en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2052649 Comments by tufloss http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/07/ninth-circuits-prop-8-ruling-obamas-worst-nightmare/#IDComment286629619 The ninth circuit court is a federal court. They ruled that the amendment to California's constitution is void because it supposedly violates the federal constitution. (Two different constitutions) If this were an amendment to the US Constitution what you stated (that the amendment itself makes it constitutional) would be accurate. Wed, 8 Feb 2012 00:38:02 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/07/ninth-circuits-prop-8-ruling-obamas-worst-nightmare/#IDComment286629619 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/12/12/media-matters-blames-christians-for-poverty/#IDComment236596497 In the context, this verse is referring to believers who were taking advantage of the generosity of other believers in feeding them. The key word is "unwilling". Paul is not referring to those unable to work but those who refuse to work. (Some believers used their belief in Christ's return as an excuse not to work and expected other believers to take care of them, even though they were able to work; They were lazy and using religious reasons as an excuse) Your example would better fit the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Christ commends the Samaritan for caring for an individual found in such a state as you describe. Christianity certainly teaches that we care for those who cannot care for themselves. But, it does not teach, that we should provide for those who are merely lazy. Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:17:06 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/12/12/media-matters-blames-christians-for-poverty/#IDComment236596497 http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/10/25/things-you-wont-see-in-msm-nypd-blames-ows-for-shootings-increase-david-duke-endorses/#IDComment212291609 It is an increase of 154 percent. 34 is 154% of 22 (34 being the additional number of murders beyond the original 22) Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:09:20 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/10/25/things-you-wont-see-in-msm-nypd-blames-ows-for-shootings-increase-david-duke-endorses/#IDComment212291609 http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/06/22/taxpayers-subsidization-of-soros-war-on-fox-conservatives/#IDComment165478706 501(c)3 is actually a tax-exempt non-profit organization. This means that donations to them can be counted on tax forms as a charitable donation. (a tax deduction for the one giving the donation) and they do not have to pay federal or state income taxes, can avoid some property taxes and sales taxes in states and cities as well. Basically MMA is receiving the same tax benefits as the Red Cross or a church would, but rather than being a charitable organization they are using this tax-exempt status to attack individuals, corporations, and push a specific political view. The activities they are doing should have the same effect that it has on a church, the loss of this tax-exempt status. While you are right that tax-payers are not paying for MMA, the government is subsidizing them to the effect that MMA is not paying the same taxes that other similar Non-profits are required to pay. (Those not organized as a 501(c)3) This 501(c)3 status has often been used to intimidate churches and pastors from speaking out on specific political issues. While I do not agree with the government being able to tell a church what it can and cannot say from the pulpit, if these rules exist another organization should not be able to flout the rules as MMA seems to be doing. Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:15:32 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/06/22/taxpayers-subsidization-of-soros-war-on-fox-conservatives/#IDComment165478706 http://biggovernment.com/lstranahan/2011/06/20/rep-allen-west-accepts-responsibility-for-lack-of-due-diligence-on-pigford-funding-vote/#IDComment165067099 Simple solution would be to limit the number of pages a bill could be. 50 pages seems like more than enough for a bill, amendments and all. Also require that they be written in language that is actually understandable without diagramming the sentences and having a legal dictionary nearby. Even a requirement for a succinct and accurate summary of the bill less than 1 page in length would help. (if it is not accurate the law (the one with these requirements) could state the bill is then invalid Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:17:03 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/lstranahan/2011/06/20/rep-allen-west-accepts-responsibility-for-lack-of-due-diligence-on-pigford-funding-vote/#IDComment165067099 http://biggovernment.com/lstranahan/2011/06/20/rep-allen-west-accepts-responsibility-for-lack-of-due-diligence-on-pigford-funding-vote/#IDComment165063161 Paul Ryan voted for that amendment. See my reply to renegade13. Case of mistaken identity Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:00:51 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/lstranahan/2011/06/20/rep-allen-west-accepts-responsibility-for-lack-of-due-diligence-on-pigford-funding-vote/#IDComment165063161 http://biggovernment.com/lstranahan/2011/06/20/rep-allen-west-accepts-responsibility-for-lack-of-due-diligence-on-pigford-funding-vote/#IDComment165062046 Paul Ryan did not vote against the amendment. He voted for it. There is a Representative Ryan from Ohio as well as Wisconsin. If you click on the first hyperlink in this article, you can find a direct link to the vote tally. It clearly says that Ryan (WI) voted Yes, but Ryan (OH) voted no. One of the first ones I personally checked because he is my congressman. Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:57:39 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/lstranahan/2011/06/20/rep-allen-west-accepts-responsibility-for-lack-of-due-diligence-on-pigford-funding-vote/#IDComment165062046 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sschochet/2011/05/16/duke-of-generosity-john-waynes-kindness-cost-him-financially-and-won-over-political-opposites/#IDComment152773721 The way I heard it he taught his students "Preach without ceasing, use words if you must" but I can't attribute that either. Mon, 16 May 2011 23:03:56 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sschochet/2011/05/16/duke-of-generosity-john-waynes-kindness-cost-him-financially-and-won-over-political-opposites/#IDComment152773721 http://biggovernment.com/mtrackers/2011/04/29/wisconsin-afl-cio-lies-about-boycotts/#IDComment147341702 Yeah, great tactics unions! Choose three items Bratwurst, Beer, and Cheese to attack in Wisconsin, home of the Brewers (name wasn't on accident), cheeseheads, and some great bratwurst. (They were planning to put stickers on Johnsonville Brats, Sargento Cheese, and Coors beer to name a few) This will really make people in Wisconsin like you! Ok, maybe not. . . Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:43:24 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/mtrackers/2011/04/29/wisconsin-afl-cio-lies-about-boycotts/#IDComment147341702 http://tv.breitbart.com/union-threats-against-wisconsin-businesses-might-not-be-legal/#IDComment139488180 For some good news, look into the response from a few business owners from Union Grove WI. At least two businesses so far have posted anti-union signs. They specifically say that "We support Union Grove, Not bullying". FoxNews even did a video segment of this about the first store owner who did this. (The other store is in the same building as her store.) Sun, 3 Apr 2011 02:04:12 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/union-threats-against-wisconsin-businesses-might-not-be-legal/#IDComment139488180 http://tv.breitbart.com/union-threats-against-wisconsin-businesses-might-not-be-legal/#IDComment139487817 How about one that says "We support Union Grove (a village in WI) Not bullying" two stores in Union Grove WI have posted these signs last week. Sun, 3 Apr 2011 02:01:07 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/union-threats-against-wisconsin-businesses-might-not-be-legal/#IDComment139487817 http://tv.breitbart.com/report-doctors-quit-on-obamacare/#IDComment115733447 I can attest to this from personal experience. I recently had a medical procedure done. My insurance company was able to negotiate with the hospital and only pay about 40% of the bill for the procedure. I could have afforded (it would have hurt but I would have managed) to pay the amount the insurance company payed, I could not have afforded to pay the original bill. Don't forget to add government health insurance such as Medicaid and Medicare. They will only reimburse a doctor a specific percentage of the bill, so to actually make a living the doctor must raise his prices to factor in this discount. But legally, if he charges anyone else less than he charges the government (the full amount) he is considered to be defrauding the government and can be arrested for it. So that inflated cost gets passed on to everyone else... Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:43:32 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/report-doctors-quit-on-obamacare/#IDComment115733447 http://biggovernment.com/bschaeffer/2010/12/05/lincoln-the-tyrant-the-libertarians-favorite-bogeyman/#IDComment114172476 The phrase "bound to service for a term of years" is a reference to an indentured servant. This was a practice by which an European would indenture himself to a "master" for a set period of time (say five years) in order to pay his way to the United States. (Basically it was a loan repaid with physical labor) After this set amount of time his "master" was required by contract to provide him with certain things such as land, animals, arms, etc (depending on the contract) and he (the indentured servant) was considered to be a free man able to act as all other men at the time. If it was a reference to blacks the limiter "term of years" would have been omitted. As it stood written only a servant who was bound to service for a specific and limited amount of time could be counted as a full person in the census. All others (including the black slaves) were to be counted as 3/5ths of a person. (Interestingly some of the first blacks brought to the Colonies were indentured servants rather than slaves.) Tue, 7 Dec 2010 01:00:20 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/bschaeffer/2010/12/05/lincoln-the-tyrant-the-libertarians-favorite-bogeyman/#IDComment114172476 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2010/11/22/leftists-go-texas-cheerleader-mom-on-bristol-palin-in-dwts/#IDComment111543640 It is funny they accuse the "religious right" of skewing the vote. Many on the "religious right" view dancing as sinful and not only wouldn't watch the show but might think less of the Palin's as a result of Bristol being on the show. (And to clarify I would be considered a part of the "religious right" myself) Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:50:00 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2010/11/22/leftists-go-texas-cheerleader-mom-on-bristol-palin-in-dwts/#IDComment111543640 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/11/20/saturday-open-thread-windows-edition/#IDComment110868368 I hated the fact that my graphics card driver would crash intermittently if I had more than 1GB of Ram installed. (likely a problem with my specific build). With Win 7 I have never had that problem. Win 7 is what Vista was supposed to be. Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:29:59 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/11/20/saturday-open-thread-windows-edition/#IDComment110868368 http://tv.breitbart.com/young-boy-visits-heaven-meets-john-the-baptist-miscarried-sister/#IDComment110782372 AmericanTParty, One does not need to go to Seminary to understand the Bible, I should know, I've been to Seminary and while I learned a lot, I didn't learn anything that could not have been learned on my own through reading the scriptures. (Except possibly Greek and Hebrew, but while these help me understand the Bible they are certainly not required) There is a third option you didn't consider as to your difficulty. Many times in the Bible God uses figures of speech to describe Himself to us to make it easier for us to comprehend what He is talking about. (The fancy term is an anthropomorphism) He describes himself in human terms so we may more easily comprehend Him. (for example His eyes, face, hands, finger are all used in scripture, but do not mean he literally has these. They are a description of what he does written in a way that we can understand. (The exception to this idea would be Jesus who became a man and as a result has has a physical body.)) God is a spirit and we must