Tagged: political hypocrisy Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Eugene Adkins 7:15 am on 2016-05-19 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , political hypocrisy   

    Opened – Squinted – Shut 

    And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:19-20)

    God bless America? From the mouth of politicians that encourage sexual confusion within the hearts and minds of children? What God would be satisfied in blessing a nation that’s too confused to know where its children should go to the bathroom?

    America has opened, squinted and tightly shut our eyes to what the light of God’s grace plainly reveals. Even the ostriches are laughing at the eagle with its head in the ground right above the leaking septic tank!

    When godless politicians speak of God blessing America today, they do so in the same vein that Israel’s leaders of old did when they spoke of the temple being in their presence…never mind the need for repentance and righteousness, God bless America is the American motto and a motto is all the light that we need!

    The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, “Stand in the gate of the Lord’s house, and proclaim there this word, and say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, all you of Judah who enter in at these gates to worship the Lord!’” Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: “Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. Do not trust in these lying words, saying, ‘The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these.’” (Jeremiah 7:1-4)

     
  • Eugene Adkins 7:03 am on 2014-07-09 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , political hypocrisy, ,   

    It’s Amazing What the Government Can Fast-Track When They Want To! 

    So the Supreme Court decided last week that employers can’t be forced to provide employees with “birth-control” (i.e. abortion causing medication) that violates its religious convictions. Sounds like that would settle it, right? Wrong!

    In a government that is notorious for gridlock, somehow one of the political parties has managed to get it all together in only a few days to produce a bill that would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision and force businesses (including certain schools, hospitals and churches) to provide whatever form of birth-control is covered (i.e. mandated) by the Affordable Care Act.

    And their reasoning? Well as senator Patty Murray, of Washington state, said, ““Your health care decisions are not your boss’ business….”

    So here’s my response to that statement:

    • if it’s not the boss’ business then why is the boss being forced to provide it!?
    • why is the boss being told it’s not their business when it is their business that’s being targeted?
    • if it’s not the boss’ business then why don’t you go take care of the situation privately without forcing someone else to participate against their will?
    • if it’s not the boss’ business, or anyone else’s business for that matter, then why is it the government’s business?
    • and since when does someone’s “right” require the revenue of someone else?

    It’s a veiled issue that forces intrusion on the basis of preventing intrusion, and it sure is amazing what riles up the dander of some politicians while other issues seem to float on down the river of moral apathy, hypocrisy and relativism.

     
    • Scott Shifferd Jr. 7:12 am on 2014-07-09 Permalink | Reply

      I think that you must be born again to have such wisdom. Thank you, brother.

    • eyeontheuniverse 7:21 am on 2014-07-09 Permalink | Reply

      “if it’s not the boss’ business then why is the boss being forced to provide it!?”

      This is an alternative to state run national health on the grounds that privatization is more efficient. It is simply quasi-privatization of a public service.

      “why is the boss being told it’s not their business when it is their business that’s being targeted?”

      Companies are already required to abide by laws that impact their employees. They have to supply wheelchair ramps, helmets for construction workers…all sorts of things. People just don’t whine about requirements they agree with.

      “if it’s not the boss’ business then why don’t you go take care of the situation privately without forcing someone else to participate against their will?”

      As mentioned, requirements have existed for over 100 years. If we took your argument seriously it would extend to everything, including cancer treatment and fair hiring labor laws.

      “if it’s not the boss’ business, or anyone else’s business for that matter, then why is it the government’s business?”

      Because we live in a representative democracy and the government is elected.

      “and since when does someone’s “right” require the revenue of someone else?”

      First off, contraception and abortion actually save insurance companies, and those who pay for policies, money, so this “paying for it” argument is pretty silly here. But even if we were to assume birth control and abortion were a cost, this argument ignores the fact we already accept this. You are essentially arguing against things like public schools here…we all pay for rights we have decided to provide. Some more and some less than others. For instance, due to tax breaks for those with children, the childless pay more for parents’ “rights” to public schools than do those with kids. We suck it up and move on because that’s how a society works.

      • Eugene Adkins 5:35 pm on 2014-07-09 Permalink | Reply

        Comparing pregnancy to disabilities and job dangers, as well as arguing for the cost-effectiveness of abortion? Hmmm…don’t think you could’ve made my point any better for me.

        • eyeontheuniverse 6:17 am on 2014-07-10 Permalink | Reply

          “Comparing pregnancy to disabilities and job dangers, as well as arguing for the cost-effectiveness of abortion?”

          Misleading much? I neither compared pregnancy to disabilities and job dangers nor argued for the cost-effectiveness of abortion. I provided examples of laws that were already in place and would serve as legal precedent and pointed out the irrelevance of the “paying for it” argument…nowhere in there did I state that it should be a policy based on those grounds.

          If you can’t make your point without lying about that of your opponent, maybe you should reconsider whether you really have a point.

          • Eugene Adkins 6:30 am on 2014-07-10 Permalink | Reply

            Lying? Your justifying points were made based on comparing someone’s “right” to an abortion causing pill (which is the crux of the Hobby Lobby/Private Business and Affordable Care Act issue) at the cost of their employer to dangerous job situations (a helmet) and disabilities (wheel chair ramps) and the “cost savings” of an abortion over having a child. That was you. Not me.

            Those laws that you refer to have nothing to do with forcing an employer to pay a benefit on behalf on their employee that they morally disagree with. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

            Further more, if it’s not the boss’ business then it’s not the boss’ business. So I think you missed your own point as well mine, but thanks for commenting anyways.

    • Jack 3:40 pm on 2014-07-09 Permalink | Reply

      The Democrats Bill is mere window dressing in an election year to pacify and appeal to the Feminists and hedonists voters. They have succeeded with the free media coverage, but they cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision with terms that have been held unconstitutional. Hypothetically, if they could write such a Bill, it would never pass in the House anyway.

    • Sandi Rog 10:15 pm on 2014-07-10 Permalink | Reply

      Amen, Amen, AMEN!!!

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel