Steff

Which is why I very much dislike Democracy. Thomas Jefferson was wise when he called it Tyranny of the majority.

What noone here has mentioned was that about 5 years ago he had a chance to take 10 million dollars from divorcing his wife and could have walked away and yet he has stayed with it insisting this is not what she would have wanted. He could have gotten 10 Million and now he's killing her for 250k? I hear a lot of people here throuwing around a lot of conspiracy, but noone looking at the simple facts of the case. The facts are: She is brain dead, it has been confirmed her cerebral cortex has turned to fluid, there is no chance of recovery. He husband if simply motivated by money could have taken far greater sums and walked away. Terry's current condition was cause by a medical mistake with a potassium imbalance due to her eating disorder, hence why there is such a large trust fund in her name, The pictures you see of her smiling, and her eyes following objects are in fact autonomic responses (reflexes). People with eating disorders can also experience bad scarring due to poor diet. Before people start throwing around accusations look at the facts of the case. Check the US constitution, the Federal government has no jurisdiction in this case. The content of this case is solely in the discretion of the state not the federal government. Specifically Amendment IX, and Section 8 of the US Constitution.

I did some reading on the circumstances of Terry's brain activity and surgery she has had. According to my mom who is a Pharm-D she has 0 chance of recovery because the entire cerebral cortex has turned to fluid. I don't presume to know the details that put her in this state but to me it seems that keeping her alive is not the will of God but her parents who cling to a foolish idea that she has a chance of recovery when she doesn't. In any case I will pray that God be with her and her family.

Hold on there don't pull out a straw man argument here, I never said anything about Abortion I specifically was talking about gay "rights" and marijuana use. Regardless of how people try to spin it, the Libertarian party does not support abortion, rather the party would prefer that the issue be left in the courts and legislatures of the many states. Libertarians simply reject the idea that the federal government has any jurisdiction on this issue. Many Libertarians believe abortion is wrong specifically because it violates the rights of the child. Right to life is the most basic right and the most important of all liberties.

Libertarians believe in INDIVIDUAL rights. As for drugs, Libertarians don't want people to take drugs, they just realize the war on drugs is a failure and causes more problems than it fixes. Libertarians are free-marketeers The free market is innocent of the charges leveled at it by its Christian critics. Its alleged moral shortcomings turn out to be things which are common to mankind under both free and command economic systems. While it is true that the free market restrains human sin, it makes no pretense of purging people of their selfishness, materialism, individualism, and drive for power. And this, perhaps, is the true sin in the eyes of the market's critics. The market is explicitly non-utopian. It doesn't promise to recreate man in a new and more perfect state, but rather it acknowledges the moral reality of man and works to restrain the outward manifestations of sin. In this sense the free market is in complete accord with Biblical teachings. According to Scripture, man cannot be morally changed through any human system, be it religious, political, or economic, but moral regeneration comes solely through the grace of God. If the Christian critics of the market expect an economic or political system of laws to change the moral character of people, they are sadly mistaken. Such a task is clearly beyond the ability of any human institution or authority. We must be content to restrain the outward expression of sin, and this is something which the free market does admirably.

DE, if you wish to point out the error in my thinking scripturally I'd be happy to listen. However, I do believe you missed the crux of my post as Libertarians being fence sitters. We aren't and I even adressed this in my post. Libertarians are the most principled people I know (The real Libertarians) and they will not go against their principles for the sake of political expediency. This is likely the reason they are still a small party. I point to Ron Paul as the perfect example.

Washington Lease Rights Just FYI. You may only have to pay the fee to find the new renter. If they are already found you may not have to pay anything.

Before you play that fee check with any websites for tenants rights in your state. Many times if you have another person lined up to rent the dwelling you can only end up paying for the credit check on the new tenant and any repairs that need to be done from you living there. What state are you in? I could post a link.

Even if we are answerable to God, and he can do anything he wants to us at a given time, how do we not consider salvation arbitrary if God chooses how when and where we are saved? Trinity, even if this argument were provable, the very fact that God knows what will happen and our inability to change the outcome destroys the idea of free will. We can only have free will if we are given a legitimate choice. In the garden of Eden, God may have known Eve would likely eat of the forbidden fruit, but if he knew they would be sinners, why create them at all. I believe God gives us a legitimate choice because he wants the best out of us as moral creatures, but knows in order for us to BE moral we must have that choice.

In my experience reputible ministries try to work with established existing charitible organizations to help people. Any minister that states he "needs 2 million dollars" is suspect in my book. This is why I rarely donate cash but rather volunteer my time to places like the salvation army. I know if I volunteer time, my resources (money) won't be squandered for illegitimate causes.

It's not that I do take a Calvinist view but how as Christians do we take two seemingly contrary ideas from the bible and mesh them to coincide with the bible's teachings and the idea of free will? While I accept the lord Jesus as my savior I'm not sure I can accept the total omniscience of God if we truly have free will. Any other passages to study you can recommend? This is where the logic side and the faith side clash for me.

Do we have Free Will? The Bible constantly states God's omniscience and as a direct result constantly denies that we are the ones who chose our futures. There are some who are saved and some who are not saved, we know that the events in our lives make up our minds. These are events were set by God - so how does God chose who he will save or not? "For chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus, in accordance with His pleasure and will" Ephesians 1:4-6 "All people living on the Earth will worship it [satan], except those whose names were written before the creation of the world in the book of the living which belongs to the Lamb[Jesus] that was killed" Revelation 13:8 "28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" (NIV) Romans 8:28-30 The Bible notes that God chooses, before the creation of the world, to save those according to his own will and pleasure. It also says that all other will worship Satan after judgement day and then be thrown onto the lake of fire after a thousand years, as their (second) eternal death. A severe punishment befalls those who God chooses not to save. If the choice is known before we make it, it isn't a choice. So as a Christian and a scientist (Engineer) I have a hard time reconciling this. The only thing I have come up with is that God denies the knowledge to himself of what we will choose so that we have free will to know him. Otherwise who is saved and who is not is arbitrary.

