RobertNashville

Really? That's not what you seemed to be implying a few posts ago about the fat man...whether you considered his fatness being "sinful" seemed to depend on his circumstances (modern sedentary lifestyle) and I would assume that if there is a "fat" gene that would probably give the fat man a pass too wouldn't it.....anyway, in that post you didn't say anything about repentance being a component! Tell me, how can one be repentant about their genes? How can one be repentant about being born with full sets of both male and female sex organs?   For that matter, sin or not...just how can YOU or any man know if someone is or isn't truly repentant about anything?

No...you were just talking out your ass (or maybe just being one).

Getting involved in someone else' fight is an extremely dangerous thing to do....there is SO much that can go wrong you almost have to stay out of it.   Certainly, call 911 and explain the situation...be a GREAT witness if you can be.  But other than that I would not rush into help anyone unless I was ABSOLUTELY sure I was helping the "right" person.   Certainly, some situations are easier to know...when the two people are clearly mismatched (a man and a child or a man and a woman, etc) then it's safer to act but still not certain.

Well since you don't care about the cause/the cause doesn't matter then I assume that you are going to start demanding that fat people (and heterosexuals who engage in premarital or extramarital sex, anyone who has ever told a lie, those who covet what their neighbors have, those who have false gods like their TV or video games) leave your church now, right???  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Thanks; you racist commie.

TMF and I have certainly had our disagreements in the past (as I've had with many here) but to put this as sweetly as I can...   YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. 

How do you know...he may be an idiot but he isn't stupid so he certainly isn't going to come back here and let anyone know who he really is?  ;)

I don't believe it's a lack of understanding. Rather, it's a refusal to care.   Some people are so rooted in their belief system that they are blind to anything that might cause them to question it.  My Bible tells me to question God and surely, any God powerful enough to create everything we see and know isn't going to be afraid of an honest question.   If you really want to see some Christians eyes retreat into the back of their head just ask them to explain those born with full sets of both sexual organs.

And a tiny percentage of all homosexuals actually engage in any of the above.   If, however, you want to judge ALL homosexuals by their most wacky fringe activities then surely it's fair, isn't it, to judge ALL Christians by the actions and teachings of the Westboro Baptist Church, right???  :panic:

Is being homosexual (which really only means someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex) a choice?  A matter of environment? or a matter of genetics?   I submit, that any one could be true of any given homosexual man or woman, some are homosexual by choice, some because of the environment they were raised in and some because they are genetically predisposed.   Surely; if the fat man can be taken off the hook for the sin of gluttony because of his sedentary lifestyle; surely there must be some room for the homosexual to get the same offer of immunity for at least being homosexual because of environment or genetics???   ;)

Excellent point.   For reasons none of them can explain in any logical or scriptural way, many so-called Christians have an extremely high tolerance for some "sins" and no tolerance for others...a 5'2" 400lb Christian who has been divorced 5 times with two kids (he knows of) out of wedlock can be in Church every Sunday with nary a word being said about his lifestyle -that same Christian will be up in arms if a homosexual dares set foot in "his" church.  The hypocrisy is enough to choke an elephant.  

Although it's probably unlikely, Nifong may still have some company coming as a disbarred DA...his actions wasn't acted on either, if I recall correctly, until the trial was very much over.

I agree with Mr. Adams.  However, following a police officer's reasonable orders and being polite has nothing to do with servitude or of licking the hands that feed you.   This kid went looking for a confrontation and did his best to get one...he got his wish.   These DUI checkpoints have been found to be Constitutional; a finding I agree with and for the same reasons.  The extremely minor inconvenience of going through a checkpoint is not a violation of the fourth amendment.  The fourth protects us from UNREASONABLE search; given the 20,000 killed each year on our highways by drunk drivers, not to mention their accounting for almost 40% of ALL traffic accidents, this minor inconvenience on us is a very miniscule price to pay; and certainly not an unreasonable one.

Yuup...now the kid gets to look like an idiot on national television.

I've been attacked by many for my political views but none more so or more vehemently than by self-identified "Libertarians". Of course, ALL groups of any kind attract one fringe element or another but I'm just going by personal experience. As far as "why not support a party that has those values as part of their national platform?"....   Well, the Republican "platform" has generally been a good platform...having a platform is great but meaningless if it isn't followed.  More to the point however, I don't support the Libertarian Party for two reasons; one is that I don't agree with enough of its platform that I want to support it. Second, even if I agreed 100% with their platform, the party is too small and ineffective to get anything accomplished.

You are probably right.   At the same time, I suspect people would grant them a little more respect if they...   Were more than bio-parents   If they hadn't sued the home owners association (who had ZERO to to with their son) for a $Million payoff   If they hadn't turned this (with much help from the media and race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton) into a racial incident where the "white-Hispanic" killed their son, and   If they hadn't tried to sanitize Trayvon's image and make him into something he clearly wasn't   I'll grant them a little bit of sympathy for the death of their son but I don't respect people unless their actions justify it; in my opinion, Trayvon's parent's actions don't justify a lot of respect.

At the risk of offending some folks, the Libertarian Party members are its own worst enemy and if they are looked at as being "fringe lunatics" it's often because many of them either are fringe lunatics or at least act that way.   That isn't to say that many libertarian ideas aren't good ideas or aren't in line with our founder's concepts; many...even most, clearly are.  But how you present them and how members present themselves (i.e. "messaging") is a significant part of acceptance of those ideas.   There seem to be a significant percentage of Libertarians who, whenever their ideas aren't accepted in whole, would rather attack and berate those who don't agree rather than intelligently discuss differences. Further, there seems to be an underlying current of thought that unless one buys into ALL Libertarian ideas/policies/stands you don't really have a place in the Libertarian Party or the libertarian movement.  Aside from the simple fact that the "Tea Party" is not a traditional political party at all, that "all or nothing" approach I just mentioned may be the biggest difference between the Libertarian Party and the Tea Party.   The Tea Party is, as you correctly state, a loosely affiliated group; I think, that may be its greatest strength...many people from many different backgrounds coming together around a few core concepts such as lower taxes, smaller government and principles leadership...clearly those overlap with Libertarian/libertarian ideals as well but they aren't quite the same either.   I don't think Tea Party members are pretending to be pioneers; I believe what they are correctly celebrating is that, far more than any other movement in our country's recent history and much more than the Libertarian Party; the Tea Party has been successful in getting LOTS of people involved...people who were NEVER involved in the political process before.   I was in DC for the March on DC in 2009 and I lost count of how many people I met who were in their 70's and 80's who had never been politically active before other than voting now and then yet there they were, marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the steps of the Capital Building to make a statement. Could the Libertarians have pulled that off?  I think not but even if they could they certainly never bothered.

I was not judging the practice as much as I was simply commenting on something that I believe is a simple truth which is that as more people act irresponsibility the logical response is almost always going to be new/additional regulation...a "push back".  When people act irresponsibility by drinking or being on drugs and also drive to the point that we have thousands of innocent people killed each year in DUI related accidents it shouldn't be a surprise that the community at large is going to demand something be done to stop it.   That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.   Further, DUI checkpoints, if I remember correctly they must be random and their time and location has to be broadcast well ahead of time, correct?  If so, then I'd say that anyone stupid enough to drink, then drive and go through a checkpoint is probably so stupid and uninformed that they probably shouldn't be driving a car when sober, let alone when drunk.   I am concerned about our rights being violated but I think there are more important battles than DUI checkpoints - driving is not a right and drunk/under the influence driving is absolutely not a right so I really don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints that are conducted fairly/within the rules.      

Just because some of us think this kid was an idiot out looking to make himself a YouTube star doesn't mean we think the cops didn't act stupidly as well nor that we all think checkpoints aren't an infringement on our rights. However, many people seem to forget that driving a vehicle on a public roadway is NOT a right and when you couple that with the amount of carnage done by people who are stupid enough to drink and drive and the need for enforcement like this becomes apparent.   Concepts like "freedom" and "liberty" really only work well when the majority of the people act responsibility. Unfortunately today, we have a lot of people acting irresponsibility when it comes to drinking and driving so it shouldn't be surprising that we have to put up with these checkpoints. That aside, forcing encounters like this is not the way to combat them...inside a courtroom with is where the battles should be fought.

Actually, that's not entirely good advice.   As I stated above; when you've just been in a SD shooing it's very much in your own best interests to TALK to the police; just don't try and do a three hour interrogation without an attorney present and absolutely not before at least two or three days have passed.   At the scene and at a minimum you need to make it clear that YOU were the victim and you need to point out witnesses and all the evidence...if you don't and it disappears or gets moved around while EMS and cops are running all over the scene your absolutely good shoot could easily turn into a trial for murder.

  Well...better than being killed; just don't defend yourself.  In fact, why carry a weapon or get involved at all. We should all learn that the next time we see someone in your neighborhood acting suspicious we just need to go inside or keep driving to the store and hope that the suspicious looking stranger is just out for some skittles.  After all, if he isn't and he actually is up to something...well...we can be secure in the knowledge that he'll likely be some other person's problem.  I mean...why get involved at all; there's no reason for us to give a s**t about anyone else anyway.  :rolleyes:

Greedy and stupid often go hand in hand; I suspect Trayvon's bio-parents are both  I'm sure whatever marketing genius is displayed here is coming from a different source than the "parents"

No, it likely won't....too many JFT folks who probably wouldn't believe Zimmerman's innocence even if Trayvon himself rose from the grave and confirmed that it was 100% his fault and that Zimmerman's account of what happened was 100% accurate. Now, I'll tell you a couple of things we should learn from this in addition to the very good start (above)... 1. Don't clam up with the police but don't be an idiot about it either...there are a few things you NEED to say to both the arriving officers and the investigating officers. Among other things, point out witnesses and point out evidence to the police when they arrive (wittnesses and evidence both can disappear VERY quickly after a shooting).   2. What you say must be 100% truthful...criminals LIE, innocent men don't.   3. When police arrive after a SD shooting there will likely be at least one person on the ground either dead or dying and looking a WHOLE lot like a VICTIM! From the police perspective there are only two main categories of performers in a drama like this, VICTIM and PERPETRATOR. You need to make it clear that YOU are the victim and the dead or dying person was the perpetrator.   4. EVERYONE who carries a firearm for SD should have the CELL PHONE numbers of at least 2 or 3 attorneys who can help them if they are ever involved in a SD shooting.   5. EVERYONE who carries a firearm for SD should have either the financial wherewithal to provide fro his defense or carry insurance to help pay the cost.   6.  When the time comes to tell your story; have your attorney present.   Those are just a few...there are plenty more things to be learned BEFORE you discharge your weapon.

While waiting for Book IV of "Holding Their Own" to come out I started "299 Days"...I'm ready to start Book 6 of that series and I also have "Holding Their Own" IV and V waiting in my Kindle. Both series are great and I'd be hard pressed to pick one over the other. That said, of all the books/series I've read in this genre I'd say "200 Days" paints what I believe is the most realistic scenairo; at least in terms of how society could go down the tubes as I really believe a complete economic meltdown is precisely what we are facing (unless one of the other cards in the house of cards falls first). I guess it's a good thing that there are so many good reads out there dealing with the whole general subject of prepping and surviving a wide breakdown in society but it also makes choosing which series to read first more difficult! :)

Nothing is impossible. However, I've served on a couple of juries; one was for armed robbery/home invasion that was going to send the perp away for a long time. In both instances, we came together and really tried to make a wise and correct decision; I'd like to think that most juries do...more than that, however, I do believe most people "rise to the occasion" and understand how serious it is to send someone to prison for 20 years or more and as such, will attempt to do what's right rather than what's expedient.