O'Reilly Fired by Fox

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Jim » Wed May 10, 2017 12:02 pm

There is collective apoplexy among the democrats in the Comey-firing. Senate Minority Leader Schumer just a while back professed his utter disgust with Comey http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-schumer-was-against-comey-before-he-was-for-him/article/2622608 but today is accusing the prexy of everything from meanness to whatever in doing precisely what Schumer implied—if not insisted—he wanted since he blamed Comey (so did Hillary) for Clinton’s defeat. The firing is the only bi-partisan thing that has happened for years since boatloads of democrats blamed Comey for their landslide loss of both the presidency and the Congress and lots of republicans blame him for not putting Hillary before a Grand Jury in July of 2016, when he did a TV number on her, 12 minutes explaining a case involving perjury and treason (those SECRET servers in her basement) and one minute to explain it away since he had already been told by Lynch apparently (that tarmac agreement with Bubba) that she must not be touched. Comey outfoxed them anyway but weep not because he could have manned-up and started a trip behind bars for her. Even high school students (fifth-graders for that matter) can understand this if not deceived by their teachers.
Jim
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Sandy » Wed May 10, 2017 1:12 pm

Jim wrote:There is collective apoplexy among the democrats in the Comey-firing. Senate Minority Leader Schumer just a while back professed his utter disgust with Comey http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-schumer-was-against-comey-before-he-was-for-him/article/2622608 but today is accusing the prexy of everything from meanness to whatever in doing precisely what Schumer implied—if not insisted—he wanted since he blamed Comey (so did Hillary) for Clinton’s defeat. The firing is the only bi-partisan thing that has happened for years since boatloads of democrats blamed Comey for their landslide loss of both the presidency and the Congress and lots of republicans blame him for not putting Hillary before a Grand Jury in July of 2016, when he did a TV number on her, 12 minutes explaining a case involving perjury and treason (those SECRET servers in her basement) and one minute to explain it away since he had already been told by Lynch apparently (that tarmac agreement with Bubba) that she must not be touched. Comey outfoxed them anyway but weep not because he could have manned-up and started a trip behind bars for her. Even high school students (fifth-graders for that matter) can understand this if not deceived by their teachers.


I don't think "apoplexy" is the right word here. "Giddy" might be better. That would describe Senator Casey this morning, who was trying to hold back jubilation in his comments on the news that the buffoon fired the FBI director.

:lol:

Jim's credibility, already dead from other unsubstantiated pop-offs he makes, gets buried when he claims this firing is "bi-partisan." I can only imagine the holy horror, shrieking, wailing and gnashing of teeth that conservatives would have done if President Obama had fired Comey at the actual time of the alleged action in July 2016 that this firing cites as the reason the buffoon did it.

So the buffoon fires Comey, spur of the moment, on the recommendation of Attorney General Sessions, because of inappropriate actions during the Clinton email investigation. Basically, after a whole campaign of getting mindless followers to chant "lock her up," the US Attorney General declares that Clinton was probably right in stating that Comey's handling of the email investigation cost her the election, and that the FBI was basically wasting its time on the investigation that Comey was mishandling. And that letter comes after he had recused himself from that particular case. How is it that the attorney general can make a recommendation to fire the FBI director conducting an investigation from which he had already recused himself?

So we have
(1) Michael Flynn, who is the gift that keeps on giving to the increasing chances for electoral success for Democrats running for Congress. He wants immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony. Turns out he was on the Russian payroll, in a devious, cover-it-up kind of way, and the evidence shows he was one of the major contact points with the Russian spy agency. Change the cheers he once led from "lock her up," to "I can't see the light of day from my cell."
(2) Carter Page, who has also asked for immunity, and six other campaign officials, who have all been subpoenaed because of multiple contacts with Russians in their intelligence agency.
(3) Congressman Devin Nunes, now removed from the House committee because of his document tampering and bizzare behavior, and now also under investigation.
(4) Congressman Jason Chaffetz (whose last name literally means to throw a former mentor under the bus in order to get ahead :lol: ) decides to give up his congressional seat rather than investigate corruption in the buffoon administration that has come to the attention of the oversight committee he chairs. That failure apparently made a lot of the people in his deep red Utah district angry with him. Lots to give up there, including a good shot at becoming governor.
(5) Attorney General Sessions recommends the firing of Comey, almost a year after he committed the offense that is allegedly the reason, after recusing himself from that investigation, and from the Russian collusion investigation because he, himself, had made contacts with the Russian agency involved in the election tampering.
(6) Buffoon fires Sally Yates, to try to keep her from testifying, but she eventually gets called anyway, by some Republicans with cajones. Serious evidence comes to light about Flynn not reporting where he was getting his fortune from.
(7) Buffoon fires Comey for a reason which totally and completely supports his opponents contention that the FBI director's handling of the information about her investigation did indeed cost her the election.

