TexasCHLforum.com

mamabearCali wrote:

recaffeination wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:You vote for whomsoever you want to, however I have to stand before a holy God someday. I cannot and will not stand before him and say "sorry I thought the deficit was more important than the lives of children".

I'm intrigued by this comment. There are children dying, particularly in third world countries, because they don't have clean water, enough food, vaccinations and other medical care. Is cable television or Internet access more important than their lives? A nice house and car? Toys for you kids instead of life for others?

I personally hold myself responsible only for my own actions. I don't feel responsible for bad parents who have children without being able to support and care for their children. I also don't feel responsible if someone chooses to have an abortion. So my views are consistent but I puzzle over how others draw the line about which innocent lives are worth more than money/possessions and which ones aren't.

This goes to the you can't save every kitten in the world. I do what I can with what I have. Our family does what it can for the poor around the world (various charities we partner with). I cannot be responsible for the insanity and corruption of other nations (what causes most human suffering). However in this country the citizens do have a say in what is permitted, I will not vote for a person who does not value human life.

You have just made the case for world government. The Progressives have taken over the US on exactly that argument - taking care of the poor. Let's review how good of a job they have done in the ensuing 100 years, especially in places like Detroit. No matter. The argument is that you and I will not try to do enough to help all of those starving poor so they must muster the power of government to fill the gap that our "disinterest" creates.

By the way, you have given up all say in what your government does because your side lost the election. Complete capitulation is required. If they had chariots, they would tie us all together and drag us through the streets of Washington to demonstrate their triumph, in true Roman fashion.

C-dub wrote:

chasfm11 wrote: Wait until the RFID chips that are planned to be implanted in all of us are implemented - you may have a lot of company. I think they are referenced around page 1,000 in the law and the implementation date is supposed to be March 21 2013. After so little pushback on the TSA atrocities, I was feeling like the American public might just roll over and take it. I guess we'll see.

The devil you say? This is the first I've heard of this.

Here is one of the links to the debate
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2012/07 ... ry-or-not/
It is supposed to be debunked. Before you say "they won't dare try that", I remind you of the things that they have tried. Remember the nudie scanners that couldn't record - except that they did? It is definitely a tin-foil hat area but like many other parts of the ACA, it is based off rules that are yet to be written.

mamabearCali wrote:

C-dub wrote: There's a whole lotta things wrong with obamacare, including this issue. I have a little bit of a problem calling that a law. If it is, and it probably is, how do you reconcile the fact that various companies and other obamanation friends have been given exemptions so they don;t have to abide by the law? Would that be like our exemption to carrying a gun because we have a CHL?

I don't try to reconcile anything with that law,. It is an unjust and immoral law, voted into existence in the most corrupt manner I have ever seen in my life. The winning vote cast by Al Franken whose election was the result of felons committing voter fraud. It was upheld by the most ridiculous manner of legal gymnastics that was quite honestly unethical. I expect nothing from this law but immorality, corruption and injustice. ......and if this was a private conversation I could tell you how I really feel about the law and those who betrayed their country to vote it in.

Wait until the RFID chips that are planned to be implanted in all of us are implemented - you may have a lot of company. I think they are referenced around page 1,000 in the law and the implementation date is supposed to be March 21 2013. After so little pushback on the TSA atrocities, I was feeling like the American public might just roll over and take it. I guess we'll see.

mamabearCali wrote:I understand what y'all are saying, but social issues count big time for me. If one does not have the right to life--what good are liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Then you need to find about 60 million of your closest friends who are going to vote with you based on the social issues. As long as we continue to try to legislate morality, we are going to keep the fiercely divided country that we have. The slippery slope that the Federal government jumped on when it started social engineering is exactly why we are where we are today. If we had a lot less Federal government tinkering with society and with our economy, people could decide their social issues for themselves, not have them mandated.

pbwalker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

pbwalker wrote:Why can't we just stick to the issues anymore? Why all this birther stuff? Enough already...

You mean like you're a racist if you vote against Obama? You're a homophobe if you oppose gay marriage? You're a sexist pig if you oppose abortion? You're a right wing bigot if you don't think Catholics should be forced to provide contraception and abortion against their religious beliefs? Those kinds of issues?

That's just garbage argument to distract from the issues causing America's decline, IMO. The people who lob those attacks are the same ones who don't understand GDP, Debt Ceilings, Inflation, etc.

We have two good friends who are very intelligent. They can see the fiscal decline, the rapid growth of the Federal government and the decline of our Constitutional rights. But they voted for Obama. Why? Because everything they do is based on the litmus test of abortion. They are pro-choice and would never vote for anyone who wasn't publicly pro-choice. There is no reasoning with them. They loved the Ryan financial plans but won't vote for him because he had the audacity to state his personal belief about being pro-life. They are Jewish and are very concerned about our current governmental support of Israel. Even that wasn't enough to sway them. All the anti-Semetic direction doesn't seem that important to them, compared to abortion. They don't want to argue any points other than a woman's right to do as she will with her own body. The majority of their friends feel the same way.

If those of us who want a smaller Federal government keep getting sucked into the morality arguments, we are going to continue to loose Federal level elections. It seems just that simple.