Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Tx Sen Cruz tells Limbaugh the "inconvenient truth" about pending immigration bill

13»

Replies

  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Kinda like a Christian joining the Church of Satan to convert it into embracing Jesus. :troll:

    :rotflmao::rotflmao:

    That's just HYSTERICAL!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Well, isn't that what Jesus was often criticized for -- spending time with tax collectors and other "sinners"?

    And yeah, the troll image is appropriate. If you think that the Republican party is totally corrupted, you're living in the wrong state... oh, wait, you live in California. No wonder you feel that way. The vast majority of California Republicans try to be "Democrat-lite".
    Sam....

    CaliFFL's posted, a few times, that he now lives in Idaho. Even says so in the "Location" field under his name. Like yours says "Houston." He did live in California, but he's been moved away for six years.


    I'm letting breamfisher reply to this. Again. *sigh*
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I'm letting breamfisher reply to this. Again. *sigh*
    Things would be easier for us if you got a new email address and signed up with a new user name...
    I'm just here for snark.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Things would be easier for us if you got a new email address and signed up with a new user name...

    I've considered it, but I've been CaliFFL since this place was (IIRC) Florida Sportsman. And I do not want a cheesy "formally known as" sig line.

    Wait a second.... I've got it.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    We don't care what you want. We want you to do what's more convenient for US. Because we really don't care about you.



    Nice sig line...
    I'm just here for snark.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    He's talking about the 2000 campaign, not the 2008. The one where McCain didn't court the religious vote and was defeated by George Bush in the primary.

    Ah. Sorry, I missed that.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Ah. Sorry, I missed that. For YEARS.

    Fixed yer post.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Sam....

    CaliFFL's posted, a few times, that he now lives in Idaho. Even says so in the "Location" field under his name. Like yours says "Houston." He did live in California, but he's been moved away for a few years.

    Ah, eeek! Sorry for that. I do however stick to my original comment, that we got excellent results here in Texas in 2012 by electing Ted Cruz, done so by working within the Republican party to ensure that a conservative gets the nomination.

    And I still think that change can be effected more easily by working with the party rather than going outside to a 3rd choice. And I'm open to persuasion, when I see all the Libertarian party candidates get elected.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Yes, but there is still a problem. The Republicans have ceded to the liberals the right to define the language and make all the rules, so the Democrats will simply continue to tell the public that conservatives are always ideologues, because after all, George W. Bush was a Christian who re-started the Crusades against his ideological enemy.

    Talking points will be distributed to the media, and the 50% of the population who made up the majority in the last election will say, "Yeah!" and no sincere pragmatist will ever convince them otherwise...unless he is able to give them trinkets and cash with his message.

    Excellent comments, bis. Thanks.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    ........Over the years, the relegious coalitions in America have destroyed the concept of liberty, all backed by the GOP. Prohibition I & II have/has spawned more violence, tyrannical laws, LE spending, incarceration, interference with foreign countries, and general police-statism than all the liberal leaning laws combined.............
    I took the time to look this up, and surprisingly both parties were responsible for prohibitions I & II. The efforts to restrict and prohibit drugs and alcohol go back to the mid to late 1800's. Alcohol prohibition was instigated by the "Prohibition Party" which could not get their way until they persuaded enough rural Protestants from both parties to support the actual legislation. The first anti drug laws came from large cities like San Francisco in the 1880's that had opium dens which anyone could go in and smoke opium.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Sam, you've made reference to people voting Libertarian party in at least half of your posts in this thread.

    You do realize that you are the only poster in this thread that's talking about that, don't you? No one, NO one has said a WORD about voting Libertarian party.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I don't think I have ever seen a time where only 2 senators (freshmen at that) have wielded so much power. Imagine if there were 10 more. Both are getting serious looks at the presidency this early in.
    Jerm, I agree with this 100% and also if Rubio hadn't bought in to that Immigration crap he was also a rising star. He has made some movement of trying to get out of that can of worms, but until he does, the conservative camp won't let him go much farther.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    You were the first one to bring in the religion aspect. Not Buffco. Your statement:

    is stated as a fact. Not an opinion. YOU are the one who stated something like it was true. Buffco merely responded. But, as many have seen, when someone returns things to you like you serve to them, you get all whiny and complain about people attacking you when you launch the first salvo.

    This may be "gang mentality" to you, but Buffco and CPJ are offering more cogent, logic-based arguments without the vitriol that you tend to sling.

    Come on Bream, pile on. I can take it! Sounds like you're grabbing at straws here. One thing, Buffy is more than capable of taking up for himself.

    Also, it IS my opinion. Everything I state on here is my opinion. This is all about opinion. Just like this: "This may be "gang mentality" to you, but Buffco and CPJ are offering more cogent, logic-based arguments without the vitriol that you tend to sling.[/QUOTE]"

    This is your opinion and I can't do anything about it. Truth be known I don't want to do anything about it. But don't tell me I can't have one.

    And what's your beef with my statement about Religion? What I was doing was stating my OPINION of people not voting for Romney because he is Mormon. And I explained my feelings about Obama. Who died and made you the captain of the debate team anyway?
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Of course, strident atheism is a "religion" all its own and many Democrats try to impose that system of beliefs on us.

    With you on that Sam. Agree 100%
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    With you on that Sam. Agree 100%

    As an atheist, I completely agree with this as well. The freaks that push to remove "In God We Trust" from money, or nativity scenes, or a 100 year old Ten Commandments from a courthouse need to be beaten.

    I will not push my "relegion" on you and I expect the same courtesy.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    All this and no one has changed their mind.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Come on Bream, pile on. I can take it! Sounds like you're grabbing at straws here. One thing, Buffy is more than capable of taking up for himself.

    Also, it IS my opinion. Everything I state on here is my opinion. This is all about opinion. Just like this: "This may be "gang mentality" to you, but Buffco and CPJ are offering more cogent, logic-based arguments without the vitriol that you tend to sling.

    This is your opinion and I can't do anything about it. Truth be known I don't want to do anything about it. But don't tell me I can't have one.

    And what's your beef with my statement about Religion? What I was doing was stating my OPINION of people not voting for Romney because he is Mormon. And I explained my feelings about Obama. Who died and made you the captain of the debate team anyway?

    I have no problems with religion. I do have a problem with you jumping on Buffco about religion as though he introduced the topic when it was you who did it. So, again, your motives for my action are incorrect. Why? Because you're too busy trying to challenge what someone says to take the time to pay attention to what it is that they've said.

    Also, I stand by my allegation: you stated he was a "closet Muslim" using phrasing that indicated it was fact, not that it was your opinion. And when you got called on it you went to your tried and true "it's my opinion and the Constitution guarantees the right to an opinion!" answer. How you phrase things has meaning. Whether you like it or not. It's not my fault you can't differentiate that you're posting a fact or an opinion with your writing.

    For someone who tries to assign motives to me, you haven't paid attention to a single thing I've said in the past, and have decided on how I act based on what you think, not what I've written.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Buffy, I apologize if I sounded like I was jumping on you. I was merely stating my opinion.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    ...I'm VERY far from atheism. What I am isn't important - what is is to keep religion, ANYONE'S religion, out of politics. I also have no use whatsoever for Marxists - which as you correctly note, dominate the Democratic party.

    No Theocrats, no Marxists, no Bibles, no Korans, no socialism.

    Well that's fine, but it doesn't change anything, because you do have a religion and you are attacking another religion that you have a prejudice against. Why does that not change any of the points I made in reply to your post? Because it means that you do have an ideology and you do have an agenda that requires you to stereotype all conservatives as Bible-thumping monotheists who want to inject their religion into national politics. This is not a criticism - fully 75% (at least) of all people who try to keep up with political ebbs and flows do so because they want their ideology to either dominate politics, or at least be given reasonable consideration when laws are made and tax dollars are spent. But the point is that ideology has to be put on the back burner if this country is to ever get back to the founding principles, which were and still are, the first ever experiment in having a central government that manages only the things that a central government is capable of managing without trouncing the individual rights of the majority.

    Basically, young people (and a lot of older ones, too) have been programmed (some from birth) to, when they hear the word "conservative," to bring forth an image of the southern preachers in the '50's preaching about the evils of rock and roll music, or Jimmy Swaggert tearfully condemning everyone to Hell that doesn't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. That kind of conservative still exists in large numbers, but even so, the overwhelming majority of them have come to understand that they have to, in the words of the Bible, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," as it relates to governing the country. They are no more and no less dangerous to the governance of this country than any of the other competing ideologies.

    What one should assume about a person who calls himself a conservative, until evidence to the contrary surfaces, is that he is first and foremost a person who does not accept that all new ideas presented by the various ideologies are good ideas, until proof exists to merit their acceptance. In fact, the overwhelming majority of ideas do not stand the test of time, due to the unforeseen circumstances that the ideologues usually either don't choose to mention, or may actually be ignorant of. A genuine conservative is simply a realist, and is actually a political moderate, if compared to the various ideologues who dominate the political scene, because he is open to any idea that can be proven to have merit.

    So, the one point we probably agree on is that legislation made by the federal government should be Constitutional correct, so as not benefit any specific ideology, and that the amendment (to the Constitution) process should be used to correct anything in the Constitution that any majority of voters thinks it may have gotten wrong or should have addressed more specifically.

    That leaves our disagreement on one simple thing - your tendency to bash people of a religion different from your own, and stereotype non-Libertarians as Bible-thumpers. I'll admit to doing the same thing, occasionally, by stereotyping all Democrats as Marxists. But in my defense, their leadership has pretty much proved that they have more allegiance to the tenets of that ideology than to the Constitution.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    I'm no bible thumper by a long shot, and I'm no preacher either, but I am a Christian. When you hear some Christians say things like this country was founded on Christian principles, well it was, Judeo Christian, that is. There were a few Jews around, not many, but a few. But Jewish principles are about the same as Christian. Remember Christ was a Jew. I believe "Christian Principles" are a reflection of the Ten Commandments with a big dose of Christian Forgiveness added. But this doesn't mean we're bible thumpers. It doesn't mean we walk around condemning everyone who doesn't walk in our footsteps. I think there's fanatics in every group. They are in the minority but they're there. And remember that the squeaky wheel gets then grease. So when one of the more fundamental Christian types says something on the media, everyone thinks we're all like that. Republicans and conservatives in general get stereotyped as such. But the vast majority of conservatives and Republicans are more moderate religiously.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    Not "bashing" anyone's religion - just bashing those who want to interject their religion as national policy. "In God We Trust" is NOT the original motto of this country, and shouldn't be used as such. The 10 commandments contain several "universal truths", the rest are peculiar to one (ok, two) religions. I wouldn't really care one way or another, except the revisionist Theocrats try to use these factoids to justify their agenda. I wouldn't want MY religion as national policy either - that would be JUST as unethical.

    This country was certainly NOT founded on "Judeo-Christian values". There are countless examples contradicting this falsehood. The "values" in question are a bit more broad in scope than any one religion - they're universal ETHICS. Not so-called "morality" - ETHICS. Its all in Plato, among other places - "Judeo-Christian" doesn't have a monopoly on said ideals.

    There is NOTHING more horrific than a government based on religion - ANY religion. They've all had their turn (including Atheism) and they all have failed. History is replete with examples. Governments should be founded on ETHICS - as ours originally was. It has strayed wildly from its roots, both forgetting ETHICS and increasingly embracing religion. It too is now failing as a result. ETHICS seldom intersect with laws, rules, or so-called "morality".
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    What one should assume about a person who calls himself a conservative, until evidence to the contrary surfaces, is that he is first and foremost a person who does not accept that all new ideas presented by the various ideologies are good ideas, until proof exists to merit their acceptance. In fact, the overwhelming majority of ideas do not stand the test of time, due to the unforeseen circumstances that the ideologues usually either don't choose to mention, or may actually be ignorant of. A genuine conservative is simply a realist, and is actually a political moderate, if compared to the various ideologues who dominate the political scene, because he is open to any idea that can be proven to have merit.
    This we can totally agree on. With emphasis on "should". I'm finding most "conservatives" are this way, but there was a time - not too long ago - when no-one would even talk about, much less acknowledge, the Christianist problem. Now everyone's talking about it, hopefully it means things are getting better in that regard. The Repubs are certainly losing elections because of it; maybe "real conservatives" will FINALLY wake up as a result and throw the fanatics out.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    This we can totally agree on. With emphasis on "should". I'm finding most "conservatives" are this way, but there was a time - not too long ago - when no-one would even talk about, much less acknowledge, the Christianist problem. Now everyone's talking about it, hopefully it means things are getting better in that regard. The Repubs are certainly losing elections because of it; maybe "real conservatives" will FINALLY wake up as a result and throw the fanatics out.

    I think I have wasted a lot of time, here.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement