Fru

That's an interesting thought. I find using the Japanese Internment camps as justification for an illegal, unconstitutional Muslim registry to be deplorable, reprehensible and subhuman. I also find mocking the disabled, saying people can't do their job because of their heritage, saying you would date your own daughter if you could, bragging about sexual assault, putting a white nationalist as chief strategist and a man that has a long history of racist policies as attorney general, among a plethora of other things, to also be deplorable, reprehensible and subhuman. Teaching your children that people should be kind to each other no matter who you are, even if you're the president, sounds like a pretty decent idea to me.

I feel more confident in a surgery from Scott Strasburger than I do in Ryker Fyfe leading NU to a victory.

Shocking. Electing a man that has a white nationalist as his Chief Strategist and a surrogate proposing a Muslim Registry a la Japanese Internment. Who could've guessed that there would be such a reaction?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/17/japanese-internment-is-precedent-for-national-muslim-registry-prominent-trump-backer-says/ Citing Japanese Internment Camps as a legal precedent for a Muslim registry. You're still confused on how he's considered a racist?

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/20768-new-study-analyzes-why-people-are-resistant-to-correcting-misinformation-offers-solutions Willful ignorance.

+1000000000000000

Repeal vote would Repeal the Death Penalty Repeal from earlier this year. Retain vote Retain the Death Penalty Repeal from earlier this year. Clear as mud.

That's how I feel as well. Part of me doesn't mind the idea of dispatching a handful of individuals that pose such a threat to society. But the question "What if a conviction is wrong?" is ever present in my mind.

Well said, GBR. One comment I do want to make is the distinction between accusing Trump supporters of being racist, and the warnings of the dangers of empowering racists through policy, rhetoric, or general blindness to important issues surrounding race, gender, and so forth. I think simply dishing the hate on Trump supporters gets both excessive and unhelpful. On the other hand, a common -- and very fair, IMO -- criticism that I see is for some of those who aren't willing to vote against him, the serious concerns that many minority groups overwhelmingly have, they're just not on their radar. In a very easy, default kind of way. If you're standing on the same side as the KKK, forgive some for not being able to distinguish the difference. Wait...so if a racist likes the same sports team you support does that make you a racist. If your grandmother was a racist are you one becuase you loved her? A sports team doesn't propose racist, sexist, misogynistic ideas or policy. Having love for a relative doesn't propose racist, sexist or misogynistic ideas or policy. Supporting a Presidential nominee that does propose racist, sexist or misogynistic ideas or policies makes it difficult to distinguish bigots, from non bigots. Especially when said candidate has fervent support from KKK and similar organizations.

Well said, GBR. One comment I do want to make is the distinction between accusing Trump supporters of being racist, and the warnings of the dangers of empowering racists through policy, rhetoric, or general blindness to important issues surrounding race, gender, and so forth. I think simply dishing the hate on Trump supporters gets both excessive and unhelpful. On the other hand, a common -- and very fair, IMO -- criticism that I see is for some of those who aren't willing to vote against him, the serious concerns that many minority groups overwhelmingly have, they're just not on their radar. In a very easy, default kind of way. If you're standing on the same side as the KKK, forgive some for not being able to distinguish the difference.

This seems so much "Obama is going to take your guns." Guess what? It's been eight years. We still have our guns. If for nearly 10 years someone kept telling me "XYZ is going to happen" and it never happened... I probably would never listen to that person.

It's a result of parts of the voting rights act being struck down. Had you read either article I posted you may have come across either of these... "The lines were so long because Republican election officials in Phoenix’s Maricopa County, the largest in the state, reduced the number of polling places by 70 percent from 2012 to 2016, from 200 to just 60—one polling place per 21,000 registered voters." or "Since the Supreme Court struck down a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, more than a dozen Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed a wave of laws that restrict when, where, and how people can cast a ballot."

886 fewer places to vote since 2012. That is unconscionable. https://www.thenation.com/article/there-are-868-fewer-places-to-vote-in-2016-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/ https://thinkprogress.org/mass-poll-closures-in-battleground-states-create-potential-for-election-day-chaos-3933184e9f6d#.9qse2lcj5

This. When NU went up 17-0 so quick on Indiana, I thought briefly that it was a turning point. I thought to myself, "This is what top 10 teams do." That notion went away rather quickly. Just as all games are winnable, they are equally losable.

