The stupidity of these people is matched only by their fervor

#76
#76
absolutely absurd. proof positive you don't remember the early 80s. carter was called far worse things than obama.
 
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
First, all Christians are obliged to spread the Good Word, as well.
Click to expand...
Spread the gospel through word and humble, holy living... Not through intimidation, gov't force, or physical violence.

Second, how big is this "significant number" of Muslims will affirm that they have a "mandate" to use violence to do so? And what is your source for that number?
Click to expand...
I don't have a number though I've seen estimates of 10% or more... Just like you don't have a number for the "vast majority" of Muslims who want to peacefully coexist.

The difference between the two of us is that your belief is far more a product of wishful thinking than mine. I wish those committed to violence and those who tolerate them under the banner of Islam was as small of a percentage as those acting under a Christian label.

At a minimum, the violent faction has enough agreement or fear from the moderate faction to operate out of almost every Muslim majority country in the world.

Third, are you not mixing a "mandate" to use violence to "spread" the Muslim faith with terrorists who are faithful in their religion and draw strength from that but who are motivated by politics?
Click to expand...

No. I am drawing it from what is said about Islamic fundamental doctrine by current Muslim leaders, former Muslims, and those who have studied it objectively from the outside in. I have actually read the verses myself. Have you?

Just ask yourself how large and well supported these networks have to be to place as many terror cells around the world as they do. You have the soldiers but behind them you have a vast logistical network and a much greater number who either from fear or assent allows the terrorists to operate.

And no, you don't have to start a spin off debate about how Christians handle several OT texts either. Suffice it to say that Christ said that He came to "fulfill the law". The OT economy of God dealing with mankind through an ambassador nation was replaced with God using individual believers united in congregations. The OT commands swords and shields. The NT gives us different weapons for spiritual warfare found in Eph 6.



BTW, Israel of the OT never had as an ambition or promise to conquer the whole world. God promised them a small part of the world smaller than most US states.
 
#78
#78
1. Since we all need to make sacrifices and do our fair share I vote that we shorten POTUS to POS to honor our current socialist president and save the environment.

2. Steele was fired for incredibly poor judgement and being classless (had nothing to do with color)

3. LG is about as extreme as any poster I have ever read on here.:yes:
 
#80
#80
lawgator1 said:
People didn't go around subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, insinuating that Carter was a secret agent for some other government, culture, or religion. No member of Congress said "You lie!" No one running for Senate spoke in terms of Second Amendment remedies to get rid of him or his party's congressional membership. No one questioned his patriotism or love of country nearly to the same degree we see with Obama.

You can cite to me till the cows come home that people picketed George Bush and called him names, but you cannot compare in any sense how he was treated and disrespected with the way that an actual organized and significantly numbered and financed outfit like the TP goes after Obama.
Click to expand...

"Death of a President (2006)"

if you don't think the anti-war protests weren't well funded, you're out of your mind, LG. BTW, where is Code Pink and Ramsey Clarke now? The wars are still going on and Gitmo is still open.

from the day W. took office he was under unrelenting assault by the left. Obama at least had a grace period of a couple of months, but once he, Pelosi and Reid rammed through a stimulus bill that has done more harm than good, the honeymoon was over.
 
#81
#81
lawgator1 said:
People didn't go around subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, insinuating that Carter was a secret agent for some other government, culture, or religion.
Click to expand...
No. The truth told about him was that he was a moron on foreign policy. He thought and still apparently thinks that you can always avoid war if you are willing to compromise and talk. IIRC, he has said that he didn't enter negotiations with anything off the table. Right now, he is willing to sacrifice Israel because he thinks the destruction of the peaceful will placate the aggressor.
No member of Congress said "You lie!"
Click to expand...
Maybe they didn't need to... Obama did lie about what Congressman Joe objected to.
No one questioned his patriotism or love of country nearly to the same degree we see with Obama.
Click to expand...
Carter's weakness and tendency to blame America helped make many voters "Reagan Democrats".

