McCain Is the Only Hope of the GOP & America

[ChristopherHall]

Scotty,

In my opinion abortion is equivilant to murder, if not at least manslaughter. Maybe we should do away laws against those and just address the underlying issues. Of course that would be the absense of God in their life which we can't allow government to have anything to do with even though our soveriegn Lord is mentioned as the corner stone of our freedom in several historical documents that we now use to take Him out of our lives. (see the hypocrisy?)

Scotty, you're jumping to extremes. Murder and manslaughter are a little different than abortion. In a pregnancy two lives are so intertwined they cannot be separated. Most people would agree that the health and wellbeing of the mother trumps the rights of the fetus legally. On a moral level I hate abortion. I would love to see abortion eliminated from our society. I don't think that a mere ban on abortion will resolve things. We need to address the issues that cause women to feel they need to abort. By doing so we can greatly reduce the rate of abortion in our country. Once the abortion rate is low enough it will be far easier to place legal restraints on it. My point is...put women first. Address their needs. Reduce the need and occurance of abortion. Then focus on legal restraints. Countries have banned abortion and still had very high abortion rates. I'm proposing something more akin to a step by step resolution that will focus on reducing abortion rats and end with legal restraints on abortion.

Comparitive studies on abortion rates demonstrate that abortion's legality has no bearing on the abortion rate of a country. For example, our abortion rate is lower today in the US than it was before Roe. How do we explain this? We're addressing more issues women face today than we were back in the 60's and 70's. There's still some work to be done however.

Nobody is saying we can or even want to change the worlds ways or even our country for that matter. We are not to build up treasures here for we are just passing through, yet I still see alot of sense in trying to have as much of a hospitable place to live as I possibly can while I'm here.

I've been outside of the US. Let to assure you Canada is far more hospitable than the US. We hate eachother here. The gays hate Christians and Christians hate gays, Republicans hate Democrats and Democrats hate Republicans, Conservatives hate liberals and liberals hate conservatives. It's crazy here in the US. You can't even watch the News without feeling the "strife". My wife and I have been visiting Canada nearly every year for about six years. I can honestly say they are more laid back, open, friendly, and seem to have a greater sense of unity than we do in the US. I predict that the US will fall far behind Europe and Canada in economics, health care, education, and in over all quality of life within my son's lifetime.

Now here is where we really part ways. You think the government should not get involve in how we live our lives, yet they should, with my hard earned money take care of those who live their lives in a way that they can't take care of themselves.

Here's where you're not seeing the "big picture". We have nearly 50 million uninsured in the United States. These people still go to the emergency rooms when sick or injured. And guess what...they get treatment and they're billed for it. But here's what happens...they cannot pay their bill. The health care providers aren't going to just eat the loss...the increase the cost of health care to make up for the loss. When the cost of health care increases health insurance companies have to increase premiums to pay for the increased cost of health care. When the insurance premiums go up...more people find that they cannot afford health insurance. So now you have more uninsured people going to the emergency room when sick or injured. They get treatment. Then they can't pay their bill. The hospitals don't eat the loss...they increase their cost of health care yet again to cover the loss. When the cost of health care increases again health insurance companies have to increase their health insurance premiums again to cover the increased cost. When companies increase their health insurance premiums MORE people find that they cannot afford health insurance and now you have MORE uninsured...guess what...they go to emergencies rooms....and the pattern repeats itself. The truth is...YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE UNINSURED. That's why your premiums are so high. But here's the deal. The uninsured aren't getting regular inexpensive treatment. They're going to emergency rooms (the most expensive form of care) and finding more advanced health problems that require more expensive treatments. On top of that profit margins come into play...the companies tack on a percentage to make a profit. So in the current system you're not only already paying for the uninsured...you're paying for them in the most expensive manner possible.

