A profound statement


MNSteve

Retired, NRA Life member
Ran across this statement this morning. Thought it was appropriate.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

~~~~~ Dr.. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005 ~~~~~
 

Sheldon

New member
Sounds like a bunch of other's Thomas Jefferson, Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannady, and myself just to name a few... N no I am not comparing my self to them just the thought of the Democrats Robbin Hood politics makes me ill...
 

Sheldon

New member
I don't know about that, they both are speaking out against a oppressive ruler, are being attacked and accused as being a traitor, and abolitionist, all because they disagree with BO.
No they are not as eloquent as TJ, but they are taking a lot of heat for their position and voicing it loudly, because of this the first amendment is under siege by the extreme left liberals, all under the guise of the fairness doctrine. The white house wants them shut down and scilenced... Kind of like the King wanted to do to TJ and the rest of the group.
 
I see your point, Sheldon, BUT.......

I don't know about that, they both are speaking out against a oppressive ruler, are being attacked and accused as being a traitor, and abolitionist, all because they disagree with BO.
No they are not as eloquent as TJ, but they are taking a lot of heat for their position and voicing it loudly, because of this the first amendment is under siege by the extreme left liberals, all under the guise of the fairness doctrine. The white house wants them shut down and scilenced... Kind of like the King wanted to do to TJ and the rest of the group.

The issue that I have with Hannity and Limbaugh is that, for all of their disapproval of Obumma (with which I agree), BOTH of them loudly, vociferously, and repeatedly defended the other usurper of our liberty, one George W. Bush.

I agree that the socialist direction in which we are headed will end up devastating our nation. Indeed, I am sure that it will result in another revolution (I hope that our side wins). That said, both Hannity and Limbaugh supported "W" in his pruning of our civil liberties. Bush used a national tragedy to try to enact a stupid NeoCon fantasy (Project for the New American Century) to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights.

I love the second amendment because it protects our first amendment rights. Corraling people into "free speech zones" in order to keep them isolated is a crime, although many looked the other way when "W" was in town. Now that the shoe is on the (far) left foot, I expect those same people to howl when Obumma simply continues "W''s practice. If I didn't love my Bill of Rights so much I would almost say that it serves them right.

These guys were the champions of torture, referred to by the euphemistically optimistic "enhanced interrogation". If it is wrong to do it to one of our soldiers in the case they are captured, then it is simply wrong to do. I realize that "the enemy" doesn't respect this. That is why they are the enemy. That is why we are culturally superior to those vermin. We didn't even mistreat the Japanese POW's after we discovered the conditions in which our own men (and some women!) were kept. The reason? Moral superiority. When you give up being the good guy, it becomes an exponentially increasing slope to a very hot place. Sure, torturing a guy is easy. When did America start embracing "the easy way?" I thought that good moral character and a hard work ethic were the very definition of an American.

It is far past time to stand up to those who would take our liberties away, regardless of what party they claim.

A vote for Ron Paul, anyone? :biggrin:
 

Sheldon

New member
The issue that I have with Hannity and Limbaugh is that, for all of their disapproval of Obumma (with which I agree), BOTH of them loudly, vociferously, and repeatedly defended the other usurper of our liberty, one George W. Bush.


These guys were the champions of torture, referred to by the euphemistically optimistic "enhanced interrogation". If it is wrong to do it to one of our soldiers in the case they are captured, then it is simply wrong to do. I realize that "the enemy" doesn't respect this. That is why they are the enemy. That is why we are culturally superior to those vermin. We didn't even mistreat the Japanese POW's after we discovered the conditions in which our own men (and some women!) were kept. The reason? Moral superiority. When you give up being the good guy, it becomes an exponentially increasing slope to a very hot place. Sure, torturing a guy is easy. When did America start embracing "the easy way?" I thought that good moral character and a hard work ethic were the very definition of an American.

It is far past time to stand up to those who would take our liberties away, regardless of what party they claim.

A vote for Ron Paul, anyone? :biggrin:

That was because so many in the media were so quick to villainies them, one day history will look back and say he was actually a good president. He made hard decisions, but he at least made them and did not stand by and try to pass feel good legislation to divert our attention.

As to torture, there is a time and place for everything, we did attempt to torture every person we captured, but reserved that for those with critical information. Information that could potentially save lives, prevent more terror attacks.

Let me ask you this, (I already know the answer) If your kid were captured and held hostage by one of those extremist head chopper's , and they had one of the ring leaders that knew just exactly where your child was but refused to speak, would you.....