You can cite to me till the cows come home that people picketed George Bush and called him names, but you cannot compare in any sense how he was treated and disrespected with the way that an actual organized and significantly numbered and financed outfit like the TP goes after Obama.
Click to expand...
Um... yeah, it does. The MSM has FAR more power and influence when it comes to destroying politicians than the TP does... and they attacked Bush mercilessly on everything... DAILY.

But so what? The only thing wrong with the MSM doing that is they did while claiming to be objective journalists. This is a free country where we can raise our voices if we disagree.

Obama's REAL actions have brought condemnation and rejection by the TP.
 
#82
#82
LG, why can't you allow blacks to stand or fall based on merit and ideas rather than turning everything into racism?

The TP had black speakers and participants EVERYWHERE. They elected black congressmen in SC and FL. TPer's virtually parrot Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. They supported Starr Parker in CA.

Why can't you accept the fact that a very, very large percentage of Americans including the VAST majority of TP types have truly accept King's vision of judging men by the content of their character... we really have moved beyond race?

I am going to suggest an answer- it is because you are desperate to explain the failure of your ideals by any means other than looking at their merit.
 
#83
#83
You guys are cracking me up.

1) The fact that Obama is more popular in polls than another president, or group of presidents, is not evidence that some significant portion of the TP doesn't resent him for irrational reasons, including race, ethnic background, and things of that nature.

2) The fact that the TP publicly announces its platfrom as based solely on fiscal conservatism and a handful of social policy items does not mean either that it is their real agenda or that, even if it was, it doesn't go hand in hand with less laudable interests.

Indeed, whenever Obama says he has the goal of reducing the deficit, improving the economy, and adding jobs, you are immediately on here saying it is not his real agenda. You base your impression of his politics on his other remarks, the unprepared ones, his actions, the overall gestalt of what you think he is.

I am doing the same. And what's more,if it weren't on here for all to see, I suspect most of you would tell me over a beer that I might just have a point. :toast:
 
#84
#84
sjt18 said:
I am going to suggest an answer- it is because you are desperate to explain the failure of your ideals by any means other than looking at their merit.
Click to expand...

this is the answer. LG simply cannot understand why anyone would not be a fan of obama. the failure of his policies can all be explained away in his mind.
 
#85
#85
droski said:
this is the answer. LG simply cannot understand why anyone would not be a fan of obama. the failure of his policies can all be explained away in his mind.
Click to expand...


There are any number of policy decisions I don't like, and even more that I at least question.

But its the policies I am looking at.

Not the fact that his middle name is Hussein.
 
#86
#86
lawgator1 said:
You guys are cracking me up.

1) The fact that Obama is more popular in polls than another president, or group of presidents, is not evidence that some significant portion of the TP resents him for irrational reasons, including race, ethnic background, and things of that nature.

2) The fact that the TP publicly announces its platfrom as based solely on fiscal conservatism and a handful of social policy items does not mean either that it is their real agenda or that, even if it was, it doesn't go hand in hand with less laudable interests.

Indeed, whenever Obama says he has the goal of reducing the deficit, improving the economy, and adding jobs, you are immediately on here saying it is not his real agenda. You base your impression of his politics on his other remarks, the unprepared ones, his actions, the overall gestalt of what you think he is.

I am doing the same. And what's more,if it weren't on here for all to see, I suspect most of you would tell me over a beer that I might just have a point. :toast:
Click to expand...

you have unemployment at all time highs. if even a small % of the country disliked him soley because he was black don't you think his popularity ratings would be lower than reagan or carter?
 
#87
#87
The very act of rejecting "divine right" and the English throne was dangerously heretical enough. Openly stating religious views outside of the masses would have been suicidal to the revolution.

That isn't interpretation, that's reality.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#88
#88
lawgator1 said:
There are any number of policy decisions I don't like, and even more that I at least question.

But its the policies I am looking at.

Not the fact that his middle name is Hussein.
Click to expand...

and most TPs can't simply look at the policies like you can? you are an ass.
 
#89
#89
lawgator1 said:
You guys are cracking me up.

