I find it hard to believe that not a single Adventist is decrying the reign of Steve Bannon. His prescription for the world takes a page out of the SDA eschatology playbook, and I am waiting for the outcry that He is prophetic evidence for Christian global supremacy. Bannon is Catholic, and has been advocating for a Gobal Christian war to cleanse the earth. He is an opponent to the current Pope and has been pushing the Vatican to take a more militant approach to defeating Islam and secularism. He calls this war a 4th cleansing which is necessary to keep Christianity as the major force in the world. Why are the SDA voices so silent on this issue.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration. It is not part of the Constitution, but is an explanation for why we produced a Constitution. It is a general statement of principles, however are not specific enough for law or structure. For example, what if my "pursuit of happiness" includes taking your automobile from you without compensation? Obvious example, I know.
The Constitution is specific in that it places limits on the government. And it says specifically that everything that it doesn't mention is in the hands of the States, or the People (10th Amendment). That is one of the interesting things about the American Constitution: it limits government. It is inherently distrustful of government. It assumes that government is up to no good. It approves the individual before the government.
Health care is very personal, and is subject to so much abuse of power that I don't believe that government can be trusted with it. If it controls you health, it controls so much about you that I am not sure if you can retain liberty at all.
I have found both of those documents with such contradictions in them that at times I laughed (in silence) because it was so absurd--especially in today's world. Even an instance from my own family history illustrates this. I have a relative by marriage who was a famous general in Revolutionary War times who shot and killed in a duel over slavery among other things a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the second Governor of Georgia. He (my relative) was against it and so was his famous family.
Well, David, I swore an oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and I took that seriously. I don't say that the document is perfect, because it was written by man. But it is one of the best statements ever written supporting many of the values in which I believe. One cannot read the Declaration without understanding that God had a hand in the establishment of this country. And I would really love for you to, from the text of the documents, show me what the "contradictions" that you see, are.
The fact that slavery continued after the establishment of the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution or the Declaration specifically sanctioned it. "All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" is ethereal, godly language, and carried within it the seeds of the destruction of slavery. I am sorry that you don't revere the Constitution, but I don't agree with you about it at all.
You have said that you went to Viet Nam, so that means you took the same oath. Does your oath mean nothing to you?
Guess what David, I'm one of those Americans who doesn't qualify for Obamacare so yes it's an epic fail.
Guess what, if you have medical insurance through your employer and you go to a doctor and/or a hospital, they will do "cost sharing" which means you will pay extra for those people who do not have insurance. So, the ACA should reduce those fees or at least the rate of climb over the years.
As to that, you would have to read the law. And the law is passed by the Congress, not the President. Yes, I know he has to sign it, but it goes through a lot of committees and amendments before it gets to his desk.
Really? The Republicans added 182 crippling amendments to it. I do remember that. And I do remember that after allowing Republicans to add all those amendments, the bill got not one Republican vote. Also, we never saw a Republican plan because other than "get sick, die early" they were never interested in health care for the public.
I stand corrected. Republican were allowed to add some amendments. But the basic law was flawed terribly. Amendments didn't change the basic structure of the law. Have you read the bill itself? I have, from cover to cover. It was not only about insurance. There are so many parts of it that are about control of healthcare, and most of these haven't been implemented yet.
It is incorrect to think that "if government doesn't do it, it doesn't get done". It is not that Republicans "were never interested in health care for the public", it is that Republicans were correct in identifying what is and is not government's business. Do you think that there is any limit to what is government's business, David? If so, what are they? Can you not see that a government big enough to supply everything you need, is powerful enough to take everything you have?
Let's see. They did risk my life by sending me to a Godforsaken country called South Vietnam way back. I didn't see too many Republicans objecting to that intrusion into my life, liberty, and fortune.
Many of us did. But it was a Democrat war (pushed by JFK and LBJ), and back then, everyone was still into the mid 1900's mindset that whatever the country demanded in terms of a war was probably justified. We know now, of course, that we never intended to win that war (like the Korean War), and that the politicians were running it, and they didn't have a clue. I just missed going (going into the Army a year after it was done).