News: Hillary Says Faith Got Her Through Hard Times

I just think that when a person claims faith you should be able to see that faith at work in their life. As in a changed life, but hers is still worldly. As is shown in the things she supports, or works for, or is doing in her life.

 

Amen to that, Katie! I agree 100%! Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith BY my works!

A tree IS still known by its fruit.

Julia

 

Good witness?!?!?! That IS the funniest thing I've yet to read on the BB in a while. Just because one keeps a marriage "together" doesn't automatically make them a good witness. Lots of lost folks keep their marriages together after an infidelity has occured. Besides, there was so much "bad witness" going on then that I doubt seriously that any good witness would ever override it.

Julia

 

Yeah I think Anton LaVay kept his marriage going right up until the end, too. Truly a shining example.

 

Interesting observation; except for one VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR-That old law that a husband/wife cannot be forced to testify against a wife/husband.

If they divorced, I doubt very seriously that you would see any love between them.

(For all you Clinton apologists, I'm not judging, just observing some "fruit" )

 

Boy, you REALLY got it wrong!!!!

There's now law that allows for elective late term partial birth abortion. The courts have allowed non-elective use of the rocedure (when the life or health of the mother are threatened). Bill Clinton never signed a law allowing partial birth abortions.

There was a bill to ban partial birth abortion that 50% of Congress approved (which was almost identical to the one that just passed). It included an exception for the mother's life, but Clinton said prior to its passage that he would veto it unless it also included an exception for the mother's health (State laws that lacked a health exception has been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional). Upon veto, the bill went back to congress for approval, but they lacked the 2/3 majority in both houses to pass.

The current Bill, wich GW Bush just signed, is likely to have be struck down, or in the very least, be interpreted by the courts to allow the health exception.

If you judge a man because you think he did something he didn't, you judge a man wrongly.

 

I agree. But we tend to judge people because we don't like what we see, rather than judging them for their real fruits. It seems that when a person bears fruit and they're of a different political party than us, our natural reaction is to develop a distaste for that kind of fruit.

 

Johnv

Your reminder of what actually transpired legislatively has corrected my apparently nonworking synapses. I was incorrect about Clinton...he never signed the BILL; he signed the VETO TWICE on banning this "abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity." (George W.'s words.)
My memory served me poorly and my thanks for correcting my bogus assertion that he signed it into law instead of refusing to sign a ban.

BTW, I would have not signed the veto either.

Until my brain remembers the 90's, take care.

CH

 

No problem. My apologies for my harsh tone. I'm one of the folks who wanted to see a legislative ban on the procedure, but I wanted a life & health exception in the current law.

Anyway, that's a subject for a different topic & thread.

BTW - There are two ways for a president not to approve a bill. One is to veto it outright (the Constitution states that the President must return a bill to Congress and state his objections). Congress can override the veto with a 2/3 majority vote of both Houses.

Another way to veto is to do nothing. After ten days (Sundays excepted), it automatically becomes law without his signature. If, however, Congress has ended its session,then the bill dies without becoming law (called a "pocket veto").

[ June 09, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

I think I remember that last part from Schoolhouse Rock.

 

I'm just a bill,
Yes, I'm only a bill,
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city,
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday...
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I'm still just a bill.

Is all that discussion and debate about you?
Yes. I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.
"Die?"
Yeah: die in committee. Oooh! But it looks like I'm gonna live. Now I go to the House of Representatives and they vote on me.
If they vote "yes", what happens?
Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.
Oh no!
Oh yes!

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill,
Well then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the President to sign.
And if he signs me then I'll be a law...
Oh, how I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the President can still say no?
Yes, that's called a "veto". If the President vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress, and they vote on me again, and by that time it's...
By that time, it's very unlikely that you'll *become* a law! It's not easy to become a law, is it?
No!

But how I hope and I pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill!

He signed you, bill! Now you're a law!
Oh yes!

 

My Dad just called and said "The Hillary book is on the way." It should be here Wednesday or Thursday. So, I'll be reading it soon, probably not over the weekend, as I'll have a guest in town, but certainly next week sometime.

 

How To Destroy A Village
By Jason D. Fodeman Published in 2003


A teenager who grew up during the Clinton presidency relates his perception, and the likely consequences, of the dichotomy between the Clinton legacy and the mainstream teaching of parental values. The book chronicles the Clintons’ misdeeds, the complicity of the Justice Department, and the free pass by a largely adoring media. It leads to a conclusion that all too often parents prostituted those principles, turning a blind eye to the scandals while sending a confusing mixed message to their progeny. Ultimately it is the very fabric of society that has suffered. For children the waters were muddied as to right and wrong. It was a time that exposed the hypocrisy of parental guidance demonstrating compromised standards, preaching lofty goals while falling short themselves. Nothing is a bigger turn off to a kid than this “do as I say not as I do” mentality. The author believes the phenomenon has left deep scars on the soul of American life. Regardless of one’s politics, all parents and all those in loco parentis should read this book.
The book carries endorsements from William F. Buckley, Jr., Accuracy in Media Chairman Emeritus Reed Irvine, U.S. Congressman Christopher Shays and a foreword by David P. Schippers, Chief Counsel to the House Managers for the Clinton Impeachment.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll read THIS one Kelly! LOL

Diane

 

Wow, this thread took off!
It's at the 3 page limit, so the topic will be locked no sooner than 2:30 am EST.
Gina

 

Gina, Silly Question. How come some threads are allowed to go on and on and on and on.... and others are shut down at 3 pages even if they're not causing problems?

Diane

 

Here's what the Squire posted on this. It pertains to this news forum only.

As the original moderator of this forum, I instituted the three page limit. This forum is the News Forum. not the Politics/Current Events/Polity/Theology Forum. Since the business of this forum is news, we try to keep that our focus. Further, I view us as a Headline News type of operation. We are not Jim Leherer, Nightline, 60 Minutes or someother long format type of show. Below is a quote I gave to a PM inquiry on the question:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forum's purpose is to bring out breaking news and comments thereon. The three limit is there to keep the News Forum just that the News Forum. It is not there to remedy hurt feelings or to quell arguments. Though, the lack of such in great number is an unintended consequence. In the case of the thread under consideration, the discussion (in its current form) can just as easily be continued on in the ...... forums.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simply put News after three pages like three day old bread is usually stale. To keep from going stale, when a thread reaches three pages,
One of this forum's moderators will post a six hour warning. The six hour warning will have a This thread will be closed No Earlier Than....Eastern/Board time clause. This is to allow folks to make any final remarks.
Sometime after the expiration of the six hours, a moderator will post a closing message and close the thread.

 

Thanks Gina. Makes sense.

Diane

 

At least Mrs. Clinton is facing the correct path,,,,,,faith........we ought to pray that she finds the Navigator of that path, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes, that is so true. Thank you for the reminder.

Julia

 

You make the case against you stronger every time you post.