RE: Rush is right

RE: Rush is right (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

jkdjr25 -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 4:25:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam quote: Several people answered your question only to have you totally dismiss their arguments by saying that they didn't count. Name one.. NOBODY actually came out and said the Bush adminsitration's policies directly affected them. Sorry. quote: My own account of people on this very message board making acusations that people are siding with terrorists if they don't support President Bush is evidence that there are people trying to undermine free speech. Hey, I gave you what you wanted. I asked if you wanted us to win the WOT. You didn't respond. Your silence speaks volumes.... quote: You have no intention of accepting or even remotely considering that you might be wrong. When someone proves me wrong, I'll admit it. So far, no takers. Only differing opinions. Alright oh wise one. Enlighten me. How are we suppoed to win a war of ideals when we resort to the kinds of things that our enemy does? Because if you can see a clear path to a moral victory using thing like inhuman detention and torture then by all means show me. And so you know, yes I would like for us to win the "war on terror" as it has come to be called, but not doing wrong to others in order to get there. The ends do not justify the means.

ak2007 -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 4:54:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: galadriel2 It isn't a we-they type thing that is being portrayed by Hillary and Sen. Obama. Who works at the oil companies? Who are the share holders? It is we/us. I'll try to remember that next time I have to choose between a tank of gas and schoolbooks.

tafkam -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 5:24:16 PM)
It's really very simple. No doubt the terrorists are cheering this decision by our Supreme Court, because it hands them something and adversely affects our efforts. Riddle me this....if the enemy applauds a decision, is that really a decision you want to be in favor of? quote: How are we suppoed to win a war of ideals when we resort to the kinds of things that our enemy does? Last time I checked, we weren't gassing our own people or sawing our enemies' heads off on camera. We are NOTHING like our enemies. quote: And so you know, yes I would like for us to win the "war on terror" as it has come to be called, but not doing wrong to others in order to get there. Um, isn't war by it's very nature "doing wrong" to others? I guess you'd suggest a round of "Kum-By-Yah" then, right?

jkdjr25 -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 5:28:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam It's really very simple. No doubt the terrorists are cheering this decision by our Supreme Court, because it hands them something and adversely affects our efforts. Riddle me this....if the enemy applauds a decision, is that really a decision you want to be in favor of? quote: How are we suppoed to win a war of ideals when we resort to the kinds of things that our enemy does? Last time I checked, we weren't gassing our own people or sawing our enemies' heads off on camera. We are NOTHING like our enemies. quote: And so you know, yes I would like for us to win the "war on terror" as it has come to be called, but not doing wrong to others in order to get there. Um, isn't war by it's very nature "doing wrong" to others? I guess you'd suggest a round of "Kum-By-Yah" then, right? Because they don't use anything like imprisoning people without charge or torture people. Nope not at all. I would suggest we do what Christ taught. Love them that hate us, and do good to those who wrong us. Shouldn't that be what we, as Christians, advocate if we're to be true to His teaching? The Supreme Court ruling is the only moral, ethical and legal ruling they could make based on an unbiased view of things. The courts must uphold the constitution and our laws. By holding prisoners, indefinitely and without charge, we are in violation of our laws. The ends do not justify the means.

tafkam -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 5:32:57 PM)
quote: Because they don't use anything like imprisoning people without charge or torture people. Nope not at all. Oh, no, our enemies would never do anything like that, would they? [8\|] quote: I would suggest we do what Christ taught. Love them that hate us, and do good to those who wrong us. Shouldn't that be what we, as Christians, advocate if we're to be true to His teaching? So if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family, you will "do no wrong" to them....you'll just love them. Right? Great logic, that.... quote: The Supreme Court ruling is the only moral, ethical and legal ruling they could make based on an unbiased view of things. And it is the wrong ruling. Remember, the Supreme Court also okayed abortion on demand. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

jkdjr25 -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 5:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam quote: Because they don't use anything like imprisoning people without charge or torture people. Nope not at all. Oh, no, our enemies would never do anything like that, would they? [8\|] quote: I would suggest we do what Christ taught. Love them that hate us, and do good to those who wrong us. Shouldn't that be what we, as Christians, advocate if we're to be true to His teaching? So if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family, you will "do no wrong" to them....you'll just love them. Right? Great logic, that.... quote: The Supreme Court ruling is the only moral, ethical and legal ruling they could make based on an unbiased view of things. And it is the wrong ruling. Remember, the Supreme Court also okayed abortion on demand. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. If someone breaks into my home, the Bible still says Thou Shalt Not Kill. It also says "Vengence is Mine, thus sayeth the Lord." Can't really argue with that now, can you.

