|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 8, 2011 22:47:42 GMT -5
As you may know by now, there was a shooting in Arizona that has been talked about on all the cable news channels. I don't know why people are surprised, especially liberal Democrats, when shootings like this take place. Liberal Democrats have worked hard at creating a culture of death in this country. They have created an attitude in our society that if someone gets in the way, or are otherwise inconvenient to one's plans, one can simply kill the inconvenient person. Such is the case with abortion. An unborn baby, a blob of tissue, an inconvenient life. What are the reasons for abortion? Can't have a baby now, I want to continue my education. Or, I have a career. Or, I'm married and the child doesn't belong to the husband. Whatever the reason, it all comes down to the attitude that the unborn baby is an inconvenient life. Teri Schaivo was an inconvenient life. Michael, her former husband, wanted to get on with his life, and eventhough there were people that were willing to take care of Teri Schaivo, to her husband, Michael, Teri's life was just too inconvenient. A deranged gunman came to a point where the lives of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords anf Federal Judge John Roll, and others, became inconvenient to him. Liberal Democrats should be proud of themselves that the culture of death they created is working so well. What we have just witnessed is the Liberal Democrats' agenda of how to deal with inconvenient lives acted out in American life. The Prima County Sheriff stated that we need to do some soul-searching. But he pointed a verbal finger at talk radio, and the "vitriol rhetoric" of talk radio hosts. I believe the Sheriff is pointing the finger in the wrong direction. He should be pointing the finger toward those who have created this culture of death and the attitude that we just kill inconvenient lives. Some might say this is not the time to get political. Well, when will it be time to face the the culture of death created by Liberal Democrats? The more we put that off, the more shootings we will have like this. We must confront this culture of death now. In doing so, we must disspell the notion that there are any inconvenient lives, starting with the unborn. My heart truly goes out to those effected by this tragedy. My prayers are for a complete recovery for Congresswoman Giffords.   |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 9, 2011 7:08:17 GMT -5
Just saw a news report that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is in critical condition, and unconscious. Yesterday after surgery she was following commands. Now she is unconscious. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 9, 2011 8:39:37 GMT -5
Just saw a news report that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is in critical condition, and unconscious. Yesterday after surgery she was following commands. Now she is unconscious. May God bless her recovery. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 9, 2011 10:08:41 GMT -5
Just saw a news report that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is in critical condition, and unconscious. Yesterday after surgery she was following commands. Now she is unconscious. May God bless her recovery. Thanks Allyn  |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 12, 2011 3:17:51 GMT -5
I hope I am not the only one following this. It was reported that she is now able to breathe on her own, and move her arms. But she still has a long road to complete recovery, and I will be praying for her the whole time. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 12, 2011 10:03:39 GMT -5
I hope I am not the only one following this. It was reported that she is now able to breathe on her own, and move her arms. But she still has a long road to complete recovery, and I will be praying for her the whole time. I am following the story but I do not know for sure her political affiliation. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 12, 2011 10:14:30 GMT -5
I am following the story but I do not know for sure her political affiliation. Roo She's a Democrat with some conservative leanings, such as (I've read) she is a gun rights advocate. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 12, 2011 10:33:23 GMT -5
She is a liberal Democrat. The NRA gave her a D rating. That doesn't sound like a gun rights advocate to me.
The suspect was removed several times from his college, by police, for violent actions. He had been reported several times for making death threats. He was known by the Sheriff to be mentally disturbed and very violent, yet nothing was done.
