PDA

View Full Version : Permanent Majority........



road kill
11-07-2012, 07:43 AM
......Nancy Pelosi's expressed dream has been acheived.
The "Progressive" movement won the biggest election in my lifetime.
(Bill Clinton himself calls it the "Progressive" movement)
There is no turning back now.

Congratulations to the movement.

I will miss the America I grew up in, fought for, beleived in and love!

Good bye to freedom, liberty and independence, relics of the past!!
I understand that the people have spoken, and I am now in the minority.

I wonder how many that voted for Obama even know his real name?

Welcome the "cradle to grave nanny state."

PEACE!!!

luvmylabs23139
11-07-2012, 08:03 AM
It's all over. The dems bought an election with my hard earned tax money. What's the point in busting your butt when the gov't just takes it from you and gives it to those that don't?

Buzz
11-07-2012, 08:47 AM
It's all over. The dems bought an election with my hard earned tax money. What's the point in busting your butt when the gov't just takes it from you and gives it to those that don't?


I'm going to be busting my butt because it's good for my customers, good for me, good for my family, and good for the country.

Ya'll enjoy yourselves, I have work to do...

HPL
11-07-2012, 08:49 AM
Again, look at the popular vote. Although they are no longer showing it on CNN.com, last I saw Obama only had a very slight edge there and actually lost ground in some areas, including the black vote (only by a couple of points, but that is something). The independent vote was also still won by the dems, but by only 4 points, a twelve point swing from 2008. IF we make it two more years, perhaps we'll retake the senate. Repubs need to smarten up and quit shooting our candidates in the foot by insisting on making them take hard positions on the really decisive issues and concentrate on the conservative position of smaller government and more freedom. Those should be the positions Republicans should espouse and let everything else fall into place. It was basically the women's vote (read abortion rights) and the latino vote (read immigration issues) that cost us the election. Both very obvious 3rd rail issues which no smart republican should insist a candidate be vetted on.

gmhr1
11-07-2012, 09:41 AM
I'm going to be busting my butt because it's good for my customers, good for me, good for my family, and good for the country.

Ya'll enjoy yourselves, I have work to do...

we will say a prayer you dont end up like the other 23 million unemployed ( soon to go much higher)

Franco
11-07-2012, 09:51 AM
Again, look at the popular vote. Although they are no longer showing it on CNN.com, last I saw Obama only had a very slight edge there and actually lost ground in some areas, including the black vote (only by a couple of points, but that is something). The independent vote was also still won by the dems, but by only 4 points, a twelve point swing from 2008. IF we make it two more years, perhaps we'll retake the senate. Repubs need to smarten up and quit shooting our candidates in the foot by insisting on making them take hard positions on the really decisive issues and concentrate on the conservative position of smaller government and more freedom. Those should be the positions Republicans should espouse and let everything else fall into place. It was basically the women's vote (read abortion rights) and the latino vote (read immigration issues) that cost us the election. Both very obvious 3rd rail issues which no smart republican should insist a candidate be vetted on.

The problem is that there are few traditional Conservatives left in the GOP. The party has been hijacked by the far right. Just look at the diamal folks leading the party, there isn't a free thinker among them much less a real orator. They just can't get into the 21st Century with their Platform! Their only champion of smaller government and more freedom was rejected in the Primaries by the GOP!

road kill
11-07-2012, 09:59 AM
Again, look at the popular vote. Although they are no longer showing it on CNN.com, last I saw Obama only had a very slight edge there and actually lost ground in some areas, including the black vote (only by a couple of points, but that is something). The independent vote was also still won by the dems, but by only 4 points, a twelve point swing from 2008. IF we make it two more years, perhaps we'll retake the senate. Repubs need to smarten up and quit shooting our candidates in the foot by insisting on making them take hard positions on the really decisive issues and concentrate on the conservative position of smaller government and more freedom. Those should be the positions Republicans should espouse and let everything else fall into place. It was basically the women's vote (read abortion rights) and the latino vote (read immigration issues) that cost us the election. Both very obvious 3rd rail issues which no smart republican should insist a candidate be vetted on.

The only thing missing, and most frightening to the left, is INDEPENDENCE!!!
We are a nation of DEPENDENTS now...........

road kill
11-07-2012, 10:06 AM
The problem is that there are few traditional Conservatives left in the GOP. The party has been hijacked by the far right. Just look at the diamal folks leading the party, there isn't a free thinker among them much less a real orator. They just can't get into the 21st Century with their Platform! Their only champion of smaller government and more freedom was rejected in the Primaries by the GOP!

This reminds me of some of the hunters in the marsh.....how so you ask?

They start playing their Duck Kazoos, playing the same silly sounds over and over.
No ducks come, in fact they shy away, but the kazoos play on!!

OVER and OVER!!!:cool:

shawninthesticks
11-07-2012, 10:14 AM
Every man for themselves. Good luck all .

Franco
11-07-2012, 10:23 AM
This reminds me of some of the hunters in the marsh.....how so you ask?

They start playing their Duck Kazoos, playing the same silly sounds over and over.
No ducks come, in fact they shy away, but the kazoos play on!!

OVER and OVER!!!:cool:

When you don't run a candidate that represents smaller government nor freedom, what you get is Obama. And, you can NOT deny the truth of my statement that you highlighted.

There is just no hope for you guys on the far right!

JS
11-07-2012, 10:29 AM
we will say a prayer you dont end up like the other 23 million unemployed ( soon to go much higher)

You seem to be deeply concerned about the unemployment problem in the US.

Thanks for your prayers but if you really want to do something constructive, exercise your freedom of choice next time you buy a car. Consider yourself the "employer" and hire a kid in America to build it for you instead of that kid in Japan who built your Prius.

We ALL are responsible for unemployment. YES, I KNOW ... this is America and it's your right and your own business. You can do what you want and rationalize it any way you want. You can even spend all day on the internet if you choose, wringing your hands along with like-minded folks and preaching doom and gloom.

Or you can choose to do something meaningful.

JS

gmhr1
11-07-2012, 10:33 AM
NO thanks I have bought American trucks and cars. My Toyota is made here in the states. When the US can make a car as good as the pruis I might try it again. Until than I will get my 53 mpg.
Everyone should be concerned about unemployment especially with the passage of obamacare you may have a good job today and be working part time tomorrow or out of work. Ask some of those that are in that situation now, they NEVER thought they would be standing in an unemployment line.

I hope you are saving jobs and dont buy from walmart since 70 % of their products come from china.
http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/checking-wal-marts-shelves-american-made-goods-part-4

JS
11-07-2012, 10:38 AM
I have had lots of American cars when they can make a good one I might try again.




