hr.jr.

About 174 yards. I can see about 175, but about 174? You are cracking me up.

Why don't they just use explosives to seal the well and be done with it?

So this ridiculous notion that gets pandered about this neck of the woods, that pure capitalism is the only biblical economic model, needs to be squashed. Sometimes it comes off as if anyone who opposes to pure capitalism must not read their bibles . Not true at all. It is pure capitalism that relies SOLELY on the goodness of man's heart to give to the poor, because it opposes any and all legislation or governance that provides welfare for those in genuine need. This is the reason why pure capitalism at it's heart will not work. It is greed manifested. Actually, socialism does rely on man being inherently good. Dr. D.James Kennedy put together a wealth of material on this very subject before his death. Capitalism in no way depends on man being good. It works just fine either way.

I am dsappointed. I thought he would appoint an oil spill CZAR.

Lemme see.... how about we start with actually doing the required maintenance? ---- No committee or commission needed. Just good ol' common sense. And free of charge, too! CNN Report. Required maintenance? The government doesn't own the wells; in fact this one is owned by BP, a British company, and the government can't dictate maintenance schedules on private property. The reason they've called a commission is because BP has repeatedly lied about the extent of the spill and has left millions of gallons of remediator sitting on the docks in Houston for over a month now. Being called before Congress only resulted in Halliburton and BP blaming each other for the disaster (it's an OLD tactic; if everyone is suspect it's harder to find the real culprit). So how do they figure out how to avoid future disasters such a this one if they don't find the cause? The oil company is not being forthcoming at all. Btw, BP is being held accountable for the entire cost of clean up and damages. Exxon was also held accountable for the Valdez spill. The problem is that they still have not paid the vast majority of the claims because they are still tied up in "appeals." I am sure BP will pay for the damages. Thirty years from now. I really do not know how to handle this. We need the oil. We have to drill or we become 100% dependant on foreign oil. When the government "fines" BP, all they are doing is putting the obligation to pay that fine on the American consumer. BP will pass all costs on to the consumer and we will pay it because the other companies will be all too glad to adjust their price and keep it right in line with the price BP charges. In addition to paying BP to clean up the spill and pay its fines, we as consumers are also going to get stuck paying increased prices to BP's competitiors that they will simply turn straight into profits. I think the only solution is criminal prossecution for these avoidable disasters. Civil penalty does not bite the company, it bites the consumer. If the high ups at BP went to federal prison when this happened, it would not happen again.

I think it is quite commical that a fire department is being called "socialism." What burns? Property burns. What provides the lions share of funds to fire departments? Property tax. You are receiving a service for your tax dollar. What is a socialistic program I oppose? Public schools. You are required to fund them whether you use them or not. I have to pay for an institution which I can not send my child to because its teachings are un-Godly. Whether or not it is socialistic or socialism is definitely up for debate, but I am 100% opposed to the compulsory funding of public schools. When the Government takes a huge chunk out of my payroll check and in turn gives it to a drug dealer who sits at home all day and has baby after baby, I have a problem with that. Forgive my cynicism, but 14 years in law enforcement has truly opened my eyes to why most of the poor are poor. They are poor because they choose not to work. There are many deserving people for whom I would do most anything I could to help. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people on the roles of our social programs are just plain lazy. Charity is supposed to be volunatry, not compulsory.

That's not what was advocated nor has it been said in this article. I would venture to say that God does instruct us to be Capitalists. We are to be capitalists with a very compassionate hearts. The Word of God is plain that we are to work for our living. Those who do not work are to not eat. God instructed us to love our neighbor and to help the poor. He did not instruct us to set up a system of entitlement that allowed the lazy and immoral to be rewarded for their laziness and immorality. You will be very hard pressed to show me a scripture that even remotely suggests we are to provide un-wed women, who choose not to work, with shelter, food, clothing, and a pay raise for every additional child they have out of wedloc.

I believed The Word of God about healing before I saw healing. Too many want to see healing before they will believe The Word of God. I believed The Word of God about healing long before I was healed.

"and ye shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover." The Word of God is either true or it is not. "For we walk by faith and not by sight." I believe the Word of God to be true.

Would a brother really "step on you"?(not literally of course)...ie. Treat you so poorly? Many who profess to be brothers will. Whether they are or are not truly brothers in Christ, only God knows.

I doubt it. I like loud music because I grew up with it. I grew up listening to 80's rock. Now that I am saved, I no longer like the lyrics of the 80's rock, but I still like many of the musical elements of it that can be heard very loudly in some Christian music. I love to hear The Newsboys and Toby Mac. The last time I heard the NewsBoys, they were not loud enough. Either my hearing is getting bad or they are slipping in their old age. God is inside of us in the form of The Spirit. We do not have to talk very loud for Him to hear us. We are not screaming to heaven because He is here with us.

