Previous 21 - 30 Next
The 2007 law is a direct violation of the First Amendment. That trumps Oregon's love of evil.
God bless you. As one who has written books like National Wave of Foolishness, there are times that I wonder why so very few speak out, just accepting one evil after another. On december 14, I wrote a piece called "infiltration" that included the following: "By the late 1960s, socialists had firmly entrenched themselves in many groups. Hollywood was on the way to being taken over. There was a rush of unbelievers into seminaries, both to avoid the draft, and to destroy those church institutions. Socialists got into the media in droves. (Their big "victory" was losing the war in Vietnam, meaning more than 3 million people died for nothing.) " "The Christian Church By the 1990s, most seminaries had forgotten God, forgotten the Bible, and were training up a group of unbelievers to run churches and church hierarchies. Even those pastors who believe, typically graduate with less Scripture in their brains than most of their older parishoners. It wasn't until the late 1990s that I started running into pastors who didn't really know their Bibles. Compare that with the typical pastor of the 1980s who knew the Bible from front to back. " "A multitude of churches rejected the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit they once knew and have thus become apostate. The hierarchies of several churches are no longer believers in Christ. It comes out in their support for sex before marriage, homosexuality, socialism, abortion, and so on. Most churches with "united" in their name are not believers. Several Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Baptist church organizations are no longer believers in Christ. Their leaders of just two generations back would be aghast at the non-Biblical ideas being taught today. The Church of England might as well close up shop. Most European Anglicans are not believers today, and most European Anglican leaders are not leading people to Christ, so what function do they have today except ceremony? It would be better to just have those parts of the British government that deal with ceremonial duties take up the Anglican ceremonial duties and dissolve the Church of England, thus freeing up those Anglican churches elsewhere in the world that believe in Jesus Christ. About half of the churches in the U.S. are Emergent, which is a codeword for a false gospel and accepting a few parts of Scripture but ignoring most of it. Those leading the Emergent church are not born again, and most of their parishoners are not born again. It's likely that this is th
In response to:

The Audacity of Dope

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 22, 2014 10:44 AM
Now, let's see some rationalizations for pot by people who are using it. And keep in mind that the statements made in support of it are because of being on pot. Rationalization of evil. I know of no other drug that did it as effectively as pot did. Not meth, not coke, not opiates, not PCP, not mushrooms. So, rationalizers out there, start rationalizing....
In response to:

The Audacity of Dope

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 22, 2014 10:43 AM
"I may surprise a number of people by saying that I don’t think Obama’s past drug use - including the use of powdered cocaine - in any way disqualifies him from being President." I do think it does. Why? Because I've seen first hand what it did to people when pot was legal in Oregon. Drugs allow a person to do the worst of evil and just rationalize it. Pot is the worst of these. Pot allows a mom to not feed her kids for days at a time (very common during oregon's legalization), to steal from friends and family, to burglarize homes, to drive stoned, and to murder others. Pot allows this because the person rationalizes it all. Those on pot rationalize lying, cheating, stealing, fornication, "alternative" lifestyles, and other forms of evil. Consider that most Democrats use pot or have used pot. Then consider how they rationalize lying, cheating, stealing, fornication, "alternative" lifestyles, and other forms of evil. Coincidence? No.
In response to:

The High Cost of Racial Hype

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 22, 2014 10:36 AM
Because of the choices made by prior generations, black America has created a situation where the kids can't see any point in doing good. Consider that for a moment. They've wiped out the jobs they had, they've chosen not to get an education and put up walls between them and a real life. After 3 or even four generations of that, the black community has just about wiped out any opportunity for their kids except ill-gotten gain. If they'd chosen to learn something in school, they could leave "the hood" and enter other communities where there are jobs and a better way of life. But because most chose to be lazy with excuses like "getting an education is too white", they have just about crippled any ability to improve themselves. The only way they can get a real life is to go outside of their enclaves and find those people who will help them get the basic education. To the very people that they have been trained to hate for the "sin" of being white or asian. Hate and choosing to cherish every bad thing that happens is what is killing the black community. It's so much easier to hate than to do the right thing. It gives a false power that causes them to destroy each other. The unforgiving spirit makes it impossible to prosper. "Your ancestors did something against mine in 1721!" While it may seem ridiculous, that is exactly what happens. And that choice to be bitter, hateful, and revenge-seeking, has resulted in the black community of today.
In response to:

The High Cost of Racial Hype

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 22, 2014 10:25 AM
Part of my family is black and I have to agree with you. There's a fundamental dishonesty to most black Americans that they lie to themselves, and lie about others. They see those who harm them (democrats) as meal-tickets, but are not honest enough to admit that. Instead, when their girls make the choice to get pregnant (usually by the same small group of guys), the girls somehow have no responsibility despite making that choice. The black community leaders have adopted a stance of "it's ok if we kill each other, but if a policeman or innocent victim kills one of ours in self-defense, then we want revenge." It's not a minority of black Americans. We're seeing what has happened in South Africa where blacks are preying upon each other. If a group wanted to do genocide on black America, they could have picked no more effective way than for black Americans to do it themselves through drugs, crime, extreme promiscuity (HIV infections among the nations 30+ million blacks is approaching 50%), and an adamant refusal to take any responsibility for personal choices made.
In response to:

What Did Our Wars Win?

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 21, 2014 10:03 AM
"back the British-French-Israeli invasion" that is like something the socialists would come up with. Any thoughts as to which countries invaded whom during the Suez War, Buchanan?
You might want to watch using terms like "are you perfect?" I've never heard that used by anyone that wasn't being rankly hypocritical. Whether or not you are or not, that type of asinine phrasing just turns people off to any point you are making.
Why call them "Democratic"? They started calling themselves that in 2009, but each election, the official name is still "Democrat Party" on the ballots and in the legal descriptions. The Democrats are only "democratic" in the same way that east Germany was the German Democratic Republic. The west Germans used to add "so called" before speaking of the DDR. Perhaps that would be useful to do here. When the Democrats come up in a subject, say/write "the so-called Democratic Party". For a period in the 1960s, the term "Democratic" was used and back then it was a decent moniker as one had both liberals and conservatives in the same party. Not to mention that it was not international socialist, nor did it have many communists or national socialists then, unlike now. They were then frequently of mob rule ideology, particularly in places like Chicago or the deep South, and so "democratic" actually fit. Today they still have the mob rule, but it's now "the masses", as if we were all squirming bug larvae. I've noticed public television in their quest for revisionist history, started using "democratic" in their revisionist history programming despite that not being the name. That was before I quit watching them much— in one year they had a two hour revisionist history marijuana advertisement called "prohibition" and a propaganda piece about how great life in cuba has been. Even a decade ago, they had some really good history programs. A few left here and there by this or that historical society, but the network as a whole has gone international socialist. So, if they insist on using a name other than their party, just say "the so-called Democratic Party". It's accurate, as well as pointing out their hypocrisy. Which is another topic. A first century hupacrita was a Greek actor or actress. A person playing a role. And that's what we see with Democrats. When they do a witch hunt like Christie or Bork, they are hypocritical in claiming to be concerned for wrongdoing.
He's made mistakes, but "worst"? Are you forgetting Pelosi, the person who ignored the House Rules, broke law after law, and so on?
About 6% of the total monies leaving the U.S. Government are Federal Budget. About a third is debt service. The rest are automatic items like Social Security, Welfare, pensions, and so on. About half of the 6% is the DoD's budget. Lightning Barack doesn't like that 3% for the military much, despite his using the military like a toy. I'd guess that is the reason he's never felt much need to fulfill the Constitution's requirement to submit a budget to Congress.
Previous 21 - 30 Next