Realizing that an investigation like this could not go forward without Republican support, Jim's contention that the firing was "bi-partisan" completely undermines everything else he said.

I've got the popcorn ready, soda chilling in the fridge, easy chair ready to kick back and watch the show. It's gonna be a good one. :lol:
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Jon Estes » Thu May 11, 2017 3:02 am

Sandy wrote:Oh, Jon, I really feel sorry for you. So far away, and so out of touch. Here's a dose of reality. The buffoon fired James Comey yesterday. I suggest you click the link here and watch some real facts.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/watch- ... watergate/
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... nal-crisis

You can use judgmental terms like hate, and apply them all you want to, all that does is weaken your credibility. You're not around, and you're certainly not in any kind of a position to determine or judge what I "chase after." I'm not in favor of seeing the country ruined, which is what "pulling for Trump to keep going as he is going" would be. His first 100 days in office proves that to be a completely true statement.

"Character is important. But it is OK to abandon it in order to elect a President who will throw you a few political bones so you can get what you want." That's the message my high school students got, loud and clear, from Christian supporters of Trump. I hear it from them, in their conversations, and I see it in attitudes and actions. They've picked up on the hypocrisy.


You can feel sorry for me all you want if it makes you feel better. My living on the other side of the world has not negative influence on my ability to see and understand what you are missing and the political scene in the USA. I think it actually makes me see things more clearly. I am not living in a bubble of disgust towards the one you call a buffoon (which name calling diminishes your credibility).

His first 100 days in office were fine. His entrance ban on Muslim countries which support terrorism was supported by this Muslim country and others. His desire to keep the riffraff out of the USA is commendable. His firing of Comey was honorable. His selection of a SCOTUS was excellent. His removal of Flynn was justifiable. The constant investigations of something which has been shown over and over, there was no collusion between Trump and Russia is a witch hunt.

I expect you ti disagree and probably laugh at our differences. The fact remains... Trump is President and he won legally and fairly and within the system. You and Hillary can point fingers at all the people you want to blame them for Hillary's loss but she was and remains out of touch with reality. That should resonate with you.

How any Christian can support a supporter of killing babies makes no sense to me. Just one of many issues which say PTL, HC is not POTUS.

The Buffoon you keep speaking of is still a much better POTUS than what we might have had. Even Jimmy Carter saw that HC was not worth his vote in the Primaries.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Sandy » Thu May 11, 2017 8:32 am

Jon Estes wrote:His first 100 days in office were fine. His entrance ban on Muslim countries which support terrorism was supported by this Muslim country and others. His desire to keep the riffraff out of the USA is commendable. His firing of Comey was honorable. His selection of a SCOTUS was excellent. His removal of Flynn was justifiable. The constant investigations of something which has been shown over and over, there was no collusion between Trump and Russia is a witch hunt.


Let's put a perspective on this that's a little different than yours, and is based on fact, not fantasy. His first 100 days in office have been an unmitigated disaster. He was unable (or unwilling) to deliver on a single promise from the long list of his campaign rhetoric, most notably health care and tax reform. He has yet to record a single legislative accomplishment. He fired the FBI official who is leading a legitimate investigation, supported by mountains of evidence, and members of his own party in both Houses, which is an impeachable offense in and of itself (see Richard Nixon and Archibald Cox). He did get a nominee approved for the Supreme Court, given the partisan situation that has plagued the government for a couple of decades, but it was the guy Mitch McConnell picked for him, and it was McConnell's accomplishment, requiring a complete revamping of senate rules that will come back to haunt them. You can stand on your head, scream, and insist there was no collusion with Russia, but hundreds of phone conversations between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence agents make that claim as bogus as the rest of your assertions here. His failure to understand that he cannot singlehandedly stop legal, vetted immigration from Muslim countries is just that, a failure.

For some real perspective, with actual citations of facts, please watch this.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Jon Estes » Thu May 11, 2017 9:11 am

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:His first 100 days in office were fine. His entrance ban on Muslim countries which support terrorism was supported by this Muslim country and others. His desire to keep the riffraff out of the USA is commendable. His firing of Comey was honorable. His selection of a SCOTUS was excellent. His removal of Flynn was justifiable. The constant investigations of something which has been shown over and over, there was no collusion between Trump and Russia is a witch hunt.


Sandy wrote:Let's put a perspective on this that's a little different than yours, and is based on fact, not fantasy. His first 100 days in office have been an unmitigated disaster.


Your opinion is noted.

Sandy wrote:He was unable (or unwilling) to deliver on a single promise from the long list of his campaign rhetoric, most notably health care and tax reform.


You are brighter than this. You know the system he has to work with. A campaign promise is what it is and even you must admit he is working towards his promises.

Sandy wrote:He has yet to record a single legislative accomplishment.


Thge Washington Post claims he has signed 20 bill. 10 more than Obama at this point in his Presidency.

Sandy wrote:He fired the FBI official who is leading a legitimate investigation, supported by mountains of evidence, and members of his own party in both Houses, which is an impeachable offense in and of itself


Wrong, not much more to say. The reports have shown over and over that there is no collusion. I know the MSM keeps saying it but I am rolling my eyes like Anderson Cooper did in his interview with Kellyanne Conway.

Sandy wrote:You can stand on your head, scream, and insist there was no collusion with Russia, but hundreds of phone conversations between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence agents make that claim as bogus as the rest of your assertions here.


Politicians talk to Russia all the time. Talk about standing on ones head. Pull your head out of the sand when and flip up right and see the light.

Enough for now. I have church tomorrow over here in that place you think one can't understand whats happening right under your nose while you are napping.

You can have the last word. I need a good laugh, so please hurry.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Jim » Thu May 11, 2017 9:37 am

Sandy wrote:
Jim wrote:There is collective apoplexy among the democrats in the Comey-firing. Senate Minority Leader Schumer just a while back professed his utter disgust with Comey http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-schumer-was-against-comey-before-he-was-for-him/article/2622608 but today is accusing the prexy of everything from meanness to whatever in doing precisely what Schumer implied—if not insisted—he wanted since he blamed Comey (so did Hillary) for Clinton’s defeat. The firing is the only bi-partisan thing that has happened for years since boatloads of democrats blamed Comey for their landslide loss of both the presidency and the Congress and lots of republicans blame him for not putting Hillary before a Grand Jury in July of 2016, when he did a TV number on her, 12 minutes explaining a case involving perjury and treason (those SECRET servers in her basement) and one minute to explain it away since he had already been told by Lynch apparently (that tarmac agreement with Bubba) that she must not be touched. Comey outfoxed them anyway but weep not because he could have manned-up and started a trip behind bars for her. Even high school students (fifth-graders for that matter) can understand this if not deceived by their teachers.


I don't think "apoplexy" is the right word here. "Giddy" might be better. That would describe Senator Casey this morning, who was trying to hold back jubilation in his comments on the news that the buffoon fired the FBI director.

:lol:

Jim's credibility, already dead from other unsubstantiated pop-offs he makes, gets buried when he claims this firing is "bi-partisan." I can only imagine the holy horror, shrieking, wailing and gnashing of teeth that conservatives would have done if President Obama had fired Comey at the actual time of the alleged action in July 2016 that this firing cites as the reason the buffoon did it.

:lol:


Such delicious irony! Bill Clinton, besides firing all federal prosecutors (93 in number) when he took office in 1993, fired the FBI Director, William Sessions (appointed by Reagan in 1987), seven months after his inauguration for reasons of ETHICS. Imagine a presidential sexual deviate and female harasser firing anyone for reasons of ETHICS. One of the fired prosecutors was Jeff Sessions, current AG. That's real giddiness, perhaps like that of Bubba and Monica doing "phone-sex" and other activities, such as involving the famous cigar or gray dress (or was it blue?). Hillary was a certain felon in July 2016 but Obama was not man enough to insist that she be charged. He didn't fire Comey for obvious reasons...that would have been a story.
Jim
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Sandy » Thu May 11, 2017 7:46 pm

President Clinton wasn't under investigation by the FBI when he fired Sessions. In fact, he had determined he wasn't going to replace Sessions because he didn't believe that a change in the White House necessitated a change in the directorship of the FBI. Bush would have fired Sessions if the information that led up to it had been disclosed earlier. There's a little bit of a difference here. Trump is under direct investigation, as are most of the people who worked with him on his campaign. And he claims that the reason he fired Comey was because of the inappropriate remarks and "esaggerations" made about the Clinton investigation. I'm still ROFL over the fact that Trump basically has had to say that Clinton was innocent, and wronged by Comey in order to fire him and attempt to hold up the wheels rolling inexorably toward his impeachment.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Jim » Thu May 11, 2017 8:50 pm

Sandy wrote:President Clinton wasn't under investigation by the FBI when he fired Sessions. In fact, he had determined he wasn't going to replace Sessions because he didn't believe that a change in the White House necessitated a change in the directorship of the FBI. Bush would have fired Sessions if the information that led up to it had been disclosed earlier. There's a little bit of a difference here. Trump is under direct investigation, as are most of the people who worked with him on his campaign. And he claims that the reason he fired Comey was because of the inappropriate remarks and "esaggerations" made about the Clinton investigation. I'm still ROFL over the fact that Trump basically has had to say that Clinton was innocent, and wronged by Comey in order to fire him and attempt to hold up the wheels rolling inexorably toward his impeachment.


