TexasCHLforum.com

emcee rib wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:But I'm not a tweeter, twitter, tweaker ... whatever!

They're called Twits.

pbwalker wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Oldgringo, you speak of which you do not know. The Catholic Church does not impose mores, beliefs, and judgements on others.

The Catholic Church has been the steadfast source of Truth for 2,000 years. If you look at history and the teaching of all other world religions their teachings have changes with the times and social engineering. The Catholic Church's teaching is the same today as it always has been.

You are also wrong about one other point in your post. God will not sort 'em out. When we die we sort ourselves out. When we die we judge ourselves because we then understand fully His Right and Truth. These are no longer clouded. We decide to go to either heaven (purgatory for those with imperfections) or heck. If you die outside of God's loving grace you cannot stand to be in His presence.

This might be difficult for some to accept but it is the truth.

Please stop judging the Catholic Church in your posts such as these because they are not true.

Anygunanywhere

There's a lot of wrong, and a lot of opinion in this post.

I know of several Catholic hospitals that do not perform tubal ligation procedures, even when requested. Why is that?

Oldgringo wrote:

powerboatr wrote: {snip}
as a fellow converted Catholic
I agree 100%
The times make it harder and harder to remain steadfast, but I for one will not fold on my beliefs and my faith.

Super! Why do y'all want to impose your mores, beliefs and judgements on others?

Live and let live, ours is not to judge. God will sort 'em out, eh?

Jaguar wrote:
Liberty is not having to pay for other’s college tuition. I have two kids in college and my wife and I pay for it. When you have kids in college, you pay for it (not you, you, but you in general). Liberty is not being forced at the end of a gun to pay for someone else’s college education.

snatchel wrote: Yet here we all are, discussing how we want a politician to get into a gay man's business about who he marries. [/color][/b]

Jaguar wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Jaguar wrote:When both choices are Democrats, a Democrat will win.

I am a fiscal conservative. To paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan, “I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.”

I am a Libertarian.

No offense, but being a libertarian means you (not personally) do not take stances on any issue. As long as they are left alone they don't care what others do. That is not the definition of liberty.

I do agree that the GOP left me.

Anygunanywhere

I don't understand, the LP does not have a platform? The LP does not take stances on any issues? I may disagree with some of the issues they have in the platform, but when it comes to fiscal matters, I do agree with the platform.

So wishing to be left alone and leaving others alone is not liberty? Come again? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

snatchel wrote: Please. Be tolerant. Understand that the idea of democracy & freedom that we hold onto with our dying breath extends to those that you disagree from a moral standpoint.

One last thing-- this needs to be put out there-- morality & Christianity are not one and the same.

Jaguar wrote:I find this thread fascinating; we have a group who wishes to move to the center on social issues and a group that is not willing to compromise their religious and moral beliefs. Yet both groups seem to believe they have common ground on economic issues.

A few weeks ago after the second Presidential debate, I stated that my distaste for Mitt Romney had me thinking about voting for Gary Johnson. This was due to the reason everyone in this thread seems to be agreeing on, economic issues. Beyond repealing Obama-care which isn’t even in force yet, Romney said nothing and offered nothing to reduce government and ease restrictions on business which would allow the economy to grow. Yet when I published my distaste on this forum, I was told I would be “voting for Obama” or “throwing away my vote” since I wasn’t willing to compromise my beliefs. Now many of the social conservatives who told me to compromise my economic beliefs are stating they will not compromise their social beliefs, interesting.

Yet here is a thread detailing differences on social issues that seems to be tearing the GOP apart, and apparent agreement on economic issues. Did you watch the debate and hear something I didn’t? Almost everything Obama has done or has proposed concerning the economy Mitt said he will double down on or continue, if only to a lesser degree. I could not believe what I was hearing but now it is what you folks are agreeing on; free college tuition, more money for “green energy”, tax the rich, etc., etc., etc. Sure there were a few differences but come on, Romney offered no plan and just went along with big government entitlements.

So it seems to me the GOP has already moved left of center on economic issues and nobody even noticed because they are fighting over the social issues. You wonder why people did not turn out to vote? Maybe because there was so little difference between Obama and Romney that it didn’t really matter. Mitt has flip flopped on social issues so much there was no telling where he would land once in the White House so social conservatives stayed home. Mitt agreed with most of Obama’s economic policies so fiscal conservatives stayed home or voted Libertarian.

When both choices are Democrats, a Democrat will win.

I am a fiscal conservative. To paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan, “I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.”

I am a Libertarian.

Oldgringo wrote:
I think the point is: we have no right to force our beliefs on others. If someone wants to have an abortion and perhaps burn in the everlasting flames of {heck}, that is their choice. Just as a Jewish Deli may choose to offer ham sandwiches to its goy customers.

The sooner the GOP decides to get out of the public's bedroom and back to the hallowed halls of federal government, the sooner they will have a chance in 2016.

PS:
I didn't use the word {heck}.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Nothing will change now until Rome collapses and the "free" stuff stops coming. THAT is what it will take: pain and misery. Plain talk and common sense have no place with people who scream for "Obamaphone" or LIE on TV about how much money they spent on birth control just so they can not spend ANYTHING on birth control, or with the type of man who wishes to spend his ADULT life acting like a baby while getting "disability"...as long as "free" stuff is offered, people will take it. But what they don't realize (or don't care about) is they ARE paying for it...with their liberties.

apostate wrote: George Bush put an assault weapons [sic] ban in place that didn't sunset. Furthermore, when both the President and the majority of Congress were Republicans, they did not repeal The Gun Control Act and The National Firearms Act. From moral, ethical, and Constitutional standpoints, GCA and NFA are not fundamentally different from what you propose.

I think you're missing the point that many of us aren't giving up anything. We honestly don't care if our neighbor marries a woman or a man, if they carry a Ruger or S&W, if they worship at a church or synagogue... or even if they drive a Ford or Chevy.

talltex wrote:
I understand you may not like the idea of being required to purchase health insurance...I don't either...but to say that it violates your religious freedom seems like quite a stretch.

Purplehood wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Purplehood wrote:
I do not see why one cannot defend social liberty and religious freedom.
Social liberty and religious freedom by definition are one and the same.
A religious person may not like the fact that social liberties exist, but must accept that others may practice it.
A person believing in equal rights and the like may consider religious beliefs as outdated, outmoded and obsolete, but must allow others the freedom to practice them.

Simply put, stay out of my bedroom and I will stay out of yours. Government and politics should have nothing to do with it.

Purplehood, the government is forcing your social engineering down the throats of those who object because of their faith.

FORCED. THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR US.

The HHS Mandate is mandatory, under penalty of law!

WHERE IS THE FREEDOM OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?

You say you want the government to stay out of your bedrooom. Tell your government to stay out of my freedom of religion.

I do not have to believe in gay marriage, abortion, or any other of the so called social freedoms you insist I embrace just to elect someone to represent me in an oppressive government of which I no longer recognize as a valid government.

Respectfully,
Anygunanywhere

MY GOVERNMENT NO LONGER EXISTS.

I don't want you to believe in gay marriage, abortion or any of the social freedoms and you may or may not note, I do not ask you to embrace any of them.

As far as I am concerned, the government should not be legislating any of that stuff. Just as I believe that the government should not be restricting it.

Anyone reading those few posts of mine that actually talk about government and politics will realize that I have been totally unhappy with the GWB and BHO governments. As I see it, they both represent repressive big-government as in 'Big Brother is watching you'.

I believe in religious freedom.

I believe in a womans right to determine what she does with her body.

I believe in equal rights.

I believe in small government.

I believe in limited foreign entanglements.

I am not sure why anyone thinks I believe otherwise.

Oldgringo wrote:We retired last evening about 2230 hours when the election was over. Thank goodness, there's not another POTUS contest for four (4) more years.

There is one thing for certain, the current POTUS won't have an all expenses paid four years to campaign for re-election. All future contenders will have equal time to get their {stuff} together and address the needs and expectations of the majority of voters....maybe.

Purplehood wrote:
I do not see why one cannot defend social liberty and religious freedom.
Social liberty and religious freedom by definition are one and the same.
A religious person may not like the fact that social liberties exist, but must accept that others may practice it.
A person believing in equal rights and the like may consider religious beliefs as outdated, outmoded and obsolete, but must allow others the freedom to practice them.

Simply put, stay out of my bedroom and I will stay out of yours. Government and politics should have nothing to do with it.