We ALL are responsible for unemployment. YES, I KNOW ... this is America and it's your right and your own business. You can do what you want and rationalize it any way you want. You can even spend all day on the internet if you choose, wringing your hands along with like-minded folks and preaching doom and gloom.

Or you can choose to do something meaningful.



status quo

JS

gmhr1
11-07-2012, 10:41 AM
I hope obama has grown up the last 4 years instead of the kid that doesn't play well with others ....but I dont see any miracles.

2tall
11-07-2012, 10:50 AM
You seem to be deeply concerned about the unemployment problem in the US.

Thanks for your prayers but if you really want to do something constructive, exercise your freedom of choice next time you buy a car. Consider yourself the "employer" and hire a kid in America to build it for you instead of that kid in Japan who built your Prius.

We ALL are responsible for unemployment. YES, I KNOW ... this is America and it's your right and your own business. You can do what you want and rationalize it any way you want. You can even spend all day on the internet if you choose, wringing your hands along with like-minded folks and preaching doom and gloom.

Or you can choose to do something meaningful.
JS


This is the only attitude that will work. Does anyone realize that automobiles or ball caps CAN be made in the USA? Its only because we are not willing to accept the working conditions, environmental disasters and extreme poverty of China and others, that our business executives move their manufacturing overseas. Its not the government that sent them there, it was their bottom lines.

Its interesting to me that two days ago, the ultra cons here were calling the unemployed folks the enemy and scumbags. Today they might be you or your neighbor and it will be the President's fault.

Terri
11-07-2012, 02:45 PM
I own a Toyota truck. Why? Because it were made here in this country. I supported American workers, not a company who is American only in name, but not deed.

Terri

JS
11-07-2012, 03:28 PM
I own a Toyota truck. Why? Because it were made here in this country. I supported American workers, not a company who is American only in name, but not deed.

Terri

And so my argument is not with you, is it?

JS

murral stark
11-07-2012, 05:14 PM
This reminds me of some of the hunters in the marsh.....how so you ask?

They start playing their Duck Kazoos, playing the same silly sounds over and over.
No ducks come, in fact they shy away, but the kazoos play on!!

OVER and OVER!!!:cool:

Maybe if they would practice with their duck kazoos to sound like a duck they would come and not shy away. Play the right song and they will come to you with reckless abandon.

murral stark
11-07-2012, 11:16 PM
I think some people see Toyota being made in the USA not Japan. the problem with that is that the profits go to Japan, not contribute to the USA GDP. On the other hand, the big 3 money stays here in the US. Could be wrong.

MooseGooser
11-07-2012, 11:31 PM
This is the only attitude that will work. Does anyone realize that automobiles or ball caps CAN be made in the USA? Its only because we are not willing to accept the working conditions, environmental disasters and extreme poverty of China and others, that our business executives move their manufacturing overseas. Its not the government that sent them there, it was their bottom lines.

Its interesting to me that two days ago, the ultra cons here were calling the unemployed folks the enemy and scumbags. Today they might be you or your neighbor and it will be the President's fault.



I currently work for a MAJOR medical device manufactuer.

As of jan 1,, a 3% tax on SALES and revenue,, not Profit,, will go into effect, to help pay for Obamacare..

This company has manufacturing in Asia.. There prototyping ,,reserch and develpoment MAY move...

Its wait and see right now..

Its all about that tax that can be avoided..

Its directly hurting Jobs where I work.

cotts135
11-08-2012, 06:25 AM
Again, look at the popular vote. Although they are no longer showing it on CNN.com, last I saw Obama only had a very slight edge there and actually lost ground in some areas, including the black vote (only by a couple of points, but that is something). The independent vote was also still won by the dems, but by only 4 points, a twelve point swing from 2008. IF we make it two more years, perhaps we'll retake the senate. Repubs need to smarten up and quit shooting our candidates in the foot by insisting on making them take hard positions on the really decisive issues and concentrate on the conservative position of smaller government and more freedom. Those should be the positions Republicans should espouse and let everything else fall into place. It was basically the women's vote (read abortion rights) and the latino vote (read immigration issues) that cost us the election. Both very obvious 3rd rail issues which no smart republican should insist a candidate be vetted on.

I absolutely agree with you on why the Republicans lost the election. When women make up more than half the electorate and some candidates are basically saying you are the governments property and we can do with you what we want then their is going to be a serious price to pay.

Same things for the Latinos, being openly hostile to what their concerns are will not win you any friends. Some estimates I have read have say that Latinos will make up 40% of the vote in 25 years.

For those saying Romney lost because he was not Conservative enough, I think you have it wrong, going farther to the right is going to make getting the women and latino vote that much harder.

HPL
11-08-2012, 10:15 AM
For those saying Romney lost because he was not Conservative enough, I think you have it wrong, going farther to the right is going to make getting the women and latino vote that much harder.

Since it is the MODERATES (folks in the middle) who actually determine the final outcome, it is just stupid to pander to the fringe (base). I am convinced that is what cost G. H. W. Bush his second term. In response to Clinton's portrayal of himself as a moderate, bush moved to the right to give the voters a clear choice. I always thought that he should have walked up that hill and pushed Clinton off the middle.

I think the real problem is in the primaries where the reactionary members of the party seem to be able to force candidates to "prove" their worthiness to be considered Republicans and where the candidates must play to the base. This actually almost guarantees that we end up with a candidate that is LESS likely to appeal to the moderate voters in the country. Putting Palin on the ticket to appeal to the BASE cost the repubs my vote in 2008 (voted libertarian). I have to believe that the republican values of self reliance, less govt interference, etc., still ring true with the American people, but unfortunately the party has allowed itself to by hijacked by the extreme right and now focuses on distracting social issues like what folks do in their bedrooms. It has proven to be a losing strategy and really pisses me off.

road kill
11-08-2012, 10:22 AM
I absolutely agree with you on why the Republicans lost the election. When women make up more than half the electorate and some candidates are basically saying you are the governments property and we can do with you what we want then their is going to be a serious price to pay. I can give any woman all the FREE birth control she wants, gaurunteed to work, 100%, and she has COMPLTETE/TOTAL control over her body!!!

Same things for the Latinos, being openly hostile to what their concerns are will not win you any friends. Some estimates I have read have say that Latinos will make up 40% of the vote in 25 years. This is absurd, show the "openly hostile" attitude towards Latinos by conservatives
For those saying Romney lost because he was not Conservative enough, I think you have it wrong, going farther to the right is going to make getting the women and latino vote that much harder.

What nonsense..........

HPL
11-08-2012, 10:53 AM
This is absurd, show the "openly hostile" attitude towards Latinos by conservatives[/COLOR]
road kill;1031218]What nonsense..........



You must be kidding!!! Just how many Mexicans do you actually know? Are there any in Wisconsin? How many folks do you know who speak Spanish as their first language? I grew up ON the border (Brownsville, Tx.) I went to a highschool with a graduating class of 760+ in which there were probably less than 100 of us anglos (and believe me we stuck out). My teachers, classmates, friends, and girls I dated had last names like, Garcia, Castillo, Ramirez, etc. I had no idea how many blonds there were in the world until I went away to college.

Most citizens with brown skin are aware that one can't really tell the difference between a legal and an illegal just by looking at them so they are, I think legitimately, concerned by the fairly aggressive rhetoric coming from many members of the republican party. Illegal immigration is a problem in this country. I'm not sure how to address it and at the same time not appear racist. That is going to be an ongoing problem for the republicans. We must find a way to address it. In our area (less than 120 miles from the border) the party ran a campaign with hispanic republicans explaining how they became republican. We had a number of hispanic republicans on the local and state ballots.

Uncle Bill
11-08-2012, 11:07 AM
.

There is just no hope for you guys on the far right!




Funny you should say that, because I was thinking the same thing about you atheists with no soul.

UB

Duckquilizer
11-08-2012, 12:04 PM
One interesting stat i heard while following along the coverage, there was a claim that 1/5 of the voters claimed no religious attachment. Boy that ran several things through my mind...

Franco
11-08-2012, 12:44 PM
You must be kidding!!! Just how many Mexicans do you actually know? Are there any in Wisconsin? How many folks do you know who speak Spanish as their first language? I grew up ON the border (Brownsville, Tx.) I went to a highschool with a graduating class of 760+ in which there were probably less than 100 of us anglos (and believe me we stuck out). My teachers, classmates, friends, and girls I dated had last names like, Garcia, Castillo, Ramirez, etc. I had no idea how many blonds there were in the world until I went away to college.

Most citizens with brown skin are aware that one can't really tell the difference between a legal and an illegal just by looking at them so they are, I think legitimately, concerned by the fairly aggressive rhetoric coming from many members of the republican party. Illegal immigration is a problem in this country. I'm not sure how to address it and at the same time not appear racist. That is going to be an ongoing problem for the republicans. We must find a way to address it. In our area (less than 120 miles from the border) the party ran a campaign with hispanic republicans explaining how they became republican. We had a number of hispanic republicans on the local and state ballots.

I couldn't agree more.

Interesting how the Hispanic vote turned away from Romney especially after the way Bush and Raegan pandered to them. No doubt it was Romney's early stance on illegals that turned many of them away. When he flip flopped on the issue, it was too late.

MooseGooser
11-08-2012, 01:21 PM
I couldn't agree more.

Interesting how the Hispanic vote turned away from Romney especially after the way Bush and Raegan pandered to them. No doubt it was Romney's early stance on illegals that turned many of them away. When he flip flopped on the issue, it was too late.

My Mother was a WW2 bride.

She was British. You couldnt look at her and tell if she was legal or Illegal either... She had white skin..
She came here,, never became a citizen. Had a green card all the 50 yrs she was here.She always worked. and paid taxes, SS..
ect She never voted...

There are folks that come here now that DEMAND care, benifts,, jobs,, and Rights garunteed by the constitution of the United states..... many vote illegally.. many get paid illegally under the table..

I dont believe the country SHOULD pander to them... If they follow laws,, and become a citizen ,, then thats a different story...


I will not vote to reward illegal (criminal) people.

I will not allow contrators who do work at my home, to have undocumented workers at my property..
I ask this question before they start the job.. If I find out different... Well......

Duckquilizer
11-08-2012, 01:41 PM
My Mother was a WW2 bride.

She was British. You couldnt look at her and tell if she was legal or Illegal either... She had white skin..
She came here,, never became a citizen. Had a green card all the 50 yrs she was here.She always worked. and paid taxes, SS..
ect She never voted...

There are folks that come here now that DEMAND care, benifts,, jobs,, and Rights garunteed by the constitution of the United states..... many vote illegally.. many get paid illegally under the table..

I dont believe the country SHOULD pander to them... If they follow laws,, and become a citizen ,, then thats a different story...


I will not vote to reward illegal (criminal) people.

I will not allow contrators who do work at my home, to have undocumented workers at my property..
I ask this question before they start the job.. If I find out different... Well......

I KNEW IT!! You had a certain regal-ness about you!!!!!

Franco
11-08-2012, 02:22 PM
My Mother was a WW2 bride.

She was British. You couldnt look at her and tell if she was legal or Illegal either... She had white skin..
She came here,, never became a citizen. Had a green card all the 50 yrs she was here.She always worked. and paid taxes, SS..
ect She never voted...

There are folks that come here now that DEMAND care, benifts,, jobs,, and Rights garunteed by the constitution of the United states..... many vote illegally.. many get paid illegally under the table..

I dont believe the country SHOULD pander to them... If they follow laws,, and become a citizen ,, then thats a different story...


I will not vote to reward illegal (criminal) people.

I will not allow contrators who do work at my home, to have undocumented workers at my property..
I ask this question before they start the job.. If I find out different... Well......

The mess really started getting out of hand when Reagan declared Amnesty for appx 10 million illegals. That just opend the flood gates for illegals from Central and South American countries as well as Mexicans. It demonstrated that America was not interested in enforcing its sovernty. From Reagan on, all the Presidents turned a blind eye towards illegal immigration. Bush43 was so open about it that I think it created another tidal wave of illegals!

cotts135
11-08-2012, 03:08 PM
What nonsense..........

Well you might think so, but the vote says otherwise. If the Republicans want to continue to go farther to the right I don't see them winning to many elections in the future.

" I can give any woman all the FREE birth control she wants, gaurunteed to work, 100%, and she has COMPLTETE/TOTAL control over her body!!!" :confused::confused:

Not even sure what to think about that

Jay Dufour
11-08-2012, 03:27 PM
Yep.All good points.Didn't pay that much attention to the wholesale change in demographics. Mexicans,women,and the ever increasing high yellas , that romney left on the table,went the other way. Yes,in 25 years one would not recognize a European decented American.Go look at the students at a college campus,and you wouldn't know what country your in.Not to mention the amazing number if gays there.

JS
11-08-2012, 04:00 PM
Since it is the MODERATES (folks in the middle) who actually determine the final outcome, it is just stupid to pander to the fringe (base). I am convinced that is what cost G. H. W. Bush his second term. In response to Clinton's portrayal of himself as a moderate, bush moved to the right to give the voters a clear choice. I always thought that he should have walked up that hill and pushed Clinton off the middle.

I think the real problem is in the primaries where the reactionary members of the party seem to be able to force candidates to "prove" their worthiness to be considered Republicans and where the candidates must play to the base. This actually almost guarantees that we end up with a candidate that is LESS likely to appeal to the moderate voters in the country. Putting Palin on the ticket to appeal to the BASE cost the repubs my vote in 2008 (voted libertarian). I have to believe that the republican values of self reliance, less govt interference, etc., still ring true with the American people, but unfortunately the party has allowed itself to by hijacked by the extreme right and now focuses on distracting social issues like what folks do in their bedrooms. It has proven to be a losing strategy and really pisses me off.

This is the most sensible post in the past two days. Republicans lost be cause they are out of touch. If you didn't spend all your time on the internet commiserating with each other, you might find out that the middle of the electorate is not what you think. Instead you blame it on minority groups of all kinds and, of course, the "takers" who only want a handout.

If there is even minimal improvement in economic factors and the gridlock continues for the next four years, the Democrats can run Mickey Mouse and win again.

Hope you run Paul Ryan, regards, :D

JS

ARay11
11-08-2012, 04:18 PM
This is the most sensible post in the past two days. Republicans lost be cause they are out of touch. If you didn't spend all your time on the internet commiserating with each other, you might find out that the middle of the electorate is not what you think. Instead you blame it on minority groups of all kinds and, of course, the "takers" who only want a handout.

If there is even minimal improvement in economic factors and the gridlock continues for the next four years, the Democrats can run Mickey Mouse and win again.

Hope you run Paul Ryan, regards, :D

JS

Being pro-life and anti-samesex marriage makes you out of touch. That is a sad statement all to itself. . The guy who has it "right" loses to the guy who panders to all. The Democrat's platform is so wide open you could drive a mack truck thru it and they would never get accused of hitching a ride. Now, it is suggested that Republicans do the same "or else". I'm not saying its false...only that it is a sad state of affairs.

HPL
11-08-2012, 04:25 PM
My Mother was a WW2 bride.

She was British. You couldnt look at her and tell if she was legal or Illegal either... She had white skin..
She came here,, never became a citizen. Had a green card all the 50 yrs she was here.She always worked. and paid taxes, SS..
ect She never voted...

There are folks that come here now that DEMAND care, benifts,, jobs,, and Rights garunteed by the constitution of the United states..... many vote illegally.. many get paid illegally under the table..

I dont believe the country SHOULD pander to them... If they follow laws,, and become a citizen ,, then thats a different story...


I will not vote to reward illegal (criminal) people.

I will not allow contrators who do work at my home, to have undocumented workers at my property..
I ask this question before they start the job.. If I find out different... Well......

Well, I'm not sure if you are just being obtuse or if you really are part of the problem. When folks looked at your mom, they almost certainly would have had no reason to question her immigration status (not a lot of wets from England) since she LOOKED like the majority citizens. Not likely that she was often exposed to derisive "stinking limey" remarks or faced many "no dogs or Brits" signs. There are plenty of living Multi-generational legal US CITIZENS of latin descent have have had to deal with that type of discrimination, and who have some legitimate concerns when it comes to the rhetoric that comes from the republican base. I don't believe that we should "pander" to either the illegals or the citizens of latin descent, but we certainly need to find a way to address these legitimate concerns of CITIZENS. On an aside, I photographed Marine Birthday Ball last Saturday and there was a gentleman there who was clearly of latin ancestry who was wearing a silverstar lapel pen, and based on that one fact alone, any concerns he might have deserve to be taken seriously.

JS
11-08-2012, 04:25 PM
Being pro-life and anti-samesex marriage makes you out of touch. That is a sad statement all to itself. . The guy who has it "right" loses to the guy who panders to all. The Democrat's platform is so wide open you could drive a mack truck thru it and they would never get accused of hitching a ride. Now, it is suggested that Republicans do the same "or else". I'm not saying its false...only that it is a sad state of affairs.

This from the party who once professed government should stay out of one's personal lives?

What's more personal than who you marry?

And how does someone else's choice of a same sex spouse threaten my marriage?

Who cares?

JS

HPL
11-08-2012, 04:36 PM
Being pro-life and anti-samesex marriage makes you out of touch. That is a sad statement all to itself. . The guy who has it "right" loses to the guy who panders to all. The Democrat's platform is so wide open you could drive a mack truck thru it and they would never get accused of hitching a ride. Now, it is suggested that Republicans do the same "or else". I'm not saying its false...only that it is a sad state of affairs.

Not so much out of touch as not really holding the primary conservative position of keeping government out of peoples' business. I want the government to busy itself working on things that are its correct purview like national defense, trade agreements, etc., and stay out of people's personal affairs.

JS
11-08-2012, 04:36 PM
I remember during the years of real liberalism, the mantra of the establishment: "America; Love it or Leave it".

How ironic if we were to someday hear that cry again, only with the shoe on the other foot.

JS

Franco
11-08-2012, 04:38 PM
This from the party who once professed government should stay out of one's personal lives?

What's more personal than who you marry?

And how does someone else's choice of a same sex spouse threaten my marriage?

Who cares?

JS

This post has been up for 10 minutes and I am shocked none on the far right, today's Republican Party hasn't called you a Homo yet!
;)

Today's GOP is all about big over-bearing and over-spending government. They want to tell people how they should live and have become as intrusive on one's personal Liberties as the Dems.

ARay11
11-08-2012, 04:40 PM
[QUOTE=JS;1031409]This from the party who once professed government should stay out of one's personal lives?

What's more personal than who you marry?
nothing
And how does someone else's choice of a same sex spouse threaten my marriage?
it doesnt

personally, I dont care who you marry. I believe government should get completely out of all of it...gay or straight. No more marriage deduction on income taxes, no more regulation on who you can name as your beneficiary (inlcuding for SSI), your personal caregiver, or add to your insurance policy.
Marriage is between two people and their God (or I suppose could say also lack thereof).
As for abortion.... well, there's a whole other argument about that. I think someone already said if it's okay to kill your child while its inside you, why not after it's out? Yes, life begins at conception. There is no scientific argument to that. You only have to decide how far along life has to be before YOU call it alive. Yes, it is safer now that it's legal...fewer women are dying via botched back door abortions.

My point was that the moral compass of our society has shifted. Sorry if I didnt get that across properly.

