The radical homosexual agenda and the destruction of standards

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Your cracking me up Americans fear there neghibours more likely to shoot them then give them a helping hand. There no free ride as you put it here in NZ jump off your high horse for a moment.




posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Your cracking me up Americans fear there neghibours more likely to shoot them then give them a helping hand. There no free ride as you put it here in NZ jump off your high horse for a moment.


You are so wrong, that only is in the blue areas, the inner cites and some suburbs...

In the place I used to live, neighbors helped each other out......


Don't believe everything you read about the US in the papers m8.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   



You are so wrong, that only is in the blue areas, the inner cites and some suburbs...

In the place I used to live, neighbors helped each other out......


Don't believe everything you read about the US in the papers m8.


Whats a Blue area?
Americans would rather carry a gun then use neighbor hood watch.
So if they wont watch your house why would they help you during hard times?
While your increasing crime your also taking away the "care factor."
I could be wrong but the impession I get from americans on this board is that its everyone to themselvs.


[edit on 12-3-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Americans would rather carry a gun then use neighbor hood watch.
So if they wont watch your house why would they help you during hard times?


Dude you crack me up

Have you ever even been to America?

A couple years ago one of our Neighboors caught a man trying to break into this older womans house and held him there at Gun point till the police arrived. No one was hurt and the man was a 2-3 times convicted rapist.

I know the thought of Americans being Armed sends you into hysterical vapors but yes we do watch out for each other. I know, I know, it couldnt have happened that way some one would have taken the gun away gfrom him just like Steven Segal does in his latest movie or it would have been better for the woman to dial 911 after he raped her, but wait wouldnt he have taken the policemens guns away from them too?

Dont believe everything you see at the movies.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Whats a Blue area?
Americans would rather carry a gun then use neighbor hood watch.
So if they wont watch your house why would they help you during hard times?
While your increasing crime your also taking away the "care factor."
I could be wrong but the impession I get from americans on this board is that its everyone to themselvs.


Yes your are mistaken big time. A Blue area is usually an urban area such a city of over 100k people, there are many places that are 'small town' were neighbors help each other out all the time.

just as an example, when I had to move and try to sell my house, my neighbors back home are keeping my yard moved and the house aired out and keeping watch on things, 15 months later since I can not sell it.

Americans in general are very kind to each other unless you go to a big city, then it is probably as you say,

Blue areas? Let me show you,

Here is a by county tally of the votes




As you can see the cities went Kerry and the rural areas went Bush (RED)





As a side note I saw a funny one while looking for that link,

PRESIDENT BUSH'S MAP
OF POST-WAR MIDDLE EAST


[edit on 12-3-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Amuk dont get your knickers in a twist I was asking legit questions. I would ask the same questions anywhere (minus the guns.) You people are parnoid unless one bows down to america you think someone is either anti american or arrogant .
I am questioning edsingers opinion that during hard times neighbors should help each other instead of the government welfare system.
The idea great but would would it work in reality? We know that people arent that friendly in urban areas where most of the population lives. Unless you get with your neighbor your screwed. edsingers claim that in blue states people wouldnt help each other if you believe that you will believe anything.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
By that I meant that urbanites would not but the rural folks already do. And I would bet that is not an American thing only.

The problem is that Government welfare breeds more welfare in a never ending cycle.....help in hard times is different than a way of life.


Just because I am a patriot and love my country in no way makes me out to say I or we are better than anyone else except the French.




[edit on 13-3-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
By that I meant that urbanites would not but the rural folks already do. And I would bet that is not an American thing only.


That is correct like I said I would ask those questions anywhere.



The problem is that Government welfare breeds more welfare in a never ending cycle.....help in hard times is different than a way of life.


Helping people during hard times is a way of life if it wasnt then people in urban areas would be more friendly.




Just because I am a patriot and love my country in no way makes me out to say I or we are better than anyone else except the French.

