BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===================
Where is the liberal claim to exclusive right to being charitable.
And
would
that mean the opposite of conservatives. And so we quickly come to a
deadend, by approching from a religious viewpoint, you cannot make
clear distinctions that would separate the issues into distinct and
debatable packages.
===================

Fair enough. Let's not talk about liberal vs conservative. Let's not
try to define "charitable". Let's keep it at the level of specific
public policy options (and the politicians that advocate them).

Faced with a public policy option, I maintain that you, if you're the
Christian you claim to be, need to ask of that option: "What would
jesus do?" And then, you need to vote for the politician who can best
implement that option.

frtzw906

Fair enough, and yet many issues arise in your question. If I try to
determine my action based on someone elses action, there is an
assumption that I am intimately aware of that person. For example if I
say "What would frtwz do?" and I don't really know frtwz, then I could
not answer how he would respond to a given situation. So for you to
ask, "What would Jesus do?" you assume that I know what Jesus would do.


Now for you to use this approach to support a particular policy there
is also the assumption that you know what Jesus would do in this
particular situation, and that you would be able to determine that my
answer to what would Jesus do is correct or incorrect. Otherwise I
would be able to mislead you as to how Jesus would respond, and you
would not know the difference.

Now if I believe that I know what Jesus would do, and I vote for a
particular politician that I say will implement that option, how can
you then complain about my choice, if you on the other hand have no
basis to question my understanding of what Jesus would do.

You say you are not a religious person, that you do not believe in
Jesus, that you don't know Mim in a personal and intimate way, then how
can you know what He would do, or question what I say He would do. You
can either get to know Him, or not depend on the answer to that
question, "What would Jesus do? Or blindly follow what I say He would
do!

As far as myself, I ask the question all the time in many situations.
For example the other day I told you about pulling people out of the
traffic. First I determine that I did not think that Jesus would leave
them setting out in the traffic. Then I offered them water, and finally
I said I would witness to them. Now I heard the corporate grunt of
horror at my last comment. You were probably OK with the tow and the
water, but witness, this guy is looney. What you fail to understand is
I did not say prosyletize. Witnessing can be something as benigh as
saying that I was glad to help you, can I use my cell phone to call a
tow service for you. In other words going the extra mile, be nice,
smile and encourage them.

I remember one particular situation where when I stopped to help two
older women stalled in traffic. It was a very hot day, and the traffic
was backed up for miles so they had to have geen setting there for a
long time. Numerous 4x4s with macho men driving had gone by them
without offering assistance. When I finally got to them, I saw them
setting in their vehicle, Crying, with masscara running! They were not
some cute little chic that the macho men probably would have been
willing to help, but probably in their late 60s, maybe 70s.

After I towed them, they were very thirsty, and worse yet needed to
pee. So I fixed a tarp over their doors to afford them some privacy
right there in traffic on the road side. I turned my back, and made a
call for a tow truck on my cell phone. When I was done, and they were
done, you have never met two more thankful people. I never said a word
to them about Jesus or God, but I had witnessed to them. I think I did
what Jesus would have done! TnT

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 3/3/05 4:30 PM:



snip


=====================
No, you replied that no one is waiting for treatment.
liarman.


You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big
of
a
coward to do
it.
+=================
No, I don't. But it seems you have forgotten about your,
eh
liarman. Proof that people are dying in waiting lines in
Canada
have been presented to you, yet you are still spewing
about
a lie
you have already taken back. Why is that, liarman? Don't
want
to discuss your continued willful ignorance?

What happened is you blathered on about the people in
Newfoundland waiting 2
1/2 years for treatment, and I responded that they are not
waiting for
treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a scumbag, stop
being a coward,
suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too weak?
========================
ROTFLMAO You really are this desperate now, aren't you,
liarman? I'm not the one that was blathering about it.

Yeah, you were.
=====================
No fool, I wasn't. It was one site out of several I posted.
And
it was the only time I brought it up.

Right. You were the one that brought it up.
==================
Yes, I did, once. You are the one that kept blaterhering about
it because you didn't want to continue the discussion as it
started, people dying. Why is that, liarman? Afraid of the
truth, as usual?