Not really a quote, but it was a moment that's stuck with me forever. 2001. I was 12 years old and College Game Day was in town for the Notre Dame game. My dad and I rode our bikes down to Memorial Stadium to go see the Game Day crew. We were walking in and Lee Corso happened to be walking towards us with a Sherrif's escort. As Lee got closer to us he and I met eyes and he stopped and leaned down to me and said "Hey kid, how's your team gonna do today? Are they gonna kick some butt or what?" I said back to him "Yeah they are!" He laughed and gave me a high five and said "Go Big Red!" I've always appreciated Corso since then. All it took was a few seconds out of his day to make a 12 year old Husker fan feel pretty damn cool. Everybody gets their panties in a wad about the Game Day crew. They love football just like we do. Moments like that are what it's all about.

Minnesota is 6-2 and has beat NU 2 of the last 3 meetings. Maryland is 5-3. Not a scary team, but certainly not chumps either. Iowa is 5-3. Again not a scary team, but they are not chumps. The remaining 4 games are all winnable, but will not be easy. These are tough teams for an NU squad that has shown vulnerabilities and struggled in every game this year.

11-1 is best case scenario. One regular season loss and a shot at the B1G title, and in all likelihood playing in the biggest bowl game since 2001. 10-2 with competitive losses to UW and OSU would also signal (at least to me anyway) an improvement. Not losing a dumb game to a lesser team a la Iowa St 2009, Northwestern in 2011, Minnesota in 2013 and 2014, or any game from last season. This scenario would also set up a chance at an 11 win season. Something NU hasn't done in 15 years. 9-3 status quo. More of the same. Not bad, not great. No shot at conference title. Lame bowl. Keep hoping that "next year is the year." 8-4 Would be very disappointing.

It appears to me that both are making the best of less than ideal situations. I think the future is bright.

Very cool. Kudos to Ohio State.

8 teams max. Power 5 Conference Champs are in. 3 at large.

11 wins and finishing within the top 15, preferably top 12, would be pretty successful in my opinion. Getting to Indy would be a success. Win and very likely in the Playoff, lose and very likely in the biggest bowl game since 2001.

I wonder how many people who think this stunt was just utterly hilarious are also the same people that vilify Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee during the national anthem.

Of those that ran. Republicans - Kasich. He was the only adult in the room on more than one occasion. Democrats - Bernie. Easily. Those that didn't run Republicans - Brian Sandoval Democrats - Biden, Warren

