1 - 10 Next
I have to respectfully disagree with Ann, in part. It is true that there is much that needs to be done in our country, and we can probably expect increasing resistence. (Part of the problem, I think, stems from the fact that we often have failed to give a good answer for the hope that is within us. We have allowed the world system -- which is under the control of the Evil One -- to determine the parameters and the terminology of the debate.) At the same time, God does have an individual plan for each of us. He wants some of us to be His ambassadors right here in our own neighborhoods, while He wants others to go to far-off lands to take His message to people who might not otherwise hear it. Let us also remember that Jesus often gained a hearing for His message by meeting people at their perceived needs, which were often physical. I would urge Ann to think twice about whether she should criticize someone for doing what they are convinced God has told them to. Does she think that Jim Elliott, Nate Saint, and the other two missionaries who were murdered by the Auca Indians in the early 1950s foolishly threw their lives away? That having been said, I do agree with Dr. Ben Carson, that it would not only have been much less expensive, but also far safer to the American public, to send doctors and medical equipment to treat Dr. Brantley and the other lady there in Africa.
In response to:

Petty Annoyances

Thomas3336 Wrote: Jun 05, 2014 8:46 AM
One thing I find annoying is when people use the possessive (adding apostrophe-s to the end of a noun or pronoun) when they obviously really mean the plural. In a related peeve, I know of two exceptions to adding apostrophe-s to form the possessive: the first is the pronoun "it;" to form the possessive of it, you simply add s with no apostrophe ("It's is the contraction of "it is."). The second is if the name ends in s; then the simply add an apostrophe (for example, the boss' briefcase). Increasingly, though, I am seeing the grammatically-incorrect "s's" -- and in professional publications that are supposedly proofread by professional editors! Several months ago, our local newspaper ran a story of a high school teacher who rescued some students from a crashed car. What that teacher did was heroic, and he richly deserved every accolade he received. What spoiled the story for me was a front-page photograph of a poster the high school students had made, titled "Your [sic] A Hero." By the time I finished fourth grade (1959 - 1960 school year), I knew the difference between "your," the possessive of you, and "you're" the contraction of you are -- and these were high school students! What shall we say of the common misspellings of "all right" as "alright" (There is no such word as "alright." An entry for it does appear in my dictionary [the American College Dictionary, published by Random House], but it clearly says, "not proper usage.") or "doughnut" as "donut." Finally, there are those people who say, "Have a good one." Have a good one what? If they mean, "have a good day," why don't they say that? It takes the same amount of time and syllables, but the meaning is so much more clear.
In response to:

Bowe Bergdahl, Just Deserts

Thomas3336 Wrote: Jun 05, 2014 8:21 AM
Even as we debate this, an American citizen mother is being held in a brutal Muslim jail. Her "crime" was marrying a Christian man (her Islamic father deserted the family when she was two, and she was raised by her Orthodox Christian mother). Her 20-month-old child is in the prison with her, and she has just given birth to a daughter. Because Shariah law insists that a woman must adopt the religion of her father, she has been sentenced to 100 lashes for having had sex outside of marriage (hers is viewed as invalid) and to death for apostasy (she refused to convert to Islam). Also, one of our servicemen made a wrong turn and blundered into Mexico, and is now in prison for having had weapons in the trunk of his car. The Obama Administration refuses to do anything to help either of them. It makes me wonder if Bowe Bergdahl, rather than the other two, are the type of "American citizen" Mr. Obama really wants our country to have.
In response to:

The Philanthropic Superpower

Thomas3336 Wrote: May 02, 2014 10:09 PM
A single medium-sized nuke, detonated about 200 miles above the center of the nation, could do it. It would send out an electromagnetic pulse that would fry our entire electrical grid. It would take months, even years, to bring it back up. (Reportedly, the only factory that builds transformers is in South Korea. Also, there has been no serious attempt to shield our electrical grid from such an attack since the Reagan Administration -- even though we've known of the danger since 1962.) By some estimates, 90% of our population would be dead in a year. Meanwhile, those who hate us would be laughing themselves sick.
In response to:

The Philanthropic Superpower

Thomas3336 Wrote: May 02, 2014 10:58 AM
In reply to both Soho1950 and tbmbuzz: We had no legitimate reason to enter World War I. While so-called "Prussian militarism" did indeed exist, it was no threat to conquer the world. Remember, these were the days in which the sun never set on the British Empire. The sinking of the Lusitania was used by Woodrow Wilson as an excuse. However, both England and Germany were blockading each other. The Lusitania had deck guns mounted on it, and was listed in JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS as an auxiliary cruiser in the British Navy. These made it a legitimate target, and the ship was also carrying 6 million pounds of ammunition to England. That ammunition would have been used to kill German military, and the Germans simply could not allow it to get through, any more than England could have let a boatload of ammunition get through to Germany. In direct violation of American law, Wilson refused to prohibit Americans from booking passage on the Lusitania, so the Germans took out blaring newspaper ads, warning Americans not to book passage. Those who did so knew the risk they were taking. We declared war on Germany in October 1917. At that time, the war had been at a stalemate for some months, and was on the verge on ending in a negotiated settlement. We threw everything out of kilter, and enabled the allies to steamroll over Germany. The result was the Treaty of Versailles, which one critic at the time described as not a peace treaty, but simply a suspension of hostilities. Its provisions made World War II inevitable. In 1938, Winston Churchill was quoted as saying that if we'd stayed out of World War I, it would have ended a year earlier and a million lives would have been spared, because peace would have been made with Germany. If that had happened, Churchill continued, Russia would never have fallen to the Bolsheviks, the Italians would never have turned to fascism, and Hitler would never have risen to power in Germany
In response to:

The Philanthropic Superpower

Thomas3336 Wrote: May 02, 2014 10:45 AM
Probably due to limited space, Mr. Buchanan leaves out the fact that the President has announced that he wants to scale our military back to pre-World War II levels. We nearly lost that war because we were so unprepared. In addition, most of our manufacturing base has now been driven overseas.
Mr. Barr left out one important point: according to Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, the only real estate the U.S. government is allowed to own is a national district to house the nation's capitol (an area not to exceed ten miles square); any buildings needed to carry out its legitimate functions; and any necessary military installations. In claiming ownership of the land on which the Bundy cattle were grazing, it was the U.S. government that was breaking the law in the first place. Would Harry Reid care to comment?
I would both challenge and encourage Ross83 to carefully examine the evidence that supports Jesus Christ' death, burial, and resurrection. Author and former crime reporter Lee Strobel has written some excellent books on the topic, including THE CASE FOR CHRIST, THE CASE FOR FAITH, and THE CASE FOR EASTER. You might also review Josh McDowell's EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT.
In response to:

Overtaxed and Underpaid

Thomas3336 Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 6:27 PM
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the U.S. government to create regulatory agencies. In fact, their supporters admit that the whole idea of them is to not only get around the limits to government placed by the Constitution, but also the whole concept of representative government. If any rules are needed at the national level, they should be in the form of laws passed by Congress, and enforced by the Justice or Treasury Departments. If states want to have their own Departments of Commerce, their own Departments of Housing and Urban Development, their own Environmental Protection Agencies, their own Securities and Exchange Commissions, or their own Departments of Agriculture, that is strictly that state's business.
In response to:

Overtaxed and Underpaid

Thomas3336 Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 6:23 PM
Rather than two tax rates, I would urge repealing the income tax altogether and substituting it with the Fair Tax. While the 16th Amendment does permit a tax on incomes, without apportionment, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the current Marxist GRADUATED tax. If a tax is not subject to the rule of apportionment, it must be uniform. This is in keeping with the Constitution's requirement that the government treat all citizens equally, and the concept of equality before the law for all citizens. Then, too, the income tax is based on the false notion that what we earn by the sweat of our brows really belongs to the government, not to us.
1 - 10 Next