- Status
Why aren't gun rights proponents being asked to testify in front of Congress? I am on fixed income and can no longer afford my right to bear arms. Why shouldn't my rights be paid for too?
Michael
Michael
I'm not sure I've ever seen so much fail in a single post. First, I'm not mad, I'm righteously indignant. Huge difference. Before you think otherwise, you might ask why they're not the same word if you disagree. Second, you pretty much said they couldn't govern apart from their faith. Otherwise, why would you find it necessary to know "his" faith? "He" isn't asking to be your pastor, he's asking to represent you in governmental affairs. Are all your governmental affairs wrapped up with your faith? I'd also like to point out that you automatically referred to a potential candidate in the masculine. Do you automatically dismiss all female candidates? Careful there, your bias is showing. Don't bother falling back on the current crop of presidential hopefuls to cover your tracks either, it won't work.
Third, you claim you'd never condone condemnation of another, yet you've condemned those who wouldn't govern by their faith as unfit to do so. All I've done is turn the cannon around and pointed it right back at you. As for the plumb line? I use their words and more importantly, their deeds to judge them. I ask myself what a candidate has stood for and what they've fallen for. I ask what they've said in support of the Constitution and the actual tenets of our Republic. I ask whether they've conceded constitutional rule of law in favor of their own faith and beliefs. I ask whether they would fail their primary duty of representing their constituents if it ran counter to their beliefs. A candidate who would recede into their faith to make decisions on governance is a moral coward.
Oh, and the "Word of God" is not the only plumb line that doesn't change. Need proof? I refer you to the eight to eleven different versions of the Holy Bible, depending on who you ask. Seems to me the "Word of God" has changed at least as often as the Constitution, if not more so. Why I'm sure you're afraid to ask? Because as far as I can tell, Moses was the last person to talk to God and hear a direct answer. Because everything that has flowed from that point is the interpretation of men (and yes, in this case it is "men"). Because "men of faith" have committed terrible and horrible sins in the name of God. They have been blasphemous usurpers of God's divine provenance.
So, you would elect a person based on their profession of faith? And you seriously believe that would assure a just and righteous governance? You're no better than the simpleton off the street who would vote based on looks or age or a hundred other inane criteria. Yet you call me what's wrong with this country? I could again point the cannon right back at you. If you and yours had done a better job of instilling a sense of morals and religious code in society, we'd have no need of libelous laws that violate the Constitution of this country. So who's the failure now?
In a free society, you do not have the authority to punish others based on your interpretation of the Word of God. The overwhelming and gargantuan burden of legal jurisprudence in this country has been fed to gluttonous capacity by weak minded people who've failed to shape society in their own image. They've then ran begging to false idols called lawmakers for salvation. They've sold their souls for the price of a vote. How sad and pathetic is that?
pregnancy is optional! Why should I pay for pregnancy because a woman loves sex?!
ahahahahaha
Yep, copy and pasted from a christian zealot website no less.
As far as I'm concerned, free birth control is already out there! Not a person in this nation that can't go down to their local clinic or a counselor at a high school or college and get a bunch of free condoms. So why are people complaining? It's not the role of the federal government to provide safe or guilt free sex. This is just the administration forcing their beliefs down another faiths throat. I hope the pope personally comes over here, takes that shepherd's crook thingy that he carries, wraps it in a Trojan, and jams it up the Obama administrations a$$.
You're oversimplifying the position. Some people, like Fluke, are gunning at the idea that birth control (not condoms) is sometimes necessary for medical reasons, etc. - and more or less insinuating that a blanket ban on coverage of it more or less stems from antiquated beliefs and/or sexism rather than anything else, including a cost/benefit analysis on the part of the insurers.
Now, the position a lot of these people take in regards to the governments role in the healthcare arena is pretty contentious, and it's certainly a position a lot of people are going to disagree with for their own reasons. It really all boils down to whether or not you the the federal government is overstepping its bounds with such mandates in the healthcare arena. It really doesn't have much if anything to do with birth control - that just happens to be the issue on the table so to speak. It could us as easily be something else they want the government to step in and mandate.
Tell me about it. The kind the government provides is unwanted and unlubed.
So is their position that if it is medically necessary in some cases it should be given out free in all? I know some people that use canes for medical reasons. I know others that carry them for completely non medical reason. Should the government force insurance companies to supply everyone because a small minority need them for medical reasons?You're oversimplifying the position. Some people, like Fluke, are gunning at the idea that birth control (not condoms) is sometimes necessary for medical reasons, etc. - and more or less insinuating that a blanket ban on coverage of it more or less stems from antiquated beliefs and/or sexism rather than anything else, including a cost/benefit analysis on the part of the insurers.
Now, the position a lot of these people take in regards to the governments role in the healthcare arena is pretty contentious, and it's certainly a position a lot of people are going to disagree with for their own reasons. It really all boils down to whether or not you the the federal government is overstepping its bounds with such mandates in the healthcare arena. It really doesn't have much if anything to do with birth control - that just happens to be the issue on the table so to speak. It could us as easily be something else they want the government to step in and mandate.
Tell me about it. The kind the government provides is unwanted and unlubed.
If it comes down to it going through why not offer a compromise. The insurance companies will only be forced to pay for the ones who have a prescription from a Doctor showing a valid medical reason for needing them? The folks who want these items for non medical reasons buy their own?
Michael
Rush is the Manchurian pundit created by the liberals many years ago and they've waited till now to activate him.
It's all part of the plan.
It's all part of the plan.
- Status
Similar threads
