I'm still sour over that obamacare pill shuffed down my throat. the two "attaboys", (nav seals/Somalia pirates/Osama Bin laden) just ain't enough to stop me from choking on it and the bail outs. And I don't see anything from the GOP either. And that one idiot in the wig, what the hay is that about? SANTA BANANA!!! we're in trouble for certain, BIG TIME.
Come on, bailouts were started by bush and have been pretty much paid back
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicinabottle
Not to turn this into a healthcare debate, but my wife just got medicare, and with an added suppliment, to the order of $122 extra because of the Obama healthcare bill, what with the banning of insurance companies being able to discriminate because of pre existing conditions......... My wife will for the first time in her life be able to afford and take the $6,000 a month dose of remicaid, to control her disease. For us, we love the new healthcare bill!
The democrats have been a failure in getting out the good points of this bill, I think once people start seeing the benefits and start hearing the good the bill does they will change their perceptions from what the advertising on TV tells them to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flaja
......
The only person for whom the dating style “year of our Lord” has ever been used is Jesus Christ. So even if the men who signed the Constitution did not believe Jesus Christ is God, they all recognized His existence.
That kind of logic is bad, and why christians push hard to have "in god we trust" on the money, you use money so you must be trusting in god..... It is a common dating system but does not mean everyone who uses it must believe in it.
Also I find it absurd when people say something like the above proves they are christians as they would never lie to get votes but then people turn around and call Obama a muslim despite claiming and having evidence of being a christian.... so politics in the past when religion was a much bigger deal could not havve resorted to pretending to be christian or "just going along with it" as that only happens today. who knows what the founding fathers if they had the evidence and social conditions we have today, but we know they knew enough to have a separation of church and state
The democrats have been a failure in getting out the good points of this bill, I think once people start seeing the benefits and start hearing the good the bill does they will change their perceptions from what the advertising on TV tells them to do.
Most don't realize the incredible propoganda machine that was utilized to kill this bill and keep "Business as usual" I know that most people would never educate themselves, but they should watch the docu "The best government money can buy" It ain't Obama who's the enemy I'll tell you that much!
How so? Who other than Jesus Christ is the Lord indicated by the expression "in the year of our Lord"?
Quote:
and why christians push hard to have "in god we trust" on the money,
This particular Christian does not really want "in god we trust" on money or anything else put out by the government because he has no guarantee that the god in question is the Lord.
Quote:
It is a common dating system but does not mean everyone who uses it must believe in it.
It is only a dating system in Christian cultures so it has never been "common" in the world as a whole, and it is not all that common anymore even in Christian cultures.
Quote:
Also I find it absurd when people say something like the above proves they are christians as they would never lie to get votes but then people turn around and call Obama a muslim despite claiming and having evidence of being a christian....
What evidence? The government of Nazi Germany issued a statement that Adolf Hitler was and intended to remain a Roman Catholic. But is this evidence for Hitler's real beliefs?
Quote:
so politics in the past when religion was a much bigger deal
This is my whole point. I was responding to the false claim that the Founding Fathers did not want religion involved in politics.
How so? Who other than Jesus Christ is the Lord indicated by the expression "in the year of our Lord"?
??????? did you not read what I wrote at all? I was in no way debating how significant people placed christianity, and it has been formed as the basis for our calendar due to religious states having significant power, but that hardly make it a a state religion, just a common measurement of time
Quote:
This particular Christian does not really want "in god we trust" on money or anything else put out by the government because he has no guarantee that the god in question is the Lord.
and that's your reason, not because it uses your belief in god to value an otherwise worthless piece of paper and therefore cheapening your religion and the benefit of legitimizaing paper currency to the masses of religious people?
Quote:
It is only a dating system in Christian cultures so it has never been "common" in the world as a whole, and it is not all that common anymore even in Christian cultures.
ok, so argue one way then another.... as far as I have seen with the exception of chine we still refer to the same dates, sure it may be b.c.e and c.e. "before current era" and "current era" but it is still the same
Quote:
What evidence? The government of Nazi Germany issued a statement that Adolf Hitler was and intended to remain a Roman Catholic. But is this evidence for Hitler's real beliefs?
was not my point, my point is people can't have their cake and eat it too, you can't say this person who founded a country was a christian because he said so but then say adolf hitler was not a christian even though he said so and attened religious services....
Quote:
This is my whole point. I was responding to the false claim that the Founding Fathers did not want religion involved in politics.
but you didn't defend that, other then a few small minor references god is completely left out of anything official about how founding, no religious terms were used. If this occured in an era of high religionism then I would expect some hard concrete evidence but there is none of that.
Most don't realize the incredible propoganda machine that was utilized to kill this bill and keep "Business as usual" I know that most people would never educate themselves, but they should watch the docu "The best government money can buy" It ain't Obama who's the enemy I'll tell you that much!
Agree, what amazes me more was the same people decrying all these issues with Obama healthcare plan and touting the GOP plan as a common sense approach......The GOP bill was one of the most horrid things that could have been written, I know lots of times this gets tossed around haphazardly but this billl was 100% written by the insurance lobbies and truth be told it probably would have got us to single payer quicker then obama's plan as it would have destroyed any reliability of coverage, coverage in general or accountability from our health care system in addition to making it far cheaper for lobbyists to get protections removed.
I still have coworkers that bring up issues like they will be taxed on gains when they sell their house and are worried about that... completely missing the point they have to make over $500,000 (income and profit from the sale) before that kicks in (but I guess the right wing news they are adhered to just left that part out by accident)
Even republicans tried to play the obama health care was written by insurance lobbyists.... ???????? Even as the insurance companies spent a fortune to advertise against the healthcare act.....
