Lucky... 0
Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteNo, I prefer that he be a professing Christian with the fruit of his behavior to back it up. That is much different from saying, "he must be a Christian."
In practice, it's really no difference at all.
If any, the difference is purely semantic: not what a president is, but what you prefer him NOT to be: anything that is openly and expressly not Christian.
Haha, I wrote that he was being semantic b4 I saw you wrote it too. Get offa my wavelength.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteNo, I prefer that he be a professing Christian with the fruit of his behavior to back it up. That is much different from saying, "he must be a Christian."
In practice, it's really no difference at all.
If any, the difference is purely semantic: not what a president is, but what you prefer him NOT to be: anything that is openly and expressly not Christian.
OK, I'll own that. It still don't mean squat.
As you were then, you demand a president be Christian and not a dirty faggot, as you would say, or a dirty faggot lover, perhaps. But then you wave the Constitution to-and-fro when it seems opportunisticly desireable.
I see we've come full circle.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo, I prefer that he be a professing Christian with the fruit of his behavior to back it up. That is much different from saying, "he must be a Christian."
In practice, it's really no difference at all.
If any, the difference is purely semantic: not what a president is, but what you prefer him NOT to be: anything that is openly and expressly not Christian.
OK, I'll own that. It still don't mean squat.
Sure it does. It means you're one of many who feel that anyone of a religion other than Christianity should not be president.
I don't know how far you can go with this line of reasoning. I have my preferences and ONE vote. If my ONE vote meant squat we would have different elected officials.
You should go back into obscurity in SC, you don't do the whole political thinmg real well, the tigers are eating you up and I don't mean that in a gay way, just to ensure you don't fall into spasms.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo, I prefer that he be a professing Christian with the fruit of his behavior to back it up. That is much different from saying, "he must be a Christian."
In practice, it's really no difference at all.
If any, the difference is purely semantic: not what a president is, but what you prefer him NOT to be: anything that is openly and expressly not Christian.
OK, I'll own that. It still don't mean squat.
Ok.
Now what on earth did your "Hitler card" mean?
It meant that the use of information and logic does not necessarily mean good leadership. That was ryoder's position statement.
HUH???? WTF? You neo-cons crack me up
Lucky... 0
QuoteI have now reached the point of diminishing returns for utils of satisfaction. Bye.
AKA got your ass handed to you. On a serious level, it must suck to not be able to express your views w/o feeling embarrassed. I don't mean that in a nasty way either.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteThere seems to be a whole bunch of people who don't want a christian president, but those same people somehow don't care if the president is muslim. Go figure.
Where on earth have you got that from?
Facts and logic.
News: http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Growing-Number-of-Americans-Say-Obama-is-a-Muslim.aspx
10% of Democrats believe his is muslim. Undoubtedly, many of those 10% disliked former president Bush and his belief in christian faith, and also voted for Obama over McCain.
Therefore, there seems to be a whole bunch of people who don't want a christian president, but those same people somehow don't care if the president is muslim. Go figure.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteAnd a vote for L is still a vote for R.
Quoteso there's no difference in the party ideologies? You're not that dense. I know. I've seen you recognize the differences.
Right, textbook Libertarians share fiscal right views and moral left views. Now, it plays out like this:
- Libertarians
RW fiscal ideals 90%
LW moral ideals 10%
Hope that clears it up.QuoteMostly I've seen libertarians running as republicans, not republicans running as libertarians. So it might be more accurate to say the opposite, that voting republican might mean you're voting for a libertarian candidate.
I think their nametag can be flipped around to display the other party, this is done for cost savings since they seem to switch so often
If you wanna sit there and claim the the RW isn't generlly concerned about killing social welfare; you're nuts. If you wanna sit there and claim the the Libertarian Party isn't generlly concerned about killing social welfare; you're nuts.
They have the same agenda: KILL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CUT TAXES. FRom there they differ a little.
Lucky... 0
Quote
No, because LWers aren't so ugly that they must hide behind a radio mike.Quote
You are right (in a small point) I dont hide behind a mike
But lefty's do lie in front of the people and the TV's by acting more conservative (as Obama did) to get elected and swing back to what they really are after the elections
Makes you proud I bet
WHat did he say to act conservative? If anything he acted too liberal to get elected. He promised:
- Get out of Iraq/AFG soon......he hasn't
- Promised HC in a single payer type sense.....he tried but settled for a bastardized version
- Promised to raise taxes.....he hasn't
So your attempt to make RW the desired version has fallen on its tits again. Liberalism was favored and he has fallen short of his liberal promises, not all his fault, but he has shifted right of his promises.
jakee 1,254
Quote10% of Democrats believe his is muslim. Undoubtedly, many of those 10% disliked former president Bush and his belief in christian faith, and also voted for Obama over McCain.
John, you're talking bollocks.
You have one statistic followed by several huge assumptions, which are also pretty wrong.
QuoteFacts and logic.
Nope, bollocks and more bollocks.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
rhaig 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd a vote for L is still a vote for R.