ARay11
11-08-2012, 04:42 PM
This post has been up for 10 minutes and I am shocked none on the far right, today's Republican Party hasn't called you a Homo yet!
;)

Today's GOP is all about big over-bearing and over-spending government. They want to tell people how they should live and have become as intrusive on one's personal Liberties as the Dems.


you guys need to find a REAL competitor to the white house and RUN HIM. Oklahoma does not allow for a 3rd party OR for write ins.... so, make that fool run as a Republican so we can vote him/her in.

ARay11
11-08-2012, 04:45 PM
Not so much out of touch as not really holding the primary conservative position of keeping government out of peoples' business. I want the government to busy itself working on things that are its correct purview like national defense, trade agreements, etc., and stay out of people's personal affairs.


i very much agree. sorry the initial post was intended to show the lack of moral compass in the country right now. Obama was not re elected due to national defense position, trade agreements, or foreign affairs capability... or for that matter homeland economics... He was elected based on the moral compass of the country. He has women's votes because he panders to them free bc and abortions. He has gay votes because he panders to them their marital rights.

whichever side you're on.... it's those issues that moved the vote.

PamK
11-08-2012, 04:46 PM
Originally Posted by ARay11

Being pro-life and anti-samesex marriage makes you out of touch. That is a sad statement all to itself. . The guy who has it "right" loses to the guy who panders to all. The Democrat's platform is so wide open you could drive a mack truck thru it and they would never get accused of hitching a ride. Now, it is suggested that Republicans do the same "or else". I'm not saying its false...only that it is a sad state of affairs.

And sometimes it might not just be about being pro life it is how the issue is adressed. Talking about legitimate rape turns many women off even those that are pro life.

JS
11-08-2012, 04:51 PM
[QUOTE=JS;1031409]This from the party who once professed government should stay out of one's personal lives?

What's more personal than who you marry?
nothing
And how does someone else's choice of a same sex spouse threaten my marriage?
it doesnt

personally, I dont care who you marry. I believe government should get completely out of all of it...gay or straight. No more marriage deduction on income taxes, no more regulation on who you can name as your beneficiary (inlcuding for SSI), your personal caregiver, or add to your insurance policy.
Marriage is between two people and their God (or I suppose could say also lack thereof).
As for abortion.... well, there's a whole other argument about that. I think someone already said if it's okay to kill your child while its inside you, why not after it's out? Yes, life begins at conception. There is no scientific argument to that. You only have to decide how far along life has to be before YOU call it alive. Yes, it is safer now that it's legal...fewer women are dying via botched back door abortions.

My point was that the moral compass of our society has shifted. Sorry if I didnt get that across properly.

I respect your religious values and your morality. But we cannot and should not legislate morality. If we impose a specific set of morals on someone else who's will we choose to be the "approved" morals? That is not the role of government. IMO

In the history of man, how many wars have been fought over religious zealotry? Better question is "how many have NOT?".

JS

Franco
11-08-2012, 04:51 PM
you guys need to find a REAL competitor to the white house and RUN HIM. Oklahoma does not allow for a 3rd party OR for write ins.... so, make that fool run as a Republican so we can vote him/her in.

The Libertarian party is working on breaking the two party monopoly. When your state's Libertarian Party grows to 5% of the state's voters, the law will change.

And yes, we are working on a putting forth candidates that represents this coutry's traditional ideals of Liberty, Peace, Fraternity and a Balanced Budget Amendment. We have some young politicians that will also look good on camera;) Just wait and see in 2014 and 2016!

Here in La. with Jindal's time as Gov just about up, we don't want Sen. David Vitter as our next Gov. as that is who the state's GOP committee wants to run. I expect the state's Libertarian Party to put up a serious challenger to Vitter.

ARay11
11-08-2012, 04:59 PM
[QUOTE=ARay11;1031416]

I respect your religious values and your morality. But we cannot and should not legislate morality. If we impose a specific set of morals on someone else who's will we choose to be the "approved" morals? That is not the role of government. IMO

In the history of man, how many wars have been fought over religious zealotry? Better question is "how many have NOT?".

JS


I am not advocating we legislate morality. It cannot be done. I am simply stating that the moral compass has shifted and will likely not return and THAT is sad.

Moral values and ethics are instilled at home. If they are not, that is an instillation itself.

ARay11
11-08-2012, 05:06 PM
And sometimes it might not just be about being pro life it is how the issue is adressed. Talking about legitimate rape turns many women off even those that are pro life.

I agree. Two men said some incredibly stupid things in the midst of an election that, I believe, cost Romney female votes. We had a congressman here NOT achieve re-election because he ran an ad likening the government to an octopus "reaching into the most private parts of a woman's life" ewww!!! I didnt care who he was....couldnt get me to vote for him .

luvmylabs23139
11-08-2012, 05:30 PM
My Mother was a WW2 bride.

She was British. You couldnt look at her and tell if she was legal or Illegal either... She had white skin..
She came here,, never became a citizen. Had a green card all the 50 yrs she was here.She always worked. and paid taxes, SS..
ect She never voted...

There are folks that come here now that DEMAND care, benifts,, jobs,, and Rights garunteed by the constitution of the United states..... many vote illegally.. many get paid illegally under the table..

I dont believe the country SHOULD pander to them... If they follow laws,, and become a citizen ,, then thats a different story...


I will not vote to reward illegal (criminal) people.

I will not allow contrators who do work at my home, to have undocumented workers at my property..
I ask this question before they start the job.. If I find out different... Well......

I have to agree 100% with Gooser. As many of you know my parents brought me here as a child legally.
My attitude towards any type of amnasty has nothing to do with race and everything to do with playing by the rules. It also burns me up that a person can come here illegally and then if they have a kid that kid gets all the freebies. It's just the same as someone robbing a bank and giving the money to their kid. I doubt any of you would say well the kid didn't rob the bank so let them keep the money.

MooseGooser
11-08-2012, 06:36 PM
This makes sense to me...


Obama Violates Constitution; Bypasses Congress and Grants Amnesty to Illegal Aliens15 Jun

In his latest dictatorial move, Obama has completely ignored the rule of law, the Constitution, Congress, and the will of the people by granting amnesty to an estimated 800,000 illegal aliens between the ages of 16 and 30. In an election year – anyone unclear about his motives? Anyone naive enough to believe his stated reasons? Anyone simple enough to believe that the parents of these “children” won’t be next?


