"You lie!" -- Truth to power

[Full Quiver]

Dawgs, I challenge you and I don't want to hear about you working part time for pay so you can work in the ministry. That is your reasonable service my friend if you are called of God.

Last week my wife and I paid for someone to have a medical procedure performed. This someone neither could afford it themselves nor had health insurance. They do not qualify for Tenn Care, govt. health insurance (wonder why not), but we were compassionate, willing, and more than happy to help.

Now I don't say this to pat myself on the back because I see it as my reasonable service. The Lord has been far better to me than any such act I can do.

My challenge is to put your money where your mouth is and help the folks that you are speaking of and your prayers don't count unless the folks are actually healed of their ailments my friend (in this challenge).

Our govt. is for the people and by the people so in essence we are the govt. Obama and the Congress work for us remember. So compassion must be with you and I. Our compassion extends to the govt. but not through the govt. We pay for the govt. employees health insurance already; now that's compassion.

[dawgs10]

Dawgs, I challenge you and I don't want to hear about you working part time for pay so you can work in the ministry. That is your reasonable service my friend if you are called of God.

Last week my wife and I paid for someone to have a medical procedure performed. This someone neither could afford it themselves nor had health insurance. They do not qualify for Tenn Care, govt. health insurance (wonder why not), but we were compassionate, willing, and more than happy to help.

Now I don't say this to pat myself on the back because I see it as my reasonable service. The Lord has been far better to me than any such act I can do.



My challenge is to put your money where your mouth is and help the folks that you are speaking of and your prayers don't count unless the folks are actually healed of their ailments my friend (in this challenge).

Our govt. is for the people and by the people so in essence we are the govt. Obama and the Congress work for us remember. So compassion must be with you and I. Our compassion extends to the govt. but not through the govt. We pay for the govt. employees health insurance already; now that's compassion.

paying for the govt. employees health care is not compassion. although what you did was. i will not go into the things my wife and I have done for people and the money we have spent for people. that is my resonable service. just because i have helped people and you have helped people does not mean we can turn our back on the world. i have said from the beginning that i do not agree with obamas health care plan. but in turn i dont agree with all of those (not my money people in this world). its funny in a way. we dont get as ourtraged over abortion, or wars in other countries but we are ready for war when it means our wallets.

[Full Quiver]

So you expect a non Christian govt. to perform the duties of us Christians?

[dawgs10]

So you expect a non Christian govt. to perform the duties of us Christians?

if the gov. is for the people and this country is founded on christian standards, then should it not be a christian gov.

[dolfan]

Christian standards did not drive the Constitutional framework of limited government. It is easy and sounds good to toss out that old saw in an argument about Christian standards, etc. The constraint on the authority of the federal government to the matters listed in the constitution was the great design of ingenious men who knew the price of liberty and the treasure of it. The federal government has never once set itself up as a surrogate of Jesus (that is, I suppose, until Obama said that government wants to be partners with God, quite without His offer to extend partnership to our government). Our government is NOT Christian, even in name.

[dawgs10]

Christian standards did not drive the Constitutional framework of limited government. It is easy and sounds good to toss out that old saw in an argument about Christian standards, etc. The constraint on the authority of the federal government to the matters listed in the constitution was the great design of ingenious men who knew the price of liberty and the treasure of it. The federal government has never once set itself up as a surrogate of Jesus (that is, I suppose, until Obama said that government wants to be partners with God, quite without His offer to extend partnership to our government). Our government is NOT Christian, even in name.

exactly, and yet we claim it to be true when it fits the debate. we quote our founding fathers when it fits are agenda. we want the constitition to work for us on an idividual basis, so we pick and chose when it works for us. do you understand what im getting at.

[dolfan]

Maybe I do, or not. I quote the Constitution and the founders because that is the square one of our government. Obama said during his campaign for the presidency that he wanted to "find what works". To him, and to most, that means government not only can, but should, do whatever it can accomplish. That view yields almost 100% of liberty and allows the government to frame our lives around "what works", meaning what government actually does. It is to cede in whole the Constitution. We're not talking about hues of emphasis and balancing acts and all that. We're talking about a clever, inimical, bloodless coup by the government, robbing the people of power.

It is not a matter of convenience, finding rhetorical traction in pushing an agenda. It is to actually be the U.S. that its framers built ---- or to be something different. Men died, suffered imprisonment and loss, to build this nation in the first place. Many more died along the way afterward for its sake. To me, this is not just an argument, but staking our very physical existence on whether we want to live under the thumb of a master or as free people. It isn't whether the Constitution "works for you"; it is whether we are going to suffer unrestrained federal government or whether we are going to put upon it the constraints of the Constitution and keep them there or else revolt to cast off the weights of our oppressors.

[dawgs10]

Maybe I do, or not. I quote the Constitution and the founders because that is the square one of our government. Obama said during his campaign for the presidency that he wanted to "find what works". To him, and to most, that means government not only can, but should, do whatever it can accomplish. That view yields almost 100% of liberty and allows the government to frame our lives around "what works", meaning what government actually does. It is to cede in whole the Constitution. We're not talking about hues of emphasis and balancing acts and all that. We're talking about a clever, inimical, bloodless coup by the government, robbing the people of power.

