The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 36 of 40 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 720 of 792
  1. #701
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    2,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    So When does human life begin ?

    I am Pro abortion but let's be honest. Abortion kills a child. It's a personal decision. It is not to be taken lightly or subsidized by gov't.
    My own views on abortion are not relevant. My point is that I thought I was at a church service. Not a political rally.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  2. #702
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    42,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windsor1 View Post
    My own views on abortion are not relevant. My point is that I thought I was at a church service. Not a political rally.
    If you lived in the Bible Belt, you would be appalled at what churches push in politics and the tremendous influences they have.

    Then, they get people listening to them preach since they are toddlers, in extra Bible classes, camps, seminars, several times a week.

    Total brainwashing of people than otherwise seem smart and sensible, until it comes to their religion.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  3. #703
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,228

    Default

    The trend is to get out of paying benefits to full time employees. That's what the trend is.

    Quote Originally Posted by stolen virtue View Post
    A trend beginning ? Where have you been, this has always been a trend to hire part-time. Companies such as Walmart have always avoided paying employees benefits by hiring them part-time. This has NOTHING to do with healthcare reform. Restaurants typically hire people part-time, I spent many years working in restaurants in the 1980's and people were always hired part-time to avoid benefits, but hey I guess that was Obama's fault for you people.

    Again, it is comical to blame Obama for this "trend" but if Romney gets elected with his corporate experience, you can bet that benefits for workers will be at an all-time low. It is the corporate standard, give as little benefits as legally possible.



  4. #704
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,364

    Default

    Yeah that's right I don't know what I'm talking about. Hahaha! Way to discredit my knowledge with my own company. That paid the same miniscule fine for all years I was there. Your experience with giant conglomerates is much more sophisticated.

    Are not you the one that says enforce what is already on the books? Oh not to mention these guys are also taking subsidized tax breaks. Yep gotta love those employers with integrity to do the right thing. LOL



  5. #705
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred View Post
    ^^^

    If so called churches want to play politics they should be paying taxes.
    It is immoral that 'pastors' should be telling their parishoners how to vote.
    Your immoral is someone else's religious stand on principle


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #706
    Join Date
    Oct. 4, 2003
    Location
    Hurdle Mills, NC
    Posts
    4,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Now, you talk about outsourcing jobs?
    That is what is happening when regulations and taxation become too burdensome to be able to keep running your business here.
    Ask the steel and textile industry, that Clinton managed to run out of the USA.
    I am afraid much of agriculture is going the same way also, where we will end up importing much of our food from countries with much less regulations.
    "Burdensome" is very much a judgement call. For many industries, those "burdensome regulations" are the ones protecting our air, water and workforce from toxic conditions shamelessly being shipped overseas along with those theoretically precious jobs. Prior to such regulations, many of our own rivers and geographical areas were dead or dying thanks to industrial waste products, etc. Do we really want to go back to being like those I recently heard about who are poisoning their own children because they refuse to stop mining gold which happens to be embedded in lead which pollutes their air, soil, water, etc. in the extraction process??

    It is indeed a shame that we live in a world which makes it hard for well regulated companies to compete against those whose products are cheap because they have moved their production to places which protect neither their people nor our planet from pollution and abuse. This is a difficult problem. I don't think getting rid of our regulations, eliminating collective bargaining rights, etc., are appropriate-- or moral-- solutions.

    Immoral/moral-- seems to me that the difference is often a matter of short term and/or individual gains vs. long term common good.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  7. #707
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    42,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    "Burdensome" is very much a judgement call. For many industries, those "burdensome regulations" are the ones protecting our air, water and workforce from toxic conditions shamelessly being shipped overseas along with those theoretically precious jobs. Prior to such regulations, many of our own rivers and geographical areas were dead or dying thanks to industrial waste products, etc. Do we really want to go back to being like those I recently heard about who are poisoning their own children because they refuse to stop mining gold which happens to be embedded in lead which pollutes their air, soil, water, etc. in the extraction process??