worship him in spirit and in truth and also because he is a spiritual being cannot be seen with our physical eyes. He can choose to manifest Himself physically but we are seeing merely what He wants us to not His physical reality. Good point about Jesus' description in Revelation. (By the way everyone seems to be assuming that Jesus will look exactly the same in heaven as He did when he was on this earth. There is no scriptural support for this, it is merely an assumption. I think the Revelation description is what He will look like in heaven. On earth you could not have picked Him out of a crowd of Jews. . He likely doesn't look exactly the same in heaven as He did on earth (And He probably looked different to John in Revelation than He did previously in the gospels)) Keep reading and searching the scriptures. Meditate upon them, and consider them and you will gain understanding. Ask friends, read books on scripture (with a grain of salt because it is written by a man), and realize that nobody truly understands all of it, not even those of us who have been to Seminary. And if anyone claims to understand all of it, then you can know that they are either lying or confused. Sat, 20 Nov 2010 04:47:45 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/young-boy-visits-heaven-meets-john-the-baptist-miscarried-sister/#IDComment110782372 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/11/17/joy-behar-biblical-views-on-homosexuality-lead-to-bullying/#IDComment110340651 Good point, in fact in I Corinthians 6:11 Paul writes to the Corinthian church "And such were some of you" (after a list of sinful behavior including "effeminate", and "abusers of themselves with mankind" which are both references to homosexual behavior.) The Bible offers Grace and mercy to all who would accept, no matter what they have done (or even will do). Thu, 18 Nov 2010 02:52:38 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/11/17/joy-behar-biblical-views-on-homosexuality-lead-to-bullying/#IDComment110340651 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/11/17/palin-derangement-syndrome-bristols-dwts-success-drives-man-to-shotgun-tv/#IDComment110326394 And we are the home state of Paul Ryan! Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:44:51 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/11/17/palin-derangement-syndrome-bristols-dwts-success-drives-man-to-shotgun-tv/#IDComment110326394 http://bigjournalism.com/jdunetz/2010/11/15/who-really-throws-around-the-terms-nazi-fascist-the-progressives-of-course/#IDComment110324183 Personal responsibility is actually a very important part of what I believe. (And I agree wholly that the government should not prevent anyone from receiving the consequences of their own actions). In fact I would argue that one of the purposes of government is to enforce the consequences of actions upon individuals. For example some may think me harsh but I believe that all murderers should be executed for their crime. (I also include Rape and Kidnapping as capital crimes) The job of the government then is to guarantee that if I kill another person (without good cause such as self-defense, defense of another person, war, etc.) I will lose my own life. If I deny another man his freedom through kidnapping I will lose my life. If I rape anyone I will lose my life. As an aside, I admit that our Justice system needs serious overhaul and protections for those who are innocent of crimes of which they are falsely accused. In fact I would argue that any prosecutor, police officer, or witness who knowingly and purposefully lies in order to convict someone of a crime, should be put on trial and if they are found guilty they should receive the same punishment which the defendant would have received. Our main disagreement (that government should or should not legislate morality) may be due to our respective definitions of morality. If by morality you mean the relationship I have with my God, then the government has no place interfering in that area (and interference it would be whether they supported or suppressed it). This goes for everyone. Even if someone doesn't believe in God, that is still a relationship of sorts and the government should not interfere. I hold the position of the founder of Rhode Island when it comes to the government and religion. (No state church all faiths accepted, no faith persecuted) If by morality you mean my personal convictions and choices concerning what I wear, what I say, what I eat, what I drink, what I inhale, etc. I am in complete agreement, the government has no business interfering with my personal choices. It is only when my personal choices begin to infringe upon the rights of other individuals that the government has a role to play. Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:25:35 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/jdunetz/2010/11/15/who-really-throws-around-the-terms-nazi-fascist-the-progressives-of-course/#IDComment110324183 http://bigjournalism.com/jdunetz/2010/11/15/who-really-throws-around-the-terms-nazi-fascist-the-progressives-of-course/#IDComment110320581 Thank You, you have summed up much of what I was trying to say more succinctly and clearly than I did. Concerning laws which touch moral issues. I do not think the purpose of government or laws is to change man or society. This is actually a theological liberal idea called the social gospel, which is abhorrent to me. (Unfortunately many fellow Christians do not know enough theology or philosophy to recognize the source and dangers of this mindset.) It (the purpose of government) is to protect us from each other. And you are exactly correct as to why I am against abortion. I was trying to point out that all laws will deal with moral issues, and so we cannot say that we should not legislate morality. If we mean that we cannot (and should not) legislate righteousness, Godliness, Holiness, or any other religious or philosophical concept which refers to an individual's relationship with God (or the universe or himself or whatever), then I am in complete and total agreement. And any attempt to do so will utterly fail and actually cause more harm to my faith as pretenders and profiteers will then become "fellow christians". Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:54:02 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/jdunetz/2010/11/15/who-really-throws-around-the-terms-nazi-fascist-the-progressives-of-course/#IDComment110320581