Cerran

We can start reducing pollution in the US by getting rid of the EPA and opening the government up to lawsuits for pollution they have caused. The US government is the single biggest polluter in the United States - Go Figure. As it stands now the maximum fine any company can be assessed by the EPA is $25,000 per day. When they are making hundreds of thousands to millions per day and only risking $25,000 per day, why should they stop polluting? I believe as Chrstians we should promote wise use of natural resources and make every attempt to personally reduce our consumption of them.

The universe is a big system.

There is the key flaw in the argument. Using energy from a souce outside the system you can remove entropy from the system. The earth is not a isolated system.

Investigated for what? Oil companies are like any other business and limited to laws of supply and demand. Since when was it illegal for a company to set prices based on their costs? Chain restaurants do it, chain stores do it. It's called a free market economy. Gas should actually be much more expensive than it is, even without taxes. If gas were twice as expensive today, how many SUV's do you think you'd see on the road? I'd wager a lot less. If people drove cars that fit their needs gas consumption would drop by an estimated 1/3 according to the DoE. True Price of Gas

Cmon, where is your sense of adventure

Except that Terri's wishes did not hinge solely on Michael's testimony. If it had that might be a valid argument.

There are people who now say,

Can you take the motor to a well established electrical shop and get it rebuilt Ronald? I had that exact thing done with a well pump just a couple years ago. Other things to do - Check the shutters and see if they are in good condition, check to see if there is any sign of wear or cracks in the fan blades. If not just replace or rebuild the motor, lube the shutter pins with a dry lubricant like silicone or graphite and you're done.

Since this is a thread about Terry Shaivo I won't expand this discussion here, but I will say that I can make a very good case that it is inconsistent. I was merely pointing out that most Christians are only pro-life when it suits them and that scares me. There is a big difference to beating down a bully who actually threatens you than beating down a man laying helpless in a gutter.

Can you honestly justify that defense to God?

And the Hipocrasy abounds. I see people claim to be pro life all the time on this board and yet.... Do you see now what happens when people meekly permit their government officials to begin violating the Constitution? The path toward the tyranny of omnipotent government quickly becomes a slippery slope. Is that what we

$1.95 in North Idaho

Our lovely president supports democracy by selling high-tech weapons to a dictatorship? Classic.

My wife and I have already put out explicit terms in our living will that we do not want extended life support where the chance of recovery is non-existant, including a feeding tube. At yet society hasn't fallen and people can and do make responisble choices about drinking Alcohol. It boils down to making good choices or bad ones. If we remove the ability to make good choices or bad ones, we remove the very checks and balances God put in place to motivate us to make good ones.

That is a flat out lie, this has already been investigated and refuted. There is no life insurance.

Cats, when they repealed prohibition people said the same thing, that drukards would line the streets and society would fall. It never happened. That is a typical slippery slope argument and it just doesn't hold water. This isn't about what other people want, it's about what Terri's wishes were. Read the court documents. The court was asked to decide her wishes on almost a dozen eyewitness testamonies of family and friends. And yet people here persist in the lie that he's in it for the money. If he were in it for the money he would have taken offers he recieved from Terri's parents long ago.

Funny to me that they didn't come forward till now and yet they go and talk to Hannity and Savage? Something there is suspect.

It does make perfect sense. If congress keeps pulling shenannigans like this they will very quickly find themselves very unpopular with their voters. All the president would have to say if that he vetoed the bill because congress did not give him sufficient time to read it. If you really care about things like this go to DownsizeDC.org and sign the petition that states congress must read EVERY bill and have a 7 day comment period before making it law. I couldn't agree more but our representatives have a fiduciary responsibility to follow the constitution and do their jobs. I'm not going to give Bush a pass because he's a christian, he has still put this country in the worst financial situation in history. I write my congressman at least twice a week and have had several conversations with him. I don't have to support my leaders if I don't agree with them. I will pray for them and I will respect the office they hold. However I judge them both biblically and constitutionally as my job as a citizen and a christian.

Answer - If you can't read all of it in time, automatically veto it. I would expect nothing less from any person I would vote for. The president has yet to excercise his Veto power on any spending bill. ANY spending bill. The full weight of the blame DOES rest on him. Bush has absolutely zero fiscal responsibility, in fact he has outspent Clinton 2:1 on non-military non-security related spending. Not that I liked Clinton either but the facts are the facts. Here is a much better website that is unbiased on the Schiavo case. Abstract Appeal

This would be true if the president Vetoed the bill, but he didn't. Therefore the president is responisble. Kind of like unchecked spending, if the president doesn't veto spending bills, he is as responsible as congress for passing the bill.

Excellent example of how libertarianism and the bible go hand in hand. Thanks for sharing.

N/T

I would say that the issue goes back to a fundamental distortion of what the constitution says. There is nothing that mentions the seperation of church and state, only that the state will not promote one religion over another. The Ten Commandments display is perfectly legal provided anyone who wants to pay to put up similar displays for other religions can do so. As someone who went to a "Secular' school I don't feel this is true. I do however think it's because the schools are not teaching what the constitution actually says but what certain agendas say it says.

Nebula, Re-read the constitution. This is a common mistake people make. The Supreme court was not meant to interpret the constitution, that was meant to be done by all three branches of the government and the people - Equally. The supreme court wrongly assumed this power in a decision known as Marbury V. Madison. What people have also forgotten is that the court was originally intended to have no enforcement power. Read the circumstances surrounding Marbury V Madison and this becomes abundantly clear. The Supreme Court can be reigned in, but only by congress, and at the moment congress is too busy wasting taxpayer money on entitlements to actually care.

The minimum wage puts people out of work as well. Look at it this way. If you are a small business owner and you employ 6 people at $5.00 an hour because that is what you can afford and then the government comes along and raises the minimum wage to $7.00 an hour, you are going to have to lay two people off. Minimum wage laws are contrary to a free market. Not to mention the Fed is a corrupt instituion that serves no legitimate purpose.