Yes, I know what you mean. It is a term that got bastardized by charlatans from both spheres of politics and religion - both using each other for their own ends and thus loosing credibility in the long run. My son (age 29) & I were talking over lunch today. He said he wont vote for Hillary and won't vote for Trump. But even as dislikeable Hillary is to him, and her views on some of the religiously important issues, if he had a gun to his head and had to vote for one of them, he'd vote for Hillary just because Trump is such a morally repugnant candidate - even though he gives lip service to the evangelical side. He said at least Hillary will be somewhat status quo and won't tick off foreign leaders and has a base of experience. We both then got talking about the concept I mentioned above. As Christians we are to be light in the world regardless if the world is too our liking or not. If it hates us or not. Our mission is to love, help/serve our fellow man as Christ would regardless. It is not to create a Christianized American (Christians in American have the same right as anyone else to partake in the public square but they (and others) need to always remember it is still a 'public' square). As the video mentions, younger evangelicals are more open to issues that are harder for us older evangelicals to embrace - global warming, environmentalism, larger govt spending for social programs, etc. These were always side issues for us older people. One can be an evangelical and also a 'liberal' politically on many issues. They shouldn't be 2 disqualifying terms. As Moore states, one can be a citizen of the kingdom of heaven and have different ways of fixing things on this earth - a liberal way or a conservative way. I think most of us get into arguments over the process and needlessly attack the good nature of the other person - they just have a different path to fixing the same problem you want to fix. I know I have to watch it - not be so dogmatic and listen more. That is why this forum is good for me. For example: You, Dude, Zoogs are more liberal than I, Knapp is more moderate than I - I need your voices to keep me or bring me into balance. It is good to hear other perspectives. (And yes, Knapp, if you read this, I still post too many conservative articles. But I do read many of the more liberal ones you or the other guys post. I'm conservative so I lean that way. I guess I just reinforce my belief system which isn't always the best way of getting balanced. I limit my time on the web so I go to what I think is good and know you guys will post other stuff I can look at and consider. yea, I know too lazy or stressed for time to take the time to dig deeper. Maybe we should do a week of conservatives finding good stuff on liberal sites and liberals posting good stuff they find on conservative sites. ) So you call yourself a Christian, but it's difficult for you to embrace the idea of protecting the Earth that God created and taking care of the needy? Why not take care of God's creation? “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” Genesis 2:15 Or the needy? "'Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow.' Then all the people shall say, Amen!'" Deuteronomy 27:19 "He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing." Deuteronomy 10:18 "because I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him." Job 29:12 How is that difficult for you to embrace? No you got that wrong or misunderstand my statement. My life verse is Isaiah 58 quoted below - primarily the bold. On a personal level I've been involved in many areas of social justice issues. Volunteer for at cancer center, homeless shelter volunteer, feed the poor work, starting a ministry for single moms and their kids, help an organization that worked wt recovering addicts, etc. To more clearly state it - many in my generation tended to be more focused politically, on a few 'big' issues revolving around pro-life. We felt it was the church's role to do the social justice things and not big govt spending. Big govt spending is kind of a shotgun approach. You send a lot of pellets into the air in hopes of hitting something but not very efficient when it comes to waste etc. There is a place for it as only the govt has the funds to do some of the things it does, but non-profits whether it be the church or other organizations are more efficient in meeting the individual right were they are. I would like to see more of the govt giving assistance to these types of local organizations instead of large wasteful bureaucracies found on both the state and federal levels. Oh, and by the way, I do believe we are to be good stewards of the earth as well. Isaiah 58New International Version (NIV) True Fasting 58 “Shout it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet. Declare to my people their rebellion and to the descendants of Jacob their sins. 2 For day after day they seek me out; they seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right and has not forsaken the commands of its God. They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. 3 ‘Why have we fasted,’ they say, ‘and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?’ “Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. 4 Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high. 5 Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for people to humble themselves? Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed and for lying in sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the Lord? 6 “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? 8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness[a] will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. 