It's amazing how easily people are manipulated, but some people are still convinced we need to give more tax breaks to the rich while the average person needs to share more sacrifice despite decades of trickle down economics that in reality just don't work.
Agree, what amazes me more was the same people decrying all these issues with Obama healthcare plan and touting the GOP plan as a common sense approach......The GOP bill was one of the most horrid things that could have been written, I know lots of times this gets tossed around haphazardly but this billl was 100% written by the insurance lobbies and truth be told it probably would have got us to single payer quicker then obama's plan as it would have destroyed any reliability of coverage, coverage in general or accountability from our health care system in addition to making it far cheaper for lobbyists to get protections removed.
I still have coworkers that bring up issues like they will be taxed on gains when they sell their house and are worried about that... completely missing the point they have to make over $500,000 (income and profit from the sale) before that kicks in (but I guess the right wing news they are adhered to just left that part out by accident)
Even republicans tried to play the obama health care was written by insurance lobbyists.... ???????? Even as the insurance companies spent a fortune to advertise against the healthcare act.....
It's amazing how easily people are manipulated, but some people are still convinced we need to give more tax breaks to the rich while the average person needs to share more sacrifice despite decades of trickle down economics that in reality just don't work.
Funny how Mitt Romneys plan, which is identicle to Obamas is actually working brilliantly! Oh boy! Don't even get me started! Very very passionate from personal first hand experience on this subject. Anyways, back on topic..............
??????? did you not read what I wrote at all? I was in no way debating how significant people placed christianity, and it has been formed as the basis for our calendar due to religious states having significant power, but that hardly make it a a state religion,
You are the one who isn?t reading what is being posted. I wasn't talking about a state religion. I was addressing the issue of how the Founding Fathers allowed religion to influence the government. I was addressing the false claim that the Founding Fathers wanted to isolate the government from the influence of religion. The First Amendment was ratified to isolate religion from the influence of government, not the other way around.
Quote:
but you didn't defend that, other then a few small minor references god is completely left out of anything official about how founding, no religious terms were used.
This is exactly what I did address. The Constitution is more than simply the final document. You have to take into account the motives, objectives and methodology of the men who wrote the document. A collective majority of these men were either Christian in one form or another, or they were not bothered by letting people?s religious views influence the government they were creating. If the men who wrote the Constitution had been opposed to religion in government, they wouldn?t have been praying during the Convention that wrote the Constitution and they would not have recognized Jesus Christ in what became a legally-binding document.
First Great Awakening: 1734 ? c1750
A precursor to the American Revolution
The men who wrote the Constitution in 1787 were all products of a society that had essentially been created by the Great Awakening. And mainline Protestant denominations in America saw a steady rise in membership beginning by at least 1780 and this lead to the Second Great Awakening in the early decades of the 19th century.
The period in which the Constitution was written was far more religious that the modern Left would have us believe.
Quote:
then I would expect some hard concrete evidence but there is none of that.
Typical leftist debate tactic. There is nothing that you would accept as evidence because you are already convinced that such evidence does not exist.
You are the one who isn’t reading what is being posted. I wasn't talking about a state religion. I was addressing the issue of how the Founding Fathers allowed religion to influence the government. I was addressing the false claim that the Founding Fathers wanted to isolate the government from the influence of religion. The First Amendment was ratified to isolate religion from the influence of government, not the other way around.
.............
Typical leftist debate tactic. There is nothing that you would accept as evidence because you are already convinced that such evidence does not exist.
and you are immune to this I assume...... everyone else's vision is cloudy except yours?
maybe because there isn't anything in there, you claim there is, pick one thing in the constitution that is and only is a christian ideology or law, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of what is actually there. where in the constitution does it label us as a christian society? and arguing about the date is just a lame tactic, we already established that just because it is the calendar the world is using does not validate the religion.
and you are immune to this I assume...... everyone else's vision is cloudy except yours?
In matters of history, yes. I have been studying history for over 30 years. My bachelor?s degree in biology comes with 40 credit hours in history.
Quote:
maybe because there isn't anything in there, you claim there is, pick one thing in the constitution that is and only is a christian ideology or law,
I've already given this evidence: Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...
But I'll add:
U.S. Constitution Article I, section 7
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
The very process by which the Constitution says laws are to be made recognizes what (was at the time the universally observed) Christian Sabbath. Sunday would have been an ordinary day and would have been counted in the 10 days the Constitution gives the president to veto a bill or sign it into law if not for the fact that the Christian Sabbath was such an integral part of American society. The Founding Fathers assumed that every president would at least observe the Christian Sabbath even if every president did not fully accept Christianity.
In matters of history, yes. I have been studying history for over 30 years. My bachelor’s degree in biology comes with 40 credit hours in history.
I've already given this evidence: Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...
But I'll add:
U.S. Constitution Article I, section 7
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
The very process by which the Constitution says laws are to be made recognizes what (was at the time the universally observed) Christian Sabbath. Sunday would have been an ordinary day and would have been counted in the 10 days the Constitution gives the president to veto a bill or sign it into law if not for the fact that the Christian Sabbath was such an integral part of American society. The Founding Fathers assumed that every president would at least observe the Christian Sabbath even if every president did not fully accept Christianity.
again, using very indirect logic, I have specifically stated we are not arguing christianity was the major religion at the time, it certainly was and as such that day would be off, and the supreme court has ruled that having sundays as a day of rest or other blue laws are not a religious as long as the law is for a secular reason, and being that the majority of people take that day is considered secular, so it either is or it isn't but the supreme court (republican leaning I believe) has stated it to not be a religious day and as such I would expect the constitution to be looked at in the same light
it does not say "sabbath" it says "sunday", there is a difference
Linear Mode
