TexasCHLforum.com

Double what VMI77 said!

03Lightningrocks wrote: Oh. Well, allow me to help you better understand. Trolls like that one hate it when they are told they have been put on ignore. It is similar to poking a stick in their eye.

I didn't know that. I generally don't troll. When I ignore someone, I just push the button.

03Lightningrocks wrote: One more comment I will add. I don't believe that poster wants to "get it". I 100% believe, based on the posting history of that person, the poster is trying to stir up trouble and disrupt the forum. There really is no point in trying to "explain" anything to a poster like that. JMHO.

That's fair.. and it certainly fits the description of a troll. I agree with you that you can't educate a troll.

03Lightningrocks wrote: I sure hope I was able to assist you. This is challenge number two or three from you to me on different threads.Do you have a problem with me you are trying to repress? Maybe I am misunderstanding your posts to me???

I hadn't noticed. Although I certainly recognize that I'll challenge positions or facts, it's part of how I learn. I really don't understand how I could be trying to repress you or how that's even possible. I respect your right to say whatever you want. I will, at times, challenge it. Heck I may even disagree with it, but no repression is intended.

No harm, no foul.

So the Nobel Peace Prize laureate-in-chief thinks he has the option of compelling WHO among the membership of churches in America to perform gay marriage ceremonies ? This fool really needs to have his brain and mouth overhauled.

SherwoodForest wrote:So the Nobel Peace Prize laureate-in-chief thinks he has the option of compelling WHO among the membership of churches in America to perform gay marriage ceremonies ? This fool really needs to have his brain and mouth overhauled.

No. Read past the title to what Obama actually says. The title of the article is designed to invoke your reaction above, but he did not make that statement. Don't be one of the sheeple....

Like him or not, this media outlet is doing a public disservice here for a political reason.

Though I understand what this topic is about, I will say this about the whole thing. I am going to vote for MY self-interests. I am a member of THIS forum because of my self-interest in self-defense and firearms. The conservative politicians (I discount obvious RINOs from that) are not the ones trying to limit or curtail my right to self-defense; liberal-progressives are all about limiting or even abrogating my right to self-defense. Secondly, I am already married to a woman, so I have no interest in trying to expand the definition of marriage. So, if the liberal-progressives think they are going to get some sort of sympathy from me for that when they have done their best to take my right to self-defense away and to limit me in the realm of firearms ownership, they are very sadly mistaken. Its not about JUST wanting to "keep two people from getting married", but about a whole host of things that make me despise the political left in general.

I respect anyone who has enough brains to actually filter out all of the hype and read between the lines. It's interesting to me that you call out both the liberal and conservative groups on limiting your rights to self-defense, because it's usually a lot of one sided blaming on this forum. It's just the side that varies a little bit.

My only real comment to your post is: What happens if we ALL vote for our self-interests? Hasn't that been nature of our congress? Not only to vote in their personal best interests, you know, the ones that keep their personal election machine funded, but the bests interests of their state with zero regard for the health of the country as a whole. Alaska's bridge-to-nowhere projects come to mind, although that state is hardly alone in the pork politics.

I respect your right to vote for the interests that are important to you, but we've also got to do some balancing for the greater good of the country. (I'm largely speaking economically, I see no country-wide advantage to softening constitutionally provided rights.)

I think part of the problem in this country is that we're too focused on our micro-economy and our backyard. Our personal taxes. The funding of the government program that supports us the most... And I'm not calling out you, Mr. Mooneyham, I'm just generally frustrated with the same old promises that get politicians elected and no broader view of what is good for the country as a whole.

I'd like to see a little more nationwide teamwork. Even if it's a little painful. I think we could accomplish great things. It just seems to run so contrary to the last 70 years of our political system.

Just a polite reminder:

The current POTUS did not elect HIMself. Look around you and be afraid, be very afraid.

cb1000rider wrote:No. Read past the title to what Obama actually says...

Oh, yes, by all means, let's do look past the thread title, but let's also look past what the Prevaricator in Chief says and, instead, focus on what he does.

What B. Hussein Obumbler said:
1. "I'll have the most transparent administration in history."
2. "The sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed."
3. "Planned Parenthood provides mammograms.”
4. "We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system."
5. "The Benghazi violence was caused by an internet video and demonstrations!"
6. Due to Obamacare, "over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up, it's true, but they've gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years!"
7. "I think it's important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration."
8. "My budget will actually cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years."
9. "You didn't build that."
10. "I've actually done more for Israel's security than any president ever."
11. "The fence between the U.S. and Mexico is practically complete."
12. "Under our (the Obamacare) plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."
13. "We have run out of places in the U.S. to drill for oil."
14. "That wasn't me."
15. "I'm a Christian."
16. "I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage."
17. "I will not authorize the routine wiretapping of U.S. citizens."
18. "I had no idea that Jeremiah Wright was as controversial."
19. "I've visited all 57 states."
20. " 'Present' votes are common in Illinois."
21. "My wife didn't really mean what she said about her pride in this country."
22. "My church is pretty much like any other Christian church."

