bonnie Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Originally Posted By: Redwood Quote: I hope you dont mind my not replying to posts whose very existance convey hatred of Adventist values over conservative Republican ones...I hope you don't mind me not replying because this place has been over run with toxic self-centered posts positioned to destroy and obliterate any hope in troubled times... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ? Instead of spewing hatred ... why don't you just ... Well ... just do as you have suggested . Not post. I apologize Bonnie that you have to be treated like this. Very Sorry. But this poster IS a moderator. If only we could treat others as we want to be treated. Hmmmmmmm..... Putting words in my mouth that were never there? There's a violation of rules..."Conveying" is not "spewing"...And are you, Redwood, suggesting that I said that Bonny is "spewing" hatred? I never suggested any such thing....But you said I did..... And aren't you the one who makes a big deal over PMing if there's a problem with a post? I have no PM over this one.... Why play games? Yes you did suggest. There are only a few that oppose you so I, among the others that do have to be the ones spewing hatred. You also said that there was hatred of SDA values being posted. Others would be asked to produce the hatred being referred to. If my values or the values of others have to reflect yours to be considered SDA values you should be required to show the values that showed hatred for SDA values Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_in_RP Posted April 4, 2009 Author Share Posted April 4, 2009 Bonnie , Neil, My wife gives me this advice often. She says "Let it go" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Neil, My values are not heavily invested in Obama. Nor were they in Bush. Those that see signs that disturb them are not evil like you are portraying.And yes,saying that members that you are interacting have sold their souls and have a hatred for SDA values would fall under evil,at least for some of us. I think when a president of the US can do what he did with AIG and the american people cheer, they are a little skewed in their value system. Obama has a very strong tie to socialism and marxism. That is not hatred, that comes from Obama himself in his books. You can not spend all of your formative years with those of that mind set and come away anything other than he did. There is not one person he mentions as being influential or a mentor that either does not hate the US,or is not a socialist,marxist and communist. The power he is taking is abnormal for the presidency. His redistribution of wealth is classic socialism.He has been handed a mandate to do whatever he chooses. As president he can target and put at risk american citizens that have not committed a crime. Proof that he can do it and is poised to do so again was lavishly laid out before him. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 >>There are so many things wrong with this, I am not sure where to begin.....<< Which same may be said for this post, which I rejoin... >>Survival is the basis of this video.<< Surviving is unethical or unBiblical? >>Christ never promoted 'survival' in His book...They hit you on one cheek, you are to turn and offer the other as well..It's not about survival, Joe.<< Why does a man strike another upon the cheek? Why not a knee to the groin, a well-placed kick to the kneecap, a fist to the kidney, etc? Fact is, Jesus Christ described an eventuality where the one struck had been the one who first committed an offense; thereby, eliciting the strike upon his cheek - a strike demanding satisfaction - redress, as it were (it has always been so and will continue so). Same as, “if a man sues you at law for your coat, give him also your cloak. (There exists first, the original offense committed – that lands both parties in court – with the one aggrieved awarded the coat) >>This video is from the NRA. The NRA promotes the idea of everyone having a gun in every home to protect themselves.<< The NRA promotes the idea that the Second Amendment is an unalienable right. Whether one avails oneself of that right or not – is a matter of personal conviction; notwithstanding, the principle that every able-bodied citizen is responsible for providing his/her own arm(s) together with cartridges in common use – that he/she might assemble in the Town Square prepared to defend Gd, mom, and apple pie – oh, and country >>Trouble is, if someone comes into your home to steal, and you kill them, YOU get to go to jail.<< True, providing you were certain that that “someone” came only to “steal” – and not to commit bodily mayhem. BIG difference. We purchase comprehensive homeowner’s insurance to cover theft, which the court considers. However, reality often intrudes into the imaginings of faeries, magique, stardust, rainbows, and moonbeams... >>YOU did not promote life, but rather sought to take life from an individual.<< Exactly, given the circumstances. >>SDAs have a history/stance of non-military/non-combantant standards. We dont carry fireairms in battle because firearms can kill, which is against our 10 commandment ethics, that is, to promote the destruction of life thru killing.<< Sad, but apparently true. I suppose that suggests also, that should extraordinary circumstances visit this nation – SDAs will be the ones, hands out, dependant upon the goodness of others to alleviate their sufferings – rather than they “sharing” (there’s that word again – too bad should they have nothing to share) with others in need... >>This whole episode of preparing for last day events with guns and stored food and such...center on the survival ethic...that is, the root cause of selfishness. This is totally against Jesus' ethic of sharing/selflessness.<< Lu 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Lu 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. That is – BUY ONE! Jesus Christ is the One speaking, not the assembled ‘pioneers’ of an emerging .Org - making policy. One may be more able to appreciate the import of Jesus Christ’s admonition in that – many who would have heard these words would have been blessed with only one garment. To sell that garment in order to raise monie$ for a sword would have guaranteed nakedness – a capital offense, by Writ. Yet, that is what Jesus Christ advised. >>How you can justify this, this promotion of guns, survival...is beyond me.<< Given the parameters that describe the realities from which we are unable to escape, and given that those parameters impose upon us the necessity of providing for home insurance, liability insurance, auto insurance, unemployment insurance, life insurance, health insurance, etc... one can only arrive at the conclusion that one who will not provide or obtain the absolutely-most-needed insurance of food and bodily defense for those under his care – is nothing short of a whole bunch of fries short of a Happy Meal! ...don’t want to be all that pedestrian but, remember Edmund Burke? “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Is a man who will “do nothing” – necessarily, good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Guy Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Neil. I do not have any guns. I used to but when The Spirit came into my life at baptism I realized these are instruments of death. I disposed of all my guns. But the right of other people to own guns is important to me. History shows that when these rights are violated government control follows.Did you watch the video? These are not NRA people. These are just common ordinary passive people who were stomped on by the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Why play games? Yes you did suggest. There are only a few that oppose you so I, among the others that do have to be the ones spewing hatred. Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 >>Besides God is in control and he is not going to allow things to get out of hand or allow things to get away from what he wants to happen.<< Indeed. Mt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Such tribulation as has never occurred upon this earth - nor shall ever by repeated. Has Gd planned this for you and me? or another generation? >>Its either going to move to an end or its going to settle down.<< I earnestly desire that Obugabe's administration will be one wherein I may declaim, "Peace, peace and prosperity is ours!" However, each day that passes - my expectations diminish... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Quote: No, let me be more clear...There are posts here that do convey [imply, overtly stated] a principle that is contrary to SDA values. I see it with a lot of conservatives, who demean the value of people's posts...who demean the president, who demean the principles of SDA values where we are to hold one another in greater respect than ourselves. This conservative bit is getting rather silly. Over time and continues to be so many,many were ridiculed by liberals. It is standard fair here and seems to be acceptable. Respect is earned not a right. Quote: They demean any hope that we have of our coming out of the current economic crises thru a party that they don't like. Every post is a condemnation of the leadership in power. Every post is to cause doubt and misgivings. Every post is to make weary the defamation/derogatory remarks of current president. I am not sure why that should bother you. I have never heard nor do I know where you have used this particular "SDA" value when speaking of any conservative Quote: If EVERY post from one or two individuals were from someone who claims to be an SDA, wouldn't you say that person holds the values of conservatism in greater esteem than SDA values...couldn't you also say, he's sold his soul for conservatism? I think that could be pretty accurate discription of an individual, don't you think? I have not seen anyone that holds conservative values to a higher degree than their SDA values. Quote: Now, I don't think that you have done that...Sure, you have opposed me, sure you have said that you disagree with the president... but you haven't been posting condemning posts of the president...no, you have explained your opposition. And that's the big difference between "selling your soul" and differing with the current president. Sorry I don't think you have reached this higher plane where you can say someone has sold their soul to anyone. Nor do you know if you are accurate to claim someone is not SDA because of what has been said here Quote: You also said that there was hatred of SDA values being posted. If you look for the principles in each post, you will find that one person here is posting in such a way so as to appear SDA, but prefers to condemn the current administration. Others would be asked to produce the hatred being referred to. Then that has to include many as what you describe is standard fare here I am not sure what you are meaning here..could you explain what you mean here...? Quote: If my values or the values of others have to reflect yours to be considered SDA values you should be required to show the values that showed hatred for SDA values Never said that....Sure, you and I have our disagrements...but you never went so far as to make up names that show your displeasure of your president....names like "Obamanation" and such...You and I have had our differences, and you would like nothing better than to see me shamed....but I have been very careful so as to avoid those things make our differences volital here and in this discussion. You even said at one point in time that my posts were nothing that you could be upset about....Take a real good look at what I have said....I have never tried to say, or imply something that would condemn you. Just a little note. I cannot shame you,you are the only one that can do that. Nor do I devote my time in trying to achieve your shame. As to the political name calling, that has been going on for years. By your criteria there are many here pretending to be adventist. I can go thru this forum and find many examples of name calling, previous and ongoing My values do not come as a result of being conservative. I am not sure of what you don't understand. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 >>These are just common ordinary passive people who were stomped on by the government.<< Normally, I say, “Kudos, to our men in blue” – however, many policemen left-off their ‘blues’ and descended upon New Orleans and environs from as far away as New York and Los Angeles – stealing any and all guns they found or ‘uncovered’ – under colour of law, threat, and force. The lucky ones ‘disappeared’ collector guns that were worth tens of thousands of dollar$ each, as well ordinary guns that would serve the purpose of ‘hideout’ guns – that could be placed near or upon the victim – in accidental (or otherwise) shootings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Guy Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Were you aware that the NRA won the suit against New Orleans for the unlawful stealing of firearms during the Katrina aftermath? Not that there is 'lawful' stealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyberGuy Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Quote: They demean any hope that we have of our coming out of the current economic crises thru a party that they don't like. At what cost Neil. Pump enough money into the problem and yes we will come out of the recession more quickly but at what cost. You pump so much money into the economy and inflation will rise to double digts. We may have inflation at 18 to 20 percent like what we had when Carter was president. Then the federal rate of interest was 21 percent. Housing interest was around 24 percent making housing out of reach of most everyone. Is that what you want Neil? The cure would be worse than the recession. I would much rather come out of the recession more slowly and have low inflation than come out fast and then have inflation rise so quickly we cannot afford the basic things of life like food and cars and shelter because our wages cannot rise fast enough to cover the inflation. The house passed a 1.2 trillion deficit budget. Hopefully the senate will trim that back a whole lot more. People are taking to the streets protesting this out of control spending. It cannot be allowed to continue or Obama bankrupt this country. The congress must stand up to Obama dispite his popularity. People were voting against Bush more than voting for Obama. They do not want socilism in america. Quote Riverside CA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Guy Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Quote: People were voting against Bush more than voting for Obama. They do not want socilism in america. This to me was the saddest of all in the election. The 2-party system is displayed at its worst because America had such low quality, disappointing choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.