Forget the President, concentrate on the Congress?

[AnejoDave]

For those of us on the right we're looking at a possible turd sandwich no matter who get the nomination. Hillary is a Leninist at best. Obama is a Marxist of the worst sort. Juan McCan't, who knows what the hell he is other than a RINO lib.

If we have to choose between those three for President there is only one way to save the US from itself. Repeat 1994. Elect a strong conservative congress. Even the most whacked out nutjob lib can't create the economic doom that is universal health care if the congress doesn't go along with it. The economic raping that is a tax hike can't happen if congress doesn't go along with it.

Since there is a rumor that Romney is going to suspend/give up his campaign later today there are no conservatives left running. The only thing we have left is the congress. Thankfully I live in Idaho and we will not be part of the problem.

[spadron]

Thankfully I live in Idaho and we will not be part of the problem.

Thankfully I don't live in the States, so don't need to care :)

(though I like Obama based upon nothing but a dislike of Hilary)

[epochfox]

Since there is a rumor that Romney is going to suspend/give up his campaign later today there are no conservatives left running. The only thing we have left is the congress. Thankfully I live in Idaho and we will not be part of the problem.
Huckabee? and yes Mitt did leave the race


(though I like Obama based upon nothing but a dislike of Hilary)
Racist president ftw!

[jschild]

Yeah, Let's eliminate all regulation so we can have more Enron's.

Yeah, Let's have more "pre-empitve" wars against countries that can offer no threat to us.

Yeah, lets have more CEO's get obscence packages for running multi-billion corporations into the ground, all the while having the government bail them out (Corporate Welfare gets over 3x the money of so called social welfare).

Lets continue to spend more money on healthcare than any other nation in the world, while having substandard care for the average person.

Rock on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:)

EDIT: all playfulness aside... Life is far more complicated and nothing is as simple as the wingnuts on the left or the right would have you believe.

[AnejoDave]

Are you for anything or just against?

[piscene]

Political troll FTL!!!

[jschild]

Lol, that phrase is more typically applied in the opposite direction.

I believe in reasonable regulation because in virtually every instance in which "the free market" is deregulated, massive corruption takes place. People by nature will generally try to cheat the system and if no one is watching, they will do literally as much as they can get away with. Ask Californian's about their power shortages a few years back, which, upon later investigation was caused NOT by a shortage of power, but by manipulations of the power companies, formost Enron among them. You don't walk to someone, give them the key to the vault, and never check up on them again.

I believe that one can defend their country, without assulting other countries without provacation. I believe that defense should NOT be a political issues, trumping up charges against other countries for political reasons and manupulating the facts. When our defense secretary comes out talking about how Jose Padellia (sp?) was planning on killing hundreds of thousands of people with a dirty bomb, that is a lie. OF course the truth finally came out, and while a scumbag and a dangerous individual, he had no ability to even try to detonate a dirty bomb (he was never charged with anything regarding that, odd considering that was WHY we supposedly got him) and a dirty bomb could never kill hundreds of thousands anyway, which is another lie.

I think it is obscene that a CEO can literally get hundreds of millions for destroying a company. However, if he saves it or does good by his company, then he should deserve that money. I think corporate welfare has its place, and should be limited like social welfare. I just find it funny how so many support the one and despise the other.

I think our healthcare system is broken, and it is obscene that Americans are actually flying to India to get surgurys done because it can be done with the same level of care most americans recieve AND for 1/10th to 1/4th the cost. I think there are solutions that can be done (France's system, which is virtually what everyone in Congress recieves) is fantastic, since the medical care is free market, but provider payed. I pay more in taxes that people in france do, if you include my health care costs.

I believe that neither the republicans nor the democrats have the answers and the country will only get worse the more we fight as if there is only one way and any other way will supposedly destroy the country.

I believe that if 2 men or 2 women love each other, they should be able to live their lives together in peace and marriage. I do not believe you can be honest in wanting smaller government while wanting to get invovled in everyone's sex lives.

I believe you cannot be a shining beacon of freedom when you torture individuals, run secret camps, and run perhaps the least transparent government in american history. I don't trust any politicains and when you act like you have something to hide...you probably do.

I believe we can be better than we are...I believe we do not have to live in fear, real or imigined. I believe we can do great things as long as we remain true to the beliefs our country was founded on and not on hate and division.

[xDarkDrifterx]

Racist president ftw!

What are you saying? Who's the racist?

[xDarkDrifterx]

Edit: can't include in above post.

