TexasCHLforum.com

...talkin' 'bout provin' your loyalty!!! Whew!!

...I didn't read the link...but I still wouldn't have gotten it...knowing full well that God lives in Texas and speaks to our Governor daily...thanks for the info on the Onion...

...reading the article...I can see God was speaking tongue-in-cheek...He's got a great sense of humor...look who's in the White House!!!

...what's the Onion? something else I don't know about...enlighten me, please???

Purplehood wrote:

speedsix wrote:if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way

Why do the issues of pornography and gay/lesbian rights have to be concerns exclusive to those of balancing the budget, ending wars and a strong job market? Being concerned about one means that you cannot be concerned about the other?

I would also be interested in how our country was begun, so that I can gain a further understanding of the statement above.

Though Bachmann appeared at first to be a viable candidate, it soon became apparent that she is a perfect example of exactly what you appear to be decrying, but as the exact opposite. She is obviously against abortion, gay marriage and similar social-issues that a Christian Conservative might oppose. Yet she is what one might consider a Fiscal Conservative.

To me this is simply a statement that if you don't follow the Ultra-Conservative philosophy in regards to Social Issues, you by default cannot be a Fiscal Conservative and therefore do not care about your country. This contradicts the very idea set forth in the Constitution that Government should not be intruding in our private lives (unless your private lives happen to be different than mine). This is utter hypocrisy.

My version of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness may differ from yours. Legislating how either one of us goes about that pursuit should only go so far as making sure that it does not interfere with someone else's.

Your feelings about social issues are every bit as valid as mine. But they should simply be discussion points for us to merrily banter about over a cold-drink. They should not be issues handled by the Federal government.

P1...they DON'T have to be exclusive...what I meant was that if they are more important to you than the other issues which you agree with...you can vote against the person who disagrees with you on them...even though you sincerely believe that his/her fiscal and other platform views support yours...but the country was begun by coming to agreement on what was best for the majority...not necessarily getting all we want, but what was best for the country as a whole...I'm sure a LOT of splinter groups, pet issues were sacrificed...you can be concerned about ALL issues...but you can't have it ALL your way...the one who gives you some...is completely opposed to you in others...choose your battles...
P2...there's a lot compiled about HOW they did what they did...supported by their notes and letters and quotes taken from the meetings...Google David Barton, who's made re-aquainting us with the true roots of our history his life's work...you'll be amazed to find what our founders really thought, said, and did...they haven't taught much of it in school since WWII...
P4...nope...but if the Ultra-Conservative is the only one on the ticket who supports the fiscal and political stance that you believe is best for your country and your family, and the opponent favors your social positions, but his fiscal and political platform is totally against what you feel is right...which are you going to choose??? that's not hypocrisy, that's having to make a tough choice...
P5..."...does not interfere with someone else's.." to me includes I shouldn't have to pay for programs set up to pay for the normalization of abnormal lifestyles(by society's standards over thousands of years) or pay for murders of unborn children by the thousands...if a person chooses such a lifestyle or by their actions spawns an unwanted baby...the government shouldn't become involved...penalizing the majority for the wishes/needs of the minority...that's interference...
P6...I agree...the Federal government should deal with and make laws about and govern ONLY things expressed as the Will of the People...by the majority vote...I don't know of another way it can work...but they haven't been doing that in a looooong time...make mine Root Beer

sjfcontrol wrote:

speedsix wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

speedsix wrote:...historically, the people in power carry their moral values (or lack of) with them...from the Founding Fathers and first presidents through the candidates today...personally, I'd rather have her values in place in law than Clinton's...but I understand that we as a nation don't want our government legislating our morality...at least that's the catch phrase we hear...
...ALL governments legislate morality...BOTH parties...we, as voters, have to decide what's important to us, and what's good for the country and our children and grandchildren...and vote for the people and laws that we feel will be of most benefit to our beliefs...if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way...didn't grow strong that way...didn't become the greatest nation on the earth that way...but it's their right...
...I believe we need to go back to the roots of this country...the Bible and its values...which WAS the foundation for many of our laws and the measuring stick used by many of our first Presidents and legislators...and we're still enjoying the benefits of that value system...and before someone screams "no religious posts"...this is not religion...it's our well-documented American History...and could be our future, if we were wise enough to make it happen...

I guess I missed something -- who is "her"

...I guess you missed SEVERAL somethings...we've been talking at length about Michelle Bachmann...who is quite a "her"...coffee's ready in the kitchen...

Sorry, I thought this thread was about Perry. Guess I was thrown off by its title.

...well, Sir, I won't take the time to count all the posts on all the pages that didn't mention Perry, but spun off of the original post...and now that I know why you made the "missed something" comment...since you chose my post to scratch your head and grumble about, may I remind you that this isn't your thread...the rest of us have been enjoying the discussion, or we would have left it...which you may do at any time...but don't be snide and fuss at me...

...your post on the previous page doesn't mention Perry either... for shame...

sjfcontrol wrote:

speedsix wrote:...historically, the people in power carry their moral values (or lack of) with them...from the Founding Fathers and first presidents through the candidates today...personally, I'd rather have her values in place in law than Clinton's...but I understand that we as a nation don't want our government legislating our morality...at least that's the catch phrase we hear...
...ALL governments legislate morality...BOTH parties...we, as voters, have to decide what's important to us, and what's good for the country and our children and grandchildren...and vote for the people and laws that we feel will be of most benefit to our beliefs...if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way...didn't grow strong that way...didn't become the greatest nation on the earth that way...but it's their right...
...I believe we need to go back to the roots of this country...the Bible and its values...which WAS the foundation for many of our laws and the measuring stick used by many of our first Presidents and legislators...and we're still enjoying the benefits of that value system...and before someone screams "no religious posts"...this is not religion...it's our well-documented American History...and could be our future, if we were wise enough to make it happen...

I guess I missed something -- who is "her"

...I guess you missed SEVERAL somethings...we've been talking at length about Michelle Bachmann...who is quite a "her"...coffee's ready in the kitchen...

...historically, the people in power carry their moral values (or lack of) with them...from the Founding Fathers and first presidents through the candidates today...personally, I'd rather have her values in place in law than Clinton's...but I understand that we as a nation don't want our government legislating our morality...at least that's the catch phrase we hear...
...ALL governments legislate morality...BOTH parties...we, as voters, have to decide what's important to us, and what's good for the country and our children and grandchildren...and vote for the people and laws that we feel will be of most benefit to our beliefs...if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way...didn't grow strong that way...didn't become the greatest nation on the earth that way...but it's their right...
...I believe we need to go back to the roots of this country...the Bible and its values...which WAS the foundation for many of our laws and the measuring stick used by many of our first Presidents and legislators...and we're still enjoying the benefits of that value system...and before someone screams "no religious posts"...this is not religion...it's our well-documented American History...and could be our future, if we were wise enough to make it happen...