Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Favourite President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yo I heard this is the place to **** off TX...so how do we do this?

do I have to stick to the topic or can I all out open warfare kinda **** him off?
 

Saw a picture of him recently wearing his karate outfit, complete with black belt.

Didn't look like someone you'd want to mess with.
 
TX Bill said:
Wizbang

Click on link above and read the entry "Obama and Genocide."

Intelligent indeed. Obama has no business being a Senator much less POTUS but I digress.

I'm going to say something here that will no doubt offend a great many of you but here it goes.

The Democrats in our country have no moral compass. To them, morals are what you make them. That "truth" is your own truth and everyone has their own "truths." Moral Relativism at it's best.

(For the record, we've got some of the same on our side of aisle as well.)





Why is it that Democrats staunchly support such immoral ideas such as:
  • Pro Abortion
  • Homosexual Marriage
  • Illegal Immigration
Oh sure Neb, they're "highly articulate and educated people" but that really guarantees nothing now does it? Since I've already proclamed on this board in the past that I'm a Christian, I guess I could be accused of being "closed minded" when the reality is that I'm following my moral beliefs. The Democrats directly contradict what I believe on a moral basis. You asked if I dislike liberals. Not really. I dislike the liberal thought process and belief system.

So they could have the greatest candidate for President in the world. Someone who could check all the boxes that are important for me in terms of foreign policy, the domestic economy, etc... and I still couldn't vote for them as they'd support ideas that I find morally reprehensible.


I find it ironic that liberals in our country loudly proclaim "Tolerance, tolerance !!!" EXCEPT when it comes to tolerance of opposing ideas. Then they do everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) in their power to shut down opposing views. Interesting that you never see Republicans doing that.

So yes, I automatically assume the worst about Democrats because they've shown time and time and time again to want what's worst for this country. Why you ask? Because anything that would be bad for our country would be good for them. I'm still waiting for John Kerry's "plan" to make our country better.

(For the record, he never revealed his "plan" just like he never revealed his military record that he said he'd disclose.)

I'm eagerly awaiting an Obama Presidency where he'll appoint liberal judges to our Supreme Court who'll view the U.S. Consitution as a "living, breathing document" vs. exactly how it's written. In otherwords. We'll see law made from the bench vs. voted on by the people. Not exactly how our founding fathers intended our judiciary to act. Making law from the bench vs. interpreting law from the bench? I'm having a laugh.

Since liberal ideas have constantly failed in the court of popular opinion (i.e. the voting process), the liberals know the only way they'll get their unpopular positions made into law is by bypassing the will of the people and having judges make it into law. I don't care whether you're liberal or conservative, that ought to upset you greatly if you live in a free society.

Republicans run on election platforms of what they can do for the country and what can people do for themselves. Actionable ideas.

Perfect? No. Actionable and designed to make life better for others? Yes. Designed to make people think and work for themselves vs. looking to gov't for a handout? Yes.

The Democratic platforms over the past two elections have been, "We aren't Republicans so vote for us." Even prominent Democrats have stated that the the party needs to come up with something that the country can sink it's teeth into and believe in. Unfortunately, they've haven't done so and it continues right up on through Obama and his campaign of "McCain would just be Bush all over again." Seriously. That's his mantra and campaign in a nutshell. He hasn't brought anything original to the table and certainly nothing that he could draw off of his extensive experience as a community organizer and one term Senator.

I noticed that no one addressed my comment/question about what JFK would think about today's Democratic party. I'll answer it then. It looks nothing like the party he was a part of in the 60's. Nothing at all. It's been completely hijacked by the left wing activists in our country. My wife's step mother grew up Democrat but doesn't agree with much of anything the Democrats stand for these days.

Lastly, yes, I have a big disdain for liberals and liberal beliefs. Why you ask? Simple.

List three liberal ideals that have made this world a better place:

1)
2)
3)

(Communism? Marxism? Socialism? Big Government? Pro Choice? Speech Codes? Affirmative Action? Let's keep looking....)

