mav

I wouldn't apologize. You did nothing wrong. Once you have been on the forum a while you will notice that there are a group of individuals that get their jollies from christian-bashing. If there is a thread that is posted that has the slightest hint of christianity in the topic, then you can bet that either one of them or all of them will come in and start something. It happens almost everytime, and this is not unique to TGO either. The best advice I can give you is ignore them because you will not be able to change their minds. Never forget that everyone on the internet is an expert and a genius. AR is correct in stating that respect and politeness are in short supply, at least with some. It's a shame, but oh well, that's life.

"Ridicule is man's most important weapon." - Saul Alinsky Funny how so many criticize the left, but they use the very same tactics.

Well... we now have the full crew present and accounted for.

Wow. Funniest thing I have read in a while.

I guess I am the only one that thought the Focus ST was cool. Figures.

I only have one. I would love to have a XM-24 flipper with the Hellfire grind.

Big price difference. Both are very cool, but I had to vote for the Focus only because of gas mileage. Since I commute 60 miles one way to work, that unfortunately has to be my top priority. I hated spending $600 - 800 a month on gas when I only had my truck. However, if gas mileage is no concern and you can afford it, might as well get the Mustang.

Personally, I thought Paul did a fantastic job. He did a lot better than most of the talking heads anticipated. I am really glad he ran again this year because his campaign has opened up so many people's eyes to the danger this country is facing. I am one of those people. My hope now is that a lot of Paul supporters won't lose heart, but will continue the struggle at the lower levels of government. To become frustrated or to quit is contrary to everything Paul stands for. The fight must go on for the sake of liberty. My other hope is that we can have Rand Paul in 2016 or 2020. He shares the same beliefs as his father, but his oratory skills are a lot more eloquent.

FNH Glock S&W Ruger Kimber Taurus (owned one briefly, but never shot it) H&K Wilson Combat Nighthawk Custom Springfield Sig

That is correct. However, I am holding onto a sliver of hope that Romney and the right kind of GOP majority will be able to make dramatic improvements, thereby staving off disaster. If Obama gets a second term, I don't think we really have to worry about the SCOTUS because our fiscal situation is going to destroy this country. Our current debt at the end of this year ($16.6 T) is almost impossible to pay back. Increasing our debt by $1.4 T per year (although it will be higher once Obamacare kicks in) for another four years puts the final nail in the coffin. It is sad when you think that at the end of Bush's term our debt was roughly $10 T. If Obama wins a second term, our debt at the end of his term will be $23 T or higher. For whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. Unless Romney (assuming he wins) and the gang can work some magic, it really is over. When the "Big Pain" happens, I don't think we will be able to recover. I am somewhat expecting global carnage on a biblical scale.

Yes, you did. Thanks.

That is true, but not accepting gay "marriage" is not necessarily based on any religion. I used the argument of marriage remaining in the church because most marriages are performed in church. I could also have used, and probably should have, the magistrate/justice of the peace, which is secular. Marriage is more tradition than anything, and heterosexual marriage has been solely recognized as a union between a man and woman in many secular societies throughout history.

Simple enough. Enforce existing laws, correctly interpret the 14th ammendment, and remove all incentives that draw people into this country illegally. To those states or cities that want to defy federal law and act as a sanctuary city, lets see how long that lasts when they are denied federal funding.

I agree. I have stated numerous times before during a debate on this topic that the government should have never gotten involved and needs to get out now. I support civil unions for everybody, straight or gay. Marriage needs to be left where it should be, in church. If a church, city, or state wants to ban same sex "marriage" they are free to do so. However, the state shouldn't disallow anyone from entering into a civil union. The problem I have is there are some who wouldn't be content with a civil union even if civil unions were for everybody, both straight and gay. They want to push the issue forcing states and individuals to accept their "marriage". To those people, I say tough s***, you would be getting the same benefits as everyone else even though the state bans same sex "marriage". I don't want to deny any rights to any individual, but I also don't want an indvidual's sexual proclivities forced upon me either.

I am not talking about the forum. The forum is of very little importance. I am talking about this being the sole topic of the media.

Honestly, I think the country will crash before we ever see it turned into a liberal's utopia. I think this topic is evidence of such a conclusion. This country is a fiscal train wreck, and it is only getting worse, and what is the current hot topic? Gay marriage. Sheesh. Hell, the only reason this topic is at the forefront is because the administration and the media are trying to divert people's attention away from how bad we are fiscally. Speaking of the younger generation (which I am still apart of), if they knew how bad they are going to be screwed, gay marriage would probably be the last thing on their mind.

It is not. The information is coming from Wikipedia, which states that "prominent" polling groups have shown that the decision on gay marriage is pretty much split. Some polls have shown that a majority support gay marriage. However, as you correctly point out, when it is put to the voters, more than likely they will vote against it. I don't put a lot of faith in polls. All of the Ron Paul polls are a perfect example of what I mean. I think the whole gay marriage polling is nothing but a bunch of horse s***. How are the questions worded, what is the sampling, who is conducting the poll (meaning the group and/or the individual asking the questions), is the poll phone-based or face to face, etc...? These are just a few questions that need to be taken into consideration when looking at a poll. Also, Iowa can't be used as an example of the the population's view. Yes, it is a swing state that has allowed gay marriage. However, the measure was enacted through the court, not by the voters. And what happened to those three justices? They were thrown out on their a$$, which was a first for Iowa. Therefore, I would say Iowan's view is against gay marriage.

Second.

Wow, you totally misrepresent our government. Don't you understand it is all for the children? What is wrong with you?

Whatever OhShoot's beliefs are at the time. Damn, there I go opening my big mouth. Sorry.

Nice.

You can say that, but you would be wrong. I certainly don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but how did you come to that conclusion? Christianity is almost 600 years older than Islam. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, wasn't even born until the 6th century.

Yes. Don't click on the thread link. It is the best way I have found to ignore certain threads.

It isn't. The problem is that so many of the Paul supporters are idealists. If their candidate doesn't win, well... they are just going to pack up their things and go home. This type of attitude does not focus on the big picture of systemic change. What Dr. Paul has done this election cycle has been truly remarkable. Paul has brought forth his message effectively and opened the eyes of millions of citizens, mine included, to the dangers this country faces. He has shown people that the federal behemoth does not have the citizen's interests at heart. Due to the rife corruption from within, it's sole purpose is really nothing more than maintaining and expanding it's power by subjugating it's citizenry. The problem so many Paul supporter's fail to understand is the difficulty of taking a top down approach in bringing forth change. We are attempting to bring forth change starting with the highest public office in this country. Granted, that would be the fastest approach if successful. However, it is also the most difficult, as we have seen this election cycle. As stated earlier, Paul has done a fabulous job, and he should continue spreading his message in the hope that more people will wake up to the danger we face. I think a lot of Paul supporters should focus their energies to local, state, and congressional level races. Bringing forth change using a bottom up approach is a slower process, but the chance of success is far greater. As those successes increase, the possibilty of bringing about change at the highest federal offices won't seem so remote. Continuing to solely focus on the presidency will lead to nothing. Even though I know Paul won't win the nomination, I have been one of the few that has advocated that Paul should remain in the race for the sole reason of continuing to get his message out to the public, and perhaps give him a little more pull at the convention. Once it is over, Paul supporters are going to have to make a choice on whether to support our current president by voting for a candidate who does not stand a chance at winning or by abstention. Their other choice is to continue the fight by voting, not supporting, for a candidate that at least stands a chance to remove the current clown from office. In my mind, that is a no-brainer. Voting for a candidate with whom I do not agree with on many issues is undeniably better than allowing Obama another term in office, which is tantamount to paddling towards the maelstrom in nothing but a life raft.

I must admit that I am amazed at the level of devotion of Paul supporters towards Dr. Paul. As I have stated on numerous occasions, Dr. Paul was the only candidate running for the presidency who was worth a crap. However, he lost. In all honesty, how is it possible for Paul to obtain a victory in the general election if he can't win the nomination from his own party? It isn't. Are people suddenly going to come to the realization that they made a huge mistake in the primary and start flocking to Paul in the general? Nope. Some may argue that voting for the "lesser of the evils" is a capitulation of their values and principles. It isn't. Voting for a candidate in which you don't share a lot of the values with versus a candidate whom you know has been a complete disaster is being pragmatic. You are not compromising your values. You are essentially cutting your losses in the hopes of fighting another day. Some may argue that their love of country is the reason they can't support anyone but their candidate, in this case, Dr. Paul. Fair enough, but do you believe that those who have chosen to support the nominee over their preferred candidate have less love for their country than you? Certainly not. While Paul is my guy, I will be voting for Romney because I know how bad our current president is. Obama has been an absolute disaster during his first term in office. Since we are talking about Paul and Paul's primary focus is fiscal policy, I will keep my arguments solely related to those matters. During Obama's first three years over $5 trillion has been spent. If he wins another term, we will be looking at an additional $7 - 10 trillion in deficit spending. Obamacare will kick in during his second term, and we all know how much of a financial boondoggle that will be. Who knows what Obama will try to do with executive orders during he second term. Obama has publically stated that if he can't work with congress that he will bypass them. In a lame duck session without the worry of reelection, does anyone honestly think that Obama will slow down implementing his agenda? Of course he won't. If anything, he will put it in overdrive. We truly can't afford to allow Obama a second term in office. Anyone with half a brain knows that we are headed towards a financial cliff. The question now becomes, do you want to enter into a suicide pact with the current driver (Obama) and pick up speed as you approach the cliff, or do you want to change to a driver (Romney) who may slow the car down and still leave the possibility of getting another driver in the future who may slow it down even further? While I admire the loyalty of Paul supporters, their rigidness in supporting a candidate who can't win and refusing to vote for the nominee is irrational. While their intentions are good, the exact opposite of what they desire (a move towards sound fiscal policy, elimination of Obamacare, etc...) will occur if Obama wins a second term. This is what will happen if people refuse to vote for the nominee. Continuing to hold out for Paul really is nothing more than a case of wishful thinking.