Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (656886)	11/3/2004 3:07:23 PM
From: goldworldnet	Respond to of 769667

The word "Evangelicals" does seem to have turned into some kind of code with a disparaging context. * * *

To: Srexley who wrote (656886)	11/3/2004 3:09:37 PM
From: md1derful	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

srex..I would say it's tantamount to born again doc

To: Srexley who wrote (656886)	11/3/2004 3:21:10 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Why is the term "evangelicals" used so much now? I don't know. I suspect it is like anything else. Someone wanted a way to peg a group that shares a certain characteristc (or group of characteristics) and distinguish them from other groups. I am not exactly an Evangelical (I am of the Reformed Tradition historically), but because I worship with and identify with Baptists, and Bible churches all in America, I consider myself an Evangelical. I don't divide with these folks over their relatively minor doctrinal differences. I love them all - all are one to me. I always thought that specifically was for people like Billy Graham that publicly evangelize. The term "Evangelist" applies to people like Billy Graham. I suspect those churches who support Evangelists came to be known as Evangelical churches. Is it now a term used to describe Christians in general? Or has it always been? It does not apply to all Christians. Christians of the Reformed tradition, for example the Lutherans and Presbyterians, are not considered Evangelical - this is probably due to the fact that many in the Reformed tradition don't evangelize, contrary to the Scriptures. Evangelicals tend not to shy away from evangelism as do the catholics and so-called "mainline Protestant" churches. They will tell you quite eagerly, and in accord with the Scriptures, that faith in Christ is the only way to heaven. This is why I enjoy them. They are just folks like everyone. They make mistakes, suffer, grieve and hope. But they have this deep and abiding love of truth and their future home in heaven that makes community with them a real pleasure. I am proud to be one of them. I was a bit perturbed at its constant use last night on the news channel because it seemed they were labeling Christians as some kind of radicals (not that I think Graham is a radical) as opposed to just normal people with Christian beliefs. These days it is most radical to have a faith you think is worth sharing. So when heathens use the term "Evangelicals" they are almost always making fun of us. It is fine. Let them have their fun. We will still share the truth with them whether in season or out of season. Ultimately, we just want them to have the comfort and joy we have. We also want them to have the confidence in the ultimate future that we have, a confidence that they want, but are too weak-minded to take. They are too concerned for what others might think. I was once like this. Now, I just don't care. I see the thing - right now - as I type this to you. I need nothing else.

To: Srexley who wrote (656886)	11/3/2004 3:26:15 PM
From: Wayners	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Leftists, New Agers, and Communists hate Christians and Jews with a passion, yet they still think of themselves as being all tolerant and unbigoted.

To: Srexley who wrote (656886)	11/3/2004 3:42:42 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

No Canada safe haven for Democrats Wednesday, November 3, 2004 Posted: 2:48 PM EST (1948 GMT) cnn.com OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Disgruntled Democrats seeking a safe Canadian haven after U.S. President George W. Bush won Tuesday's election should not pack their bags just yet. Canadian officials made clear on Wednesday that any U.S. citizens so fed up with Bush that they want to make a fresh start up north would have to stand in line like any other would-be immigrants -- a wait that can take up to a year. "Let me tell you -- if they're hard-working honest people, there's a process, and let them apply," Immigration Minister Judy Sgro told Reuters. Asked whether American applicants would get special treatment, she replied: "No, they'll join the crowd like all the other people who want to come to Canada." There are anywhere from 600,000 to a million Americans living in Canada, which leans more to the left than the United States and has traditionally favored the Democrats over the Republicans. But statistics show a gradual decline in U.S. citizens coming to work and live in Canada, which has an ailing health care system and relatively high levels of personal taxation. Government officials, real estate brokers and Democrat activists said that while some Americans might talk about moving to Canada rather than living with a new Bush administration, they did not expect a mass influx. "It's one thing to say 'I'm leaving for Canada' and quite another to actually find a job here and wonder about where you're going to live and where the children are going to go to school," said one official. Roger King of the Toronto-based Democrats Abroad group said he had heard nothing about a possible exodus of party members. "I imagine most committed Democrats will want to stay in the United States and continue being politically active there," he said. Americans seeking to immigrate can apply to become permanent citizens of Canada, a process that often takes a year. Becoming a full citizen takes a further three years. The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which in all cases requires a work permit. This takes from four to six months to come through. Statistics show the number of U.S. workers entering Canada dropped to 15,789 in 2002 from 21,627 in 2000. In 1981 some 10,030 Americans gained permanent residency, compared to 5,541 in 2003. Asked if there had been signs of increased U.S. interest, Sgro said: "Not yet, but we'll see tomorrow." The Canadian foreign ministry said there had been no increase in hits on the Washington embassy's immigration Web site, while housing brokers doubted they would see a surge in U.S. business. "Canada's always open and welcoming to Americans who want to relocate here, but we don't think it would be a trend or movement," said Gino Romanese of Royal Lepage Residential Real Estate Services. Those wishing to move to Canada could always take a risk and claim refugee status -- the path chosen earlier this year by two U.S. deserters who opposed the Iraq war. "Anybody who enters Canada who claims refugee status will be provided with a work permit...it doesn't matter what country they're from," said an immigration ministry spokeswoman. Refugee cases are handled by special boards, which can take months to decide whether to admit applicants. The rulings can be appealed and opposition politicians complain some people ordered deported have been in Canada for 10 years or more.