How naïve! I suspect the FBI file on Bubba was six inches thick by July 1993, seven months after his inauguration, not least because of the "suicide" of Vince Foster, a matter affecting both Hil and Bill and also happening in that month. I suspect there's a considerable FBI file on Trump, too, never mind that Trump insists that Comey told him three times that he (Trump) was not under investigation. Lying is an intrinsic element in government and is engaged routinely and predictably any time something sensational happens. It's endemic to both parties, and I never automatically believe a politician. Currently, Pence seems to be the most honest player in the game but these guys have to make some tough decisions vis-à-vis integrity just to get in the game. If Hil had been elected, she probably would have been impeached by now by a republican House, just as Bubba was. She would not have been convicted by the Senate. While Bubba was a prexy-pervert, she would be a prexy-felon. Actually, she should be before a Grand Jury right now. Comey made the case airtight more than once...guilty as sin on more than one count.
Jim
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Sandy » Thu May 11, 2017 10:46 pm

You tell a nice tale, Jim, but unless you read the FBI file on Clinton at the time he fired Sessions, your assertion is a fantasy from your own mind, and not a fact. The FBI might well have a file on me too, but it doesn't mean there is an official investigation into my activities, and by that same token, there wasn't one going on related to Clinton when Sessions was fired.

It's hard to speculate on what the Republicans in Congress would have done if Hillary had been elected. To impeach, you must have a charge that meets constitutional muster. Clinton was cleared by the FBI investigation. You have to keep saying that over and over again to get it. Clinton was cleared by the FBI. There was no evidence of anything to substantiate the charges. There was also nothing on Huma Abedin's computer that was classified. They already knew that before Comey made that announcement. Now Trump is saying he fired Comey because he misspoke about Hillary, and treated her badly because she didn't do anything wrong. Well, OK, he can call himself a liar if he wants. But the 'Nah nah nah nah boo boo , Clinton and Obama did it too" mantra just doesn't hold water. Bill Clinton is owed an apology by any of his critics who supported Trump. And they are all hypocrites.'
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby JE Pettibone » Fri May 12, 2017 11:19 am

Sandy wrote:You tell a nice tale, Jim, but unless you read the FBI file on Clinton at the time he fired Sessions, your assertion is a fantasy from your own mind, and not a fact. The FBI might well have a file on me too, but it doesn't mean there is an official investigation into my activities, and by that same token, there wasn't one going on related to Clinton when Sessions was fired.

It's hard to speculate on what the Republicans in Congress would have done if Hillary had been elected. To impeach, you must have a charge that meets constitutional muster. Clinton was cleared by the FBI investigation. You have to keep saying that over and over again to get it. Clinton was cleared by the FBI. There was no evidence of anything to substantiate the charges. There was also nothing on Huma Abedin's computer that was classified. They already knew that before Comey made that announcement. Now Trump is saying he fired Comey because he misspoke about Hillary, and treated her badly because she didn't do anything wrong. Well, OK, he can call himself a liar if he wants. But the 'Nah nah nah nah boo boo , Clinton and Obama did it too" mantra just doesn't hold water. Bill Clinton is owed an apology by any of his critics who supported Trump. And they are all hypocrites.'


Ed: I am of the opinion that Both Jim and Sandy are doing a lot of speculating and that the truth lies somewhere between.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Sandy » Sat May 13, 2017 10:52 am

Jon Estes wrote:How any Christian can support a supporter of killing babies makes no sense to me. Just one of many issues which say PTL, HC is not POTUS.


Aside from the fact that's a mischaracterization of Hillary Clinton's view, but even so, if you think the current president gives a flip about the abortion issue, you're sadly deceived. But I guess you're OK with adultery, ownership of pornographic strip clubs, sexual assault and harrassment, making racist comments, and grabbing women's genitals because he's a famous person and "they let me."
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Jon Estes » Sun May 14, 2017 2:55 am

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:How any Christian can support a supporter of killing babies makes no sense to me. Just one of many issues which say PTL, HC is not POTUS.


Aside from the fact that's a mischaracterization of Hillary Clinton's view, but even so, if you think the current president gives a flip about the abortion issue, you're sadly deceived. But I guess you're OK with adultery, ownership of pornographic strip clubs, sexual assault and harrassment, making racist comments, and grabbing women's genitals because he's a famous person and "they let me."


You do not get it. Please show me where I am mis-characterizing Hillary's view on abortion.

