The Political Discussion Thread

[garhkal]

There's this odd emphasis on the flag that just doesn't seem right to me. I get showing respect and that symbolism. But it goes beyond that to the point of religious fanaticism. Hints my calling it idol worship. And to that I quote Apostle John "Little children, guard yourself from idols". Take care to see the context of my response to you. You're claiming Christian law here, so I am showing you what that means. It means that at the end of the day, any flag of any worldly nation is just a symbol and nothing more. Yet the rules associated with it can be comparable to that of the rules that people have in regards to their idols. It can, and in many cases has, go to the extent of idol worship.

Think about it. Woe he who doesn't have a flag. Woe he who lets it touch the ground. Woe he who damages the flag. Woe he who doesn't pledge allegiance to the flag. Woe he who doesn't stand in respect and difference to the flag. Doing the Pledge of allegiance and flying the flag is not inherently bad. But it's when it is given a measure of awe beyond what is spiritually sound then it delves into areas that Christians should not partake of. ]

Exactly how was what i posted claiming christian law over the flag, or Idol worship??
And as to all your "Woe is me" stuff, that sounds like you feel there shouldn't BE a pledge of allegiance to your home country at all...

The reason why they are overwork is because no one leaves their caseload. Once on it, they stay there for years and years and years. And in the meantime they get new people on it that do the same thing. But it's nice to see that you care about them!

And why is it they STay there year after year??
Is it cause as many of us claim, Welfare seems like a lifestyle?

Don't try to distract from the issue. The issue isn't about illegal immigrants voting.

Isn't it? If they are given the right to vote, how will that NOT lead to amnesty eventually?


And in other news.. A lot of people are slamming down on Trump for saying of Mr and Ms Khan "Why doesn't his wife speak up, is it cause she is muslim"??

However i have YET to hear any outrage at the media, when several MSNBC pundits and commentators said even WORSE about the Mother of Sean Smith (one of the dead in Benghazi)..

Such as “I don’t care how that woman felt,” said Comrade Chris Matthews on MSNBC.
or
“A spectacle so offensive,” said Comrade Chris’ pal Rachel Maddow, “it was hard to even comprehend.”
Or a writer from the Magazine saying "She should be beaten to death"

Full article here

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/col...rent_responses

[Gatefan1976]

In Scotland we have always written down the names, address, occupation etc. of every person in our census. This is why we have very good records going back hundreds of years, which help folk looking for ancestors, history of the area, etc. Very few people seem to have any problem with doing it.

Dippy, we ain't hundreds of years old
Damn near everyone is documented either a free settlers or convicts except for the Aboriginal groups, and post colonization, they were probably put on registries anyway. Births, deaths and Marriages will provide names and such if that is the information you are after, there simply isn't a need for it to be recorded via census -here-. The main reason why they did want identifiers such as names is so no form of profiling based on names "sounding like" whatever and people could answer freely. Hell, we even had laws on the books preventing it!

Thing is, they made this change last year, but it was never covered by anyone, so it's coming out now, 2 weeks before the census is due to be taken. It's not "apathy", more like not going to the local planning department in Alpha Centari to register our complaint before the hyperspace bypass could be completed

[Annoyed]

Another nail in the coffin of the enviros as far as I'm concerned.

In twist, environmentalists fight proposed carbon tax – because it doesn't grow gov't

On paper, it looks like a big win for environmentalists: a ballot initiative in Washington state to make it the first in the nation to impose a tax on all carbon emissions.

Yet green groups are united almost in lockstep against the proposal – all because it includes tax cuts, to offset the tax hike.

What a bunch of liars. If their true motivation is concern for the environment, they wouldn't oppose this.
But concern for the environment has little to do with their true goals, apparently. They just want to use it as a backdoor tax, the proceeds of which are to be spent as they decree.

Can their credibility even get any lower?

[Gatefan1976]

What is the point of charging a tax designed to penalise companies, then giving them the money back?
Yeah, pay me a dollar to get on the bridge, my partner will give you it back in a second......
All it does is bloat the tax code (which you don't like, right?), give banks a chance to use the money on the short term money market so they can make money for free, and not provide any dis-incentive to stop polluting.

Damn stupid tree huggers seeing through the smoke and mirrors............

