Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $71,687
84%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $13.4k to go!! We can do this. Thank you all very much!!

Posts by BuddhaBrown

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Gruber Apologizes for “Indelicate Phrasing” [satire]

    11/15/2014 10:22:38 AM PST · 9 of 11
    BuddhaBrown to gov_bean_ counter

    “...waaay too much material...”

    The www.GruberTube.com domain is available for you on-tray pre-newers out there.

    It would be a fine name for an information site which catalogs the growing list of political Grubergasms.

    Or for a running government/news parody site.... perhaps including interview guest officials who switch... from promoting the moral goodness of central planning.... to spewing the ugly truth... instantly... when the Tosh-like green screen changes to appear they are among their own left-minded, more-equal pigs.

    If the Republicans had any imagination or marketing or issue-leverage skills - at all - they would be on TV talking about giving Gruber a Snowden-style asylum where he can speak the secret truths of the evil matrix he once helped Dark Helmut inflict upon this stupid, stupid world.

    Alice Cooper’s very old “Dead Babies” would be good into music to Gruber’s prior endorsement of the Maggie Sanger doctrine and the Planned No-Parenting-in-da-Hood goal. While DH’s giant vacuum sucks all the black kids off the planet.

    Essentially, according to Gruber... the population in general is too stupid to choose the right ways to live healthy. And the black population is simply too stupid to live.

  • Defense says FBI posed as repairmen to get into Las Vegas hotel villa

    10/29/2014 12:26:10 PM PDT · 11 of 14
    BuddhaBrown to Theoria

    What happens in Vegas stays in.... your FBI file for life.

  • Five Myths About the “Rapture” and the “Left Behind” Industry

    09/30/2014 2:16:03 PM PDT · 88 of 232
    BuddhaBrown to huldah1776

    ” I did and I don’t believe in the rapture as defined by the salesmen.”

    Agreed.

    I don’t dismiss anybody’s opinion and don’t wish to fight over it, but...

    I find strange that people think we have to be physically swept away somewhere to be safe. It kinda seems faithless to me.

    Easter is candy.

    Christ IS the Passover Lamb. If you have Him, you can be in the midst of death and destruction (as with the first Passover) and be quite unharmed.

  • "The Parable of the Weeds and the Wheat" (Sermon on Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

    07/21/2014 3:01:27 AM PDT · 5 of 11
    BuddhaBrown to Charles Henrickson

    Fine subject and all.

    But I am curious regarding references to “the Weeds and the Wheat”.

    Is there some logic or research that went to this phrasing -vs- the traditional and more accurate “the Wheat and the Tares” ?

    First of all, the latter expresses the proper order of this teaching. Wheat sown first.

    Also, tares (Strong’s: darnel) are not just any generic weed. And, in my opinion, the generic “weeds” references could tend to emphasize the burden of them. Whereas “tares” emphasizes the falseness (Strong’s: false grain).

    There are many burdens in this world, not all of them evil. However, the tares of Matt 13 are planted with evil intent and represent falseness sown amongst truth. It is toxic if partaken and in the end produces no nurishing fruit/grain.

    I’m not wise enough to determine if ESV has been dumbed-down for English readers and perhaps I’m just being too danged picky. But personally, it was to some extant the word ‘tares’ in the KJV that made me more curious about the meaning of the parable and enticed me to study it further. As a gardener, had I seen the word ‘weeds’ instead, I would have immediately associated it with a recognizable burden, but it likely would not have prompted me to open the Strong’s to reveal the more accurate definition.

    Again, I’m not saying I’m qualified to make this determination. But, it feels like an example of translators or denominations changing text to somehow make it more lazily digestible for whatever audience by making it less true.

    If that happens to be the case, especially if intentional, then the fruit of it would be both toxic and ironic.

  • Hey, Anti-Hunters: Don't Read The Bible Because It's Pro-Hunting

    05/19/2014 6:32:25 PM PDT · 23 of 23
    BuddhaBrown to trebb

    “You told me to beware of getting things out of context (after putting context into my post that I hadn’t put there myself) and I would like for you to explain, in context, how Peter decided that pork was off the menu after his dream.”

    I apologize for adding context to your post.

    Nonetheless, Peter’s vision had nothing to do with making garbage food into clean food. The whole context of the chapter is about God using symbolism (as He commonly does) to knock Peter off his high horse and remind him that the message of Christ is food for all, not just for Jews.

    Jesus Himself was extremely clear that He did NOT come to change one jot nor tittle of the law. Only to pay the price for us breaking it - assuming we believe and repent.

    It would be quite insulting to Christ to imagine that “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” is a reference to His shed blood cleansing pigs. Pigs can’t sin. Christ died to cleanse sin. From people. Even non-Jewish people.

    If the chapter was about cleansing unhealthy critters, it would have ended with Peter and the gang having a luau instead of it ending with him preaching to gentiles. Never once either before or after Christ’s death and resurrection is it recorded that even a single one of His followers ate unclean meats.

  • Hey, Anti-Hunters: Don't Read The Bible Because It's Pro-Hunting

    05/18/2014 7:56:47 AM PDT · 14 of 23
    BuddhaBrown to trebb

    “And from the New testament (Acts 10:13): “

    Hunting is no sin.

    But Acts 10 has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

    Nor does it justify eating pigs and such. As Peter himself explains about 15 verses later.

    Out of context pull quotes are sometimes deceiving. This one in particular has led millions of Christians astray because they don’t read whole chapters/books anymore.

    I’m not saying you do that, but it is something to be alert for in general.

    “Where in the hell has my country gone?”
    I’m afraid is it now only available in book form, check the History section.

  • Hey, Anti-Hunters: Don't Read The Bible Because It's Pro-Hunting

    05/18/2014 7:44:36 AM PDT · 11 of 23
    BuddhaBrown to Kaslin

    Certainly God’s word is heavily, very heavily, more slanted toward the slaughter of domesticated animals.

    But you are correct that hunting in general is no sin.

    Of course, I assume that if you are basing your justification for hunting on His word, then you also don’t hunt/eat pigs or other forbidden critters including coons, bears, catfish, lobster, etc. The health laws are not arbitrary, basically you are instructed not to eat the garbage and meat eating critters. Bambi is clean to eat. You are not commanded to be vegetarian. But you are told to eat vegetarian creatures. And, no, that itself does not make Pamela Anderson clean to eat.

    And no, those rules did not change post-Jesus. Things God said were bad before Jesus did not magically become good after Jesus. What changed is how we pay for sin. No longer via animal killing, but by faith brought about by understanding who Jesus is and why He came.

    Regarding your questions:

    It is not stated specifically who killed the first animal. But clearly God liked Abel’s dead animal-based offering - though it was not hunted meat.

    Hunting is nowhere declared sin.

    Jesus is hip, but not a vegetarian hippie.

    God had Noah help the critters because He likes them for all the reasons He created them. And while they were not the target of His wrath, they were otherwise susceptible to His forewarned method of cleansing. Extra copies of the clean animals were taken along specifically to be killed/sacrificed.

    Absolutely NO to the David question. Yes he killed predators as a shepherd. Yes, he killed thousands of Democrats (Philistines) with the jawbone of a Democrat. Yes, later he even was guilty of putting a hit (murder) on a man because he has the hots for the guys wife. But, no, no, no a thousand times no - it was NOT confidence in his own killing skills that put him before Goliath. It was faith in God.

    Hunting is great and all (I hunt bow and gun), but there is no need to confuse people with speculation. And it would be the grave sin of false doctrine to contend that it was not purely faith that won that battle. Just read what David said about it to Goliath’s face. That should clear it up for you. Please consider carefully what it means to muddle God’s word for your own desires. Also, it has nothing specific to do with hunting, but it might help to read and consider the reason God gave David the plans for the temple but would not let him build it.

    The mentioned commandment is specifically against murder, not killing in general - which I’m sure you already know. Even for those who don’t research the meaning of the words vs the English translation, it is not possible to read the bible as a whole and come to the conclusion that all killing is bad. God demanded killing many times.