9 Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I. “If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, 10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday. 11 The Lord will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail. 12 Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins and will raise up the age-old foundations; you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings. 13 “If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the Lord’s holy day honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, 14 then you will find your joy in the Lord, and I will cause you to ride in triumph on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.” For the mouth of the Lord has spoken. Forgive me if I came off snarky, wasn't my intent, I was just trying to cultivate discourse. I appreciate your response. I will push back though (for, hopefully, constructive discussion.) Big government spending always comes up as a reason not to fund or put emphasis on programs that help the needy. However I hear very little objection from Evangelicals and GOPers for the big government spending that funds endless war. Why is that okay, but making sure that kids don't go hungry isn't? Why is it that the sacredness of life only comes up in abortion? Why doesn't the sacredness of life come up regarding healthcare for all, gun deaths, protecting the environment, etc? Your forgiven. You don't know me and sometimes we stereotype people based on some label - conservative, liberal, GOP, Dem, etc. I have to watch it too. My comments are in red below. One question at a time. Big government spending always comes up as a reason not to fund or put emphasis on programs that help the needy. However I hear very little objection from Evangelicals and GOPers for the big government spending that funds endless war. Why is that okay, but making sure that kids don't go hungry isn't? first off, you are painting with too big of a brush. Many of the same people are involved with the needy on a personal level. Some of the most generous givers to the needy are conservatives as some studies have pointed out in years past & especially religious conservatives. We give out of our own pocket and not take other people's money (in the form of taxes) and call that our giving. Endless war isn't OK. Wars when justified for national protection, security should be limited in scope, not expansive as the war on terror became - going from Afgan to trying to justify war in Iraq - wrong. And by the way, Dems do the war thing also - think Vietnam, Balkin states in the 1990s - as the world's policeman we've got into needless conflicts under both parties. Both parties have allowed the MIC to control them. One has to keep this all in balance. The first obligation of govt is the security of its people and provide for the general welfare of its citizens. The budget must adequately fund security issues (NSA has gone too far, Iraq - too far), infrastructure and care of its citizens. Sometimes the budget pendulum swings too far one way or the other. Think of the GOP and Dems as 2 big brothers if you will. Each feels a responsibility to its citizens for a specific core role of govt. The GOP emphasis has been on security and budget restraint (except under GWB) - hard to do social programs with uncontrollable debt. The Dems have emphasized the social programs that take care of our own. I think if we get the big defense lobbyists out of the picture, we could come to some agreement on closing needless defense spending around the world, close some bases and then we may have more funds for social programs. This is what occurred in the 1990s. After Reagan's big military spending in the 1980s (pendulum swing) brought down the walls of communism we had the 'peace dividend' in the 1990s that allowed for reduction in military spending & more spending on other issues (pendulum swing) and help lead to the balanced budget later that decade. Why is it that the sacredness of life only comes up in abortion? It doesn't but it starts there. If we don't value the life in the womb, how will we treat the child outside the womb? Or the elderly, or the mentally disabled. etc. There are those who talk about terminating life of disabled, mentally disabled, soon after birth or in some cases later. These same people are also for terminating the life of those costly elderly who no longer contribute to society (a false evaluation regardless of state of individual. The most difficult to take care of should bring out the best in us not the worse). They state that the elderly cost too much to maintain due to medical need. Most organizations and individuals involved in prolife issues are also involved with or support crisis pregnancy centers that care for the mother and child, by helping with adoption if the mother wants to give the child to another family, etc. And then helping the mother to build a more successful life. Why doesn't the sacredness of life come up regarding healthcare for all, gun deaths, protecting the environment, etc? Again with healthcare it is in regards to means and not motive. I think we'd all would like to see health care available and affordable for all. The issue isn't motive it is a difference in the method in providing it. We have now seen what ObamaCare has become. Premiums and deductibles will skyrocket after the election, insurance companies are dropping out and the insurance is now becoming too expensive. Many will decide to pay the fine instead of taking the insurance. The GOP has for long been obstructionist and haven't pushed their alternative. But there are methods of providing healthcare via private means that haven't been tried. The old system was broken and this new system is even more broken. Yes, reasonable guns laws need to be enacted. No issue there. But again gun deaths are still a matter of the heart - Chicago with some of the strictest gun laws has the highest gun murder rates. Other things contribute - drugs, poverty, joblessness etc to the hopelessness found in cities with high gun death rates. Dems have run many of these major cities for years and these issues continue. Just throwing money at it isn't fixing the problems. Of course protecting the environment is important. Balance regulation is needed to do so. The USA has transformed itself from the 1960s to today in this regards. We are much cleaner than what we were when I was growing up. Bigger issue is what is China and India doing about it? Huge polluters. So in summary the sacredness of life must start in the womb and extend all the way to death. How we take care of the weakest in our society tells us the most about us as a people and as a society. The difference in emphasis isn't always about motive but on the means. There are