-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R
I think it's important because Obama INSISTED that the penalty wouldn't be a tax, but it clearly is.
Either you pay for healthcare or you pay the tax penalty for not having it. That's a great incentive because you're forced to pay either way...might as well get something for it. But how is this not socialized medicine? Honest question.
I'm not sure how this will realistically play out, since the States were up in arms from the beginning because their ability to provide State level benefits is being threatened. I guess we'll see. Will State money still be withheld or does this ruling circumvent State power entirely? Not sure.
I'm quite interested to see how Romney responds to this, considering he passed MANDATED healthcare in MA that looks very much like Obamacare. Surely he'll be against it, but how far can he really go without being as much of a liar as Obama?
Either you pay for healthcare or you pay the tax penalty for not having it. That's a great incentive because you're forced to pay either way...might as well get something for it. But how is this not socialized medicine? Honest question.
I'm not sure how this will realistically play out, since the States were up in arms from the beginning because their ability to provide State level benefits is being threatened. I guess we'll see. Will State money still be withheld or does this ruling circumvent State power entirely? Not sure.
I'm quite interested to see how Romney responds to this, considering he passed MANDATED healthcare in MA that looks very much like Obamacare. Surely he'll be against it, but how far can he really go without being as much of a liar as Obama?
T
Well, it's not socialized medicine because it allows private companies to compete. But it sure quacks like a duck, if it doesn't look or smell like one.
As written, states who provide "adequate" programs will be left alone to continue those programs. States who do not currently have some safety net in place will be subject to the federal program. Of course how one defines "adequate" could be a sticking point, but as it stands, about half of the states are free and clear, and the ones who aren't -- well, as I see it, they kinda deserve this. If you can't take care of your own citizens, then you shouldn't complain about someone moving in and taking over to take care of your citizens. KWIM? If states want the feds off their back, all they have to do is step up to the plate and lead. A strong central government will back off if states maintain their strength and independence in honor and civility. If states become wimpy and can't get the job done, they basically force the federal government to take over.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
LOL, I've always said, everyone should like Romney. Because whatever your opinion is on whatever topic, you can be sure that, at some point in time, Romney agreed with it
As written, states who provide "adequate" programs will be left alone to continue those programs. States who do not currently have some safety net in place will be subject to the federal program. Of course how one defines "adequate" could be a sticking point, but as it stands, about half of the states are free and clear, and the ones who aren't -- well, as I see it, they kinda deserve this. If you can't take care of your own citizens, then you shouldn't complain about someone moving in and taking over to take care of your citizens. KWIM? If states want the feds off their back, all they have to do is step up to the plate and lead. A strong central government will back off if states maintain their strength and independence in honor and civility. If states become wimpy and can't get the job done, they basically force the federal government to take over.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
LOL, I've always said, everyone should like Romney. Because whatever your opinion is on whatever topic, you can be sure that, at some point in time, Romney agreed with it
R
I get what you mean.
But, I disagree with the attitude that if a state can't take care of itself then it should be surrendered to federal control. That seems dangerous, especially when the federal government has the ability to cripple a state to the point where it must be surrendered.
Rigged system. That's why we have federalism to begin with. Local government is important and is the only voice many of us have.
But, I disagree with the attitude that if a state can't take care of itself then it should be surrendered to federal control. That seems dangerous, especially when the federal government has the ability to cripple a state to the point where it must be surrendered.
Rigged system. That's why we have federalism to begin with. Local government is important and is the only voice many of us have.
T
I'll give you that.
I think too many of those who are complaining and rallying against big government don't really realize what they're asking for, what the alternative is (or what they are), and just like to complain. If "big government" really went away, they would miss their social security, their interstate highways, their armed forces.... When the kids aren't in public school any more, and are running the streets like urchins and pick-pocketing like they used to, all these tea-partiers will miss "the good ol' days."