The County Sheriff is now trying to make political hay for something that would have been prevented had he and his office done their job.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 12, 2011 10:57:51 GMT -5
She is a liberal Democrat. The NRA gave her a D rating. That doesn't sound like a gun rights advocate to me. The suspect was removed several times from his college, by police, for violent actions. He had been reported several times for making death threats. He was known by the Sheriff to be mentally disturbed and very violent, yet nothing was done. The County Sheriff is now trying to make political hay for something that would have been prevented had he and his office done their job. Well we know where Vaughn stands on gun rights. I own guns too Vaughn. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 12, 2011 11:06:54 GMT -5
Well we know where Vaughn stands on gun rights. I own guns too Vaughn. Roo There you go making unwarranted assumptions again. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 12, 2011 11:28:54 GMT -5
She is a liberal Democrat. The NRA gave her a D rating. That doesn't sound like a gun rights advocate to me. ... That's why I provided the "I've read" caveat. I always thought she was totally liberal, too, but then I read something in a news article the other day about her supporting gun rights. Articles can be wrong! |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 12, 2011 11:59:14 GMT -5
Well we know where Vaughn stands on gun rights. I own guns too Vaughn. Roo There you go making unwarranted assumptions again. I thought I was being friendly. It was a reasonable conclusion though not a necessary one. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 12, 2011 12:44:53 GMT -5
There you go making unwarranted assumptions again. I thought I was being friendly. It was a reasonable conclusion though not a necessary one. Roo As long as you continue your false claim that I said fish = gentiles, I'll know I can't trust you with the truth. Your comment, "I have guns too Vaughn," sounds more like a threat, than being friendly. Bev said "gun rights advocate." She repeated what we both read in the press. I repeated the phrase Bev used to help people see the connection between her remarks and mine. My personal view is, guns, like animals, and property do not have rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 12, 2011 13:12:30 GMT -5
My personal view is, guns, like animals, and property do not have rights. Hmm... and yet we belong to God and His Christ, purchased and are no longer our own.  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 12, 2011 13:19:58 GMT -5
My personal view is, guns, like animals, and property do not have rights. Hmm... and yet we belong to God and His Christ, purchased and are no longer our own. Yes. And the key word being the pronoun you used - "WE." Animals, guns, and property do not get redeemed. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 12, 2011 13:53:06 GMT -5
Yes. And the key word being the pronoun you used - "WE." Animals, guns, and property do not get redeemed. In a sense we are God's property, purchased, 'bought up'. [But to get technical, 'things' were indeed "redeemed" in the law.] |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 12, 2011 13:56:10 GMT -5
Vaughn wrote:
I said some place that you said that fish represent gentiles in Genesis 1. And my statement "what does Christ eating fish with His disciples mean" was poking fun. It did not mean that I think you believe fish = gentiles in that instance. I see now that that statement was too provocative and I apologize for saying it.
Then Ted wrongfully imputed the term "these people" to me when it was Didy's term. Here Ted is demanding links for quotes and he did not provide the link to prove that I said "these people."
But you don't see me whining about it do you?
I assumed you were a gun rights advocate and I established that I am also an advocate by the evidence that I own guns.
What does this prove regarding your personal view on the right to keep and bear arms?
Your statement is ambiguous. You did not deny here a person's right to own guns which is what I was talking about. Your statement neither affirms or denies whether you are a gun rights advocate or not. This is why it will be necessary to have a judge in the debate. He will throw out such ambiguity whether by you or me.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 12, 2011 14:05:28 GMT -5
I said some place that you said that fish represent gentiles in Genesis 1. Then what you said some place is false. I have never said that "fish represent gentiles in Genesis 1, nor have I said "fish = gentiles." You invent falsehoods and then you hound us with them. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 12, 2011 14:24:07 GMT -5
I said some place that you said that fish represent gentiles in Genesis 1. Then what you said some place is false. I have never said that "fish represent gentiles in Genesis 1, nor have I said "fish = gentiles." You invent falsehoods and then you hound us with them. Why? If fish do not represent gentiles in Genesis 1 then just come right out and say so unambiguously. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 12, 2011 14:29:39 GMT -5
Then what you said some place is false. I have never said that "fish represent gentiles in Genesis 1, nor have I said "fish = gentiles." You invent falsehoods and then you hound us with them. Why? If fish do not represent gentiles in Genesis 1 then just come right out and say so unambiguously. Roo Why should I have to make such a statement at all? Why should I have to answer every foolish or dishonest claim you make? |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 12, 2011 15:07:03 GMT -5
If fish do not represent gentiles in Genesis 1 then just come right out and say so unambiguously. Roo Why should I have to make such a statement at all? Why should I have to answer every foolish or dishonest claim you make? Because I replied to Ted saying, "I did not say 'these people' of the CCers." I denied it. You have yet to deny that you think that fish represents gentiles in Genesis 1. I think it prudent that you and I do not engage on this board until the debate. I will not reply to or make any reference to you or your posts and you do the same. We won't have to worry about such things in the debate because Dennison won't allow misrepresentations. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 12, 2011 17:03:48 GMT -5
[Because I replied to Ted saying, "I did not say 'these people' of the CCers." I denied it. Roo Roo also said, "Then Ted wrongfully imputed the term "these people" to me when it was Didy's term. Here Ted is demanding links for quotes and he did not provide the link to prove that I said "these people." Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=any&thread=738&page=1#8081#ixzz1ArP38DXJ" I told Jeff that I THINK Tom was referring to KJ as these people because it was he who started the covenant stuff in the recipe section (jokingly or not). FACT. Perhaps it was KJ and me because I chimed in on Tom's Two Realms with CC as a possibility because of Tom's first mention of 1 Cor 15:45. So, technically, I did not introduce CC possibilities into Tom's post. He did. So that leaves KJ for "these people." Perhaps Tom should have clarified further instead of blaming pronouns... |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 12, 2011 18:10:10 GMT -5
Listen up, guys! Here is yet another thread being taken over by your bickering with one another. There is a Venting and Air Conditioning forum you can use for that. You're already going at it there, too, in the Staying on Point thread. You are welcome to duke it out there for a time, but even that will have to be stopped if you can't come to a truce. I suggest your all simply stop, and start fresh with one another. Just let whoever posted last have the last word. It's that simple.  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 13, 2011 10:01:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 13, 2011 11:12:58 GMT -5
[Because I replied to Ted saying, "I did not say 'these people' of the CCers." I denied it. Roo Roo also said, "Then Ted wrongfully imputed the term "these people" to me when it was Didy's term. Here Ted is demanding links for quotes and he did not provide the link to prove that I said "these people." Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=any&thread=738&page=1#8081#ixzz1ArP38DXJ"I told Jeff that I THINK Tom was referring to KJ as these people because it was he who started the covenant stuff in the recipe section (jokingly or not). FACT. Perhaps it was KJ and me because I chimed in on Tom's Two Realms with CC as a possibility because of Tom's first mention of 1 Cor 15:45. So, technically, I did not introduce CC possibilities into Tom's post. He did. So that leaves KJ for "these people." Perhaps Tom should have clarified further instead of blaming pronouns... Ted, It's not important anymore. I have made provocative statements and brought a lot of this upon myself. I accept responsibility for these misunderstandings. Love you maaaaan! Roo |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 13, 2011 12:10:59 GMT -5
Roo also said, "Then Ted wrongfully imputed the term "these people" to me when it was Didy's term. Here Ted is demanding links for quotes and he did not provide the link to prove that I said "these people." Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=any&thread=738&page=1#8081#ixzz1ArP38DXJ"I told Jeff that I THINK Tom was referring to KJ as these people because it was he who started the covenant stuff in the recipe section (jokingly or not). FACT. Perhaps it was KJ and me because I chimed in on Tom's Two Realms with CC as a possibility because of Tom's first mention of 1 Cor 15:45. So, technically, I did not introduce CC possibilities into Tom's post. He did. So that leaves KJ for "these people." Perhaps Tom should have clarified further instead of blaming pronouns... Ted, It's not important anymore. I have made provocative statements and brought a lot of this upon myself. I accept responsibility for these misunderstandings. Love you maaaaan! Roo Fair enough. I love to provoke the provokers...  (This post will delete itself in two days, that is, IF I can remember) |
|
