Disapointed In Trump SOTU
- Thread starter DevotiontoBible
- Start date
-
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.
S
From your article;
“But we also have methods of de-emphasizing or de-programming people who want to harm our society, and those are some things we have to move forward on.”
Agreed .. move forward on it .. and fly them back home.
Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Wednesday that the government has identified about 250 people with links to Canada who are suspected of travelling overseas to engage in terrorist activity .
This could involve front-line fighting, training, logistical support, fundraising or studying at extremist-influenced schools. Yet the number who have returned to Canada has remained largely unchanged at around 60 over the past two years, suggesting there has not been a sudden influx of terrorists into the country.
Only 60 ? Hope they relocate to your hometown.
Still, the government has refused to say much about those 60 individuals, including who they are, where they travelled, what they may have done, and what the government is doing about them.
Why ? Sex predators we know about. Canadian soldier enemies ? ... nah .. we're good ??
Really ?Much of the current political furor has centred on a new government centre that is funding research and programs to stop radicalization and help people leave extremist groups like IS.
As for the centre, which has a budget of $35 million over the next five years, it will fund programs and initiatives run by local organizations and groups. That means "the federal government will not actually"be rehabilitating or re-integrating returnees.
I see. They're outsourcing it ... and paying for it (but not actually doing it though) ?? Textbook Liberalism 101
“Counter-terrorism is never one-dimensional in a democracy. Prevention and re-integration are simply strands within a comprehensive counter-terrorism approach.”
How bout' this approach ... deportation ??
“If you can’t prosecute them or there’s long delays in prosecuting them or if peace bonds are only a partially effective measure … we can just do nothing. Just let them loose in our society,” he said.
“Or you try and have some kind of program available that they could be strongly encouraged to partake in these programs.
This ISN'T Canada's "only" option. Think deportation. Some kind of program ? .. lol Like colouring books and crayons ? Or autographed selfies with the PM for anybody who competes the course .. at gov't expense, of course ? No thanks. Not for this conservative.
Should the Liberals dedicate more resources to ensure anyone coming back to Canada who is a member of ISIL or another terrorist group is investigated and prosecuted? Could the government be more transparent in terms of who is returning and what is being done to ensure they don’t pose a threat to society?
These are fair questions.
But the Conservatives suggest there has been a sudden influx of IS members into Canada, and that the government is welcoming them with open arms, the experts say.
“(Raitt’s) statement is trying to play upon people’s emotions in a reactionary way instead of being practical and realistic,” Dawson said.
Ya want practical and realistic ? Anybody that assisted or fought for ISIL/ISIS is/was trying to kill our soldiers ! Let that sink in ... okay ?
"Card carrying member" .... Do the Conservatives a favour .. and rip it up.
Ya want practical and realistic ? Anybody that assisted or fought for ISIL/ISIS is/was trying to kill our soldiers ! Let that sink in ... okay ?
"Card carrying member" .... Do the Conservatives a favour .. and rip it up.
Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong point. I clearly said that anyone who took up arms against us or our alies should be tried.
I guess that means we can now start throwing personal attacks at each other! JK!
I understand why the mandate was there, but I think it was incredibly unconstitutional to pass the ACA with the mandate. It's one thing if it was a complete single payer system (which would be better than ACA) where it comes out of everyone's taxes, but for the government saying we have to buy something doesn't sound right. I had family members who could not come close to affording the "Affordable" Care act and was fined for not being able to sign up for any insurance.
Out of curiosity Brother Ricky, what are your thoughts on a single payer system?
I understand why the mandate was there, but I think it was incredibly unconstitutional to pass the ACA with the mandate. It's one thing if it was a complete single payer system (which would be better than ACA) where it comes out of everyone's taxes, but for the government saying we have to buy something doesn't sound right. I had family members who could not come close to affording the "Affordable" Care act and was fined for not being able to sign up for any insurance.
Out of curiosity Brother Ricky, what are your thoughts on a single payer system?
I tend to agree that it would be better left to the state, however, what about a single payer system is unconstitutional? I understand the government can't make it's citizens buy anything directly from them, but according to several court decisions (U.S. v. Butler and Helvering v. Davis), they can define "general welfare" quite loosely. And if the government is given authority to promote "general welfare", couldn't a legitimate case be made that it isn't unconstitutional?
By the way, I need to clarify what I said earlier. Technically, the ACA isn't unconstitutional as they aren't requiring us to buy from them (the government). Unfortunately, there is already precedent of the government requiring us to buy stuff, just not directly from them (that would technically be unconstitutional). It still needs to repealed and replaced with something more viable though.
By the way, I need to clarify what I said earlier. Technically, the ACA isn't unconstitutional as they aren't requiring us to buy from them (the government). Unfortunately, there is already precedent of the government requiring us to buy stuff, just not directly from them (that would technically be unconstitutional). It still needs to repealed and replaced with something more viable though.