Do you mean this crap? I'm not sure yet who I'm voting for, it's begging to be a big pain IMO. But:

http://card.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/is-barack-obamas-church-racist/

If so, this argument has been around for years and years - people have been arguing that things like: Quota numbers for minorities in the work place, black colleges, scholarships for only black students, The NAACP, etc are all racists ideas and organizations because they are not for everyone and they are specifically for black americans.

What would black america say if there was a NAACP but the "C" stood for Caucasian instead of Colored . . . etc etc? This is a big debate that shouldn't be brought into the picture at all IMO. Does anyone talk about other candidates churches?

If this isn't what you guys are mentioning please fill me in.

[jschild]

Only if they are not traditional christian churches. Because heaven forbid we admit that the constitution doesn't even mention god once or that many of our founding fathers did not belive Jesus was the son of god, or the fact that we signed (without a single dissenter) a treaty that explicitly said that we were not a christian nation, or that our national motto did not mention God, or that our money did not have any reference to god on it, other than all that don't you know we have to have someone who believe in a standard christian church (preferably not Catholic either btw) running? Anyone else is just a freak.

[epochfox]

Edit: can't include in above post.

Do you mean this crap? I'm not sure yet who I'm voting for, it's begging to be a big pain IMO. But:

http://card.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/is-barack-obamas-church-racist/

If so, this argument has been around for years and years - people have been arguing that things like: Quota numbers for minorities in the work place, black colleges, scholarships for only black students, The NAACP, etc are all racists ideas and organizations because they are not for everyone and they are specifically for black americans.

What would black america say if there was a NAACP but the "C" stood for Caucasian instead of Colored . . . etc etc? This is a big debate that shouldn't be brought into the picture at all IMO. Does anyone talk about other candidates churches?

If this isn't what you guys are mentioning please fill me in.

Its half of it, in Obamas book he mentions that his pastor is his mentor. Correct?
Well his mentor gives an award to a antisemitic racist man, louis farrakhan.
oh and incase you dont know who this guy is... here
Just some qoutes for ya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,530302,00.html)

I am not racist my first girlfriend was black. My mentor right now is a black woman. I will vote any day of the week for Hillary over Obama.

[jschild]

Don't confuse Farrakan's beliefs or his pastors with Obama's however. He has broad support among Jewish organizations.

Snopes has a good page on the information right here
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp

[xDarkDrifterx]

other than all that don't you know we have to have someone who believe in a standard christian church (preferably not Catholic either btw) running? Anyone else is just a freak.

No, I wish more atheists,agnostics, heck I'd even take deists could get elected so we're not having a president's personal belief's in god or lack of, having anything to do with his/her decisions on which bills get passed etc. IE - gay marriage, abortion, prostitution, etc etc etc.

My thoughts on religion: I don't care who's imaginary friend is better as they're all imaginary.

I desire a TRUE separation of church and state.

__

Epoch, I'm in my early 30's so I'm aware of Farrakhan :wink: - but you're taking things out of context and grasping at straws IMO over the fact that Obama's , brother's, sisters, uncles, 2nd cousin's pastor gave Farrakhan an award which means Obama is a racist. :ponder:

I will vote any day of the week for Hillary over Obama.

:shocked:

Hillary is a freak IMO and I'd vote for Obama over her any day of the week.

And this is where I stop on this conversation. Simply because we could go on and on about our beliefs and how they relate to each candidate, what they think on certain topics versus what we think, what they've accomplished in their lives, what commitees they've been on, schools they attended. etc etc.

I'd love to see a black man or a woman of any race become president of our country but I don't think Obama or Hillary are right for the job. Nor is any of the other candidates that are left lol. Now it's a choice of the lesser of the evils IMO. But since our votes don't matter . . . ehhhh :wink:

[AnejoDave]

For those who think the Founding Fathers weren't particularly religious, might I suggest that you look into how the Freemasons handle talking about religion? Many of the leaders of the founding were Freemasons. I would tell you the particulars but I want you to do the digging yourself. You'll find all sorts of interesting things when you do so.

And yes, I am a Freemason as well as a Knight Templar.

[jschild]

I am not saying that they were not all religious. I am saying they did not push Christianity into our government. You don't create a christian nation by neglecting to mention him, or any creator in the foundation of that government.

Our Pledge of Alligence guess what, never originally had god in it.
Our original national motto never had god in it.
Our money originally never had god on it.

Most of the elements of religion in our government come from the early 50's, as a cheap political stunt to show up those Godless communists.