If that true then why are people labled anti american if they dont agree with Bush? some American have siege mentality they think the whole world boils down to a America vs world boxing match and the world is scoring a knock out.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
If that true then why are people labled anti american if they dont agree with Bush? some American have siege mentality they think the whole world boils down to a America vs world boxing match and the world is scoring a knock out.


Nor if they dislike Bush but if they put troops in harms way because of their hatred for Bush the man then yes imho, they can hate the man but must always respect the office.

But it is not as simple as a litmus test, we have people in here saying our troops are ordered to deliberately kill civilians and that Bush must have ordered it......


That takes it a bit to far imho, and to those that say I need to keep an open mind, show me some proof otherwise by spreading that crap you cost your countrymen their lives by breeding unneeded hate.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Amuk dont get your knickers in a twist


dont wear any, I go commando




I am questioning edsingers opinion that during hard times neighbors should help each other instead of the government welfare system.
The idea great but would would it work in reality? We know that people aren't that friendly in urban areas where most of the population lives. Unless you get with your neighbor your screwed. edsingers claim that in blue states people wouldn't help each other if you believe that you will believe anything.


It just so happens you are talking to the right person here on this question. I cant talk about the "Urban" areas because I dont live there but I am a "blue stater" alto ugh I am not Republican I am Libertarian.

Recently I have lost my job due to complications from a surgery and other ailments i already had. I will probably not be able to ever work in the manner I used to.

During the first few months the Government had me fill out one form after another and telling me each time I had to see some other department or fill out another form instead of giving me any help. If I had to depend on the government during that time I would have been homeless before they took the staples out of my gut.

While this was going on my neighbors paid my utilities, brought by "extra" food they had cooked up, dropped by leaving cash, deposited money into my bank account, brought sacks and sacks of food, paid my cable bill, my family took turns sending me a check each week just like I was working, etc

Hell I was and still am better off than when I was working.....


But now (after about six months) the Government is stepping in and helping out.

The government was useless in the first six months or so and my friends and family could not support me forever.

The answer is, as usual, somewhere in the middle.

I am not for Government handouts for able bodied people, if I can return to the work force I will as soon as possible. I would prefer some kind of hand up AKA retraining or something like that to welfare. I have no problem with paying some tax money to help those who by misfortune have fallen down, but I think the money would be MUCH better spent at the state or even local level rather than federal level.

If I had to have relied on the federal government it would have been about 5-6 months before I received any help. Can most people live 5-6 months without money?

A local program could have sized up the situation within a few days and it could have been taken care of immediately instead of 6 months later after the person had lost everything they had.

What I dont like, and most others, is the federal program that MIGHT spend 5 cents out of every dollar taken in on the poor that it is supposed to help. The rest goes for "overhead" like pay raises and fact finding trips to Bermuda for those on the top.

The place I used to work for paid a low wage and still yet almost everyone there was signed up to give 1-10$ dollars a week for such a program (that helped me the same day BTW). We also used to help build homes for the homeless for no pay, etc.

I dont mind giving money to the poor, I just want to be able to make sure that the poor get it and not some 750,000 dollar a year bureaucrat in Washington.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
.If that true then why are people labled anti american if they dont agree with Bush?


I think Bush is an Idiot and possibly one of the worst presidents we have ever had in terms of long term damage he has caused this country and I havent heard ONE person on this board (or in real life) call me an anti-american.

[edit on 13-3-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   


I think Bush is an Idiot and possibly one of the worst presidents we have ever had in terms of long term damage he has caused this country and I havent heard ONE person on this board (or in real life) call me an anti-american.


My fault I wasnt very clear on this point I should have said Non Americans get labeled anti American.

6 months I thought the system was bad here!
How did the system get so bad?
How did high paid pen pushes take over?

Amuk I dont have a problem with people helping each other out it is the best system your proof of that the sad thing is that in many areas the lifestyle dosnt allow for such a system to be put in place.


[edit on 13-3-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
AMUk - Your in the South m8 and that doesn't surprise me one bit, that is American true and true and I have no doubts that what you say happened, but where it changes is that you want to move on, while others would not.