[Falcon Horus]

...that sounds like you feel there shouldn't BE a pledge of allegiance to your home country at all...

Most countries don't... so what's the problem?

And in other news.. A lot of people are slamming down on Trump for saying of Mr and Ms Khan "Why doesn't his wife speak up, is it cause she is muslim"??

So, in the country where the army is a holier than thou subject, you are okay with Trump making an assumption about the mother of a fallen American soldier? And to slam the family in one go.
I thought Americans had more respect for those who gave their lives in the service of their country.

For the record, the mother gave an interview on ABC television, if I'm not mistaken (I'm going on memory here), where she became very emotional when talking about her son. And she explained the reason she didn't take to the microphone at the convention was because of just that, she wouldn't have gotten one word out.

Dude, just look at the speech given by the mother of one of the Orlando victims. If those two friends hadn't been standing there, holding her up and keeping her from breaking down completely she wouldn't have been able to say much of anything either.

****

Also, someone forgot to tell Trump Russia already invaded Crimea. Apparently he wasn't aware during a recent interview. Must have been living under a rock for the past two years. Some president he'll be if he isn't even on top of current events.

[aretood2]

Exactly how was what i posted claiming christian law over the flag, or Idol worship??
And as to all your "Woe is me" stuff, that sounds like you feel there shouldn't BE a pledge of allegiance to your home country at all...

You mentioned that the US was founded on Christian law, so I applied Christian law to an American concept, reverence for the flag, to showcase how that is not exactly a true statement, that America was never, and really can't be, a Christian country in any sense other than being a country largely populated by Christians. Though I often scratch my head when it comes to Evangelicals and what seems to pass by as "Christian" for them.

As I said, there is nothing inherently wrong with the pledge of allegiance, and I don't care either way whether or not it is said. It doesn't bother me. But don't put words in my mouth. Though if you think about it...why are we pledging to a flag and not to the country? I always thought that was weird.

Here's the Oath of Citizenship:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God"


The only allegiance sworn to is the constitution and to defend the US. Makes perfect sense. It's geared towards relinquishing ties to the previous nation of citizenship in favor of the US. It doesn't really prescribe any behavior in connection to things like burning the flag or whatnot. Though personally, I don't understand the logic behind an American citizen or resident of using a flag burning to protest anything. It makes even less sense than the pledge of allegiance.

And why is it they STay there year after year??
Is it cause as many of us claim, Welfare seems like a lifestyle?

What's your point?

Isn't it? If they are given the right to vote, how will that NOT lead to amnesty eventually?

Um no. You said that granting amnesty would make legal immigrants angry that they wasted their time (paraphrasing here). Then I told you that that is not what immigrants are saying. Then you asked me why they were asking for amnesty. Then I said why would legal immigrants ask for amnesty. Then you said that you were talking about illegal immigrants. Then I asked who is supposed to receive that message after which you told me politicians. Therefore my conclusion was that you somehow just agreed that there is no negative message to be sent once one passes amnesty of any kind. Now you're talking about illegal immigrants voting?

And in other news.. A lot of people are slamming down on Trump for saying of Mr and Ms Khan "Why doesn't his wife speak up, is it cause she is muslim"??

However i have YET to hear any outrage at the media, when several MSNBC pundits and commentators said even WORSE about the Mother of Sean Smith (one of the dead in Benghazi)..

Such as “I don’t care how that woman felt,” said Comrade Chris Matthews on MSNBC.
or
“A spectacle so offensive,” said Comrade Chris’ pal Rachel Maddow, “it was hard to even comprehend.”
Or a writer from the Magazine saying "She should be beaten to death"

Full article here

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/col...rent_responses

So it's okay that Sean Smith's mother and the Khans got disrespected regarding their sacrifice? You see, your attempt to defend Trump fails for the very fact that you imply that doing that very same act is wrong. Therefore you admit that what he did/is doing is unforgivable. Otherwise how can you demand answers from people for doing the very same thing to another family? But then at the same time you are saying it's not a big deal because liberals did it too? What?

[Womble]

So remember how I said earlier that Black Lives Matter was just another run-of-the-mill leftist movement that didn't care about its declared cause? That it would soon begin blurring lines, expanding their definitions and converging with other generic leftist causes?

Well, they're doing that already. Starting at the usual places.

[Coco Pops]

Do you mean the vast majority have been conditioned with the "there's nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide" mentality? Sounds like the UK.

Pretty much........ The only time people protest here is when it hits their hip pocket.

[Gatefan1976]

Pretty much........ The only time people protest here is when it hits their hip pocket.

We live in different Australia's dude

[SGalisa]

D'souza is a convicted criminal, a liar, and an ignorant political wanna-be. He is the "brown-ish" person the right brings out to spew pseudo-intellectual garbage for their cause.

He looks at the democratic party as it was 50 years ago, not what it is now...

That's how *you* see it, as well as in the eyes of the left/socialists/communistic propaganda, that is what *they* see, too. I've lived thru those past 50 years. Have the dems changed? Only in their propaganda methods. On signed rules and law on paper, No.. they are still the same. Lie to the people by leaving out pertinent (important) details, so that the general public would be blind-sided into accepting and voting for the Democratic agendas. Thus, their end results are still the same.

Inadvertently, I used to vote pro-Dem, because what sounded like a good idea on paper, only worked until more TAXES were added in to pay for those items..! Our ballots would have (and still do) have these neat ideas for suggesting to allocate so much money to fund some new project.. I didn't know at that time, it meant taking MORE out of my paycheck to do all that extra FUNDing.

Dinesh D'Souza's crime was donating too much campaign money ~around $20,000.00~ to a fellow alumni for an election. What? Did he fail to go thru the proper RED tape channels or something? He was accused of sending the money under other name(s), or so the reports claim. He probably didn't fill out his paperwork for donations thru all the proper routes, etc., such as missed something somewhere, and got punished for it.

Real reason *probably* was the Dems saw him as a threat and made up some sort of excuse/criminal charge to shut him up, while Pres.Obama saw him as a direct threat -- to Obama's office position, because shortly after Dinesh D'Souza "Obama's America", that's when Pres.Obama had Dinesh D'Souza locked up in jail for 8 months where D'Souza would be "re-educated" into the Democratic society. Everything D'Souza said that would happen under Obama's reign, did happen. Those points were re-addressed and mentioned in "Hillary's America" and lots of people seemed to be nodding their heads "yes--that item happened.. and that item.. and that item.." etc.. Even the people I spoke to afterwards, who saw the film, agreed with all that info.

I'm just surprised D'Souza had as much *free* reign to dig into the USA political archives as he did.. where he was inspired to film "Hillary's America".

Cal Thomas.............
More Christian bull.

When you start looking at the message and stop attacking the person, then I might respond further. What if I were Cal writing this? Cal isn't permitted to share his POV, just because he is a Christian..? Your (GF) words are very much the same as the leftist propaganda machines in the USA and in the MSM. If you want all political material to be a one-sided debate, life will become very boring after a while. Sure, all answers will be as your own.. like a broken record repeating sweet nothings, but such moments will only be happily satisfying for only a little while..

For months I've kept quiet about saying the following----
We (who are believers of the Christian faith, in Jesus Christ) GET THE message(s) that certain people *want* the Christians to shut up or be silenced. Well, that day is most likely coming very soon.. We know that, we get it.. (it's in the "how" it will happen that is the bugger detail). Do you *get* that we get it? And when that day comes, something else far more sinister might replace our POV place.. just a gut feeling on that last tidbit.

Yet another right wing nautical instrument who has never read the first amendment.
Your "god" has power over 2 things in your system, and Jack just left town.........
I don't -care- if you don't like it, I don't care how you want to "interpret" it, or excuse it, or run up a bunch of apologists to defend it, the non establishment clause is quite, quite clear. Moral law is not in the hands of ANY religion, and no religion has the right to declare it's morals superior to any other. The first amendment expressly forbids things like Sharia law taking hold in the US political and legal system, it -ALSO- forbids Christianity, or Judaism, or Jedi-ism, or Heathanism, or Sikhism, or Buddhism, or ANY religion taking over your political or legal system.

Laws can be altered, amended, revised, Repealed, removed, CHANGED. (Islamic) Sharia Law is another law system that can easily replace current democratic laws, too.. only takes a sweep of the pen and change in Court system officials, if chosen that way.


