Do NOT believe snopes, for God’s sake - they have been uncovered as a sham. If you want sources, I’ll give you sources on both snope and the traitor Hillary. Sorry to put the truth in words like that but she is what she is.
So I believe your “answer” to my question is that you gave your old clothes to catholic social services? Good for you.
Your contention is that I don’t care about the needy because I’m not a fan of Obama “care” (may you never be a victim of it). That’s quite a leap. Unless you have skin in the game, and hard evidence against me, I’m not sure I’m ready to accept your condemnation. Prove your accusations against my character. You cannot. You merely assume and condemn. In your mind, no facts beyond your feelings are needed. You have no credibility with me on this topic.
You are kind of being a door knob here. We all have EVERY RIGHT to be concerned by what WE PAY for health care. This idea that I need to pay for someone else’s preexisting conditions is BS. Pure and simple. You need to move to a Scandinavian country if you want that.
Good luck.
You have no idea what I think, Qaz. You’ve attributed attitudes to me based on your preconceived assumptions and prejudices. You have never even asked me what I think, so please forgive me if I don’t take your condemnation to heart.
Really. So I shouldn’t care for those the Father has given to ME to care for? This is MY responsibility. I do what is set before me to do. I am a limited human being. Should I leave the care of my mother to whom I owe a great debt, to care for someone else’s responsibilities? While it is true that the someone else no doubt has an equal claim on society as that of my mother, nevertheless, my MOTHER is the one who has a claim on ME. Please explain to me for whom YOU are caring. There is, no doubt, in your neighborhood some elderly person who could greatly benefit from even a few hours of your service. Are you giving it? Whom are you helping?
First, you can cut the sarcasm if you don’t want to receive the same in kind, Qaz. I am holding back. Don’t mistake restraint for weakness. I would be willing to pay a premium I could afford. BUT I don’t think for a half a second that the government is capable of providing adequate, let alone good healthcare to anyone… not even their own. Congress, you may have noticed, has exempted its members and employees from Obama “care.” There is a reason for that.
Do you assume that, because I’m conservative I am therefore wealthy? It might surprise you, but the wealthy are typically on your side of the aisle.
Again you assume too much, Qaz. I advocate no such thing. O-care is a failure. It disenfranchises those who make too much money to qualify for subsidies but not enough to pay for their own insurance at the now hugely inflated rates. What happened to the “affordable” in the ACA? It provides sub-sub-standard “healthcare” to those who need it most. I know people at the mercy of government health “care”. There’s a reason the bureaucracy has exempted itself from this form of “charity.” There are better, more effective ways to care for the poor than O-care. The problem is that those ways do not put the recipients into a place of dependency on the mercies of an all-powerful bureaucracy.
What’s more, this “panacea” particularly disenfranchises young people struggling at low-paying jobs (who are now forced to pay elevated insurance premiums). They must buy the inadequate insurance, which most local providers will not accept assignment from, yet they cannot afford the co-pays and end up doing without the healthcare they are forced to subsidize for those who (for whatever reason–and it is NOT always or even usually because of sickness) do not work to provide for their own families. Yes, I have friends in THAT unenviable position, too.
Talk is cheap, you say. So what ARE you contributing? (Aside from your discarded clothing, I mean.) Do tell. Otherwise, please refrain from judging me. I’m sure I’m not living up to your expectations for me, but I’ll bet that you aren’t living up to your expectations for me, either.
Well we would all like to spend less on military but life won’t permit passivity. My point is the U.S. umbrella allows the Europens some luxeries we can’t afford. If I were ‘king’ I would pull all of our troops out of Europe and let the Europeans fend for themselves.
We could use tthe Army in Texas, Arizona, and California.
Arn’t you glad I am not ‘king’?
Peace brother … our true King is coming.
The key is finding the “perfect” balance. And as long as we have, human nature what it is…we will NEVER find the “perfect” balance or “perfect” system. And that has been going on, since the fall.
Having said that, we need to pick leaders and agendas - that meet are needs. For me, as an older person…I normally side with any issues the AARP has. Which usually center around, Medicare, Social Security and perhaps Medicaid. And they USUALLY get active, when the federal government representatives… want to RADICALLY change things - in these areas.
But should the tribulation and Zombie Apocalypse arrive tomorrow, then I am well prepared? I have taken extensive memory notes, from ALL The Walking Dead and Fear The Walking Dead TV shows. 
From Malcolm Pollack: (my emphasis)
"The scales have fallen from Rod Dreher’s eyes. Commenting on Harvard’s decision to suspend and defund a campus religious organization, he says that his belief in “compatibilism” — the idea that it is possible for orthodox religion to coexist peaceably with the modern liberal state — is over. Regarding the new liberal order, he notes that “it doesn’t matter whether or not we consider ourselves its enemy, but whether it regards us as its enemy.”
