penned wrote: the abortion organizations have already said they are refusing to comply. now for every pastor that gave prez a hard time saying he wasn't prolife.... are they going to say something or sit back and watch the left throw a global temper tantrum?
The Mexico City Policy is about funding. If they don't comply, no funding. They can put their absence of money where their mouth is.
Frank wrote: Which of the below are pro-life in the biblical sense? --- I'll answer the question myself. None of them are pro-life.
In the biblical sense, true. Yet it shouldn't matter much what they're called. If they do something that is the right thing to do, it doesn't require of them that they be Christian. Re-instituting the MCP will save a lot more than one life. If he does it to pander, or to remain accountable matters not to the lives saved.
Dave wrote: Well this story probably won't get a look in, we're all, (myself included) are too busy arguing the meaning of god's will. These guys are doing the word. Thank you Lord, Father I pray for their families and loved ones, that they too may come to know. Amen
Nothing new Dave, up to a million people a year die from malaria, but if 20 people get measles in Los Angeles, it makes news and is called an outbreak.
Wikipedia: "The Mexico City Policy is an intermittent United States government policy that requires all foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-U.S. government funds in other countries.
The (Mexico City) policy is a political flashpoint in the abortion debate, with Republican administrations adopting it and Democratic administrations rescinding it. The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as Republican President George W. Bush took office, rescinded on January 23, 2009, three days after Democrat President Barack Obama took office and re-instated on January 23, 2017, as Republican President Donald Trump assumed the office"
Jim Lincoln wrote: Trump's wall, I'll bet President Trump will surprise us and it will be a wall of newly hired border patrol agents You don't think Donald Trump meant a Great Wall of China do you? Now that took centuries to build. --- There is a lot of infrastructure in this country that needs to be repaired, but if Trump can't put everyone to work that he wants, he may well put them on building a wall
Well let's see. If they placed a BP agent every 100 feet along the border, it would take about 100000 agents. Hmmm. Maybe a wall is a better idea. At least building something would provide a bunch of construction workers employment, and not require another huge mass of permanent govt employees.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Adriel or for that matter, (Right-Wing Extremists Are a Bigger Threat to America Than ISIS) from which,
"NewsWeek wrote:...Basically, the party abandoned traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism. Republicans came to see themselves as insurgents and revolutionaries, and every revolution tends toward anarchy and ends up devouring its own."-- (David Brooks,)[/URL
If Newsweek and David Brooks say something we should all hearken unto it, because you do, right Jim? Yes, as our own govt has been dismantling the country, legalizg evil and corruption, and isis blows up restaurants, we should worry more about a handful of others who haven't blown up anything, but occupy a building on a wildlife refuge. Wow, that is frightening. But it is understandable why the left-wingnuts see it as threatening. They prefer to have bobblehead followers, like the ones who have been marching in the streets lately, demonstrating against their own freedom.
Gay Allen wrote: remember the sex abuse survivors and rape survivors and survivors of domestic abuse who marched yesterday~! John UK | Wales, says ... When women get together to march, they're up to no good. why is that John? because women are shifty lying and untrustable w****s? so the elite are using women's suffrage to push ungodly laws and themes, what about the real women and their real suffrage? do we just tell them to go jump in a lake??? by all means throw that baby out with that bathwater ...
No, we should never throw the baby out with the bathwater, but how does it help them when they get in the same dirty bathtub with the politically, not rightly motivated? Will their cries be heard over the screeching of the banshees?
The gates of hell shall not prevail means the church is to be aggressive against it. How does one confront evil without confronting the lost who are lost in it? Evil isn't an abstraction, nor does it happen by itself. Whatever the thoughts on megaphones, about which Christopher expressed my own, the reason for the reaction is, evil doesn't want any noise that competes with it. btw, it's hardly whining to relay the facts about what went on. Anyone think Paul was whining when he told of his beatings, or being stoned, or being shipwrecked?
Dave wrote: SC, G'day and god bless. We all suffer with pride to a certain degree, granted myself more than most. But after my last comment I was going to put that up "pride cometh before fall" and Trump sure is proud
Sure glad I don't have that problem. I like being humble.
