So if Sir Isaac indicates that there is an equal and OPPOSITE reaction to everything and we know that William J was low on the moral/value scale, does that mean GW is the opposite and high on the moral/value scale???????

 

I doubt that that's exactly what Newton had in mind. Then again, you might be right.

 

Of course, if you're right, we might also be on the verge of seeing his Second Law applied to some of the Republican members of Congress as well.

 

 

Frances

I doubt that that's exactly what Newton had in mind. Then again, you might be right.

 

Of course, if you're right, we might also be on the verge of seeing his Second Law applied to some of the Republican members of Congress as well.

 

 

Frances

I will be the straight man.

 

What's Newton's 2nd Law?

I will be the straight man.

 

What's Newton's 2nd Law?

The rate of change of the momentum of a body is directly proportional to the net force acting on it, and the direction of the change in momentum takes place in the direction of the net force. :lol:

The rate of change of the momentum of a body is directly proportional to the net force acting on it, and the direction of the change in momentum takes place in the direction of the net force. :lol:

 

HHSDad is correct.

 

In layman's terms, it would appear that the snowball effect of bad press is picking up steam.

 

 

Frances

The rate of change of the momentum of a body is directly proportional to the net force acting on it, and the direction of the change in momentum takes place in the direction of the net force. :lol:

So the Republican "objects" motion into power, will tend to stay in motion until they are out of power. Maybe thats why the Administration is trying to discredit scientists:D

Y'all forgot the 1st law of motion: An object will stay at rest or move at a constant speed in a straight line unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

 

I think that accounts for the conservative Christians getting all stirred up by the liberal force. And they were sleeping so soundly.

HHSDad is correct.

 

In layman's terms, it would appear that the snowball effect of bad press is picking up steam.

 

 

Frances

Wouldn't the steam melt the snowball?

So if Sir Isaac indicates that there is an equal and OPPOSITE reaction to everything and we know that William J was low on the moral/value scale, does that mean GW is the opposite and high on the moral/value scale???????

 

I understand that WJC has a character flaw - don't we all - but his policies in regard to the poor (the most talked about group in the Bible) were much more moral and "value"-able than current policies.

 

The tax cuts were met with some spending cuts over the last six years, but those spending cuts were in social programs - hurting what JC would call "the least of these."

I understand that WJC has a character flaw - don't we all - but his policies in regard to the poor (the most talked about group in the Bible) were much more moral and "value"-able than current policies.

 

The tax cuts were met with some spending cuts over the last six years, but those spending cuts were in social programs - hurting what JC would call "the least of these."

I hate these people that bring actual issues into a Political debate. :sssh:

 

Just kidding acemona and my view on the issue.

 

I don't believe the Bible called on government to feed the poor. I believe that is the church's job and not the government. Unless you believe that the government has replaced the church of the Bible. And I don't believe that has occurred. I believe the Church has neglected and even gave this responsibility up to the government and it is a key problem with this society.

 

The way to help the poor is for the church in the form of all the local churches in communities getting out and providing programs to serve the poor in their area.

 

Simple example. So many churches have Wednesday night meals in a community. Why couldn't they spread those meals out to one on Monday, one on Tuesday, etc and the poor in a community would have somewhere to go in their community every single day and receive a meal.

 

Yes the Bible continually mentions the poor and how the church but not government is the answer for the poor.

Was it Andrew Carnegie who wrote the Gospel of Wealth?

 

LBBC's post just made it pop into my head. :lol:

Was it Andrew Carnegie who wrote the Gospel of Wealth?

 

LBBC's post just made it pop into my head. :lol:

I don't know what that book is about? Care to elaborate on the view of Mr. Carnegie.

I hate these people that bring actual issues into a Political debate. :sssh:

 

Just kidding acemona and my view on the issue.

 

I don't believe the Bible called on government to feed the poor. I believe that is the church's job and not the government. Unless you believe that the government has replaced the church of the Bible. And I don't believe that has occurred. I believe the Church has neglected and even gave this responsibility up to the government and it is a key problem with this society.

 

The way to help the poor is for the church in the form of all the local churches in communities getting out and providing programs to serve the poor in their area.

 

Simple example. So many churches have Wednesday night meals in a community. Why couldn't they spread those meals out to one on Monday, one on Tuesday, etc and the poor in a community would have somewhere to go in their community every single day and receive a meal.

 

Yes the Bible continually mentions the poor and how the church but not government is the answer for the poor.

 

 

Just curious then, how do you interpret Matthew 25:31-46? The parable Jesus uses clearly says in verse 32:

 

And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will seperate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;

 

I think it's pretty clear there must be some nation or government accountability right here.

I don't know what that book is about? Care to elaborate on the view of Mr. Carnegie.

 

Since I'm not very good at explaining things, I'll let someone else do it. :lol:

 

"The Gospel of Wealth" was an essay written by Andrew Carnegie in 1889 that described the responsibility of philanthropy by the new upper class of self-made rich. The central thesis of Carnegie's essay was the peril of allowing large sums of money to be passed into the hands of persons or organizations ill-equipped mentally or emotionally to cope with them. As a result, the wealthy entrepreneur must assume the responsibility of distributing his fortune in a way that it will be put to good use, and not wasted on frivolous expenditure. The very existence of poverty in a capitalistic society could be negated by wealthy philanthropic businessmen.

 

Wikipedia

In addition, I'm not saying it's the same thing... Just saying I was reminded of it.

Of course, Carnegie made his vast fortune with some unscrupulous business moves, and by suppressing wages for the laborers of his steel mills.

 

As he aged, he had an epiphany, and did a 180 degree turn, becoming one of the greatest philanthropists to have ever lived in America.

 

 

Frances