Thread Rating:
01-10-2014, 10:27 PM
It was November 22nd, 1963. Only a scant thousand days earlier, President Kennedy made perhaps his most noteworthy quote while he was laying out his vision for the country during his inaugural address. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." True to Kennedy family tradition, JFK was an achiever. He served in wartime in the US Navy, had a good college record, and was known to be a hard worker. A true example of what it means to be a Democrat, he believed in equality of opportunity, not ever expanding welfare, and had been elected to the highest office in the land. Then came the assassin's bullet.
The concept of welfare had dramatically changed by the time JFK's VP, ultra liberal Lyndon Baines Johnson, made his first state of the union speech. Americans were too good a people he reasoned, to allow any body to live in poverty. He had ushered in the era of big government entitlements. As I had mentioned recently, 360 thousand US citizens were on food stamps the day Johnson was sworn in.
EXCERPT---
"Fifty years ago this week, President Lyndon Johnson announced the “War on Poverty” during his first State of the Union speech. Under the Obama administration, however — five decades, countless unconstitutional federal welfare programs, and more than $20 trillion later — poverty levels remain largely unchanged even based on official numbers, and dependence on government has reached unprecedented new heights."
http://thenewamerican.com/economy/econom...on-poverty
How far we have come since November 22, 1963. That's how long it has taken the United States of America to go from the being the unchallenged world leader, to become a nation which has lost her vision and her place in the world. We have lost the authority on which, we at one time based our long held beliefs. Why? Because we turned our back on that authority. See, thanks to the misinterpretation of the principle the founding fathers set forth for the 'separation of church and state', we can no longer cite His Word as the foundation of our ideas of moral behavior. (I didn't say law, I said moral behavior) In the absence of any factual authority, morally acceptable behavior has therefore become subjective and, is now defined as to what seems right to man. Hence, the finely drawn line between right and wrong has been blurred into a vast gray area, a nightmare land of guile if you will, governed by endless debate.
That is why we find the federal government embroiled in litigating the ideas of social justice, rather than managing our nation and providing a strong defense. The fighting on the Hill is between liberals who champion social justice and conservatives, who are merely trying to steer the US back to proven traditional values. Lost seemingly, is the fact that one side really is right and, if I had to point to any proof to which side that is, I would only need to look at the record history has provided, in order to view the truth for ourselves. That's why it all seems so personal and takes on the appearance of the food fight in the movie "Animal House." And, that is why with the gains in Afghanistan being lost to apathy, the US military is preoccupied with issues of same sex partner housing and Unisex Marine Corps Hats.
In trying to justify a bad joke there's a rationale that says "you had to be there." Well, I was there, and I can tell you all this is no joking matter. 2014 may well be the last chance for America to save herself.
The concept of welfare had dramatically changed by the time JFK's VP, ultra liberal Lyndon Baines Johnson, made his first state of the union speech. Americans were too good a people he reasoned, to allow any body to live in poverty. He had ushered in the era of big government entitlements. As I had mentioned recently, 360 thousand US citizens were on food stamps the day Johnson was sworn in.
EXCERPT---
"Fifty years ago this week, President Lyndon Johnson announced the “War on Poverty” during his first State of the Union speech. Under the Obama administration, however — five decades, countless unconstitutional federal welfare programs, and more than $20 trillion later — poverty levels remain largely unchanged even based on official numbers, and dependence on government has reached unprecedented new heights."
http://thenewamerican.com/economy/econom...on-poverty
How far we have come since November 22, 1963. That's how long it has taken the United States of America to go from the being the unchallenged world leader, to become a nation which has lost her vision and her place in the world. We have lost the authority on which, we at one time based our long held beliefs. Why? Because we turned our back on that authority. See, thanks to the misinterpretation of the principle the founding fathers set forth for the 'separation of church and state', we can no longer cite His Word as the foundation of our ideas of moral behavior. (I didn't say law, I said moral behavior) In the absence of any factual authority, morally acceptable behavior has therefore become subjective and, is now defined as to what seems right to man. Hence, the finely drawn line between right and wrong has been blurred into a vast gray area, a nightmare land of guile if you will, governed by endless debate.
That is why we find the federal government embroiled in litigating the ideas of social justice, rather than managing our nation and providing a strong defense. The fighting on the Hill is between liberals who champion social justice and conservatives, who are merely trying to steer the US back to proven traditional values. Lost seemingly, is the fact that one side really is right and, if I had to point to any proof to which side that is, I would only need to look at the record history has provided, in order to view the truth for ourselves. That's why it all seems so personal and takes on the appearance of the food fight in the movie "Animal House." And, that is why with the gains in Afghanistan being lost to apathy, the US military is preoccupied with issues of same sex partner housing and Unisex Marine Corps Hats.
In trying to justify a bad joke there's a rationale that says "you had to be there." Well, I was there, and I can tell you all this is no joking matter. 2014 may well be the last chance for America to save herself.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
01-10-2014, 11:15 PM
One thing is for sure, if our government wants to make a "so-called problem" worse, all they have to do is declare war on it!
01-11-2014, 04:41 AM
Lyndon Johnson is one of the worst mistakes that's ever happened.
01-12-2014, 05:32 PM
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Lyndon Johnson is one of the worst mistakes that's ever happened.
^Isn't that the truth. Small wonder that Benjamin Franklin was so concerned that this republic would face attacks by enemies foreign and domestic, albeit as it turns out, mostly domestic. Liberals have never been content to allow the workings of freedom to govern our social climate. And, as the result, we are presently in the midst of the most deadly attack from within to date. The "fundamental transformation" has already wreaked sufficient havoc as to make the face of America barely recognizable by contrast to the Reagan era of the 1980's. This in stark validation to the concerns of the leaders of our fledgling republic back in Franklin's day, "The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
In the constant tinkering and whining of the liberal, we find the ultimate irony. Their rhetoric is filled with references to justice, equality and fairness. And yet, it is their own short sighted meddling, which has contaminated the founding fathers intent, and threatens our continued existence as a free people living in a sovereign nation. By using the government as a arbitrator to guarantee equality of result, rather than equality of opportunity, liberals have trampled underfoot the rights of the majority. The government now taxes the majority, so that they can buy the allegiance of minorities with entitlements. It is a form of tyranny, pure and simple. There is no such thing as the "common good" in our day. Now, in lieu of "liberty and justice for all", we have the liberal fairness police, who have managed to be elected to high office, and are busily redistributing our wealth.
Minorities, at one time, complained because they just wanted to be considered equals among the citizens of this land. Now things are much more than equal for special interest groups which have become the object of liberal Democrat's affection. In fact, the pendulum has swung so far to the left, their minority status has provided them with a kind of social celebrity. And, Democrats such as LBJ, have preached the message to them for the last 5 decades that they are indeed entitled. One needs to understand that this is what we voters have allowed to happen, because we have so regularly sent liberal Democrats back to DC.
IMO, folks need to recognize that Democrats do not represent all the "people". Rather, only the special among us. Racial minority groups, plant and animal rights groups, anti gun groups, gays, political special interest groups including everything from global warming alarmists to abortion rights activists, pacifists, etc. etc. The majority people of this land, are merely the hadible, those who are the targets of government fleecing. Cash cows to be milked dry of every possible cent to subsidize the liberal agenda. It's incredible to me that more working folks can't latch on to that very obvious reality. I mean, if one would doubt how effective the Dems propaganda line really is, I've heard hourly employees actually parroting the DNC talking point that we need higher taxes. Huh? What happened to common sense? If we can go out and work, why not the minority?
So, I would think the burning question still remains as it applies to our republic. Can we keep it? I would venture to say that depends on the outcome of the mid-terms of 2014.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-13-2014, 12:39 PM
Well said, and sadly true.
01-13-2014, 02:31 PM
^Thanks guys. I know this is getting off topic to a degree but, I couldn't help but notice that liberals are busy even today, in finest LBJ fashion, making arguments before the court to broaden presidential powers even further. I love that Benjamin Franklin quote about whether we have a monarchy or a republic, because it is so profoundly prophetic.
Obama lawyers are presently making arguments before the SCOTUS, claiming the so called out of session appointments, made by this administration were actually lawful, even though congress was technically in session. As part of that argument, said lawyers actually made the argument that this congress is so inept, that the president should be allowed to do basically whatever he wants. Can you believe that? We send representatives up to the Hill and he decides they are not worth his time and tells the SCOTUS that he wants to just go around the US Congress. Not to mention the fact that it is this administration that apparently pulls Reid and Pelosi's strings in order to create the very gridlock they keep screaming about. Can you see why I find the Benjamin Franklin quote so applicable today? I mean, what do we have, a monarchy or a republic?
Even though the practical example used was a bit off topic, the end result is very familiar territory where liberal trampling of established law in the name of social justice is concerned. To the liberal, the law has wiggle room enough to allow them to redefine every aspect of modern life, in light of whatever fad or cause is being pushed for at the time. And, let's not forget, all this liberal bru ha-ha happened once before in America. During the FDR era, chickens were sold in crates of 10 each. It had gotten to the point where liberals were pushing for laws to establish the size of chickens that were in those crates. Fortunately for our country in those days, sanity ruled the SCOTUS, and they laughed the case out of hand.
As the recent resurgence of liberal laws from the leaders of la-la land clearly demonstrate, they might be loons but, they will never really go away. So, if by some miracle, we can stem the tide of liberalism this time, our work will be anything but done. Be that as it may, recognition of the next attack of the loons will only be controlled if the citizenry of that day manage to awaken from their doldrums in time to stop it. Ironically, this may well be the very generation that sleeps through their own demise. If the mid terms of 2014 slips by with folks willing to vote in the status quo, I for one believe it will be over for the US. At any rate, the outcome of this case is huge. If the court holds that the appointments were legal, 'El Presidente' will rule by executive fiat from here on out. Effectively bypassing the entire US Congress for the first time in our history.
IMO, it will then be 'belly up to the bar boys time' for all those friendly to the liberal cause across the board. Therefore the global warming laws may finally achieve strangle hold status, open immigration will result in an inundation of immigrants and the crushing entitlements they will be awarded. Gay rights will expand exponentially, along with federally funded abortion on demand, free ObamaCare for all those who make less than 50 thousand along with huge taxpayer funded subsidies awarded to the next income tier, a 10 dollar minimum wage, and of course, the cost for anything associated with energy will explode. Heating one's home, gasoline, electricity, food (for everybody who doesn't get fed by the federal government 50 million plus) and seemingly never ending unemployment benefits, which is just a form of free money.
The United States of America was never intended to be a government run utopia. She can never be all things to all people as the loons insist. And yet, the reality of living in a liberal looneyville is what we get when we become a people who clamor for equality of income status, versus equality of opportunity. We are truly walking a path to the precipice. Will a majority do their lemming rush off the cliff again in 2014? God help us.
Obama lawyers are presently making arguments before the SCOTUS, claiming the so called out of session appointments, made by this administration were actually lawful, even though congress was technically in session. As part of that argument, said lawyers actually made the argument that this congress is so inept, that the president should be allowed to do basically whatever he wants. Can you believe that? We send representatives up to the Hill and he decides they are not worth his time and tells the SCOTUS that he wants to just go around the US Congress. Not to mention the fact that it is this administration that apparently pulls Reid and Pelosi's strings in order to create the very gridlock they keep screaming about. Can you see why I find the Benjamin Franklin quote so applicable today? I mean, what do we have, a monarchy or a republic?
Even though the practical example used was a bit off topic, the end result is very familiar territory where liberal trampling of established law in the name of social justice is concerned. To the liberal, the law has wiggle room enough to allow them to redefine every aspect of modern life, in light of whatever fad or cause is being pushed for at the time. And, let's not forget, all this liberal bru ha-ha happened once before in America. During the FDR era, chickens were sold in crates of 10 each. It had gotten to the point where liberals were pushing for laws to establish the size of chickens that were in those crates. Fortunately for our country in those days, sanity ruled the SCOTUS, and they laughed the case out of hand.
As the recent resurgence of liberal laws from the leaders of la-la land clearly demonstrate, they might be loons but, they will never really go away. So, if by some miracle, we can stem the tide of liberalism this time, our work will be anything but done. Be that as it may, recognition of the next attack of the loons will only be controlled if the citizenry of that day manage to awaken from their doldrums in time to stop it. Ironically, this may well be the very generation that sleeps through their own demise. If the mid terms of 2014 slips by with folks willing to vote in the status quo, I for one believe it will be over for the US. At any rate, the outcome of this case is huge. If the court holds that the appointments were legal, 'El Presidente' will rule by executive fiat from here on out. Effectively bypassing the entire US Congress for the first time in our history.
IMO, it will then be 'belly up to the bar boys time' for all those friendly to the liberal cause across the board. Therefore the global warming laws may finally achieve strangle hold status, open immigration will result in an inundation of immigrants and the crushing entitlements they will be awarded. Gay rights will expand exponentially, along with federally funded abortion on demand, free ObamaCare for all those who make less than 50 thousand along with huge taxpayer funded subsidies awarded to the next income tier, a 10 dollar minimum wage, and of course, the cost for anything associated with energy will explode. Heating one's home, gasoline, electricity, food (for everybody who doesn't get fed by the federal government 50 million plus) and seemingly never ending unemployment benefits, which is just a form of free money.
The United States of America was never intended to be a government run utopia. She can never be all things to all people as the loons insist. And yet, the reality of living in a liberal looneyville is what we get when we become a people who clamor for equality of income status, versus equality of opportunity. We are truly walking a path to the precipice. Will a majority do their lemming rush off the cliff again in 2014? God help us.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-15-2014, 05:28 PM
tvtimeout Wrote:No we didn't lose the war on proverty it is all in Kentucky Highlands pockets which is controlled by.... only a few can get rich around this parts boys.... you better be in the club!!!!
Yeah, darn those rich guys. They should be out giving it to the poor, right? :please:
If you'd bothered to do any research from the wealth of information provided for your convenience in the posts above, you'd have seen where this county has acquired 20 trillion dollars in debt since the launch of the Great Society. Giving stuff away doesn't cause the recipients of that stuff to gain any personal integrity.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-15-2014, 10:25 PM
RealThing, I wanted to tell you that I enjoy reading your posts very much. That being said, I would be interested to hear your answers to a couple of questions. Understand, this is not a challenge. I am truly interested in your opinions on some questions that I have struggled with in discussions with other people.
First, What is your stand on the legalization of marijuana(sp?) for recreational use?
Second, If a person is against the death penalty, can he still be considered a conservative?
Third, What do you think of republicans who are pro choice on the abortion issue?
Fourth, what is your opinion on political parties in general? As you know Im sure, the founding fathers warned of the formation of political parties and then went out and basically formed them behind the opinions of Jefferson and Hamilton. Do you think parties hinder the legislative process and, if so, what is the solution.
Fifth, same sex marriage. Im interested to hear your opinions on this and your opinions on Repubs who are in favor of the same sex marriage issue.
Last, Christy from New Jersey. What do you think of him and what do you think his chances of being the nominee are?
I know this is a lot of things but, if you have the time, I would really like to hear your thoughts on these issues. Thanks
First, What is your stand on the legalization of marijuana(sp?) for recreational use?
Second, If a person is against the death penalty, can he still be considered a conservative?
Third, What do you think of republicans who are pro choice on the abortion issue?
Fourth, what is your opinion on political parties in general? As you know Im sure, the founding fathers warned of the formation of political parties and then went out and basically formed them behind the opinions of Jefferson and Hamilton. Do you think parties hinder the legislative process and, if so, what is the solution.
Fifth, same sex marriage. Im interested to hear your opinions on this and your opinions on Repubs who are in favor of the same sex marriage issue.
Last, Christy from New Jersey. What do you think of him and what do you think his chances of being the nominee are?
I know this is a lot of things but, if you have the time, I would really like to hear your thoughts on these issues. Thanks
01-16-2014, 12:48 AM
Quickkickonthird Wrote:RealThing, I wanted to tell you that I enjoy reading your posts very much. That being said, I would be interested to hear your answers to a couple of questions. Understand, this is not a challenge. I am truly interested in your opinions on some questions that I have struggled with in discussions with other people.
First, What is your stand on the legalization of marijuana(sp?) for recreational use?
Second, If a person is against the death penalty, can he still be considered a conservative?
Third, What do you think of republicans who are pro choice on the abortion issue?
Fourth, what is your opinion on political parties in general? As you know Im sure, the founding fathers warned of the formation of political parties and then went out and basically formed them behind the opinions of Jefferson and Hamilton. Do you think parties hinder the legislative process and, if so, what is the solution.
Fifth, same sex marriage. Im interested to hear your opinions on this and your opinions on Repubs who are in favor of the same sex marriage issue.
Last, Christy from New Jersey. What do you think of him and what do you think his chances of being the nominee are?
I know this is a lot of things but, if you have the time, I would really like to hear your thoughts on these issues. Thanks
Thanks for the kind words. Wow, LOL, that's a pretty extensive list you got there. I am totally against any mind altering drug being legalized. The disaster I see in legalizing marijuana in the secular sense, is in teaching our youth it is a socially acceptable practice. Heck, we might as well just write them off altogether or, tell them to go outside and play in traffic. Our job as parents is to protect them from harm and poor decisions while they are immature. Not lead them into a life of indiscretion and harm. The loss of life due to drug and alcohol abuse is incredible. "About 570,000 people die annually due to drug use. That breaks down to about 440,000 from disease related to tobacco, 85,000 due to alcohol, 20,000 due to illicit (illegal) drugs, and 20,000 due to prescription drug abuse. If you want more information, check out NIDA's site at www.drugabuse.gov." http://drugfactsweek.drugabuse.gov/chat/...stions.php
Drug death statistics vary depending on who's doing the study and their particular bias. The thing about drugs is that folks who use them tend to lose their sense of morality in a relative short order. The marijuana users I have known don't give a flip about any thing but getting high and partying. Many of them would drink alcohol along with smoking dope. Taking care of life's daily responsibilities, working a job, paying bills, chores, anything that isn't associated with a good time is a real aggravation to all the folks I have known that did drugs. They use each other like a bunch of vampires who've run out of mortals to prey on.
I find it to be remarkable that society of today has become so desensitized to wrong doing. I mean, how can so many be making the argument that smoking dope is okay. In any case, it is my contention that the idea of morality was handed down to man from God and, like an early warning alarm system that is embedded within his conscience, it goes off to let him know he is in the wrong, or considering doing wrong. You know, that burning embarrassment, dread and foreboding we all feel the instant we cross the line? Drugs and alcohol however, desensitize the conscience. I find safety, in sticking to the ultimate authority on what is right and what is wrong. Again, teaching this to our sons and daughters, is part and parcel to responsible parenting. So, defining what is right and wrong is impossible without the infallible guidance of God's Holy Word. Galatians 5:19-21 (NKJV)
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The word translated sorcery from verse 20 is the Greek word pharmakeia= the
English translation pharmacy= drugs.
We have compromised ourselves into a state of confusion. Where do we really draw the line anymore? Illicit sex before (and during) marriage, mind altering drugs, homosexuality, infanticide, nothing is looked down on anymore. So, if we are determined to ignore God's authority, what standard is left? Whatever we want to do is the answer. To exemplify the point, Eric Holder, our nation's supreme police chief, has told the individual state educational authorities to basically look the other way if minorities are guilty of wrongdoing. Specifically named as an example was fighting on school property. Are you kidding me? The DOJ is telling school systems not to punish minorities?
Without question, the death spiral in which we find ourselves presently, is proof positive that we are not smart enough, or wise enough, to redefine right and wrong in our own eyes.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-16-2014, 09:50 AM
TheRealThing Wrote:Yeah, darn those rich guys. They should be out giving it to the poor, right? :please:
If you'd bothered to do any research from the wealth of information provided for your convenience in the posts above, you'd have seen where this county has acquired 20 trillion dollars in debt since the launch of the Great Society. Giving stuff away doesn't cause the recipients of that stuff to gain any personal integrity.
Interesting redirect... again croniny capitalism at its finest in S.E. KY!!! Thanks to a REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey I got an idea; lets start two wars and not worry about paying for either of them, blame the next guy.... brilliant!!!!
01-16-2014, 03:04 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:Thanks for the kind words. Wow, LOL, that's a pretty extensive list you got there. I am totally against any mind altering drug being legalized. The disaster I see in legalizing marijuana in the secular sense, is in teaching our youth it is a socially acceptable practice. Heck, we might as well just write them off altogether or, tell them to go outside and play in traffic. Our job as parents is to protect them from harm and poor decisions while they are immature. Not lead them into a life of indiscretion and harm. The loss of life due to drug and alcohol abuse is incredible. "About 570,000 people die annually due to drug use. That breaks down to about 440,000 from disease related to tobacco, 85,000 due to alcohol, 20,000 due to illicit (illegal) drugs, and 20,000 due to prescription drug abuse. If you want more information, check out NIDA's site at www.drugabuse.gov." http://drugfactsweek.drugabuse.gov/chat/...stions.php
Drug death statistics vary depending on who's doing the study and their particular bias. The thing about drugs is that folks who use them tend to lose their sense of morality in a relative short order. The marijuana users I have known don't give a flip about any thing but getting high and partying. Many of them would drink alcohol along with smoking dope. Taking care of life's daily responsibilities, working a job, paying bills, chores, anything that isn't associated with a good time is a real aggravation to all the folks I have known that did drugs. They use each other like a bunch of vampires who've run out of mortals to prey on.
I find it to be remarkable that society of today has become so desensitized to wrong doing. I mean, how can so many be making the argument that smoking dope is okay. In any case, it is my contention that the idea of morality was handed down to man from God and, like an early warning alarm system that is embedded within his conscience, it goes off to let him know he is in the wrong, or considering doing wrong. You know, that burning embarrassment, dread and foreboding we all feel the instant we cross the line? Drugs and alcohol however, desensitize the conscience. I find safety, in sticking to the ultimate authority on what is right and what is wrong. Again, teaching this to our sons and daughters, is part and parcel to responsible parenting. So, defining what is right and wrong is impossible without the infallible guidance of God's Holy Word. Galatians 5:19-21 (NKJV)
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The word translated sorcery from verse 20 is the Greek word pharmakeia= the
English translation pharmacy= drugs.
We have compromised ourselves into a state of confusion. Where do we really draw the line anymore? Illicit sex before (and during) marriage, mind altering drugs, homosexuality, infanticide, nothing is looked down on anymore. So, if we are determined to ignore God's authority, what standard is left? Whatever we want to do is the answer. To exemplify the point, Eric Holder, our nation's supreme police chief, has told the individual state educational authorities to basically look the other way if minorities are guilty of wrongdoing. Specifically named as an example was fighting on school property. Are you kidding me? The DOJ is telling school systems not to punish minorities?
Without question, the death spiral in which we find ourselves presently, is proof positive that we are not smart enough, or wise enough, to redefine right and wrong in our own eyes.
Many times I notice that use the term "drugs and alcohol." Does that mean that you are against alcohol being legai? Also, through much of your answer, you talk about the problem of children using marijuana. I dont think any of the people who are pro legalization are proponents of allowing kids to use it. It would be sold only to adults that are of age, much like alcohol is now. Before you say it, I realize that kids drink alcohol any many cases and have no trouble finding it buy it is against the law. In order to obtain alcohol, there had to have been an adult in the process somewhere. With marijuana today, kids can obtain it directly without any adult involved. Prohibition didnt stop people from drinking alcohol and marijuana proponents are sure that the situation is the same. Again, I am just playing devil's advocate to get your opinions.
Also, dont forget that other list when you get time. I think everyone likes reading your responses!
01-16-2014, 04:29 PM
Quickkickonthird Wrote:Many times I notice that use the term "drugs and alcohol." Does that mean that you are against alcohol being legai? Also, through much of your answer, you talk about the problem of children using marijuana. I dont think any of the people who are pro legalization are proponents of allowing kids to use it. It would be sold only to adults that are of age, much like alcohol is now. Before you say it, I realize that kids drink alcohol any many cases and have no trouble finding it buy it is against the law. In order to obtain alcohol, there had to have been an adult in the process somewhere. With marijuana today, kids can obtain it directly without any adult involved. Prohibition didnt stop people from drinking alcohol and marijuana proponents are sure that the situation is the same. Again, I am just playing devil's advocate to get your opinions.
Also, dont forget that other list when you get time. I think everyone likes reading your responses!
Alcohol is already legal and yet, is widely cited as a destructive force in our society. Our founding fathers used alcohol and distilled alcohol. Am I for it to be legal? Yes, especially since even the theocracy of Israel allowed for the production and consumption of wine. Drugs are a different matter. Much more addictive. The war to legalize drugs is now under way and, we still have time to come to our senses and disallow legalization.
I agree with your observations in general, except for the part about advocating for youth introduction to this gateway drug. Young people imitate the behavior of the adults around them and if marijuana is legalized, like alcohol, it will be glorified. How many times have you seen folks have a bar in their home? You know, friends are invited in, there is food, with drink and fun to be had at the bar for the adults? In the same way our children will be grandfathered in to a general acceptance of the use of drugs. So, giving up or giving in is not a very noteworthy stance even though the drug juggernaut does seem to be irresistible. BTW, I included alcohol because it is nearly impossible to look up drug statistics that don't include the mention of alcohol, which is also considered a mood/behavior altering substance. As was demonstrated only today when a legal spokesman advised folks never to tweet while under their influence due to liability issues. :biggrin:
Thought I would answer your list one subject per post, LOL.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-16-2014, 05:50 PM
tvtimeout Wrote:Interesting redirect... again croniny capitalism at its finest in S.E. KY!!! Thanks to a REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey I got an idea; lets start two wars and not worry about paying for either of them, blame the next guy.... brilliant!!!!
You might be in south eastern Kentucky, I am not. So, if you're saying "croniny capitalism" (whatever that is) is coming from you since you are in that part of the state, I guess I can live with that. However, so far as this thread is concerned, the only redirection attempt has come from yourself. If you'd care to actually go back and read the posts in the thread, you'll see that all involved, except you, were writing about the liberal conceived and inspired war on poverty initiated by LBJ.
You blundered in and moved the conversation from the national level to your own local area, the first step in your redirect. The article that inspired me to post on the matter was written by Alex Newman. He is an "international journalist, educator and consultant who is currently based in Europe but has lived on four continents." A man who is widely respected by his colleagues. Now, you might think that his opinions which, are obviously backed up by an impressive body of research regarding the failed policies of liberalism past and present, pale by comparison to the news around your neck of the woods but, I have sincere doubts about that possibility. Next, in typical DNC inspired fashion, you slammed rich people as being somehow evil by association, I suppose. Then you slammed your Republican Congressman and managed unbelievably, to derail your own attempt at redirection, when you moved you own dialogue onto another DNC talking point in blaming wars we get into on Republicans. I left the conversation of the thread for a time to address you directly, as I am doing yet again in this post. But, I can't resist giving credit where it is due. You are right in assuming that blame fixing is a "brilliant" strategy. And yet, you mention blaming "the next guy", when in fact, that next guy (president Oblame-a), has spent his entire tenure bad mouthing and blaming Bush and the Republicans for his own short falls and inability to stop dialing 1-800-CRY-BABY every darn day. :dudecomeon:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-16-2014, 07:51 PM
OK RealThing, Im coming brtween you and TVTimeout for a few! What about the 2cd question? I think we covered the marijuana issue, LOL!!
01-16-2014, 08:11 PM
Quickkickonthird Wrote:RealThing, I wanted to tell you that I enjoy reading your posts very much. That being said, I would be interested to hear your answers to a couple of questions. Understand, this is not a challenge. I am truly interested in your opinions on some questions that I have struggled with in discussions with other people.
First, What is your stand on the legalization of marijuana(sp?) for recreational use?
Second, If a person is against the death penalty, can he still be considered a conservative?
Third, What do you think of republicans who are pro choice on the abortion issue?
Fourth, what is your opinion on political parties in general? As you know Im sure, the founding fathers warned of the formation of political parties and then went out and basically formed them behind the opinions of Jefferson and Hamilton. Do you think parties hinder the legislative process and, if so, what is the solution.
Fifth, same sex marriage. Im interested to hear your opinions on this and your opinions on Repubs who are in favor of the same sex marriage issue.
Last, Christy from New Jersey. What do you think of him and what do you think his chances of being the nominee are?
I know this is a lot of things but, if you have the time, I would really like to hear your thoughts on these issues. Thanks
2nd) Yeah, I don't think a man's fellow conservatives would arch an eyebrow if he was against the death penalty. To allow murderers, especially mass murderers, to live out their lives in prison, or even worse to be released, strikes me as being unbalanced at best. But, there is plenty of room in a political party for such differences of opinion.
3rd) Same deal. It's true, most Republicans espouse the long running traditional stand against abortion on demand. But, I suppose a man's eggs could be scrambled enough so that he could be pro choice and still support the other tenets of conservatism. It would be kind of like looking like a duck, quacking like a duck, but walking backwards, LOL. IMO, men in general, much less political parties, are in the very best case, walking waaaay out on the thin ice when they pass laws which contradict God's law. So, whether a so-called pro life politician is a Dem or a Repub means absolutely nothing to me. However, on a spiritual level in my eyes it means their ideas are flawed. I would never knowingly vote for any candidate regardless of designation, who was pro choice. God knows every thought and every move that we will ever make, in fact, He knows the number of hairs each of us have on our head at any given time. It is therefore my pleasure to withhold my vote from any pro choice candidate. You have to understand, abortions were by law and conscience, unacceptable for the first two hundred years of our country's existence. Only recently has the liberal so successfully managed to use the courts to redefine our concepts of what characterizes acceptably moral behavior. And that is why he is so adamant in his quest to have any mention of God, Who obviously is completely against most of the liberal agenda, eliminated from any national conversation.
However, leaving that aside for a minute, how one could justify killing an unborn or, just born, because the mom is unwilling to face the consequences of getting pregnant is beyond me. In short, I believe that women use up their privilege of choice, when they choose to have unprotected sex or do not employ a proactive means of birth control.
Morally speaking, once that ovum is fertilized, the opportunity for prevention is gone. At the point of fertilization, to me the matter should remain in God's hands.
To digress for the sake of the question of birth control. Some folks take the position that birth control is wrong and, therefore reject it out of hand. The reason I believe, is based on the notion that every egg is a person waiting to be brought into the world via insemination. I can't buy that one because so many eggs are just naturally not fertilized. In fact, every woman has at least a million of them and the average number of children she will have is only 3. Same thing with sperm. Between 50 and 500 million are produced per occasion of intercourse. No way can I conceive that 500 million individuals get flushed every time the female does not become pregnant. Saying that, I do not believe that these observations in any way challenge the authority or providence of God. All eggs that get fertilized are done so within His permissive will. And, I believe that God is aware of every last person who was, or is to be, for whatever amount of time, in their mother's womb. Finally, I believe each one of those are viable individuals, regardless if they've not yet attained the 24 week threshold established by man, and that He will know every last one them at the resurrection. Further, I believe that He will know whoever has been aborted and for whatever reason. So, to clarify, birth control to me is prevention, but abortion always means ending the life of another (totally innocent) human being. In short, if God conceived of you, you will be conceived in your mother's womb. Not withstanding her laughable right to choose if you get to stay there until you are born.
So, from a political standpoint, do we have the right to control behavior? The answer is no, but, we can certainly hold folks responsible for actions they choose to take that otherwise would force the rest of us to take that responsibility for them. Should we legalize abortion to make it more convenient for folks to behave irresponsibly? Again, I say no. People making babies should have them and they should raise them. Should those who live acceptably moral lives be forced to pay via taxation for the dalliances of the misguided, as is evidenced through the monstrous butchery that goes on in abortion clinics across this land? Once again, I say no. Government is forcing the citizens of this country, to subsidize what could only be considered to be completely unacceptable sexual behavior by the wanton and the reckless among us. There have been huge number of folks that have chosen to do the right thing and have taken the responsibility for their actions, gotten married and raised a family. Hats off to them.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-16-2014, 11:16 PM
OK Thing. You made it through three. I know it requires a lot of time to respond but it is interesting reading. Looking forward to the rest!
01-17-2014, 12:06 AM
Quickkickonthird Wrote:RealThing, I wanted to tell you that I enjoy reading your posts very much. That being said, I would be interested to hear your answers to a couple of questions. Understand, this is not a challenge. I am truly interested in your opinions on some questions that I have struggled with in discussions with other people.
First, What is your stand on the legalization of marijuana(sp?) for recreational use?
Second, If a person is against the death penalty, can he still be considered a conservative?
Third, What do you think of republicans who are pro choice on the abortion issue?
Fourth, what is your opinion on political parties in general? As you know Im sure, the founding fathers warned of the formation of political parties and then went out and basically formed them behind the opinions of Jefferson and Hamilton. Do you think parties hinder the legislative process and, if so, what is the solution.Fifth, same sex marriage. Im interested to hear your opinions on this and your opinions on Repubs who are in favor of the same sex marriage issue.
Last, Christy from New Jersey. What do you think of him and what do you think his chances of being the nominee are?
I know this is a lot of things but, if you have the time, I would really like to hear your thoughts on these issues. Thanks
4) History is a subject that seems to be framed in the eye of the beholder, LOL. I would say that after 8 years of watching Hamilton and Jefferson go at it, Washington was the one who perceived the probable dangers of forming political parties, rather than the founding fathers in general. "Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom." [American History]
To me, the American experience has been by far the most unique (outside that of the nation of Israel) in the history of mankind. Ever heard the catch phrase "the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle?" Compromise in the name of the common good and for the sake of the nation, among and between polar opposites the likes of Hamilton and Jefferson, has been the stuff of statesmanship, longevity and greatness for America. That confluence of reason, governed by mutual respect and love of country, has been the life blood of this land since it's inception.
I have always believed that the process of hammering out legislation between the two parties, one on the left and one on the right, has delivered a workable and beneficial government to the American people, all of whom live in the middle btw. And, up until the very recent past, that situation has served we the people quite adequately. But, IMO, storm clouds have coalesced to rain the first drops of tyranny upon the heads of unsuspecting Americans. One party wants to usurp the traditional position and status away from their counterparts across the aisle. And so, for the first time in our history, we are hearing terms like congressional gridlock, the nuclear option, and other equally troubling rumblings from the hallowed halls. To hear our president threaten to go around the congress in favor of using the pen, scares me.
We need the two party system to survive. One side never has it all completely right. Jefferson envisioned an agricultural paradise, while Hamilton saw the potential for manufacturing and commerce. Ironically, both were right and yet, either of them would have neutered the other with nary so much as a boy howdy's worth of regret. Likewise, if we were to allow one party to render the other of no import, as the Dems are presently trying to do, it would be to the detriment of the common good. We will lose what makes us great.
For example, this country has always been a land whose people reached out to the needy. And yet, liberals have never been satisfied. Enough has never been enough, in their eyes. Hence, the thread I started to reveal the folly of the LBJ et-al vision of the "Great Society." The reality is that we are well on our way of spending ourselves into oblivion and Jefferson's fear will be realized, albeit some 237 years or so later. And, the only reason it is about to happen is because one party finally has seized enough power to overcome the other enough to affect near unilateral control of government. It's completely unnecessary and a gigantic aberration. The poor don't need a dedicated group of Democrat Husbandmen to survive but, you'd never know that by listening to the rhetoric. WE THE PEOPLE, must awaken and reinitiate our system of governance of and by the people. Until Democrats and Republicans are defined by their true actions and not by propaganda dreamed up the other side, obviously meant to cause doubt and fear in the minds of voters, the death spiral we are in will continue. Rational and lucid minded voters have all the power they will ever need to ensure the continued good fortunes of this country. On the other hand, mindlessly voting for one particular party, minus the diligence required to validate their worthiness, is not what I would call a proper fulfillment of one's civic duty to his country. The sacrifice of blood and treasure of those gone on, demands more of us than that.
The very notion that only one party is honorable and loves this country is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. But, that line of rationale is basically being flown by the DNC. I'm not saying that Republicans are all good with no rotten apples. They've got their share of goofs too. The problem we have is that one party, with the help of a complicitous press, presently wields so much power that the balance of power shared among the 3 branches of the federal government has been tipped disproportionately. I don't agree with the left and yet, as long as they are willing to put country ahead of party, their input into the process of government is indispensable.