A. Say torture is to extreme, even if it means the life of my loved one.
B. Say torture may be OK, it is a tool to be used when circumstances dictate..
C. Say torture is OK in this case... but to heck with any one else.
D. Be at the Ass Holes cell door with your craftsman tool box begging for the chance to make them tell where your kid is....




Come On it's D aint it....
 
Of course it is "D" for me!! Just not for anyone else!

That was because so many in the media were so quick to villainies them, one day history will look back and say he was actually a good president. He made hard decisions, but he at least made them and did not stand by and try to pass feel good legislation to divert our attention.

As to torture, there is a time and place for everything, we did attempt to torture every person we captured, but reserved that for those with critical information. Information that could potentially save lives, prevent more terror attacks.

Let me ask you this, (I already know the answer) If your kid were captured and held hostage by one of those extremist head chopper's , and they had one of the ring leaders that knew just exactly where your child was but refused to speak, would you.....

A. Say torture is to extreme, even if it means the life of my loved one.
B. Say torture may be OK, it is a tool to be used when circumstances dictate..
C. Say torture is OK in this case... but to heck with any one else.
D. Be at the Ass Holes cell door with your craftsman tool box begging for the chance to make them tell where your kid is....

Come On it's D aint it....

That is exactly why we have the judicial system and not the old system of the local Sheriff and his posse "hangin'em high." I also know that, if banning legal gun ownership in this country would save the life of my child, all of you (and me) would be on a fishing forum right now. I know that if banning all motorized vehicles would save the life of my wife, we would all be on a rodeo forum right now. The point is that we do what is right, not what is easy or expedient. How about if your teenage son or daughter, in a moment of stupidity (like we have all had), were to run over someone because they were driving drunk, or playing with the radio, or racing a buddy. Should they be put to death? Objectively, most of us would say "No". However, were you to ask the parents of the eight year old girl that was killed, the answer would almost always be "Yes".

Believe me, Sheldon, I understand your argument completely. It is an issue that we all must wrestle with at some point. My feeling is simply that if we give up being the good guy, if we give up being a moral beacon, then we deserve what we get. Kind of like what we are getting now. We on this forum love to toss around quotes from the patriots who founded our Republic, especially Franklin and Jefferson. However, if you pay close attention to what they are saying, they acknowledge the cost of liberty. We pay for our liberty, our freedom, in blood. Remember, it is the blood of tyrants and patriots that refresh the tree of liberty

That is why I say now that, if it means we get to keep the white hat (be the "good guys"), then we will pay for that privilege with the blood of our brothers, sisters, and especially our children. It has always been that way; it will always be that way. Doing the right thing is almost always harder than doing the easy thing. That said, I do understand your feelings on the issue, I just can't, as a liberty loving patriot, agree with them.

I do have to disagree with you on the Bush legacy, however. I think that Clinton, Bush, and Obumma will all be seen as usurpers of our liberties if/when we finally have to fight to restore them. You can judge a man 9or woman) by their sense of integrity. We have seen plenty of evidence that Clinton lied, Bush lied, and Obumma has lied. In fact, Obumma is beating the band considering the number of lies versus time in office.
:angry:
 
W

wolfhunter

Guest
Bush didn't do anymore damage to the Constitution than Lincoln did, and many think Abe was one of our best Presidents.
 

NDS

New member
Bush didn't do anymore damage to the Constitution than Lincoln did, and many think Abe was one of our best Presidents.

Let's see, winner in a 3 way race for President with less than 40% of the vote. His election was enough to cause the dissolution of the Republic. The resulting war killed more Americans than any other war in our history and his policies established the primacy of Federal law over the states in all affairs.

No wonder BHO likes to find inspiration in Lincoln.
 
I agree with you there.

Bush didn't do anymore damage to the Constitution than Lincoln did, and many think Abe was one of our best Presidents.

Well, I agree that he is less of a scoundrel than Lincoln. Still a scoundrel, though.:biggrin:

Let's see, winner in a 3 way race for President with less than 40% of the vote. His election was enough to cause the dissolution of the Republic. The resulting war killed more Americans than any other war in our history and his policies established the primacy of Federal law over the states in all affairs.

No wonder BHO likes to find inspiration in Lincoln.

I guess that everything is cyclical.
 

astute

New member
I'm curious!!! What has Sean Hanity or Rush Limbaugh said, or what opinions have they expressed SPECIFICALLY that you object to.:confused:
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,130
Messages
621,634
Members
74,103
Latest member
jawman
Top