TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

marksiwel wrote:heh, arguing over if the biblical meaning of the left vs right.
To our European Friends it breaks down like this

Democrats are to the Right, Republicans are even farther Right, by their standards.
Remember they have REAL socialist partys there, they dont just throw it around as a slur

You have a good point,REAL Socialist would attempt to nationalize banks, financial institutions and large segments of the economy like medical care and the automobile industry.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

longhorn_92 wrote:What I see is a change of topic... Because one is losing the debate.

And I apologize for getting the thread off track, and I will refrain from doing so going forward.

Zee wrote:The King James version, from which you quote, was printed in 1611. Later translation do not use left and right. I imagine you use this 1611 translation to refer to the left and right labels of today's views. That's quite a use of a historic stretch there to give some questionable credence to calling non-conservatives fools.

I agree that truth is timeless.

I took it out of the NIV, not the KJV. The NIV was released in completed form in 1978. The NASB, which also uses "right" and "left," was completed in 1971. the ESV, completed in 2001, uses "right" and "left". Once again, your research is incomplete.

That said, I concede with eyes wide open that the uses of "right" and "left" for this verse in ALL translations is synonymous with "the right way" and "the wrong way;" or "good" and "bad;" or "correct" and "incorrect;" etc., etc., etc. My quoting of this verse is entirely tongue in cheek. I don't believe in quoting ANY scripture out of context except in jest. Similarly, the Psalm 109:8 passage which has been recently quoted on this board can only be taken tongue in cheek in the context in which it is used here. You have a line in your signature stating that Jesus was a liberal. In the Bible, he is actually apolitical, having a higher purpose. In fact, the mistake that Judas made was to assume that Jesus was political, and consequently Judas was disappointed enough to betray him when it turned out that Jesus did not share Judas' ambitions — possibly to try and force Jesus' hand. But Jesus himself said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to render unto God what is God's. Being himself God incarnate, he still made a distinction between the two. That said, when I go before the throne of judgement, as we all will regardless of what we believe, and thankfully, among my many sins I will not have to account for insisting that abortion is a God-given right, like this foolish liberal did just four days ago. It's not just that it is abortion, which is evil (and by the way, for which there is no evidence in scripture that Jesus would have supported it; and in fact would have most likely condemned it; CLICK HERE to see how Jesus felt about children), but that he would preach that doing evil is a God given right.

I am appalled by such idiocy.

Zee wrote:One of your signature lines dates from 1611. Ever considering updating?

Absolutely not. Truth is timeless. The one before it dates to King Solomon.

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

This president is politically tone-deaf, and it is going to cost him in 2012...

Gentlefolk, hoping and praying alone will not make this happen. The opposition must provide realistic, viable and enthusiastic candidates who can cause the current POTUS and his minions to be voted out of office in 2010 AND again in 2012.

Amen, and amen!

Oldgringo wrote:My position is that wars are for winning AND if we can't subdue/convert the enemy (whomever that is) with local help by date certain, we leave and let them kill each other off secure with the fear that we will retaliate an eye for an eye ten thousandfold for any later transgression against the US or its peoples. We will not stay there ad infinitum spending American lives and money trying to help people who won't help themselves. Enough is enough already!

Zee wrote:Cut & run

Not at all the same thing. "Cut and Run" is what Kerry wanted to do back when Iraq was in question but still very winnable. Events have proven him wrong. Oldgringo has stated that his preference is for winning, and he favors the alternative if it is not possible to win. It is, or at least was until a few months ago, winnable. It may still be so, but for that to happen, Obama needs to show some gonadal heft.

Zee, you need to get out more, breath some fresh air. Try spending time at Michael Yon's website. He publishes absolutely the best, most unbiased, and most rooted in boots-on-the-ground reality reporting available. He is better by far than ANY of the mainstream news outlets, liberative or conservable. He is also a former Green Beret, whose personal politics tend toward left of center, but who has had extensive training in the political and operational side of counter-insurgency. Yon was the first reporter in Iraq to publicly call the Iraqi insurgency what it was, and who wrote that the situation could be reversed by a surge. He was prescient, and the surge happened, and now Iraq is not a perfect place, but at least its government is not killing its citizens by the hundreds of thousands in torture chambers, and it has a good chance to survive as a stable national entity.

Even General Patreaus values Yon's reporting for its unflinching honesty.

Michael Yon has been saying for many months now that Afghanistan is winnable, but that we would soon be running out of time in which to so if we didn't react quickly to the developing insurgency (Iraq Redux). This is the time that "The Great and Wise Obama" instead spent dithering and triangulating and trying to find a way to do give an answer to General McCrystal's request that would be palatable to the left wing of his party. So now we find ourselves almost out of time, and the issue is now very much in doubt. This is a direct reflection of Obama's leadership skills — of which he has none. He's a hack and an operator, but NOT a leader. A leader would have fished or cut bait back when McCrystal submitted his request to SecDef Gates on August 30th, almost 3-1/2 months ago.

You can legitimately debate whether we should have been involved in Afghanistan or not. My personal opinion is that we should have, but I could be wrong about that. But one thing is for sure, we are there NOW, and that calls for some kind of action. Morally speaking, if you break something, you have a responsibility to try and fix it. Now, Afghanistan was already broken. It has been broken for 2,500 years. But we broke it some more, and I believe that we have a moral responsibility to try and make good on that, if it is at all possible to do so. Back in August, it was possible. Today, it may not be possible, but we have to try, or we have not acted in good faith.

IF this war is lost, it IS Obama's fault for not having had the strength of character to lead back when it was still possible for him to do so. That he did not is further evidence that he is not qualified for the office.

Zee, you have a predilection for trying to quote back to conservatives various sound bites as if they had current meaning, but you ignore the historical contexts in which they were made, and so it rears up and nips you on the butt each and every time. The other day, you posted to me in another thread "nobody likes a good swiftboating," to which I responded, "likewise, nobody enjoys a "wintersoldiering." You have yet to either respond, or acknowledge that you don't have a reply to that. In this thread here, you tried to use "cut and run," and it just isn't working for you. May I suggest that you try and distance yourself from John Kerry as far as possible? It ain't exactly covering you in glory.

Zee wrote:

marksiwel wrote:using the military as a photo op is nothing new. For example See every president for the last 20 years.

See: Mission Accomplished

Hey... at least those weren't "in the enemy camp."

And I agree, by the way. American presidents have been photographed with the military going back to Abraham Lincoln. I merely posted that article because it was a different perspective. Here's another perspective on this administration's military photo ops (my emphasis in red):

Source: The Cable
Exclusive: White House aides insisted F-22 be removed from Obama speech venue

When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hangar. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.

"White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.

Stephen Lee, a public affairs officer at Elmendorf, confirmed to The Cable that the F-22 was parked in the hangar and then was replaced by an F-15 at the White House's behest.

The airmen there took offense to the Obama aides' demand, sources told The Cable, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day. They also expressed bewilderment that the White House staff would even care so much as to make an issue out of the fact that the F-22 was placed in the hangar with the president.

A White House official, commenting on background basis, told The Cable that yes, there were discussions about which plane or planes would be in the hangar, but that they were not meant as an insult to the pilots and other personnel who work on the F-22. The official couldn't elaborate on why the White House aides felt it necessary to get involved in the matter in the first place.

The official pointed to Obama's speech to the troops that day, where he praised both the 90th Fighter Squadron, known as the "Dicemen," and the 525th Fighter Squadron, the "Bulldogs," both of which operate the F-22.

Even so, the Air Force personnel thought it odd the White House wanted to display the older plane rather than the more advanced plane that, in the eyes of its supporters, represents the latest and greatest in American aviation.

The Obama administration fought hard and successfully to cut off production of the F-22 at 187 planes, a number Defense Secretary Robert Gates endorsed but that was hundreds less than originally planned and about half of the 381 planes Air Force leadership lobbied hard for in the years preceding Obama's inauguration.

"It's one thing to be against further production; quite another to slight the folks who are flying them in the operational world," one source said, adding that "the F-15 pictured was put into service roughly around the same period when Obama graduated from college. It's vintage."