But no, once the founding fathers formed the government. I don't think that the parties have hindered the process, rather, I believe they are the process. Frankly though, the process has become skewed of late IMO, intended to benefit only those of the minorities. As a result, I believe we're drowning in forthcoming legislation, which has been authored for the sole purpose of advancing a system of belief, that being liberalism. There are laws on the books enough to govern us already, of that I am convinced.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-17-2014, 01:07 AM
I think that you are in favor of a 2 party system but what happens when the situation is as it is today? I am a History/Political Science major myself and got my masters in History so I feel like I have a little (albeit very little, lol) light to shed on this issue but I will hold my humble comments until u are finished with my silly request for you to reply to these questions and again, I appreciate reading your responses, especially your comments on Jefferson who was one of my favorites.
However now that my preamble is finished, what do you think about the situation today within the repulican party? Meaning, Is the GOP the same as the present day Tea Party and should they be and do they want to be? I mean there is a pretty wide gap between Ted Whats-his-name from Texas and Christy from Jersey. Can the party survive with the gap being this wide? Can the Tea Party be an actual 3rd party and should they?
Please answer this before you move on to my next question. Man, I just realized that it sounds like Im giving orders.....just for the record, your thoughts are appreciated. I look forward to turning on the computer and reading them. While I may disagree with you on some minor things you have said, we are in accord for the most part. Please keep it up if you dont get carpal tunnel(sp?), LOL!!!
However now that my preamble is finished, what do you think about the situation today within the repulican party? Meaning, Is the GOP the same as the present day Tea Party and should they be and do they want to be? I mean there is a pretty wide gap between Ted Whats-his-name from Texas and Christy from Jersey. Can the party survive with the gap being this wide? Can the Tea Party be an actual 3rd party and should they?
Please answer this before you move on to my next question. Man, I just realized that it sounds like Im giving orders.....just for the record, your thoughts are appreciated. I look forward to turning on the computer and reading them. While I may disagree with you on some minor things you have said, we are in accord for the most part. Please keep it up if you dont get carpal tunnel(sp?), LOL!!!
01-17-2014, 03:02 AM
I think we also lost the war on going green.
[Image: http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-commo...207105.jpg]
[Image: http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-commo...207105.jpg]
01-17-2014, 12:04 PM
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:I think we also lost the war on going green.
[Image: http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-commo...207105.jpg]
:thatsfunn Top ten Run!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-17-2014, 03:35 PM
Quickkickonthird Wrote:I think that you are in favor of a 2 party system but what happens when the situation is as it is today? I am a History/Political Science major myself and got my masters in History so I feel like I have a little (albeit very little, lol) light to shed on this issue but I will hold my humble comments until u are finished with my silly request for you to reply to these questions and again, I appreciate reading your responses, especially your comments on Jefferson who was one of my favorites.
However now that my preamble is finished, what do you think about the situation today within the repulican party? Meaning, Is the GOP the same as the present day Tea Party and should they be and do they want to be? I mean there is a pretty wide gap between Ted Whats-his-name from Texas and Christy from Jersey. Can the party survive with the gap being this wide? Can the Tea Party be an actual 3rd party and should they?
Please answer this before you move on to my next question. Man, I just realized that it sounds like Im giving orders.....just for the record, your thoughts are appreciated. I look forward to turning on the computer and reading them. While I may disagree with you on some minor things you have said, we are in accord for the most part. Please keep it up if you dont get carpal tunnel(sp?), LOL!!!
If you're a Political Science major you should be able to recognize the difference between a grass roots movement and the GOP. None the less, the debate within the GOP that keeps the media dancing for joy, as if such actions are the harbinger of collapse from within, is rather in my opinion, the pulse of a healthy heart beat.
Dems on the other hand, are sold out lock, stock and barrel, in support of the liberal agenda, no internal debate there. From my view, all Dems are strictly co opted for their entire career on the Hill. Other than their obvious predilection to pursue issues of social justice, all of their time seems to be dedicated to damage control and misdirection. The appropriate political term I believe is Red Herring. And, the scope and size of the Red Herrings of late would give Moby Dick a run for his money any day of the week, as pundits and investigative committees seem to be constantly off chasing up blind allies, only to return very predictably empty handed. At any rate, I was paying attention at the time, and I saw the balance of power shift within the Democratic party to the liberals (more accurately defined as progressives) following the Kennedy assassination. The party of my parents and my grandparents morphed from the party of JFK into the party of LBJ in a 4 year period. I should mention here that though I constantly refer to liberals as having taken over the Democratic party, they bear only the faintest similarity to the liberals of our founding father's day. I probably should quit helping them hide under that label by calling them out for what they really are, progressives. However, this is the label by which they are known, and so at the least, I don't have to be concerned that there will be any political misunderstanding.
Admittedly, I tend to pick on the Dems more than I do the Republicans. And, there is one very fundamental reason for that. Republicans do not profess to reject the authority of God over man, out of hand. But, like this or not, the Dems do exactly that in practice, though they profess otherwise in their rhetoric. This was evidenced in the bru ha-ha which, resulted from the removal of any wording mentioning God from the language of the 2012 party platform and which, threatened to completely derail the Democratic Convention. Needless to say, the spin doctors and damage controllers had to get to work 'tout de suite', LOL. And, the actions of the liberals within the Democratic party are nothing if not predictable. After all, liberals are nearly to a man secular humanists who deny God's authority over man, as is abundantly clear by the direction taken in recent legislative efforts of the Democratically controlled Senate and early on in the current administration when DADT and ObamaCare were the focus of the then Democratically controlled House.
Why I believe the issue of Godly influence to be so important is as follows. Man's authority cannot be based on his own logic nor could it be defended, as in the case of present law debates, by debate skills. Somebody will always be waiting in the wings to best him in some debate. That scenario could only provide for an ever mutating and rudderless journey into the wilderness, so to speak. The ultimate fortunes of Rome best exemplify my view on the matter. The lines between right and wrong, or acceptable and unacceptable, when subjected to the attack of endless debate, tend to blur from being clearly defined, to become vast gray areas of compromise governed by that very same endless debate. As a result, the Roman Senate lost the authority to rule. Tolerance gone out of control resulted in incurable apathy among Roman citizens and the endless assault on reason by special interests had successfully removed any vestige of authority, from which the state could reasonably expect to prosecute justice. Therefore, a kind of 'soft anarchy' pervaded daily Roman life as an "anything goes" mentality ruled the hearts of the Roman people.
In the case of America, we have managed as a society, to last long enough to begin to suffer from the same kind of wear, for lack of a better term, that beset Rome. Both parties are offshoots of Classic Liberalism on which, the founding fathers developed their values. The central tenet of Classic Liberalism is individual liberty. People by nature have tended in the past to believe that the liberty afforded to them was granted by their government. Jefferson did not accept that perspective and walking in the footsteps of John Locke, insisted that our rights were unalienable gifts from our Creator. Further, that it is "the people" who have the right to both establish and dissolve governments. Other than that core principle, the two parties are arguing about ideas that have been sociologically selected if you will, from the cafeteria of Classic Liberalism. Therefore, as I have already indicated, it is in the confluence where the two sides meet, that the truth is most probably at it's purest form.
The trump card which guarantees the most acceptable political view in my opinion, is the Godly influence which both guided the consciences of founding fathers, and to whatever extent, those of today's politician. We need both parties in exactly the same manner in which we need the right and left sides of our own body. It is together that they manage to make up the whole. Somehow though, contempt, distrust and hatred has crept in and polluted the process. So, I contend that we will remain one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all, only if we are wise enough to remember and study the road map of our own national history. Teaching it in it's purest form to each successive generation and adhering at least generally, to the examples of past success. What is morality? I say it is whatever God has said that it is. Americans have shown incredible contempt for the authority of God of late, as if Christianity is somehow to be regarded at arms length, on par with all religions and who among us could not name almost all of them? The founding documents however, tell a different story, as does our historical record.
