DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Open carry at the Republican National Convention

My fingers are crossed that they allow open carry at the RCN

Most of our founding fathers were convinced that owning slaves and giving women little to no rights or voice was perfectly acceptable... Think they would stand by that conviction today?

The general disconnect seems to be that you think a person must have an absolute conviction on EVERYTHING... while the rest of us have our convictions, we also listen to and entertain new ideas.... all of those folks you mentioned had SOME absolute convictions (some of which have been proven wrong)... but they also had the good sense to know that things change. The founding fathers wrote the constitution, why do you suppose they put wiggle room in it for changes and progress? Because they were smart enough to know that they did NOT know everything.

We had a Duke Divinity Intern serve at our church many years ago, she was a great young black lady who had grown up in a black church.. if people don't know, they tend to be much more vocal and outgoing in their singing and praise that us white Methodist folks.. During worship we are usually fairly subdued during out singing and she would joke that she wished we would be a little more "Pentecostal" in our approach. About a year after she left, we had this one service where the music was very upbeat and everybody was getting into it, singing, clapping, etc.. my son, who was 13 at the time, turned to me and said... Nicole would be so proud, we are finally menopausal.

The point some are missing is, they can't. The arena forbids it, as is their (its right, and the secret service is forbidding it.

I don't know who you are referencing here. But I will say this - for me. I see no need to detail, on here, or anywhere, what I do for "Christianity's" sake.

As far as I can see, nobody asked you to.

Correct. But yet, you posted this:

Again, I don't know who you were referencing.

The point in helping someone is not to get recognized for it, is it? Or to say "look at me, look at what I did". So, there's a chance that you don't see it from others on here for that reason.

There's also a chance some people don't do much.

I guess if you choose to feel everything I post is about you, you may see it that way. But everything I post is not about you.

My quote above concerns the general attitude that some display on this board about the poor, people from the south, blacks and other groups that aren't a big part of their life or community. Now if you feel that includes you, you have every right to feel offended.

But I'm not calling out names here. There are simply times I read some posts on this board that after reading, I can only shake my head and wonder what Christianity actually means to them. Because it certainly doesn't mean the same thing to me.

But that's okay.

Disclaimer; No Arch was harmed in any of my posts.

From Dr. Everett Piper, President of the Oklahoma Wesleyan University on Judging.

Jesus doesn't tell us not to judge in Mathew 7, frankly he tells us to judge and how to do it because he says, "by their fruit you shall know them". If you can't look at a persons fruit and make a judgement about how he should be known then frankly Jesus was playing mind games with us. Of course we're supposed to make judgements, what Jesus was saying was that when we you use that measuring rod be prepared for it to be used on you therefore don't be a hypocrite. That's the message of Matthew 7.


Link

You also said "Don't judge others."

...you buzzkill. you....

Oh, no. I don't think you're talking about me. But perhaps what I wrote is symbolic of the people, or at least SOME of the people, you were referencing.

Read my recent posts in broad terms, not just in "Arch" terms.

I'm not judging anyone. Everyone is free to believe and do whatever they so choose. I simply gave my viewpoint that I believe Christianity and their practice of such varies from person to person. While I see it one way, others see it another way.

That's why we have so many denominations and different beliefs in the Christian world. I don't have to understand or agree with people who believe differently than myself. Just because I disagree with some, doesn't mean I'm judging them.

That's two different things. Nowhere have I judged anyone. I've only shared my beliefs and why I find the belief of some others confusing to me.

Well hopefully then you'll understand that I'm not talking about what some people do, but they way some things get presented here that I find confusing at times.

100 years from now the public will say exactly the same things about the Barbarians of today who supported mothers killing their children and the fact that many supported it with no concern for the life of the child, millions of them.

I have my fingers crossed they change their minds.

fixed.

Conjecture delivered as an absolute is no more convincing than a present day pronouncement by Ms. Cleo. Saying something with "oomph" behind it doesn't make it Truth.

And 100 years from now, people might question how the same people against abortion turned a blind eye to the guns that end up killing the same kids they are trying to protect.

Lol

I won't deny that Pentecostal services are kinda nuts.

Pit's whole quote was..


While none of us really know what the others do in our daily lives... we do see whether we treat each other with kindness and whether or not we judge others... I think those the two he was specifically referencing toward this board...

That's quite possible because 100 years from now they will probably have the technology that there will be no such thing as an "unwanted pregnancy"...

Swish is also right, they will probably look back at our time, watch youtube videos of people blowing themselves up shooting guns at explosives, read the homicide rates and determine that we were total idiots for letting almost anybody who wanted to, run around with a gun.... they will look at us the way we look back at the wild west (which, based on what I've read, wasn't nearly as wild as it is portrayed in the movies.. in fact, in many ways, it was much calmer back then than it is now.)

The only thing I know for sure about 100 years from now, everybody will wear a skin tight leotard suit and they will be divided into 3 different colors based on your rank in society.

I think that is a very simular quote to what Slave owners said to the Abolitionists of the time.

...and yet, here we are- 100 years hence, saying:

"Those guys were so sure that slavery was part of 'God's Plan.' What morons they were."

Well... almost all of us, that is.

"Nearly 20 Percent of Trump Supporters Think Lincoln Shouldn't Have Freed the Slaves"

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016...rump-supporters


so... in 100 years, you may still be right...

And at 60 years old everyone become pet food.

Read a book years ago where somebody made that argument so I would have to know their reasoning behind it. If it's because they think slavery would/should still exist, then whatever... but there is an argument to be made that had they allowed slavery to end itself that it would have done so within 30-40 years anyway with the advent of better farming equipment, more enlightenment, etc.. and it would have happened without 600,000 Americans having to die in war.. there is also a theory that integration of blacks would have happened a lot faster and smoother had it been allowed to work itself out rather than have it forced by war.

So without advocating that slavery is a good thing, which would be insane... there are reasonable arguments to be made whether Lincoln, and the way they were freed, was right in the short term and the long term...

Some organizations will say and do anything, at this point, to stop the Trump Train. Sincerely doubt that statistic.

This is why the Civil War was fought over States Rights and not Slavery. Slave owners knew it was ending in the future and were not willing to die to keep it.

When Northern troops began to question just what the heck are we fighting for, freeing the Slaves became the Propaganda slogan to relight their spirit. Southern troops began to question why they were fighting for the fat cats to keep their property.

A Northern General (can't remember his name) was talking with his commanders after a battle about exactly this issue. He turned to a captured Confederate soldier and asked him, "Son, just what are you fighting for?" To which the soldier answered, "Because you are down here, sir!"

The states' rights argument cracks me up. The states' right to do what?

Obviously the answer is "to enslave because we have that right, and we can't be told what to do". Look at the bigger picture, please.

I don't disagree that some may share the views you stated, I think you must admit, when you have guys like David Duke, The Daily Stormer, a leading neo-Nazi news site, Richard Spencer, director of the National Policy Institute, which promotes the “heritage, identity, and future of European people", Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, a Virginia-based white nationalist magazine, Michael Hill, head of the League of the South, an Alabama-based white supremacist secessionist group, Brad Griffin, a member of Hill’s League of the South and author of the popular white supremacist blog Hunter Wallace, that a lot of these people are probably leaning far more of the direction which Clem indicated.

Sometimes a thread just takes on a life of it's own

Sadly, this group of chuckleheads always endorses a republican... I wonder if they are so dense that they don't realize that their endorsement hurts far more than it helps.

I fully understand that because of his inflammatory rhetoric that Trump has attracted the lowest common denominator of that segment of our country... which is what makes it so hard for somebody like me, who would like to support many of his other ideas, feel like we can't or we will immediately become guilty by association.

And the 250 articles a day written about what a racist he is just makes those people giddy...

I actually agree with you. There are some issues I could get behind that Trump endorses, but he seems to know so very little about many important subjects. His opinions on foreign policy often times make me wonder exactly what he's thinking or if he even understands the ramifications of the things he proposes. I believe him to be very narcissistic and in a very scary kind of way.

Out of all of the candidates left, Kasich would be my choice. I believe Bernie and Kasich to be the most honest and sincere of the bunch. But Bernie is just too left wing for me.

I don't trust either Hillary or Trump as far as I could throw them and it's probably the most sad election cycle in my lifetime. I know we don't agree on a lot of things politically, but I believe we both agree that we're left with very poor choices during this election cycle.

The right of States to be independent entities with their own laws and to not be part of a Federal Government.

the south isn't rising again. the south lost. you guys were in the wrong, will always be in the wrong, including the wrong side of history.

the south lost. the north won.

Amen brother.. and I think we probably agree far more often than you think.

I admit, I wanted change, significant and meaningful change. Bernie represented change but it wasn't the kind of change I can support. Trump represents change but a lot of it is going to be in a very negative way. I agree with you that he has a few ideas I can get behind but in many other areas he is scary. I think that will be exposed in the general election, if he gets that far, because people are going to start wanting details and so far almost everything he says is just pie-in-the-sky rhetoric..

Hillary doesn't represent any kind of meaningful change. Washington will be gridlocked, folks will be divided and like you said, I don't trust her as far as I could throw Chris Christie. Cruz has a few good ideas, but he's a scary dude too on some important issues...

If I wasn't going to get the kind of change I was hoping for, I could have potentially gotten behind Gilmore or Webb.. both seem like reasonable guys who could have brought some civility back to politics... but in the end, neither was dramatic enough and the circus left town without them.

You forgot the nanner.

The economy has been saying otherwise.

oh, it's finally done it the normal way, instead of free labor?

how kind.

We learned our lesson from the first war when all the industry was in the North. Next time (soon) the results will be different.

Pleas expand on that . What has changed and how would the treason be different this time . I assume in this new struggle YOU would pick up something heavier than a pen ? Maybe not huh ? Ever heard the term couldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight ? It applies to you .