RE: [TruthTalk] Judgment?
Did Lance send a post? Am I missing posts? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judgment? Have a good weekend Lance. JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?
Izzy in red below. Jonathan, if you can confine yourself to one attack at a time, we will begin with your allegations that President Bush is a pro-abortionist. Yet you are very selective in your facts (as is the Constitutional Party, and Bushs other detractors who selectively use facts to mislead the public). Please see below, and then please apologize to President Bush for your slander. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 12:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY? More stuff on Bush and abortion. Izzy, do you still feel the same way about Bush after reading this? Does abortion really matter to you? And while we are on the subject of abortion, President G.W. Bush signed legislation in 2002 that increased funding for International Family Planning to the tune of $480.5 million making this Republican-led administration the biggest supporter of international baby butchery in U.S. history. That is not to mention the millions of dollars that Bush has approved for America's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. Bush FY2003 Budget Guts International Family Planning Funds NEW: An analysis of the FY2003 Budget Request from Population Action International UN Population Fund Zeroed Out Feb 4 President George W. Bushs Fiscal Year 2003 Budget, released today, envisions a deep, 11% cut in international family planning programs. Last year, Congress appropriated $480.5 million for international family planning, including $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). President Bushs fiscal 2003 budget would cut US international family planning funds to $425 million and envisions no funding for UNFPA, the worlds most far-reaching family planning agency. The Presidents 2003 budget proposes a $115 million increase in funding for the US Agency for International Developments HIV/AIDS programs around the world. In addition, the Administration proposes a $120 million contribution to UNICEF, the UNs advocate for children, and a modest $1 million contribution to UNIFEM, the UN fund for women. The Administrations decision to withhold funding for UNFPA represents a startling reversal not only of legislation passed unanimously in the US Senate and by a 3-to-1 margin in the House, but also of previous Administration policy. In his first budget proposal to Congress, covering fiscal 2002, President Bush requested $25 million in funding for UNFPA. The Administration also approved the release of $21.5 million in fiscal 2001 funds for UNFPA after determining that UNFPA was in compliance with US law. In May, Secretary of State Colin Powell testified to Congress that UNFPA provides critical population assistance to developing countries (testimony before the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee, May 10, 2001). http://www.planetwire.org/details/2265 Recently, many pro-lifers heaped voluminous praise upon Mr. Bush when he decided to withhold a miniscule (by comparison) $34 million in federal funds from UNFPA (a UN abortion agency in China). As usual, Jonathan, you toss aside the good that President Bush has done as if it is nothing. You bias is so obvious. What these ignorant (or deluded) pro-lifers failed to notice was that Bush redirected that $34 million to USAID Child Survival Health Program Fund. This fund includes money for forecasting, purchasing, and supplying contraceptive commodities and other materials necessary for reproductive health programs. In other words, all President Bush did was play the old shell game by taking $34 million from one pro-abortion agency and giving it to another pro-abortion agency. As American Life League President Judy Brown said, These 'contraceptive commodities' are nothing but abortion-inducing chemicals that kill the very children that the fund claims to help. Jonathan Hughes Tuesday April 27, 2004 Printer friendly version Email to a friend Bush Pulls USAID Funds for Reproductive Rights Conference WASHINGTON, April 27, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House has announced a decision to zero-fund the upcoming reproductive rights and global heath Youth and Health: Generation on the Edge conference. The conference, said by the Washington Times to promote a liberal agenda, will feature several pro-abortion groups, as well as MoveOn.org, the anti-Bush campaign that is spending millions to oust U.S. President George W. Bush. A senior government official told the Times Tuesday that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is set to cancel its support of the conference. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which claimed it never agreed to fund the event, criticized conference coordinators Friday for including two divisions of the HHS -- the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Re: [TruthTalk] Judgment?
While we are -- actually "while you are" -- are resting up from the political battles of recent times, allow me these comments about a much more important subject: As each of us continue our search for the perfect biblical model, one that takes into account scriptural commentary, historical presentations (i.e. the Church Fathers), and our personal and modern day bias, we should not leave out of the consideration the very reasons why the biblical model (God's way of saving man) is both necessary and truly righteous. The reasons for the model (God's plan of salvation) is, for me, best illustrated in examples. We have all sinned and continue to fall short of the glory of God is one example -- rooted and grounded not only in scripture but in reality. Finney (with his teaching of holiness perfectionism) thought this not to be an example, failing to admit that such apostolic notions (in this case) were addressed to and described the "faithful." We have the humility of many of the Church Fathers, a humility centered in their comparison of themselves with their God and Father -- the unrighteous with the Righteous. When they chose death as a witness, it was not defiance that emanates from their example -- it is humility and faith and a love of the Company of Companions we call the Trinity. At least, that is what I see. The decision or acceptance of death as a witness of faith is the short track to humility, in my opinion. And then we have those who do not and will never "know better." They are those stunted by unenlightened teaching, superstitions, genuine deftness (for whatever reason) to the gospel message (i.e. the pagan Gentile in Romans, chapter two and the Buddhist in some unnamed island off the coast of India) , diet deficiencies, genetics related stupidity, cultural confusion (i.e. the American Indian and the Crenshaw Ave gang member), emotional instabilities and the very poor living examples of those who do claim the name of our Lord (the adulterous Teacher, the perverted youth counselor, the thief in sheep's clothing, the Christen couch potato who knows better). Here is a very real example: a young man named JJ, a black kid, whose faither leaves him alone with his whoring mother, never to be seen again. The mom, who may not know better herself, goes from one man to another. The boy sees one "father" after another until the experience becomes a numbing way of life. And then, when the boy is 12, his mother gets into one last fight with "her man," packs up her clothing and leaves JJ is left behind, alone and with his new "dad." JJ moves to the streets. He becomes a gang member and discovers a sense of belonging never before experienced. But his life is nowhere and he knows it. A youth pastor moves into the area, preaching the gospel of Christ and the young man falls in love with the righteousness of the pastor. JJ does not know what it is he likes about the situation, but "accepts Christ as his personal savior" and begins to try to make sense of it all. But before he can really get started, he is molested by this pastor. He goes back to the streets, buys a gun and at age 21 is dead - an angry, disappointed and confused young man who never really had a chance. I believe that if your model cannot save that young man -- it is heretical at its core and unworkable as the "plan of salvation." Christ came to seek and save the lost. And wherein that is the claim we all make as ministers of the gospel, that is not what we do. Usually and mostly, we just move populations around. One congregation loses its gifted and highly paid pastor, and -- over time -- many in the congregation go searching for the next big churched experience. Lutherans become "spirit filled." Mormons become Baptists. Catholics are afraid to become anything else -- and none of us make a full time job of ministering to the truly lost and hurting. If they walk into the building, ala Charles Shelton's fantasy character, we might offer them help while preferring to make WWJD wrist bands for the saved. We all need a plan that works when we do not. That is why salvation apart from works is so very necessary. Just a thought a brother, John Smithson