Quoteso there's no difference in the party ideologies? You're not that dense. I know. I've seen you recognize the differences.
Right, textbook Libertarians share fiscal right views and moral left views. Now, it plays out like this:
- Libertarians
RW fiscal ideals 90%
LW moral ideals 10%
Hope that clears it up.QuoteMostly I've seen libertarians running as republicans, not republicans running as libertarians. So it might be more accurate to say the opposite, that voting republican might mean you're voting for a libertarian candidate.
I think their nametag can be flipped around to display the other party, this is done for cost savings since they seem to switch so often
If you wanna sit there and claim the the RW isn't generlly concerned about killing social welfare; you're nuts. If you wanna sit there and claim the the Libertarian Party isn't generlly concerned about killing social welfare; you're nuts.
They have the same agenda: KILL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CUT TAXES. FRom there they differ a little.
That's what I love about you. a calm, non-emotional discussion...
oh wait... I can expect more of that from my wife. My mistake.--
Rob
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd a vote for L is still a vote for R.
Quoteso there's no difference in the party ideologies? You're not that dense. I know. I've seen you recognize the differences.
Right, textbook Libertarians share fiscal right views and moral left views. Now, it plays out like this:
- Libertarians
RW fiscal ideals 90%
LW moral ideals 10%
Hope that clears it up.QuoteMostly I've seen libertarians running as republicans, not republicans running as libertarians. So it might be more accurate to say the opposite, that voting republican might mean you're voting for a libertarian candidate.
I think their nametag can be flipped around to display the other party, this is done for cost savings since they seem to switch so often
If you wanna sit there and claim the the RW isn't generlly concerned about killing social welfare; you're nuts. If you wanna sit there and claim the the Libertarian Party isn't generlly concerned about killing social welfare; you're nuts.
They have the same agenda: KILL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CUT TAXES. FRom there they differ a little.
That's what I love about you. a calm, non-emotional discussion...
oh wait... I can expect more of that from my wife. My mistake.
Another neo-con unable to address the issue so he strawman's over to an ad hominem; typical.
So where's the emotion? All I'm saying is that righties, Libertarians wan to kill social programs, how is that emotional? Oh, I see, it isn't, but in order to not appear sociopathic you must avoid that argument and move on to me. Typical.
You don't know who I voted for and it is not any of your business. I resigned because there were too many Republican fags in political prominence.
You mean homosexual men forced to deny their natural urges based on a combination of Christian indoctrination and brainwashing?
Disgusting.
rhaig 0
Quote
Another neo-con unable to address the issue so he strawman's over to an ad hominem; typical.
So where's the emotion? All I'm saying is that righties, Libertarians wan to kill social programs, how is that emotional? Oh, I see, it isn't, but in order to not appear sociopathic you must avoid that argument and move on to me. Typical.
you were the one leaning on your shift key. That's where the emotion came across. it came across that I struck a nerve. Usually when I do you respond my calling me a neo-con (as you did here). Actually you use that as an insult a lot. It's kind of boring. You should come up with something new.
I don't see where appearing sociopathic fits in to this. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
--
Rob
Rob
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
Another neo-con unable to address the issue so he strawman's over to an ad hominem; typical.
So where's the emotion? All I'm saying is that righties, Libertarians wan to kill social programs, how is that emotional? Oh, I see, it isn't, but in order to not appear sociopathic you must avoid that argument and move on to me. Typical.Quoteyou were the one leaning on your shift key. That's where the emotion came across. it came across that I struck a nerve.
Shift key here, were there caps used? I scrolled back and didn't see it, it really isn't important enough to research. Trust me, you struck no nerve, if I used caps it was to draw emphasis to a point. I realize the opposite is true, I struck a nerve and you want to flip it - good luck.QuoteUsually when I do you respond my calling me a neo-con (as you did here). Actually you use that as an insult a lot. It's kind of boring. You should come up with something new.
Isit an insult? Altho the definition changes, the current one describes Reagan, your hero. It means a Dem truned Republican, cutting taxes, raising spending. I think it has teeth, where as neo-Dem never would because the Republican Party advertises solid, staunch beliefs and when they change it opposes their advertised protocol.QuoteI don't see where appearing sociopathic fits in to this. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
No, I think you don't understand it. Tell me, how little do you feel when you see human sufferring? Right, claim you feel much then elect garbage who cuts social benefits; get it? I'm using it in the context of lack of conscience; its defined meaning.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath
Now show me your definition. Or is it the same, you just feel a lot of conscience for the very rich.
rhaig 0
yeah... I had a full reply all typed up. but you're wasting my time. here... I'll save you the trouble of typing it:
Lucky: look... another neo-con that couldn't support his argument and had to walk away.
(yes, you've become that predictable... sad really)
Lucky: look... another neo-con that couldn't support his argument and had to walk away.
(yes, you've become that predictable... sad really)
--
Rob
Rob
OK, as you'll have it, Mr Semantics.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites