oldiesman

Below is an extract of a recent quote from Paw regarding posting on the forums: This quote appears to be saying that pro-twi viewpoints are not welcomed here. Paw even went so far as to say he'd set up a pro-twi site for free. In other words it seems to be saying "it is your privilege to defend twi, but here, please be quiet, we already know the pro-twi side and we don't want to hear it." Please please clarify if this is a rule change, and if it is, please post this on the forum rules so that all posters (even those with pro-twi viewpoints from time to time) know where they stand.

In a free market economy, there must be consequences for failure. The consequences should be letting the bad companies whose leaders made the bad decisions go into bankruptcy and reorganize, and come back stronger and smarter. Not reward all the mismanagement and greed you talk about by throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at it or controlling it outright. Where in the Constitution is that power given the federal government to be the "saviour" of private companies and guarantee their losses? No private company is too big to fail ... I think that is the kool-aid the people are being fed from the statist propaganda department, to protect their interests. There always is a free-market alternative. Some will be hurt and some are getting hurt anyway regardless of all the billions being spent. But the market will eventually recover, it always does. People will recover. During these times, cutting personal and corporate taxes to build a stronger recovery will help, it has helped during recessions in the past and can today, with politicians interested in creating wealth. In contrast, socialists do not create wealth, they seize and redistribute it. Socialism and fascism, under the guise of "compassion" and "equality", will do all it can to redistribute the wealth and take control of the private sector. I think that is the mindset. "Compassion" at the point of a gun. We are seeing that right before our eyes in varying degrees. Is that YOUR idea of Christianity? The socialists and statists are the greedy ones, taking advantage of this crisis. What was it that Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel said, never let a good crisis go to waste? When the statists have the power, I think they will advance their cause of legalized theft, redistribution, and control of the private sector. They are doing that right now. I think they are so power hungry that most everything they can get away with during this crisis they are going to try like hell.

Well, the twi and klan references are red herrings that only try to cloud and silence legitimate issues, so its a waste of time using smear tactics like that. Regarding the deleted post, Paw contacted me during last years campaign and thought that 1 clip of mine was hate speech, so I deleted it. It simply was a comparison of Hitler and Obama in the sense they are both golden-tongued orators mesmerizing the public, which I thought was a legitimate political point. I was happy to delete it as Paw requested but also told him I didn't think it was a violation of the forum rules. I do think President Obama is a socialist. That is not hate speech, I think that is a fact, as a man is defined by his actions. Socialists seek to redistribute wealth and control more and more of the means of production; which is exactly what he is doing through his massive legalized theft spending programs, and pursuit to seize private firms..

Are you with ACORN?

DWBH, I know, facts about Dodd Obama & Co. get you guys on the left all upset. Relax bro. Have a nice weekend. :)

Sounds rational. :)

Maybe the opposite was the case... Dodd, being the largest recipient of AIG contributions likely felt he needed to pay them back in some way, thus the bailout and bonuses. But with all the hoopla and pressure, now it appears he's giving the contribution money all back. Good. OBAMA should give AIG contributions back as well.

DWBH, Sounds like you need to get unplugged from your computer. Take a break man. Relax, and have a great weekend. :)

OK, discuss. :)

No I didn't. I said I agreed with you that "The Believer's Enemy -- Fear" is not in the scriptures. So what's your point? Do you want a medal that you found something in PFAL that is not in the scriptures? How about a standing ovation? Adulation? I don't know what your point is, really.

Rocky, I am not answering any more of your questions. I was dumb enough to try, then asked you to reciprocate, and got the back of your hand. No more ... don't keep asking.

Why?

Right.

I am not a mind reader.

Skyrider, I agree with you, it is not in scripture. What's the point?

Can you make larger print I can't see. :) Your message appears to be correct, and the point is?

What's the question?

Goodness geeze. To put your own anyones internet rants and harangues on the same moral equivalence as Jesus has got to be some serious Chutzpah.

right, adding "as opposed to anonymous internet chatter which solves nothing." I suppose a couple of verses about gossip and backbiting may have been appropriate as well, but heaven forbid greasepot posters (myself included in the mix) be occasionally reminded of those things the scriptures ask us not to do, like gossip and backbite, and be reminded about those things the scriptures ask us to do, like speaking one on one to a brother in private.

Since you said there is enough blame to go around, let's also reference some on the left with the "income inequality" rants of Barney Frank & Co. Here's an excerpt from "The Humble Libertarian" about how AIG failed in the first place: BTW I don't think the AIG bailout was necessary at all. Could have gone to Chapter 11 and reorganized like many private industries do. In the free market system, there MUST be consequences for failure else the government takes over like it has and you get socialism/fascism whatever you want to call it, it is another name for tyranny.

Thanks Wordwolf... exactly the point ... face to face, one on one in private.

Skyrider, Might as well get the quote accurate before you discuss it. The exact quote from PFAL is below. The context on the top of the page was "The Believer's Enemy -- Fear"

Perhaps but not always. Because among other things it may not be so readily apparent that he did something wrong or caused hurt in a particular instance. He may think he was correct, for whatever reason. So that is why it is incumbent for the hurting party to go directly one on one to the person who they think caused the hurt. Matthew 18:15

OK fine, then according to that statement "we" take the place of Christ when performing that manifestation. So why single out Vic?

This finger pointing seems too general. I don't know of any abuse performed by Vince, but why don't the folks who feel they were abused go to Vince personally themselves and ask for an apology? I think that'd be the right way to go about it. Vince is still around and having known him I think he'd be willing to apologize if he knew someone was hurting. Geeze. Get up one on one, face to face, man to man, instead of anonymous internet chatter which solves nothing.