Remember when Reagan closed down the state mental hospitals? He said these people shouldn't be living "locked up" in mental wards, they should be free to live on their own. And with one swipe of Ronnie's pen, the homeless population in cities across the U.S. skyrocketed. They weren't being "locked up" against their will .... they were incapable of taking care of themselves. So sure, the tax burden was a little lower for a short time, but now we're paying a lot more, because if they had stayed in the system, they would have gotten preventative care, and now we're having to pay up the wazoo for major, life-threatening things that they can't afford. (For example, close to where I live, one man went into a diabetic coma, and we taxpayers are paying thousands of dollars per day for his treatment, because he hasn't a penny to his name. Had he stayed in the system, we would have only paid a few bucks a month for insulin treatments.
I agree that local is better, but you need a strong government on all levels, and the weaker local government is, the stronger it has to be "upstream." I don't think federal government has been "grasping" or "hoarding" power. I think local government has been passing the buck, and federal has been reluctantly taking the slack.
The way to strengthen local government is to strengthen all levels. Just like you wouldn't improve a building's integrity by bolstering only its top level, nor only by reinforcing the foundation. The whole building needs armor, from top to bottom. Removing one layer of a building is just going to make the whole building weak, it won't strengthen another layer.
Having said that, I also agree that a lot of people on the liberal side of this same argument are just lazy people who want entitlements, and for them, it isn't really about "helping those who are needy," but "I want this, gimme that." Sometimes I am ashamed of my fellow democrats to hear what they say.
I miss Kennedy. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." I think BOTH sides of this argument need to remember that. Do they even teach about him in school any more?
I think too many of those who are complaining and rallying against big government don't really realize what they're asking for, what the alternative is (or what they are), and just like to complain. If "big government" really went away, they would miss their social security, their interstate highways, their armed forces.... When the kids aren't in public school any more, and are running the streets like urchins and pick-pocketing like they used to, all these tea-partiers will miss "the good ol' days."
Remember when Reagan closed down the state mental hospitals? He said these people shouldn't be living "locked up" in mental wards, they should be free to live on their own. And with one swipe of Ronnie's pen, the homeless population in cities across the U.S. skyrocketed. They weren't being "locked up" against their will .... they were incapable of taking care of themselves. So sure, the tax burden was a little lower for a short time, but now we're paying a lot more, because if they had stayed in the system, they would have gotten preventative care, and now we're having to pay up the wazoo for major, life-threatening things that they can't afford. (For example, close to where I live, one man went into a diabetic coma, and we taxpayers are paying thousands of dollars per day for his treatment, because he hasn't a penny to his name. Had he stayed in the system, we would have only paid a few bucks a month for insulin treatments.
I agree that local is better, but you need a strong government on all levels, and the weaker local government is, the stronger it has to be "upstream." I don't think federal government has been "grasping" or "hoarding" power. I think local government has been passing the buck, and federal has been reluctantly taking the slack.
The way to strengthen local government is to strengthen all levels. Just like you wouldn't improve a building's integrity by bolstering only its top level, nor only by reinforcing the foundation. The whole building needs armor, from top to bottom. Removing one layer of a building is just going to make the whole building weak, it won't strengthen another layer.
Having said that, I also agree that a lot of people on the liberal side of this same argument are just lazy people who want entitlements, and for them, it isn't really about "helping those who are needy," but "I want this, gimme that." Sometimes I am ashamed of my fellow democrats to hear what they say.
I miss Kennedy. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." I think BOTH sides of this argument need to remember that. Do they even teach about him in school any more?