very sincere people on both sides who what to solve the same problems but have different means of solving them. Just like we as individuals need to constantly check our priorities to make sure they line up with our stated values, our nation needs to do this as well. We do it during elections, at moments of crisis like 911, but we should do it more frequently by staying involved in the process - whether working at a crisis pregnancy center, a soup kitchen, lobbing congress, picking up trash in the national parks. mentoring an at risk youth, etc. We can't do it all nor should we be expected to do it all. But we can do something. The same with each party. The repubs can do it all and neither can the dems. This creates a problem - we could work together with the strengths of each party to accomplish a combined good. The polarization of our politics in recent years has prevented this from happening and both sides need to compromise for the good of the country. It doesn't but it starts there. If we don't value the life in the womb, how will we treat the child outside the womb? Or the elderly, or the mentally disabled. etc. Well judging by two instances that come to mind, the GOP cares very little about how we value life outside the womb. Earlier this year a bill was put forth by the GOP that cut free or reduced school lunches for children in poverty. “Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016” (H.R. 5003) that guts a key part of the federal free lunch program for children living in poverty. The bill is the product of an avid pro-life Tea Party Republican from Indiana, Representative Todd Rokita. Rokita wants to rein in government spending by eliminating access to free and reduced-price school lunches for over 3.5 million children at over 7,200 public schools as a cost saving measure. And, just to add insult to hungry children, Rokita’s legislation raises the eligibility requirement for kids in dire poverty to receive free or reduced price lunches." http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/16/gop-bill-school-lunches-3-5-million-kids-pro-life-hypocrisy.html The GOP's opposition to the Zadroga Act as well comes to mind. "Senate Republicans on Thursday morning filibustered legislation to monitor and treat first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses related to 9/11. A vote to quash the filibuster failed by a vote of 57 to 42, three votes short of the necessary threshold. As a result, the proposal is unlikely to pass this year. The bill would provide funding for a health program to treat first responders, construction and cleanup workers and residents who inhaled toxic particles after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. The $7.4 billion cost of the legislation over 10 years is paid for by a provision that would prevent foreign multinational corporations from using tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S. income." http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/132907-health-bill-for-911-workers-fails-key-vote Dems do the war thing also They sure do. The GOP emphasis has been on security and budget restraint Reagan did his fair share of spending as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/#35659e7257ec There are those who talk about terminating life of disabled, mentally disabled, soon after birth or in some cases later. These same people are also for terminating the life of those costly elderly who no longer contribute to society I've not seen any legislation related to this We have now seen what ObamaCare has become. Premiums and deductibles will skyrocket after the election, insurance companies are dropping out and the insurance is now becoming too expensive. Many will decide to pay the fine instead of taking the insurance. The GOP has for long been obstructionist and haven't pushed their alternative. ObamaCare was never intended as the end all be all. It was a step forward to help get Americans health insurance. It has genuine issues that need to be addressed, no doubt. But this alternative by the GOP has never come to light. They have not provided any viable legislative alternatives as they have voted dozens of times to repeal it. Chicago with some of the strictest gun laws has the highest gun murder rates. Other things contribute - drugs, poverty, joblessness etc to the hopelessness found in cities with high gun death rates. Dems have run many of these major cities for years and these issues continue. Just throwing money at it isn't fixing the problems. Yes Chicago and many big cities have their issues with guns. Wouldn't working towards alleviating that issue be a good thing? Instead of denying that anything could or should be done. So in summary the sacredness of life must start in the womb and extend all the way to death. How we take care of the weakest in our society tells us the most about us as a people and as a society. The difference in emphasis isn't always about motive but on the means. Not wanting to fund school lunches for children or healthcare for 9/11 first responders? What means are the GOP proposing, because I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing plenty of other factors taking a precedence over the alleged sacredness of life. I'm not a GOP apologist and my comments aren't meant to be. I agree that all of those things are important - lunch programs (you overstep by saying 'not wanting to fund school lunches' - normally the discussion was around cutting the % GROWTH in the program, not actually cutting the base program - that was the issue in the 1990s that gets all of the flack from the left), reasonable gun laws are needed as I mentioned, From your earlier comments it sounded like you lumped yourself in with Evangelicals as a group, in particular "older evangelicals" which you stated had difficulties in embracing certain issues. Evangelicals as a whole tend to be members of the GOP. I'm sure of all the topics discussed you yourself don't fall in line with each one, I get that. But for the majority of the party to claim this religious conviction, and all life is sacred etc etc, then turn around and filibuster something like funding health care for 9/11 first responders... I have a hard time understanding that.