1) The fact that Obama is more popular in polls than another president, or group of presidents, is not evidence that some significant portion of the TP doesn't resent him for irrational reasons, including race, ethnic background, and things of that nature.

2) The fact that the TP publicly announces its platfrom as based solely on fiscal conservatism and a handful of social policy items does not mean either that it is their real agenda or that, even if it was, it doesn't go hand in hand with less laudable interests.

Indeed, whenever Obama says he has the goal of reducing the deficit, improving the economy, and adding jobs, you are immediately on here saying it is not his real agenda. You base your impression of his politics on his other remarks, the unprepared ones, his actions, the overall gestalt of what you think he is.

I am doing the same. And what's more,if it weren't on here for all to see, I suspect most of you would tell me over a beer that I might just have a point. :toast:
Click to expand...

so, you're saying that we'd admit over beers that we were actually racists at heart?

you're an a$$hole, and not the good kind that Denis Leary sings about.
 
#90
#90
lawgator1 said:
You guys are cracking me up.

1) The fact that Obama is more popular in polls than another president, or group of presidents, is not evidence that some significant portion of the TP doesn't resent him for irrational reasons, including race, ethnic background, and things of that nature.
Click to expand...

thanks Mr Sharpton

lawgator1 said:
Indeed, whenever Obama says he has the goal of reducing the deficit, improving the economy, and adding jobs, you are immediately on here saying it is not his real agenda. You base your impression of his politics on his other remarks, the unprepared ones, his actions, the overall gestalt of what you think he is.
Click to expand...

if it was his real agenda why was he not trying to implement it since day 1? He spent 2 years on a healthcare bill instead of addressing the other things you list.
 
#91
#91
say the tea parties true agenda is based on racism. publically they state their agenda is fiscal responsibility. therefore isn't it logical that a large % of their followers are TP members BECAUSE they like the message of fiscal responsibility? i.e. how do they get the memo that this is really about hating the blacks?
 
#92
#92
droski said:
say the tea parties true agenda is based on racism. publically they state their agenda is fiscal responsibility. therefore isn't it logical that a large % of their followers are TP members BECAUSE they like the message of fiscal responsibility? i.e. how do they get the memo that this is really about hating the blacks?
Click to expand...


Who says they are mutually exclusive?
 
#93
#93
so if you like fiscal responsibility you have a good chance of being a racist? not seeing the connection.
 
#97
#97
droski said:
you do realize mutually exclusive means totally independent of one another right?
Click to expand...


No, mutually exclusive means you cannot have both at the same time. For some TPers it is all about fiscal conservatism. For some its all about either race or irrational fears that he a secret agent. For some its a mix.
 
#98
#98
lawgator1 said:
No, mutually exclusive means you cannot have both at the same time. For some TPers it is all about fiscal conservatism. For some its all about either race or irrational fears that he a secret agent. For some its a mix.
Click to expand...

your continuous harping on the minute % who would be concerned with race is absolutely ridiculous. The vast majority are concerned with his crazy policies that are helping to bankrupt this country. Please tell me again how he is working to cut spending and decrease the deficit
 
#99
#99
lawgator1 said:
No, mutually exclusive means you cannot have both at the same time. For some TPers it is all about fiscal conservatism. For some its all about either race or irrational fears that he a secret agent. For some its a mix.
Click to expand...

ok, counselor, you just contradicted yourself.

We're still waiting for you to prove racism is a motivating factor for any segment of the Tea Party.
 
#100
#100
lawgator1 said:
No, mutually exclusive means you cannot have both at the same time. For some TPers it is all about fiscal conservatism. For some its all about either race or irrational fears that he a secret agent. For some its a mix.
Click to expand...

Mutually exclusive events - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In logic, two mutually exclusive propositions are propositions that logically cannot both be true. Another term for mutually exclusive is "disjoint." To say that more than two propositions are mutually exclusive may, depending on context mean that no two of them can both be true, or only that they cannot all be true. The term pairwise mutually exclusive always means no two of them can both be true.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top