It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Georgia Republican: State-sponsored religion will end big-government tyranny

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I don't believe we would have had "Romneycare". I believe, not positive though, that Romney went with the Mass voters and at no time ever promoted his version of health care on a federal level.

Even if he did, it would still be more workable than Obamacare....

Ebola? Gawd, the potential for agenda is limitless. I didn't even consider that possibility. At the least, a huge distraction from the up-coming mid-terms.

Just a short time from now.....




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

It is interesting that there are 4 strains of 'human carried" Ebola and only 1 strain for primates...



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I know this is out of thread, but I have to say, I always feel that when it comes to Marburg virus, HIV and Ebola they all sprouted out of the same lab.

But is just my opinion, nothing else.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
The very minute they hold up that book while they perform their duties I begin to suspect that they're not really thinking about what's best for their fellow Americans, but what's best for their fellow Kantians


We will never have a society that is govern by people with zero influences from one thing or another. There are far worst things than the bible or Kant...hehe



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker




Ebola? Gawd, the potential for agenda is limitless. I didn't even consider that possibility. At the least, a huge distraction from the up-coming mid-terms.


Yep, we need big government and big pharma to protect us from Ebola! Candidates are running on the Ebola issue! Vote for Joe! He's going to make sure his government writes laws and spend more tax $$ to protect you from Ebola! LOL Either I'm getting older or people's agendas are getting more transparent.

Romneycare, in my opinion may have worked more smoothly than Obamacare, simply because the Republican's wouldn't have fought him every step of the way.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

LOL.

From my perspective. Obama has gotten his way from the Republicans completely on Obamacare. Any problem? Write and executive order...

The Rinos has done-actually DONE- nothing about Obamacare. Nothing but rhetoric. Hoping for Democrat self-destruction.

It's probably worked....



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

Hello, after much too long. I've got a question for you. It's been raised by other posters, but I suspect you can handle it better. My question is 95% serious curiosity, and 5% looking for an argument. Feel free to ignore the 5%, I really don't want to argue with you.


Romneycare, in my opinion may have worked more smoothly than Obamacare, simply because the Republican's wouldn't have fought him every step of the way.


I understand that the Republicans didn't like the bill at all, but what did they actually do? Obamacare was passed with no amendments, no changes. Obama got exactly what he wanted. Sure the Republicans buzzed around, but they had no sting.

The president decided to violate the language of his own bill three dozen times, and while the Republicans were unhappy, they got a little brief air time and then were ignored.

Certainly the Republicans had nothing at all to do with the website disaster.

So, what did Republicans do[/] to Obamacare to make it so unworkable? They have to be allowed to make speeches against policies they don't like, don't they?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Well, for starters, we had this.

What Happened to Health Care Reform?

Hillary ran on health care, but Obama won. He had a health care proposal too. We had Obama's original idea of a single payer plan.

Senators Reject Pair of Public Option Proposals

The Heritage Foundation Designed Obamacare to Preclude Single Payer.Republicans Win Again!


After an intense debate that captured the essence of the national struggle over health care, a pivotal Senate committee on Tuesday rejected two Democratic proposals to create a government insurance plan to compete with private insurers.


Then we had a Republican Tea Party tantrum.


July 23: Senate Republicans Warn They Won't Fund Government If Affordable Care Act Funding Is Included. On July 23, The New York Times reported that Senate Republicans were planning to refuse "any spending measure to keep the government operating after Sept. 30 if it devotes a penny to put in place Mr. Obama's health care law":
..................

Aug. 21: House And Senate Republicans Send Letter To Boehner Urging Him To Defund Affordable Care Act. An August 21 letter sent by "eighty House Republicans" to Speaker Boehner (R-OH) urged the Speaker to "defund the health-care law as part of a short-term bill to fund government operations." As Bloomberg News wrote:
...................

Sept. 27: Senate Sends Bill Funding Government To House For Approval. On September 27, the Senate passed a bill funding the government through November 17 and restoring funding for the ACA. The bill then went to the House for approval, as The New York Times explained:
...................

Sept. 29: House Responds By Sending Funding Bill Back To Senate With Different ACA Demands. As Politico reported, the House responded on September 29 by sending the Senate a funding bill that demands a delay to the Affordable Care Act and a repeal on a tax on medical devices:
...................

Sept. 30: Boehner Refuses Democrats' Offer To Fund Government At Sequester-Level Spending. While Senate Democrats originally sought $1.058 trillion to fund the government, on September 30 House Democrats agreed to accept sequester-level funding -- $986 billion, an amount previously endorsed by Republicans -- "as part of a short-term spending bill to prevent a government shutdown," according to The Hill:
...................

Sept. 30: Senate Twice Rejects House Funding Bills That Include New ACA Demands. On September 30, the Senate removed the House's language delaying the ACA. The House responded with a new funding bill and new demands, which the Senate also rejected, as the Associated Press detailed:
....................

Oct. 6: Boehner Reiterates He Won't Reopen Government Without Concessions On ACA. On October 6, The New York Times reported that Speaker Boehner insisted ending the shutdown would depend on getting concessions from President Obama on the ACA:

mediamatters.org...



And just for fun, there's this!

Hypocrite Ted "Government Shutdown" Cruz Whines That The Government Should Be Doing More on Ebola



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

Thanks for your response, and I appreciate the time you spent finding links. You are quite right, the October shutdown managed to delay Obamacare for 16 days. The Republicans had an effect. Although, I'll bet that the team working on the website wished they had a much longer delay.

I don't think the other links really addressed the question though.

The first link was to a 20 year old article dealing with Clinton, not Obamacare.

The second, described how divided Democrats killed two Democrat plans.

The third was an opinion piece asking people to work against Obamacare because it wasn't "Left" enough.

Nothing in any of those talked about how the Republicans affected Obamacare.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952




Nothing in any of those talked about how the Republicans affected Obamacare.


I disagree. But this thread isn't really about how the Republicans sabotaged the Affordable Care Act. It's about the idea of a state sponsored religion, and I have already taken this thread off topic enough. So, I'm not going to itemize Republican mischief to connect the dots for you.

That being said, it's religion that's being used to undermine the Affordable Care Act. And, in my opinion, Scalia is guilty of treason.




edit on 19-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Nothing I could say would better describe why I advocate dissolving the union better than that exchange of ideas between windward and yourself.

Apparently, balance between the two camps is no longer possible.

Perhaps it explains the hunkering down of our political system. In the day, accord could be reached. Agreement to disagree, so to speak.

Now? Balance/compromise is political suicide for either party. Each face the wrath of their base in the next election.

As a result, pandering to the base becomes a survival issue in the political arena. Compromise a non-starter....

We get the gov't we deserve...



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: olaru12

Hmmmmm:





hmmm promise of weath!! if only you go alone with this crazy idea we have!!
A transfer of wealth from the ungodly to the godly....
Like this?

timeline.stlouisfed.org...

God's doing or man's doing??

many isamic countries don't mandate that you follow the Islalmic religion. I mean you can be a practicing jew or christian and live in those countries even though they give a tad bit of preferential treatment to the islamic faith. you might have to pay a fee for that priviledge though.

and I kind of like how this guy goes on about the preists would have to bless the kings and armies before they went out to battle to be successful.
so here we had the king of England and his army being blessed in the name of God and the king of France doing the same. So well guess both were to be successful right?
Maybe that is why their danged war took 100 years! There was no way that God could make them both successful so he just sat back and watched the stupidity until the people of England rose up in anger over the proverty that the war was bringing upon them!



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
www.rawstory.com...




Georgia Republican Congressional hopeful Jody Hice said on his radio show on Thursday that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was correct in remarks he made recently regarding faith in U.S. society.

In a speech at Colorado Christian University, Scalia said that not only is government endorsement of religion constitutional, but that it is in the country’s best interests to adhere to Biblical law.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Scalia said to the heavily Christian audience.


Wow a state sponsored religion, just like in the Muslim countries. No thanks!!!




“Government has a responsibility to encourage religious belief,” he concluded, “because that is is the foundation, as I said earlier, of how limited government can exist.”



What? Slippery slope here!!!

Will the state sponsored religion be Christian or will others be accepted or just tolerated as long as you stay in the government guidelines.

I hope this is just pandering to the Christian right wing; but deep down, I don't think so....


A state sponsored religion is fine, so long as it doesn't prohibit others from exercising their religions. If you view the context of the 1st amendment, it's obvious what they mean. They came from a country where the country religion attacked those of other religions.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Only congress is prohibited from making laws establishing a religion. In fact, if read liberally, states could prohibit the practice of certain religions.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: olaru12

This is what happens when the Supreme Court is infiltrated by Jesuit minded Catholics who think that the ends justify the means. In my opinion, several of Supreme Curt Judges, including Scalia, should be tried and convicted for treason.


There is no such thing as a "Jesuit Catholic", the Jesuits are a religious order of the priesthood. I am positive that Scalia is not a Catholic priest.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I've read a lot of folks here that have said that a sponsored religion is much different from a mandated religion. I only have on question. What if your religion wasn't the state sponsored one? What if the sponsored religion was Zoroastrianism? How would you feel then? And a sponsored religion leads to things like followers of other religions must pay a fee in order to continue to practice their "fringe" religion.

I also saw a lot of people saying Christians in particular were being persecuted against, and other religions like Islam are getting preferential treatment. I'd like to see examples of this preferential treatment of Islam of Christianity. I mean, we don't say "One nation, under Allah" in our pledge. We certainly don't have "In Allah we Trust" on our money. High school football teams in small towns in Kansas certainly don't lead a group prayer to Allah to win the big game.

In fact, Christians have been getting a GLUT of preferential treatment in the very recent past. From the addition of "under God" to our pledge, to allowing the ten commandments to be displayed prominently in front of courthouses.

So I'm sorry, but Christians who cry persecution just make my blood boil. If the majority of them had their way, a dirty heathen atheist like me wouldn't even be allowed to marry. And god forbid if I let slip I'm an atheist at work, that's a surefire way to put a huge target on my back and have my bosses looking for reasons to fire me. When was the last time a POTUS was anything OTHER than some denomination of Christianity?

Religion and Government should NEVER, EVER, EVER come close to one another. To govern via religion introduces ideas like a caliphate, or a catholic monarchy. The founding fathers had the right idea when it came to religion in government. "Just say no". Sadly, many on the religious right (like so many on the far left) try to manipulate the wording of the constitution to try to justify their misguided beliefs.

To the left: We're allowed to own guns, it's a right guaranteed to us. Get over it.

To the right: We're a secular nation. It was founded as such and will remain as such. Get over it.

[/rant]



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: damwel

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: olaru12

This is what happens when the Supreme Court is infiltrated by Jesuit minded Catholics who think that the ends justify the means. In my opinion, several of Supreme Curt Judges, including Scalia, should be tried and convicted for treason.


There is no such thing as a "Jesuit Catholic", the Jesuits are a religious order of the priesthood. I am positive that Scalia is not a Catholic priest.


I am aware of this, which is why I said "Jesuit minded". Personally, I believe that Scalia, and Roberts, think they're above priests, and sit nearly equal to the Pope, by "Divine Providence".



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join