Dale143

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Right to Health Care. http://healthcare.procon.org/

pro's & con's of illegal immigration http://immigration.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=000842

UPDATE! http://www.detnews.com/article/20100114/BI...eats-worry-Ford

Oh look, Obama is going to spend a record amount of $'s on war. Now don't that beat all ? http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/285603

It is becoming clear that Obama care will most likely pass." A dangerous provision inserted in the Senate version will impose an excise tax on health care plans that will force many to drop coverage and increase co-pays and deductibles for working families". http://www.uaw.org/news/features/vw_fst1.cfm?fstId=115

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/J/...-you-wanted.jpg

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land" 2 Chronicles 7:14 MATTHEW 25:31-46 31. "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35. for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36. I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' 37. Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38. When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39. Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40. And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' 41. Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42. for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43. I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' 44. Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' 45. Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46. And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Remarkable. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...S-56781377.html

I pay attention to whats going on in this country and i use my resources (just like you) to stay on top of things. So unless you are an all knowing god who see's all and knows all, you get your information just like i do.RESEARCH. Tell me I'm wrong. And research,study etc etc. builds on our intellect.Can you agree to that? or must you always play the devils advocate.?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A very brief history of the Courts reasoning and rationale for reinterpretation of,"separation of church and state." One of the Supreme Court's most blatant violations of the Constitution came about through their reinterpretation of the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments. Prior to this constitutional violation, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Notice the actual language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law…" As one of many efforts to limit the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over religious matters to the States. The Supreme Court consistently adhered to this constitutional principle until well into the twentieth century. But in the 1925 ruling, Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court began ignoring its predecessors and precedents. The Court reasoned that one of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. (This would obviously expand the powers of the federal courts to a great degree.) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support their contention, nor do the earlier Courts. Nonetheless, the 1925 Court ignored the historical record and the opinions of their predecessors, establishing a new precedent. Gitlow dealt with freedom of speech and the press; religious matters would soon follow. In the context of religion, the Court's first and most abusive reinterpretation began in a 1940 Supreme Court ruling, Cantwell v. Connecticut. Here, the Court applied the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment to the states. Again, religion was a State matter. State courts were, and are, completely capable of handling the issue. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in direct opposition to the original intentions of the Constitution, applied yet another portion of the Bill of Rights to the States. They did not stop there. The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete. From 1947 forward, the Court has ruled with regularity on religious issues, in direct violation of the original meaning of the First Amendment. Their rulings, and those of lower courts (federal and State) have become the “law” of "separation of church and state."

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Mathew 5:11.

Here we go again.

Again. I'm just answering the question on how can there be republicans in the auto industry. I'm not trying to turn it into a religious debate.

http://english.sina.com/business/2009/1230/296546.html

I'm not trying to prove any points. I'm just giving my opinion on why there are republicans in the auto industry. Read my post completely and you will see quotes from both the old and new testaments. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1)

The answer to that is simple. CHRISTIANS. An issue the Bible most definitely “takes sides” on is abortion. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He knits us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty of someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as the penalty for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb as just as much of a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6). Therefore, Bible-believing Christians should strongly support candidates who are pro-life. Another issue which is most definitely biblical is that of gay marriage. The Bible condemns homosexuality in the strongest terms possible (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Gay marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage that God created to be between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:22-24). Endorsing gay marriage or even civil unions is basically giving approval to a lifestyle choice the Bible condemns as immoral and unnatural. Gay marriage, then, is an issue Christians must consider when they evaluate a candidate. The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). This should apply to political leaders as well. If politicians are going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, they must have a basic morality on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make. So if there is a clear moral distinction between candidates, as Christians, we should choose the more moral, honest, and ethical of the candidates. No matter who is in office, whether we voted for them or not, whether they are of the political party we prefer or not, the Bible commands us to respect and honor them (1 Peter 2:13-17; Romans 13:1-7). We should also be praying for those placed in authority over us (Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). We do not have to agree with them, or even like them, but we do have to honor and respect them. Politics is always going to be a difficult issue for Christians. We are in this world, but are not to be of this world (1 John 2:15). We can be involved in politics, but we should not be obsessed with politics. Ultimately, we are to be heavenly-minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are all members of the same political party—monarchists who are waiting for their King to return (Revelation 19:11-16). "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"

Can you believe this guy ? http://www.detnews.com/article/20091224/AU...w-or-leave-town

Is Obama using the Bush playbook? http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=2694 http://sify.com/news/obama-could-send-30-0...lzq4ijcjfe.html http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/obama-bush-tax-cuts/

Man this coffee's good. :reading: Anyone have anything of interest to talk about?

Obama healthcare reform. "Conservatives are afraid the public will not understand, liberals are afraid the public will understand" Dick Armey