Actually, she used the behavior of the current government as an example of one sign that Jesus is returning (along with natural disasters etc. Never mind that natural disasters have been occurring for hundreds of years :P). She said that herself.

I believe there is a God too, and I still think her comment was not relevant to the thread.

And I find it funny that someone would assume that because they personally don't like their country's president it must be a sign that Jesus is about to return. Plenty of Christians are in support of Obama and his policies. He's hardly the antichrist!

Everything that is going on with the government?!?

You do realise Bush made a much bigger mess of your country than anything Obama has done, right? I hardly think that anything Obama has done is significant enough to represent Jesus's return. Lol. Not to mention... America ISN'T the entire world you know! There's many many governments all over the world, and ours is doing fine thanks. Of course there's problems, but there's problems with EVERY government... that's nothing new.

I'm not going to "argue" my point. I believe what I believe. This is why I stay out of the threads...

And oh I must say, I did not mention Obama's name anywhere, nor Bush.

Why is "argue" in inverted commas.

And you didn't stay out of the thread. Lol. That is the issue.

And you said "our current government" (or something similar), and given that Obama is the president, it is hardly unreasonable to assume you were including him in that statement.

And my point about Bush was simply that previous governments have had problems and made big mistakes too... and it wasn't a sign of Jesus returning then.

You are right. I should have stayed out of the threads in the first place. I've learned my lesson.

And even when Bush was in office, there were MANY signs that Jesus was returning. My daughter is 2-years-old. I will be surprised if I see her 14th birthday. That is just how close I think we are to his return. (And boy do I welcome it!!!!)

It all sounds so "religious" and crazy to those who don't believe in it, but I rest on the truth that everyone will know what's really true eventually.

I believe Jesus will return too. However I also believe we will not know when it is going to happen (as this is stated in the bible). I do not believe that because someone doesn't personally agree with the policies of their government (and I LIKE Obama and am GLAD he's trying to improve healthcare for those who need it) that that is a sign that Jesus will return soon. THAT IS crazy, in my opinion (and a little narcissistic... just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean it's a sign of the second coming!).

There's no need for 'religious' to be in inverted commas. Obviously it's a religious belief, but one I agree with, but that is not the crazy part. The crazy part is being so sure that you're reading the 'signs' correctly that you'll bury your head in the sand, and ignore what is going on in real life, right now, all around you... that you'll miss out on living your own life. When really, no-one knows when Jesus will return.

On a completely random note. Why do you call them inverted commas?
I've never heard them called that before, and I'm just curious why you call them that instead of quotation marks?

Is it because it's technically not quoting something? Or is that how you refer to them in the UK?

Don't know. Maybe it's a British thing. I wasn't aware of it though. :P

Lol.

*facepalm*

I'm sure all of our public schools, fire departments, and police departments are negative too.

I'm against public schools, for the reason that they fail universally to properly educate individuals -- teacher's unions are screwing the students, and charter schools are performing much better. As for the police/fire services, their function is entirely different than that of the notion of national health care.

High five for charter schools. I don't think my kid will ever see a public school.

Obama is more of a socialist, though, isn't he? Like, he's more left wing than previous presidents. That is what the Americans wanted and that is why they voted him.

Actually, no, he's right smack in the middle of most democrats.

Realistically speaking, his policy is pretty middle-of-the-road with the exception of the national healthcare system.

Does he represent a particular political party? Do American politicians do that? Or do they just represent politics in general? Like, do you not have different political parties who vie with each other to come into power, as we do here, with Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, Raving Loonies, etc?

Umm... Republicans and Democrats

Well, isn't Democrat the left wing one, out of those two? In which case then, broadly speaking, Obama would be socialist.

We actually have quite a few different parties. I just don't think any of the minor parties have ever gotten into office ;D
I think the green party is the only one that's ever gotten close.

I also know of the American (I think, don't quote me on that one though ;D) and Independent parties. I know there's one that always elects a woman to run, although I have no idea what the name is.

America is a two-party system, Republicans and Democrats, and neither one is really "socialist."

The Republicans are socially conservative (old-fashioned, if you will), and economically liberal (pro-capitalism.)
The Democrats are socially permissive and economically conservative (pro-heavy regulation.)

Essentially, though, in America, they're both two sides of the same coin, talking a large amount of nonsense, followed by doing nothing but wastefully spend money better suited in the pocket of those that actually earned it.

I think Obama is more populist than socialist.

ugh, people like this really aggravate me. i think it's really messed up here in the us that if my house is burning down, my government-funded fire department (GASP SOCIALIST) will come and help me, but if i'm sick (and i am), then i am in the hands of the insurance companies and doctors who have a LOT of money to gain from my illness.

it ain't right.

I once asked someone who is against Obama's Healthcare policy about how it is different to funding the police or fireservice with public taxes, and her answer was only "because I use the police, I don't use healthcare"... as if her personal requirements for services should determine if they are government funded or not!

The difference is the function -- one is to protect the individuals rights, (police force), while the other is a breech of the individual's rights to property. One protects property rights, the other invades them.

So your point is that taxes should fund protection of property, but not protection of life?

Healthcare protects life. The fire and police services protect property, but they ALSO protect life. So based on your above argument, the police and fire services should be charging for services in incidents where they protect life, but not property. Otherwise, why is it OK for taxes to fund THEIR protection of life, but not to fund healthcare's protection of life?

And what about the coastguard, life guards... government funded, too, no? And their function is quite clearly to protect life. Just as is the function of healthcare.

The purpose of government is to protect the individual from other individuals. It is strictly to the individual to provide his or her own livelihood. The idea that government should provide healthcare because it "protects life" is akin to the notion that government should also make mandatory all "good living choices" because they also protect life. The government is not mommy. It should serve one function, to make and enforce laws which protect the individual from others.

The coast guard does SAR when necessary, but it is indeed meant to serve as a national guard version of the Navy. As for life guards, they are generally privately employed by wherever necessitates, and should be.