ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Mid-Term Elections Boot Democrats

Will the Mid-Term elections throw the Democrats out of office? Does it make any difference?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Leadership Bible Quiz
 ---Alan on 3/11/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (7)

Post a New Blog



Donna ... I suppose it's my own fault a bit!

On 3/21 I first said "the" but me fuller response to you, on the same day used "those".

Over here, we would not call the elected politicians "officials" That term would be used for employees.

And here the employees of the state organisations are permanent, and don't change according to the politics of the elected members.
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/25/10


My predictions were wrong and health care passed. Now political predictions have changed overnight as polls become a bit more favorable. Sooner or later the 32-million who were without insurance and now have hope will slough their way to the polls.

Neither side has been a profile in courage and who knows the mood of the electorate in November. The president could have a major victory in the war on terror, another supreme court appointment or an attack on his life by some wing nut. These things change polls on a dime.

The president is not running but Congressional candidates run on national issues not pot holes and late subways.
Now I have no clue what will happen in November.
---larry on 3/24/10


Alan of UK --- every quote of yours in my post was "cut and paste", deliberately done so as not to risk misquoting you. (see yours of 3/21)

When I said Government "officials", I meant politicians who are elected (I was trying to save space). All members of Congress are elected by the people. And even the the president's advisors are politicians.

As you can see "class warfare" and "socialism" are hot buttons for me.
I'm sorry for stating an argument. Sorry, I didn't give you enough credit for "some" and "not the majority". I'll try to control myself better...will you forgive me?

I really respect you and enjoy most of your posts, even if I sometimes disagree.
---Donna66 on 3/24/10


ralph7477:

I grew up in a time when banks were reliable and not nearly so greedy (or perhaps I was just naive?), and used to place great trust in them. I have generally had fairly goo luck with them too. But in recent years, I have personally experienced, and witnessed in the lives of others close to me, many large banks doing many greedy and unconscionable things, motivated by greed and not their customers' best interests.

And there have been several stories recently where Bank of America foreclosed on people's properties - properties that were fully paid for, and not even mortgaged through them.
---StrongAxe on 3/25/10


John ... I hope so.
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/25/10




Alan: "Jerry ... "the forces of evil (the Demoncraps) ... Communist thugs" Get a book about real Communism."

Why would I need a book? I live in Florida, a state just 90 miles from communist Cuba. I have known people who have emigrated from that island of hell. They tell me that Communism is evil. Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher knew that Communism was evil, and that it was an enemy to be defeated. Has something changed that it has become a thing to be desired, or has the propaganda worked on you like it seems to be working on American leftists?
---jerry6593 on 3/25/10


In all honesty StrongAxe, based on what and how you write I figured you were a kid who just graduated high school or maybe college and perhaps didn't yet know any better. Sorry, but you asked.
---ralph7477 on 3/24/10


Donna ... Once again I have no argument with what you now say ... nor did my original posts.

But I did not say "the rich who whine about the evils of socialism seldom give to church work"

As to the politicians, I am not talking of the officials but of the elected members. We have corruption in both our main parties, left and right wing.

Interestingly, it is among the socialists, whom one would expect to fight for the poor and underprivileged (and there's nothing wrong in that) where there is a much higher proportion of corruption than in the right wing.

---alan8566_of_uk on 3/24/10


Alan,

Will David Cameron be the next Prime Minister?
---John on 3/24/10


Alan of UK--- I appreciate "many".
Our government officials are probably as bad as yours. But some are not so rich and some already have a lot earned honestly, so I don't want to paint them all with the same broad brush.

When I said "the rich who whine", I was talking about certain rich people, not all
(note there's no comma...I didn't say "the rich, who whine").

I Said in MY experience those who complain about socialism are as giving as anybody.. sometimes even more! (because they feel it's not the governments responsibility) The UK may be different.
Yes, "many rich people got their wealth by unfair means" but thats not the first trait I think of if you mention "rich"!
---Donna66 on 3/24/10




ralph7477:

Why? Did you think I was younger? or older? :)
---StrongAxe on 3/24/10


Donna66 ... You appear not to understand the words "many of" But perhaps you do approve of those many (and even a minority will be many) among the rich who got their wealth by exploitation?

"the rich who whine" misquote! I said "those rich who whine" Those who don't often do give to charity. Those who do whine, generally don't give. And of course the poor who whine, generally don't want to work.