sound to me like "buy(you must buy it),,,sell(they must sell it to you,cannot refuse you),,,,,,,,,and it has to do with how you eat(the provisions state if you don't maintain a proper diet you will be penalized further),,,,now as how it will all work out and when we'll have to see,,,,,,,if you look it up online "universal health care act",,,it will come up one sit i found loads one section at a time,,,(i suggest finding this one),,,,,,,,or you downloading almost a 1000+ pages,,,,but it's like the one supreme court judges said if it is legal "they can make you buy broccoli",,,,,,,,I'm not sure who if any have even read through it so i recap the facts,,,,,,or if you go to Ron Paul's sites his personnel do a better job of explaining it,,,,,,,,that is hr3200,,,,,when you download it look for subtitle c-11 sec. 2521,"medical device registry",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and again in hr3200 sec. 2521 pg.1001 paragraph 1,,,,,,,,,,,,you will find that i have sent you to look at two different parts one it the "one is the directive to registry" in it it states "not later than 36 months after the date of enactment",that is "they must comply within 36 months",,,,,,,,,to this directive,,,,,,,then again look at pg.1001,paragraph 1 ,,,class class 1 class 2 class three,,,,,,,,,,"class two",,,,,,"implantable device",,,,,,,,notice r.f.i.d. is one of them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that is to say after march 23 2013,by law we are to receive "r.f.i.d. chips",,,,,,,,,,,,but like i say "we'll have to see how it all plays out",,,,,,,,,,maybe the different states will not agree with it i.e.(not enforce it),,,but as i read it does not fall under their jurisdiction,,,,,,,,it falls under "homeland security,,i.r.s.",,,,,so if they do not (remember Katrina) bush could not send federal authorities to Louisiana without the written request of the governor of the state,,(if so they were overthrowing a state and local government),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but we will need to see how it plays out "the law is in place",,,,,,,,though the chips are not in the forehead or hand yet,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i am not a great fan of him but it seems an appropriate quote for today seeing it was approved this morning so i will leave you with ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"what good fortune for governments that the people do not think",Adolf Hitler
You hit on many good points. I'm fairly sure we would disagree over what government at the local level should look like, but the fact is the ideal of community needs a comeback if this nation is to survive. Community begins at the local level in all our family units and little platoons.
As for the first part of your post, I think more of my fellow conservatives should read David Brin's The Postman.
As for the first part of your post, I think more of my fellow conservatives should read David Brin's The Postman.
M
I don't worry to much about what is happening, because prophecy is being fulfilled on a daily basis and what's happening right now in the United States must happen. We are in the last days, churches falling away from the word, individuals turning away to false doctrine, signs were heading for a one world money system and government isn't far off in the future. Please, I state no times, dates regarding prophecy..Cheers
each of us have our own "opinion" we choose to say how "we" think on different "chat rooms",,,we dream up different screen names and we get on the different forums and post till are hearts are content,,we dream up "this scenario" or "that scenario",,all our reactions are different,,,,,,one says "im not worried",,,one thinks "oh,there just scaring there selves",,,,,,,,,,and pretty much this is so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but lets separate this from the other,,,,,, that is we sit around in chat rooms,,,all of us we are in this chat room,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but notice this "big difference",,Ron Paul is a congressman,,,,Obama was a senator and now is the president of the u.s.,,,,the supreme court judges work at the Capitol,,,,,,,,,,,but we all make comments in our "little chat rooms" we do it here and they do it there,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that is the congressman and senators ect.ect. all go to the big rooms at the white house and sit around and have a big "chat",,,,,,,now some of the congressman that were involved in the "big chat",,,,,,,disagreed,,,,,,,then after the chat went back home to their states and put on there web pages,,,,,,,,,,the things that they sat there and talked about in their "big chat",,,,,,,,,,mostly Ron Paul,,and let me say I'm not saying vote for anybody what i am pointing out is that for me to tell you this is what that means "means nothing",,,you can brush it under the table,,,,,,,,,,,but for a congressman to tell you this is what we talked about when i was at the whitehouse,,,then go home and post it on his website,,,,,,then break it down and explain where it is written into the act that's a little harder to sweep under the table,,,,,,a congressman from the united states is telling you "this is what this means",,,if he was lying to you,,that's not legal and they would make him remove it from his web site,,,,,,,,,don't you notice he's saying it means this and none of the other congressman are saying "no it don't",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,wonder why they don't make him stop saying those things,,,,,i understand you not believing me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i do not understand your own congress telling you and you still not believing it,,,,,anyway i don't think the rfid is the mark no how ,,,,,,,,,,"pin number's in your forehead",,enter it with your right hand
P
I wasn't at all surprised by the decision (though I lament it).
What I think is odd is the reason Chief Justice Roberts is said to have for the whole thing.