Socialism is most definitely not in the Bible. "Thou Shalt not steal" in and of itsself drives a death nail in the institution of socialism. Iy is good to see the Ten commandments being applied correctly. Most Americans forget that this nation has tried socialism already and it miserably failed. Jamestown was founded to be a communal, socialist colony. Land was owned jointly and work was done jointly. When they started starving to death, Smith granted private ownership of lands where each family did its own work. The "Starving time" suddenly ended. Socialism has already been tried In American and it miserably failed.

Satan is blinding the world when it comes to Israel. In the eyes of the world, everything Israel does is an act of aggression. In the eyes of the world, the terrorists are given a free pass for their cowardly attacks and Israel is condemned for following the rules of modern warfare. There is a true double standard in place.

Turner believes in God and hates Him. That is what he said many years ago anywy. I don't even understand how anyone could hate the Lord. That's almost worse than being an atheist. He hates The Lord because a pastor told him that God was responsible for the agonizing death his sister died. To me, un-saved is un-saved. I really see no different degrees of Lost.

The laws are clear. The interpretation of them by the treasury is the issue. The statute says what it says. The treasury has simply become lax in enforcement of the issue because they are all too happy to let us move to a cashless society. One of the probation offices in our circuit had a policy that they took certified checks or money orders only. They had a no cash policy. They were served with a court order to accept cash because the Solicitor and Judge ruled they were in violation of Federal law for not accepting cash money. Some of their debts were to be paid over time, some were due in full at time of sentencing. Part of the debt was public and part was private. The mountain dew is not a theft. The gas purchase is not a theft. Intent to convert to ones personal use without payment makes it a theft. In neither case has that happened. I go in stores all the time, hang out and talk. While I am doing so, I drink a drink and eat some snacks. Lots of other people do it also. When we get ready to leave, we either tell the clerk what we had or we bring the wrappers and bottle to the counter. No intent to defraud; no theft.

I posted definitions of the word debt. They do not require installments or time. Some debts are long term. Other debts do not. The definitions of the word "debt" allow for but do not neccessitate payment or payments over time. I think your last paragraph applies to you. If you can show me a dictionary definition that says debt must be over an extended period of time, I would be most beneficial to your arguement. The case of the mountain dew and the case of the gas is not a theft. There has been no intent to convert to ones own use without payment or to defraud the owner. Laws vary from state to state, but in Georgia where I work as a Police officer, neither would be a theft.

Turner believes in God and hates Him. That is what he said many years ago anywy.

Lady C, Debt is defines as: 1. Something owed, such as money, goods, or services. 2. a. An obligation or liability to pay or render something to someone else. b. The condition of owing: a young family always in debt. 3. An offense requiring forgiveness or reparation; a trespass. Dictionary.com You are making reference to short term and long term debt. You walk into a convenience store and pick up a mountain dew from the cooler. You open it and drink it while you are there. You just created a "debt" that requires immediate payment. You pump a tank of gas. You then owe the store a "debt" that requires immediate payment. There are debts that require promisory payment over time and debts that require immediate payment.

It becomes a debt at the point and time an agreement to purchase is entered into. It ceases to be a debt at the point and time the purchase price is satisfied. I am saying that the U.S. treasury interprets its own statutes today about as poorly as the U.S. Supreme court interpreted the U.S. Constitution in Roe V. Wade.

I would take this with a grain of Salt because Ted Turner hates God because he believes God is responsible for the agonizing death of his sister.

You are right Lady C - it is not illegal to reject cash and more and more places are not dealing in cash anymore because of robberies, etc. Actually, by the wording of the statute it is. The powers that be want to eliminate cash and move us into an electronic only currency and they are just all too happy to let these merchants get away with this. U.S. currency is legal tender for "all debts public and private." The act in its most literal wording does not require a merchant to take cash. The merchant can say, I demand payment in jelly beans if he likes. Once a merchant agrees to sell item x for $100, the merchant is bound to accept reasonable denominations of cash for payment of the $100 private debt. Merchants are not bound to trade in US currency, but once they enter an agreement of sale that has set a price in US currency; they are obligated to accept US currency tendered in reasonable denominations as satisfaction of that debt.

It's not that they don't like cash, it's that they want to know who is buying their computers..... and since we don't have ID cards, this is the second best way. YOu attach a credit card number to the mother board serial number and when it shows up over in China to be cloned, you know who to sic the government on for taking technology overseas. It may also be that it has banned technology for exporting. There's a lot of that in the computer industry. To require a state issued id to purchase would be legal. To refuse cash is illegal.

Sounds like a violation of Federal Law to me.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...llen-obama.html Before you say that this guy is a nut from Holywood, think about what he is saying openly. This is what alot of the Leftist's and supposed Intelligentsia are saying privately. I thouhgt he already was a dictator.