You were rambling on about how people were waiting 2 1/2
years
for treatment in the story about people in Newfoundland. They
aren't waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I told you so.
Then you tried to say that I was stating that no one in
Canada
waits for anything, which is not what I said at all. You are
a
scumbag.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying, and
still
are, liarman. You did make that claim fool, because the post
you
were repliying to was all about waiting for health care in
Canada. You have now decided to tap dance by claiming it was
about only one site, and one example.

You said that I claimed no one in Canada ever waits for
treatment.
=====================
You did. Thatvwas the discussion fool, and you made that
statement. Too bad for you that you are too stupid to know what
you're saying most of the time, eh liarman?



I never
said that. I said that the people in your example were not
waiting 2 1/2
years for treatment, and they were not. As it states in the
very article you
cited, they were all receiving constant care.

You owe me an apology.
=======================
No fool, where's yours?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 3/3/05 4:30 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et,
rick
at
wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ps.com...
KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get
a
handle
on this
situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done
some
reading about
various systems and have at least a passing
acquaintance
with
a variety
of European models (I now know the difference between
the
Beveridge and
the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In
that
sense,
all of
this has been useful for me.

It's too bad rick could never see the value in such
discourse.
====================
LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of
jingoistic
chest-thumping lies.

Perhaps you should stop telling them, then.
=====================
I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists
in
Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for
that
treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove
this,
yet
you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that
liarman?
Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet?

I'm not lying about anything.
=====================
Yes, you are, liarman. People are on long waiting lists
in
Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for
that
treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove
this, yet
you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that
liarman?
Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet?

I don't think you've been paying attention and you are
making
a fool of
yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to
the post (long
ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question
allowed you to meet
the burden of proof I requested.
==============================
Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar
regardless of how you make your claim.

All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland
were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right.

You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your
dishonesty.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying

Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada
is waiting for
treatment.
=================
Yes, you did. And you are still lying because you are using
this as an excuse for staying away from the original topic,
people dying in wait lines in the canadaian health system. Too
bad that this diversion is all you have to discuss, eh liarman?


You are being extremely dishonest. You owe me an apology, but
you are too
big of a coward to admit that you are wrong. You are a scumbag.
======================
No, fool, you keep describing yourself, why is that? You are the
one that has never honestly discussed the issue at hand. Why is
that, liarman? Already know that you are continuing to lie?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at


snip


I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2
years for treatment and I was right.
==============
No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment
did
not start for at least 2 1/2 years.

As stated in the article:

"While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are
being
investigated andfollowed by other medical means, and that
anyone needing an
emergency scan gets one," said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief
of
diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St.
John's.
======================
Yes, and an emergency scan may be too late. What part of all
this really is over your head? The doctor wants to start
treatment, the system sayd he cannot because they must wait for
the test that will tell him how to [proceed. You really are
grasping at strwas here, liarman. But even that aside, why are
you diverting the discussion away from the fact that people ARE
dying while waiting for treatmant? Alread know that you've been
proven a liar, liarman?



They are waiting for a specific specialized test. They are not
waiting for
treatment.
==================
You really are this stupid, aren't you? The doctotr wants to
give treatment, the system says he must wait for the tests that
will determine that treatment. He is waiting for treatment. You
are as ignorant as always, liarman.


You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your
dishonesty.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying

Whatever you think it was, your claim that I said no one in
Canada waits for
treatment is false. You owe me an apology. But you are too week
and too much
of coward to do what you know if right.
==========================
Yes, you did. Too bad for you that all you have is this exsecise
in futility, and lies. Where's your refutation that people are
dying while waiting, liarman?

Tink..... AAaaaaarrrrhhhhggggg!!!!

I don't kow why you keep doing this, but it makes no sense. You've gone
to great lengths to present a scenario that has nothing to do with the
question I asked.

Let's keep it simple, OK? Let's accept that JC, and you, and I, and
every citizen are subject to civil law. OK? That's a given. And even if
we feel that the civil is stupid, it's a given. Further, it may not
measure up to a "higher law", it is still a given. Are we agreed on
that?

OK, if we're OK with that, let's turn to the writing of laws, not the
obeying of laws. Can we agree that that's why we elect politicians?
That is, our politician "make" the law. Am I correct?

OK, the question regarding "What would JC do?" has NOTHING to do with
obeying the law. We ask "What would JC do?" when it comes to MAKING
public policy. Once such example might be capital punishment. Think of
JC as a congressman. Which way would JC vote on this issue.