Mr. Dreher quotes Alasdair MacIntyre, who likens the predicament of the 21st-century religious traditionalist to what faced the civilized people of Rome during that empire’s decline:
A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. What they set themselves to achieve instead—often not recognising fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness.
It is what many of us in the reactionary Right have said: when the Flood is upon us, we must build an ark.
I have one point of disagreement with Mr. Dreher’s essay: he does not seem to understand that liberalism itself is now a religion, and is in fact the established religion of the West. He and his fellow orthodox Christians are not merely political dissenters. They are Cathars. He is clearly despondent, but he is not sufficiently afraid."
2 Likes
I am a little confused as to who to made the following quote:
But I will comment none the less 
Religion today must come to grips with why we are in a ‘post Christian’ time. Liberalism, it could be said, is reacting to the inability of fundamental / orthodox Christianity to answer basic questions of origin, evolution, and to be quite honest, basic spirituality. When the underlying phrase from the evangelicals is ‘you just need to have faith,’ it just isn’t cutting it. So I would say that there are new ways of looking at things for us old evangelical sods, and to bring in a point from a different thread, the Idea of Pantelism works quite well. No, we do not have to give up our countries constitution, or bill of rights, but it makes us see thing in a different light.
Worth considering aye mate 
From the article by Dreher:
But all that may be changing. With each fresh instance of liberal despotism, such as the one at Harvard, the compatibilists are likely to adopt a practical non-compatibilist position, even as they continue to reverence the American Founding and all the myriad material benefits of liberal order. There is a logic to this shift. The more the liberal state and liberal institutions squeeze orthodox believers, the harder it becomes to imagine liberalism returning to some prior state—to the days when liberalism not only accommodated but even encouraged traditional morality and belief. Of course, some Christian denominations welcome liberal dominance in the religious sphere and are happy to remake their faith in the image of liberalism—quite literally in the case of the two Cambridge churches. But orthodox believers won’t go along. Which means that our culture war is more likely to heat up than die down in the coming years.
I would say it kind of mirrors my thoughts…
Yeppir, mine too. It’s a painful process.
Well, I didn’t know where - to put this quote. But I can identify 100% with it. 
“Blessed are the weird people: poets, misfits, writers, mystics, painters, troubadours, for they teach us to see the world through different eyes.”-- Jacob Nordby
Talk abut crazy:
The National Rifle Association has accepted contributions from about 23 Russians, or Americans living in Russia, since 2015, the gun rights group acknowledged to Congress.
The NRA said in a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., unveiled on Wednesday, that the sum it received from those people was just over $2,500 and most of that was “routine payments” for membership dues or magazine subscriptions.
Isn’t that a horrible scandal, compared to this:
Meanwhile here’s what the Uranium One take looked like for the Clintons.
The Clintons and their foundation raked in a cool $145 million in donations and “speaking fees” just from Uranium One- and Rosatom-affiliated donors while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was supposedly keeping all Clinton Foundation business at “arm’s-length.”
But that’s not a story. The NRA getting $2,500 from a handful of members in Russia is. And that story comes to us from NPR which took plenty of cash to push the Iran Deal.
A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.
But that’s not a story either. $2,500 in donations. Now that’s a story. Better get those FBI raids started.
2 Likes
Well, this is a war a waging, but the total disconnect from the left and the right is frightening. I would hope that there would be folks from both sides who can ‘see the bigger picture’ and start to work towards what we need as a nation and not what mamby pamby groups (on both sides) think they need. We have got to look at the forest, at what is good for ‘everyone’ 
1 Like
“Intelligence is knowing the right answer. Wisdom is knowing when to say it.”-- Tim Fargo
Here’s a question, for all you political “experts” out there. How do we handle, the 800 pound gorilla? Which is China behind North Korea and Russia behind Syria.
This meeting is taking place at Wheaton College, the home of Billy Graham. It’s in today’s evangelical newsletter:
quote
There’s not much to say about the Alfie Evans case that wasn’t already said about the Charlie Gard case. Both children are/were murdered by a medical system where euthanasia is not only a cost-saving measure, but also a measure of the authority of the system. In both cases, Alfie and Charlie had to be prevented from seeking treatment outside the NHS to make a point about defying authority.
There have been other such cases. Some involving babies. Others involving disabled adults.
As the left ramps up its talk of “free everything”, it’s a useful reminder that nothing is free.
Free people don’t get free stuff. Slaves do. Free health care means that you are the property of the state. Free health care for your children means that they are the property of the state.
When you accept freebies, you eventuality lose the ability to determine the terms on which you receive them. You aren’t really getting anything. A determination has been made that you will or won’t receive them. And you have no say in that.
When you let the system take care of you, you belong to the system.
It really is a cookbook.
end quote - Daniel Greenfield