Oldgringo wrote:Just a polite reminder:

The current POTUS did not elect HIMself. Look around you and be afraid, be very afraid.

I agree 110% Oldgringo .
Gay marriage is totally wrong and an abomination , it creates a ranker in the soul of those who know better than to feel forced into accepting a growing liberal/societal idea because it is 'politicaly' correct .

Homosexual 'marriage' issues are the biggest smokescreen they have to throw up , do not be sidetracked by it . There are bigger issues at hand .

cb1000rider wrote:I respect anyone who has enough brains to actually filter out all of the hype and read between the lines. It's interesting to me that you call out both the liberal and conservative groups on limiting your rights to self-defense, because it's usually a lot of one sided blaming on this forum. It's just the side that varies a little bit.

My only real comment to your post is: What happens if we ALL vote for our self-interests? Hasn't that been nature of our congress? Not only to vote in their personal best interests, you know, the ones that keep their personal election machine funded, but the bests interests of their state with zero regard for the health of the country as a whole. Alaska's bridge-to-nowhere projects come to mind, although that state is hardly alone in the pork politics.

I respect your right to vote for the interests that are important to you, but we've also got to do some balancing for the greater good of the country. (I'm largely speaking economically, I see no country-wide advantage to softening constitutionally provided rights.)

I think part of the problem in this country is that we're too focused on our micro-economy and our backyard. Our personal taxes. The funding of the government program that supports us the most... And I'm not calling out you, Mr. Mooneyham, I'm just generally frustrated with the same old promises that get politicians elected and no broader view of what is good for the country as a whole.

I'd like to see a little more nationwide teamwork. Even if it's a little painful. I think we could accomplish great things. It just seems to run so contrary to the last 70 years of our political system.

While I admit to being a very poor student of history, I believe that political conflict has existed in this country since before the Declaration of Independence. What you correctly point out is that things have gotten worse in the past 70 years (I think it is more like 100). I agree with that. The reason, I believe, is because of the increasing power of the Federal government. And you are correct that the Elites from both sides of the isle have a hand in that.

I would submit to you that if every voter in this country had always voted their personal interests, we would never be in the situation that we are. Are the 98% of the people in Philadelphia who voted for the current POTUS better off because of it? Are the people in Chicago better off because of their choices?

I truly believe that most of the conflict in this country is manufactured by the politicians. I offer HB2 as the latest evidence. Senator Davis stands to win big politically because of her "leadership" on this issue. The POTUS tried to do the same with with Sandy Hook only that time it didn't work. It also didn't work for Cuomo, who was trying to ride the coattails of it to the national stage by passing the NY gun control travesty. The opportunists, several different flavors of them, are at work in the wake of the Zimmerman acquittal. Obama and the others on the National stage sensed that the popular tide is flowing toward, not away from the LGTB movement and have tried to seize upon it the same way that Clinton did for DOMA when it appeared the tide was flowing in the opposite direction. If enough people stand up publicly to show that forcing churches into marrying gays is going to get them out on election day, the politicians will drop the issue like a hot potato. In many respects, they are like children and will do as much as they believe they can get away with without being punished.

chuck j wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Just a polite reminder:

The current POTUS did not elect HIMself. Look around you and be afraid, be very afraid.

I agree 110% Oldgringo .
Gay marriage is totally wrong and an abomination , it creates a ranker in the soul of those who know better than to feel forced into accepting a growing liberal/societal idea because it is 'politicaly' correct .

Is adultery an abomination? It is one of the Ten Commandments. Mark 10:9-12 in the spoken words of Jesus Christ, (no spin, his actual spoken words) outside of those persons that were cheated on, those entering into second marriages are committing adultery. Did He say something He didn't intend? Did He say something wrong? Did He leave out details He meant to include? We welcome folks with second marriages into our churches with open arms every day. Divorce of convenience? "That is okay, you have a beautiful new family. Come on in sinners. Enjoy your stay." And then we turn around and claim that sinners that don't sin the same way we do are an abomination. I would love to hear your thoughts on the spoken words of Christ and the state of divorces and second marriages in our churches today.

I feel forced into treating everyone with dignity and with a fair and equitable application of the scriptures. But that pressure doesn't come from the Left. That pressure comes from the scripture and the message that I believe Christ has for us.

We aren't trying to pass laws banning second marriages. Why? I believe because the folks in our neighborhoods and our families and our pews might be affected. We tend to choose not to care as much about people generally not in our family and friend groups. We are a republic and not a democracy for a reason. I think this is as good a reason as any.

(For the record, I do NOT believe that we should constitutionally ban second marriages. I do NOT believe that folks in second marriages are an abomination. I do believe that we should apply the scriptures equitably.) *edited to capitalize He.

cb1000rider wrote:

SherwoodForest wrote:The title of the article is designed to invoke your reaction above, but he did not make that statement. Don't be one of the sheeple....

Like him or not, this media outlet is doing a public disservice here for a political reason.

Nope...you just keep repeating your error. The title is clearly NOT a quote from the article, but the expression of an opinion by the author. The title is an interpretation of what a pathological liar actually means when he speaks. Because Obama is a narcissistic pathological liar leading an administration of pathological liars, every utterance he and they make must be analyzed and interpreted; and in the context of a lying narcissist the authors interpretation is not only reasonable, but most likely, also accurate. There is no public disservice created by the expression of this opinion, quite the contrary. Only a sycophant or a complete fool would believe any utterance from our liar-in-chief.

cb1000rider wrote:I respect anyone who has enough brains to actually filter out all of the hype and read between the lines. It's interesting to me that you call out both the liberal and conservative groups on limiting your rights to self-defense, because it's usually a lot of one sided blaming on this forum. It's just the side that varies a little bit.

Meaning: I like people who agree with me.

cb1000rider wrote:My only real comment to your post is: What happens if we ALL vote for our self-interests? Hasn't that been nature of our congress? Not only to vote in their personal best interests, you know, the ones that keep their personal election machine funded, but the bests interests of their state with zero regard for the health of the country as a whole. Alaska's bridge-to-nowhere projects come to mind, although that state is hardly alone in the pork politics.

Meaning: People should vote for what YOU regard as best for the collective.

cb1000rider wrote:I respect your right to vote for the interests that are important to you, but we've also got to do some balancing for the greater good of the country. (I'm largely speaking economically, I see no country-wide advantage to softening constitutionally provided rights.)

The "greater good" is pure collectivist thought, and absolutely meaningless, except as an excuse for forcing part of the population to do what you collectivists want. The "greater good" "logic" of collectivism is the foundation of the dogma that results in mass murder. The country wasn't founded on the principle of any mythical "greater good," it was founded on the principle of individual rights, and as a Republic, not a Democracy. You "progressives" have exterminated or rendered impotent every measure the Founders created to keep a functional Republic. For instance: direct election of Senators, Federal income tax, the electoral college, destruction of the 10th Amendment, and universal voting (the Founders never envisioned takers having the same voting rights as the makers). Furthermore, you apparently don't understand the Constitution at all......there are no "Constitutionally provided rights." There are God-given rights recognized by the Constitution. These are still our rights no matter how our rulers desecrate and destroy the Constitution. These rights CAN'T be "softened" --whatever that is supposed to mean-- by you, or anyone else.

cb1000rider wrote:I think part of the problem in this country is that we're too focused on our micro-economy and our backyard. Our personal taxes. The funding of the government program that supports us the most... And I'm not calling out you, Mr. Mooneyham, I'm just generally frustrated with the same old promises that get politicians elected and no broader view of what is good for the country as a whole.

Meaning: everyone should share your priorities, otherwise, what you seek is impossible to achieve.

cb1000rider wrote:I'd like to see a little more nationwide teamwork. Even if it's a little painful. I think we could accomplish great things. It just seems to run so contrary to the last 70 years of our political system.

You liberals never tire of telling everyone else what they need to do, what pain they need to bear, or spending other people's money to further the advancement of whichever is the current favored utopia. I don't want to be on your team; and I suspect I'm not alone. So, to have your way, you're going to have to use compulsion of one kind or another, and that's where what is called "liberalism" these days always comes down to --people who believe they are so much more qualified to run the lives of other people than those people themselves, and can usher in their progressive utopia if everyone would just listen to them and do what they say, and that their concept of the "greater good" justifies doing whatever they have to do to those who won't play on their team.

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I respect anyone who has enough brains to actually filter out all of the hype and read between the lines. It's interesting to me that you call out both the liberal and conservative groups on limiting your rights to self-defense, because it's usually a lot of one sided blaming on this forum. It's just the side that varies a little bit.

Meaning: I like people who agree with me.

OR it means he hasn't sold his soul for any political party and he applauded a person for being critical of both parties. Self assesment of those groups we tend to align with is both good and healthy.

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I'd like to see a little more nationwide teamwork. Even if it's a little painful. I think we could accomplish great things. It just seems to run so contrary to the last 70 years of our political system.

You liberals never tire of telling everyone else what they need to do

When in hades did moderates become the bad guys or automatically deserve the title liberal? BUT, I'll say it for you, I consider myself to be a very conservatively leaning moderate; I am probably the spawn of satan.