel and reach a gay person's heart with the power and love of Christ...not a death sentence. It's no wonder they're afraid of Christians and that so many are afraid of conservative Christians in politics when we say things like this.

There is another thing, Dave, while you say it's the role of civil government, to you that's just a theological statement relating to what you see as a biblical political philosophy. To you it's just a statement embodying your feelings against gays (makes me wonder brother) and what you think should be in your idea of an "ideal" Christian society.

But there are others out there who read statements like what you're making and they feel that our government isn't executing or punishing gays....so they take matters into their own hands. Many hate groups feed off of this kind of stuff. I'm not saying that you intend this with your words but your words offer them the inspiration and sense of moral mission. This is why some gays have been beaten to death in violent crimes of nothing but pure hate. The people beating them to death feel that they are fulfilling a moral mission that the government is failing to perform and so they feel morally justified. We as Christians shouldn't feel free to just rattle off anything like this...and not expect to be held to an account for the repercussions of our words. What if some angry, abused, hurting Apostolic reads your words and feels like taking all his angst out on some gay man in a dark alley on the seedy side of town? That gay man is someone's son, maybe someone's dad, and he's a soul Jesus died on the cross for. Dave words have power. Words can bring life or words can kill. We should be "Christian" with our words. The other thing that bothers me about this is that only two brothers here have actually called you to an account for what you're saying and supporting. I'm surprised the forum administrators haven't stepped in. Dave, this is just a hair short of advocating violence against people on Apostolic Friends Forum. It's not right and I'm shocked that this line of thought is even remotely tolerated here. Maybe I'm in the minority but I love sinners. I want to see them saved not killed. And even if you're joking your words can be fuel to a fire that could cost someone their lives. Back in the day Christians used to support slavery and say many awful things about black people. There were lynchings and hangings of escaped slaves and the Bible was often invoked as a justification for the action. This really frightens me.

It might not matter to many of us...but to those with gay loved ones that we're praying for it's very upsetting. I think the word "offensive" is too soft for what these words help to feed. I don't think Jesus is glorified by us saying that the government should kill gay people. I think it does violence to our mission and causes a lost world to fear us and hold us with contempt as opposed to realizing that we actually care for them as people. No wonder liberals and gays think we're dangerous to society. If I didn't know you were in the fringe minority I'd wonder if they were right. But what you're saying does make the rest of us look bad. It makes us look like Christians who want to wage Jihad against gay people. I'm real upset with the whole thing Dave.

Let's also consider that some of here WERE once bound by that spirit. Some here WERE once in that lifestyle before Jesus found us and cleansed us. Some here WERE once resisting the truth and fighting God's convicting Spirit in our lives. Some here WERE once dead set against becoming a Christian...but God finally broke the ice and set the sinner free through the power of the Holy Ghost. Your words cause the blood to run cold. Why? Because at one point....you would have executed some of us long before God was finished dealing with us.

I commend Praxeus and Chris for standing up against what I've read here. I think they used strong words but nothing close to saying someone should be killed.

I don't want Apostolic Friends Forum to be known as a harbor for this kind of thing. I'm bothered as to why this hasn't been addressed.

For our hardened brothers I pray that they might lean on their mercy and preach the gospel.

For our defenders of the sinner, I see your love for the lost and pray you continue on in grace preaching the Gospel of Jesus.

And for our sinner friends who may have read this, the vast majority of us wouldn't stand by and allow a government as proposed here harm you in any way. We want to see you saved not harmed.

God bless you all.

Amen.

[Aquila]

Now back to McCain, I think he's too old. He might beat Hillary but it would be an uphill battle to beat Obama.

[justasaint]

Mcain Was a part of but not convicted in the savings and loan scandal.

His wife has had problems with prescription drugs.

His father in law owns the budwiser distributorship in Phoenix AZ and at least another small town in AZ

He is divorced.

Food for thought
point was no one lines up with our convictions completely.

Obama?
I am leaning towards Rommney

[Pressing-On]

A few insights remaining on McCain, for the pot:


Pundits on both the left and right declared he was sunk if he aligned himself with Bush on Iraq. "Get away from the war. Give up on Bush." He didn't and look at him now.

Now that Bush's Iraq policy is working, the media pundits are proclaiming Iraq a "secondary issue." Now they want to talk about the stock market and the housing crisis. But the American people aren't dumb.

His campaign finance ideas are terrible and he does seem to pander to the liberals. But, If Bush is a conservative, then McCain is a conservative. He’s very strong on defense, he’s fiscally conservative, and he’s pro-life. He may be too old and he may be too conciliatory. If there’s a problem with McCain it’s not that he’s a liberal in disguise.

Electability remains a valid issue. Politics is a choice among the options that are actually on the table.

Republicans are seeking a candidate who has enough broad-based support to prevent a Hillary or Obama presidency, but who still defends conservative principles, say, 82 percent of the time, according to the American Conservative Union.

On the Democratic side - Obama, naively, continues to attack the crafty Hillary for voting for the Iraq war, and Hillary continues to duck and weave in the distinctively Clinton fashion. These two are both hoping and staking their candidacy on an American loss in Iraq. If America wins in Baghdad, their chances to recapture the Oval Office are sorely diminished. It's hard for me to see how Americans can sympathize with such partisans of defeat. Compared to these two, McCain cannot help but stand tall.

[Pressing-On]

This is an exceptionally well written article!!! :thumbsup:thumbsup



Come to the Aid of the Party
By Burt Prelutsky
Monday, February 4, 2008

If he had thrown his hat in the ring, my first choice for president would have been Newt Gingrich, probably the smartest guy in politics. I still hope that whoever gets elected this November will make Gingrich his secretary of state.

But we don’t live in a perfect world so, several months ago, I came out in favor of Rudy Giuliani. My main reason for doing so was that I trusted him to deal in a serious way with our Islamic enemies. Unlike, say, George Bush, who couldn’t say enough nice things about Muhammad’s religion, Rudy didn’t seem to think he had to pussyfoot around the subject for fear of being politically incorrect. In other words, Giuliani made it clear that he was running to become president of the United States, and not the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan. Perhaps he made it too clear.

I would have voted for him if he hadn’t bowed out, but that doesn’t mean that if Romney, Huckabee or even John McCain, gets the nomination, I plan to stay home and sulk on election day.

I happen to think that people who support Clinton or Obama have a screw loose, but they strike me as being far more rational than my fellow Republicans who are threatening to boycott the election if their favorite candidate doesn’t head up the ticket. I can’t tell you how many people have written to me insisting that they’re sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I understand that they’re trying to convey their frustration, but I can’t help sniffing the undeniable stench of self-righteousness.

It’s as if they’re unaware that politicians are human beings, and not God. They’re people just like the rest of us, I point out, comprised in part of ambition, greed, arrogance and vanity, not to mention, on occasion, integrity, courage and even altruism. Let’s face the facts, ladies and gentlemen -- even those politicians we agree with also want to ride in well-guarded limousines and fly on Air Force One, have everybody stand up when they enter a room, be able to give tongue-lashings to senators and congressmen, have “Hail to the Chief” as their theme song, and never ever have to press one for English.

If there’s a single thread that runs through the e-mails I receive from peevish Republicans, it’s that none of the current candidates possess the conservative purity of Ronald Reagan. One could almost get the idea that Dutch was betrayed by Pontius Pilate and crucified on Calvary. But that wasn’t exactly the case. The fact of the matter is that Governor Reagan gave Governor Jerry Brown a run for his money -- or should I say our money? -- when it came to raising taxes here in California. But, in spite of the additional revenue, he was responsible in large part for the streets of our cities being turned into public latrines by the unwashed, the unwanted and the insane when, to save a few bucks, he oversaw the closing of California’s mental hospitals. He also signed the nation’s most liberal abortion bill. Although he had a change of heart a scant six months later, one never hears him condemned for flip-flopping on the issue.

And, lest we forget, as president, he opened the floodgates to illegal aliens by signing an amnesty bill in the mid-80s, and, for good measure, appointed Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, neither of whom was the answer to a conservative’s prayer. Frankly, as admirable as Reagan was in so many ways, I suspect that if he were seeking the GOP nomination this year, he’d be dismissed as a RINO by many of the party’s zealots.

None of this is intended to tarnish the man’s image, but simply to point out that the common perception of his conservative purity sometimes owed more to his charm and his ability as an actor to read a script and deliver a funny line, than to his politics.

What truly confounds me are those cuckoos who would prefer to see such Socialists as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the election than to sully themselves by voting for a Republican who was only their second or third or even fourth choice. To them I say, before proving that you place your own ego gratification above what’s best for America, keep in mind that most of the Supreme Court justices are in their 70s or even, in the case of John Paul Stewart, fast approaching 90. Do you really want one of those two Democrats stacking the Court for the foreseeable future? Presidents come and go, but justices go on seemingly forever. Kennedy and Scalia have been on the bench since Reagan put them there. Stevens, for heaven’s sake, was appointed during the Ice Age.

These are the nine men and women who have the final word on everything from abortion to eminent domain, and you’re going to let some left-winger make the call because you don’t like Mitt Romney as much as you do John McCain, or Mike Huckabee as much as Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter? If so, you really ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

The way I see it, before writing off any of the Republican frontrunners, you owe it to your country to just suit up, play your heart out, and win this one for the Gipper.

W. Burt Prelutsky is an accomplished, well-rounded writer and author of Conservatives Are from Mars (Liberals Are from San Francisco): 101 Reasons I'm Happy I Left the Left.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/02/04/come_to_the_aid_of_the_party

[Michael The Disciple]

I have not read much in this thread so this may have been addressed. Anyway I find it interesting that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are saying they will not vote rather than vote for him.

Yet when CHRISTIANS throw out the same possibility they are criticized. Hey they say if they stay home they would be electing (whatever Liberal is running)!

But when the shoe is on the other foot will THEY stick with their fellow "Christian Conservatives"?

It is becoming so clear friends. All the Republicans ever wanted from the Christians WAS THEIR VOTE. Our issues such as Abortion and Gay adgenda are nothing to them. They are willing to sit the election out

[Pressing-On]

I have not read much in this thread so this may have been addressed. Anyway I find it interesting that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are saying they will not vote rather than vote for him.

Yet when CHRISTIANS throw out the same possibility they are criticized. Hey they say if they stay home they would be electing (whatever Liberal is running)!

But when the shoe is on the other foot will THEY stick with their fellow "Christian Conservatives"?

It is becoming so clear friends. All the Republicans ever wanted from the Christians WAS THEIR VOTE. Our issues such as Abortion and Gay adgenda are nothing to them. They are willing to sit the election out

Well, I think they are both ridiculous! Ann and Rush!

[DividedThigh]

Well, I think they are both ridiculous! Ann and Rush!

i usually like them but i think that is ridiculous also, dt:tvhappy

[Pressing-On]

i usually like them but i think that is ridiculous also, dt:tvhappy
Totally and they should be more responsible then that. If you read the article, above, on Reagan you will see why I say that.

[DividedThigh]

Totally and they should be more responsible then that. If you read the article, above, on Reagan you will see why I say that.

i agree with you totally sis, they are just rabid against mccain, now i dont like some of the things he has done, but he is 10 times better than billary or hussein, lol,dt:tvhappy

[Pressing-On]

i agree with you totally sis, they are just rabid against mccain, now i dont like some of the things he has done, but he is 10 times better than billary or hussein, lol,dt:tvhappy
My point also. I vote my party. I'd like to see a third party arise at some point, but as for now, we don't have a candidate rising above the fray. We would need a noticeable candidate to turn our heads.

I think Lieberman set the stage for that to be possible. I like how he pulled out and ran on an independent ticket and won!

One thing I will say - if McCain gets the nomination he is going to be DRILLED, DRILLED, DRILLED on his issues like immigration, ANWAR, McCain-Feingold, his comments on Alito, etc.

[ChristopherHall]

When it comes to Democrat or Republican I sometimes wonder who are the liberals and who are the conservatives. It seems the Democrats focus on domestic government programs while the Republicans focus on international government programs like nation building. Both spend like drunken sailors on shore leave. I think the biggest question is where and on whom the money is spent.

My big issue this election is primarily health insurance. If we can spend 9 billion dollars in Iraq (a war of choice) every month, we should be able to impliment a national health insurance system. I believe we need to catch up with the rest of the Westernized world with a national program combining private and government insurance, and negotiating costs with pharmaceutical companies. That's where I agree with the Democrats. But I also agree with the Republicans when it comes to reforming malpractice laws, capping settlements, and deregulating all the laws curtailing doctors from issuing perscriptions or treatments they feel are needed.

So here's the method to my madness...

If we can get a national system in place there will be pressure to keep costs low. This will generate the political will to reform malpractce laws and regulations hindering doctors from actually practicing medicine. It will also put pressure and political will out there to reform the American Food and Drug association's procedures so that we can expedite the delivery of valuable medical advancements that are tied up way too long.

Keeping things as they are isn't working because the numbers of those who are uninsured continues to climb and we end up paying for them in higher premiums when they go to emergency rooms can can't pay their bills. Essentially our high insurance premiums are a "hidden tax" issued by the insurance companies to maintain profit margin and cover the cost of the uninsured that is passed down to us in the current system.

McCain doesn't offer enough movement in this direction for my taste.

That's just my personal opinion and where my thoughts are in this election. Hey, I go to Canada every year and have good friends there. Maybe I'm just a little Canadian at heart. lol

[ReformedDave]

I think God commanded Israel to do so but we are not part of that covenant. God would have us preach the gospel and reach a gay person's heart with the power and love of Christ...not a death sentence. It's no wonder they're afraid of Christians and that so many are afraid of conservative Christians in politics when we say things like this.