Yes, I know what you mean. It is a term that got bastardized by charlatans from both spheres of politics and religion - both using each other for their own ends and thus loosing credibility in the long run. My son (age 29) & I were talking over lunch today. He said he wont vote for Hillary and won't vote for Trump. But even as dislikeable Hillary is to him, and her views on some of the religiously important issues, if he had a gun to his head and had to vote for one of them, he'd vote for Hillary just because Trump is such a morally repugnant candidate - even though he gives lip service to the evangelical side. He said at least Hillary will be somewhat status quo and won't tick off foreign leaders and has a base of experience. We both then got talking about the concept I mentioned above. As Christians we are to be light in the world regardless if the world is too our liking or not. If it hates us or not. Our mission is to love, help/serve our fellow man as Christ would regardless. It is not to create a Christianized American (Christians in American have the same right as anyone else to partake in the public square but they (and others) need to always remember it is still a 'public' square). As the video mentions, younger evangelicals are more open to issues that are harder for us older evangelicals to embrace - global warming, environmentalism, larger govt spending for social programs, etc. These were always side issues for us older people. One can be an evangelical and also a 'liberal' politically on many issues. They shouldn't be 2 disqualifying terms. As Moore states, one can be a citizen of the kingdom of heaven and have different ways of fixing things on this earth - a liberal way or a conservative way. I think most of us get into arguments over the process and needlessly attack the good nature of the other person - they just have a different path to fixing the same problem you want to fix. I know I have to watch it - not be so dogmatic and listen more. That is why this forum is good for me. For example: You, Dude, Zoogs are more liberal than I, Knapp is more moderate than I - I need your voices to keep me or bring me into balance. It is good to hear other perspectives. (And yes, Knapp, if you read this, I still post too many conservative articles. But I do read many of the more liberal ones you or the other guys post. I'm conservative so I lean that way. I guess I just reinforce my belief system which isn't always the best way of getting balanced. I limit my time on the web so I go to what I think is good and know you guys will post other stuff I can look at and consider. yea, I know too lazy or stressed for time to take the time to dig deeper. Maybe we should do a week of conservatives finding good stuff on liberal sites and liberals posting good stuff they find on conservative sites. ) So you call yourself a Christian, but it's difficult for you to embrace the idea of protecting the Earth that God created and taking care of the needy? Why not take care of God's creation? “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” Genesis 2:15 Or the needy? "'Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow.' Then all the people shall say, Amen!'" Deuteronomy 27:19 "He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing." Deuteronomy 10:18 "because I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him." Job 29:12 How is that difficult for you to embrace? No you got that wrong or misunderstand my statement. My life verse is Isaiah 58 quoted below - primarily the bold. On a personal level I've been involved in many areas of social justice issues. Volunteer for at cancer center, homeless shelter volunteer, feed the poor work, starting a ministry for single moms and their kids, help an organization that worked wt recovering addicts, etc. To more clearly state it - many in my generation tended to be more focused politically, on a few 'big' issues revolving around pro-life. We felt it was the church's role to do the social justice things and not big govt spending. Big govt spending is kind of a shotgun approach. You send a lot of pellets into the air in hopes of hitting something but not very efficient when it comes to waste etc. There is a place for it as only the govt has the funds to do some of the things it does, but non-profits whether it be the church or other organizations are more efficient in meeting the individual right were they are. I would like to see more of the govt giving assistance to these types of local organizations instead of large wasteful bureaucracies found on both the state and federal levels. Oh, and by the way, I do believe we are to be good stewards of the earth as well. Isaiah 58New International Version (NIV) True Fasting 58 “Shout it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet. Declare to my people their rebellion and to the descendants of Jacob their sins. 2 For day after day they seek me out; they seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right and has not forsaken the commands of its God. They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. 3 ‘Why have we fasted,’ they say, ‘and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?’ “Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. 4 Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high. 5 Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for people to humble themselves? Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed and for lying in sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the Lord? 6 “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? 8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness[a] will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. 9 Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I. “If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, 10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday. 11 The Lord will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail. 12 Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins and will raise up the age-old foundations; you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings. 13 “If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the Lord’s holy day honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, 14 then you will find your joy in the Lord, and I will cause you to ride in triumph on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.” For the mouth of the Lord has spoken. Forgive me if I came off snarky, wasn't my intent, I was just trying to cultivate discourse. I appreciate your response. I will push back though (for, hopefully, constructive discussion.) Big government spending always comes up as a reason not to fund or put emphasis on programs that help the needy. However I hear very little objection from Evangelicals and GOPers for the big government spending that funds endless war. Why is that okay, but making sure that kids don't go hungry isn't? Why is it that the sacredness of life only comes up in abortion? Why doesn't the sacredness of life come up regarding healthcare for all, gun deaths, protecting the environment, etc? Your forgiven. You don't know me and sometimes we stereotype people based on some label - conservative, liberal, GOP, Dem, etc. I have to watch it too. My comments are in red below. One question at a time. Big government spending always comes up as a reason not to fund or put emphasis on programs that help the needy. However I hear very little objection from Evangelicals and GOPers for the big government spending that funds endless war. Why is that okay, but making sure that kids don't go hungry isn't? first off, you are painting with too big of a brush. Many of the same people are involved with the needy on a personal level. Some of the most generous givers to the needy are conservatives as some studies have pointed out in years past & especially religious conservatives. We give out of our own pocket and not take other people's money (in the form of taxes) and call that our giving. Endless war isn't OK. Wars when justified for national protection, security should be limited in scope, not expansive as the war on terror became - going from Afgan to trying to justify war in Iraq - wrong. And by the way, Dems do the war thing also - think Vietnam, Balkin states in the 1990s - as the world's policeman we've got into needless conflicts under both parties. Both parties have allowed the MIC to control them. One has to keep this all in balance. The first obligation of govt is the security of its people and provide for the general welfare of its citizens. The budget must adequately fund security issues (NSA has gone too far, Iraq - too far), infrastructure and care of its citizens. Sometimes the budget pendulum swings too far one way or the other. Think of the GOP and Dems as 2 big brothers if you will. Each feels a responsibility to its citizens for a specific core role of govt. The GOP emphasis has been on security and budget restraint (except under GWB) - hard to do social programs with uncontrollable debt. The Dems have emphasized the social programs that take care of our own. I think if we get the big defense lobbyists out of the picture, we could come to some agreement on closing needless defense spending around the world, close some bases and then we may have more funds for social programs. This is what occurred in the 1990s. After Reagan's big military spending in the 1980s (pendulum swing) brought down the walls of communism we had the 'peace dividend' in the 1990s that allowed for reduction in military spending & more spending on other issues (pendulum swing) and help lead to the balanced budget later that decade. Why is it that the sacredness of life only comes up in abortion? It doesn't but it starts there. If we don't value the life in the womb, how will we treat the child outside the womb? Or the elderly, or the mentally disabled. etc. There are those who talk about terminating life of disabled, mentally disabled, soon after birth or in some cases later. These same people are also for terminating the life of those costly elderly who no longer contribute to society (a false evaluation regardless of state of individual. The most difficult to take care of should bring out the best in us not the worse). They state that the elderly cost too much to maintain due to medical need. Most organizations and individuals involved in prolife issues are also involved with or support crisis pregnancy centers that care for the mother and child, by helping with adoption if the mother wants to give the child to another family, etc. And then helping the mother to build a more successful life. Why doesn't the sacredness of life come up regarding healthcare for all, gun deaths, protecting the environment, etc? Again with healthcare it is in regards to means and not motive. I think we'd all would like to see health care available and affordable for all. The issue isn't motive it is a difference in the method in providing it. We have now seen what ObamaCare has become. Premiums and deductibles will skyrocket after the election, insurance companies are dropping out and the insurance is now becoming too expensive. Many will decide to pay the fine instead of taking the insurance. The GOP has for long been obstructionist and haven't pushed their alternative. But there are methods of providing healthcare via private means that haven't been tried. The old system was broken and this new system is even more broken. Yes, reasonable guns laws need to be enacted. No issue there. But again gun deaths are still a matter of the heart - Chicago with some of the strictest gun laws has the highest gun murder rates. Other things contribute - drugs, poverty, joblessness etc to the hopelessness found in cities with high gun death rates. Dems have run many of these major