I am not saying that the Church's should distribute the monies given for the poor only but like you I believe the Feds waste most of it.

Your story is a prime example of the bloat and that is the problem with the federal government.

Most in here think I love the Feds and Bush but I do not, they are wrong on many things, but I think they are right on on foreign policy and tax cuts.

I am glad the government helped you but like you said 6 months is just to long....bet if you were in Little Rock it would not have taken that long.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Amuk I dont have a problem with civil unions I do have a problem with gay "marriage" semantics? Maybe maybe not.
I also have a problem with gays saying they are dscriminated against when they have the exact same marriage rights I do.
No I dont have a problem with a statue of the ten commandments in a courthouse, I do have a problem with judges basing thier judgements on the ten commandments though. Thier judgements should be based on US law.
I dont have a problem with manger scenes anymore than I do with passover decorations, all religons should be allowed to have public displays at thier holidays. Why cant a manger scene sit next to a kwanza display? Or a hannukah menorah?
As for being told they will burn in hell I have never said so. I dont know they will. I know what they do is a sin, but I wouldn't presume to make a judgement as to whether or not they are going to hell.
As for gay marriage, gays can marry. They just cant marry two men. However since I as a straight man can not marry a man either how is that discrimination?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331 They just cant marry two men. However since I as a straight man can not marry a man either how is that discrimination?


Because by not allowing it to be legal you are denying them the acceptance as ok for the sin that our society knows is sin.

It is acceptance of sin that they seek.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
It is acceptance of sin that they seek.


But is sin always against the law?

Is it against the law to have other Gods before him?

How about making graven images?

Coveting thy neighbors (whatever)?

Should anything that doesn't go along with Christian beliefs be against the law for even those that dont believe the same?

I dont think they are asking for Christians to approve as much as the legal rights. Under your way of thinking Buddhists and Hindus shouldn't be allowed to marry either after all they are not married in a Christian church so they must be sinning right?

Oh yeah thats right the are ALREADY sinning because they dont worship the right God. Maybe THAT should be illegal too.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Nice try AMUK,


No it is not the case, Sodomy is the illegal part, fornication is not illegal, its immoral but not illegal.

They want acceptance for their actions in which society considers immoral.



Simple concept really.


First they want gay sex legalized and accepted in the mainstream. What next? Where do you draw the line?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

No it is not the case, Sodomy is the illegal part, fornication is not illegal, its immoral but not illegal.
First they want gay sex legalized and accepted in the mainstream. What next? Where do you draw the line?


Its legal in Texas and I am sure in some other states also.

Since its legal there I asume you have no problem with it in the states it legal in, correct?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by edsinger

No it is not the case, Sodomy is the illegal part, fornication is not illegal, its immoral but not illegal.
First they want gay sex legalized and accepted in the mainstream. What next? Where do you draw the line?


Its legal in Texas and I am sure in some other states also.

Since its legal there I asume you have no problem with it in the states it legal in, correct?


Fornication is actually illegal in some states? really? hmmm

Guess none of them enforce it then,


as for the states in which it is legal, do I agree? no.

Nor would I agree with Oregon if they legalized bestiality and I would fight it also.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
To my sibling, Ed, you have a point but the gig is up. We have lost the war. the battle/war was won when they introduced no fault divorce. We, Christians are fighting fires that only the Lord can put out. We must remain patient, steadfast, and hold to those truths. Public schools will never change as long as they are run by NAMBLA supporting Teachers Unions. Keep your kids in private at whatever costs if you can. the deprogramming of a public education costs more time than it is worth. As you well know time is money even to engineers like us. I feel like Jonah but in the town of Nineveh where no one cares. They will no likely put on sack cloth then Clinton will admit he was for sale to the highest bidder. I really think Bush will not act upon the Supreme Court nominations like Christian people are hoping. I do not think he can. He does like he is told just like we do. He does not answer to the electorate either but to tjhe money that elected him. Funny thing i told you about, the same money that supported Bush supported Kerry.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join