Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Feb 13, 2010.
Would you sign this pledge? raying:
No. I wouldn't sign it for several reasons.
No I wouldn't. I really don't understand all the positions they are taking. I would have to research what some of the terms they use.
I won't sign any pledge that attempts to limit my right to vote as I see fit whether I happen to agree with their positions or not.
NOPE. I also feel the same way about GOOOH.
Yep - and by the way, if you already vote that way based on principles, you are not being limited in who you vote for. If your principles already drive your votes that direction, there will be no change. If you would vote for a liberal socialist to start with, then you would not sign the pledge.
In short, the pledge serves no purpose.
Would not sign it.
One reason is that some of the terms are not clearly defined.
But, can a Righteous Nation fail to "Intervene" and be a Good Samaritan? I personally think not.
Lastly, the verbiage of this pledge doesn't sound like it came from any Tea Party group I've been on the Mailing List of.
I think they are trying to infiltrate and weaken the True Tea Party initiatives.
I will sign the Oath Keepers Pledge, though.
>But, can a Righteous Nation fail to "Intervene" and be a Good Samaritan? I personally think not.
There are sufficient do-gooder outfits for those who care. Most government foreign aid ends up in Swiss banks. Or are you referring to recent invasions by the US?
Didn't George Washington advise US to mind our own busness?
Not in a million years
I'm pretty right-wing redneck, but not that right-wing.
I'm like SpiritualMadMan, some of the language doesn't match up with Tea Party language.
Languge doesn't match up?
How about - does the idea and intent match up?
No, I don't think so.
There seems to be an under current of wanting to throw everything governmental out. And, that without consideration.
Of castrating the Federal Government and making it impotent rather than doing the surgery required to heal and enable the Federal Government to do it's Constitutional Mandates.
Without the figures I'd guess that around 75% of the ehat Federal Government is into should be reserved for the States and The Churches.
If the churches had been doing their job...
There would have been no need for the Federal Government to be doing it for them. (Except to free up money to build edifices to man!)
And, don't forget the name "Exodus" that implies an abandonment of the US Government. And, unless we have starships and can immigrate off the planet at our will... America is still the last best secular hope for mankind on this earth.
In fact, I'd say that with the Islamic Fundamentalist having all but taken over the rest of the Democracies, We *ARE* the only secular hope left.
If we abandon our Nation in it's time of crisis... WE have no excuse before God and no right to cry out to Him for redress of wrongs.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not include a reference to 2 Chronicles 7:14.
Because as far gone as the US *is* Only God can heal the Nation now...
I don't think it was so much the churches not doing their job, but rather the govt thinking they could do it better - and then little by little thing changed - now why would a person go to a church sponsored kitchen to eat if they are required to pray and attend a chapel service? Also by getting $$ from the govt, their is less accountability, and the list goes on and on
If the govt does have to help, it souls only be when their is no religious or social agc able to assist.
You are correct, brother.
At our mission, we give out groceries every month to over 350 families in our town. Unfortunately, since much of what we collect to give out comes from govenment commodities, so we are not allowed to hand out tracts or preach to the people who come in to recieve the groceries. Government takes God out of charity.
People choose to get their money from the government as it requires no feelings of thanks, guilt, or shame. If it is from the government, it is their right to collect it. It is go bad, charity collecting has become a career program for millions of people.
In order to be charitable to the degree that gets people elected to government office, they must have more tax money; so our taxes go up. As our taxes go up, our available money to give to churches and charity goes down. One program feeds off the other, and we as individuals don't have the power to fight it.
I am all for fixing this monstrosity of an error which has run rampant since the 1930's and is getting worse. If we - the people - don't step up and make ourselves heard; it is only going to get worse. It may get worse even though we speak up, but at least I know that I did my part.
The churches did not fail to do their job, the courts took the power away from them and our school system made people think that our nation was founded on secularism.
I am thankful for what you do, but I would find it very hard to accept anything from the govt with strings.
I doubt I would accept govt food, under those conditions. I was at a local church one day (ABC) and there was a notice on the bulletin board that if the church gave food to anyone from the community food kitchen there could be no "strings' attached - ie be required to "work" for it. For example the church could not ask someone to sweep the hallway or shovel the sidewalk.
Thats interesting - the strings attached to me - would be I could not have any strings attached to the individual!
So NO -I would not pass out govt food with their rules - I would trust the Lord to provide. Of course it would be come and take what you want - it would be my deacons will come to your house and give you what you NEED.
Believe me, I am torn in this event. I'll bet that out of that bunch that get food from us, there are a couple of dominant attitudes. The first is the "hurry up and give me my groceries" attitude that I get to see. Half of them display that one. Then there is a hundred (on a good day) that give us a sincere "thank you." The rest just hurry through the line saying nothing and appear to wish that they didn't have to come.
I can help only on Saturdays when I am not at work. Several people work on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. There is a lot of work involved in gathering, sorting, bagging, and passing out this food and meeting govenment paperwork requirements at the same time.
I go to help my church serve God. I can only hope that we do some good for someone- and I have invited some to come back the next morning for services. No fruit that I have witnessed yet - but we keep on working.
If the states had been doing their job there would have been no need of of the Civil Rights Act of '64, of a federal minimum wage, of federal food inspection . . . .
I think you actually might mean, if the states had been doing thier job the way you wanted them to do it. The states were working the way that they wanted to, but it wasn't good enough for others. We had state's rights so that people could select which state they wanted to live in, which policies they liked, which methods they liked, etc, etc. It wasn't good enough for people at the federal level. so they used the power of the supreme court to strip the power away from the states. Then, using taxpayer money from members of the individual states, they then bought their way into running certain sections of the other states by bribery - and those states sold their authority to the federal government.
Now, certain states are finding out about the freedom of choice. People and companies are moving out of tyrannical states for those who offer more to the citizens. Those states, by the way, have their hands out for bailouts courtesy of the taxpayer dollars that we all have to contribute to by April.
It has always been about power, and the average American does not even know that half of the federal programs now are actually state programs that have been unconsitutionally taken over by the feds. Since it has been that way so long, most people don't know any better.
But - they are finding out. Thanks to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi; the education is underway.
>now why would a person go to a church sponsored kitchen to eat if they are required to pray and attend a chapel service?
Would it advance Christianity if all old people had to go to church to get their SS check? That's how the Mormons would run things. Also the Christian Reconstructionists? Some people prefer to hungry than submit to blackmail. Others don't mind the opportunity to sleep through a nice, warm sermon.