Now if the government presented a national health insurance plan covering all Americans, all health care providers would be paid. This means they wouldn't be passing on increasing losses to you in higher costs. This will bring the cost of health care down. Private companies would then be able to afford lowering premiums because health care would be less expensive. Right now in the United States a national health insurance program would cost us less in taxes than the current system is costing us in premiums. Also in a national health insurance program records and paper work are centralized and accessable by whatever doctor you choose to see. No so right now. Right now you have to fill out all the same paperwork every time you visist the doctor. Your records are scattered throughout health care providers. In the United States over 30% of health care costs are in relation to redundant administrative functions of multiple private industries. All of these factors are why the United States pays nearly 16% more on health care than any nation in the world yet doesn't provide the quality that found in Europe.

So in closing...you're already paying a "hidden tax" that cares for the uninsured. Also you're paying more in premiums and over all costs and co-pays than you would in taxes if we moved to a national health insurance program. And as the cost of health care in the US continues to rise this becomes even more relevant. That's why it's becoming more and more of an issue.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Felicity

McCain isn't my pick. I'd go for Romney. So what if he's changed his mind a few times? They all do that. There's not much difference between most of those guys anyhow.

Has there ever been a better looking presidential candidate? Besides, he does have intelligence, proven track record, success, & great leadership ability too.

Hehe.

You can't vote , right?

I love you Sister Felicity...but lets take another look at Romney shall we?

--Romney supports abortion in general, and believes in sustaining Roe v. Wade.
--Romney campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, and was endorsed by a pro-abortion political group
--Romney is willing to support some embryonic stem cell research
--Romney Approves of Abortion Pill and Supports the Legalization of RU-486
--Romney signs "Right to Privacy" Proclamation celebrating birth control availability(this includes the right of public schools to provide children with it without parental consent or knowledge)
--Gov. Romney has a long history of promoting and furthering the homosexual agenda, and working closely with leading gay activists
--Romney twice sought and received the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republican Club
--Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's "Gay Pride" events


Image Insert (11.66 KB):


--Romney advocates homosexual couples' adoption rights be recognized by the government
--Romney supports homosexual domestic partnerships
--Romney supported and promoted legalizing homosexual civil unions
--Romney Opposes the Boy Scouts' Ban on Homosexual Scoutmasters. Romney barred Boy Scouts from public participation in 2002 Olympics. (this had never been done before and has never been done since by any governor)
--Romney appointed prominent homosexual activists and Democrats as judges
--Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
--Romney's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth used huge taxpayer funding to promote homosexuality in the public schools


Image Insert (20.7 KB):


--More recently Romney proposed allocating $250,000 for the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth for fiscal year 2006
--Romney's Commission organized public gay "Youth Pride Day" parades and "transgender proms" which promote unhealthy and risky behavior
--Romney's Department of Education promotes the homosexual agenda
--Romney opposed federal legislation that would stop public schools from promoting homosexuality
--Romney refused to endorse the original 2002 Mass. constitutional amendment absolutely defining marriage as one man and one women
--Romney unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) implemented homosexual marriages in Massachusetts
--Romney had marriage licenses changed to allow same-sex marriages
--Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual "marriages" when asked - or be fired!
--When requested of him, Romney personally issues special one-day certificates to allow otherwise unqualified people to perform homosexual "marriages"
--Romney imposes "socialized" health care on Massachusetts
--Romney's plan, which is backed by such liberals as Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, Mass.), is being pitched as a compact between citizens and the state.


Sources
Boston Herald, 5/19/1994 (re: morning after pill) - archive

Boston Herald, 8/1/1994, "Gays split in Governor race; Both Weld and Roosevelt are laying claims for support," - archive

Bay Windows, 8/25,1994, "Romney: I'll be better than Ted for gay rights."

Boston Globe, 10/17/1994, "Kennedy, Romney continue trading charges over facts" - archive

Boston Globe, 10/27/1994 (re: Boy Scouts) - archive

Lawyers' Weekly, 2/14/2000 (re: Stephen Abany)

NewsMax, 12/18/2000, "2002 Salt Lake Committee Bans Boy Scouts From Olympics" by David M. Bresnahan

Boston Globe, 3/19/2002, "Supporters want to see real Romney" - archive

Boston Globe, 3/22/2002, "Romney kin signed petition to ban same-sex marriage" - archive

Bay Windows, 3/28/2002, "Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community"

Romney 2002 Campaign web site

Associated Press / South Coast Today, 10/3/2002, "O'Brien, Romney tout abortion rights credentials"

Bay Windows, 10/24/2002, "Don't dismiss Romney, gay Republicans say"

Washington Times, 11/20/2003, "Romney pursues law on gay unions"

Wall Street Journal, 2/5/2004, "One Man, One Woman - A citizen's guide to protecting marriage," by Mitt Romney

Patrick J. Buchanan, 2/9/2004, "Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge"

Boston Globe, 3/11/2004, "Republican gay rights group hits Bush, Romney Stances" - archive

Agape Press, 3/30/2004, "Nobody Happy; Proposed Mass. Amendment Backs Marriage, Endorses Civil Unions; Massachusetts' Voters 'Blackmailed,' Say Supporters of Traditional Marriage"

Boston Globe, 3/30/2004, "In crucial shift, governor sways 15 in GOP to support measure"

Boston Globe, 4/11/2004, "Weeks ahead crucial for foes, supporters of gay marriage"

Associated Press, 4/12/2004, "Clerks to receive training on gay marriage licensing, while governor weighs options"

Boston Globe, 4/18/2004, "Justices of the peace confront dilemmas on gay marriage; Opponents face wedding quandary"

Associated Press, 4/24/2004, "Mass. Seeks Compliance on Gay Weddings"

WorldNetDaily, 4/24/2004, "Bill seeks ouster of Massachusetts justices; Last-minute effort to remove 4 who ruled for same-sex marriage"

New York Times, 4/26/2004, "Obey Same-Sex Marriage Law, Officials Told" - archive

WorldNetDaily, 5/8/2004, "9 Days to Same-Sex Marriage"

Boston Phoenix, 5/14-20/2004, "Schiz Romney: Do national aspirations explain the governor's switch from nice guy to anti-gay-marriage activist?"

National Review Online, 5/17/2004, "The Missing Governor," by Prof. Hadley Arkes

New York Times, 5/19/2004, "Governor Moves on Non-Massachusetts Couples" - archive

U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004

Citizen (Focus on the Family), 7/2004, "Massachusetts Marriage Chaos; Gay Marriage a Reality in Massachusetts; No Opt-Out Clause for Justices of the Peace" (archived)

MassNews, 12/2/2004, "Article 8 files bills in Massachusetts legislature to remove 4 SJC judges and eliminate homosexual marriage"

National Review Online, 2/11/2005, "Romney vs. Harvard" by Kathryn Jean Lopez

American Spectator, 2/23/2005, "Mitt Romney's Choice" by W. James Antle III

Associated Press / WIS-TV10 News, 2/23/2005, "Some say Gov. Romney changed tune on gay civil unions in Spartanburg Mon."

Bay Windows, 3/3/2005, "Mitt Romney's secret gay history!"

Boston Globe, 3/25/2005, "Roe v. Wade omitted from proclamation"

Governor's Office, 5/14/2005, "Romney Names Stephen Abany to Wrentham District Court"

State House press conference, 6/15/2005, transcript

Boston Globe, 7/1/2005, "Governor's vetoes raise more questions on national run" - archive

Boston Globe, 7/3/2005, "Clarity sought on Romney's abortion stance"

Boston Globe, 7/7/2005, "Eyes on Romney as morning-after pill OK'd"

Boston Globe, 7/22/2005, "Birth certificate policy draws fire; Change affects same-sex couples"

Boston Globe, 7/25/2005, "Romney jurist picks not tilted to GOP; Independents, Democrats get call"

WBUR (PBS) Radio Boston / AFA Michigan, 12/9/2005 "Romney changes position on morning after pill"

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

You just prove that you don't like the rules of Scripture. That's your prorogative.
To think that politics, or any other subject, is without religious presuppositions is philosophically naive. To develop one's political outlook based of some alleged "neutral" stance is in fact going against Christ. Neutality is a myth and if you are not for Him you're against Him. To relegate His Lordship to the realm of the church and salvation alone is saying that He's not Lord of all.

This world isn't my home Dave. The world is the world. It's like living in ancient Rome. The Romans allowed far more brutal and inhumane social practices than what we see in the US...yet Paul doesn't advocate political activism. He preaches the gospel.

You're clearly a Dominionist. I disagree with the Dominionist Facists and their insistance on subverting liberty and instituting Right Wing Religious law.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Scotty,



Scotty, you're jumping to extremes. Murder and manslaughter are a little different than abortion. In a pregnancy two lives are so intertwined they cannot be separated. Most people would agree that the health and wellbeing of the mother trumps the rights of the fetus legally. On a moral level I hate abortion. I would love to see abortion eliminated from our society. I don't think that a mere ban on abortion will resolve things. We need to address the issues that cause women to feel they need to abort. By doing so we can greatly reduce the rate of abortion in our country. Once the abortion rate is low enough it will be far easier to place legal restraints on it. My point is...put women first. Address their needs. Reduce the need and occurance of abortion. Then focus on legal restraints. Countries have banned abortion and still had very high abortion rates. I'm proposing something more akin to a step by step resolution that will focus on reducing abortion rats and end with legal restraints on abortion.

Comparitive studies on abortion rates demonstrate that abortion's legality has no bearing on the abortion rate of a country. For example, our abortion rate is lower today in the US than it was before Roe. How do we explain this? We're addressing more issues women face today than we were back in the 60's and 70's. There's still some work to be done however.



I've been outside of the US. Let to assure you Canada is far more hospitable than the US. We hate eachother here. The gays hate Christians and Christians hate gays, Republicans hate Democrats and Democrats hate Republicans, Conservatives hate liberals and liberals hate conservatives. It's crazy here in the US. You can't even watch the News without feeling the "strife". My wife and I have been visiting Canada nearly every year for about six years. I can honestly say they are more laid back, open, friendly, and seem to have a greater sense of unity than we do in the US. I predict that the US will fall far behind Europe and Canada in economics, health care, education, and in over all quality of life within my son's lifetime.



Here's where you're not seeing the "big picture". We have nearly 50 million uninsured in the United States. These people still go to the emergency rooms when sick or injured. And guess what...they get treatment and they're billed for it. But here's what happens...they cannot pay their bill. The health care providers aren't going to just eat the loss...the increase the cost of health care to make up for the loss. When the cost of health care increases health insurance companies have to increase premiums to pay for the increased cost of health care. When the insurance premiums go up...more people find that they cannot afford health insurance. So now you have more uninsured people going to the emergency room when sick or injured. They get treatment. Then they can't pay their bill. The hospitals don't eat the loss...they increase their cost of health care yet again to cover the loss. When the cost of health care increases again health insurance companies have to increase their health insurance premiums again to cover the increased cost. When companies increase their health insurance premiums MORE people find that they cannot afford health insurance and now you have MORE uninsured...guess what...they go to emergencies rooms....and the pattern repeats itself. The truth is...YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE UNINSURED. That's why your premiums are so high. But here's the deal. The uninsured aren't getting regular inexpensive treatment. They're going to emergency rooms (the most expensive form of care) and finding more advanced health problems that require more expensive treatments. On top of that profit margins come into play...the companies tack on a percentage to make a profit. So in the current system you're not only already paying for the uninsured...you're paying for them in the most expensive manner possible.