From the news: "Six months after Californiaâ€™s strict vaccine law took effect, a measles outbreak has infected 20 people, most of them in Los Angeles County, prompting a search for others who may have been If you read exposed to the highly contagious virus."
This brings up some questions:
Are there possible dots to connect in the statement?
Did any of the infected get measles vaccine in the last 6 months?
Are any of the infected from Mexico?
Is another round of the disease of the month fear-mongering being initiated? Remember Obamacare is being threatened with change.
Flu/pneumonia KILLS 16 per 100,000 in L.A. County, which has some 10 million people, which works out to 1600 per 10 million. (Los Angeles Daily News Health, April 6, 2015) In light of this, if 20 people get measles, why the concern over an "outbreak"?
Cynical question: Does the 6 month old strict vaccine law require a disease "outbreak" in order to provide back-up support for what is possibly an unpopular law?
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Pew Research 2012 wrote: "With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics."
"Phil Johnson wrote: ...Americaâ€™s moral decline has accelerated dramatically since evangelicals became politically aggressive in the late 1970s....they have been remarkably ineffective when it comes to using politics to reverse Americaâ€™s moral and spiritual decline...." ---
No, it began and accelerated with banning God from public life, and legalizing abortion. Evangelicals became involved as a reaction. I didn't think Johnson was a revisionist, guess I was wrong.
Climate change has existed since the first really big one described in Genesis 1. But climate change was never a profit making thing until someone imagined a man driving a SUV or using a wood stove could change it,and concluded something needed to be done. In the 70s it was using hairspray that was going to cause global cooling and bring on a new ice age, but that didn't work out profitably so it was dropped. Now we have assumed data being fed into computers, which then spit out bad data read as science, so called. Well, they say, we better do something before the icebergs melt, and the oceans rise and drown all the democrats living on the coast! All those red state trucks have to be stopped! But first, let's spend a few trillion fighting the problem. These are such complex issues.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- In this part of world, and I do think New York state is not entirely paved over, have some farms, farmers in Nebraska at least would be unhappy if the USDA was shut down, q.v., Cooperative Research and Extension Services Farmers around here are particularly interested who President Trump is going to pick for Sec. of Ag. It should be noted Nebraska, is brilliant crimson color but even anarchy is not pushed that much. ---
You are correct, NY is not entirely paved at all. Excellent fruit, dairy, and vegetable farms all over the State. Lots of vineyards, and we got maple syrup as well. And I am a fan of the Co-Op Extension Service, located in my county at the County Fair Grounds. Not a fan of paying farmers to not grow crops, however. The USDA is mostly ok, but there should be closed some of the power-mad alphabet agencies who attach to us like leeches. We'd all be better off for it.
Crimson but...? The anarchists are the ones in the blue streets protesting Trump.
Maybe our difference in how we see things is, you judge govt in light of its intention, I judge it in light of its results.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- (Obama's top 10 accomplishments -- according to Obama) #3 Bipartisan budget and education deals A rarity, it must have slipped by me. I know the public was sick of Ted Cruz using blackmail tactics in shutting down the government, and the extreme selfishness of the GOP to refuse to do anything with Obama, admittedly something a cold personality to be in politics, even it harmed the nation. So, perhaps the GOP was temporarily tired of "just saying no"?
I look at the so-called shutting down the government like this- Since some kind of damage to the country is done by govt every day, a day shut down would be a day with no damage. Sounds like a plan, don't you think? Besides, the reason the left hates the idea is not that needful services will be lost, but that people will begin to see that their world didn't end after all. The left can't let that happen, so they go on with the stories of Grandma eating dog food and people dying in the street if the millionaires in Washington aren't paid for a day.
To your question "So why do I want a left-wingnut when we have plenty of right-wingnuts in this state."
Lady_Virtue wrote: I wonder if indeed it is worth it to point out such "firsts." It seems more designed to cause contention, division, and pridefulness than anything else. I really can't see one way or another what difference it makes.
The use of terms such as "African-American" itself is a cause of division and pridefulness, for it places "them" at a different level of "American" than "us."