"But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress' regulatory powers underthe Commerce Clause."
link to article: Roberts health care opinion, Commerce Clause: The real reason the chief justice upheld Obamacare. - Slate Magazine
Here's part of his opinion:
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” (italics in original)
Personally, I think he's thrown us under the bus in order to accomplish something else "good" for us...not to say it may not be, just that I hate this game played. Tax or penalty, it's merely semantics at this point.
What I think is odd is the reason Chief Justice Roberts is said to have for the whole thing.
"But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress' regulatory powers underthe Commerce Clause."
link to article: Roberts health care opinion, Commerce Clause: The real reason the chief justice upheld Obamacare. - Slate Magazine
Here's part of his opinion:
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” (italics in original)
Personally, I think he's thrown us under the bus in order to accomplish something else "good" for us...not to say it may not be, just that I hate this game played. Tax or penalty, it's merely semantics at this point.
Actually it didnt uphold Obamas H-Care Program, It reached far and wrote its own law......if you read the ruling, the mandate was REMOVED!!!!!! The Court reached a far distance to to remove the mandate and write there own ideas, (TAX) ......... It also allows the States to not sign up for medicade programs.
To put it in simple language they created a mess that might be more harmfull to the people then to those who hide behide the law.
Your expressed thrill is not as you write it, next time try to read the Courts answer.............You seem to have forgot how Obama continued to express the MANDATE WAS NOTA TAX, YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM BEING LIED TO, ALL I CAN ASSUME IS YOUR ON THE GOVT FREE PROGRAM. You lose your integrity when you allow others to lie to you and be happy......
T
The supreme court cannot create new laws. That is done by the legislative branches of the government -- congress (senate and reps). The job of the judicial branch of government is to rule on existing law (the constitution), not to create new laws.
I can see how you might think, if you read the ruling, that it looks like a new law.
In layman's terms, here's what happened:
The wording of the law bent over backwards to avoid the word "tax." They called it a "penalty" or an "opt-out fee." What the Supreme Court did was say, "No, it's a tax. In fact, if it weren't a tax, it would be unconstitutional, because you can't force people to buy things they don't want to buy. But because it IS a tax, it is constitutional, because congress does have the right to levy a tax. So quit pretending it isn't a tax, fess up, call the spade the spade, and move on."
It may take lawyers several weeks to decipher what, exactly, the ruling did. The mandate still stands, but with no teeth, it might as well be removed, for all the good it will do.
Now this I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you provide a source for your information on this, so I can figure out what you mean?
Woah, tax a qualude, dude. Yes, Obama and all the lawmakers like to play silly word games about "it's a penalty, it's not a tax...." I'm a professional tax preparer. I know very well how those games work. There are taxes, credits, deductions, exemptions, they all mean different things, but in the end, it's all word games.
As for "being lied to," we're all being lied to. The government has been lying to us for decades. Obama is no worse (though no better, I admit) than the 5 presidents before him. I think Carter was the last honest president we had. And he was ineffective, because he was honest.
Now as for your final comment in that rant, "All I can assume is your on the govt free program,"
See, my fellow CCers get on my case for correcting posters' grammar and spelling, but you see, when you type stuff like that, I have no idea what you're saying, and I really can't decipher it. Why bother logging on if you're not going to take a little effort to communicate in a way that people can understand what you're saying?
(1) I have no idea to whom this is directed.
(2) I'm not sure what you mean by "govt free program." I'm guessing you mean programs like welfare, though of this is what you mean, that is highly offensive, especially on a Christian board, to belittle someone for being poor. My goodness didn't your mother teach you manners? So I hope I am incorrect in that guess. Perhaps you mean some program that is free from government, like some of those cults who live off the grid? Not that that is much better, but I would hope any Christian would never insult someone who was already so down-and-out that they had to live on food stamps. I am flabbergasted that anyone would be so crass.
(3) Whatever you mean by "govt free program," I'm not sure how you could "assume" that someone is on such a program based on a post. You know what they say about "assume." And Obama's party is symbolized by the ass.
By the way, do you know where the government spends most of its money? Just curious if you are aware.
Well, integrity went out the window about half way through your rant here, but I assure you, I know I'm being lied to, and I am not happy about it. Why do you think I protest?
I can see how you might think, if you read the ruling, that it looks like a new law.
In layman's terms, here's what happened:
The wording of the law bent over backwards to avoid the word "tax." They called it a "penalty" or an "opt-out fee." What the Supreme Court did was say, "No, it's a tax. In fact, if it weren't a tax, it would be unconstitutional, because you can't force people to buy things they don't want to buy. But because it IS a tax, it is constitutional, because congress does have the right to levy a tax. So quit pretending it isn't a tax, fess up, call the spade the spade, and move on."
It may take lawyers several weeks to decipher what, exactly, the ruling did. The mandate still stands, but with no teeth, it might as well be removed, for all the good it will do.
Now this I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you provide a source for your information on this, so I can figure out what you mean?
Woah, tax a qualude, dude. Yes, Obama and all the lawmakers like to play silly word games about "it's a penalty, it's not a tax...." I'm a professional tax preparer. I know very well how those games work. There are taxes, credits, deductions, exemptions, they all mean different things, but in the end, it's all word games.
As for "being lied to," we're all being lied to. The government has been lying to us for decades. Obama is no worse (though no better, I admit) than the 5 presidents before him. I think Carter was the last honest president we had. And he was ineffective, because he was honest.
Now as for your final comment in that rant, "All I can assume is your on the govt free program,"
See, my fellow CCers get on my case for correcting posters' grammar and spelling, but you see, when you type stuff like that, I have no idea what you're saying, and I really can't decipher it. Why bother logging on if you're not going to take a little effort to communicate in a way that people can understand what you're saying?
(1) I have no idea to whom this is directed.
(2) I'm not sure what you mean by "govt free program." I'm guessing you mean programs like welfare, though of this is what you mean, that is highly offensive, especially on a Christian board, to belittle someone for being poor. My goodness didn't your mother teach you manners? So I hope I am incorrect in that guess. Perhaps you mean some program that is free from government, like some of those cults who live off the grid? Not that that is much better, but I would hope any Christian would never insult someone who was already so down-and-out that they had to live on food stamps. I am flabbergasted that anyone would be so crass.
(3) Whatever you mean by "govt free program," I'm not sure how you could "assume" that someone is on such a program based on a post. You know what they say about "assume." And Obama's party is symbolized by the ass.
By the way, do you know where the government spends most of its money? Just curious if you are aware.
Well, integrity went out the window about half way through your rant here, but I assure you, I know I'm being lied to, and I am not happy about it. Why do you think I protest?
Like others have commented here already here, I think it's humorous that throughout the debate about this prior to passing the bill, and in the aftermath the Obama administration stressed the point that the "penalty" for not purchasing medical insurance was NOT a tax because he knew that this penalty would primarily hit the lower end of the middle class that he swore to ease the tax burden on. I think it's obvious that this argument wasn't used in the presentation of the case to the Supreme Court since the majority opinion was that it was constitutional based on the federal government's authority to levy TAXES.