This president is politically tone-deaf, and it is going to cost him in 2012 — if he's dumb enough to run for reelection.

My point as regards the topic of this thread is that there are two kinds of photo ops with the military for a US president — one in which the military is used merely as a prop, without regard to honoring those assembled there (as demonstrated by the F-22 story above or Obama's West Point speech); and one in which the president comes to cheer on, celebrate and or grieve with the military its triumphs and its tragedies (as demonstrated by the George Bush in "mission accomplished" and recently at Fort Hood). One is the venal use of the military for purely political reasons, and the other is a show of genuine appreciation.

I am sure that if you were to go ask — privately — most people currently in the military if they feel appreciated by the current administration, you're not going to like the answer, particularly from the pilots of the 525th Fighter Squadron.

A military mother's take on the president's speech
December 02, 2009
Beverly Gunn
American Thinker

The stage was set at West Point last night and the backdrop was the Corps of Cadets, who served as props for the President's speech. It was not a proud moment. I saw all those young men and women, who are chosen and a part of the top ten percent of the greatest minds of their generation, and I wept.

To use them as props seemed to me to serve as the worst insult ever offered by a leader of a nation. Yet, as I pondered the speech, the audience, their circumspect behavior, and the fatigue that washed over many of these young folks, I wondered if the White House understood the length of the cadets duty day, for it wasn't over after the speech. These fine young people left the speech and got back to being serious cadets, studying for upcoming semester exams, and finishing projects.

The days rarely end for these young people. Many went back to their cadet hall and spent the rest of the night making up for the hours they spent waiting for the President and the time it took to make this speech.

I can speak to both the feelings of a parent of those in the military who are serving and as the mother of a former Air Force Academy Cadet. I can say we are extremely worried. We find ourselves purposefully locked in a no-win situation by a Commander who seems not to understand either the sacrifice the military makes or the goals in winning a war. Instead we hear mewing about end games and final timetables, all which are received as signs that encourage our enemies.

I look back to the Vietnam war, the war of my youth and that which my husband fought two tours in. For me, then, it was a war very far away and being raised in the ranch life of the hill country of Texas, I rarely contemplated a war that seemed so far away from home. The first really serious thought I had about the war in Vietnam came in, strangely enough, my Algebra class, when our teacher, a retired Colonel who had taught at the War College, pierced the small minds he taught by writing simple quotations on the blackboard each day. Only rarely did he ever comment about them. The day I read this quotation my world began to open. The words said simply,

"Somewhere out there a man died for me today, that I might live free. And I must ask and answer, 'Am I worth dying for?'"

I remember sitting in my seat, riveted by reading the words, and the impact they made on my heart, lasts even still today. And I wonder about all those in the field of battle today and for our children, whose hearts are as cold as stone over the course that lies ahead. I wonder, has our President ever thought of the price of duty that he asks of us today, with no end game or victory in sight, and whether anyone serving wants to give a life so cheaply? For if we are not in this war to win, and see to it that our enemies are clear about the cost of attacking the freedom of our nation, then we would be much better off not having begun the battle. And yet as I write those words I think of all who purchased my freedom and how I desire that my children and grandchildren live in freedom.

You see, Mr. President, that is why we serve. We only ask that you do not see our children and our family members as good photo op!

Mrs. Gunn is a simple Texas rancher. She is married and has a son and a foster daughter now serving. She lives in East Texas. Mrs. Gunn is a simple Texas rancher. She is married and has a son and a foster daughter now serving. She lives in East Texas.

nitrogen wrote:

joe817 wrote:He certainly is a good orator. Man, can he deliver a good speech.

What bothered me was the commentary afterwards when Katie C. was interviewing a democrat Congressman. It blew me away. Caught me totally off guard. The "War Tax" will be imposed on all tax payers who earn in excess of $30,000 per year. That is if his bill gets approved.

I agree with a war tax. If a war is important enough to fight, it is important enough to pay for with an extra tax, and if we support the war, we should support paying for it.

Yes, through voluntary war bonds, just like WW2.