Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Take_a_knee: pics?

Scott he is lee24.... nuff said

Scott he is lee24.... nuff said

Couldn't agree with you more Travis. Really tired of paying for somebody else's demon spawn.

Yeah. In the world of RobJordan it makes sense for the guy that isn't married (meaning he can't possibly burden the family courts or CSED) and has no kids (so he can't possibly benefit from the public school system) to receive ZERO tax breaks.

Travis

I've oft times wondered why folks from California put California in the Loc: block. As if we couldn't tell, sans Sal.

What special kind of moron associates (and on that basis) condemns a conservative defense of a most fundamental conservative concept (the natural family) on the basis that someone's GPS coordinates happen to be a place on a map knowns as Kalifornia? What special kind of idiot employs that kind of "logic"??

This was in Balad.

Its Jordan. How ironic that you, a father of two, (is it?), who claims to be married, (and believe me, we're starting to wonder!) conceives of the family as parasitic, as public burden, rather than a benefit. That can only come from your experience with family, derived, I presume from your experience with your parents, siblings and your own wife and children. Were all of them parasites sucking off the system? On the face of your sweeping generalization and condemnation of the family, apparently so!

My experience with family (and the experience of every society in the known history of the world) is just the opposite of yours: it is in the family proper---a family with a mother and father at its head---that boys are most likely to learn a proper respect for womanhood, to learn how to become men, to learn the moral virtues (including the virtues of self-discipline, frugality, selflessness and hard work) that are so essential for individual success and happiness and therewith, societal success and happiness. It is in broken families---families of divorced women and in which there is no male role model ("families" in which there really is no family, in the proper meaning of the word) where children tend to become parasitic; where social welfare agencies and schools become, of necessity, substitutes for absent parents, lousy parents or no parents at all. That's why the subjects of Charles Murray's great book "Losing Ground" made such a point of emphasizing the tragic consequence of welfare driving men from the home and thereby impoverishing families, creating a permanent underclass and creating generations of juvenile delinquent males who, without a proper male role model, grow to rape, steal, pillage and murder. All of which militates strongly in favor of ever larger and more intrusive government, not less. Out of wedlocks births in the black family are what, close to 70%. It didn't use to be this way. And white "families" are hot on the heels of blacks.

The point is that the destruction of the American family mirrors the increased demand for social welfare and the concomitant massive increase in government. especially since the 60s. This is the primary reason why Marx (like you) so strongly desired the destruction of the heterosexual, two parent family. It was the family (the family according to nature) that was a bulwark against dependence on government and Marx wanted individuals to look first to the government for support, not themselves or their families. It is indisputable that the breakdown of the family increases dependence on government. That is why the Founders, who believed in limited government, favored the institution of the family as "that seminary upon which the nation ultimately depends for its manners as well as its numbers." They wanted a citizenry whose "needs" were consonant with limited government, not a nanny state.

Marxism demands exactly the opposite and as anyone with the IQ of an ant can comprehend, the neo-Marxian dream for the destruction of the natural family has been taken up by the sodomy rights movement, which is now the driving force toward the realization of this pivotal Marxian goal. The more honest proponents of the political agenda of the homosexual rights movement (I posted a video link several months ago) are outspoken and very candid that marriage equality is not the goal. The goal is the destruction of marriage altogether. The logic is simple: by having a public policy that uncouples marriage from its natural ends (procreation and the good rearing of the young into responsible adults) and re-conceptualizing marriage as purely a contractual relationship based on solely on the transient and emotional needs of adults, "natural" marriage will simply become one of any number of acceptable alternate arrangements, one no more superior than the other. And given that maintaining a natural marriage---an arrangement that primarily benefits children---is difficult under the best circumstances, why bother? Once marriage is detached from its natural purposes and re-conceptualized as whatever arrangement serves the pleasure of consenting adults, then the needs of children are, by definition, no longer a consideration and any arrangement between two adults which places the needs of children first (such as natural marriage) is just one alternative among many, neither legally or intrinsically morally superior to any other arrangement. The intended consequence will be a massive upswing in demands for governmental intervention (more prisons, more social workers, more welfare), not less. That is their endgame. By removing parents and the home as the primary source of emotional, physical and psychological sustenance for children (as the primary source of moral education) and replacing parents and the home with the State, Leftism (neo-Marxism) can then mold children into the model citizens (the "new men") that Marxism hopes to create.

The reason government policy favors heterosexual marriage (and even at that, it barely does so and BTW, the withdrawal of preference for natural marriage has coincided tightly with its destruction and a corresponding increase in the demand for social service and governmental intervention) is because nature, reason and experience all show that a society comprised of adults raised in homes presided over by two loving, parents (each of whom makes a special contribution to the well being of their children by virtue of their [the parents'] distinct and different genders, is the society most likely to be the least dependent on other families---on other people (i.e., least dependent on the government) for its basic, fundamental needs. This is why limited government presupposes a society that inculcates the moral virtues in its citizens. Children who are raised to work hard, not to steal, not to lie, not to cheat, to save their money, to respect the rights of others, etc., etc. grow into adults who are far less likely to darken the courthouse door or the door of the welfare agency.

It is rather stunning is it not, that on this most fundamental question, a moderator on this board (who, not coincidentally I would argue, is constantly soliciting other men to "suck his cock") has more in common with Karl Marx than with George Washington?

Jordan

What special kind of moron associates (and on that basis) condemns a conservative defense of a most fundamental conservative concept (the natural family) on the basis that someone's GPS coordinates happen to be a place on a map knowns as Kalifornia? What special kind of idiot employs that kind of "logic"??

A functional alcoholic with myopic vision along with delusions that his is the only way.

Sweet!


It's been Rez grade fireworks EVERY night here for the last month or so. Tonight will be great for sure.

The locals are very enthusiastic about firecrackers!

Big skyrockets here tonight! I don't know if we'll have any firecrackers left over after the boy gets done blowing up all the gopher holes around here today.