Presumably you approve of graft, bribe-taking, corruption as a way of getting rich. It is rife among our senior politicians (again not all of them)

This discussion started by your ridiculous claim that it was fantasy to suggest that many rich people got their wealth by unfair means
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/24/10


Alan8566_of_uk: I didn't realise I was living in a country of "enlightened" capitalism?!? lol

As a Christian, I can see +ves and -ves for all 3 main parties over here. We do have some Christian politicians here and each will join whichever party he feels represents his/her views best Biblically. It's almost like "denominations extreme" ,-) Perhaps when someone says "Why do Christians need all these denominations/independent churches, why can't they all agree?" we could point out that politically we have many parties and viewpoints, some based on the same theories and principles but we are all human and we all make mistakes.
---simon7348 on 3/24/10


StrongAxe, you are 53? I'm at a loss for words.
---ralph7477 on 3/23/10


ralph7477:

I'm not defending the practice of overdrawing accounts, just that banks WANT you to do it so they can make money (just like police set up radar traps as revenue centers and WANT you to speed).

1) They honor checks exceeding your balance, whether you want them to or not
2) They charge $40 even for negligible amounts
3) Even though they track your balance within minutes, customer services like mini-statements and internet banking are often several days behind, which facilitates making inadvertent errors.

(And if you MUST know, I'm 53 - how about you?)
---StrongAxe on 3/23/10


Alan of UK
many of those who are very wealthy have not got that way by working hard ... they have got it by scheming to exploit those who are perhaps more honest or who are not so greedy."

many (not the majority) of the super rich got their wealth by unfair means and exploitation

the rich who whine about the evils of socialism seldom give to church work.


...government past and present members are making themselves rich at the expense of those they expoloit (t6he people) and high in their ranks is your revered Blair


mmmm, How did I get the idea you don't really like rich people? No other class of people came in for such criticism. I never said you "hate" anybody
---Donna66 on 3/23/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


StrongAxe, may I ask how old you are?
---ralph7477 on 3/23/10


ralph7477:

How about bills that automatically withdraw funds from your bank account without an explicit check? Those get put through whether you have the funds or not.

As far as the legitimacy of punitive damages goes, that's also not terribly relevant here anyway, since you don't take money from the bank - you ask them for it, and they VOLUNTARILY GIVE IT TO YOU (and then whine about it later).

If I walk into your house and take money, you're entitled to compensation and punitive damages. But if I ask you for a dollar, and you say "sure. Oh by the way, you now owe me $40", that is a totally different thing.
---StrongAxe on 3/23/10


StrongAxe, banks wouldn't make anything on overdraft fees if people didn't overdraw their account. I find it hard to believe that you are defending such a practice. Who writes a check for $2.00 with $1.00 in their account? Sounds ridiculous.

And what are you talking about when you say leave the penalties between the payer and payee? If you write me a bad check how can I asses you a penalty? On the other hand, if I wrote you a check with insufficient funds, would you rather have my bank cover it for you and charge me a penalty or just hand it back to you and say sorry, it's your problem and you have to track me down to get me to pay?
---ralph7477 on 3/23/10


Donna ... I agree 100% with what you now say.

What did I say previously which disagreed with that?

I reapeat: When did I demonise thge rich? When did I say they shoul,d be hated?

When did I stereotype ""undeserving, lazy, scheming rich Vs the poor but honest downtrodden poor"
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/23/10


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


ralph7477:

When banks were presented with checks that exceeded deposits, they used to "just said no" and bounce the checks. This left the penalties between payer and payee. But now, they "thoughtfully" cover checks and charge $40 for the privilege, even if it's a $2 check that puts you $1 over. Many times I was charged fees more than twice the check amount. (In contrast with "traditional" consequences of bills not being paid, getting a warning, and paying a few dollars in late fees.)

One may say such fees are "just", but banks make billions off people this way. (One could similarly say loan shark interest rates are "just", because the customers agree to them up front).
---StrongAxe on 3/22/10


Alan of UK---Thank you for telling me that you really consider that the "rich immoral exploiters" are a minority. With that I can agree!

I think it is wrong to judge people by how much money they have.

And people are not always what they seem on the surface. I have known people who lived frugally, but when they died they left 100's of thousands of dollars to the church. Likewise some who appear "rich" owe more than they can pay in a lifetime. They own but a tiny fraction of their big house and cars. They are actually quite poor.

It's so much more important to judge people independent of their pocketbooks. Poor and rich deserve respect as individuals until they have proved undeserving.
---Donna66 on 3/22/10


Donna ... Where have I suggested the rich should be hated, or that anyone should ahte anyone? Where have I demonised the rich?

I have pointed out the selfishness of some, and also the same fault in some socialists.

You will see mine of 3/21 was also addressed to others. I did not attribute any remarks at all to you.

And what is my attitude that comes through loud and clear? Please tell me!
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/22/10


Alan of Uk--
I read what you say... and your attitude comes through loud and clear.

And perhaps you should read what I write and not attribute to me things others have said, as you did in your post addressed to me on 3/21.
---Donna66 on 3/22/10


Send a Free Winter Ecard


Donna ...
You really do need to read what I say. Where have I suggested that anyone should hate the rich (even the minority who are immoral exploiters) ?

Ralph ... we have that here as well ... our current "socialist" government past and present members are making themselves rich at the expense of those they expoloit (t6he people) and high in their ranks is your revered Blair

Jerry ... "the forces of evil (the Demoncraps) ... Communist thugs" Get a book about real Communism.
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/22/10


Donna ...
You really do need to read what I say. Where have I suggested that anyone should hate the rich (even the minority who are immoral exploiters) ?

Ralph ... we have that here as well ... our current "socialist" government past and present members are making themselves rich at the expense of those they expoloit (t6he people) and high in their ranks is your revered Blair

Jerry ... "the forces of evil (the Demoncraps) ... Communist thugs" Get a book about real Communism.
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/22/10


Gee StrongAxe, I'm surprised you didn't complain about the fact that the renter would have to spend money to purchase a stamp. Heaven forbid. We could spend a lot of time making up little scenarios like you did.

My question to you is how is any of it the bank's problem? You undermined your own argument by admitting that transactions are done electronically. A mature person with any sense of initiative and responsibility figures out a way to conduct his business efficiently. People who think they are somehow owed everything just do as they please and complain.

And I ask you again, do you stand by your 2-3 times recompense standard no matter how large the overdraft? Or didn't you completely think that through?
---ralph7477 on 3/22/10


The secret known to Americans about what is going on with our country is that America is now on the brink of a 2nd Civil War. We talk about it in private

Many everyday mainstream Americans (if not most) are now stockpiling weapons and food to protect their family and property.

This was once the arena of the Extremist (left or right) but now mainstream everyday Americans have come to the conclusion that in this case War is the Answer.

Most of the states have already passed Secession Laws in preparation of a very possible 2nd Civil War.

There has been an ongoing dialogue between the Left and the Right in peacefully dividing up the states between Blue states (Left) and Red states(right)in hope to avoid this war.
---John on 3/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


Will the Mid-Term elections throw the Democrats out of office? Does it make any difference?

No it will not. When people begin to realize what they truely have in this healthcare bill, they will be happy.

The first things we heard about the bill were all lies: Death panels, abortion on demand, all lies.

Not to mention, I highly doubt that the republicans have any new ideas besides tax cuts for the wealthy. The trickle down economincs that have not worked since Mr reagan was president.
---francis on 3/22/10


ralph7477:

Suppose you get paid on the 31st of each month, and rent is due on the 1st. You don't want to risk paying late (and incurring late fees), so you mail the check several days early (as the post office does not guarantee delivery on a specific date). However, if your check arrives two days early, funds to cover it aren't there yet, so you incure severe overdraft fees. You used to be able to post-date checks so funds are not removed before they are available. However, now that banks do everything electronically and don't actually READ the checks, they don't do this anymore. So short of hand-delivering all your bills or paying through the nose for overnight delivery, there's no way to ensure your checks are neither late nor early.
---StrongAxe on 3/22/10


Strong Axe---Who pays the Bank's bills?
Where do they get the money they loan out...it doesn't all come free to them (and it's not all from their own depositors!)
Who pays the tellers, the printing of statements and forms, business and legal advisors , the electric and water bills, the janitor, the advertising, the insurance, the taxes!

AFTER these (and surely more expenses I don't know about... the cost of doing business) are all paid, then the bank makes a profit.
---Donna66 on 3/21/10


Alan --I'm not a wealthy person. I worked hard all my life as a nurse in various hospitals. Many, many people have more money than I. Does that give me a reason to hate them?

No... but I guess I don't understand such antagonism, since I don't live under "enlightened" capitalism.
---Donna66 on 3/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


Donna66 ... "HUH? No. How did you reach this conclusion" ... that I was demonising the rich?

That last paragraph was irrelevant because the economy, and the rich, and you, depend not only on job creation but on performance of those jobs.
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/22/10


Well, the discussion is now over. America has begun her death slide into the abyss of a two-bit, third-world dictatorship. With the passage of the death care bill, the forces of evil (the Demoncraps) have succeeded in ensuring our defeat from within. Thanks to all of you who voted in these Communist thugs, my children and grandchildren will never know what free America was like. May you reap what you have sown.
---jerry6593 on 3/22/10


You get what you deserve. In this case ignorance is NOT bliss, but spells the end of America and freedom
---John (pastor jim) on 3/21/10


yes, we see the world crumbling around us.
---NurseRobert on 3/21/10


StrongAxe, you got one point correct. Banks make money from good loans. That's the purpose of a bank. Foreclosure is a last resort as banks aren't in the property management business. Foreclosed properties sometimes sell for more than the mortgage balance. Many times they do not. You would see this by scanning any county sheriff's sale web site. The bank has to incur carrying costs on the home, keep taxes current, make repairs and pay realtor fees to resell the home.

As for your 2-3 times damages, does that mean you would be willing to have the bank charge you $125 for an overdraft of $50? Or would that be a different story? Post dating checks is bad practice. If it is presented for payment, the bank is obligated to process it.
---ralph7477 on 3/21/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


Alan of UK --- Your last pparagraph is irrelavant to the discussion. Do you feel hard working teachers should be kept in poverty, aqnd the sick left to die?

HUH? No. How did you reach this conclusion? I do mean to say, again, it's a mistake to demonize the rich.
In my next post I will tell you why.
---Donna66 on 3/21/10


Donna ... clearly attitudes and maybe definistions are different in out tweo countries.

Over here, those rich who do whine about the evils of socialism generally don't give to any form of charity. They are like those few on these blogs who whine about the evils of socialism, who don't seem to care a fig about the needy

But most wealthy and financially successful people in UK don't whine because they recognise that limited socialist principles & rules do have some value. We call it enlightened capitalism. Perhaps in the US you don't have this.

Your last pparagraph is irrelavant to the discussion. Do you feel hard working teachers should be kept in poverty, aqnd the sick left to die?
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/21/10


Americans are plain dumb and gullable. They fall for slogans like "Hope and Change" Don't forget All the Marxists that are taking over our country were voted in by fools.

You get what you deserve. In this case ignorance is NOT bliss, but spells the end of America and freedom
---John on 3/21/10


ralph7477:

1) Lend money on a mortgage
2) If they pay it back, collect lots of interest. PROFIT!
3) If they DON'T pay it back, foreclose:
3a) Sell foreclosed property, usually for more than the mortgaged value. PROFIT!
3b) If you can't recover the value, collect the difference from lenders mortgage insurance (premiums are charged to initial borrower, of course). Break even.

Yes, if I overspend my account by $1, it IS my fault. Biblical standards for recompense is 2-3 times damages (repayment + 1-2 times penalty). A penalty of 40x damages is ridiculous.

Banks also often ignore dates on post-dated checks, cashing them early - racking up many penalties for acts that are THEIR FAULT.
---StrongAxe on 3/21/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


Clearly the reason we are sliding downhill as a society is because people have been conditioned to think that government is the answer to everything. As well as the fact that basic economics is apparently not being taught.

StrongAxe, exactly how does a bank get rich on interest, fees and foreclosures if they make loans that they know will result in defaults? If you loaned ten people a thousand dollars and no one paid you back, how would you get rich?

And who's is at fault for spending more than the balance of an account? The bank or the account holder? Is the bank supposed to supply free money to people who spend more than they have? If the fee was $400, I bet people would suddenly become more responsible.
---ralph7477 on 3/21/10


alan8566_of_uk---

Again, you are very much mistaken when you assume the rich who whine about the evils of socialism seldom give to church work. The churches where I live are full of people who support the church and object to Socialism. They MAY even give MORE because they realize what the role church should be vs. the role of government.

But thank you for saying you were not slamming the the "majority" of the rich.
It's oh, so easy to generalize when one feels strongly about something. I've done it too, and apologize.
Some wealthy people are surely not of good character, but nevertheless the economy depends on them. When was the last time a "poor" man gave you a job?
---Donna66 on 3/21/10


jerry6593:

That depends on whether the industrious came by their wealth honesty. While some have done so, many have not.

I'm fairly sure he would not approve of the way that many of the rich get rich either. For example, banks who charge $40 overdraft fees each time you bank balance goes $1 over your limit, or who set up credit card and mortgage loans that they KNOW will result in bad debts and defaults, thus keeping in virtual financial slavery, while the banks grow rich on interests, fees, and foreclosures.

Just look at how he dealt with the "temple market industry".
---StrongAxe on 3/21/10


Donna ... You are inventing things I did not say. I did not say all or most, I said many, and that is true. That was your stereotype not mine.

Donna I am aware of the evils of Class Warfare, as practiced by some socialists, but again you stereotype them.

Elder, I am not a socialist. It has some good principles in theory, but does not work in practice.

I do give to the poor. Unlike you, I do not whine about the fact that they need help.

My house is partly occupied by a church worker

"Killing babies is part of socialism too" Where did you pick up that lie?

You are though quite right about your last point ... the rich who whine about the evils of socialism seldom give to church work.
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/21/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


Larry, if you hear giggling it explains a lot. Get well soon.
---ralph7477 on 3/21/10


Donna, Jerry, Ralph. The giggle you hear is Satan watching Christians continue to invest time in the belief that flesh and blood (liberals vs. conservatives) is the problem.

There is no such thing as Christian politics because politics is not Christian. You are no match for Satan on his turf. Stop while your being beaten. Its a lie from the father of lies that there is any virtue in being conservative or liberal. Politics offers answers but no solutions.

To answer the question...the election will make a distinction but no real difference. All mankind suffers from the same greed and avarice that existed since Cain and Abel.
---larry on 3/20/10


Alan of UK-My objection was not to your willingness to pay taxes. We pay taxes in the US too, only not at as high a percentage of income as you do there.

My objection was to the stereotypical "undeserving, lazy, scheming rich Vs the poor but honest downtrodden poor".

This is used by Socialism to promote class warfare. It minimizes the potential of the poor and demonizes the intentions of the rich. Like other stereotypes it is not fair to anyone.
---Donna66 on 3/20/10


Alan, Will Cameron be the next PM?
Arte the Tories taking over?
---John on 3/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Alan I am sure that you could downsize and give to the poor somewhere. You could live in a smaller house on a smaller income. Nah, that's not for you... just for everyone else. Doesn't the Bible say that if a man doesn't work he shall not eat.
It was Judas not Jesus that was a Socialist. Any Christian that says they support or that they are a socialist do not really know the Jesus of the Bible as they should. Killing babies is part of Socialism also. The same people that whine about a Socialist government hardly ever give to church work.
---Elder on 3/20/10


Ralph ... Maybe I expressed myself badly. The tax system I would support allows low paid people to pay low rate of tax (maybe none)and higher earners to pay at a higher rate.

I would support a benefit scheme which is is tareted at he genuine needy, not the lazy oir the feckless

The main point of my earlier post was the fact that many (not the majority) of the super rich got their wealth by unfair means and exploitation
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/20/10


Axey: "If Jesus were here today, he would be called a radical socialist."

I doubt that! I don't think that He would advocate the theft from the industrious by force of arms to benefit the lazy. He wrote with His own finger in stone "Thou shalt not steal." He is also no respecter of persons. Socialism promotes both unwarranted theft and the advantage of one class over another.
---jerry6593 on 3/20/10


Strongaxe -- Jesus a socialist?
When did He recommend giving to the GOVERNMENT so THEY can give to the poor? I rather think he considered that an individual responsibility!

He was pretty big on responsibility:
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Consider the parable of the talents.
Mat 25:20-21 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant...

Besides giving to the poor, Shouldn't we
also wisely INVEST what He has given us?
---Donna66 on 3/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


"I am prepared to participate in a tax regime that will help them at my expense."

Why are you waiting for the government to come up with a tax scheme to help people? You must know that government only makes people dependent on the State. You must also know that whatever amount the government takes from you, only a tiny portion of that gets to people who are in need. The majority gets eaten up by the government agencies and employees.