Let’s pretend for a minute that he is not doing this manuever to try to secure the Hispanic and Latino vote. And let’s pretend that he’s just a really swell guy with no self-serving intentions. WHERE in the Constitution does it state that a President can unilaterally grant amnesty to an entire block of people? These are not refugees seeking political asylum – they are ILLEGAL ALIENS. They are not “undocumented citizens” or any other politically correct clap trap the left has come up with trying to hide what these people really are – by definition of federal law they are CRIMINALS. They are in this country illegally.
Whether their parents brought them here or not is not important. If the Federal Government did its job in the first place, the parents and the children would have been turned around at the border or summarily deported when it was discovered they were not in the country legally. You cannot be a law-abiding citizen if by your very presence in this country you are a criminal.
The United States has one of the most lenient and liberal paths to citizenship in the entire world and Barack Hussein Obama just said to everyone who wants to come here, ‘skip the formality and just come on in’. Red Rover Red Rover send everyone right over. Anyone who doubts that this opens the door for full amnesty – we can’t be breaking up families – is living in Fantasyland without the E ticket. Once the illegal aliens are given the rights of citizenship, (and that will come, the work permit is just phase one) the next step is granting instant citizenship to any of their relatives who want to come here. Afterall, only an evil conservative would want to stop a family from being together.
Spare me the “he’s just giving them work permits” nonsense. This is a purely political maneuver by a man who panders to special interest groups in an election year to bolster his pathetic numbers. First it was the gays in the military, then the gays who wanted to marry each other, it just goes on and on. There isn’t a sincere or honest cell in his body.
But let’s get back to the critical point here – as President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama does not have the right or the authority to do this. Period. I recall when Glenn Beck stated three years ago (back in the CNN days) that Obama would make Congress irrelevant. We have arrived folks; we have arrived.

road kill
11-08-2012, 06:53 PM
[quote=aray11;1031416]

i respect your religious values and your morality. But we cannot and should not legislate morality. If we impose a specific set of morals on someone else who's will we choose to be the "approved" morals? That is not the role of government. Imo

in the history of man, how many wars have been fought over religious zealotry? Better question is "how many have not?".

Js
Poor morals are still morals, and that is what is being legislated.

According to my wife ( a woman) the "Democrats marketed to women like they were idiots."

PamK
11-08-2012, 06:57 PM
According to my wife ( a woman)

thanks Stan for clarifying that your wife is female. We had no clue.:D

Susie Royer
11-08-2012, 07:04 PM
thanks Stan for clarifying that your wife is female. We had no clue.:D

These days you never know ;-) j/k

Marvin S
11-08-2012, 07:13 PM
thanks Stan for clarifying that your wife is female. We had no clue.:D

Stan has posted pictures so most of us can assure you she is all woman :cool:.

HPL
11-08-2012, 07:13 PM
[quote=js;1031422]

According to my wife ( a woman) the "Democrats marketed to women like they were idiots."

And apparently it worked.

JS
11-08-2012, 07:46 PM
Yes, I would agree with Marvin. I remember the photo of your lovely bride on RTF and if she is not a woman, she certainly has ME fooled! ;-)

I need a little help though with the “poor morals” thing. I have been confused about that for most of my life.

I was born and baptized a Methodist and accepted the things I learned in Sunday School ... “God is Love” rings a bell.

Then I spent most of my childhood in an assortment of boys’ homes and foster homes. The first family were strong in the Church of the Nazarene; strict fundamentalists. Church twice on Sunday, Wednesday night and prayer meetings the rest of the nights. With them I learned that poor morals included smoking, dancing, girls wearing lipstick, and movies. Some other stuff too, I forgot.

Next stop was a boys’ home run by the Quakers. Pretty strict religious teachings again, uppermost was that war is evil and a true man of God will be a “conscientious objector” and refuse to serve his country in war.

Then was a family of Lutherans which seemed pretty mainstream. I went through the Confirmation classes and learned all the quotes and things to say in church. Not much shocking there.

By the time I reached adulthood, I considered myself a spiritual person and thought I knew what it meant to be a “good person” but had pretty much tuned out of organized religion.

Married a Catholic (woman) 34 tears ago and though I have never converted ... something about having been previously married ... I do go to church somewhat regularly with her. I find the Catholics to actually DO the most good toward our fellow man of the religions I have been exposed to. They say it is immoral to use any form of birth control and the abortion issue is a priority that overrides most everything else. Not sure where they stand on molesting little boys but IMO action speaks louder than words.

And while we’re at it, I may as well offend the Mormons. Though most of them claim to have changed their position, there was a long time when it was fine to have a nice “binder” of wives!

Now why am I confused??? All these folks are reading out of the same bible, right? So while I agree with you that “morals are morals”, how in hell am I to decide which ones are “poor morals”.

This is a serious question.

JS

MooseGooser
11-08-2012, 08:16 PM
We are a republic of states! We are NOT a democracy!

Many of these issues should be left to the individual states..

We should not govern by personal beliefs,, but rather law..

The laws of the individual STATES should be what comes first.. Federal government SHOULD have very limited power...

Ya dont like like that your state is anti abortion,,, or they refuse to purchase my .59 cent condoms,,, then move to another...

Read the first 3 sentences of the Pledge of Allegience,, or what the heck recite the whole thing.. Ya do before every home game... ya ever consider what you are Pledging to??
or are just waiting for the last sentence so you can yell yer damn fool head off!!


Gooser

Franco
11-08-2012, 08:46 PM
Yes, I would agree with Marvin. I remember the photo of your lovely bride on RTF and if she is not a woman, she certainly has ME fooled! ;-)

I need a little help though with the “poor morals” thing. I have been confused about that for most of my life.

I was born and baptized a Methodist and accepted the things I learned in Sunday School ... “God is Love” rings a bell.

Then I spent most of my childhood in an assortment of boys’ homes and foster homes. The first family were strong in the Church of the Nazarene; strict fundamentalists. Church twice on Sunday, Wednesday night and prayer meetings the rest of the nights. With them I learned that poor morals included smoking, dancing, girls wearing lipstick, and movies. Some other stuff too, I forgot.

Next stop was a boys’ home run by the Quakers. Pretty strict religious teachings again, uppermost was that war is evil and a true man of God will be a “conscientious objector” and refuse to serve his country in war.

Then was a family of Lutherans which seemed pretty mainstream. I went through the Confirmation classes and learned all the quotes and things to say in church. Not much shocking there.

By the time I reached adulthood, I considered myself a spiritual person and thought I knew what it meant to be a “good person” but had pretty much tuned out of organized religion.

Married a Catholic (woman) 34 tears ago and though I have never converted ... something about having been previously married ... I do go to church somewhat regularly with her. I find the Catholics to actually DO the most good toward our fellow man of the religions I have been exposed to. They say it is immoral to use any form of birth control and the abortion issue is a priority that overrides most everything else. Not sure where they stand on molesting little boys but IMO action speaks louder than words.

And while we’re at it, I may as well offend the Mormons. Though most of them claim to have changed their position, there was a long time when it was fine to have a nice “binder” of wives!

Now why am I confused??? All these folks are reading out of the same bible, right? So while I agree with you that “morals are morals”, how in hell am I to decide which ones are “poor morals”.

This is a serious question.

JS

Only 34? You got it good!

I've always trusted my gut and one doesn't need religion to know the difference between good and bad.

Pete
11-08-2012, 09:21 PM
Now why am I confused??? All these folks are reading out of the same bible, right? So while I agree with you that “morals are morals”, how in hell am I to decide which ones are “poor morals[/COLOR]]

Actually no,,,Mormons have the book of mormon and the Catholics have the catholic bible which is way different than the standard one most denominations and non denominations use. As far as morals ,,,most God respecting folks share many of the same. Just goes with the territory.

Terri
11-08-2012, 11:12 PM
Pete, The Catholic church was the first Christian church and "their" bible has all the original parts that made up the book. Later Christian groups decided to omit parts that they did not agree should be part of their book.

Terri

smillerdvm
11-08-2012, 11:39 PM
This is a serious question.

JSPretty good and germane question also.
In my experience he doesnt like to answer these type of questions



just sayin.....

road kill
11-09-2012, 06:07 AM
Yes, I would agree with Marvin. I remember the photo of your lovely bride on RTF and if she is not a woman, she certainly has ME fooled! ;-)

I need a little help though with the “poor morals” thing. I have been confused about that for most of my life.

I was born and baptized a Methodist and accepted the things I learned in Sunday School ... “God is Love” rings a bell.

Then I spent most of my childhood in an assortment of boys’ homes and foster homes. The first family were strong in the Church of the Nazarene; strict fundamentalists. Church twice on Sunday, Wednesday night and prayer meetings the rest of the nights. With them I learned that poor morals included smoking, dancing, girls wearing lipstick, and movies. Some other stuff too, I forgot.

Next stop was a boys’ home run by the Quakers. Pretty strict religious teachings again, uppermost was that war is evil and a true man of God will be a “conscientious objector” and refuse to serve his country in war.

Then was a family of Lutherans which seemed pretty mainstream. I went through the Confirmation classes and learned all the quotes and things to say in church. Not much shocking there.

By the time I reached adulthood, I considered myself a spiritual person and thought I knew what it meant to be a “good person” but had pretty much tuned out of organized religion.

Married a Catholic (woman) 34 tears ago and though I have never converted ... something about having been previously married ... I do go to church somewhat regularly with her. I find the Catholics to actually DO the most good toward our fellow man of the religions I have been exposed to. They say it is immoral to use any form of birth control and the abortion issue is a priority that overrides most everything else. Not sure where they stand on molesting little boys but IMO action speaks louder than words.

And while we’re at it, I may as well offend the Mormons. Though most of them claim to have changed their position, there was a long time when it was fine to have a nice “binder” of wives!

Now why am I confused??? All these folks are reading out of the same bible, right? So while I agree with you that “morals are morals”, how in hell am I to decide which ones are “poor morals”.

This is a serious question.

JS
The "Ten Commandments" are a solid guideline.

Serious answer.

Pete
11-09-2012, 07:53 AM
Pete, The Catholic church was the first Christian church and "their" bible has all the original parts that made up the book. Later Christian groups decided to omit parts that they did not agree should be part of their book.

Terri

Terri
The first christian church was recorded in the book of acts. The book of Acts is the blue print for a christian church. No more alters,no more tabernacles, people met from house to house and pretty much every thing changed radically. The catholic church started in the 325 AD or something like that. That's about when the nicene(sp) creed started. There is a ton of history on it .
Pete

kjrice
11-09-2012, 11:41 AM
I currently work for a MAJOR medical device manufactuer.

As of jan 1,, a 3% tax on SALES and revenue,, not Profit,, will go into effect, to help pay for Obamacare..

This company has manufacturing in Asia.. There prototyping ,,reserch and develpoment MAY move...

Its wait and see right now..

Its all about that tax that can be avoided..

Its directly hurting Jobs where I work.

It gets better...I posted this before and is fact from a retired democratic aid.

Hidden in bills as riders to the American public:

- Home sales fee 3.8%
- Non-eco car sales fee 1.2%
- EPA fee on homes that do not meet the Dems standards BEFORE sale (windows, roofing, hvac, washer/dryer, water heater, water/elec fixtures)
- Private school fee
- Agriculture fees on rancher and farmer (passed to consumer markets)
- Service fees for repair shops, barber shops, ammo, guns, conventions, waste, etc...

The next wave of legislation:
- Fees on 401k, benefits, selling stock, social security, inheritance tax is an additional $5K per $100K.
- ID not needed to vote
- Expand role of President (unlimited - do away with pledge, reduce military, disband USMC, expanded executive powers to override congress and no more budgets.)
- Obama wants to dismantle the CIA.

JS
11-09-2012, 11:59 AM
The "Ten Commandments" are a solid guideline.

Serious answer.

The ten commandments ARE a good place to start, but that’s not as simple as it sounds either. Many of them are ambiguous and open to interpretation. And the interpreters, even the aforementioned churches cannot even agree on interpretation. This is the entire point of the difficulty of assessing someone else’s morals.

“Thou shalt not kill”. Do I take that literally? If so, it may mean “I shall not kill a deer”. I don’t believe it means that, but the PETA people do. And they can support their belief using that commandment.

To the Quakers it means you shall not take a human life EVEN in the defense of your country. And THEY can also support their belief if you accept the literal meaning. If we don’t accept the literal meaning, then we’re back to interpretations.

Pete points out accurately that we are NOT all reading the same bible. But it DID all come from the word of God. The bibles are just various interpretations and even they do not agree. Crap, now we even got Pete and Teri arguing over which bible came first! :p

Road kill, I am not trying to be antagonistic, and I’m sure not going to argue religion. I’m just trying to make the point that if there really IS an absolute truth, you can’t tell someone else what it is. Nor can someone else tell you. It’s futile.

No one will be persuaded to change their views by an internet conversation. But that’s not important. What is important is understanding WHY we won’t persuade that other person ... how do they form their views. If we asked each other and listened to their answers and tried to understand their reasoning, even half as hard as we try to “win the argument”, maybe we would be a little more willing to accept human differences and not so quick to assess an opposing view as immoral. Then again, maybe a lot of us just don’t want that.