It is not a matter of convenience, finding rhetorical traction in pushing an agenda. It is to actually be the U.S. that its framers built ---- or to be something different. Men died, suffered imprisonment and loss, to build this nation in the first place. Many more died along the way afterward for its sake. To me, this is not just an argument, but staking our very physical existence on whether we want to live under the thumb of a master or as free people. It isn't whether the Constitution "works for you"; it is whether we are going to suffer unrestrained federal government or whether we are going to put upon it the constraints of the Constitution and keep them there or else revolt to cast off the weights of our oppressors.

the fact is slave owners hid behind the same constitution and helped to change it after thomas jeffersons first draft. sometimes change is necessary for the good of man kind. again, i dont agree with obama. but the man who wrote the constitution was a slave owner. why, because it was a way of life and legal. was it right, NO< NO< NO

[dolfan]

The Constitution didn't forbid slavery. That's why it wasn't unconstitutional. Of course, now with all of the "penumbras" of rights that are read into the document, we could do without the 14th and 15th Amendments and still not have slavery. But, the approach taken --- to amend the Constitution to authorize the federal government to do something it previously lacked authority to do --- was the right one.

Do this: if you want publically financed health care, amend the Constitution to say that Congress has that authority. Then, it WOULD be constitutional. We'd still by governed by tyrants and the amendment itself would cause a black hole effect on the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but at least it would be constitutional.

[dawgs10]

The Constitution didn't forbid slavery. That's why it wasn't unconstitutional. Of course, now with all of the "penumbras" of rights that are read into the document, we could do without the 14th and 15th Amendments and still not have slavery. But, the approach taken --- to amend the Constitution to authorize the federal government to do something it previously lacked authority to do --- was the right one.

Do this: if you want publically financed health care, amend the Constitution to say that Congress has that authority. Then, it WOULD be constitutional. We'd still by governed by tyrants and the amendment itself would cause a black hole effect on the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but at least it would be constitutional.

it was not against the law or unconstitutional but it was wrong. that is my point. just because it was not listed in the constitution does not make it right. we should follow the constitution, unless it infringes on our purpose. which is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. and i will add this, when one percent of america controls 99 percent because of wealth something is wrong.

[dolfan]

Wow, Dawgs, I don't know what to say here. You think it is wrong for 1 percent of wealth to control 99 percent of people, but you think it is okay for the government to control health care. Because on the face of it that is nonsense, the only thing I can honestly think is that you think the government ought to direct our society's way of life and that direction ought to take from the wealthy and give to the poor; I also can only honestly think that you actually don't mind the rich controlling the poor as long as they are doing so through the instruments of government, and that it is the control of wealth in the private sector --- with its use and opportunity for individual prosperity and liberty --- that you have a problem with. And, my friend, that's socialism by any name you want to give it.

[dawgs10]

Wow, Dawgs, I don't know what to say here. You think it is wrong for 1 percent of wealth to control 99 percent of people, but you think it is okay for the government to control health care. Because on the face of it that is nonsense, the only thing I can honestly think is that you think the government ought to direct our society's way of life and that direction ought to take from the wealthy and give to the poor; I also can only honestly think that you actually don't mind the rich controlling the poor as long as they are doing so through the instruments of government, and that it is the control of wealth in the private sector --- with its use and opportunity for individual prosperity and liberty --- that you have a problem with. And, my friend, that's socialism by any name you want to give it.

the one percent of america. if they were honest people that are not driven by greed and would stop at nothing to protect their money, it would be one thing. the deal is they will kill for money. lay off whole work forces for money. and pay theirselves huge salaries and bonuses while doing it. regan economics has never worked because of greed. nothing more. should we take their money? nope. should they be held accountable for the way the treat the 99% yes. how ever you shake it out it comes down to mine, mine, mine. we see that at our church nursery on a reg. basis. mine, mine, mine. the issue its age 3 and under. MINE, MINE, MINE!!!!! keep it at all cost. who cares about the rest of america. as long as i have what i have. MINE, MINE, MINE.

[dawgs10]

Wow, Dawgs, I don't know what to say here. You think it is wrong for 1 percent of wealth to control 99 percent of people, but you think it is okay for the government to control health care. Because on the face of it that is nonsense, the only thing I can honestly think is that you think the government ought to direct our society's way of life and that direction ought to take from the wealthy and give to the poor; I also can only honestly think that you actually don't mind the rich controlling the poor as long as they are doing so through the instruments of government, and that it is the control of wealth in the private sector --- with its use and opportunity for individual prosperity and liberty --- that you have a problem with. And, my friend, that's socialism by any name you want to give it.

and by the way most hard right had never heard the word socialism before obama. they had to label him something and flip flopper had already been used.

[MacUser]

the one percent of america. if they were honest people that are not driven by greed and would stop at nothing to protect their money, it would be one thing. the deal is they will kill for money. lay off whole work forces for money. and pay theirselves huge salaries and bonuses while doing it.

.... should they be held accountable for the way the treat the 99% yes. how ever you shake it out it comes down to mine, mine, mine.

...MINE, MINE, MINE!!!!! keep it at all cost. who cares about the rest of america. as long as i have what i have. MINE, MINE, MINE.

Humm.. Are you talking about the Govt. above? Are you talking about our elected officials? Are you talking about Ted Kennedy? Again.. what you subscribe to the Free Market is actually going on in our Govt. and elite officials.

Is this really Michael Moore in disguise?

[Full Quiver]

I say the govt. is not a Christian govt. because the positions are filled with non believers, Jews, atheists, Muslims, etc.