[TruthTalk] the Penny
The Penny You always hear the usual stories of pennies on the sidewalk being good luck, gifts from angels, etc. This is the first time I've ever heard this twist on the story. Gives you something to think about. Several years ago, a friend of mine and her husband were invited to spend the weekend at the husband's employer's home. My friend, Arlene, was nervous about the weekend. The boss was very wealthy, with a fine home on the waterway, and cars costing more than her house. The first day and evening went well, and Arlene was delighted to have this rare glimpse into how the very wealthy live. The husband's employer was quite generous as a host, and took them to the finest restaurants. Arlene knew she would never have the opportunity to indulge in this kind of extravagance again, so was enjoying herself immensely. As the three of them were about to enter an exclusive restaurant that evening, the boss was walking slightly ahead of Arlene and her husband. He stopped suddenly, looking down on the pavement for a long, silent moment. Arlene wondered if she was supposed to pass him. There was nothing on the ground except a single darkened penny that someone had dropped, and a few cigarette butts. Still silent, the man reached down and picked up the penny. He held it up and smiled, then put it in his pocket as if he had found a great treasure. How absurd! What need did this man have for a single penny? Why would he even take the time to stop and pick it up? Throughout dinner, the entire scene nagged at her. Finally, she could stand it no longer. She causally mentioned that her daughter once had a coin collection, and asked if the penny he had found had been of some value. A smile crept across the man's face as he reached into his pocket for the penny and held it out for her to see. She had seen many pennies before! What was the point of this? Look at it. He said. Read what it says. She read the words United States of America. No, not that; read further. One cent? No, keep reading. In God we Trust? Yes! And? And if I trust in God, the name of God is holy, even on a coin. Whenever I find a coin I see that inscription. It is written on every single United States coin, but we never seem to notice it! God drops a message right in front of me telling me to trust Him? Who am I to pass it by? When I see a coin, I pray, I stop to see if my trust IS in God at that moment. I pick the coin up as a response to God; that I do trust in Him. For a short time, at least, I cherish it as if it were gold. I think it is God's way of starting a conversation with me. Lucky for me, God is patient and pennies are plentiful! When I was out shopping today, I found a penny on the sidewalk. I stopped and picked it up, and realized that I had been worrying and fretting in my mind about things I cannot change. I read the words, In God We Trust, and had to laugh. Yes, God, I get the message. It seems that I have been finding an inordinate number of pennies in the last few months, but then, pennies are plentiful! And, God is patient... Have a blessed day!!
RE: [TruthTalk] Judgment?
We all need a plan that works when we do not. That is why salvation apart from works is so very necessary. Just a thought a brother, John Smithson John, You obviously have not heeded my urging to read The Visions of Sandhu Sundar Singh. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?
Enough Izzy (spellcheck wants me to change it to Dizzy. Tee hee). If you are going to try to refute me at least put some effort into it. What I said is that Bush claims to be anti-abortion but in policy does the exact opposite. Your points below prove it again. The first point and perhaps the most important one of this postare the answers to the following questions: Are you honestly willing to look at the facts regarding Bush? Are you reading for understanding or just to refute? If proven that your support for Bush is completely unChristian are you willing to vote for somebody else? If they answer is yes read on. If the answer is no throw away your Bible and drink the Kool-aid. Your post beautifully illustrates my point. In 2002 funding was increased to 480 million. In 2003 it was decreased to 425 million. This money is used for abortions. Whether it is 480 million or 425 million it is an awful (in every sense of the word) lot of money used to promote abortion. In 2002 Bush did give 21 million to the UNFPA. In other words he did support abortion with millions of dollars during his term. That he removed it the next year says nothing as the money was redirected to another abortion agency. So what is your argument again? Do you deny that Bush gave 425 million to the United Nations Population Fund last year? Read the facts. Is the 'good' Bush is doing removing 55 million from one fund? Lets vote for Bush! Do you admit that 425 million used to support and promote abortions is a comfortable amount of money for you? Next point. Bush gave millions to the USAID organization. Your article points out that he only withdrew money for the CONFERENCE (read public relations move). They still got their millions to kill babies. Do you deny this? Read the facts. When you support Bush you are supporting abortion. When you vote for Bush/Kerry you will be voting for millions of dollars going towards killing babies. Sleep well. The proof is in the money. How come you ignored Bush's own claim that he will do nothing to outlaw abortion? How about his definition of abortion? Talk about being selective. How about looking at the partial birth abortion issue? Sickeningly selective. Read the facts. What does it mean to be pro-life to you? Does it mean no abortions, a few abortions for selected cases (health of mother, rape, incest), or close to half a billion dollars worth of promotion and aid to undertake abortion? If you are really against abortion you cannot, I repeat cannot think that voting for Bush (or Kerry)is helping babies. If abortion really mattered to you (i.e. was your single most important issue on your decision of who to vote for) you would vote for a candidate that campaigned with the platform to completely stop abortion. Voting for a platform that says they dislike it but will do nothing about itis hypocrisy. To stop this conversation just sign on the doted line below and send it back to the group. I, Izzy (Linda) support George W Bush in giving nearly half a billion dollars to abortion supportive agencies. I sleep better knowing my taxpaying money and vote helps babies to be murdered. This makes me feel like a Christian. I like being a hypocrite. Abortion makes me feel icky inside but I don't really care enough about it to change my vote. __ We can discuss stem-cell research in a separate post if you like. Be warned though - showing Bush's lies on stem-cell researchis perhaps the simplest thing I could spend my time doing. If you want me to waste the time fire away. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:39 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY? Izzy in red below. Jonathan, if you can confine yourself to one attack at a time, we will begin with your allegations that President Bush is a pro-abortionist. Yet you are very selective in your facts (as is the Constitutional Party, and Bushs other detractors who selectively use facts to mislead the public). Please see below, and then please apologize to President Bush for your slander. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes JonathanSent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 12:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY? More stuff on Bush and abortion. Izzy, do you still feel the same way about Bush after reading this? Does abortion really matter to you? And while we are on the subject of abortion, President G.W. Bush signed legislation in 2002 that increased funding for International Family Planning to the tune of $480.5 million making this Republican-led administration the biggest supporter of international baby butchery in U.S. history. That is not to mention the millions of dollars that Bush has approved for America's largest abortion provider, Planned
Re: [TruthTalk] Judgment?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While we are -- actually "while you are" -- are resting up from the political battles of recent times, allow me these comments about a much more important subject: As each of us continue our search for the perfect biblical model, one that takes into account scriptural commentary, historical presentations (i.e. the Church Fathers), and our personal and modern day bias, we should not leave out of the consideration the very reasons why the biblical model (God's way of saving man) is both necessary and truly righteous. The reasons for the model (God's plan of salvation) is, for me, best illustrated in examples. We have all sinned and continue to fall short of the glory of God is one example -- rooted and grounded not only in scripture but in reality. Finney (with his teaching of holiness perfectionism) thought this not to be an example, failing to admit that such apostolic notions (in this case) were addressed to and described the "faithful." We have the humility of many of the Church Fathers, a humility centered in their comparison of themselves with their God and Father -- the unrighteous with the Righteous. When they chose death as a witness, it was not defiance that emanates from their example -- it is humility and faith and a love of the Company of Companions we call the Trinity. At least, that is what I see. The decision or acceptance of death as a witness of faith is the short track to humility, in my opinion. And then we have those who do not and will never "know better." They are those stunted by unenlightened teaching, superstitions, genuine deftness (for whatever reason) to the gospel message (i.e. the pagan Gentile in Romans, chapter two and the Buddhist in some unnamed island off the coast of India) , diet deficiencies, genetics related stupidity, cultural confusion (i.e. the American Indian and the Crenshaw Ave gang member), emotional instabilities and the very poor living examples of those who do claim the name of our Lord (the adulterous Teacher, the perverted youth counselor, the thief in sheep's clothing, the Christen couch potato who knows better). Here is a very real example: a young man named JJ, a black kid, whose faither leaves him alone with his whoring mother, never to be seen again. The mom, who may not know better herself, goes from one man to another. The boy sees one "father" after another until the experience becomes a numbing way of life. And then, when the boy is 12, his mother gets into one last fight with "her man," packs up her clothing and leaves JJ is left behind, alone and with his new "dad." JJ moves to the streets. He becomes a gang member and discovers a sense of belonging never before experienced. But his life is nowhere and he knows it. A youth pastor moves into the area, preaching the gospel of Christ and the young man falls in love with the righteousness of the pastor. JJ does not know what it is he likes about the situation, but "accepts Christ as his personal savior" and begins to try to make sense of it all. But before he can really get started, he is molested by this pastor. He goes back to the streets, buys a gun and at age 21 is dead - an angry, disappointed and confused young man who never really had a chance. = You were doing pretty good up to this point my brother. The young man has a sad history, but he turned his back on God and returned to the filth and mire he had crawled out of. He not only was not willing to die for Christ; he was not willing to live for Him. If he ever was saved, he voluntarily rejected that salvation in favor of doing his own thing, spelled S-e-l-f. I strongly suspect that he was just as lost as the pervert who tried to molest him in the name of Jesus. Just another seed that sprouted on poor soil with shallow roots. I know that is not very touchy/feely, but the path is narrow. Some (most) stray off it. Terry the heretic. = I believe that if your model cannot save that young man -- it is heretical at its core and unworkable as the "plan of salvation." Christ came to seek and save the lost. And wherein that is the claim we all make as ministers of the gospel, that is not what we do. Usually and mostly, we just move populations around. One congregation loses its gifted and highly paid pastor, and -- over time -- many in the congregation go searching for the next big churched experience. Lutherans become "spirit filled." Mormons become Baptists. Catholics are afraid to become anything else -- and none of us make a full time job of ministering to the truly lost and hurting. If they walk into the building, ala Charles Shelton's fantasy character, we might offer them help while preferring to make WWJD wrist bands for the saved. We all need a plan that works when we do not. That is why salvation apart from works is so very necessary. Just a thought a brother, John
[TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat Subject: Republican or Democrat A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person. The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept 15 for Administrative Fees and gave the homeless person five. Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat wwjd? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:06:04 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: Republican or Democrat ||
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat Hi Izzy, Nice joke. Jokes and stories are nice when one wants to avoid facts. The facts: More people are below the poverty line since Bush took office than before. More poverty, more homeless. This is what conservative compassion is all about. An estimated 850 000 people are homeless in the United States on any given night, according to advocates for the homeless.About 45 million people were without health care insurance for part of 2003, according to a US Census Bureau report published last week.The report showed that since Bush took office in 2001, 4,3 million people have fallen below the poverty line. That brought the number of people living in poverty in 2003 to 35,9 million, or 12,5 percent of the population.Several thousand protesters representing groups called Still We Rise and Housing Works marched to within two blocks of Madison Square Garden accusing Republicans of ignoring the plight of the poor and those living with HIV and Aids."Today's march is about the reality of the Republicans' compassion agenda," said Michael Kink of Housing Works."They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk on AIDS, homelessness and poverty. We have more AIDS, more homelessness and more extreme poverty than we did four years ago." http://news.lp.findlaw.com/politics/s/20040830/campaignprotestsdc.html Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:06 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Subject: Republican or Democrat A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they cameto a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person hisbusiness card and told him to come to his business for a job. He thentook twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homelessperson.The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homelessperson, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person andgave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into theRepublican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept 15 forAdministrative Fees and gave the homeless person five.Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sy rattachant contiennent de linformation confidentielle et privilgie. Si vous ntes pas le destinataire vis, s.v.p. en informer immdiatement son expditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dtruire toute copie (lectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire vis est interdite et peut tre illgale. Merci de votre coopration relativement au message susmentionn.
RE: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm
I do understand where you're coming from, Michael. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of michael douglasSent: Thursday, 23 September, 2004 21.25To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's unbelievable how this concept is not getting through. Let me give an example or two to express my meaning. Jan said to John, "Quit beating around the bush!"Let me ask you a question... Was John ACTUALLY beating around the bush or was he verbally not getting to the point? Slade said, "I'm all ears!" Is Slade a walking pair of ears or is he listening intently? A visual will help with that answer, Slade.. :-) GOT IT? Anyway, that would be bad in a situation where the 'eyes' (aye's) have it!!! Oh, oh,I guess I'm getting 'corny' here... sorry guys Michael D: Hey Slade, I guess If I had use text as huge as yours above in my clarification on the idioms e-mail, you would not have had to indulge... Anyway I will try and repeat for you. I do use idioms and colloquialisms etc, but I am careful to avoid ones, or terms in them, that embody concepts contrary to my position and covenant in Christ (I'll resist the urge to enlarge that statement :-)) Does that make sense, Slade? Again, I will not say that some part of my body, or anything for that matter, is killing me. That's careless speech. I don't want to release that concept in reference to myself. That's the enemy's playground. I seek to avoid terms like I am 'sick' of something/someone, or that someone makes me sick. Again, that is releasing raw material into the spirit realm that references me contrary to my covenant in Christ. The enemy seeks to enforce those things. 'Beating around the bush' does not reference contrary to Christ's covenant (as far as I can tell) so I might say that. Can you see a difference there? The principle is that our words, particularly when repeated over time, cut a track for the enemy to run on. They cangive him licence to operate. As Proverbs says, they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof. I won't impose another example on you folks, but I have seen the most innocuous utterances repeated over time do have big consequences.
RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY? Enough Izzy (spellcheck wants me to change it to Dizzy. Tee hee). If you are going to try to refute me at least put some effort into it. What I said is that Bush claims to be anti-abortion but in policy does the exact opposite. Your points below prove it again. The first point and perhaps the most important one of this postare the answers to the following questions: Are you honestly willing to look at the facts regarding Bush? Are you reading for understanding or just to refute? If proven that your support for Bush is completely unChristian are you willing to vote for somebody else? If they answer is yes read on. If the answer is no throw away your Bible and drink the Kool-aid. Your post beautifully illustrates my point. In 2002 funding was increased to 480 million. In 2003 it was decreased to 425 million. This money is used for abortions. Whether it is 480 million or 425 million it is an awful (in every sense of the word) lot of money used to promote abortion. In 2002 Bush did give 21 million to the UNFPA. In other words he did support abortion with millions of dollars during his term. That he removed it the next year says nothing as the money was redirected to another abortion agency. So what is your argument again? Do you deny that Bush gave 425 million to the United Nations Population Fund last year? Read the facts.President Bushs fiscal 2003 budget would cut US international family planning funds to $425 million and envisions no funding for UNFPA, the worlds most far-reaching family planning agency. JONATHAN I READ A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER PROJECTS THERE SUCH AS TREATING AIDS, ETC. IGNORE THAT AS USUAL. Is the 'good' Bush is doing removing 55 million from one fund? Lets vote for Bush! Do you admit that 425 million used to support and promote abortions is a comfortable amount of money for you? ALL YOU DO IS PROVIDE ALLEGATIONS AND SLANDERS W/O ANY PROOF. WHERE IS YOUR RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH??? Next point. Bush gave millions to the USAID organization. Your article points out that he only withdrew money for the CONFERENCE (read public relations move). They still got their millions to kill babies. Do you deny this? Read the facts.WHILE YOU ARE DOING YOUR RESEARCH YOU WILL FIND THAT BUSH IS REDIRECTING US FUNDS AWAY FROM ABORTION AND INTO MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR IMPOVERISHED COUNTRIES. WHILE YOU ARE RESEARCHING: WHAT GOOD IS CANADA DOING ANYWHERE? WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT CANADIAN ABORTIONS? AND WHY DONT YOU MYOB WHEN IT COMES TO AMERICA? When you support Bush you are supporting abortion. When you vote for Bush/Kerry you will be voting for millions of dollars going towards killing babies. Sleep well. The proof is in the money. How come you ignored Bush's own claim that he will do nothing to outlaw abortion? How about his definition of abortion? Talk about being selective. How about looking at the partial birth abortion issue? Sickeningly selective. Read the facts.YOU ARE JUST AS BLIND AS YOU CLAIM OTHERS ARE. READ THEM YOURSELF. YOU HAVE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR SICKENINGLY SELECTIVE VIEWPOINT. THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION MAKES ME FEEL DISGUSTED. HAVE A GOOD TIME ACTING LIKE KERRY: NOTHING BUT BAD NEWS FROM YOU. GET A LIFE. IZZY What does it mean to be pro-life to you? Does it mean no abortions, a few abortions for selected cases (health of mother, rape, incest), or close to half a billion dollars worth of promotion and aid to undertake abortion? If you are really against abortion you cannot, I repeat cannot think that voting for Bush (or Kerry)is helping babies. If abortion really mattered to you (i.e. was your single most important issue on your decision of who to vote for) you would vote for a candidate that campaigned with the platform to completely stop abortion. Voting for a platform that says they dislike it but will do nothing about itis hypocrisy. To stop this conversation just sign on the doted line below and send it back to the group. I, Izzy (Linda) support George W Bush in giving nearly half a billion dollars to abortion supportive agencies. I sleep better knowing my taxpaying money and vote helps babies to be murdered. This makes me feel like a Christian. I like being a hypocrite. Abortion makes me feel icky inside but I don't really care enough about it to change my vote. __ We can discuss stem-cell research in a separate post if you like. Be warned though - showing Bush's lies on stem-cell researchis perhaps the simplest thing I could spend my time doing. If you want me to waste the time fire away. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat Oh here we go on yet another tirade against Bush. You just cannot stick to one subject before you start bouncing off the walls on several tangents. What would you do for a life if you couldnt bash President Bush? Fortunately for me, I have better things to do. Enjoy yourself. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Hi Izzy, Nice joke. Jokes and stories are nice when one wants to avoid facts. The facts: More people are below the poverty line since Bush took office than before. More poverty, more homeless. This is what conservative compassion is all about. An estimated 850 000 people are homeless in the United States on any given night, according to advocates for the homeless. About 45 million people were without health care insurance for part of 2003, according to a US Census Bureau report published last week. The report showed that since Bush took office in 2001, 4,3 million people have fallen below the poverty line. That brought the number of people living in poverty in 2003 to 35,9 million, or 12,5 percent of the population. Several thousand protesters representing groups called Still We Rise and Housing Works marched to within two blocks of Madison Square Garden accusing Republicans of ignoring the plight of the poor and those living with HIV and Aids. Today's march is about the reality of the Republicans' compassion agenda, said Michael Kink of Housing Works. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk on AIDS, homelessness and poverty. We have more AIDS, more homelessness and more extreme poverty than we did four years ago. http://news.lp.findlaw.com/politics/s/20040830/campaignprotestsdc.html Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Subject: Republican or Democrat A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person. The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept 15 for Administrative Fees and gave the homeless person five. Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sy rattachant contiennent de linformation confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous nêtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné.
RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns
This is the wrong way to look at it, Izzy. You cannot blame someone for obeying their God-given conscience by voting what is right. One person I work with said he was going to vote for the lesser of two evils... and that's exactly what he's going to vote for: EVIL. Granted a LESSER evil but evil nonetheless. Sometimes we believers must venture out on the path less traveled. You're telling Kay that she's foolish (perhaps not in those words but the message is loud and clear) for NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. If people would quit reacting in FEAR and vote according to righteousness, we would actually see a change in this country.Step out in righteousness so we CAN see some positive change. Please stop trying to change our worldview through this common fear tactic. It's time to say, "Get thee behind me, Satan." -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Thursday, 23 September, 2004 09.16To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns I still say that if you dont vote for Bush and we end up with Kerry the ONUS is on YOU!!! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:22 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Four years ago, I had no idea how the "system" works, Izzy. I know now the system is broken and corrupt. If I had known Floridians would have been so confused, I probably still would not have voted because I didn't know we were in such trouble. Since I've been in Florida the past 14 months, I think it's due to the heat and sun. :) It's my understanding that a vote for the CP party won't be wasted. There was a very good article on the site regarding wasting/wasted votes that made a lot of sense to me. I'm still working on whether I'm being buffaloed by it or not. The logic makes sense. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, 22 September, 2004 23.36To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Kay, Im so happy to hear that you are finally realizing how important your vote is to the future of our children and all of society. If you had known how close the election was going to be last time in Florida, would you have voted for Bush then? Do you realize it may be exactly that close again this year? And do you realize that a vote for whoever the CP candidate is might as well be a vote for Mickey Mouse for all the good it will do? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat who would crucify him for that? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:29:03 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He would vote Republican, obviously. Must you ask? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:23 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat wwjd? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:06:04 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: Republican or Democrat || G ~ P 235
RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns
Slade, my post below was a JOKE. I crack up every time Jonathan puts the ONUS on me, and thought Id just pass it on. Lets keep our senses of humor. Although I think a vote for a loser is a wasted vote, I respect Kays desire to do what is right. I havent heard from her why she thinks voting for Bush is not right, but thats fine, too. BTW, will you and Kay be celebrating (wrong word, I know) Yom Kippur? If so, how? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns This is the wrong way to look at it, Izzy. You cannot blame someone for obeying their God-given conscience by voting what is right. One person I work with said he was going to vote for the lesser of two evils... and that's exactly what he's going to vote for: EVIL. Granted a LESSER evil but evil nonetheless. Sometimes we believers must venture out on the path less traveled. You're telling Kay that she's foolish (perhaps not in those words but the message is loud and clear) for NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. If people would quit reacting in FEAR and vote according to righteousness, we would actually see a change in this country.Step out in righteousness so we CAN see some positive change. Please stop trying to change our worldview through this common fear tactic. It's time to say, Get thee behind me, Satan. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Thursday, 23 September, 2004 09.16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns I still say that if you dont vote for Bush and we end up with Kerry the ONUS is on YOU!!! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Four years ago, I had no idea how the system works, Izzy. I know now the system is broken and corrupt. If I had known Floridians would have been so confused, I probably still would not have voted because I didn't know we were in such trouble. Since I've been in Florida the past 14 months, I think it's due to the heat and sun. :) It's my understanding that a vote for the CP party won't be wasted. There was a very good article on the site regarding wasting/wasted votes that made a lot of sense to me. I'm still working on whether I'm being buffaloed by it or not. The logic makes sense. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, 22 September, 2004 23.36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Kay, Im so happy to hear that you are finally realizing how important your vote is to the future of our children and all of society. If you had known how close the election was going to be last time in Florida, would you have voted for Bush then? Do you realize it may be exactly that close again this year? And do you realize that a vote for whoever the CP candidate is might as well be a vote for Mickey Mouse for all the good it will do? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns
Sorry to have misinterpreted your post. Some of the reasons she thinks Bush is deficient have been posted on this newsgroup. Yes. We begin Yom Kippur this evening. It IS a celebration... once it's over. It's rather... cleansing and that's where the celebrity is. We follow the biblical pattern. We deny ourselves with a fast. We will go to Synagogue this evening (the Kol Nidre service combined with Shabbat) but I will not return for the Morning Service nor the concluding Neilah Service as the Day concludes. We will break fast as a family. Four days later will be the beginning of the Season of our Joy... the Feat of Tabernacles (Sukkot)! That's my favorite time of year. (One year I was able to celebrate it twice -- one lunar month apart -- because two groups were using different calendar renderings.) -- slade P.s. What's a ONUS? - slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, 24 September, 2004 17.14To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Slade, my post below was a JOKE. I crack up every time Jonathan puts the ONUS on me, and thought Id just pass it on. Lets keep our senses of humor. Although I think a vote for a loser is a wasted vote, I respect Kays desire to do what is right. I havent heard from her why she thinks voting for Bush is not right, but thats fine, too. BTW, will you and Kay be celebrating (wrong word, I know) Yom Kippur? If so, how? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:34 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns This is the wrong way to look at it, Izzy. You cannot blame someone for obeying their God-given conscience by voting what is right. One person I work with said he was going to vote for the lesser of two evils... and that's exactly what he's going to vote for: EVIL. Granted a LESSER evil but evil nonetheless. Sometimes we believers must venture out on the path less traveled. You're telling Kay that she's foolish (perhaps not in those words but the message is loud and clear) for NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. If people would quit reacting in FEAR and vote according to righteousness, we would actually see a change in this country.Step out in righteousness so we CAN see some positive change. Please stop trying to change our worldview through this common fear tactic. It's time to say, "Get thee behind me, Satan." -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Thursday, 23 September, 2004 09.16To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns I still say that if you dont vote for Bush and we end up with Kerry the ONUS is on YOU!!! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:22 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Four years ago, I had no idea how the "system" works, Izzy. I know now the system is broken and corrupt. If I had known Floridians would have been so confused, I probably still would not have voted because I didn't know we were in such trouble. Since I've been in Florida the past 14 months, I think it's due to the heat and sun. :) It's my understanding that a vote for the CP party won't be wasted. There was a very good article on the site regarding wasting/wasted votes that made a lot of sense to me. I'm still working on whether I'm being buffaloed by it or not. The logic makes sense. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, 22 September, 2004 23.36To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Kay, Im so happy to hear that you are finally realizing how important your vote is to the future of our children and all of society. If you had known how close the election was going to be last time in Florida, would you have voted for Bush then? Do you realize it may be exactly that close again this year? And do you realize that a vote for whoever the CP candidate is might as well be a vote for Mickey Mouse for all the good it will do? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns
Im cracking up againwho knows what an ONUS is? It sounds like something really diabolical. The curse of the Canadians? Izzy PS Why do you observe Yom Kippur? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Sorry to have misinterpreted your post. Some of the reasons she thinks Bush is deficient have been posted on this newsgroup. Yes. We begin Yom Kippur this evening. It IS a celebration... once it's over. It's rather... cleansing and that's where the celebrity is. We follow the biblical pattern. We deny ourselves with a fast. We will go to Synagogue this evening (the Kol Nidre service combined with Shabbat) but I will not return for the Morning Service nor the concluding Neilah Service as the Day concludes. We will break fast as a family. Four days later will be the beginning of the Season of our Joy... the Feat of Tabernacles (Sukkot)! That's my favorite time of year. (One year I was able to celebrate it twice -- one lunar month apart -- because two groups were using different calendar renderings.) -- slade P.s. What's a ONUS? - slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, 24 September, 2004 17.14 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Slade, my post below was a JOKE. I crack up every time Jonathan puts the ONUS on me, and thought Id just pass it on. Lets keep our senses of humor. Although I think a vote for a loser is a wasted vote, I respect Kays desire to do what is right. I havent heard from her why she thinks voting for Bush is not right, but thats fine, too. BTW, will you and Kay be celebrating (wrong word, I know) Yom Kippur? If so, how? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns This is the wrong way to look at it, Izzy. You cannot blame someone for obeying their God-given conscience by voting what is right. One person I work with said he was going to vote for the lesser of two evils... and that's exactly what he's going to vote for: EVIL. Granted a LESSER evil but evil nonetheless. Sometimes we believers must venture out on the path less traveled. You're telling Kay that she's foolish (perhaps not in those words but the message is loud and clear) for NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. If people would quit reacting in FEAR and vote according to righteousness, we would actually see a change in this country.Step out in righteousness so we CAN see some positive change. Please stop trying to change our worldview through this common fear tactic. It's time to say, Get thee behind me, Satan. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Thursday, 23 September, 2004 09.16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns I still say that if you dont vote for Bush and we end up with Kerry the ONUS is on YOU!!! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Four years ago, I had no idea how the system works, Izzy. I know now the system is broken and corrupt. If I had known Floridians would have been so confused, I probably still would not have voted because I didn't know we were in such trouble. Since I've been in Florida the past 14 months, I think it's due to the heat and sun. :) It's my understanding that a vote for the CP party won't be wasted. There was a very good article on the site regarding wasting/wasted votes that made a lot of sense to me. I'm still working on whether I'm being buffaloed by it or not. The logic makes sense. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, 22 September, 2004 23.36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Kay, Im so happy to hear that you are finally realizing how important your vote is to the future of our children and all of society. If you had known how close the election was going to be last time in Florida, would you have voted for Bush then? Do you realize it may be exactly that close again this year? And do you realize that a vote for whoever the CP candidate is might as well be a vote for Mickey Mouse for all the good it will do? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat Jonathan. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat who would crucify him for that? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:29:03 -0500 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He would vote Republican, obviously. Must you ask? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat wwjd? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:06:04 -0500 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: Republican or Democrat || G ~ P 235
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat I can't resistthis is hysterical. I'm cracking up laughing Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, 24 September, 2004 17.58To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Jonathan. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:14 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat who would crucify him for that? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:29:03 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He would vote Republican, obviously. Must you ask? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:23 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat wwjd? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:06:04 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: Republican or Democrat || G ~ P 235
RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns
I believe it would be the third definition in the way it was used... onus (P)Pronunciation Key(ns)n. A difficult or disagreeable responsibility or necessity; a burden or obligation. A stigma. Blame. The burden of proof: The onus was on the defense attorney. Kay Slade says: Leviticus 23 says that it is part of God's calendar. If it's on His, it certainly should be on mine. --slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, 24 September, 2004 18.00To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Im cracking up againwho knows what an ONUS is? It sounds like something really diabolical. The curse of the Canadians? Izzy PS Why do you observe Yom Kippur? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:43 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Sorry to have misinterpreted your post. Some of the reasons she thinks Bush is deficient have been posted on this newsgroup. Yes. We begin Yom Kippur this evening. It IS a celebration... once it's over. It's rather... cleansing and that's where the celebrity is. We follow the biblical pattern. We deny ourselves with a fast. We will go to Synagogue this evening (the Kol Nidre service combined with Shabbat) but I will not return for the Morning Service nor the concluding Neilah Service as the Day concludes. We will break fast as a family. Four days later will be the beginning of the Season of our Joy... the Feat of Tabernacles (Sukkot)! That's my favorite time of year. (One year I was able to celebrate it twice -- one lunar month apart -- because two groups were using different calendar renderings.) -- slade P.s. What's a ONUS? - slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, 24 September, 2004 17.14To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Slade, my post below was a JOKE. I crack up every time Jonathan puts the ONUS on me, and thought Id just pass it on. Lets keep our senses of humor. Although I think a vote for a loser is a wasted vote, I respect Kays desire to do what is right. I havent heard from her why she thinks voting for Bush is not right, but thats fine, too. BTW, will you and Kay be celebrating (wrong word, I know) Yom Kippur? If so, how? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:34 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns This is the wrong way to look at it, Izzy. You cannot blame someone for obeying their God-given conscience by voting what is right. One person I work with said he was going to vote for the lesser of two evils... and that's exactly what he's going to vote for: EVIL. Granted a LESSER evil but evil nonetheless. Sometimes we believers must venture out on the path less traveled. You're telling Kay that she's foolish (perhaps not in those words but the message is loud and clear) for NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. If people would quit reacting in FEAR and vote according to righteousness, we would actually see a change in this country.Step out in righteousness so we CAN see some positive change. Please stop trying to change our worldview through this common fear tactic. It's time to say, "Get thee behind me, Satan." -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Thursday, 23 September, 2004 09.16To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns I still say that if you dont vote for Bush and we end up with Kerry the ONUS is on YOU!!! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:22 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Four years ago, I had no idea how the "system" works, Izzy. I know now the system is broken and corrupt. If I had known Floridians would have been so confused, I probably still would not have voted because I didn't know we were in such trouble. Since I've been in Florida the past 14 months, I think it's due to the heat and sun. :) It's my understanding that a vote for the CP party won't be wasted. There was a very good
RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns
Kay, I think the new living definition is a diabolical Canadian curse. Izzy PS Ask Slade why believers in Christ should observe Yom Kippur. Im not disagreeingjust wondering how we can observe and benefit . From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns I believe it would be the third definition in the way it was used... onus (P)Pronunciation Key(ns) n. A difficult or disagreeable responsibility or necessity; a burden or obligation. A stigma. Blame. The burden of proof: The onus was on the defense attorney. Kay Slade says: Leviticus 23 says that it is part of God's calendar. If it's on His, it certainly should be on mine. --slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, 24 September, 2004 18.00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Im cracking up againwho knows what an ONUS is? It sounds like something really diabolical. The curse of the Canadians? Izzy PS Why do you observe Yom Kippur? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Sorry to have misinterpreted your post. Some of the reasons she thinks Bush is deficient have been posted on this newsgroup. Yes. We begin Yom Kippur this evening. It IS a celebration... once it's over. It's rather... cleansing and that's where the celebrity is. We follow the biblical pattern. We deny ourselves with a fast. We will go to Synagogue this evening (the Kol Nidre service combined with Shabbat) but I will not return for the Morning Service nor the concluding Neilah Service as the Day concludes. We will break fast as a family. Four days later will be the beginning of the Season of our Joy... the Feat of Tabernacles (Sukkot)! That's my favorite time of year. (One year I was able to celebrate it twice -- one lunar month apart -- because two groups were using different calendar renderings.) -- slade P.s. What's a ONUS? - slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, 24 September, 2004 17.14 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Slade, my post below was a JOKE. I crack up every time Jonathan puts the ONUS on me, and thought Id just pass it on. Lets keep our senses of humor. Although I think a vote for a loser is a wasted vote, I respect Kays desire to do what is right. I havent heard from her why she thinks voting for Bush is not right, but thats fine, too. BTW, will you and Kay be celebrating (wrong word, I know) Yom Kippur? If so, how? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns This is the wrong way to look at it, Izzy. You cannot blame someone for obeying their God-given conscience by voting what is right. One person I work with said he was going to vote for the lesser of two evils... and that's exactly what he's going to vote for: EVIL. Granted a LESSER evil but evil nonetheless. Sometimes we believers must venture out on the path less traveled. You're telling Kay that she's foolish (perhaps not in those words but the message is loud and clear) for NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. If people would quit reacting in FEAR and vote according to righteousness, we would actually see a change in this country.Step out in righteousness so we CAN see some positive change. Please stop trying to change our worldview through this common fear tactic. It's time to say, Get thee behind me, Satan. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Thursday, 23 September, 2004 09.16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns I still say that if you dont vote for Bush and we end up with Kerry the ONUS is on YOU!!! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Concerns Four years ago, I had no idea how the system works, Izzy. I know now the system is broken and corrupt. If I had known Floridians would have been so confused, I probably still would not have voted because I didn't know we were in such trouble. Since I've been in Florida the past 14 months, I think it's due to the heat and sun. :) It's my understanding that a vote for the CP party won't be wasted. There was a very good
RE: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm
Michael D: I'm relieved to see that. This area is to volatile to take lightly. Anyway, another storm threat is looming over the U.S. Florida again is in the firing line according to latest forcasts. How tough a prospect for you folks out there. I remember sharing some weeks ago that the Lord showed me that the reason the authority over weather was being discussed on TT at this time was that folks would need to have that insight to deal with the things coming their way. That was after Charley. Never did I imagine that what has transpired so far is what He was trying to prepare folks for. I know that we've had alot of back and forth opinions about this area, but I want to reiterate the message. Folks have to take up the fight with authority and faith over their own backyard. I encourage you folks up north to resist the elements and speak death to the system, forbidding it from affecting you. If light comes and we don't walk in it we are left only with darkness, Jesus said. God has brought help. Folks should rise up and avail themselves of it. In all that has happened, God has been merciful in response to the fight of His people. I will continue to join the battle with you folks, but the coalition of the willing must stand up and be counted for their land, not forgetting to inteercede for those who are lost in the process that they might come to light. I know some folks have said that they don't believe in this stuff. Well, that's why I've shared volumes of my life experiences with you all that you may know that this is real. Is it that folks don't believe what I am saying and think I am making this stuff up? I have used many passages of scripture to support what I have been sharing. I feel like I've piped to a people all the day long... My hope is that folks will hear, and as Judy eloquently offered,press throughto the next level. It's not necessarily going to be perfect the first time or second ... but God expects us to grow from faith to faith and from glory to glory. One thing I don't want is to get stuck in the same level of faith and glory that former generations had. I want to press deep into the next level of exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think. God allows the challenges and threats ofcrises so that He can bring us there. Without it, most if not all of us would not press into it. So can we rally the troops one more time for a greatere measure of grace in God's inteervention with this threat. Again, a firm point of agreement will be important. Any takers? Will anyone seriously agree that that God turns the storm away from the U.S. coast and have it dissipate in the sea? If not, then an alternative.Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do understand where you're coming from, Michael. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of michael douglasSent: Thursday, 23 September, 2004 21.25To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's unbelievable how this concept is not getting through. Let me give an example or two to express my meaning. Jan said to John, "Quit beating around the bush!"Let me ask you a question... Was John ACTUALLY beating around the bush or was he verbally not getting to the point? Slade said, "I'm all ears!" Is Slade a walking pair of ears or is he listening intently? A visual will help with that answer, Slade.. :-) GOT IT? Anyway, that would be bad in a situation where the 'eyes' (aye's) have it!!! Oh, oh,I guess I'm getting 'corny' here... sorry guys Michael D: Hey Slade, I guess If I had use text as huge as yours above in my clarification on the idioms e-mail, you would not have had to indulge... Anyway I will try and repeat for you. I do use idioms and colloquialisms etc, but I am careful to avoid ones, or terms in them, that embody concepts contrary to my position and covenant in Christ (I'll resist the urge to enlarge that statement :-)) Does that make sense, Slade? Again, I will not say that some part of my body, or anything for that matter, is killing me. That's careless speech. I don't want to release that concept in reference to myself. That's the enemy's playground. I seek to avoid terms like I am 'sick' of something/someone, or that someone makes me sick. Again, that is releasing raw material into the spirit realm that references me contrary to my covenant in Christ. The enemy seeks to enforce those things. 'Beating around the bush' does not reference contrary to Christ's covenant (as far as I can tell) so I might say that. Can you see a difference there? The principle is that our words, particularly when repeated over time, cut a track for the enemy to run on. They cangive him licence to operate. As Proverbs says, they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof. I won't impose another example on you folks, but I have seen the most innocuous utterances repeated over time do have big consequences. ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger -
RE: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm
Michael D, I will accept your challenge. I will pray and fast (while observing Yom Kippur) for Florida, as well as something else I am requesting of the Lord personally. I enjoy resting on the Sabbath as I allow my body to rest from digestion. I enjoy rest from thinking about worldly things and thinking about the things of the Lord. A good time for prayer! Will anyone else on TT believe with Michael and me to rebuke the hurricane approaching Florida? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of michael douglas Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm Michael D: I'm relieved to see that. This area is to volatile to take lightly. Anyway, another storm threat is looming over the U.S. Florida again is in the firing line according to latest forcasts. How tough a prospect for you folks out there. I remember sharing some weeks ago that the Lord showed me that the reason the authority over weather was being discussed on TT at this time was that folks would need to have that insight to deal with the things coming their way. That was after Charley. Never did I imagine that what has transpired so far is what He was trying to prepare folks for. I know that we've had alot of back and forth opinions about this area, but I want to reiterate the message. Folks have to take up the fight with authority and faith over their own backyard. I encourage you folks up north to resist the elements and speak death to the system, forbidding it from affecting you. If light comes and we don't walk in it we are left only with darkness, Jesus said. God has brought help. Folks should rise up and avail themselves of it. In all that has happened, God has been merciful in response to the fight of His people. I will continue to join the battle with you folks, but the coalition of the willing must stand up and be counted for their land, not forgetting to inteercede for those who are lost in the process that they might come to light. I know some folks have said that they don't believe in this stuff. Well, that's why I've shared volumes of my life experiences with you all that you may know that this is real. Is it that folks don't believe what I am saying and think I am making this stuff up? I have used many passages of scripture to support what I have been sharing. I feel like I've piped to a people all the day long... My hope is that folks will hear, and as Judy eloquently offered,press throughto the next level. It's not necessarily going to be perfect the first time or second ... but God expects us to grow from faith to faith and from glory to glory. One thing I don't want is to get stuck in the same level of faith and glory that former generations had. I want to press deep into the next level of exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think. God allows the challenges and threats ofcrises so that He can bring us there. Without it, most if not all of us would not press into it. So can we rally the troops one more time for a greatere measure of grace in God's inteervention with this threat. Again, a firm point of agreement will be important. Any takers? Will anyone seriously agree that that God turns the storm away from the U.S. coast and have it dissipate in the sea? If not, then an alternative. Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do understand where you're coming from, Michael. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of michael douglas Sent: Thursday, 23 September, 2004 21.25 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's unbelievable how this concept is not getting through. Let me give an example or two to express my meaning. Jan said to John, Quit beating around the bush!Let me ask you a question... Was John ACTUALLY beating around the bush or was he verbally not getting to the point? Slade said, I'm all ears! Is Slade a walking pair of ears or is he listening intently? A visual will help with that answer, Slade.. :-) GOT IT? Anyway, that would be bad in a situation where the 'eyes' (aye's) have it!!! Oh, oh,I guess I'm getting 'corny' here... sorry guys Michael D: Hey Slade, I guess If I had use text as huge as yours above in my clarification on the idioms e-mail, you would not have had to indulge... Anyway I will try and repeat for you. I do use idioms and colloquialisms etc, but I am careful to avoid ones, or terms in them, that embody concepts contrary to my position and covenant in Christ (I'll resist the urge to enlarge that statement :-)) Does that make sense, Slade? Again, I will not say that some part of my body, or anything for that matter, is killing me. That's careless speech. I don't want to release that concept in reference to myself. That's the enemy's playground. I seek to avoid
Re: [TruthTalk] Judgment?
In a message dated 9/24/2004 6:31:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, You obviously have not heeded my urging to read The Visions of Sandhu Sundar Singh. Izzy Sorry. I just thought you were kidding. If serious, where do I find this publication. John Boy
Re: [TruthTalk] Judgment?
In a message dated 9/24/2004 10:59:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You were doing pretty good up to this point my brother. The young man has a sad history, but he turned his back on God and returned to the filth and mire he had crawled out of. He not only was not willing to die for Christ; he was not willing to live for Him. If he ever was saved, he voluntarily rejected that salvation in favor of doing his own thing, spelled S-e-l-f. I strongly suspect that he was just as lost as the pervert who tried to molest him in the name of Jesus. Just another seed that sprouted on poor soil with shallow roots. I know that is not very touchy/feely, but the path is narrow. Some (most) stray off it. Terry the heretic. Now, don't go personal on me. Allow me to defend the above picture. For starters, he is a or was a real person. Secondly, his acceptance of Christ was associated with his picture of the youth counselor. The two realities were tied together. When molested, he considered it to be a testimony of the truth of gospel and that testimony was a negative one. This is a kid who has no educational background, is not trained to think but to only react, was a babe in Christ with a capital B. He did not reject the true gospel -- only the one presented to him. If he, indeed, rejected the truth, then things are not good for him. But only God knows the answer to this question. I did not mean to imply or argue that he was saved. My point is that we really do not know. God could take this young man's varied and negative circumstance into account and gve him a place with him through the sacrifice of Christ or allow his separation to continue. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/24/2004 1:24:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An estimated 850 000 people are homeless in the United States on any given night, according to advocates for the homeless. These people are provided for -- at least here in Fresno. This number indicates nothing of any real consequence. If so what? About 45 million people were without health care insurance for part of 2003, according to a US Census Bureau report published last week. Understand that this figure is one which relates to private health care insurance. Somewhere around 19 million of this 45 million total are children fully covered in the community health care system. In California, it is against the law to turn away a child who has come to the hospital for health care. Another 15 million of this 45 million total are those who moved from one job to another, loosing their insurance but only for a time. The actual number of those who have no coverage is 11 million -- and that does need to be given some attention. The report showed that since Bush took office in 2001, 4,3 million people have fallen below the poverty line. That brought the number of people living in poverty in 2003 to 35,9 million, or 12,5 percent of the population. Nearly all of these people are young people in their 20's or younger and uneducated or untrained for better paying jobs. It is a transitory number -- the number remaining somewhat constant while most of the particular individuals, in time, move out of this total. My youngest daughter and her husband live on around $10,000 per year. She owns a new car. All of the furniture inside their very small home is new. They have a child -- four months old. Things are good for them. The fact that money is lean, that they are below the "poverty line," is not the problem. The problem is money management -- not poverty. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/24/2004 2:59:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jonathan. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat who would crucify him for that? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:29:03 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He would vote Republican, obviously. Must you ask? Izzy Ok -- you got a laugh out of me on this one. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Hughes Jonathan wrote: FW: Republican or Democrat Hi Izzy, Nice joke. Jokes and stories are nice when one wants to avoid facts. The facts: More people are below the poverty line since Bush took office than before. More poverty, more homeless. This is what conservative compassion is all about. An estimated 850 000 people are homeless in the United States on any given night, according to advocates for the homeless. About 45 million people were without health care insurance for part of 2003, according to a US Census Bureau report published last week. The report showed that since Bush took office in 2001, 4,3 million people have fallen below the poverty line. That brought the number of people living in poverty in 2003 to 35,9 million, or 12,5 percent of the population. Several thousand protesters representing groups called Still We Rise and Housing Works marched to within two blocks of Madison Square Garden accusing Republicans of ignoring the plight of the poor and those living with HIV and Aids. "Today's march is about the reality of the Republicans' compassion agenda," said Michael Kink of Housing Works. "They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk on AIDS, homelessness and poverty. We have more AIDS, more homelessness and more extreme poverty than we did four years ago." === Poverty can be traced to dishonesty and greed on the part of employers, or it can be traced to lazyness on the part of an indiviidual. Most people who have AIDS cannot blame the republicans and should not hold government responsible for their poor moral standards. Most homeless, including some relatives of mine, fall into a somewhat similar situation. If you don't work, you don't eat. I read that last line somewhere. Oh yeah, the Bible. mean spirited Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Judgment?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/24/2004 10:59:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You were doing pretty good up to this point my brother. The young man has a sad history, but he turned his back on God and returned to the filth and mire he had crawled out of. He not only was not willing to die for Christ; he was not willing to live for Him. If he ever was saved, he voluntarily rejected that salvation in favor of doing his own thing, spelled S-e-l-f. I strongly suspect that he was just as lost as the pervert who tried to molest him in the name of Jesus. Just another seed that sprouted on poor soil with shallow roots. I know that is not very touchy/feely, but the path is narrow. Some (most) stray off it. Terry the heretic. Now, don't go personal on me. Allow me to defend the above picture. For starters, he is a or was a real person. Secondly, his acceptance of Christ was associated with his picture of the youth counselor. The two realities were tied together. When molested, he considered it to be a testimony of the truth of gospel and that testimony was a negative one. This is a kid who has no educational background, is not trained to think but to only react, was a babe in Christ with a capital B. He did not reject the true gospel -- only the one presented to him. If he, indeed, rejected the truth, then things are not good for him. But only God knows the answer to this question. I did not mean to imply or argue that he was saved. My point is that we really do not know. God could take this young man's varied and negative circumstance into account and gve him a place with him through the sacrifice of Christ or allow his separation to continue. John Brother John, no one in this world hopes that Jesus is far more forgiving than His Word would indicate than yours truly. My son was killed in 1985, and I do not know where his spirit resides at this time. All I know is that wherever my son is spending eternity, God did what was right. The same can be said of this young man. While amazing grace abounds throughout the Word, the fact remains that God gave us a knowledge of good and evil the moment Eve ate the fruit, and we are all accountable to God even if we don't know His name. For those who have heard, eternal punishment awaits those who call Him Lord but do not do as He says. Sorry to have misunderstood you. Terry