well as for the postings,,,,,,,even I'm becoming bored,,,i became a member of c.c. oct. 6,2011,in my first few post i explained some things about myself and also stated that "i was here to watch you post on the different post,to see your reactions",,,,,,,,"i am a preacher",,,,,,,i began with the chat forums when they first hit the www,,,,and i noticed something,,that is that rumors are everywhere!,,,,,most people are running scared,,,they believe most anything told them,,,,,,this will be my 614 post,,,,,,,i have at times deviated from my primary mission and posted things i thought was advice about scripture.,,,,i hoped it helped when i gave it.,,,,,,,,but back to what i was curious about,,that is i have followed every post i found about "666,Babylon,up-held,,,,mark of the beast ect.",,,,,,,,,,,and each time i watched to see if the r.f.i.d. would come up (at others i posted it to see what would be said) i have lost count at the times i have said to look it up on the www,,,,,,,,,,,but you see as of this posting,,,,,,,,,"0" none have stopped to minimize the cc and open the browser and and search for anything i have said,,,,,,,,you will see why in a second,you see i have a cousin who is a lawyer for the government,,,,and if at any time anyone would have stopped listening to the things spoken of about the r.f.i.d. and researched it they would have found,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the original act hr3200 was a defunct bill brought before the house in the year 2009,,(it was never passed0,, it had 2521 pages,,it did have a section referred to as the "registry" ,,,there was a section c-11,sec.2521,,,,,,,and if you actually go to "the daily Paul" and read it will quote it to you,,but be sure to "look at the date",,,,,,,,,Ron Paul did not lie,,hr3200 did have this in it(or the wording that would permit it),,but when it went before the house (not only paul) but many other members caught this wording and voted it down. now as for the "upheld version",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,becouse of the things the original stated (hr3200),,it was reconfigured,,,,,downsized,,,,,,and it is known as "hr3590" it was signed into law march 23,2012,,,,,,and it,,,, (does not require you to receive an r.f.i.d.),,,,,,,,,it only has 974 pages,,(some were added from the original 906),,,,,,but the just of it is (you were protected by some of your congresspersons),,,,,,,,,,,,,,you should feel satisfaction to note that some of your officials are defiantly still on your side,,they fought for you(hr3200),,,and refused to pass it till those things were removed,,(not just Ron Paul,he is popular for it because he is running for president)but other members of your government also (look at the things the voted yes,no to),,,,,,,,now if you go to one of the government web sites and (download/pdf) and save it to doc.,desk top where ever you want,,you can open it and in the top right hand corner you will be able to search,,,,,,,,,,,type in "r.f.i.d.",,,,,,,,,type in all the scarey things you see on the internet,,,,,,,,"search the actual law",,,,,,,,don't believe (anyone not even me),read the whole document of law yourself,,,,,,,,,,,,and you will find the revisions made it a "tax increase",,,,,,,,,(this is important to scripture),,that is go to rev. 19;20 "and the beast was taken,and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him,whit which he,,,,,, (deceived them that had received),,,,,,,,, the mark of the beast,and then that worshiped his image.these both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone",,,,,,,,notice i separated (decieved them that had received),,,,,,,,deceived,, lied to tricked,,,,,,,,,you into receiving,,,,,the bible never once tells you at any time the beast(government),does this to you that is you are told the government (soldiers,homeland sec.,,f.b.i.,c.i.a.ect.) is going to come one day and kick in your door and body slam you to the ground and by force,,,,put the mark on you,,,,,,,,,,,but the scriptures of the lord states in every account that the "false prophet",,,,,,"two horned beast" rev. 13 14-16,,,,,,,,(compare verses rev;13;14 and rev.19;20),,,notice that it is not the seven headed beast(one of the king's) that body slams you and gives you the mark,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it is the (two horned beast/false prophet) rev.19;20 and rev. 13 11-18,,,,,,,,,,,,,who deceives you,,,tricked you into taking the mark and worshiping the image.,,,,,,,,,,,,,the people of the earth are doing "just as they are told",,,,,they are put on the fishhook told "look proud and wiggle",,,and the fish is coming to devour them,,,,,,,,,,you are told to look for a government to body-slam you and give you a mark,,,,,,,,,,,,(but the bible does not tell you this),,,,,,,,,the bible tells you that the "preachers would deceive you/false prophets",,,,,,,,,,,,punch in rfid,,,,,,,every conspiracy web page and 99 percent of the churches are "copy and pasting" these rumors all over the www,,,,,,,,,,and "o",,,,,of you have actually called me on this as of post "614",,,,,,,,,,,,,i wished one of you would have looked "out of love to be able to say to your church",,,,,,,,,,,i wish one of you would have researched and called me on this matter and said,,,,,"iamsoandso,you are incorrect,,hr3200 did not pass and it is a rumor spreading all over the internet",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i wanted to say "ding,ding,ding,ding,ding,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,,i did not want to set here alone and say to the lord "i am not sitting here alone",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,