So your version of gov't / political "moral law" states that is okay
-- to steal from others
-- to deliberately cause injury or murder someone you dislike for whatever that reason might be
-- to cheat one's way thru life, continuously being non-compliant with the designated LAW/regulation by jumping thru loopholes (e.g., staying on welfare by making more babies in order to get more gov't freebies.. by more children, that means more than 2 or 3.)
-- to commit rape, just because self-control is not possible at that time..
...?? That is what it sounds like is being implied there..

People who break Laws to suit their own purposes, don't follow the golden rule(s) on *moral* codes.

Cal Thomas.............

Cal Thomas' message was pointing at the additional TAXES Hillary would like/will be imposing upon us once she gets that exalted power play she is looking forward to. What is so difficult to see there? This was a Townhall article, not a Church's spiritual decree. Or is it the other "atr" article Cal was pointing to that set your comments off..? Either way, your reply ignored the "devil in the details" known as additional TAX reform(s), according to Hillary Clinton's public proposal. Such items have been mentioned in the past news (elected time frames), so whatever was mentioned in the ATR article is not really new news.. just proposals that are more concrete than they may have been prior.

Please again note the ATR articles below----posted into spoiler quotes for space..

Spoiler:

"Full List of Hillary's Planned Tax Hikes"
Posted by John Kartch and Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, July 28th, 2016, 2:56 PM
(Copyright © 2013, Americans for Tax Reform)

Hillary Clinton has made clear she intends to dramatically raise taxes on the American people if elected. She has proposed an income tax increase, a business tax increase, a death tax increase, a capital gains tax increase, a tax on stock trading, an "Exit Tax" and more (see below). Her planned net tax increase on the American people is at least $1 trillion over ten years, based on her campaign's own figures.

Hillary has endorsed several tax increases on middle income Americans, despite her pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. She has said she would be fine with a payroll tax hike on all Americans, she has endorsed a steep soda tax, endorsed a 25% national gun tax, and most recently, her campaign manager John Podesta said she would be open to a carbon tax. It's no wonder that when asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if her pledge was a "rock-solid" promise, she slipped and said the pledge was merely a "goal." In other words, she's going to raise taxes on middle income Americans.

Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion...
Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion...
"Fairness" Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: ...These proposals include a "fair share surcharge," the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above.
Capital Gains Tax Increase...
Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

"Exit Tax" – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an "exit tax" on income earned overseas.

and a reinforcement of the previous two quoted articles (from above), see below---

"Hillary Admits She Would Not Veto Middle Class Tax Hike"
Posted by John Kartch on Tuesday, January 12th, 2016, 4:27 AM
(Copyright © 2013, Americans for Tax Reform)

...Moderator Alicia Menendez: "Democrats have introduced a plan that Senator Sanders supports that you've come out against because it is funded by a payroll tax. If that were to reach your desk as President, would you veto it in order to make good on your tax pledge?"

Hillary Clinton: "No. No."

Clinton's outright admission that she would break her middle class tax pledge follows a Dec. 6 remark that the pledge was a mere "goal." The "goal" comment took place during an interview on ABC's This Week hosted by George Stephanopoulos:

Stephanopoulos: "You are also saying no tax increases at all on anyone earning $250,000. Is that a rock solid read-my-lips promise?"

Clinton: "Well, it certainly is my goal. And I've laid it out in this campaign. And it's something that President Obama promised. It's something my husband certainly tried to achieve. Because I want Americans to know that I get it."

The plan referenced in Monday's forum is the FAMILY Act, which calls for a payroll tax increase on all Americans, levied on all wages up to $113,700.
. . .

She said it, not me, and not Cal Thomas..

Politicians CANNOT promise anything.

Until such promises are SIGNED into LAW. Then it is as permanent as for the designated time frame or as long as the LAW stands to be enforced. Repeal processes DO *sometimes* tend to take months, before being reversed.

[garhkal]

Most countries don't... so what's the problem?

I care not if other country's don't. But our's does.. So since we DO have one, it should be honored for what it is..

So, in the country where the army is a holier than thou subject, you are okay with Trump making an assumption about the mother of a fallen American soldier? And to slam the family in one go.
I thought Americans had more respect for those who gave their lives in the service of their country.

First off what exactly was the 'slam' Trump said.?? Was his comment of "i wonder why she is not speaking, is it cause she is muslim" a SLAM on someone???
Secondly if you are harping on Trump, why then is there not an equal if not GREATER outrage at GQ magazine or MSNBC for what some of their folk said about Ms Smith??

For the record, the mother gave an interview on ABC television, if I'm not mistaken (I'm going on memory here), where she became very emotional when talking about her son. And she explained the reason she didn't take to the microphone at the convention was because of just that, she wouldn't have gotten one word out.

I can see that, if it looked like she was choking back tears. BUT in the entire Khan speech during the DNC, all i saw from her was, a 'placid and calm' face'. That didn't seem like she was being very emotional..

You mentioned that the US was founded on Christian law, so I applied Christian law to an American concept, reverence for the flag, to showcase how that is not exactly a true statement, that America was never, and really can't be, a Christian country in any sense other than being a country largely populated by Christians. Though I often scratch my head when it comes to Evangelicals and what seems to pass by as "Christian" for them.

So you took what i said and changed it effectively..

As I said, there is nothing inherently wrong with the pledge of allegiance, and I don't care either way whether or not it is said. It doesn't bother me. But don't put words in my mouth. Though if you think about it...why are we pledging to a flag and not to the country? I always thought that was weird.

Maybe because the flag stands For our country??

The only allegiance sworn to is the constitution and to defend the US. Makes perfect sense. It's geared towards relinquishing ties to the previous nation of citizenship in favor of the US. It doesn't really prescribe any behavior in connection to things like burning the flag or whatnot. Though personally, I don't understand the logic behind an American citizen or resident of using a flag burning to protest anything. It makes even less sense than the pledge of allegiance.

Flag burning was a recent (iirc mid 90s) product which came about from a Scotus ruling (IMO incorrect)..

What's your point?

That maybe, part of the reason those 'case workers' are overloaded is cause THEY do have the same people on it year after year.. And maybe that is because of how some do see welfare as a lifestyle, cause they get so much from it (along with EBT, Section 8 housing, section 13 day care offsets, etc)...

Um no. You said that granting amnesty would make legal immigrants angry that they wasted their time (paraphrasing here).

Ah now i get what you were asking.
The reason i was saying that is cause of this.
How would YOU like it if you spent, say 30k and 3 years of time earning X, then saw 10000s of people just flat out GIVEN that same thing cause enough complained loud and often enough that 'they too should have it without having to put in the time and effort to earn it'??
Its that same situation. And i know currently 9 people who HAVE earned their citizenship who DO feel that giving amnesty to illegals is just that, a slap in their face that they went through the proper legal procedure and spent the time and effort earning it...

So it's okay that Sean Smith's mother and the Khans got disrespected regarding their sacrifice? You see, your attempt to defend Trump fails for the very fact that you imply that doing that very same act is wrong. Therefore you admit that what he did/is doing is unforgivable. Otherwise how can you demand answers from people for doing the very same thing to another family? But then at the same time you are saying it's not a big deal because liberals did it too? What?

It seems like you just TRY to find something to nit pick with what i say.
What i SAID is if all those people out there slamming on trump are doing so cause they felt he was wrong.. THEN WHY is there not as much (if not more) outrage at what all those other people said in relation to Ms Smith..
In otherwords, why is there only outrage from ONE SIDE, towards ONE person and none from that SAME side to those others?? Is it cause those people who SAID those things about Ms Smith are also leftists like they are??

[Gatefan1976]

That's how *you* see it, as well as in the eyes of the left/socialists/communistic propaganda, that is what *they* see, too.
I've lived thru those past 50 years. Have the dems changed? Only in their propaganda methods. On signed rules and law on paper, No.. they are still the same. Lie to the people by leaving out pertinent (important) details, so that the general public would be blind-sided into accepting and voting for the Democratic agendas. Thus, their end results are still the same.

So, you are willing to stack your personal opinion against, not just against mine (which is a perfectly reasonable proposition to be fair), but "everyone on the left", AND educated, political commentators -on the side of the modern Republicans- that know that the two parties have somewhat flipped on the "moral basis and direction" (no matter what you think of that basis).
That's ballsy, I'll give you that much.

Inadvertently, I used to vote pro-Dem, because what sounded like a good idea on paper, only worked until more TAXES were added in to pay for those items..! Our ballots would have (and still do) have these neat ideas for suggesting to allocate so much money to fund some new project.. I didn't know at that time, it meant taking MORE out of my paycheck to do all that extra FUNDing.

So, you just admitted you don't know what you were voting for?
Good to know.

Dinesh D'Souza's crime was donating too much campaign money ~around $20,000.00~ to a fellow alumni for an election. What? Did he fail to go thru the proper RED tape channels or something? He was accused of sending the money under other name(s), or so the reports claim. He probably didn't fill out his paperwork for donations thru all the proper routes, etc., such as missed something somewhere, and got punished for it.

Yes, he broke the damn law and got CAUGHT, CHARGED AND CONVICTED.
He falsified official paperwork, he did not use official channels, and he broke the law.
Isn't that what you folks are upset about Hillary about??
OH..........
Except Hillary has not been charged, nor convicted.

Real reason *probably* was the Dems saw him as a threat and made up some sort of excuse/criminal charge to shut him up, while Pres.Obama saw him as a direct threat -- to Obama's office position, because shortly after Dinesh D'Souza "Obama's America", that's when Pres.Obama had Dinesh D'Souza locked up in jail for 8 months where D'Souza would be "re-educated" into the Democratic society. Everything D'Souza said that would happen under Obama's reign, did happen. Those points were re-addressed and mentioned in "Hillary's America" and lots of people seemed to be nodding their heads "yes--that item happened.. and that item.. and that item.." etc.. Even the people I spoke to afterwards, who saw the film, agreed with all that info.

So, you -guess- on the reason, you watch a film saying everything you are inclined to believe with a bunch of people who are inclined to believe, and that makes it fact?
Dinesh can make points, he can tell the truth sometimes, so can Trump sometimes. I can admit Hillary lies and has -serious- trust issues (and I'm a raging leftie apparently), you seem utterly incapable of doing the same for your own side.

I'm just surprised D'Souza had as much *free* reign to dig into the USA political archives as he did.. where he was inspired to film "Hillary's America".

Of course you are surprised, the notion of a free press seems to be anathema to Republicans.
"If I were in charge, I would never have let him do it".
Speaks volumes in so little an amount of words.

When you start looking at the message and stop attacking the person, then I might respond further. What if I were Cal writing this? Cal isn't permitted to share his POV, just because he is a Christian..? Your (GF) words are very much the same as the leftist propaganda machines in the USA and in the MSM. If you want all political material to be a one-sided debate, life will become very boring after a while. Sure, all answers will be as your own.. like a broken record repeating sweet nothings, but such moments will only be happily satisfying for only a little while..

No, it's not because he is Christian, it's because he is placing a religious doctrine over and above the law of the land which is a direct violation of your own Constitution. I would say the same (and have) For Islam, my own religious beliefs, and quite frankly -ANY- religious beliefs. My argument is not with Christianity, it is the violation of your law.
Unsuprisingly, YOU interpret it as an attack on Christianity because the -only- arguments you put forward yourself are based on Christianity, and when I respond -to you-, of *course* they challenge Christianity, because the only argument I get is "from Christianity".
Why is this not obvious to you?

For months I've kept quiet about saying the following----
We (who are believers of the Christian faith, in Jesus Christ) GET THE message(s) that certain people *want* the Christians to shut up or be silenced.

I don't want you shut up, I don't want you silenced. You obviously don't "Get the message", because if you "got the message", you would know that silencing you is NOT THE MESSAGE
The message is, Just because you believe in something with all your faith -FAITH- (that state where you feel wholeheartedly in the existence of something, -despite the ability to prove it, because as I am sure you know, proof denies faith- ), does not mean that you are correct, nor that anyone else has to take your FAITH as fact, NOR base their decisions on your faith.
I have every right to dismiss your faith as you have to dismiss mine.

Well, that day is most likely coming very soon.. We know that, we get it.. (it's in the "how" it will happen that is the bugger detail). Do you *get* that we get it? And when that day comes, something else far more sinister might replace our POV place.. just a gut feeling on that last tidbit.

Let me guess, Another faith?

Laws can be altered, amended, revised, Repealed, removed, CHANGED. (Islamic) Sharia Law is another law system that can easily replace current democratic laws, too.. only takes a sweep of the pen and change in Court system officials, if chosen that way.

Please, this is getting ridiculous.
Acceptance of Sharia law as the law of the land in the US -CANNOT- be done by the sweep of a pen and a change in the SCOTUS, anymore that "Hillary can get rid of your 2nd amendment rights"
As -Annoyed- pointed out, to change the Constitution is hard, it's extremely hard to do in the US. Not only that, the power to change the Constitution does not lie in the hands of either the SCOTUS or the POTUS, but the Congress.

So your version of gov't / political "moral law" states that is okay
-- to steal from others
-- to deliberately cause injury or murder someone you dislike for whatever that reason might be
-- to cheat one's way thru life, continuously being non-compliant with the designated LAW/regulation by jumping thru loopholes (e.g., staying on welfare by making more babies in order to get more gov't freebies.. by more children, that means more than 2 or 3.)
-- to commit rape, just because self-control is not possible at that time..
...?? That is what it sounds like is being implied there..

What??
No seriously........ WHAT??

People who break Laws to suit their own purposes, don't follow the golden rule(s) on *moral* codes.

Err......... Huh?

Cal Thomas' message was pointing at the additional TAXES Hillary would like/will be imposing upon us once she gets that exalted power play she is looking forward to. What is so difficult to see there?

I was pointing to what -I- quoted from the man, not what YOU quoted, which is why I did not quote what you linked.
Simple?

This was a Townhall article, not a Church's spiritual decree. Or is it the other "atr" article Cal was pointing to that set your comments off..? Either way, your reply ignored the "devil in the details" known as additional TAX reform(s), according to Hillary Clinton's public proposal. Such items have been mentioned in the past news (elected time frames), so whatever was mentioned in the ATR article is not really new news.. just proposals that are more concrete than they may have been prior.

Please again note the ATR articles below----posted into spoiler quotes for space..


She said it, not me, and not Cal Thomas..

That's right, She -did- say it.
What do you want me to say about it?
Oh, hang on, I said politicians cannot promise anything, didn't I.
Speaking of which........

Until such promises are SIGNED into LAW. Then it is as permanent as for the designated time frame or as long as the LAW stands to be enforced. Repeal processes DO *sometimes* tend to take months, before being reversed.

Yes, exactly, precisely, ONCE IT IS SIGNED INTO LAW. Until then, it is a promise, or a goal.
Obama -promised- to close Guantanamo Bay, he could not get it done despite his promise, so it is still open. His promise, no matter how many times he made it, no many how many times he tried to make it law, did not suddenly close the place, did it.

[Annoyed]

What is the point of charging a tax designed to penalise companies, then giving them the money back?

It is not (or should not be) the intent of the government to penalize companies unless they have broken the law in some way. Since they have not broken the law, what possible justification do they have to penalize them?

Sorry, Charlie. The enviros true agenda is plain to see once again, and nothing you can say will undo that.

[Gatefan1976]

It is not (or should not be) the intent of the government to penalize companies unless they have broken the law in some way. Since they have not broken the law, what possible justification do they have to penalize them?

Unless they change the law and make carbon tax a law, they cannot, and do not, penalise them.
If they do, they can penalise them for breaking the law.

Am I speaking a different language all of a sudden?
I never minded the notion of being bi-lingual..................

Sorry, Charlie. The enviros true agenda is plain to see once again, and nothing you can say will undo that.

Uh huh, Jeez, I just got done............

[thekillman]

It is not (or should not be) the intent of the government to penalize companies unless they have broken the law in some way. Since they have not broken the law, what possible justification do they have to penalize them?

Sorry, Charlie. The enviros true agenda is plain to see once again, and nothing you can say will undo that.

Sorry Annoyed, but you just sidestepped the question there.

You wondered why enviros don't blanket agree on the tax. Well, what's the point of creating a tax and then immediately adding tax cuts to offset it? It's just the government trying to appease enviros. It's a cigar out of their own box. and the enviros saw right through it.

Considering your usual replies, i'd thought you would be happy with this.