In the end, we are a people of self governance. If we refuse to agree somewhere in the middle, we will likely go the way of Rome. Most folks don't realize how precious their freedoms are, because they have no basis by which to understand what it would be like to lose them. Sadly, I believe career politicians don't fare much better, or they would stop the mud slinging immediately and beg for forgiveness. I can't help but imagine 300 million Americans after the fall of this land. Trying to wrap their head around the notion that somehow they had become consumed with whether their governmental leaders had a D or an R in front of their name. As if such a designation would guarantee anything at all. No, my vote will always go to the candidate who best represents a concern for the common good, sidestepping any candidate who openly pledges homage to special interests. Which by definition, leaves the valid interests, liberty, hopes and dreams of the majority, laying in the dust.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-17-2014, 05:15 PM
I appreciate you trying to sharpen my recognition skills. I will try to work on that.
As far as your post goes, I agree with the majority of what you said but I do have one more question on this issue before we move on. Is it conceivable for a person to be an athiest and a republican? Again, I am playing devil's advocate.
As far as the Tea Party and The GOP goes, I understand that "Tea Party" is simply a movement by a group of like minded people to preach their ideas. I also understand that that is the way that political parties are formed. If these type of movements had not occured in our country's history, we would still be members of the Federalist party or the Anti-Federalist party (or Democratic-Republicans if you prefer).
Im looking forward to your thoughts on Christy when we get to it. Mabey you can contrast your Christy thoughts with the platform of Ted Cruz (I think that is his name).
As far as your post goes, I agree with the majority of what you said but I do have one more question on this issue before we move on. Is it conceivable for a person to be an athiest and a republican? Again, I am playing devil's advocate.
As far as the Tea Party and The GOP goes, I understand that "Tea Party" is simply a movement by a group of like minded people to preach their ideas. I also understand that that is the way that political parties are formed. If these type of movements had not occured in our country's history, we would still be members of the Federalist party or the Anti-Federalist party (or Democratic-Republicans if you prefer).
Im looking forward to your thoughts on Christy when we get to it. Mabey you can contrast your Christy thoughts with the platform of Ted Cruz (I think that is his name).
01-17-2014, 06:42 PM
Quickkickonthird Wrote:I appreciate you trying to sharpen my recognition skills. I will try to work on that.
As far as your post goes, I agree with the majority of what you said but I do have one more question on this issue before we move on. Is it conceivable for a person to be an athiest and a republican? Again, I am playing devil's advocate.
As far as the Tea Party and The GOP goes, I understand that "Tea Party" is simply a movement by a group of like minded people to preach their ideas. I also understand that that is the way that political parties are formed. If these type of movements had not occured in our country's history, we would still be members of the Federalist party or the Anti-Federalist party (or Democratic-Republicans if you prefer).
Im looking forward to your thoughts on Christy when we get to it. Mabey you can contrast your Christy thoughts with the platform of Ted Cruz (I think that is his name).
Sorry, I didn't think my statement was quite that direct. In no way did I intend to indicate that the words Republican and Christian are synonyms. As far as I know, from among the entire 112th congress, only 6 members refused to publicly align themselves with an organized Church. Of the 6, none were willing to say they were atheists.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-17-2014, 07:05 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:Sorry, I didn't think my statement was quite that direct. In no way did I intend to indicate that the words Republican and Christian are synonyms. As far as I know, from among the entire 112th congress, only 6 members refused to publicly align themselves with an organized Church. Of the 6, none were willing to say they were atheists.
GOP members of congress would be committing political suicide if they admitted to being an athiest, even if they were.
I was pretty sure that you didnt think that Christianity and Republican were synonyms but, in just reading your last post, one could get that idea.
Anyway, lets move on to the next question. I am looking forward to your next response very much. My internet was down for a while this afternoon and I was very mad because I wanted to see your next post. I love reading politics and your thoughts on these issues interest me very much.
By the way, its funny that you started this thread about the war on poverty because I am currently reading "The Path To Power," a biography of LBJ. Like him or not, he was a fascinating politician!
01-17-2014, 08:43 PM
Quickkickonthird Wrote:GOP members of congress would be committing political suicide if they admitted to being an athiest, even if they were.
I was pretty sure that you didnt think that Christianity and Republican were synonyms but, in just reading your last post, one could get that idea.
Anyway, lets move on to the next question. I am looking forward to your next response very much. My internet was down for a while this afternoon and I was very mad because I wanted to see your next post. I love reading politics and your thoughts on these issues interest me very much.
By the way, its funny that you started this thread about the war on poverty because I am currently reading "The Path To Power," a biography of LBJ. Like him or not, he was a fascinating politician!
He was a fascinating politician and a very decent man. At the time he pushed forward his plan to end poverty, the deed seemed doable, when you consider at the time there were only 360 thousand on food stamps.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-18-2014, 08:51 PM
Quickkickonthird Wrote:RealThing, I wanted to tell you that I enjoy reading your posts very much. That being said, I would be interested to hear your answers to a couple of questions. Understand, this is not a challenge. I am truly interested in your opinions on some questions that I have struggled with in discussions with other people.
First, What is your stand on the legalization of marijuana(sp?) for recreational use?
Second, If a person is against the death penalty, can he still be considered a conservative?
Third, What do you think of republicans who are pro choice on the abortion issue?
Fourth, what is your opinion on political parties in general? As you know Im sure, the founding fathers warned of the formation of political parties and then went out and basically formed them behind the opinions of Jefferson and Hamilton. Do you think parties hinder the legislative process and, if so, what is the solution.
Fifth, same sex marriage. Im interested to hear your opinions on this and your opinions on Repubs who are in favor of the same sex marriage issue.
Last, Christy from New Jersey. What do you think of him and what do you think his chances of being the nominee are?
I know this is a lot of things but, if you have the time, I would really like to hear your thoughts on these issues. Thanks
I was initially planning to ask these questions but thank you for doing the work for me. Like you, I always enjoy reading TRT's posts.
Just remember, I am his #1 fan on here.
nicker:Welcome to BGR! :Thumbs:
01-19-2014, 01:48 AM
Quickkickonthird Wrote:RealThing, I wanted to tell you that I enjoy reading your posts very much. That being said, I would be interested to hear your answers to a couple of questions. Understand, this is not a challenge. I am truly interested in your opinions on some questions that I have struggled with in discussions with other people.
Fifth, same sex marriage. Im interested to hear your opinions on this and your opinions on Repubs who are in favor of the same sex marriage issue.
I know this is a lot of things but, if you have the time, I would really like to hear your thoughts on these issues. Thanks
To my mind, there were two main authorities that shaped my thoughts about what is right and what is wrong. Those being the government of the United States of America, and the Word of God. Interestingly enough, I was not aware of any conflict between the two entities until sometime during the Clinton administration, when it first became clear that words were not actually meant to be taken at face value, rather, they are more like portals leading to wondrously vast planes of ambiguity, limited in scope only by the fertility of one's mind. For example, who knew there were so many shades of the word is, is? LOL. That's why successive presidents can say things like "if you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan. Period, end of story" and, not mean one word of it. :biggrin:
It was 1947, and the ACLU had just successfully sued the US government. In a clever distortion, they had recast and redefined the concept of "the separation of church and state", in an argument that was conceived and presented to the SCOTUS by atty Leo Pfeiffer, and stands as law to this day. Tragically the Leo Pfeiffer legacy is one of loss. We as a people still grope our way through the ensuing fog, ever adrift on uncharted, troubled waters, bereft of the very guidance that made us great. I like to think that every once in a while, one can still hear a bell sounding off in the distance. The bell of the outer channel marker that marks the way back to safe harbor, where the American ship of state was once moored during her days of greatness. I keep hoping. Since that day in 1947, the US legal system has been in a state of flux. Having been subjected to the relentless erosive efforts of the liberal, these days folks look at you like you're from Mars if you suggest America's laws derive much of their basis, and all of their authority from scripture. In that self same Leo Pfeiffer spirit, attorneys have since argued away most of what I understand to make any common sense whatever. Having no real authority on which to base their arguments these days, lawyers are forced to keep adding their ill conceived legal machinations to a structure of law which has been decimated by 60 years of redefinition.
In fact, a withering liberal assault has caused our legal system to more resemble a moldy lump of swiss cheese, than the shining and seamless alabaster pyramid of strength it was once. Additionally, the foundation of that pyramid, like all foundations, remains hidden. And though we can't see it, we all understand that there must be a foundation on which any structure is built. In the case of American law, the stuff of that foundation, was identified in the words of no less than Thomas Jefferson within the language of the US Declaration of Independence, when he mentioned our rights are given by our Creator. There was no argument about that until recently. I mean, it was for good reason that in 1956 we put "In God We Trust" on our money. In that day we in fact DID trust God. Sadly, by 2014, the liberal bent for compromise, has successfully rendered all truth subjective. Seemingly, absolutes exist now, only in the minds of the intolerant among us. Forgive me but, a scripture comes to mind here. As you know, I believe tolerance like water, is the universal solvent of civilizations, great and small. Tolerance is all one is left with, once all truth has been rendered subjective by liberalism.
Revelation 3:15-16 (KJV)
15 "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
Which to my mind, means that God hates ambiguity and a mouth full of guile. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no, that's how the Lord wants us to speak. Otherwise, what He is saying in verse 16 is that, mealy mouthed ambiguity makes Him sick and like vomit, He will spit us out of His mouth.
So, with that in mind, just let me say this about same sex marriage. I have no personal authority to decide what is okay and not okay. However, the Lord does and He says it is wrong.
Romans 1:26-32 (NKJV)
26 "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
Anybody who will take the short time required to read the scripture text above, will have to admit that the meaning is rather plain spoken. And I might add, even if a person can't read, God has impressed His meaning on the heart of every man. And, as is indicated in verse 32, all men inherently know, because their conscience tells them that the judgment of God will come upon them, if they insist on doing what is wrong. And, I would offer one little additional tidbit here in the form of a question. How is it that there is any question about how God feels about the sin of homosexuality (we like to call it same sex marriage in our time, it just sounds so much better), when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in a rain of Hell Fire for that very sin? I mean, as far as I know, this was a one time occurrence. And again, from where would one suppose we got the word Sodomy in the first place? Now, do I or any other living human have the right to deny these guys whatever it is they want to do the privacy of their own bedrooms? Of course not. Nor is it my place to judge. But, I can tell you this. When Christ forgave somebody in the New Testament for some form of sin, He always said "go, and sin no more." Somehow, we have gotten the notion that if we are clever enough with our presentation, we can talk our way past the judgment. I just don't see that.
Where I believe America has greatly erred in the matter is as follows. And this is the underlying mountain of deceit with which this administration got one over on us. Man has no authority to decree something right that God has clearly declared to be wrong. When we in effect overturn His law by calling something like homosexuality legal, we might as well walk outside and shake our fist in His face. Why is that a big deal? Because, America like Israel, once proudly proclaimed unreserved allegiance to God. We were proud to align ourselves with Him. And, anybody who is even vaguely familiar with the history of Israel knows that the Nation of Israel lay at the proud foot of a conqueror time after time for her disobedience. Will that happen to the USA? I don't know but, in my limited experience, I would think God might have to apologize to the Jew if He lets us off the hook for what we're doing. We might have an out since we're not His chosen people, but I doubt it.
Hence my continual references to the language of the founding documents. According to the founding fathers, we (all Americans) are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. That's where we derive our rights and our authority to exist as a people. I believe therefore, that to turn our backs on Him will necessarily result in the loss of those rights and any authority for the government to govern. And again, like Rome we will go the way of the dodo, due to a little thing called judgment, which is BTW inevitable. At any rate, when one boils everything down to the sauce, this whole thing amounts to nothing more than an argument with God. It's His rules and His universe. So, can man ever prevail against the sin of homosexuality? Not by any kind of philosophical discussion. IMO, only the power of God can defeat the demons that beset this land, and that through revival. In short, man has no business passing laws that are intended to usurp the purview providence of the Almighty.
There are four Republican legislators in the congress that support same sex marriage. Two of them have LGBT children, one is from New York bizarro world and about as deep blue as you can get and , one is from Illinois another deep blue state to be sure. As far as what I think about them, I just think the issue is spiritually discerned and these four are just politicians doing what politicians normally do. They will vow and declare they are for or against something until they have to make a painful personal stand. Once that happens they will very predictably fold like a cheap tent. Republicans tend to more closely adhere to the values I espouse. That doesn't mean I agree with everything with an R on it. :Thumbs:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-19-2014, 07:52 AM
Thanks for the welcome Wide!
01-19-2014, 05:07 PM
The war on poverty was lost when the government began to incentivize "girls" having kids out of wed lock without repercussions because families couldn't play nice with one another!
Here's a thought, a check will be cut to an unwed Mom when they prove that:
1. they are drug/tobacco free
2. in school or seeking employment
3. know who the father is
Rape should be the only exception to this rule. You wanna see this ridiculousness come to an end. The punishment for rape will be the offending male loses his nuts.
So Bobby is no longer playing rope tricks with Mr. Happy and becomes a responsible human being. And Debbie is building a life for herself the "right way." ( all pun intended )
On the flip side banks need to relax the unrealistic standards post 2005 and invest in the small businessman again. They must re-evaluate risk otherwise this could all go downhill rather quickly in the next 5-10 years. Many people I know would do well in business and employ others above minimum wage to help our region if banks loosened the purse strings.
As a country we have always lived and died by the small business' success. I agree with TRT. The next few years are pivotal. We already know the european "socialism" model doesn't work. We must become the light on the hill. One nation, under God with liberty and justice for all!
Here's a thought, a check will be cut to an unwed Mom when they prove that:
1. they are drug/tobacco free
2. in school or seeking employment
3. know who the father is
Rape should be the only exception to this rule. You wanna see this ridiculousness come to an end. The punishment for rape will be the offending male loses his nuts.
So Bobby is no longer playing rope tricks with Mr. Happy and becomes a responsible human being. And Debbie is building a life for herself the "right way." ( all pun intended )
On the flip side banks need to relax the unrealistic standards post 2005 and invest in the small businessman again. They must re-evaluate risk otherwise this could all go downhill rather quickly in the next 5-10 years. Many people I know would do well in business and employ others above minimum wage to help our region if banks loosened the purse strings.
As a country we have always lived and died by the small business' success. I agree with TRT. The next few years are pivotal. We already know the european "socialism" model doesn't work. We must become the light on the hill. One nation, under God with liberty and justice for all!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever."
-Mahatma Gandhi
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever."
-Mahatma Gandhi
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