In order to give people a little more insight why my political beliefs run so deep: Among libertarians, it's traditional to share how and when you discovered you were a libertarian. My own awareness goes back quite a few years. But, the occasion of my son's birth re-invigorated a political activism that had become dormant during my years in the college. I had always thought of myself as a big and strong man. Able to take care of myself in our often violent and unjust world. But Alex, when he was born, was so small and innocent. He deserved better than what I got. This reminded me that I deserved better too. That we all deserved better. So I got back involved in politics. My choices regarding political activity weren't ideal. Romans 13 says that government is established by God to be a terror to evil and to praise those who do good. This is a clear endorsement of limited government--one that uses its coercive force only to prosecute evil-doers. A government that only uses encouragement to promote good-doing. The Libertarian Party comes close to, but misses the mark set out by Romans 13 because it declares itself neutral on moral issues. First of all, moral neutrality is simply impossible. Government officials, in their words and in the example of their lives, inevitably display what behavior is exemplary and what behavior is, by contrast, unacceptable. There's a difference between not using the coercive powers of the state to force people to be moral, and using one's legitimate economic and social abilities to try to persuade others to be moral. Instead of saying that the Libertarian Party does not take positions on moral issues, it should affirm that virtue is only possible in a free society, that a free society best induces virtuous behavior, and that the candidates of the Libertarian Party will, if elected, promote virtue through non-coercive means. And, just as government officials are to encourage good-doing through personal example and praise, we--as members of society--in our roles as parents and as teachers, as employers and as landlords, as friends and as benefactors, in all of our private relations with others, we too are to encourage moral behavior. Because we are commanded to love one another, we cannot be morally neutral. But because we respect the limits on our authority, and we trust in God's plan of salvation, we do not violently intervene into the lives of others. There's another problem with "libertarianism." This isn't a problem with the Libertarian Party, or with what we understand to be the meaning of the word libertarianism. It's a problem with a connotation that some other people ascribe to the word. The problem is that, for other some people, libertarianism implies irresponsible freedom. Some people think libertarianism means a "devil-may-care" attitude. "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." And, "In the long run, we are all dead." For some of these people, this irresponsible freedom means that each person is to be immunized from the consequences of his decisions. This view leads to all kinds of interventions--to re-distribution of the wealth, for example, so that those who make poor choices do not suffer as a consequence of their poor choices. When you think about it, this is exactly the opposite of libertarianism as understood by the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is absolutely against redistribution of the wealth. Indeed, the Libertarian Party has worked to remove the connotation of irresponsible freedom from the word libertarianism. But, to some extent, the connotation is still there, and we have to continue to rehabilitate the word. To the Christian, the world is so arranged as to bring each person to salvation. Realizing the consequences of one's choices is viewed as part of this process, as an education. Hopefully, a person making poor choices, by suffering the consequences, will come to be motivated to change. We call this kind of motivation "fear of damnation." A person who turns away from bad choices, and starts to make good choices, will see that good choices lead to benefits, and step up to being motivated by "promise of reward." Ultimately, we hope that the person will step up to being motivated by "love of God." But, some people mistakenly think that libertarians want to cut-short this educational process. For example, that libertarians would want to redistribute the wealth, so people who make poor decisions don't suffer as a consequence. But why should sinners repent if there is no punishment for poor decisions and no reward for good decisions? The most pure motivation is "love of God." A martyr accepts torture and death because of "love of God." But few people start out with this motivation. They need reward and punishment. And, besides, how do we know what is God's will unless we observe the feedback we receive. God's will is revealed to us through the laws of nature and history. It is wrong for the government to try to protect us from, and thus undermine the laws of nature and history. Tradition can be and often is a good source of knowledge about what is most conducive to human happiness. And it is altogether proper for us to transmit the values we have received from the past, and further developed ourselves, to the next generation. But it is also good for the members of the next generation to question these values, to test them out, and, ultimately, to adopt them for themselves not because we taught them but because they choose them. The Greek philosopher Aristotle described this phenomenon as "human flourishing." And Thomas Jefferson described it as "the pursuit of happiness." As long as the government keeps the peace, which is its legitimate function, we will choose virtue. We don't need the government to uphold moral behavior. That which works, doesn't need to be subsidized. We might--actually I should say--we will make mistakes, but as long as we suffer or benefit from our choices, then we will come to discover what is consistent with human happiness. Alanis Morrisette puts the idea this way: "You live, you learn. You laugh, you learn. You cry, you learn." This is the first story you find in the Bible. Adam and Eve, in the Garden, choosing between the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. Some people think it was unfair. What was God thinking? Didn't he know that man would make the wrong decision? Was giving man free will some kind of Cosmic April Fools Day? No, it wasn't. It was part of God's plan of salvation. God made man in his image. He made us moral creatures, with the God-like power to choose between right and wrong. Thus, the Old Testament describes his relation to us with the passage "Deep calleth unto deep." And, Jesus once responded to a question concerning his own divinity, "Is it not written that we are all (little "g") gods?" But how can we beneficially use this God-like power to choose, if we are protected from the consequences of our choices? Without feedback, we will merely pursue the objects of our prejudice, we will not discover what is God's will. The Zulu tribe of Africa describes humanness with the term "buntu." It means that man is a self-defining value. But, this self-definition, this choice, does not occur in a vacuum. It occurs in the context of nature and society. It is natural and good that we are not free of the consequences of our choices. God, in his mercy, gives us the feedback we need in order to choose well. To the Christian, we are both individuals with rights endowed by the Creator, and members of society--where society is understood as including government, but as being more than government. Society includes family, economic, church and civic institutions. And, government itself is seen as consisting of both local and national components. Properly understood, the Christian position is that it should be for us, privately, using the advantages that are rightfully ours, to try to encourage moral behavior in others. It is not for us, through the coercive powers of government, to try to legislate morality. This is such an important point, let me refer to a Bible verse. In 2 Thessalonian, Paul writes, "For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." It's with lovingkindness, not coercive force, that we are to uphold each other. And what of the person who will not accept admonition? For this person we are to bear in mind the story of the prodigal son. Everybody knows that this parable teaches us to joyfully accept the repentant sinner. But it also teaches us to trust in God for the salvation of those whom we love who reject our good counsel. The father who celebrated his son's return, is the same father who waited patiently for that return. And, because I suspect that there are some who question whether it was fair for the father to accept back the prodigal son, when his other son had remained faithful, let me tell you "the rest of the story." When the faithful son brought the question of fairness to his father's attention, the father told him not to worry. That the father knew that the prodigal son had already spent his inheritance, and that all of the father's wealth would still be the faithful son's. This story not only demonstrates that we are to joyfully accept the repentant sinner, and that we are to trust in God for the salvation of those who are wayward, it demonstrates that God is all just as well as all merciful.

However amendment IX clearly states that all rights not listed are retained by the rights and the people. The right to privacy has always been implied. If this country was not founded on the right to privacy there would be no private property, the limitations on government would have been far less severe. As far as community rights go, communities do not have rights. Only individuals have rights, communities are abstract ideas not people. The basis of our republic is that the community "right" never outweighs the indivudual's rights.

Big Business and the Collapse of the American Market Joel Cameron Beckwith February 25, 2005 Greenspan's warning to mortgage lender Fannie Mae late last week chiding the company that it needs to slim down strongly punctuated recent criticism of the company by economists, highlighting concern that certain big businesses put the whole American economy at extreme risk. Forbes commented, "[Greenspan], who told the House Financial Services Committee in testimony that he sees "no reasonable basis" for the two giant mortgage companies to hold massive mortgage portfolios, which together top $1.5 trillion. Noting that the problems "are almost inevitable," Greenspan warned House lawmakers that Congress ought to consider forcing the two to slim down their portfolio holdings as they "potentially create ever-growing potential for systemic risk down the road." One economist that has long been critical of Fannie Mae is Dr. Larry Parks, founder of the Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education (www.fame.org). Congressman Ron Paul has also added his voice, stating the following: "With all federal intervention in the economy, housing welfare distorts the mortgage industry and makes ordinary Americans poorer. Banks, of course, love federal mortgage programs- after all, the risk of default is transferred to American taxpayers. The lending mortgage banks get paid whether homebuyers default or not, and what business wouldn't love having the federal government guarantee the profitability of its ventures? Between the Federal Housing Administration, which is the largest insurer of mortgages in the world, and the government-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac corporations, the mortgage market is hopelessly distorted. Millions of mortgages in this country are federally insured, and the tax bill for defaults could be astronomical if the housing bubble bursts." Parallels from Recent History Ayn Rand wrote in Philosophy - Who Needs It? , that the American government finances itself on credit based on the value of your future labor. "It borrows money from you today, which is to be repaid by the money it will borrow from you tomorrow, which is to be repaid with the money it will borrow from you the day after tomorrow, and so on." Fannie Mae enjoys special privilege to the credit created from this debt-spiral. Fannie Mae collects the profits from good loans (bets) it makes with ultimately federal credit while the taxpayer provides collateral for its bad loans (bets) should they fail or default. How long can this continue? The situation seen in Japan 15 years ago might have some clues. Benjamin Powell of Mises Institute explains, " The [Japanese] government attempted to offset the stronger yen by drastically easing monetary policy between January 1986 and February 1987. During this period, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) cut the discount rate in half from 5 percent to 2.5 percent. Following the economic stimulus, asset prices in the real estate and stock markets inflated, creating one of the biggest financial bubbles in history. The government responded by tightening monetary policy, raising rates five times, to 6 percent in 1989 and 1990. After these increases, the market collapsed