If equality is your goal I would imagine that you would seek out a few people who are in need and give them what you have until you have equalized yourself with them.
---ralph7477 on 3/20/10


Donna .. Please read what I said. I said "many", not all.

Yes I have a nice house, through hard work and saving, but I am by no means super rich.

I realsie also that because I worked in certain employment, I had a much higher income than those who worked hard in less well paid but still very worthy jobs.

This does produce inequalities which are not just down to being lazy of hardworking.

I am prepared to participate in a tax regime that will help them at my expense.

You seem to scorn that as a hallmark of your hated socialism. So be it.
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/20/10


Donna66:

An article "Christians in the Hands of an Angry God" suggests if you believe what Jesus taught, you must believe Republicans are the party of Satan, and Christians who buy into it are the religion of Satan. While I don't agree with all the author says, he makes some good points. For example, many conservative ideals diametrically oppose Jesus teachings:

Conservatives: "Work hard, save, and become rich and self-sufficient"

Jesus: don't lay up treasures (Matthew 6, Luke 12) or serve God and Mammon (Luke 16). Sell everything (Luke 18). It is hard for the rich to enter heaven (Mark 10:25, Matthew 19:24, Luke 18:25). If Jesus were here today, he would be called a radical socialist.
---StrongAxe on 3/20/10


Donna66: You are quite right. What you describe is nothing less than the classic class warfare described by Karl Marx.

Alan: Ask yourself: Who more deserves the fruits of his labor, the one who worked hard for it, or the lazy one who merely COVETS his neighbors' wealth?
---jerry6593 on 3/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


Alan, your last post is ridiculous for the most part but there is some truth in it. I can think of people who fit your description: "many of those who are very wealthy have not got that way by working hard ... they have got it by scheming to exploit those who are perhaps more honest or who are not so greedy." Most of them are Democrat politicians and government officials.

I know many teachers who are living pretty darn well. Early retirement, vacation homes, full pension and benefits for life. In fact, most people who make a living off the taxpayer do extremely well. It looks like that may soon change.

In our country hard work, ingenuity, wisdom and honesty can still lead to success but socialism is looming large.
---ralph7477 on 3/20/10


Alan of UK--

I'm afraid it is pure fantasy to believe "that many of those who are very wealthy have not got that way by working hard ... they have got it by scheming to exploit those who are perhaps more honest or who are not so greedy."

So the moral of the story is, DON'T work hard or you'll be POOR! Don't have your own business. Don't SAVE, Don't INVEST carefully...that's exploitive and scheming and "greedy".

I remember you once complaining because when your felt your house had been "burgled" and you called the police, they would not help because your house was so nice they didn't think you deserved it!

Now I know where that attitude comes from. It's a hallmark of Socialism.
---Donna66 on 3/19/10


Donna ... The problem with your comparison is that many of those who are very wealthy have not got that way by working hard ... they have got it by scheming to exploit those who are perhaps more honest or who are not so greedy.

A teacher or nurse will work extremely hard, yet will never earn enough to become wealthy.

A friend of mine is a builder, and he built a man a house, and when it came to payment, the man, already rich, would not pay a penny, and my friend could not afford to sue him for payment.

That's how many rich get there.
---alan8566_of_uk on 3/19/10


Peter3594 -- Both sides DO consider fairness!

The Progressives think it is fair to "spread the wealth around". They call it "Social Justice" since they like to believe it will equalize rich and poor and eliminate poverty.

Conservatives think it is unfair to confiscate money from a man who works and give it to one who doesn't. This destroys incentive to create, expand and work hard. It discourages people from reaching their full potential.
---Donna66 on 3/19/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


peter3594:

Why do you think that abortion and evolution are the two most key issues? If you look at Rome 2000 years ago, it was very corrupt. Yet if you look at what church leaders were talking about in the new testament (including Jesus in Revelation), they were preaching about the church dealing with its own internal corruption, and hardly a word about the corruption OUTSIDE the church.

One needs to clean the lumberyard out of ones own eyes before yelling at the splinters in other people's.
---StrongAxe on 3/19/10


I think I most agree with Donna - that it is better not to have one party controlling all three offices. It would also be nice (though it is very rare) to see the two parties trying to find common ground in their dealings. Oddly enough , there is actually a lot (for a moment, ignore abortion and evolution, the two most common arguments) and consider the ideas of fairness (not merely financialy). I personally am (morally) a highly conservative but (economically) more leftish, wishing it were possible (as it was in the early church) for the rich to help the poor WITHOUT the poor becoming unwilling to work. But that ONLY works in Christian communities
---peter3594 on 3/18/10


\\CLUNY GET REAL! Who do think the order came down from. Unless you agree Obama is a Marxist puppet controled be Rahm Emanual.
---John on 3/13/10\\

Please provide evidence that you believe this came from Obama.

