Did you know Fox is run by Hitler? It's true. Fox also kicks puppies. In addition to that, Fox is also responsible for global warming, the poor state of the economy, the swine flu, and midgets not being allowed in the NBA.

Evil båstards.

I can think of a whole lot of "good Christians" who would quite strongly disagree with you on that...

But, I think you are overlooking the Judaic concept of yetzer hara and the 'sinful' (against the will of God) relationship to indulgence in such things... or the Christian concept of lust (extravagance, 'luxuria') and gluttony as 'sinful' in relation to indulgence in such things...

Sounds just a little far fetched..even after I smoked a fatty...sorry

Miss not so cools children will end up with heart disease, cancer or some other illness brough on by her poor dietary choices, group insurance rates are calculated on percentage's, how many will have heart trouble, diabetes , cancer. A tax on junk food will be a down payment on their future health care needs. Diet is a choice so paying a little extra is a choice

Hey guys, how do you feel about a “sin” tax to help pay for healthcare?

I personally don’t have a problem paying a little more on soda and sugary things. Maybe it’ll help Americans to become a little healthier.

And, every time I see that damn commercial featuring the lady unloading groceries (in plastic bags by the way) and literally bitc*ing about a soda tax making it too expensive to feed her family, I want to throw something at my tv! Stop feeding your kids junk lady!! I know, I know, she's just an actress, but you know what? I never gave my kids soda and it saved me money at the dentist!

Also, I live in NJ and they are proposing a 25% tax hike on liquor, (not beer) to help with the large deficit here. I say if it makes people drink a little less because of the price, maybe drunk driving will be reduced also.....

94 - Yasser Arafat - A man who, either himself or through his orders, murdered more than 25,000 Israelis and Muslims

Yea, the world does seem like a really negative place if you only watch faux news

I have ALWAYS had an issue with this particular US attitude - that they can enforce their laws OUTSIDE their borders

Does anyone really need any proof that religion is dangerous? Kirk Cameron is a classic textbook example of why religion is dangerous; a person who thinks he has religious certainty because it's been pounded into him as infallible fact over many years & when science gives him a different answer he cannot emotionally handle it.

Whatever you are doing, it isn't working.

Yes. Well if you look at the first page of the discussion of this that I posted you will see that according to the author MOST Christian Reconstructionists don't realise that they are Reconstructionists. How about you tell us how you are NOT a Christian Reconstructionist rather than just poo poo-ing the notion in this Oh-Aren't-You-A-Fool way?

For your reading pleasure... proof that Canada has a decreasing pregnancy rate.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/kits-trousses/preg-gross/preg-gross-eng.htm

Seperation of church and state?
Isnt that in your laws?

Werent many of the founding fathers athiests anyway?

we are not a "christian" nation. The forefathers made sure that the secular government could not be tampered by the church and vice-versa.

Can you provide any evidence for this "cultural change" you see happening....

Personally, I'm less concerned with the evangelical right's silly little obsession with abstinence

Cultural changes? Teen birth rates were on a decline up until the year that this new education system was introduced.

Meanwhile Canada another country with hyper sexualized media has continued to see a drop in it's teen pregnancy rate.

"Cultural changes" doesn't fly.

Abstinence is not ineffective in stopping pregnancy, I never said that. I've argued (with scientific backing) that abstinence only education fails to produce abstinence, and instead produces STI's and teen pregnancy.

No I would not support barbaric measures. Unfortunately I don't have to, we have the means to reduce teen pregnancy and the only people who oppose it are the barbarians who think that a book written thousands of years ago is the path to teaching children in the modern age.

Give me a reasonable one.

It's a moral choice that results in no pregnancy, as an educational method it's been shown time and again to be a immoral choice to produce more pregnant teenagers.

Why would I be desperate, I have my own girl in her mid 20's.

Paul Stanley believed in abstinance before marriage. Most people who hear this would assume that he meant sex WITH who your married to.

They'd be wrong. He was banging a 22 year old intern.

You are not correct in this. Baptists for example do not believe in sacraments or the creeds, as [Roman] Catholics and Protestent Christians profess. Baptists reject the teachings of Gnostism. Baptists do hold to a view of Sola Scriptura (66 book Bible) as for the authority in all matters of the Christian faith and practice.

The whole topic was about "Abstinence Only" sex education. Yours was the first mention of abortion (and for God's sakes lets not go down that road yet again).

The argument put up is that making abstinence the only form of birth control allowed to be discussed in sex education has resulted in an increase in teen pregnancy.

Since the Bush administration and its Christian right supporters actively promoted (and promote) teen pregnancy, it isn't difficult to see the link AT LEAST between their policies and the rise teen pregnancy (which sometimes leads to abortion).

I gained 10lbs during the Bush administration. Damn him.


he he. Well, emotional distress CAN cause one to over eat. ;)

Didn't see this one coming. Hey way to increase the number of abortions there Republicans.

Makes you wonder just what in the heck these people thought he was? A centrist? A fiscal conservative with liberal leanings on social issues? LMAO. He had the most liberal voting record in the Senate...and with Kennedy, Frank, Schumer, etc., that's a pretty impressive accomplishment.

I suppose better late, than never, though.

Rasmussen Reports? lol "We give you the results you pay for" is their motto.
Come up with enough cash and Rasmussen will show a poll "proving" Obama is a terrorist and McCain will win by a landslide.
Wait hasn't he done that already?

Making it a statement about her ethics is even more absurd, she made a decision, it was overturned by a small margin. The decision wasn't about Sotomayor remember, it was about a court case.

@Apologist~D.A

You have to be kidding me? I'm giving you an argument based on legal fact and you come back with what you "feel" is unethical? You realize that's like bringing a knife to a gun fight, don't you?

1. Sotomayor was one of three other judges on a three judge panel. They all ruled unanimously in support of the city.

2. The other two judges are white. Yet, no one calls them racists or reverse racists.

But when you are arguing regulations, laws, codes, etc ... it isn't about what any of us feels. It's about how those pieces of legislation are written. That is what makes a good judge. The ability to remove his or her feelings about the case and rule based on what that law says. You cannot, and will not ever win an argument about anything legal when you are talking about what you feel is ethical while the opposing side is presenting reasoned arguments based on facts.

How do you come to love Jesus strongly?

I live in Texas and Bush was our governor, but for some reason the image of the party changed, and not in a positive direction.

It made a very good point, but the republican party needs to appear more inclusive

They became more focused on the moral right after he became a born again Christian

Many republicans do not like the image of the party

Never fails - anyone who stands in the way of the left gets personally attacked and dragged through the mud... Palin, Prejean, Joe the Plumber, and now Frank Ricci too...

"He took on a second job and worked hard, but was denied due to the same legal concepts" that were designed to protect people's rights, Graham said.

Actually, if you'd read the law you'd know Sotomayor simply upheld said law.

"We know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time on another scale and actually make a difference for our priorities,"

I could care less if you are sooooo forgiving for others' sexual immorality and certainly if it has "snared" you, then you might understand and I could somewhat imagine then that you would have sympathy for this schmuck. But don't expect that from others who are innocent of such immoral behavior.

But don't expect that from others who are innocent of such immoral behavior.

Furthermore, I do not hold myself accountable to anyone but myself and my partner

And just by the way ... I don't care what political party he belongs to or affiliates with. My view of the situation would be no different.

You didn't like his answer. Guess what? A lot of people did. Suck it up.

5-4 decision is suddenly a brutal indictment of her decision? LOL come on D.A who the heck are you kidding?

Apologist,

You're defending him because he's a values guy.

And it's not that he merely committed adultery. He's the one who throws the stones at others, -and- he did more than just adultery.

It wasn't a "mistake". It was pre-meditated with arrogance.

For those of us who do not do such things as stray from our marriage ... commit adultery ... break the law (among other things using taxpayer monies to commit adultery), I suppose one might say that yes, we do feel we could hold this guy accountable for his deeds.

Okay lets say it's okay to sacrifice the lives of 4000 plus men and "women" who signed up to serve

is it also okay to kill 100,000 plus Iraqi citizens, citizens walking talking breathing on their own men, women, children and without a doubt fetuses in varing stages of developement, who choses who gets to live and who gets to die? is it conditional and if so on what?

Perhaps, just perhaps, he, like so many of us feel that his personal opinion is irrelevant to the issue, that some decisions are only a matter for the individual, their conscience and their God and it is not our place to even render an opinion.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if he had been asked what choice he personally would make if faced with the decision to obtain or not obtain an abortion rather than a leading question as to "when life begins" for political fodder you might have heard a very different answer.

It's replies like this that have 99% of the voting age public afraid to get involved in our one of our most valued freedoms the freedom of speech,

Maybe that is President Obama's opinion , maybe he does not think it is his duty to determine when life begins,

what is your opinion do you think that sending our troops into combat to fight and die for oil is ok while performing abortions is against the will of god? I think it's hypocritical to send people to die and kill others and then to try to force youir opinion about when life begins on society

Sotomayors' original decision sided with the city because the city feared being sued by the black firefighters.

All of the books, writings, and warnings about this President were glossed-over in gushing blow-job our media gave this man. No one outside if Fox news ever really vetted this candidate and have yet to do so to this day.

mungojoe
Apparently someone drank too much of the "un-American terrorist" Limbaugh-Hannity flavoured kool-aid.

Those who did speak-up vocally or who called him out were raked over the coals - Joe the Plumber, a private citizen, calls out his true intentions and Obama bites... Joe citizen is then investigated by his own state, blasted by every liberal pundit, and vilified as a "plant" by the republican party... The media and it's incestuous relationship with both Obama and the democratic party have blinded people to who he is, who formed his beliefs, and who his influencers were. His "dreams" book appears to have been written by none other than radical nut-case, America hating, Bill Ayers and this article is right on the money!

I consider this pure BS, Joe the Plumber called him out? No president has ever been questioned as much as President Obama has

I watched the ABC Public Health Care program I do not remember seeing one person who asked a question was not hostile to public health care, This President does not run from questions.

Say for instance if my racist boss started calling me "N****A but claimed she was just being my friend.
The boss just got through listening to some rapper using the word and thought it was okay?

Sorry but this has been proven time and again on these forums and elsewhere to be untrue.

The origins of US Law do not lie in the Bible, but in British Common Law, which has it's joint origins in Roman Law and the ancient pagan laws of the kings of Britain. The fact that there are points of commonality between certain elements of the Christian canon of laws should show you more about the common origins and developments of human morality than anything else and that Roman Law has it's origins in the laws of older cultures like Greece, Egypt and the cultures of the Near East such as Sumer and Ugarit, which produced the oldest law codes predating the oral and written traditions of the Hebrew Bible (reference lectures by Glenn S. Holland, Glenn S. Holland is the Bishop James Thoburn Professor of Religious Studies at Allegheny College).

And while almost all of the signatories of the Constitution and Declaration had some Christian affiliation, it is anachronistic to compare them to modern evangelical Christians...one need only look at their actual words (not what others have written about them, nor what some have cherry-picked) in context to see how they felt about their faith. For the majority of them, they supported the idea that every man's faith was his own business, to be enjoyed and freely participated in, not to be influenced or tread upon by the state nor interfered with by the state. These were educated men of the Enlightenment, raised on Montesquieu, Kant, Voltaire, Bacon, Swift religious men yes, but also free thinkers and humanists as well...these concepts are not mutually exclusive - unless you are a modern evangelical and they clearly were not that. The very fact that the majority of them were also Freemasons excludes them from that possibility.

The urge for certain groups of evangelical Christians in this day and age to revise history is anathema and should be to anyone with intellectual honesty.

American Laws are not a direct product of Biblical injunctions any more than Roman Law is...to wit they are as much both a product of Egyptian Law or Sumerian Law.

Negative perceptions of Islam increasing?

Well, that's our obviously liberal media for you... [sarcasm]

I've known Christians who are democrats and independents, and American Independents, and green party members, being a Christian does not mean that you have to be Republican