JS

Terri
11-09-2012, 09:43 PM
Pete, the first Christian church was started by Jesus. The bible that Jesus used was called the Septuagint which contained all the books of the old testament. After the death and resurrection of Jesus the Jews rejected the Septuagint as it supported Christian teachings. 1500 years later, the Protestant Revolt took place. The leaders went with the Jewish canon formed after the establishment of the Christian church. Seven books used by Jesus were rejected by Martin Luther. Both Catholics and Protestant have the same number of books in the New Testament.

Terri

Pete
11-09-2012, 10:54 PM
Terri
They didn't have bibles back then. . Jesus read from scrolls The septuagint was put together by 70 men. It is the Greek Old testament. it is a great tool for researching the bible. It is fairly modern . JC was killed before the first century church started. He had to die and rise before this could occur.
The scrolls originally had no punctuation,,no chapters and no verses. You can see the error of man by where he put many of the chapter breaks and verse breaks. They put many of them in the middle of a thought or story. Punctuation was also hit and miss,,,sometimes changing the whole meaning of a verse enough so that some religions have built their doctrines around these errors.

Pete

murral stark
11-09-2012, 11:33 PM
Nicely put.

Terri
11-10-2012, 08:43 PM
Pete, you are correct there were no bibles, but I was referring to the scrolls that Jesus used and taught as being the part of the bible we know today as the old testament. I believe that Jesus started the first Christian church, he started the movement. The Catholic church traces there leaders back to Jesus and the Protestants trace their leaders back to the Protestant revolt. Before the revolt the leaders were Catholic. As for the errors in the bible, there are many due to human error or misunderstanding, but those errors are not limited to just the seven books removed my the Jews and Martin Luther.

Terri

Pete
11-11-2012, 10:15 AM
Pete, you are correct there were no bibles, but I was referring to the scrolls that Jesus used and taught as being the part of the bible we know today as the old testament. I believe that Jesus started the first Christian church, he started the movement. The Catholic church traces there leaders back to Jesus and the Protestants trace their leaders back to the Protestant revolt. Before the revolt the leaders were Catholic. As for the errors in the bible, there are many due to human error or misunderstanding, but those errors are not limited to just the seven books removed my the Jews and Martin Luther. [/COLOR]

Terri]


If someone was to use mostly lets say "mormon produced materials" they would be able to prove that Moroni did in fact give Joseph Smith a new revelation. But if they used many of the non denominational resources they would be able to prove other wise. So much of this is what angle does one approach this from. Also when a person is raised to believe a certain thing it is very difficult for them to see differently. Lots of factors in play concerning this subject. But there are easy ways to sort these things out

Pete

Terri
11-11-2012, 02:55 PM
Pete, sorry you were raised to believe a certain thing and it is difficult for you to see things differently. I have attended several different churches, studied several different types of religions, both Christian and non Christian. I have never been a member of any. I have no religious agenda. I'm as non-denominational as one can get, but I believe in one God and that Jesus is my Messiah.

Terri

BonMallari
11-11-2012, 03:47 PM
when I see people argue over the semantics of the scriptures and the types of religion, it reminds me of the same type of arguments that retriever people get into arguing over what Rex Carr said or meant , not that RC is a god .....but as my new pastor pointed out to someone recently that wanted to argue scriptures with him, its almost pointless to argue over how someone interprets the Bible (in all its different versions), because you lose sight of the overall picture, and that both parties are usually on the same side arguing over whose interpretation is superior or more accurate

Pete
11-11-2012, 05:14 PM
Pete, sorry you were raised to believe a certain thing and it is difficult for you to see things differently. I have attended several different churches, studied several different types of religions, both Christian and non Christian. I have never been a member of any. I have no religious agenda. I'm as non-denominational as one can get, but I believe in one God and that Jesus is my Messiah.

Terri

I was raised catholic. And I too no longer have a denomination. For someone non denominational as you ,,,you seem to put a lot of faith in catholosism. which is OK,,,,just the way you came across during our discussion. My whole family is catholic. and I love every one of them like family. ).
Pete

Pete
11-11-2012, 06:21 PM
Mr 12:18
¶ Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
18.
Mr 12:19
Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
19.
Mr 12:20
Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
20.
Mr 12:21
And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
21.
Mr 12:22
And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
22
Mr 12:23
In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
23.
Mr 12:24
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?


Here is JC confronting the religious sect ,,,telling them they err not knowing the scriptures.
I have to posst this now or loose it forever

Pete
11-11-2012, 06:27 PM
c 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scripture

Paul spent a lot of time in the synagog's reasoning with leaders and their followers. He was not ashamed to talk about the things of God and about interpretations

Bruce L
11-11-2012, 07:01 PM
......Nancy Pelosi's expressed dream has been acheived.
The "Progressive" movement won the biggest election in my lifetime.
(Bill Clinton himself calls it the "Progressive" movement)
There is no turning back now.

Congratulations to the movement.

I will miss the America I grew up in, fought for, beleived in and love!

Good bye to freedom, liberty and independence, relics of the past!!
I understand that the people have spoken, and I am now in the minority.

I wonder how many that voted for Obama even know his real name?

Welcome the "cradle to grave nanny state."

PEACE!!!


"To be a patriot is to love your country as it is. Those who seem to despise half of America will never be trusted to govern any of it. Those who cherish only the country's past will not be entrusted with its future."

David Frum (former George W. Bush speechwriter)

Terri
11-11-2012, 07:23 PM
I put no faith in Catholicism, since I'm not Catholic. I stated the difference between the Catholic bible and the Protestant bible. Also how at one time the Protestant leader, Martin Luther was Catholic. Thus Christians, Protestant and Catholic, trace back to Jesus. I personally question the wisdom of removing books (scripture), by any man. I often wonder Why God was not more concerned when he created man with the fact that man would interrupt scripture incorrectly. All I can come up with is he was/is more concerned with man freely seeking after him than being over controlling.

Terri

Pete
11-11-2012, 07:37 PM
[QUOTE]I put no faith in Catholicism, since I'm not Catholic. I stated the difference between the Catholic bible and the Protestant bible. Also how at one time the Protestant leader, Martin Luther was Catholic. Thus Christians, Protestant and Catholic, trace back to Jesus. I personally question the wisdom of removing books (scripture), by any man. I often wonder Why God was not more concerned when he created man with the fact that man would interrupt scripture incorrectly. All I can come up with is he was/is more concerned with man freely seeking after him than being over controlling.



Just as I would question someone adding books.

Pete
11-12-2012, 07:49 AM
2Co 4:13
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

Just wanted to throw this in.
I am not ashamed to speak about the things of God. And I wasn't arguing and certainly wasn't getting defensive. The word of God has the greatest subjects of all time and people sit in the corner with their mouth shut . Its the" Book of Life" ,,,,,,,, Well isn't it.? So why cover it up.