Also, hospitals/doctors get paid regardless of someone's ability to pay. It's why a Tylenol costs $25.00. Guess who pays for it? We can call a single payer system "socialism" or "communism" all we want, but at the end of the day I don't know of a more viable and pragmatic approach for the health care dilemma.
Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. constitution details the exact powers granted to congress to legislate. Using good reading comprehension, the beginning of that section list the term "provide for the general welfare." Yes, to make legislation that is restricted to parameters listed in section 8, that does provide for the general welfare. If it isn't an authority granted to the United States, it is reserved to the states or the people. (10th amendment)
The supreme court, who is partisan, can decide as they wish..... doesn't make them right. If we had a legislature, executive, and judiciary with guts, this nation wouldn't be at the mercy of popular sentiments. The U.S. is a republic by design, nothing is supposed to happen for long periods of time.
Read the federalist. The U.S. is nothing more than a trade and defense union of several different states.
The progressives of the early 20th century, got the 16th and 17th amendments through. Turning the fed into a political machine. It's time for this to go.
The supreme court, who is partisan, can decide as they wish..... doesn't make them right. If we had a legislature, executive, and judiciary with guts, this nation wouldn't be at the mercy of popular sentiments. The U.S. is a republic by design, nothing is supposed to happen for long periods of time.
Read the federalist. The U.S. is nothing more than a trade and defense union of several different states.
The progressives of the early 20th century, got the 16th and 17th amendments through. Turning the fed into a political machine. It's time for this to go.
Obviously writing articulation isn't your strong point. You also said:
"If some people who are "not directly responsible" for attacks on Canada or our allies can be saved I don't see a problem with that. Otherwise I support full prosecution for treason and all other applicable crimes."
Rather vague, no ? Perhaps you care to explain the difference between being "directly responsible" and "indirectly responsible" ? Your use of the words "directly responsible" predicates the implication that one may be "indirectly responsible" in some manner. What is clearly obvious (or should be) is that any who did not partake in the practices of ISIS or ISIL in any form have no need for prosecution. Why would they ? If one does not want others to misinterpret that they might be something that they are not, it would be judicious to not don the uniform. In other words, speak clearly ... and find the proper words to convey your meaning. Much appreciated.
"If some people who are "not directly responsible" for attacks on Canada or our allies can be saved I don't see a problem with that. Otherwise I support full prosecution for treason and all other applicable crimes."
Rather vague, no ? Perhaps you care to explain the difference between being "directly responsible" and "indirectly responsible" ? Your use of the words "directly responsible" predicates the implication that one may be "indirectly responsible" in some manner. What is clearly obvious (or should be) is that any who did not partake in the practices of ISIS or ISIL in any form have no need for prosecution. Why would they ? If one does not want others to misinterpret that they might be something that they are not, it would be judicious to not don the uniform. In other words, speak clearly ... and find the proper words to convey your meaning. Much appreciated.
I guess that means we can now start throwing personal attacks at each other! JK!
I understand why the mandate was there, but I think it was incredibly unconstitutional to pass the ACA with the mandate. It's one thing if it was a complete single payer system (which would be better than ACA) where it comes out of everyone's taxes, but for the government saying we have to buy something doesn't sound right. I had family members who could not come close to affording the "Affordable" Care act and was fined for not being able to sign up for any insurance.
Out of curiosity Brother Ricky, what are your thoughts on a single payer system?
I understand why the mandate was there, but I think it was incredibly unconstitutional to pass the ACA with the mandate. It's one thing if it was a complete single payer system (which would be better than ACA) where it comes out of everyone's taxes, but for the government saying we have to buy something doesn't sound right. I had family members who could not come close to affording the "Affordable" Care act and was fined for not being able to sign up for any insurance.
Out of curiosity Brother Ricky, what are your thoughts on a single payer system?
In concept I'm for single payer, but I don't trust government nor corporate america to handle it correctly and/or fairly.
Another one of them catch-22 items.
Wouldn't health care be better off being handled on a national level? Most insurance companies, because they are run state by state, will not cover you outside of your state (except for emergencies). In CA, some insurance companies won't even cover you outside your home county. So if you're traveling and come down with a flu, you have to go to an emergency room rather than a general practitioner. Which increases the cost to both you and the insurance company. Too, by going national, you increase the size of the resource pool, decreasing individual costs. And this should apply to all insurance, not just health. Ever try to insure 2 cars in different states? Geez, you'd think you were the first one to ever attempt it. NOT fun at all.
And the VA.
Nothing is ever free. Insurance companies want to make a profit to pay stockholders and employees. Doctors want to make a profit to pay their employees and feed their families. Lawyers are going to exact their pound of flesh. Add in fraud and theft from dishonest patients, doctors and lawyers phew before long you have the mess we see today.
Consequences of sin.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Nothing is ever free. Insurance companies want to make a profit to pay stockholders and employees. Doctors want to make a profit to pay their employees and feed their families. Lawyers are going to exact their pound of flesh. Add in fraud and theft from dishonest patients, doctors and lawyers phew before long you have the mess we see today.
Consequences of sin.
For the cause of Christ
Roger