  • (Abortion Barbie) Wendy Davis Slams Pro-Life Paraplegic Opponent: He’s “Never Walked In My Shoes”

    01/21/2014 4:36:58 PM PST · 33 of 54
    BuddhaBrown to Zakeet

    Abbott -vs- Costello

  • Boy Scout leaders vandalize ancient rock formation [At Least they celebrate sodomy]

    10/21/2013 7:38:06 PM PDT · 61 of 61
    BuddhaBrown to KeyLargo

    He is just fortifying his defense:
    “Look, it really was unsafe. Even a disabled guy could knock it over.”

  • Boy Scout leaders vandalize ancient rock formation [At Least they celebrate sodomy]

    10/19/2013 6:55:37 AM PDT · 42 of 61
    BuddhaBrown to HotHunt

    “I am a 65 year old Eagle Scout....”

    Congrats! I’m genuinely jealous.

    Seems to me, the one guy fits the profile, literally, of the how-the-heck-is-it-standing round rock more so than what I recall as the pledged properly self maintained scout.

    Let’s both hope and pray their recent wrong turn on the trail does not lead the Boy Scouts of America to devolve into Scouting for American Boys.

    But I’m afraid the guy with the Pie Eating badge in the video could be another strong wind against the once-great teetering rock of an institution:

    “A gay leader would not have been so obtuse... nor so obese.”

  • Boy Scout leaders vandalize ancient rock formation [At Least they celebrate sodomy]

    10/19/2013 6:31:13 AM PDT · 38 of 61
    BuddhaBrown to Blackirish

    “Yeah well I’m pushing back on these fat ass thugs pretending to be scouts.”

    Sounds good to me.

    Push with your legs. Watch which way Fat Bastard rolls.

    And get the vids.

  • Boy Scout leaders vandalize ancient rock formation [At Least they celebrate sodomy]

    10/19/2013 6:26:17 AM PDT · 35 of 61
    BuddhaBrown to Anton.Rutter

    “BOY SCOUTS WATCH LEADERS GET THEIR ROCKS OFF More at 11...”

    Film at 11.

    Crust by about 12 or so.

  • Boy Scout leaders vandalize ancient rock formation [At Least they celebrate sodomy]

    10/19/2013 6:23:50 AM PDT · 34 of 61
    BuddhaBrown to SoFloFreeper

    Mother Nature knocks down our stuff all the dang time.

    I’ve even planted trees for her sake. And she blew some down.

    The ones she knocked down with lightning took far fewer than 14 seconds. And her thunderous roar of approval topped even BSA leader StaPuft’s victory shout.

    Mother Nature is SUCH a scout leader.

    I’m pushing back. Bitch.

  • Navy SEAL's father: Obama sent my son to his death Tells Michael Savage 'they knew something was up'

    07/26/2013 9:25:37 AM PDT · 28 of 43
    BuddhaBrown to Pearls Before Swine

    “Reminds me of the biblical story about David and Uriah the Hittite.”

    That fits well with the story I read in the NYT about Obama killing Bin Laden with a rock and a strap of leather.

  • Should Hamtramck Erect A 12-Foot Wall To Keep Out Detroiters?

    07/19/2013 6:11:54 PM PDT · 39 of 47
    BuddhaBrown to Hot Tabasco

    “Still has the best Polish restaurants...”

    I still have a T-shirt from the Polish Festival or whatever it’s called that they have there once a year. Like a big block party with live music, awesome Polish, Middle Eastern and other food booths and a great bar run by some Greek guys I think.

    It is (was? - I was there about six years ago) a fantastic event. My brother lived there. It did not seem violent or anything. But Detroit is half ghost-town.

    Oh yeah, I think Hamtramck is also known for being the first town in America to have daily public Muslim calls to prayer.

  • The End of Reason: Does the phrase "faith Begins Where Reason Ends" make sense?

    07/15/2013 10:06:26 AM PDT · 13 of 17
    BuddhaBrown to SeekAndFind
    "If, in the future, I do return to faith, then I can truly and honestly say that I have reached the end of reason..."

    It certainly would NOT be reasonable to suggest that God, Christ, Moses or the patriarchs think of faith and reason as mutually exclusive or at all incompatible. And definitely not separate segments on the journey to Truth. At least not based on internal evidence within the books of the bible.

    You seem well intentioned and you have no verifiable reason to hear my words. But it seems to me that you might be struggling with the concept of revealed wisdom.

    Faith is not some crutch Christians whip out whenever we can't reason our way through life.

    Faith is a trust placed in God that what He has revealed and promised is truth. And trust in the multi-millennial series of witnesses He has provided for us.

    Everyone reasons. But results vary.

    Reason can find Truth if that is the end honestly sought.

    Reason can also find the pride in rebellion which convicted Satan and which will gain you a flamboyant parade in San Francisco.

  • Elections Are Not Democracy - A lesson from Egypt. (Andrew C. McCarthy)

    07/06/2013 5:09:41 PM PDT · 13 of 29
    BuddhaBrown to neverdem

    America’s value is Freedom.

    Democracy is merely the illegal immigrant that made it past the Founders’ fence - The Constitution.

  • A Libertarian Turn on Marijuana Legalization, Same-Sex Marriage and Gun Rights

    06/18/2013 6:13:31 AM PDT · 46 of 46
    BuddhaBrown to little jeremiah
    "Proof that you have zero zilch nada no nein nyet understanding of the Constitution nor the intent of the men who worte it."

    There is no reason to get all silly and multi-lingual. I was describing the original intent of the BOR, you are describing what it evolved into later. Much later. After the incorporation doctrine took over. Starting after the war between the states. Which, of course, is what killed the states' rights Ken H is correct to admire.

    Hell, the Second Amendment was not even incorporated, ironically, until the reign of King Obama, also known as the world's greatest gun salesman.

    And quite naturally I understand the USC is not involved in protecting me from you specifically in a policing type function which, of course, is a state and lower issue. I think I was clear that it is a fence built to protect individual freedom from democracy, the whim of the majority, in general.

  • A Libertarian Turn on Marijuana Legalization, Same-Sex Marriage and Gun Rights

    06/17/2013 9:32:10 PM PDT · 37 of 46
    BuddhaBrown to little jeremiah
    "...I've noticed often libertarians, when ranting about "nanny state" this and "nanny state" that, when directly asked "Well, do you think it's okay for STATES to make laws against abortion/ drugs/ faggotry/ porn/ vice of choices?" often drop out of the conversation at that point. They don't want to admit (many of them, not painting with a broad brush) that they don't want states to be allowed to pass such laws"

    I don't think we disagree, but since I'm the only one who used the 'nanny' terms, I'll bite.

    There is only one true measure of American-style patriotism. It is in the extent to which a person believes in God-given (or 'natural') rights to individual freedom. As opposed to any sort of entitlement, class or other man-constituted rights.

    Freedom / Liberty is our first principle.

    Parties come and go, principles should not. Like the wise Ken H, I tend to favor sticking closely to our original Constitution. As he reminds, it can be amended when needed.

    It also could be, quite morally, abolished today as well. I think it is reasonable to suggest that old Jefferson himself might entertain the question of whether it is time to do so since it is not working as planned and since the Declaration makes it plain that such is our duty when Freedom is losing to the 'general'(central) government. Which is inarguably the case today.

    Without the Declaration, the Constitution would be nothing beyond evidence of treason.

    So, the U.S Constitution is great and all, comparatively speaking. But it does NOT define the American principle - Freedom! The Declaration of Independence does.

    The Constitution is simply a barrier Madison and the boys built to protect the Freedom Jefferson so eloquently declared. Protect it FROM the evils of democracy which we have so wrongly glorified for so many years now.

    Back to your question... naturally I understand the U.S Constitution is there to protect me from you at the national level only. And, yes, it is definitely not desirable but clearly constitutional for individual states to restrict and regulate things the feds specifically are not supposed to touch as you said. That includes guns, by the way, despite what many on the right wrongly believe about the Second Amendment.

  • A Libertarian Turn on Marijuana Legalization, Same-Sex Marriage and Gun Rights

    06/17/2013 9:58:02 AM PDT · 18 of 46
    BuddhaBrown to xzins

    ... “general welfare”.

    I’m not exactly sure what you mean, but it is common to misread those words. Done purposely by some, I assume not by you.

    Those two words don’t mean anything like what ‘welfare’ means today. Madison did not want the central government to play favorites - AT ALL. Literally to not recognize rich or poor, young or old, black or white. Those two words meant the opposite of today’s general usage - it meant no ‘targeted’ programs. Which, of course, is what almost all ‘welfare’ is today.

    Don’t believe me, ask the Constitution’s dad:

    “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” -Madison

    Neither Christ nor Madison told you to use central force in spreading what you, rightly I assume, define as morality.

    People who do that are compassion thieves. Such as liberals falsely claiming morality points by taking my money and ‘donating’ it to others. Robbing me of a potential to do so willingly - the definition of a biblical love offering. Tithes are different, but still do not go to Caesar.

    Force voids my blessing and theirs. Not to mention totally obscuring gratitude.

    I’m not accusing you of this behavior, the mention of ‘general welfare’ is just a pet peeve of mine. The epidemic example is unusual, still not exactly sure what you mean. If it is that Ohio and the other states should be forced to pay, then I disagree. Same logic as above. Americans never need force to spew charity. And it would not be charity with force involved.

  • A Libertarian Turn on Marijuana Legalization, Same-Sex Marriage and Gun Rights

    06/17/2013 8:04:30 AM PDT · 15 of 46
    BuddhaBrown to xzins

    I don’t get your point.

    Are you saying that Madison is wrong that non-central governments should be the ones, if any level should, to perform such actions?

    Should the feds ban alcohol for the same reasons you stated earlier?

    The nanny Right seems to forget, they don’t always win. And when out of power, they are hypocrites to blame the Left for legislating their morals at the central level too.

    America can survive just fine as designed. With little central power, states can be Left, Right or whatever.

    It is nonsense when people suggest Americans are more divided than ever. We are just making too many decisions centrally nowadays, that’s all. That is a recipe for disagreement. When the feds did little more than fight wars and deliver mail, then there was not so much to disagree about nationally. As originally intended.

  • A Libertarian Turn on Marijuana Legalization, Same-Sex Marriage and Gun Rights

    06/17/2013 6:34:27 AM PDT · 12 of 46
    BuddhaBrown to Ken H

    “So the US was violating natural law from colonial times until FDR because marijuana was legal?”

    Good to see some respect for original intent. It is often lacking even here.

    You can tell a Jeffersonian style freedom-lover from a conservative when the latter’s nanny-like tendencies start to show.

    By some of the logic in this thread, Bloomberg is a great conservative.

    Pretend it is still yesterday and defer to the constitution’s father, Madison:

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

    I can’t be more clear. The feds have no place banning stuff like pot. Those who want to be a nanny should do it at the state level. So a disagreeing minority can leave it if necessary.

  • MUST SEE THIS PHOTO (God & Jerusalem vote) - "Picture snapped and emailed to me"

    09/06/2012 8:37:51 AM PDT · 45 of 78
    BuddhaBrown to Slyfox; W.Lee
    "St. Peter repented, I don't think these people ever will."

    Pontius Villaraigosa appeared to be looking for a place to wash his hands as the crowd shouted "Barabbas, Hamas, Barak..."

  • Rape, Abortion, and the High Moral Ground

    08/21/2012 8:06:15 AM PDT · 8 of 26
    BuddhaBrown to dps.inspect; NKP_Vet

    I have heard all of the political and emotional arguments for the “except in the case of rape or incest” illogic and though they are seductive, they are not convincing.

    From the political perspective, one might suggest that there is a better chance of getting anti-abortion legislation passed when exceptions are allowed and I have no reason to doubt that assertion. From the emotional angle, we all have heart-felt sympathy for the victimized mother.

    There is a powerful reluctance to force a woman to continue her physically demanding and emotionally draining role in the most divine function of God’s nature when the initiation of that process was without the mother’s normally assumed consent. We would be assigning to her the responsibility to carry into this world a new soul who will be a seemingly unholy combination of her own self and of a man who is either frighteningly unknown or sinfully familiar.

    There is, of course, the almost inescapable temptation to assume this new person will somehow not be good because the genetic code of a rapist was used in his/her construction. Or that the new person will somehow not be complete because of the potential for physiological problems to arise when daddy is grandpa.

    Adoption is always an option when the post-birth burdens outweigh the natural desire of the mother to nurture a child which is, after all, still half her.

    On any scientific or logical rationale, assuming human life has value, I would ask two questions:

    -Does it continue to grow and change via natural biologic process? - If so, it is alive.

    -What will you call this life if the natural process is allowed to continue? - If the answer is ‘human’, then it has rights.

  • “Do things that have never been done before” - The guy who invented the computer...

    08/20/2012 4:41:24 AM PDT · 29 of 31
    BuddhaBrown to mylife

    “Gunning for the Buddha”

    Hey, I resemble that remark.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 6:13:33 PM PDT · 528 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to wagglebee

    “Then why the hell are you here?”

    Good question.

    I suppose there is some value in a rear guard as well. But I’m off to the front lines. I leave my posting history to speak for me.

    Feet now voting.

    (Your pro-life bits will be one thing I miss.)

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 5:46:47 PM PDT · 512 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to Osage Orange

    “I bow to you...oh great one.”

    Now that’s more like it.

    Check the shine while you’re down there.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 5:44:56 PM PDT · 507 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to SomeCallMeTim

    “I was NEVER a liberal.... just used to be ill-informed about Mittens.”

    Sorry about that.

    I did not mean to tarnish you with my sins.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 5:35:45 PM PDT · 494 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to Rhane

    “I also support Romney....there are plenty of sites that allow complete open-ended debate/promotion, which is truly free...”

    I oppose Romney.

    But will vote for him over Obama if necessary as I expect you to do similarly if you are reasonable minded.

    I’ll look for you on the ‘truly free’ sites. We’ll rassle where reason runs free.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 5:20:38 PM PDT · 480 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to SomeCallMeTim
    " 'Hey, you can always vote with your feet, pal.' ... I think it's silly. I'm NOT a Romney supporter... anymore.. largely because of things I learned HERE."

    You are quite correct, it is silly.

    I had expected better from FR and JR.

    I was also once a liberal (though much longer ago) who was convinced by reason and Light. NOT by the darkness of the closet.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 5:17:08 PM PDT · 477 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to Jim Robinson
    "RINO supporters will just have to keep it under their hats or in the closet."

    How do I 'fight' somebody you've got locked in the closet?

    Perhaps you can leave the closet key where I can reach it. And institute filtering for the currently well-represented squeamish Freepers.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 5:03:10 PM PDT · 461 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to MarineDadNavyVet
    "For my part, I much prefer a reformed and converted sinner who has come to see the light and who gets it, to someone flintily convinced of his own righteousness."

    Ah... a voice of reason.

    From a fellow vet, unsurprisingly.

    I was a hippie liberal in my youth. I've been in the belly of that beast. Reason saved me, not the lash.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 4:52:41 PM PDT · 452 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to lonevoice

    “Narcissistic much?”

    Don’t make me come down there, my throne just got warm!

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 4:50:23 PM PDT · 450 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to DJ MacWoW

    “Unfortunately you only agree in theory.”

    Nonsense.

    I seek to save at least some of the lost (moderate) conservatives via reason.

    THAT is the ‘fight’ we are supposed to be having in this pre-primary season.

    JR talks a big game about that fight, then seeks to keep them from entering the ring.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 4:31:04 PM PDT · 431 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to DJ MacWoW

    “In politics the middle way is none at all.”

    I agree.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 4:30:58 PM PDT · 429 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to mnehring

    “Why do you hate private property?”

    That is silly. I’m sitting on an hundred acres of it in God’s country right now.

    Despite being perhaps the most devout supporter of individual Freedom this site has known, I fully understand JR can ban me too any time he rules it helpful to whatever cause he likes.

    It would mean much less to me personally, than it would to Freedom’s agenda.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 4:30:06 PM PDT · 428 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to Navy Patriot

    “No speech codes in your house, right?”

    I enforce some rules on civility, as does JR.

    But if one of my kids comes home from school with an implanted liberal notion, I don’t lock them out.

    I engage. Because I sincerely want to change their minds. Threats and cold shoulders are none too effective in that regard.

    Reason can often cure the illness JR (apparently) seeks merely to identify.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 4:29:37 PM PDT · 427 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to Jim Robinson
    "...fighting for pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-constitution, pro-limited government causes and candidates."

    Replace 'fighting' with 'hiding' and I'd agree.

    I came here for that fight. All I'm getting lately is drum circle 'consensus'.


    "What part of Romney is none of the above do you not understand?"

    The exact same part of the Romney supporters FR will convert with a ban-first/reason(maybe)later policy: NONE.


    "...why do you think pro-life, pro-family, pro-... Free Republic should support a candidate whose record is completely opposite"

    I don't know you, but legend had it that you were a better man than this. I NEVER said you should 'support' the misguided Republicans. I'd simply prefer to convert some of them, rather than harden all of them. But, hey, it's your playground.

    I pray, if you are a Christian man, that your seed planting in that regard is not also limited to the choir.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 3:21:55 PM PDT · 346 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to onyx
    "Because there will be NO campaigning for Romney?"

    Are you that weak in your convictions that a misguided Romney supporter's article might 'flip' your vote?

    If there exist so many RINO-phobes here, then JR should institute user and topic level filtering for the weak to employ.

    "How about bucking up and getting to work with the aim of defeating him in the primaries..."

    If you can convince JR to unlock the door, then you can open it and hide behind it. I'll take care of Mitt should he dare enter.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 3:10:02 PM PDT · 324 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to re_nortex

    “...the purpose is to champion causes that promote true Conservative principles in America.”

    Speech codes, the new breakfast of ‘champions’.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 3:01:28 PM PDT · 305 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to DJ MacWoW

    “You don’t fear a man who changes positions like underwear and shares some of the same positions as Obama?!”

    Why on earth would I fear a man of such obvious weakness?

    By all means, if you are unprepared to defeat the enemy, then get under the bed with JR.

    I can kick Mitt’s ass with half your freedom tied behind Jim’s back.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 2:52:15 PM PDT · 282 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to rintense

    “Door meet ass.”

    Clever.

    Now stop calling me ‘Door’.

  • Romney Supporters Banned From Free Republic

    11/01/2011 2:44:29 PM PDT · 261 of 898
    BuddhaBrown to Jim Robinson

    A dark day for FR.

    I know you claim to be against homo sex, but since The IncreasinglyLessFreeRepublic’s tent now only fits the two of us, I’m feeling a bit uncomfortable. (...wait...what the... that had better have been the tent zipper...going down!)

    What the hell are people supposed to post if Romney wins the nomination?

    And what the hell are we people who like to reason and debate supposed to do once we all are either coerced or winnowed into agreement?

    Seriously, it is time for a name change: ‘The Robinson Republic’ has a ring to it.

    FreeRepublic has itself become false advertising.

    (No, I don’t support Romney. I also do not have an irrational fear of him.)

  • Steve Jobs' Sister Reveals CEO's Final Words

    10/30/2011 8:43:40 PM PDT · 18 of 61
    BuddhaBrown to ully2

    “He finally figured out what made the IPAD work.”

    Buddhist slaves in China?

  • Steve Jobs' Sister Reveals CEO's Final Words

    10/30/2011 8:23:07 PM PDT · 9 of 61
    BuddhaBrown to PetroniusMaximus

    “He was a Buddhist.”

    I don’t recall him following my ways.

    Must’ve been that other Buddha.

    I’m the one with a shirt.

  • Cain Says He Opposes Abortion Without Exceptions [Even When Mother's Life Is In Danger]

    10/30/2011 6:06:14 PM PDT · 78 of 80
    BuddhaBrown to trumandogz

    “I’m not willing to permit murder for your political expediency.”

    Even folks on our side are subject to the wiles of Convenience, by far history’s most prolific killer of Innocents.

  • Cain Says He Opposes Abortion Without Exceptions [Even When Mother's Life Is In Danger]

    10/30/2011 5:55:45 PM PDT · 77 of 80
    BuddhaBrown to Luther1917

    “...but the minute Bush was no longer president she gets on every talk show...”

    In that case, I’ll have no respect for her positions but I give her some credit for the fact that I did not know them when she was first lady.

  • Cain Says He Opposes Abortion Without Exceptions [Even When Mother's Life Is In Danger]

    10/30/2011 3:37:20 PM PDT · 56 of 80
    BuddhaBrown to .30Carbine

    “In Margaret Sanger’s own words...”

    A tragic irony is that Sanger did favor the horrible eugenics movement to limit the spread of ‘undesirable’ populations. But she favored convincing them to use contraception, sterilization, etc. To my knowledge she did not advocate actually killing the unborn as is done today in her already infamous name.

  • Cain Says He Opposes Abortion Without Exceptions [Even When Mother's Life Is In Danger]

    10/30/2011 3:13:01 PM PDT · 43 of 80
    BuddhaBrown to Luther1917

    I have heard all of the political and emotional arguments for the “except in the case of rape or incest” illogic and though they are seductive, they are not convincing.

    From the political perspective, one might suggest that there is a better chance of getting anti-abortion legislation passed when exceptions are allowed and I have no reason to doubt that assertion. From the emotional angle, we all have heart-felt sympathy for the victimized mother.

    There is a powerful reluctance to force a woman to continue her physically demanding and emotionally draining role in the most divine function of God’s nature when the initiation of that process was without the mother’s normally assumed consent. We would be assigning to her the responsibility to carry into this world a new soul who will be a seemingly unholy combination of her own self and of a man who is either frighteningly unknown or sinfully familiar.

    There is, of course, the almost inescapable temptation to assume this new person will somehow not be good because the genetic code of a rapist was used in his/her construction. Or that the new person will somehow not be complete because of the potential for physiological problems to arise when daddy is grandpa.

    Adoption is always an option when the post-birth burdens outweigh the natural desire of the mother to nurture a child which is, after all, still half her.

    On any scientific or logical rationale, assuming human life has value, I would ask two questions:

    -Does it continue to grow and change via natural biologic process? - If so, it is alive.

    -What will you call this life if the natural process is allowed to continue? - If the answer is ‘human’, then it has rights.

    More directly to your point, if that life inside you is threatening your life, then you are allowed to defend yourself. No different than if your kid was trying to kill you with a gun. Thanks for helping to point that out to some here inventing false choices.

  • Obamas 9-9-9 Tax Cut | For the Blind

    10/30/2011 12:24:15 PM PDT · 37 of 42
    BuddhaBrown to sportutegrl

    “...they always cut taxes more for the poor and raise taxes more on the rich...”

    Certainly there are some misguided politicians who earnestly believe they are doing the right thing by spoiling the poor. But the bulk of the elected class would likely favor the rich and demonize the poor should the perceived size of their voting populations someday be reversed.

    Relativism is the enemy of true fairness. Which is why progressives love it. It defines the need for their existence.

    For a thing to be truly fair it needs to be objective. Which is why, in America, we have traditionally valued objective law. Lady Justice is not wearing a blindfold because she saw Lady Gaga do it. Hell no. The Founders put it there to affect a lack of recognition of persons or classes which appear before her. Rich or poor, black or white, man or woman, politician or human... all are equal before the blind (objective) law.

    To be progressive is to enlist in the army of the small-minded whose duty it is to make war on that pesky blind fold.

    To we logic-based creatures (I’m a programming ‘geek’ too) their nectar is our poison - the endless loop. By definition the equality which progressives seek cannot be achieved. Which conveniently gives them an endless excuse to make things a little more right (in their entirely subjective opinion) than they found them, but never totally right. To progress, but to never succeed is the life of those whose highest values are in perceived efforts and gifted esteem.

    They attack those who are rich in material and leave us all poorer in freedom.

    Regardless which candidate you support, as a fellow ‘geek’ I assume you will not fall victim to the illogical thinking that has claimed even many Freepers, including this thread’s author. They are measuring one plan or another based NOT on conservative principles but rather on typical political reasonings such as how changes from the current corrupt system affects their own personal special interests: mortgage deductions, child deductions, SS checks, etc.

    Cain wasn’t my first pick, but I’d take him over Romney or Perry. Were I his adviser, he’d ignore the other wannabes and make more bold, news tempting statements directly targeting Obama’s hypocrisy and class warfare. Stuff like:

    “9-9-9: Everybody’s skin equally in the game.”

    ...and...

    “Vote for him if you hate the rich, vote for me if you want to join the rich.”