tafkam -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 5:40:57 PM)
So you we can assume you would allow your family to be killed? Ooookay.......

jkdjr25 -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 5:45:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam So you we can assume you would allow your family to be killed? Ooookay....... I would trust God to protect my family. Thou shalt not kill has no provisions. It's very clear on the matter. Even if you take the more liberal interpretation and say Thou shalt not murder, killing someone who breaks into your house is still murder in the eyes of God. It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill, unless..." it says Thou shalt not kill. Are you saying that it's ok with God to just murder a guy even though He pretty cleary says that it's not?

tafkam -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 6:07:48 PM)
Well Proverbs 25:26 describes a righteous man who gives way to the wicked as a "polluted well". Romans 14:19 states we should make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification. Does condoning criminal activity or withholding punishment lead to peace? Or Ephesians 5:25, which says husbands should love their wives as Jesus loved the church and gave himself up for it, sacrificing himself to preserve it from death to sin. Would God hold a husband responsible for not intervening in his wife's behalf if her life were in danger? Jesus told his disciples a person cannot exhibit greater love for others than by laying down his life for them (John 15:13). This usually applies to sacrificing your own desires and interests, even your needs, for the benefit of others; but it also includes giving up your life for them. This kind of self-sacrifice includes such efforts as trying to bring a life-threatening situation under control, even if it means dying in the process of saving others. There is no room for cowardice in self-sacrifice. Or Exodus 22..."If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him," The next verse says, "If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." Obviously, self defense, and defense of one's family, is Biblical. Shall I go on?

ak2007 -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 6:14:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam Obviously, self defense, and defense of one's family, is Biblical. There are a lot of things you can call stationing our troops in 39 countries, but self-defense is not one of them. Even the USSR didn't do that.

rlj -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 7:11:34 PM)
quote: Name one.. NOBODY actually came out and said the Bush adminsitration's policies directly affected them. Sorry. That isn't what you said. Your question has been "has anyone lost any freedoms?". That I can't answer. The last time I came back from Canada 2 years ago I had to have all of my papers ready and in order for our good comrades at the border so he could let me into this glorious worker's paradise. I didn't have to do that before they changed the border laws. That has affected me. Is there something somewhere in the Constitution or some other law that says my trip to the border should be quick, painless and take a couple of seconds? Nope. So I didn't lose a freedom. I also didn't lose any freedom when my state banned smoking. I won't be losing any freedom when the liberals make us stop selling junk food. I can't complain about freedom should they ration gas either since there is nothing anywhere that says we should have those freedoms.

tafkam -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 7:58:04 PM)
rlj, you're right, that is what I said. And I stand by it. We keep hearing of all these rights we have lost under Bush, yet nobody can come up with a single freedom that they personally have lost. The only "examples" we have had are not issues related to Bush administration policies.....

SonInMe1 -> RE: Rush is right (6/15/2008 8:16:07 PM)
I presume no war is right? No policeman should carry a gun? Life just isn't that way. Roman's 13 clearly states the government has the power of the sword. Chamberlain thought he could appease Hitler and he was mistaken. Clinton thought he could ignore Saddam and he was mistaken. Nixon wanted detante with Russia and he was mistaken. Teddy was right...walk softly and carry a big stick. What did Wilson's policies of dismantleing our military get? WW1. Same thing happened with ww2. Life just isn't that way. Pacifists would all be in prison camps if it weren't for soldiers dieing to protect their rights to be pacifists. As much as tafkam's question is never answered this question is never answered..If Bush's policies are so bad, what would the alternatives be? Iraq? Patriot Act? It seems there are a lot of complainers, usually for political reasons, and few problem solvers.

rlj -> RE: Rush is right (6/16/2008 7:56:29 AM)
quote: I presume no war is right? Actually I used to get into some good arguments for what I'm about to say but I believe that any war your nation sends you to is "right". This means that American christians that fought Iraqi christians in the two wars with Iraq were both right. Their is only One who can judge that and I don't know His mind. The men responsible are the ones that I believe who will have to give an accounting of what they did and why. The rest of us follow their orders because that is what we are supposed to do. quote: Patriot Act? I honestly can't dis the entire peace of legislation. There are good points to it and awful points to it. Why is the Patriot Act being used to investigate copyright violation for example? Are terrorists taking rap songs and putting in subliminal messages recruiting them into the Nation of Islam? Off the top of my head I don't recall what sections of it have been struck down that bothered me. quote: It seems there are a lot of complainers, usually for political reasons This country is so polarized by politics it is almost surreal. I almost believe that if the Democrats said they wanted to abolish all federal taxes that Republicans would fight it because it came from a Dem and if the Republicans said they wanted a universal health care and public transportation system to give everyone free healthcare and transport anywhere on state of the art pollution free vehicles the Dems would reject it because it came from Republicans. It's hard to believe that 12 or so years ago that Clinton worked with Republicans to get welfare reform because both wanted it. Yet when for 6 years immigration reform was trumpeted by Dubya and what he wanted was consistent with what the Dems wanted yet when the Dems took power he made a slight half-hearted attempt to pass it. It was as if he wouldn't work with the Dems on what he wanted just because it was Dems. That is the one thing I do respect about McCain is his ability to cross the aisle because this country needs leaders to do that more and more.

rlj -> RE: Rush is right (6/16/2008 7:58:23 AM)
quote: We keep hearing of all these rights we have lost under Bush, yet nobody can come up with a single freedom that they personally have lost. Trust me if I did I would trumpet it loud, long and clear from the rooftops. [sm=tonguehappy.gif]

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Rush is right (6/16/2008 2:30:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jkdjr25 quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam quote: Because they don't use anything like imprisoning people without charge or torture people. Nope not at all. Oh, no, our enemies would never do anything like that, would they? [8\|] quote: I would suggest we do what Christ taught. Love them that hate us, and do good to those who wrong us. Shouldn't that be what we, as Christians, advocate if we're to be true to His teaching? So if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family, you will "do no wrong" to them....you'll just love them. Right? Great logic, that.... quote: The Supreme Court ruling is the only moral, ethical and legal ruling they could make based on an unbiased view of things. And it is the wrong ruling. Remember, the Supreme Court also okayed abortion on demand. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. If someone breaks into my home, the Bible still says Thou Shalt Not Kill. It also says "Vengence is Mine, thus sayeth the Lord." Can't really argue with that now, can you. Actually yes... The 5th Commandment is murder, not simply killing since if one doesn't make the distinction you end up calling God and those He commanded to kill, murderers... David didn't MURDER Golith, Joshua didn't MURDER a single man, woman, and child in Jericho, nor did Moses MURDER the 1000's who didn't choose God they killed them... Defending oneself and family is completely biblical as well to allow someone to take your life and those of your family would be breaking the 5th Commandment as well� Vengeance would be going after the person who broke into your home after the fact, not stopping them during the commission of the crime... John

jkdjr25 -> RE: Rush is right (6/16/2008 2:45:46 PM)
Alright. I can accept that my interpretation may indeed be wrong on this matter. However there are other reasons that, at least for me, are why I don't believe in violence. I accept that at times it is an unpleasent reality, but I still hate it and I still think that doing the moral thing is more important in most instances. Defending one's self and one's family doesn't always mean you have to kill in order to do so.

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Rush is right (6/16/2008 2:54:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jkdjr25 Alright. I can accept that my interpretation may indeed be wrong on this matter. However there are other reasons that, at least for me, are why I don't believe in violence. I accept that at times it is an unpleasent reality, but I still hate it and I still think that doing the moral thing is more important in most instances. The moral thing to do is to protect yourself and your family... quote: Defending one's self and one's family doesn't always mean you have to kill in order to do so. Of course not... Above all God would know if one's response to a threat was righteous or not... As well I know that if I allowed someone to harm my family because I didn't believe in violence I would be more accountable than the person who did the physical harm... John

davemiller7 -> RE: Rush is right (6/16/2008 3:15:41 PM)
Amen! And as you pointed out earlier, if you interpret the Ten Commandments as Thou shalt not kill, then should we not swat a fly? Or step on an ant? Or pull a weed out of the lawn? Thou shalt not murder is a much better interpretation. -Dave quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe quote: ORIGINAL: jkdjr25 Alright. I can accept that my interpretation may indeed be wrong on this matter. However there are other reasons that, at least for me, are why I don't believe in violence. I accept that at times it is an unpleasent reality, but I still hate it and I still think that doing the moral thing is more important in most instances. The moral thing to do is to protect yourself and your family... quote: Defending one's self and one's family doesn't always mean you have to kill in order to do so. Of course not... Above all God would know if one's response to a threat was righteous or not... As well I know that if I allowed someone to harm my family because I didn't believe in violence I would be more accountable than the person who did the physical harm... John

trainfan -> RE: Rush is right (6/16/2008 3:16:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 quote: ORIGINAL: galadriel2 Who works at the oil companies? Who are the share holders? It is we/us. Wrong, they have the last name Bush! Do you own a mutual fund through an IRA or 401k (or other retirement account) or just own one in a taxable account? If you do you better read that big boring book they send every so often and see what holdings are in there before you say you aren't a shareholder.

galadriel2 -> RE: Rush is right (6/23/2008 12:35:17 PM)
kernsfamily...with all due respect...I disagree completely. I am not an 'isolated incident'. I am an incident that evoked a predominant attitude in America toward Christ and the Gospel when He showed up in the world of the governing elite via me - however imperfectly. Your religious freedom is being taken from you right before your eyes and you aren't even aware of it. By the time you will be - it will be too late to do anything about it. God bless you abundantly, Galadriel2

kernsfamily -> RE: Rush is right (6/23/2008 12:46:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: galadriel2 kernsfamily...with all due respect...I disagree completely. I am not an 'isolated incident'. I am an incident that evoked a predominant attitude in America toward Christ and the Gospel when He showed up in the world of the governing elite via me - however imperfectly. Your religious freedom is being taken from you right before your eyes and you aren't even aware of it. By the time you will be - it will be too late to do anything about it. God bless you abundantly, Galadriel2 my, and most others, 'religious freedom' is being exercised freer today than at any other time in my life...(when it relates to the US government) and any "restrictions" placed on free-exercise...... If you want me to THINK that my "religious freedom" is being taken away, perhaps you can give me some concrete examples of how my freedom is being taken away......because, as I mentioned, I have only experienced the freer-exercise of such freedoms, and no signifcant "restrictions" thereof....

galadriel2 -> RE: Rush is right (6/24/2008 6:16:14 PM)
Thanks again, kernsfamily, for the response....Could you preach on the sidewalk in the Mall at Washington D.C....in front of the White House let's say or in the Capital Building foyer? Could you hold a prayer meeting to Christ only in any secular campus building whenever you wanted without any hassle? See, I think it is more that the church is too busy following the world so it doesn't get persecuted because Paul says to Timothy: 'All who live godly will suffer persecution'. I think we lack persecution because we are too much like the world, we are too ungodly; not so much because we have all this religious freedom. It is true that Peter also says: 'Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?', but he also says that it is God's will to silence to foolish and ignorant talk of ignorant men by doing good. We lack persecution because we don't hold the Lord in high enough regard; because we are too much like the world. God bless you abundantly, Galadriel2

mapachito13 -> RE: Rush is right (6/25/2008 8:15:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trainfan quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 quote: ORIGINAL: galadriel2 Who works at the oil companies? Who are the share holders? It is we/us. Wrong, they have the last name Bush! Do you own a mutual fund through an IRA or 401k (or other retirement account) or just own one in a taxable account? If you do you better read that big boring book they send every so often and see what holdings are in there before you say you aren't a shareholder. But do I own enough shares to have a say what any of those companies do? In other words, do I have a controlling interest in those companies? [:D][:D][:D]

mapachito13 -> RE: Rush is right (6/25/2008 8:25:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: galadriel2 Thanks again, kernsfamily, for the response....Could you preach on the sidewalk in the Mall at Washington D.C....in front of the White House let's say or in the Capital Building foyer? Could you hold a prayer meeting to Christ only in any secular campus building whenever you wanted without any hassle? See, I think it is more that the church is too busy following the world so it doesn't get persecuted because Paul says to Timothy: 'All who live godly will suffer persecution'. I think we lack persecution because we are too much like the world, we are too ungodly; not so much because we have all this religious freedom. It is true that Peter also says: 'Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?', but he also says that it is God's will to silence to foolish and ignorant talk of ignorant men by doing good. We lack persecution because we don't hold the Lord in high enough regard; because we are too much like the world. God bless you abundantly, Galadriel2 Has anyone stopped you from doing those things in your church or home? Has the government ordered you to ascribe to this denomination/religion or another? Sounds like your upset because you can't go to public places to perform religious acts for others to see. Although, I've seen people praying in parks, at the mall and in many other public places. BTW, our government is democratic not theocratic.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI