Trump the chump

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Here's why Boxie is so funny. Yesterday he tells me he does his part because he votes.

Today, he questions my right to express my opinion (because it differs from his) even though I vote.

Who's the one oriented towards communism again?

The lies roll off your lips like water off a duck's back, don't they? I never questioned your right to express your political opinions on the basis of your votes. But I do question your right on the basis of the connection you made between my opinion of Obama and Liberals and that poll. (Hint: Poll does not = voting.)

And I never said or implied that one shouldn't speak his mind on political issues just because he doesn't actively participate in the process the way you think people should. Therefore, that makes YOU the hypocrite for attempting a lame defense of Obama and/or liberals even though, like me, you would have had to have answered "no" in that poll! (Unless, of course, you lied or didn't participate in the poll.)

As I said, as soon as you enter a discussion you IMMEDIATELY discredit your side. And if you think the conservatives of the board disagree, you're in even more denial than I give you credit for.

Let me tell you something about conservatives and liberals. Both groups have this in common: Both are citizens of the world and both are worldly-minded. And that makes both, generally, not friendly toward Christians because a true Christian is neither of the above.

You're way out of your league here. You don't even know what you are saying anymore. You just have to say something.

Yeah, okay. Meanwhile, show me how I'm a hypocrite. Show me how my political convictions contradict my conduct. I'm still waiting.

And I'm still waiting for you to produce the direct question which I dodged in this thread.

And then after you tackle those two, explain to me what the point was to your initial post. Your duplicity is showing badly. In one breath you were amused about my opinion of Obama and libs because I don't actively support the political process; but then in the next exhale you tell us that you really weren't saying that one "must" participate in the political process in order to make statements about it. So then...why were you amused? What was your point to that stupid post?

And I'm the one with mental problems?

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Sorry to butt in, but in post 42 he said that Hoss goes to 'any lengths' to support Obama and then, even though it was in his handwriting, he denies it. He said it, there's proof he said it, why not just own it?

That's not quite what he said. He was referring to any lengths verbally re: support for Obama.

[boxcar]

And one other thing before I forget it, Hossy: I never said that I didn't have an interest in national or geopolitics. I do have a general interest because politics will play a huge role in these end times, as will religion. So, from a Christian perspective, I do follow politics fairly closely. But this doesn't logically imply or translate into participation in a political process that I personally find repugnantly corrupt.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

That's not quite what he said. He was referring to any lengths verbally re: support for Obama.

Stilly doesn't read too swell either. Not only did I say "verbally" but I did an include an "or" in my statement.

And just think: All these dumb-downed libs, who can't even read, will get to vote in about 10 days.

Boxcar

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Sorry Dahoss9698 I saw that he had directed you to go back to a Post and I saw what you wrote after.
I did not go back to the post and see whether or not I agreed with you or him.
My comment was simply directed towards your concern that he was ill-equipped, that's all.

So you were blindly defending him without even looking at why. Glad we agree.

[Dahoss9698]

How do you have a discussion with a crazy person?

Don't worry Boxie, it's rhetorical, so don't worry about avoiding it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Wagergirl

Most of Boxcar's posts are probably religious in nature. At least the ones that I have read.

Hmm...not true. But you could be perceiving that way because of my Christian worldview. I view everything in the world through the lens of scripture, including politics.

Boxcar

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Let me tell you something about conservatives and liberals. Both groups have this in common: Both are citizens of the world and both are worldly-minded. And that makes both, generally, not friendly toward Christians because a true Christian is neither of the above.
Boxcar

A true Christian is someone who recognizes that they sin (i.e. fall short of GOD's standard), and has accepted Jesus Christ so that they can be held blameless before GOD at the time of judgement.

News flash to boxcar ---> YOU are worldly-minded, despite all your self-determination to be otherwise. It is impossible for anyone of us to become "sinless" as long as we live in these "corrupted" human bodies of ours. (GOD still commands us to "strive" for the highest standard though. ).

A number of your posts lack respect for others, flavored with negative personal comments and a "beat it over their heads" mentality. No wonder your approach is not successful, as people see this as hypocritical.

[Wagergirl]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hmm...not true. But you could be perceiving that way because of my Christian worldview. I view everything in the world through the lens of scripture, including politics.

Boxcar

I did quantify that with "at least the ones I have read" which have been in the religious thread.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

How do you have a discussion with a crazy person?

Is that why you can't answer the three questions in 62 -- because you're nuttier than an over-baked fruit cake? Not quite up to the task, are you?

Don't worry Boxie, it's rhetorical, so don't worry about avoiding it.

You need to move you're 'puter out of the Fringe typewriter room and quit gazing into the large round object to your right.

Boxcar
P.S. The gal in the pic is the evil Olivia. How appropriate: The perfect alter ego for you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Track Collector

A true Christian is someone who recognizes that they sin (i.e. fall short of GOD's standard), and has accepted Jesus Christ so that they can be held blameless before GOD at the time of judgement.

News flash to boxcar ---> YOU are worldly-minded, despite all your self-determination to be otherwise. It is impossible for anyone of us to become "sinless" as long as we live in these "corrupted" human bodies of ours. (GOD still commands us to "strive" for the highest standard though. ).

A number of your posts lack respect for others, flavored with negative personal comments and a "beat it over their heads" mentality. No wonder your approach is not successful, as people see this as hypocritical.

Thanks for the newsflash. I have filed it away in its appropriate place.

Boxcar

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Let me tell you something about conservatives and liberals. Both groups have this in common: Both are citizens of the world and both are worldly-minded. And that makes both, generally, not friendly toward Christians because a true Christian is neither of the above.

Which is why a true Christian has no business being in the business of governing. This goes for true believers of all faiths.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Wagergirl

I did quantify that with "at least the ones I have read" which have been in the religious thread.

Oh...well that changes everything since you didn't originally include the qualifying phrase "which have been in the religious thread". I probably need to fill up on more coffee to get my psychic abilities more fully energized. Sorry 'bout that.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Which is why a true Christian has no business being in the business of governing. This goes for true believers of all faiths.

But everyone is a believer in something. Everyone sports [/b]faith[/b] in something or someone. Everyone [/b]trusts[/b] in some philosophical or religious system. So even if you were to get a totally godless Secular Humanist in government, the Supreme Court has already ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion. Therefore, by you standard, no one would be qualified to govern.

Boxcar

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Is that why you can't answer the three questions in 62 -- because you're nuttier than an over-baked fruit cake? Not quite up to the task, are you?

I don't see any questions in post 62. Do you?

But I have answered most of your questions. The only one I haven't answered is you asking me what direct question you avoided in this thread.

Well, i never said you did. I said you have a long history of avoiding them, so for you to question me for not (even though I did) was hypocritical of you (again).

Which is precisely what I am talking about. You seem to engage in conversations with the voices in your head instead of what people are actually saying. I don't know if it's because you have reading comprehension issues, or what. But try this. When reading a post...actually read it. don't try and find a way to disagree with it before you read it and understand it.

And if you don't understand a post.....ask. I'll be more than happy to explain myself further since you seem to be struggling with basic concepts.