There is another thing, Dave, while you say it's the role of civil government, to you that's just a theological statement relating to what you see as a biblical political philosophy. To you it's just a statement embodying your feelings against gays (makes me wonder brother) and what you think should be in your idea of an "ideal" Christian society.

But there are others out there who read statements like what you're making and they feel that our government isn't executing or punishing gays....so they take matters into their own hands. Many hate groups feed off of this kind of stuff. I'm not saying that you intend this with your words but your words offer them the inspiration and sense of moral mission. This is why some gays have been beaten to death in violent crimes of nothing but pure hate. The people beating them to death feel that they are fulfilling a moral mission that the government is failing to perform and so they feel morally justified. We as Christians shouldn't feel free to just rattle off anything like this...and not expect to be held to an account for the repercussions of our words. What if some angry, abused, hurting Apostolic reads your words and feels like taking all his angst out on some gay man in a dark alley on the seedy side of town? That gay man is someone's son, maybe someone's dad, and he's a soul Jesus died on the cross for. Dave words have power. Words can bring life or words can kill. We should be "Christian" with our words. The other thing that bothers me about this is that only two brothers here have actually called you to an account for what you're saying and supporting. I'm surprised the forum administrators haven't stepped in. Dave, this is just a hair short of advocating violence against people on Apostolic Friends Forum. It's not right and I'm shocked that this line of thought is even remotely tolerated here. Maybe I'm in the minority but I love sinners. I want to see them saved not killed. And even if you're joking your words can be fuel to a fire that could cost someone their lives. Back in the day Christians used to support slavery and say many awful things about black people. There were lynchings and hangings of escaped slaves and the Bible was often invoked as a justification for the action. This really frightens me.

It might not matter to many of us...but to those with gay loved ones that we're praying for it's very upsetting. I think the word "offensive" is too soft for what these words help to feed. I don't think Jesus is glorified by us saying that the government should kill gay people. I think it does violence to our mission and causes a lost world to fear us and hold us with contempt as opposed to realizing that we actually care for them as people. No wonder liberals and gays think we're dangerous to society. If I didn't know you were in the fringe minority I'd wonder if they were right. But what you're saying does make the rest of us look bad. It makes us look like Christians who want to wage Jihad against gay people. I'm real upset with the whole thing Dave.

Let's also consider that some of here WERE once bound by that spirit. Some here WERE once in that lifestyle before Jesus found us and cleansed us. Some here WERE once resisting the truth and fighting God's convicting Spirit in our lives. Some here WERE once dead set against becoming a Christian...but God finally broke the ice and set the sinner free through the power of the Holy Ghost. Your words cause the blood to run cold. Why? Because at one point....you would have executed some of us long before God was finished dealing with us.

I commend Praxeus and Chris for standing up against what I've read here. I think they used strong words but nothing close to saying someone should be killed.

I don't want Apostolic Friends Forum to be known as a harbor for this kind of thing. I'm bothered as to why this hasn't been addressed.

For our hardened brothers I pray that they might lean on their mercy and preach the gospel.

For our defenders of the sinner, I see your love for the lost and pray you continue on in grace preaching the Gospel of Jesus.

And for our sinner friends who may have read this, the vast majority of us wouldn't stand by and allow a government as proposed here harm you in any way. We want to see you saved not harmed.

God bless you all.

Amen.

I appreciate your obvious concern for people in general and gays in particular.
My concern is being faithful to the law of God and I believe that it can be exegetically proven that our God hasn't change His position in the matter.

Just to clarify my position. I do not believe that it is right for private individuals, lynch mobs, or the like to take the law into their own hands. This is for the civil authorities alone. I believe in lawful trials with representation. I also believe that if one turns from his ways he can reject that lifestyle and live a Godly life. I have seen it.

I have 2 very good gay friends who know that I care and know that I'm against their lifestyle. I, in no way, wish them harm and hope and pray that God draws them to Himself.

Something that concerns me is that you must think God feels different about that sin today. It's almost a different God....... Today we have a kinder more gentle God. I think our God hates the sin just as much and there are obvious times when He still gives judgment. BTW, until a relatively few years ago there were anti-sodomy laws in several of our states.

Just to reiterate my position. I believe it is Scriptural and my feelings don't matter. I do not hate homosexuals and I hope and pray for the salvation of my friends that are in that lifestyle. But I fear the Holy God that I serve and take His word seriously. I would hope you would fear the One that can not only kill the body........

I will not say any more on this matter.