    It is indeed a shame that we live in a world which makes it hard for well regulated companies to compete against those whose products are cheap because they have moved their production to places which protect neither their people nor our planet from pollution and abuse. This is a difficult problem. I don't think getting rid of our regulations, eliminating collective bargaining rights, etc., are appropriate-- or moral-- solutions.

    Immoral/moral-- seems to me that the difference is often a matter of short term and/or individual gains vs. long term common good.
    It is not so simple.
    While that I bolded is a consideration, it is but one more consideration in a very complex topic.

    We are going to have some impact, good or bad or indifferent, no matter what we do.
    The more we learn, the more we can control that impact.
    That is what laws and regulations and inspections are providing, a road map to what is right and not.

    When you tighten those laws and regulations where doing what we are doing becomes too hard to do, industries/business close.

    There is no way we can live without some footprints.
    What is ethical doesn't depend on short or long term goal and individuals or common goal alone.

    Most decent humans want to do what is right.
    There are some that don't care, will do anything to get what they want.
    There are others that will throw the baby away with the bathwater, demanding impossible, utopian scenarios, where all is perfect and no compromise acceptable.

    Running a country or industry or business or our lives is about compromises.
    Most learn that once they become adults and realize we are not alone and we are in an already mature society and will have to live and thrive under what is there.

    Each one of us works with what we have.
    We have been a wildlife preserve since 1957, way before anyone in the general public had heard of such, before it was the PC thing to speak about.
    The Department of Interior was evaluating wildlife needs and asked us to participate, as we were in a prime wildlife habitat for some species.
    We could have gone with some government programs and be paid for that.
    We went with the programs ourselves, with their help, as they have the specialist in wildlife management.
    We could have been paid by hunters for our prime hunting habitat, but didn't because of the voluntary wildlife preserve designation.

    That is what everyone we know around here has done, each one that manages land resources has to attend to all of them and some are money out of your pocket to do what is ethical and that is what you do.

    I think that sound bites about how horrible everyone in business is and rapers of the earth and resources and all that is just that, misinformation from some examples of people not doing their jobs right.

    That is what laws, regulations and inspections are for, to catch and fine and close down those that don't do what is prudent.
    When those laws and regulations start interfering with those of us that do the best we can with more and more restrains, some senseless ones guided by agendas, then that is as unethical as when those managing break rules and regulations.

    My point, yes, there will be an impact to anything we do.
    Most people doing something are careful and trying to do their best.
    Some are not, sadly.
    We should not brand all for the few, much less overreact and then make it near impossible for all to do business, as some administrations have done and the current one is getting so close to doing, catering to some agendas.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  8. #708
    Join Date
    Apr. 11, 2001
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windsor1 View Post
    I wanted to jump up out of the pew and tell him to STFU.
    So, do you consider yourself open minded and tolerant of the beliefs of other?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  9. #709
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2006
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subk View Post
    So, do you consider yourself open minded and tolerant of the beliefs of other?
    I didn't make the original comment that this was referring too, but I would have had completely the same reaction as Windsor1 in that scenario and I DO consider myself to be very open minded and tolerant of other peoples' beliefs.

    However, this country was founded on the principles of the separation of church and state. I am pro-choice but definitely understand pro-life arguments and definitely think that it is a decision that cannot be made lightly. However, I would gag about a preacher telling his congregation to vote Republican because those nasty Democrats support abortion. You have religious beliefs against abortion? Fine, then don't get one -- but those are NOT my religious beliefs so the government better not be imposing YOUR religious beliefs on ME!!

    You are free to practice your religion as you want, but it is NOT the government's responsibility to enforce your beliefs on everybody.

    As for the government financing abortion, that I can understand being opposed to and it's your prerogative to fight/vote against that all you want, but abortion as a practice should be available to any who need/want it.

    I think it's a very dangerous situation when religious beliefs start dictating the direction of politics. If anything it just makes us more like Iran (our favorite-ist country)!! And if the argument is "well that's difference, this is Christianity -- the RIGHT religion", well history should have already taught us that lesson already. There's a reason the papacy was pushed out of control eventually in Europe! It's BAD news for the economy and everything else!
    Last edited by EventingMaff; Nov. 5, 2012 at 12:46 PM. Reason: Tone down some comments :)


    4 members found this post helpful.

  10. #710
    Join Date
    Jun. 25, 2004
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Keep in mind the Civil Rights Movement was born and great in the Black Churches and migrated to the White Churches. The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were/are largely religious/ leaders of their faith.

    Most of the recent Democratic candidates and sitting Presidents have political rallies or "meetings" at Black Churches. Remember Hilary and BO talking like Southern Black Preachers?
    "Never do anything that you have to explain twice to the paramedics."
    Courtesy my cousin Tim


    2 members found this post helpful.

  11. #711
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2006
    Posts
    214

    Default

    This is true, and actually when you put it like that church's are still a major forum for communities and society. I guess my issue is more what Windsor1 described the preacher as saying:
    "the pastor gave a little prelude to the sermon in which he referred to the upcoming election and talked about the need to vote according to biblical principles."

    This gives me pause because you shouldn't vote according to biblical principles, you should vote on political principles. And of course the Civil Rights Movement was a movement to expand liberties to a disenfranchised group while the abortion issue is to constrict liberties. But yes I see your point about church's, however I still stand by religious beliefs not being imposed on a nation.
    Last edited by EventingMaff; Nov. 5, 2012 at 01:56 PM. Reason: typos


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #712
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EventingMaff View Post
    I
    However, this country was founded on the principles of the separation of church and state. I am pro-choice but definitely understand pro-life arguments and definitely think that it is a decision that cannot be made lightly. However, I would gag about a preacher telling his congregation to vote Republican because those nasty Democrats support abortion. You have religious beliefs against abortion? Fine, then don't get one -- but those are NOT my religious beliefs so the government better not be imposing YOUR religious beliefs on ME!!

    You are free to practice your religion as you want, but it is NOT the government's responsibility to enforce your beliefs on everybody.

    As for the government financing abortion, that I can understand being opposed to and it's your prerogative to fight/vote against that all you want, but abortion as a practice should be available to any who need/want it.

    I think it's a very dangerous situation when religious beliefs start dictating the direction of politics. If anything it just makes us more like Iran (our favorite-ist country)!! And if the argument is "well that's difference, this is Christianity -- the RIGHT religion", well history should have already taught us that lesson already. There's a reason the papacy was pushed out of control eventually in Europe! It's BAD news for the economy and everything else!
    The flip side of this is the gov't is imposing its beliefs and practice on religious groups. Obamacar is requiring religious organizations to fund abortion in direct opposition to their practice.

    Name a religion that is trying to force its system on you. The catholics are merely seeking freedom to practice their religious belief free of Democrat sponsored gov't coercion.

    Therefor the church is allied with the opposing side.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #713
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    8,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    Name a religion that is trying to force its system on you.
    Well, let's see.
    Lots of religious groups are trying to make it illegal for me to marry a woman if I so choose because THEIR religion is against it.

    I'm not gay, but even so I would like to be able to choose who I marry without having religious groups try to legislate their religion for me.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  14. #714
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EventingMaff View Post
    ...my issue is more what Windsor1 described the preacher as saying:
    "the pastor gave a little prelude to the sermon in which he referred to the upcoming election and talked about the need to vote according to biblical principles."


    This gives me pause because you shouldn't vote according to biblical principles, you should vote on political principles..
    A person lives their life according to their belief system. If you don't have a belief system to guide your actions, you act according to fear and reward of the group you live in.
    A religious person acts according to their faith's principles in all ways. (human failure doesn't discredit a faith, just the person) honor, truth, etc are considered noble principles in most faiths. Deceit, murder, theft, can be a belief system too.

    There is no separating voting to political principles. it is after all, an activity by choice.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #715
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meupatdoes View Post
    Well, let's see.
    Lots of religious groups are trying to make it illegal for me to marry a woman if I so choose because THEIR religion is against it.

    I'm not gay, but even so I would like to be able to choose who I marry without having religious groups try to legislate their religion for me.
    Marriage is defined by society, an arbitrary historical choice. That's why there is a marriage license/certificate. Do you want society to support marriage to children, siblings, multiple partners, animals, minors, etc. ?

    You may have any relation with any of the above except minors. Don't redefine marriage.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #716
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    42,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    The flip side of this is the gov't is imposing its beliefs and practice on religious groups. Obamacar is requiring religious organizations to fund abortion in direct opposition to their practice.

    Name a religion that is trying to force its system on you. The catholics are merely seeking freedom to practice their religious belief free of Democrat sponsored gov't coercion.

    Therefor the church is allied with the opposing side.
    Not so fast, there are many areas in our lives religious followers are trying to dictate to all, like fighting abortion clinics and gay marriage.

    Just as wrong is to make any church pay for abortions or marry gay people if they don't want to.

    Still, that is a two way street.
    You can't demand one side or the other be given rights only and that is what separation of church and state means.



  17. #717
    Join Date
    Nov. 28, 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    10,980

    Default

    I think Bruce says pretty much everything I think about the election:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTKgo...&feature=share
    A FINE ROMANCE - JC Reg Thoroughbred - GOLD Premium CSHA - ISR/OLDNA Approved
    CSHA Brickenden Stallion Award Winner - for Performance offspring.
    Please visit A Fine Romance on FB!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #718
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post

    You can't demand one side or the other be given rights only and that is what separation of church and state means.
    To the founders, The was no separation of church and state. Your rights were not granted by the state. They were "god' given to you. They meant there should be no state sponsered religion. Their thought and example was the king of england's anglican church. The king threw out the catholic church and imposed his own church to do his bidding.

    The founders instead shackled the gov't by limiting its powers through the Constitution. Notice the Constitution usually is in the negative when speaking of gov't power.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #719
    Join Date
    Apr. 11, 2001
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EventingMaff View Post
    However, this country was founded on the principles of the separation of church and state.
    The only usage of the phrase "separation of church and state" by a Founding Father was an obsure letter written by Jefferson that was unearthed 50 years after it was written. Many times in its history the US Capitol building has been used to hold church services including while many of the founding fathers were alive and there is no record of complaint. I would also suggest you look up the term "Presbyterian Rebellion" which is more commonly refered to as the American Revolution. Historians are pretty much in agreement that discussion from the pulpit played a huge role in swaying the populace to bear arms against England.

    Quote Originally Posted by EventingMaff View Post
    This gives me pause because you shouldn't vote according to biblical principles, you should vote on political principles.
    Do you have any idea how incredibly ridiculous it is for you to declare what principles should or should not be considered by free people who are deciding how to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by EventingMaff View Post
    ...while the abortion issue is to constrict liberties.
    I suppose that depends on exactly who's liberties were talking about constricting. Death is pretty constricting.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  20. #720
    Join Date
    Aug. 3, 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    Marriage is defined by society, an arbitrary historical choice.
    Actually it is defined by laws. And the current defense of marriage act is keeping my wife from covering me on her health care. Why should the spouses (federally recognized) of some disabled vets receive benefits while the spouses of others (state recognized) do not. This is a fairness issue.
    A man must love a thing very much if he not only practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practices it without any hope of doing it well.--G. K. Chesterton


    4 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. CAUTION! POLITICAL THREAD!
    By Frank B in forum The Menagerie
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Oct. 25, 2012, 12:40 PM
  2. For the political threads...
    By CosMonster in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Apr. 2, 2011, 03:39 PM
  3. Replies: 151
    Last Post: Feb. 5, 2011, 08:07 PM
  4. First political thread this off topic day...
    By dressurpferd01 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Jan. 14, 2011, 06:56 PM
  5. The political thread
    By dizzywriter in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: May. 18, 2010, 05:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness