LumRaiderFan

Back on topic...I don't think this needs to go down that path.

The subsidy receivers aren't going to like this...they would rather have the "wealthy" folks fair share increased than have theirs increase.   Just wait...this is going to be bad for almost everyone.   [Hidden Content]

  Probably so...very creative on the administration's part.

  Enough of that...back on topic!   :D

  Why the change from referring to the conservative south to aledo...Freudian slip, maybe?   In any case, keeping it classy.   :)

[Hidden Content]

  I agree, but would you be willing to legally ban it?

I couldn't agree more.

Good to know.

It's actually easier to do nothing and belittle those that try minister to others...even if the method isn't always perfect or the message is tough to receive.

He never forced anyone to pay for someone else's stuff either.

I am a small gov guy... the less intrusive we can make gov, the better. The thing that makes me angriest about this article is the legislation from the bench...on ANY subject.

    After reading the post again I see what Bullets was saying...my bad on the interpretation...I will disagree that these were the acts of "good" Christians.   If many of the Muslim countries are going to improve as far as civil rights, they are going to have to adopt a new Doctrine and move away from Sharia law and I don't see that happening.

  I still don't see how I am oppressing someone simply because they aren't buying something they are free to provide for themselves.   Doesn't matter anyway...after a while, employers will drop more and more employees that will go to obamacare and next will be single payer.

  Wow...not sure where that came from.   Muslims that call for the death penalty for adultery and leaving the Muslim faith will get better but Christians will get worse and worse.

  :)   I actually don't think the fed gov should have any business in defining marriage...if anything it should be left to the states.   I would have no problem with the states being out of it as well and letting local churches/institutions marry (and be free not to marry) whom they choose.   Even though I may not agree with the lifestyle, I would not want to legally restrict anyone from living it.   I have family members that are gay and while I don't agree with it (they know it) I still love them the same (they know this also).

Thoughts?   [Hidden Content]

  :huh:  Wasn't even posting at you...it was a reply for the in one ear and out the other comment directed at Bullets.

  Why don't you get off the soapbox and do some research on the action of "some" that are occurring in Muslim countries...you might actually learn something.

  So bullets/westend, do you think the Muslim and Christian faiths treat women equally? 

  How are they oppressing them...you want insurance that covers abortion, go and buy it yourself...I should not have to provide it.

  Do you see any Christian nations that are sentencing Muslims to death that became Christians?

  What about Christians that own a business and lose their right not to provide health care that covers abortion?

If a Christian group were to do something like this it would be all you were reading about.   Are you really going to tell me the left is as critical of the Muslim religion and acts that have been done in on its behalf as is is on anything Christians espouse.   You just proved the point with your ridiculous comparison...what Christian religion gave the OK to Jones and Koresh?

  Yea right...two madmen are  exactly the same as a Muslim country applying laws that condemn Christians (or any OTHER religion) to death.   From the article:   Sudan's penal code criminalizes the conversion of Muslims into other religions, which is punishable by death.   The left is always bashing Christians for views they hold such as disagreeing with homosexuality but never can grow a pair when it comes to condemning acts such as this.