The fact is that liberal ideals, when applied to real world issues, continue to fail over and over and over again.

I don't have all the answers and no one does. Each of us here has a set of beliefs that we subscribe to. We aren't robots and we are all given a choice of how to live our lives and what we choose to place our faith in and what we choose to dismiss.

I'll close with one of my favorite quotes by Churchill:

"If you're twenty and aren't liberal, you have no heart. If you're forty and aren't conservative, you have no brain."

(I understand that what is "liberal" in England doesn't necessarily equate to what is "liberal" in the USA so perhaps there's some "lost in translation" issues here that I'm not aware of.)
Click to expand...

Never followed the US politics that closely, but comparing it with my political preference here in Holland, I would have to class myself as a republican, I guess.

































Escapes the wrath of TX Bill.:P
 
Dylan said:
The problem with Obama is there is 'the left', then there is 'the far left' and then somewhere past that there is Barak Obama.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that, Dylan, or is that just internet exaggeration?

Because I think just about every European here would find those opinions incredible. Obama, if you were to put him on the political scale to compare to European politicians, would be mildly to the right of David Cameron. The left, let alone the far left, hasn't been seen on these shores since it was taken out and hooded and shot in the back of the head by Blair's henchmen on a dark night in the 90s.
 

Bill: I've no problem with your religious beliefs or political beliefs. If you think you're onto a good thing, then power to you. Nonetheless (here it comes), you need to make space for those of us that believe we also have a moral compass, but differ from your approach to life, love and politics.

You mention the immorality of abortion and homosexual marriage in your post. Now unless you've got direct proof that God, our saviour, our salvation, has dictated that these are wrong, then I fail to understand what gives you the right to proclaim they're immoral. I can get my head around there being an issue with abortion. Now, this is not because I feel that God has deemed all human existence precious, but because I'm concerned about sentient creatures suffering. I've got a feeling that late-stage abortions do indeed see basic-sentient creatures having a short but unpleasant time. But then that's it, life is wiped out. I've no reason to believe that this fetus deserves any more moral consideration than a far more advanced cow or pig. The latter really suffer at our hands, the human fetus suffers momentarily and at that, it doesn't even have the capability to feel fear. You might want to deny that, so prove me wrong. Show me a study, published in a reputable scientific journal, that a fetus aged less than, say, 4 months, has a concept of fear, or indeed has a concept of self.

Regarding homosexual marriage. Okay, I'll nail my colours to the mast and profess myself to be heterosexual male with no inclination to enter carnal relations with another man. So, I feel I'm approaching this from a reasonably unbiased viewpoint. I've no culturally derived religious hangups to tell me what I feel about another person's desire to enter a same-sex marriage. What I do know is that I have known homosexual men and women. Some happened to be nice, some not so nice. What I found, though, was that this is the way they are. There's no changing to heterosexuality for them. They're gay and want to be accepted by us as that. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Two consenting adults finding love and companionship is something to be cherished, particularly if the alternative to that love is lonliness, isolation and social exclusion. One thing I want to add is that some of clergy in the UK, and certainly in liberal Denmark, is telling us a different story about God and homosexuality. They're saying that the Lord loves us, loves love and adores life-long commitments.

Back to Obama. You point out that he is promoting genocide by wishing troops withdraw from Iraq. Let's turn this back on the Bush regime. Here is my charge: Bush allowed on his watch for troops to invade a sovereign state on the understanding that weapons of mass destruction were being prepared there. It transpires that this evidence is really very, very, very poor. Not only is it poor, it starts to look like every rule on what counts as permissible in presenting evidence to, say, a court or an academic journal, was broken. So your charge of promoting genocide can be laid right back at the Bush government. And in my case, genocide has occurred. Perhaps not by the American or British military, but due to the aftermath of a very poorly worked out invasion. Your charge against Obama isn't proved because it can't be. You're dealing with an inference, not a fact of the matter. And just for the record, I supported the war. Not because of Bush or Blair or God, merely because I thought the regime was sick, bitter and nasty. It was a murderous regime and deserved nothing but contempt. For the sake of humanity, it had to go, assuming there was an adequate plan to deal with the aftermath. In this case, the plan sucked.

I hope you can get past my disagreement. It's a sad state of affairs that when individuals feel they need to nail colours to a mast, all sorts of falling out occurs. I'm past that sort of thing. I believe in the brotherhood of man, and accept all sort of different opinions to mine. The only thing I cannot tolerate is moral relativism. I'm sure you'll agree on that with me. But relativism is owned by the pseudo-liberal, not the liberalism that I know and practice.

All the best to you and yours (y)
 
Oh, and in answer to your question, TXBill:

List three liberal ideals that have made this world a better place:

1) Universal suffrage
2) State provision of education regardless of background
3) State provision of health care regardless of background

(Please note that I'm referring to Europe and not America since I'm not sure that all - or even any - of those three of apply there.)
 
Sorry, the point of the Obama commentary was that he vacillates on subjects so often that we really don't know where he stands on issues. Not that he advocates something such as genocide. No one I know would advocate something as abhorrent as genocide. Not even Obama. The question is, how would he handle such an issue? I don't think he really even knows. Right now, he's saying whatever fits in order to get elected.

You asked for direct proof on God and homosexuality:

1 Corinthians 6:9
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 18:22
Deuteronomy 23:17

Now, obviously this won't be "direct proof" to anyone who doesn't believe as I do that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. But if one does, then it really doesn't get any more direct than this.

By the way. I do not "hate" or "discriminate" against homosexuals. I believe there's no place for that sort of intolerance in our society. It's the act or behavior that I find immoral. The saying "love the sinner, hate the sin" means just that. We are all sinners (Rom 3:23).

But when the Democrats promote and actively rally around the gay marriage issue, then yes, I have a big problem with it. Again, there are those pesky moral beliefs of mine.

Lastly, I won't have any problem at all regarding our "disagreement." I prefer to look at it as an exchange of viewpoints. Nothing I'm going to say is going to change your mind (not that I'm trying to) on the subject. We're just having a friendly exchange of ideas...




...now if you want to tell me that Manny Fernandes is poor, then it's ON !!!

:lol:
 
atrottel said:
Oh, and in answer to your question, TXBill:

List three liberal ideals that have made this world a better place:

1) Universal suffrage
2) State provision of education regardless of background
3) State provision of health care regardless of background

(Please note that I'm referring to Europe and not America since I'm not sure that all - or even any - of those three of apply there.)
Click to expand...


Universal Sufferage. A product of a democratic and free society. I wouldn't attribute that to liberals or conservatives.

State provision of education regardless of background. Don't know if I'd call that liberal except maybe in a classic sense. I don't know of anyone on the right that feels that someone should be denied an education if they want one but a can't get one due to costs. Obviously we have a student loan program here in the States. The beauty of the program though is that the student has to pay the loan off after getting a job. That's assuming they don't qualify for any sort of academic or athletic financial aid. Actually, a lot of liberals would love this in that if you're from a wealthy family, there's a good chance that you won't qualify for a loan or financial aid.

State provision of healthcare regardless of background? If you're referring to socialized medicine, that's made medical coverage worse in Europe, not better. As stated in a previous discussion, no one in the USA can be turned down for health coverage due to inability to pay. I can however cite instance after instance of the many problems of socialized medicine. Our medical program isn't perfect but I can guarantee you it's better than what's on tap in Europe or Canada.
 
Well, you did say "ideals" and I was referring to them in an historic sense where "conservatives" were against extension of the franchise at the start of the 20th century and the introduction of the Attlee/Bevan policies in the post-war period (which resulted, amongst other things, in the NHS and compulsory education until the age of 15).

/* enter BruceWayne right */
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top