cities for years and these issues continue. Just throwing money at it isn't fixing the problems. Of course protecting the environment is important. Balance regulation is needed to do so. The USA has transformed itself from the 1960s to today in this regards. We are much cleaner than what we were when I was growing up. Bigger issue is what is China and India doing about it? Huge polluters. So in summary the sacredness of life must start in the womb and extend all the way to death. How we take care of the weakest in our society tells us the most about us as a people and as a society. The difference in emphasis isn't always about motive but on the means. There are very sincere people on both sides who what to solve the same problems but have different means of solving them. Just like we as individuals need to constantly check our priorities to make sure they line up with our stated values, our nation needs to do this as well. We do it during elections, at moments of crisis like 911, but we should do it more frequently by staying involved in the process - whether working at a crisis pregnancy center, a soup kitchen, lobbing congress, picking up trash in the national parks. mentoring an at risk youth, etc. We can't do it all nor should we be expected to do it all. But we can do something. The same with each party. The repubs can do it all and neither can the dems. This creates a problem - we could work together with the strengths of each party to accomplish a combined good. The polarization of our politics in recent years has prevented this from happening and both sides need to compromise for the good of the country. It doesn't but it starts there. If we don't value the life in the womb, how will we treat the child outside the womb? Or the elderly, or the mentally disabled. etc. Well judging by two instances that come to mind, the GOP cares very little about how we value life outside the womb. Earlier this year a bill was put forth by the GOP that cut free or reduced school lunches for children in poverty. “Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016” (H.R. 5003) that guts a key part of the federal free lunch program for children living in poverty. The bill is the product of an avid pro-life Tea Party Republican from Indiana, Representative Todd Rokita. Rokita wants to rein in government spending by eliminating access to free and reduced-price school lunches for over 3.5 million children at over 7,200 public schools as a cost saving measure. And, just to add insult to hungry children, Rokita’s legislation raises the eligibility requirement for kids in dire poverty to receive free or reduced price lunches." http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/16/gop-bill-school-lunches-3-5-million-kids-pro-life-hypocrisy.html The GOP's opposition to the Zadroga Act as well comes to mind. "Senate Republicans on Thursday morning filibustered legislation to monitor and treat first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses related to 9/11. A vote to quash the filibuster failed by a vote of 57 to 42, three votes short of the necessary threshold. As a result, the proposal is unlikely to pass this year. The bill would provide funding for a health program to treat first responders, construction and cleanup workers and residents who inhaled toxic particles after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. The $7.4 billion cost of the legislation over 10 years is paid for by a provision that would prevent foreign multinational corporations from using tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S. income." http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/132907-health-bill-for-911-workers-fails-key-vote Dems do the war thing also They sure do. The GOP emphasis has been on security and budget restraint Reagan did his fair share of spending as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/#35659e7257ec There are those who talk about terminating life of disabled, mentally disabled, soon after birth or in some cases later. These same people are also for terminating the life of those costly elderly who no longer contribute to society I've not seen any legislation related to this We have now seen what ObamaCare has become. Premiums and deductibles will skyrocket after the election, insurance companies are dropping out and the insurance is now becoming too expensive. Many will decide to pay the fine instead of taking the insurance. The GOP has for long been obstructionist and haven't pushed their alternative. ObamaCare was never intended as the end all be all. It was a step forward to help get Americans health insurance. It has genuine issues that need to be addressed, no doubt. But this alternative by the GOP has never come to light. They have not provided any viable legislative alternatives as they have voted dozens of times to repeal it. Chicago with some of the strictest gun laws has the highest gun murder rates. Other things contribute - drugs, poverty, joblessness etc to the hopelessness found in cities with high gun death rates. Dems have run many of these major cities for years and these issues continue. Just throwing money at it isn't fixing the problems. Yes Chicago and many big cities have their issues with guns. Wouldn't working towards alleviating that issue be a good thing? Instead of denying that anything could or should be done. So in summary the sacredness of life must start in the womb and extend all the way to death. How we take care of the weakest in our society tells us the most about us as a people and as a society. The difference in emphasis isn't always about motive but on the means. Not wanting to fund school lunches for children or healthcare for 9/11 first responders? What means are the GOP proposing, because I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing plenty of other factors taking a precedence over the alleged sacredness of life.