We all are flawed. I do not know any Christian who supports the past behavior of Trump or Hillary. I know I don't. What I do know is this. Of all the things you list against Trump, they are all wrong... hideous... never should have happened. Yet, none of those things killed an innocent child... At any point in a pregnancy. It is time we stop playing God.

Hillary on abortion...

https://youtu.be/41AjUt9qpw4

I am not against a woman's right to choose what she does with her body but I am against her choosing what she does with the life and body of the human life she carries.

More regulations on guns... fewer regulations on abortion. Not the candidate I wish to see as POTUS.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Sandy » Sun May 14, 2017 1:26 pm

So you're saying that one sin is worse than others, and it is OK to excuse others because there's one you have singled out as being worse.

As far as gun regulation goes, it is sorely needed. Given the job he is doing as President, buffoon is probably a kind description. The American people are certainly seeing it, and some of his core group of followers seem to be catching on too.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Jon Estes » Sun May 14, 2017 7:56 pm

Sandy wrote:So you're saying that one sin is worse than others, and it is OK to excuse others because there's one you have singled out as being worse.

As far as gun regulation goes, it is sorely needed. Given the job he is doing as President, buffoon is probably a kind description. The American people are certainly seeing it, and some of his core group of followers seem to be catching on too.


You are smarter than this. All sin is judged by God against the same criteria... Jesus. Sin judged by man is judged differently. That is why a murderer gets a different sentence than a groper. I hope you would agree with such. There are many sins which man does not judge for penalty. An example would be the killing of an innocent unborn child. You would agree that abortion is the killing of an unborn child, right? If not, that tells me a lot about how you view other things.

The American people? How many are you referring to? I say the American people are coming around to Trump. Those who support the murder of unborn children probably won't. They hate groping, which we all should, but embrace killing.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Sandy » Mon May 15, 2017 7:58 pm

Jon Estes wrote: I say the American people are coming around to Trump.


Yep, at 36% approval, 58% disapproval, the American people are coming around to the recognition that electing Trump was a gigantic mistake.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Jon Estes » Tue May 16, 2017 2:28 pm

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote: I say the American people are coming around to Trump.


Yep, at 36% approval, 58% disapproval, the American people are coming around to the recognition that electing Trump was a gigantic mistake.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

You avoided the killing baby question. I think I know why.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Sandy » Tue May 16, 2017 4:25 pm

Jon Estes wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote: I say the American people are coming around to Trump.


Yep, at 36% approval, 58% disapproval, the American people are coming around to the recognition that electing Trump was a gigantic mistake.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

You avoided the killing baby question. I think I know why.


Really? You must be omnicient.

I believe that abortion is taking a life, at any point past conception, and I'm opposed to the Roe decision. That view is rooted in my Christian faith, governed by scripture. I also recognize that, while that is my perspective, there are Americans, many of them, who neither accept the authority of scripture, nor accept the idea that life begins at conception. And I also realize that the government and laws under which we live are the collective product of the culture, all of it, not just the Christian aspects of it. As a Christian I am certainly able to advocate my views, and cast a ballot based on the principles of my faith, as is every other American citizen, including those who do not profess any faith, or those who profess one different than mine.

In the system that we have, collectively, our elected leaders and the appointed justices in a government built on checks and balances made a decision in a court case, Roe v. Wade, that determined what the law recognized about abortion rights. I don't agree with that decision, but it was made in accordance with our constitution. The justice who wrote the majority opinion was a Republican, Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee. Two of the three most recent Republican presidents, Reagan and Dubya, promised to appoint justices that would overturn the Roe decision. Neither did. Reagan appointed Rehnquist as chief justice, and he blocked the court from hearing cases that would lead to its overturning. He also appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, who became the "swing vote", and who went conservative on some things, but always against anything that would lead to Roe being overturned. H.W. didn't even bother to investigate the potential pro-life record of his appointees. Dubya nominated Roberts as chief justice, and his declaration that Roe "is the settled law of the land" tells you where he stands. Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, has stated his agreement with Roberts, and with Rehnquist before him. So along comes Trump, who has been vocally and openly pro-abortion all of his public career, through his first run at the White House, right up into the primaries this time. He's a pathological liar. If Reagan and the Bushes wouldn't do this, why would I believe Trump?

There are other issues requiring moral discernment besides abortion. Sanctity of life goes far beyond nine months of gestation, which is just a fraction of time for most people. Where's the passion and the advocacy for health care as a basic human right, which is also a sanctity of life issue? Where's the protection in schools from someone with a gun who decides to shoot randomly until he hits something? If you think Trump gives a rip about anything more than how to stuff his pockets and his friends', then I'd like to talk to you about buying my beachfront property in Arizona.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Kimberley Guilfoyle may replace Sean Spicer

Postby Stephen Fox » Tue May 16, 2017 6:09 pm

She has the ...... For it!
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 8945
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Jon Estes » Wed May 17, 2017 5:16 am

Sandy wrote:There are other issues requiring moral discernment besides abortion. Sanctity of life goes far beyond nine months of gestation, which is just a fraction of time for most people. Where's the passion and the advocacy for health care as a basic human right, which is also a sanctity of life issue? Where's the protection in schools from someone with a gun who decides to shoot randomly until he hits something? If you think Trump gives a rip about anything more than how to stuff his pockets and his friends', then I'd like to talk to you about buying my beachfront property in Arizona.


Other moral issues? Agree.

Health care a human right? Disagree.

From NESRI - https://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-health-and-health-care

What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care?

The human right to health means that everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which includes access to all medical services, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing, healthy working conditions, and a clean environment.
The human right to health guarantees a system of health protection for all.
Everyone has the right to the health care they need, and to living conditions that enable us to be healthy, such as adequate food, housing, and a healthy environment.
Health care must be provided as a public good for all, financed publicly and equitably.


If the above is how you define human right for healthcare, then I disagree. If you rally believe this then you need to support the same care for every human in the planet. Not only give support for it but work to have everyone pay for it. Is that where you want to go? Or, do you want to keep your rule to the USA? If the latter, then you rally don't believe?

Guns? The issue isn't guns but sick people. Regulating guns out of peoples hands will not remove them from those who should not have them.

Trump cares? I thin khe does but differently than you. I think better.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Sandy » Wed May 17, 2017 9:34 am

Trump is proving to be extremely self-absorbed, and directed to his own interests. His political perspective is to throw bones where needed to get what he wants. The last week has proven to be exactly what I thought this presidency would turn out to be, a total, complete, unmitigated disaster with the security of the US at high risk. A convenience "conversion" and a quick shift from a lifelong pro-choice position won't convince me, and the rest of the character hasn't changed. I would not compromise my principles, or my faith, to cast a ballot for Trump.

Jon's biggest concern, when it comes to health care, always comes around to how unfair he thinks it is that if health care is a basic human right, it should be collectively supported in order to make access to everything that is available equal for all people. It sounds like he resents having to be involved in some kind of shared responsibility, or to part with what he thinks is his fair share. I believe that's exactly where the moral hitch is when it comes to this subject. Unless you can get completely away from the idea that health care is solely an economic commodity, and should be distributed according to the law of supply and demand, which means that only those wealthy enough to afford it can experience its full benefit, then you don't believe it is a basic human right. That's like telling someone dying of thirst that they don't have any right to water if they haven't worked and earned enough to pay the price for it. It's pretty clear that the bottom line for you is money.

I'd suggest a literal reading of Acts, starting at 2"42, and going through 4:37. In that passage, it seems the early church did a lot of things Jon, or the Donald, wouldn't approve of, like gathering food for those who didn't work to pay for it, redistributing the wealth by selling possessions and goods and giving away the proceeds to those who didn't work to pay for it. They actually healed a lame beggar, who didn't work to pay for it, and who basically sat where he could just ask for a handout every day. Clearly he wasn't deserving of the medical care, and Peter and John were violating free market principles by healing him and not charging him for it. Gosh, they were inspired so much by what was going on that they prayed for boldness, the Holy Spirit shook the place, and they started providing free medical care all over Jerusalem. How anti-Trump was that? :lol:
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby JE Pettibone » Wed May 17, 2017 10:00 am

Ed: Sandy hoe long did "the church" practice the Charity you describe. And was it for the general population or only for their fellow followers?. Did it originate by a comaand from GOD or was it man made? And do you practice this today?

BTW, Mr . Thread Moderato,r this is far off of the thread topic.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Sandy » Wed May 17, 2017 10:30 am

JE Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy hoe long did "the church" practice the Charity you describe. And was it for the general population or only for their fellow followers?. Did it originate by a comaand from GOD or was it man made? And do you practice this today?

BTW, Mr . Thread Moderato,r this is far off of the thread topic.


There are segments of the church that still practice this today. Most of the Anabaptist community in this country is communal, some to the same extent as described in Acts. I couldn't give you an accurate estimate of how common it is around the world, but historically, there have always been Christians who lived this way. And there are groups which adapt the principles illustrated in Acts to today's culture, since many of the aspects of this particular passage were dependent on the cultural circumstances in which people found themselves. So to directly answer your question, how long did the church practice this kind of charity, the answer is "for over 2,000 years now."

Though it appears from the description that in Acts this involved fellow believers. But there is a notation that the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. Of course, with the attitude that is often displayed in the church today, there are those who think that many of those were saved had the ulterior motive to join the church just for the benefits. I use that as an example of overlaying our culture, because that's exactly what Americans would think. Apparently, the church in Jerusalem either didn't think that way, or they didn't care if someone joined just because they had needs to meet.