Now if the government presented a national health insurance plan covering all Americans, all health care providers would be paid. This means they wouldn't be passing on increasing losses to you in higher costs. This will bring the cost of health care down. Private companies would then be able to afford lowering premiums because health care would be less expensive. Right now in the United States a national health insurance program would cost us less in taxes than the current system is costing us in premiums. Also in a national health insurance program records and paper work are centralized and accessable by whatever doctor you choose to see. No so right now. Right now you have to fill out all the same paperwork every time you visist the doctor. Your records are scattered throughout health care providers. In the United States over 30% of health care costs are in relation to redundant administrative functions of multiple private industries. All of these factors are why the United States pays nearly 16% more on health care than any nation in the world yet doesn't provide the quality that found in Europe.

So in closing...you're already paying a "hidden tax" that cares for the uninsured. Also you're paying more in premiums and over all costs and co-pays than you would in taxes if we moved to a national health insurance program. And as the cost of health care in the US continues to rise this becomes even more relevant. That's why it's becoming more and more of an issue.

Just one comment, in this elaborate post you have written with all its answers and comparisons to the better lives of others not a single time, not once above have you even hinted at God.

That my friend is what is wrong with the world we live in.

[ChristopherHall]

John McCain is as soft on abortion and gay marriage as any Democrat. The Republican establishment is going to give him a major makeover in the next few months...you watch.

[scotty]

It wont matter, IMHO. I think either way the moral standards of this country will continue to fall, the hatred will increase. Its that time. JMO

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

This world isn't my home Dave. The world is the world. It's like living in ancient Rome. The Romans allowed far more brutal and inhumane social practices than what we see in the US...yet Paul doesn't advocate political activism. He preaches the gospel.

You're clearly a Dominionist. I disagree with the Dominionist Facists and their insistance on subverting liberty and instituting Right Wing Religious law.

I'm a "facist"? Your ignorance is showing. It's the big government liberals who are closer to their facist's forefathers.

BTW, I believe the world will be won from the bottom up and not by legislation. I don't believe that American is or was a Christian nation. But I do believe that Scripture demands that we ascribe to God what is rightfully His and to do less is sin. We're to think His thoughts after Him and bring ALL thoughts captive.

The truth be known all political theory has religious underpinnings. Even secularism. The key is to have a theory(religion) that is not arbitrary, inconsistent, and can provide the preconditions for understanding what is reality, what is right, and how do I know what I know. On your worldview you can't answer these questions with being arbitrary and inconsistent.

Scripture shows that all areas of society have their place and boundries and they are not to overlap. Civil government in the USA has overlapped the family, church, and the individual. It is our messiah and savior.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by scotty

Just one comment, in this elaborate post you have written with all its answers and comparisons to the better lives of others not a single time, not once above have you even hinted at God.

That my friend is what is wrong with the world we live in.

An average of 18,000 people die every year in America because they cannot afford life saving medical treatments. Do you think God approves of that?

Here's something interesting that brings God into the picture. Canadians voted Tommy Douglas as being the greatest Canadian that ever lived. Tommy Douglas is a Baptist minister who got into Canadian politics. He's the one who moved the Canadian government to impliment a national health care system. He did this because his Christian sense of social compassion led him to do so.

I believe God wants us to do what's right for all of us...not just those of us who can afford it.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

John McCain is as soft on abortion and gay marriage as any Democrat. The Republican establishment is going to give him a major makeover in the next few months...you watch.

They will try......

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

An average of 18,000 people die every year in America because they cannot afford life saving medical treatments. Do you think God approves of that?

Here's something interesting that brings God into the picture. Canadians voted Tommy Douglas as being the greatest Canadian that ever lived. Tommy Douglas is a Baptist minister who got into Canadian politics. He's the one who moved the Canadian government to impliment a national health care system. He did this because his Christian sense of social compassion led him to do so.

I believe God wants us to do what's right for all of us...not just those of us who can afford it.

What is scriptures position? It in no way promotes social compassion by the state at the expense of stealing from others. Private social compassion is the Biblical manor. In fact Paul commends some of the churches for giving offerings to him to give to those hurting in Jerusalem.