In fact, any early study of America will quickly show that we were not meant to be a christian nation.

An early study will also show that they belived the constituition to be a living document. The so-called bill of rights is proof of that. That "bill" is nothing more than the first 10 "corrections and changes" to the constitution.

Also, it is always important to note that many people join organizations for the access to power, rather than fully believing in the principles themselves.

[xDarkDrifterx]

For those who think the Founding Fathers weren't particularly religious, might I suggest that you look into how the Freemasons handle talking about religion? Many of the leaders of the founding were Freemasons.

The founding fathers' views on religion and government

After the recent flap over the 9th circuit court's pledge decision (ruling the added phrase 'under God,' inserted into the pledge in 1954, to be unconstitutional), I've received a lot of requests for the thoughts of the Founding fathers on the issue of Separation of Church and State. At issue is the belief of many mainstream Christians that separation is a later construct of the courts, and never intended by the founders. Another prominent argument is that the founders only opposed the establishment of one Christian sect over another, and not Christianity as a whole. Yet another popular belief is that the first amendment only applies to laws restricting religion, and that the majority should be able to do as they wish, using references to the 'Creator' in documents as a tacit endorsement of Christianity. I believe all of these arguments to be incorrect, and who better to argue the issue than the principal author of the constitution, founders themselves?

Quotes are arranged in a question/answer format, to highlight common arguments.

Argument one: The phrase 'separation of Church and state' is of recent origin, and the concept was not known or promulgated by the founders.

False. The Founders were well aware of the threats posed by religion/state entanglement; it's what gave the world Kings with "divine right."

The exact phrase was first used in Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, explaining the decision to seperate state and religion:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

James Madison, principal author of the constitution:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (1819).

Argument two: But the founders meant only that no sect of Christianity was to be elevated above another, but still meant our government to be Christian...

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

"Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. " (ibid)

"How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment ." (Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches)

Argument three: But one of the first acts of Congress was to appoint a Christian chaplain!

This they did do, years before the ratification of the bill of rights. Madison's objection:

"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor. " (Memorial and Remonstrance)

"If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense." (Madison, detached memoranda, 1820)

"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." (Patrick Henry)

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country" (George Washington, 1789).

"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst." (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." (ibid)

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" (James Madison, Veto, 1811)

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of the people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support." (George Washington, letter to the Touro Synagogue 1790. )

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society." (John Adams)

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." (John Adams, 1787)

"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." (ibid)

Further quotes:

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith." (Thomas Paine, the Rights of Man)

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?" (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)

Source (http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa070202a.htm)

__________

And yes, I am a Freemason as well as a Knight Templar.

Interesting. I watched a series about freemasons and the contruction of various cities and underground structures on the history channel some months ago. What's your take on the pentagram design contained within the streets of Wahsington DC and the "lucifer connection" that for years has had many calling the masons a continued occult organization that is moving us towards a new world order?

"In 1791, Pierre Charles L'Enfante(the designer, who was a Freemason), laid out Governmental Center of Washington, D.C., he planned more than just streets, roads, and buildings. He hid certain occultic magical symbols in the layout of U.S. Governmental Center. When these symbols are united they become one large Luciferic, or occultic, symbol."

[jschild]

Wow....good post :)

[epochfox]

Please pay attention to what I said xDarkDrifterx... the man said his mentor was his pastor.
My life experiences say to the contary that my God is imaginary.
Gays can get married for all I care, I hate the sin not the sinner.
I was a child that should have been aborted, so its much more than my beliefs.
If you dont want to talk about it anymore i understand sir i will stop here

[jschild]

Ummm..I hope this is a foreign language thing...You think you SHOULD have been aborted?

I was a child that should have been aborted

[epochfox]

Sorry, I guess that needs explaining. I was born from a rape my mom was addicted to serveral drugs. I almost died many times due to health conditions as a baby. I have one of the most severe cases of ADHD and asthma and I have other various other health conditions.

No I am not saying my life is horrible actually my life is great and I love it and I wouldnt change much.

DarkDrifter if you want to stop, stop. Once again my personal experiences in the church complete go against those last 2 qoutes. But I said I will listen to you and stop, so I have. If you wish to continue please go right ahead.

p.s. I have experience evils in the church, humans are evil by nature. My God is not.

[DrScience]

Um... How did this post evolve into freemasons, religion and abortion? epochfox, lets not turn this into a post about the "evils" you have experienced in your church.

[epochfox]

Um... How did this post evolve into freemasons, religion and abortion? epochfox, lets not turn this into a post about the "evils" you have experienced in your church.
All of my posts have been about the subject of this thread or a response to something someone has said. You take one clip, twist it and suddenly i have done something wrong? :undecided:

If i have done something against the rules please someone tell me and I will stop. :lipsrsealed:

[DrScience]

Blah its Off-Topic, go crazy i guess. I'm just predisposed to disliking bible-thumping. and i dont trust freemasons. (sorry Dave, nothing personal).

[epochfox]

Bible thumping? I havent read one verse of the bible. I have spoken of is my experiences not what i have read. I have not preached i have only tried to have a discussion. I do not think any less of anyone because of their beliefs or thoughts. (now i could qoute scripture there =P )

[xDarkDrifterx]

Please pay attention to what I said xDarkDrifterx...

I'm paying attention just fine . . . are you?

You said

Racist president ftw!

I asked

Edit: can't include in above post.

Do you mean this crap? I'm not sure yet who I'm voting for, it's begging to be a big pain IMO. But:

http://card.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/is-barack-obamas-church-racist/


and then you said

Its half of it, in Obamas book he mentions that his pastor is his mentor. Correct?
Well his mentor gives an award to a antisemitic racist man, louis farrakhan.
oh and incase you dont know who this guy is...

and I answered with

you're taking things out of context and grasping at straws IMO over the fact that Obama's , brother's, sisters, uncles, 2nd cousin's pastor gave Farrakhan an award which means Obama is a racist. :ponder:

which you then responded with

Please pay attention to what I said xDarkDrifterx... the man said his mentor was his pastor.


You are saying that because his pastor is his mentor and that because his mentor "gives an award to a antisemitic racist man, louis farrakhan" that he must be racist . . .

So, what exactly am I missing here?

[jschild]

Must be news to all those Jewish groups that are supporting Obama.

But lets not let things like facts get in the way of truthiness.

[xDarkDrifterx]

This is like the propaganda that gets sent out every year to bash who the religious right wants out of the race. It's truths that are turned and skewed in a way that they take on a different meaning all together. I'm not claiming to know what's true or false about any of the candidates, but below is the type of thing I'm worried about:

My father in law sent my wife an email - sent from people in their church (who have been sending it out to all the members in this huge KY Baptist church) and guess what email it was? The one snopes talks about, and disproves. It's the one that talks all about Obama's muslim background, father, mother, school etc and how he's a racist and "not american" that he turned his back on the flag and didn't put his hand on chest at a BBQ last year . . .etc etc . . . these seemingly intelligent people (thousand of them) took that email as gospel and forwarded it on to everyone they knew. We passed on the snopes link to my wife's father, and even his mother (grandma in law) to the tune of "Oh, we had no idea, we thought this was true".

Now, I'm not saying everyone believed it, but they sure didn't use logic or even research something themselves, they thought, we'll it's coming from church members - it must be true . . . this type of information is what makes for bad decision making, and unfortunately it happens far too often IMO.

[jschild]

DarkDrifter- Does this huge Baptist church happen to be based in Louisville? :)

Thinking for oneself, when someone else can do the thinking for you is def not the American way anymore.

[xDarkDrifterx]

DarkDrifter- Does this huge Baptist church happen to be based in Louisville? :)

Haha!

Indeed it is fellow Kentuckian. :grin:

[jschild]

I know many people who refer to it as 6 Flags over Jesus. It is indeed sometimes a scary cultish super church. Super Political to the point of illegal (they pretty much tell the congregation who to vote for, a serious no - no).

[epochfox]

I dont buy that stuff that he is a muslim, I delete all the emails that are masscirculated. If I hear something I find interesting I go search it out and find out the details. I agree people dont think for themselves anymore. If they did I believe the republicans would have had different options instead of going for who can beat hillary.

p.s. I am not Baptist... in fact me and my friends make fun of baptists because of there over stictness (tho I have stop because a house divided against itself cannot stand). I am thinking about getting 2 tatoos, literally discussed it with my pastor today. He said nothing in the bible is against it, minus about honoring the dead with it.

p.s.s. Oh no I am bible thumping can anyone guess what it is? You will get a cookie.
sorry just kidding with you guys but I am not kidding about the cookie

[jschild]

We were not saying you were baptist, that was more a funny aside, as he was talking about a baptist superchurch and I knew exactly which one he was talking about. :)

[solance]

Lol, that phrase is more typically applied in the opposite direction.

I believe in reasonable regulation because in virtually every instance in which "the free market" is deregulated, massive corruption takes place. People by nature will generally try to cheat the system and if no one is watching, they will do literally as much as they can get away with. Ask Californian's about their power shortages a few years back, which, upon later investigation was caused NOT by a shortage of power, but by manipulations of the power companies, formost Enron among them. You don't walk to someone, give them the key to the vault, and never check up on them again.

I believe that one can defend their country, without assulting other countries without provacation. I believe that defense should NOT be a political issues, trumping up charges against other countries for political reasons and manupulating the facts. When our defense secretary comes out talking about how Jose Padellia (sp?) was planning on killing hundreds of thousands of people with a dirty bomb, that is a lie. OF course the truth finally came out, and while a scumbag and a dangerous individual, he had no ability to even try to detonate a dirty bomb (he was never charged with anything regarding that, odd considering that was WHY we supposedly got him) and a dirty bomb could never kill hundreds of thousands anyway, which is another lie.

I think it is obscene that a CEO can literally get hundreds of millions for destroying a company. However, if he saves it or does good by his company, then he should deserve that money. I think corporate welfare has its place, and should be limited like social welfare. I just find it funny how so many support the one and despise the other.

I think our healthcare system is broken, and it is obscene that Americans are actually flying to India to get surgurys done because it can be done with the same level of care most americans recieve AND for 1/10th to 1/4th the cost. I think there are solutions that can be done (France's system, which is virtually what everyone in Congress recieves) is fantastic, since the medical care is free market, but provider payed. I pay more in taxes that people in france do, if you include my health care costs.

I believe that neither the republicans nor the democrats have the answers and the country will only get worse the more we fight as if there is only one way and any other way will supposedly destroy the country.

I believe that if 2 men or 2 women love each other, they should be able to live their lives together in peace and marriage. I do not believe you can be honest in wanting smaller government while wanting to get invovled in everyone's sex lives.

I believe you cannot be a shining beacon of freedom when you torture individuals, run secret camps, and run perhaps the least transparent government in american history. I don't trust any politicains and when you act like you have something to hide...you probably do.

I believe we can be better than we are...I believe we do not have to live in fear, real or imigined. I believe we can do great things as long as we remain true to the beliefs our country was founded on and not on hate and division.

that was an awesome post! :thumbsup:

oh, my two cents...

God inspired faith but man made religion.


...so in my life, I try not to allow my belief in one suffer because of the crimes, ignorance, arrogance, and tyranny of another.

[xDarkDrifterx]

Just because the subject of religion came up - check this out! It's a gag website - but you can actually order the products.

I read this fark.com article today:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23201822-23109,00.html

WANT to use Jesus handcream? Well, you can't anymore. At least not in Singapore.

A Singapore-based retailer pulled a line of cheeky Jesus-branded cosmetics from its shelves after complaints from irate Catholics, the Straits Times newspaper reported today.

The cosmetics, called "Lookin' Good for Jesus", are made by American makeup company Blue Q. It was sold in three Topshop outlets in Singapore.

Wing Tai Holdings, which manages the Topshop brand in the city-state, pulled the items of its shelves late last month after some customers complained.

"We don't want to offend our customers," a company spokesman was quoted by the paper as saying.

The Straits Times said Nick Chui, 27, a Catholic, spotted the items in a Topshop outlet and then wrote a letter to Wing Tai last month saying that the products trivialised Jesus Christ and Christianity.

"There are also sexual innuendos in the messages and the way Jesus is portrayed in these products," the paper quoted Mr Chui as saying.

Some of the products sold include, a "virtuous vanilla" lip balm, hand and body cream and a mirrored Jesus statuette.

They feature a drawing of Jesus flanked by two adoring women and carry slogans such as "Get tight with Christ", "Get His Attention" and "Redeem Your Reputation and More".

Blue Q also carries other tongue-in-cheek items such as a "Believe in God Breath Spray".

In Singapore, about 50 per cent of the population are Buddhists and 14.6 per cent are Christian.

__________

Heres the website - can you believe the stuff that's out there?

http://www.blueq.com/shop/114-catId.117440633_114-productId.0.html

Some other stuff they have:

Of course who wouldn't want to be Canadian . . . :wink:

http://www.blueq.com/shop/item/114-productId.125838014_114-catId.117440520.html

oh and everyone loves a piece of this gum

http://www.blueq.com/shop/item/114-productId.125837520_114-catId..html