And give clear evidence that Obama is a mahometan.

The fact that he drinks alcohol and believed in pre-natal infanticide is clear indication that he is not.
---Cluny on 3/15/10


The new rules don't except Muslims or anyone else specifically - they just allow ANYONE to object to the scan, and subject themselves to a pat-down instead.

So there is no reason to say "I object because I am a Muslim". One just has to say "no", period.
---StrongAxe on 3/14/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


Just remember what the good book says:

"The Kings heart is in the hands of the Lord..."

It really does not matter who is elected if we put our trust where it REALLY
belongs...

And as Jesus attempted to teach his followers: HIS kingdom is "NOT of this world."
---obewan on 3/14/10


Yes, and yes lets hope so.
---Bob on 3/14/10


would be exactly the same as saying that no-one needs to ge through them, as anyone can pretend to be a muslim.
---peter3594 on 3/12/10

And on Glenn Beck they are telling everyone to say thay are moslem.

See Roger Hedgecock site. He has the scope on it and he has a picture of the Quran you download and cover a book and go through scanners unsearched.

CLUNY GET REAL! Who do think the order came down from. Unless you agree Obama is a Marxist puppet controled be Rahm Emanual.
---John on 3/13/10


\\john: "Moslems are now EXEMPT from the scanners."

I'm not surprised. What else would you expect from a Moslem president?
---jerry6593 on 3/12/10\\

Calling Obama a Mahometan will not make him one.

Furthermore, this order did NOT come from Obama.
---Cluny on 3/12/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


john:

Can you cite a news source about this? All I've been able to find is that people who object to the scanners can opt for a physical pat-down instead (and this applies to anyone who objects, not just Muslims).

And for years, the TSA has been swallowing camels and choking on gnats: they spent lots of time confiscating nail clippers and toothpaste, while many have demonstrated the ability to smuggle full bomb components onto planes despite such security measures. (And remember, the TSA was implemented under a Republican administration). This is what happens when you hire minimum-wage amateurs to do something that is basically just a publicity facade, compare with Israel who takes security SERIOUSLY and does a decent job of it.
---StrongAxe on 3/12/10


John, could you inform me about where you obtained that information about the scanners? I have been searching for about half an hour without being able to find any such information, and it (in a country like the US) would be exactly the same as saying that no-one needs to ge through them, as anyone can pretend to be a muslim.
---peter3594 on 3/12/10


john: "Moslems are now EXEMPT from the scanners."

I'm not surprised. What else would you expect from a Moslem president?
---jerry6593 on 3/12/10


NEWSFLASH!!!

Our Bleeding Heart Liberal Homeland security just approved this...

Apparently Moslems complained about the X-Ray scanners at the airports. That since it exposes the body, it was against their religion SOOOOOOO.....

YOU GUESS IT!!!

Moslems are now EXEMPT from the scanners.

HMMMMM? I thought it was for Moslem extremists that they were install. Now only Americans will be scanned .


JUST LOVE lIBERALS!
---john on 3/11/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


A-ha Cluny, how refreshingly Christlike!

To answer the question for pagans, yes the Dems will get pulverized and it will make a "temporary" difference until the Repubs repeat earlier stumbles of hubris and hypocrisy and we'll repeat the cycle all over again.
The landscape however has changed electorally even more in favor of democrats due to demographics, and locally in favor of republicans due to the intolerance of mostly Democrat incumbents.
For every Foley there's a Massa.
---larry on 3/11/10


They won't throw out ALL the Democrats. But it's never a good thing for one party to control the White House, The Senate and the House of Representatives, no matter wwhich party. So it will be good to restore a balance of power, the checks and balances, that out Constitution intends.
---Donna66 on 3/11/10


Does it matter?

Whoever holds the civil power matters not, as God is still the ruler of nations.

As one ancient who was no mean politician himself wrote, "Put not your trust in princes [or politicians or political parties], in children of mortals, in whom is NO SALVATION!"
---Cluny on 3/11/10


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.