In my Baptist upbringing, I was taught to share, and to develop a conscience about people who had less, and to do the standard things we do to make us feel better about helping. My family was one of modest means, but I saw my parents make sacrifices to help people. It went beyond what most people would consider expectations, but not to the level that is described in Acts. My "charity" was always pretty typical until recently. Adopting the Quaker value of simplicity, as it applies to living, has taken a while to learn, but has resulted in a surprising increase of savings, without much of an increase in earnings. My wife and I have always been able to live on a little less, being in Christian school education, but learning to actually be simple, and to invest time and effort rather than spend money on living has made it possible for us to take steps that allow us to participate in "charity" that actually does big things for people, such as share in the medical expenses of those who don't have adequate resources. And in this context, the help is not limited just to those within the fellowship.

I see this as a free will expression of faith, not as a command of God.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby JE Pettibone » Wed May 17, 2017 7:47 pm

Sandy wrote:
JE Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy hoe long did "the church" practice the Charity you describe. And was it for the general population or only for their fellow followers?. Did it originate by a comaand from GOD or was it man made? And do you practice this today?

BTW, Mr . Thread Moderato,r this is far off of the thread topic.


There are segments of the church that still practice this today. Most of the Anabaptist community in this country is communal, some to the same extent as described in Acts. I couldn't give you an accurate estimate of how common it is around the world, but historically, there have always been Christians who lived this way. And there are groups which adapt the principles illustrated in Acts to today's culture, since many of the aspects of this particular passage were dependent on the cultural circumstances in which people found themselves. So to directly answer your question, how long did the church practice this kind of charity, the answer is "for over 2,000 years now."

Though it appears from the description that in Acts this involved fellow believers. But there is a notation that the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. Of course, with the attitude that is often displayed in the church today, there are those who think that many of those were saved had the ulterior motive to join the church just for the benefits. I use that as an example of overlaying our culture, because that's exactly what Americans would think. Apparently, the church in Jerusalem either didn't think that way, or they didn't care if someone joined just because they had needs to meet.

In my Baptist upbringing, I was taught to share, and to develop a conscience about people who had less, and to do the standard things we do to make us feel better about helping. My family was one of modest means, but I saw my parents make sacrifices to help people. It went beyond what most people would consider expectations, but not to the level that is described in Acts. My "charity" was always pretty typical until recently. Adopting the Quaker value of simplicity, as it applies to living, has taken a while to learn, but has resulted in a surprising increase of savings, without much of an increase in earnings. My wife and I have always been able to live on a little less, being in Christian school education, but learning to actually be simple, and to invest time and effort rather than spend money on living has made it possible for us to take steps that allow us to participate in "charity" that actually does big things for people, such as share in the medical expenses of those who don't have adequate resources. And in this context, the help is not limited just to those within the fellowship.

I see this as a free will expression of faith, not as a command of God.


Ed: Sandy our Baptist experience has indeed been different. First being Baptist was not part of my upbringing. I was taught by my Parents to tithe not to watch my money grow or to make me make me feel good but that tithing and freewill offerings are God's way of financing the church and its activities . Several (most but not all) of the Baptist churches of which I have been member follow this plan. So have bake sales and other money making schemes. I have also been taught that it important to render onto Caesar that which is Caesar and unto God that which is his.

Over a half century ago. I entered the initial Program of Church social-work at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary In Louisville, knowing well that Social work is not in the upper tier of income producing vocations. Because the program was in the embryo stage we where taking a lot or RE courses that at best reinforced the RE classes that I had taken at three SBC related colleges during my undergrad years. I dropped out of Southern and went to work for Caesar at the lower end of the Social work pecking order (a county Old Age Case worker) A year latter I took advantage of a short term concentrated "Summer experience earning 16 hours of graduate credit in Counseling" . This led to a position in the Indianapolis Local office of the Indiana Employment Security Division doing "In Depth Employment Counseling" with a group identified by federal standards as "The Hard Core Disadvantaged". In the meantime I took several additional counseling courses but did not Finnish a degree due to travel requirements of higher level jobs in the administration of the states On the Job Training program. After seeing some of the faults and short comings and reinventing the wheel involved in politically motivated Federal programs up close and personal. I retired with plans to go back to school those plans fell through due to a divorce I moved to Florida where I worked first in a facility for the care of mentally retarded young men who had been adjudicated as guilty of violent crimes but incapable of understanding the gravity of their crime. I then worked for a mental health facility in Fort Myers, Fl. l then followed a leading of the Holly Spirit and returned to Southern to prepare for a new vocation in Singles Ministry. That was about the time Trudy and I met. After I completed my MRE She felt called to complete her Bachelors, get a masters and PhD as preparation to Teach OT & Hebrew. we moved from Louisville to Fort Myers and Back to Louisville and then to Cincinnati where she started work on the Ph.D.. Then as so often happens God redirected her/our plans and she just retired from full time Ministry. Neither of us has ever had a high paying position. But I did inherit some property and other assets we are now living as Full Time RVer's Living on the road 6 or 7 months per year and in our permanent base camp in Florida the other 6 months.

Trudy has had 3 books published and I am learning on the road to handle the Grey Gost (my pet name for our rig.) God is indeed good. We are still able to tithe and occasionally to make special offering to some of our favorite causes and pay taxes.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby Jon Estes » Thu May 18, 2017 10:24 am

Sandy wrote:Trump is proving to be extremely self-absorbed, and directed to his own interests. His political perspective is to throw bones where needed to get what he wants. The last week has proven to be exactly what I thought this presidency would turn out to be, a total, complete, unmitigated disaster with the security of the US at high risk. A convenience "conversion" and a quick shift from a lifelong pro-choice position won't convince me, and the rest of the character hasn't changed. I would not compromise my principles, or my faith, to cast a ballot for Trump.

Jon's biggest concern, when it comes to health care, always comes around to how unfair he thinks it is that if health care is a basic human right, it should be collectively supported in order to make access to everything that is available equal for all people. It sounds like he resents having to be involved in some kind of shared responsibility, or to part with what he thinks is his fair share. I believe that's exactly where the moral hitch is when it comes to this subject. Unless you can get completely away from the idea that health care is solely an economic commodity, and should be distributed according to the law of supply and demand, which means that only those wealthy enough to afford it can experience its full benefit, then you don't believe it is a basic human right. That's like telling someone dying of thirst that they don't have any right to water if they haven't worked and earned enough to pay the price for it. It's pretty clear that the bottom line for you is money.

I'd suggest a literal reading of Acts, starting at 2"42, and going through 4:37. In that passage, it seems the early church did a lot of things Jon, or the Donald, wouldn't approve of, like gathering food for those who didn't work to pay for it, redistributing the wealth by selling possessions and goods and giving away the proceeds to those who didn't work to pay for it. They actually healed a lame beggar, who didn't work to pay for it, and who basically sat where he could just ask for a handout every day. Clearly he wasn't deserving of the medical care, and Peter and John were violating free market principles by healing him and not charging him for it. Gosh, they were inspired so much by what was going on that they prayed for boldness, the Holy Spirit shook the place, and they started providing free medical care all over Jerusalem. How anti-Trump was that? :lol:


Sorry Sandy,

1 - Telling us what the church did in Acts is not a mandate for the government. Nor is it a mandate for the church to redistribute their things for those not in the church.

2 - Is your concern for everyone to have health benefits to be a USA problem or a universal issue? I asked this before and you have not addressed it. Since you see it as a human right, how do we collectively make sure all those around the world without healthcare get healthcare? If we use Acts, it would fall on the church, not the government.

Your position is weak and falling apart.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: O'Reilly Fired by Fox

Postby KeithE » Thu May 18, 2017 11:27 am

Jon Estes wrote:
Sandy wrote:There are other issues requiring moral discernment besides abortion. Sanctity of life goes far beyond nine months of gestation, which is just a fraction of time for most people. Where's the passion and the advocacy for health care as a basic human right, which is also a sanctity of life issue? Where's the protection in schools from someone with a gun who decides to shoot randomly until he hits something? If you think Trump gives a rip about anything more than how to stuff his pockets and his friends', then I'd like to talk to you about buying my beachfront property in Arizona.


Other moral issues? Agree.

Health care a human right? Disagree.

From NESRI - https://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-health-and-health-care

What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care?

The human right to health means that everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which includes access to all medical services, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing, healthy working conditions, and a clean environment.
The human right to health guarantees a system of health protection for all.
Everyone has the right to the health care they need, and to living conditions that enable us to be healthy, such as adequate food, housing, and a healthy environment.
Health care must be provided as a public good for all, financed publicly and equitably.


If the above is how you define human right for healthcare, then I disagree. If you rally believe this then you need to support the same care for every human in the planet. Not only give support for it but work to have everyone pay for it. Is that where you want to go? Or, do you want to keep your rule to the USA? If the latter, then you rally don't believe?

Guns? The issue isn't guns but sick people. Regulating guns out of peoples hands will not remove them from those who should not have them.

Trump cares? I thin khe does but differently than you. I think better.


You can argue about whether or not health care is a “right" or not all you want. I believe it is strongly desired for any country and the better the care, the better we are meeting human need.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8277
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron