Of what 
Qaz, while I am familiar with the word “desert” (as in “a deserved reward or punishment”), I have never seen it used regularly in political discourse. Is there a particular political thinker from whom you have adopted that usage, or is it uniquely your own? 
I think we are talking ‘dessert’, not ‘desert’ - right? As in “He got his just desserts”.
‘Desert’ is a big empty sandy place.
Actually, “desert” with the stress on the first syllable is a sandy place. “Desert” (pronounced the same way as “The guard wants to see his girlfriend, so he is going to desert his post”) is what you deserve. “Dessert” is what you eat after dinner.
The correct spelling of the word in your example phrase has two instead of three occurrences of the letter “s”. Thus: “He got his just deserts”.
Well - maybe/maybe not:
Just deserts vs. just desserts
The expression meaning that which is deserved was originally just deserts. The phrase is the last refuge of an obsolete meaning of desert—namely, something that is deserved or merited. But because most modern English speakers are unfamiliar with that old sense of desert, the phrase is often understandably written just desserts.
Using just desserts is not a serious error, and it is much more common than just deserts in 21st-century texts. Some people still consider it wrong, however. Whether to pay this any heed is for each of us to decide for ourselves.
Speaking of the poor, the oppressed, and the sick, I honestly believe there are unlimited heavenly resources (from “the greater reality”) that we can receive here (into “the lesser reality”).
If our consciences don’t condemn us; if we can believe that all our sins—past, present, and future—are already forgiven; if we know that we Christians ARE NOW, permanently, the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:21); then we can be assured that we are fully qualified to freely receive those heavenly resources, here and now, by faith.
But in order to bring heaven down to earth, there is that pesky key, “by faith.” So, just how do we get enough faith?
In Mark 9:14-29, we read of the man with the demonized son, whom the disciples could not heal. Jesus shows us once again that ALL we need is found in Him. The New American Standard Bible rightly translates the original Greek in Mark 9:23 when Jesus says: “If You can? All things are possible to him who believes [is believing]." * ** Who is Jesus referring to?* Who is the one who believes? It’s not the boy’s father. (His faith is lacking.) It’s not the disciples. (Their efforts have fallen short.) There was only one person in the story with perfect faith: Jesus.** Jesus is the one who believes. All things are possible for HIM!** Jesus is the one who never wavers. Jesus is the one who never doubts. Jesus is the one who always believes. When your faith runs out, His faith doesn’t. When you feel like your faith is unstable, His faith remains the same. When your faith is weak, His faith is strong. As Joseph Prince says, “Put your faith in His faith on your behalf.”
Jesus is the author and perfecter of faith (Heb 12:2), and as we look to him, we can do impossible things, like walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, shut lions’ mouths, and multiply food. Jesus himself lives inside us; surely he still wants these things done. It’s not so much that we need to imitate Jesus, as to allow him to manifest himself through us. Instead of striving, we are to rest and abide in the True Vine, and allow his life to flow through us.
Beloved Forum Friends,
“Let us consider one another in order to stir up supernatural] love and supernatural] good works.”
Hebrews 10:24.
Blessings.
Let me comment on Hermano’s previous message.
I do believe that holy people - can do miracles. Even today. Whether from the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic saint category (or others, who follow God, as best that they can). An example are the Sufis and Indigenous Holy People (i.e. Black Elk and Fools Crow).
And those of the Charismatic churches.
And we can learn a lesson or two, from watching TV evangelist Joel Osteen.
But some can get things wrong, like those in this video. 
or
** 
Not to worry, Holy-Fool-P-Zombie!**
As to our misguided friends in Appalachia, we recall Jesus rebuked the devil for quoting from Psalm 91 to tempt him to jump off the Temple roof:
Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” Luke 4:12.
So, we certainly need to distinguish the literal from the figurative, and the voice of God from the voice of the devil. Satan is the “serpent” we have authority over.
Speaking of serpents, here is a good promise to claim:
*“Lo, I have given to you the authority to trample upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy, and nothing by any means shall hurt you.” * Luke 10:19.
(And that verse was pre-cross. Now we have Jesus himself within us!)
Davo, In response to your question, I do believe in law and order. However, it has it’s boundaries. Out of the two institutions, the church should be larger.
qaz, Psalm 128:2 says this: “When you shall eat the fruit of you hands, you will be happy and it will be well with you.”
Galatians 6:7 “Whatever a man sows he will reap in return.”
Ecclesiastes 3:13 “and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor, it is the gift of God.”
I do not listen to people who say that I should feel guilty for wanting to enjoy the fruit of my labor. I believe one should give in the manner that God has prescribed. So I do not know why you keep suggesting that I think myself superior just because I feel that the manner in which the government "gives’ is improper. Also, I cannot recall having expressed my political position.
I am following the “dialogue”, between LLC and qaz. And I see the word “libertarian” brought up. Here’s an interesting article, from the Harvard student publication called:
Six Ways to Argue With A Libertarian
Now for some questions:
Any commentary from LLC and qaz, regarding the article (or anyone else, for that matter)
What do you think of the article commentary (i.e. comments made by various people - after the article ends)?
Does LLC stand for libertarian Life Champion 
What would libertarians think of Ayn Rand
Now that is plainly false and a misrepresentation. Jesus had many things to say about the rich person’s attachment to his riches, but resentment? Come on.
But the feeling is not reciprocated by Ayn Rand - for the party, at least. It is certainly not the ideology of Ayn Rand. See:
What was Ayn Rand’s view of the libertarian movement?
Let me share an interesting quote - from the article:
Actually, if those were the 3 living alternatives to D.T. and H.C., in the last election - guess what? I think any of the 3 Ayn listed, are much more qualified 
or
Randy, I have to admit that your humor adds flavor to this forum. Actually, LLC stands for living life in Christ. By the way, I have read Atlas Shrugged. Although I saw many truths in what she was saying, I agree with several who have already mentioned, that the ending sort of went south. I have also read the article you posted, on ways to argue with a Libertarian. Qaz seems to want to label me as such, but I do not adhere to any particular political party. As I have mentioned to him/her several times, I go with what I believe the Bible says on such matters. Now,back to the article. If I was reading it correctly, I noticed several things. The person who wrote it seems to be a staunch advocate of socialism. It makes me wonder if the author believes in God. I only mention this because I got the feeling that if one should actually bring up the fact that God has also made us as individual persons, each having an identity of our own, then off with your head!
So Qaz, ii I remember correctly, earlier in this thread, you intimated you consider yourself a communist? I’m only asking because I want to make sure I’m remembering correctly. I may be either right or wrong–I just don’t have time to comb through it all again.
Oh, okay–sorry. It must have been someone else who mentioned communism–or I’m delusional (which is not out of the realm of possibility). I’m confused, though, because what you seem to me to be describing does sound a lot like communism. Are you familiar with and would you agree with this statement:
“From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” ?
The welfare state, when not controlled by fiscally responsible elected officials, is exactly that, socialist at it’s core and communist at it’s zenith!
You have admitted to not only agreeing with this but are advocating the advancement. NO? 
Cindy, I do actually believe in this statement. Now, before anyone freaks out let me explain. This idea has regretfully become associated with Karl Marx, but it actually comes from the Bible. As we know, those who want to be their own god try to twist the words of the Good Book to come up with their own philosophy. Unfortunately, to those who are ignorant, it sounds good, and so they follow. However this cannot be done through the government of man who uses the law to try and make things happen. These words were an instruction for the people who follow the one true God. Through the Spirit, we are to give willingly from the heart according to our ability, to each according to his need.
qaz, I really don’t think we can be expected to use terms like “socialism” in a technically correct, precise manner in this venue. (So, I don’t think what maintenanceman said was “utter nonsense.”)
Whereas in some specialized, scholarly, theoretical sense, socialism may be defined as “ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole,” in vernacular, real world usage it’s more “big government trying to run everything.”
And we all remember that in Marxist THEORY, socialism is defined as:
“the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.”
Now that’s a definition that speaks of taking things in a very wrong direction–I think we would all agree? We know communism, in practical terms, is an evil, totalitarian form of government—regardless of the idealistic intentions of any deceived promoters.
Cuba Libre 
Blessings.
PS Qaz, as to Keynesian economics, I certainly agree with ‘a policy of maintaining high employment.’
I think politicians should strive to foster and encourage job growth, which means more opportunity for everyone; but I think probably Republicans agree with that more than Democrats.
Along these lines, a good novel of ideas is:
The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia is a 1974 utopian science fiction novel by Ursula K. Le Guin, set in the same fictional universe as that of The Left Hand of Darkness (the Hainish Cycle). The book won the Nebula Award for Best Novel in 1974,[1] won both the Hugo and Locus Awards in 1975,[2] and received a nomination for the John W. Campbell Memorial Award in 1975.[2] It achieved a degree of literary recognition unusual for science fiction works due to its exploration of many ideas and themes, including anarchism and revolutionary societies, capitalism, individualism and collectivism, and freedom versus imprisonment.