Please, Tink, let's not discuss whether or not you or JC
would/should/can/must obey civil law. That has nothing to do with the
point being discussed.

frtzw906

Tink says:
==============
Fair enough, and yet many issues arise in your question. If I try to
determine my action based on someone elses action, there is an
assumption that I am intimately aware of that person. For example if I
say "What would frtwz do?" and I don't really know frtwz, then I could
not answer how he would respond to a given situation. So for you to
ask, "What would Jesus do?" you assume that I know what Jesus would do.

================

I haven't a clue what JC would do as I don't profess to be a Christian.
Further, I don't CARE what JC would do, because I'm not a Christian.

However, every Sunday morning, there are dozens of televangelists who
claim to know what JC would say about a myriad of bizarre topics. I
thought this was a power all you Christians have. Knowing JC's position
on issues, that is. So Tink, if you don't know what JC would do, and
you're not willing to hazard a guess, and you're not sure what JC's
teaching are and how they relate to public policy, then I suppose
that's the end of this thread.

Thanks for your input.

frtzw906

Tink says:
=============
Now if I believe that I know what Jesus would do, and I vote for a
particular politician that I say will implement that option, how can
you then complain about my choice, if you on the other hand have no
basis to question my understanding of what Jesus would do.
===============

Because whatever you say, I trust you'll be able to support it with
appropriate biblical passages, citing JC's position on these issues. If
you can't do that, then we're unable to continue this thread.

Thanks,
frtzw906

Tink says:
===========
You say you are not a religious person, that you do not believe in
Jesus, that you don't know Mim in a personal and intimate way, then how
can you know what He would do, or question what I say He would do.
============

Because his teachings are universally known. I don't have to be a
Christian to know how to read. So I'll know if you're trying to BS your
way around the issue.

frtzw90

Tink says:
===========
As far as myself, I ask the question all the time in many situations.
For example the other day I told you about pulling people out of the
traffic......
=============

There you go Tink, now you're getting into the sprit of the question.
Now apply it to public policies like, for example, capital punishment.

This may work after all.

I'm going for cognitive dissonance here, Tink.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink..... AAaaaaarrrrhhhhggggg!!!!

I don't kow why you keep doing this, but it makes no sense. You've
gone
to great lengths to present a scenario that has nothing to do with
the
question I asked.

Let's keep it simple, OK? Let's accept that JC, and you, and I, and
every citizen are subject to civil law. OK? That's a given. And even
if
we feel that the civil is stupid, it's a given. Further, it may not
measure up to a "higher law", it is still a given. Are we agreed on
that?

OK, if we're OK with that, let's turn to the writing of laws, not the
obeying of laws. Can we agree that that's why we elect politicians?
That is, our politician "make" the law. Am I correct?

OK, the question regarding "What would JC do?" has NOTHING to do with
obeying the law. We ask "What would JC do?" when it comes to MAKING
public policy. Once such example might be capital punishment. Think
of
JC as a congressman. Which way would JC vote on this issue.

Please, Tink, let's not discuss whether or not you or JC
would/should/can/must obey civil law. That has nothing to do with the
point being discussed.

frtzw906

Fair enough, Jesus would most likely do now what He did then. He did
not do what the religious/political leaders of his day thought He
would/ could/ should do then. So I expect that we would be surprised
today as well. Then, He recognized the need for civil laws in a society
made up of less than perfect humans, and so I expect that he would
support and vote for laws now, that would regulate the behavior of men
now for the well being, peace, and safty of society at large, with
laws that they could understand and enforce. This may or may not
include capital punishment, depending on the social structure of that
specific society.

There was no attempt then to enforce the higher laws on society at
large, and I do not expect that He would do differently now, at least
not until we are willing to change the nature of society at large,
acknowledge Him not as a politician, but as Lord, and we his subjects
are changed as well at the core of our nature. That has not happened to
date, should in the future, and at that time I would expect to see the
enforcement of the higher law.

By the way was that a foghorn I heard at the first of your last post?
Hopefully the fog is clearing. Though if you had ask your real question
in the first place, I would have been able to answer more directly,
without having to plow thrugh so much other "stuff." But then sometimes
we have to plow to find what we are really asking. I do not know that
you want to be, where you find yourself, after the fog clears, that is
another issue. :)TnT