Forum Tools
Forums |  Register |  Login |  My Profile |  Inbox |  Address Book |  My Subscription |  My Forums 

Photo Gallery |  Member List |  Search |  Calendars |  FAQ |  TOS |  Disclaimer |  Ticket List |  Log Out | 

RE: The liberals

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events >> RE: The liberals
Jump to post #:
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The liberals - 10/11/2008 3:19:06 PM   
Jhud


Posts: 7770
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
quote:

Which is, in a nutshell, the point really isn't it? We are on a CHRISTIAN message board - aren't we supposed to be a little different than the world?

Isn't our hallmark supposed to be love-in all things? Faith hope and love, the greatest of these is love-if I have not love, I am a clanging cymbol-LOVE-isn't that supposed to be the name of the game?

The only thing I hate is that it has to be pointed out that there really is no need to hate in any form-disagree (on matter of policy, etc.), sure, but HATE-it's the opposite of LOVE, the thing we ALL as Christians are supposed to have regardless of how we believe.



So I take it you are a Coke drinker?

_____________________________

Jack

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
Post #: 51
RE: The liberals - 10/11/2008 7:36:08 PM   
LoyalGypsy


Posts: 2458
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Which is, in a nutshell, the point really isn't it? We are on a CHRISTIAN message board - aren't we supposed to be a little different than the world?

Isn't our hallmark supposed to be love-in all things? Faith hope and love, the greatest of these is love-if I have not love, I am a clanging cymbol-LOVE-isn't that supposed to be the name of the game?

The only thing I hate is that it has to be pointed out that there really is no need to hate in any form-disagree (on matter of policy, etc.), sure, but HATE-it's the opposite of LOVE, the thing we ALL as Christians are supposed to have regardless of how we believe.



So I take it you are a Coke drinker?



Heb 12:6 - Show Context
For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives."

quote:

sure, but HATE-it's the opposite of LOVE


That would be true but Gods Love is not the same as mans love, now if God was able to hate, then you have a point ...but...it is written

2 Co 5:21 - Show Context
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
1 Jo 3:5 - Show Context
And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, "and"... in Him "there is no sin.

HATE-it's the opposite of LOVE is mans Idea.

Ps 5:5 - Show Context
The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.

LG

_____________________________

Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
Post #: 52
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 9:40:50 AM   
huangshan

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

My question was for whoever wanted to answer it.

I asked because that is how I see many but not all on the left. Most particularly the leadership on the left.


It's begging the question either way. 'Why do so many conservative racists hide behind code words like "minorities"?'

I can see some Marxism in universities (typically in fields like sociology), and maybe some at the local level, but considering Marxism tends to die out when it's approached by even a thimblefull of reality, I see almost no evidence for it in leadership positions in politics. The necessity of dealing with non-ideologues or ideologues of a different stripe is simply too prevalent, the consistent bombardment of real-world problems is simply too fierce. In all likelihood, the leadership, those with the most responsibility, they're probably the least Marxist of anyone, but ironically the most likely to be criticized for it because of their high profile.

You may simply be talking about redistribution of wealth, and policies associated with it. One need not be a Marxist to find redistributive programs desirable.
Post #: 53
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 9:58:10 AM   
ljmac

 

Posts: 1370
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
Liberals:
- Attack our soldiers and defend terrorists
- Fight to remove the cross from public display unless it's in a jar of urine
- Taught children to think oral sex isn't sex
- Believe in equality as long as long as white people have less of it
- Respect the Constitution that's in their heads, but hate the one written on paper
- Are charitable with other people's money, not their own
- Think putting to death convicted killers is bad, but paying baby killers is good
- Think marriage is out of fashion unless it's between sodomites
- Think owning a gun should be illegal, but stabbing a baby in the skull should be legal

They have their sick tendencies, but BHO topped them all when he argued that it is unconstitutional to provide life saving care to a baby that survived an abortion.
Post #: 54
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 10:35:11 AM   
iluvatar


Posts: 1964
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

Liberals:
- Attack our soldiers and defend terrorists



If that's the case, then:

Conservatives - Abuse soldiers and their families, taking for granted their willing sacrifice by taking a hawkish foreign policy stance, eschewing diplomacy, prematurely jumping into a war, and mismanaging it once we're in there.

But then, neither of those is completely accurate, are they?

-Dan.

_____________________________

Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
Post #: 55
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 10:39:49 AM   
LivingParadox


Posts: 819
Joined: 2/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

Liberals:
- Attack our soldiers and defend terrorists
- Fight to remove the cross from public display unless it's in a jar of urine
- Taught children to think oral sex isn't sex
- Believe in equality as long as long as white people have less of it
- Respect the Constitution that's in their heads, but hate the one written on paper
- Are charitable with other people's money, not their own
- Think putting to death convicted killers is bad, but paying baby killers is good
- Think marriage is out of fashion unless it's between sodomites
- Think owning a gun should be illegal, but stabbing a baby in the skull should be legal

They have their sick tendencies, but BHO topped them all when he argued that it is unconstitutional to provide life saving care to a baby that survived an abortion.


And when called on these issues ...you hear "all you do is attack me". These are REAL issues.
Post #: 56
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 12:14:24 PM   
Marcus.


Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: huangshan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

My question was for whoever wanted to answer it.

I asked because that is how I see many but not all on the left. Most particularly the leadership on the left.


It's begging the question either way. 'Why do so many conservative racists hide behind code words like "minorities"?'

I can see some Marxism in universities (typically in fields like sociology), and maybe some at the local level, but considering Marxism tends to die out when it's approached by even a thimblefull of reality, I see almost no evidence for it in leadership positions in politics. The necessity of dealing with non-ideologues or ideologues of a different stripe is simply too prevalent, the consistent bombardment of real-world problems is simply too fierce. In all likelihood, the leadership, those with the most responsibility, they're probably the least Marxist of anyone, but ironically the most likely to be criticized for it because of their high profile.

You may simply be talking about redistribution of wealth, and policies associated with it. One need not be a Marxist to find redistributive programs desirable.


That's only part of it. It is Christian to give or help out people voluntarily. It isn't Christian to force it, yet the left seems to think forced charity is good and voluntary is bad. When we have the inevitable thread on charitable giving, we see numbers that show the right gives more out of pocket than the left. Yet I am left with the impression, that the left thinks the social programs paid for by our taxes are their charitable giving. If I didn't pay so much in taxes I could give to some more charitable groups I agree with. Instead of ones I abhor through my taxes.

Talk of our rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights as being outlandish or obviously having limits does not sound American to me. Our rights are inalienable, not limited or by the leave of the government as in the rest of the world. I won't support anyone who talks in that manner about our rights. The more I read of our founding, the more our current approach not only strikes me as wrong but it strikes me as treasonous. We are unique among countries, individual rights are at the center of that along with the checks and balances on government. The countries that have collective rights strip away any notion of individual rights. Collective rights are only exercised by those governments and not citizens. But then again those countries don't have citizens but rather subjects.

That is another thing that is being sidestepped, checks and balances. Since 9-11 our pols seem to be myopic in the creation of these laws and government departments that have few to no checks against abuse or injustice.

Some other areas that strike me as either un-American or un-Christian, that the left loves to push as if they doing good.

Abortion (it is human life from conception until death) kills a child. It is infanticide/murder. I'm sick of the semantics subterfuge. The left should just be honest and admit they are killing children. Enough with the euphemisms. Why is there any debate over this not being murder? Could I use the privacy argument over killing an adult and get away with it? I don't think so. Besides don't they realize God will see through all the haze and subterfuges and hold them accountable as murderers or do they not really believe in Him?

Disarming the citizenry. The need to be able to arm yourself for self defense is as present as it ever was. The reason for the Second Amendment is to be the final check and balance against our own government. Go back and read Jefferson, mason, Adams, et, al. Tyranny is what most governments either start out as or wind up becoming. I will never give up my weapons. Only someone with designs on changing our government against the wishes of the citizens ever need fear the armed citizen. Disarming the law abiding hurts only the law abiding and makes criminals lives easier. It is the tool of the despot. All the genocides of the last century were at the hands of the government or para-government organizations. Most started with disarming their citizens.

Pushing public belief in God to the closest and revising our traditions as if they were something wrong and in need of throwing out. You don't see this very much in other countries. I do not believe the arguments that our beliefs and historic traditions are bad. These are what is part of our society. The better part at that. The push to change most of the holidays to these new euphemistic holidays is a slap in the face. I read an ACLU lawyers comments after the passage of Colorado Bill ?200. She said religious belief was fine in private but had no place in the public discourse. That is wrong on so many levels. We have always been the haven for many different beliefs. Why the push for only the secular to be used in public? I don't trust that. The First Amendment protects religious belief. That bill seems more in line with some dictatorship. The First Amendment also protects speech. Yet that bill silences opposing views in the culture war we have going on. Is Colorado's allegiance to some foreign power instead of the Constitution? It certainly seems like that attorney's political allegiance is to a system that is anathema to ours. It may be time for some tar and feathers again.

< Message edited by Marcus. -- 10/12/2008 12:27:09 PM >


_____________________________

Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.

Hosea Project Care Net

Google
Post #: 57
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 1:22:37 PM   
huangshan

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: online
That's quite a bit to respond to, and I'll have to get to it another time as I've got to get to bed soon. But I'd like to point out that it's not relevant to what I was pointing out. It's relevant to the thread (though I'd challenge quite a bit of what you wrote), but it's not relevant to what I said about Marxism. Indeed, you didn't mention Marx once in that response.
Post #: 58
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 2:01:44 PM   
Marcus.


Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
np We can pick it up when you return later. Just a quick comment on Marxism, it seems to be the flavor of despotism these days.

_____________________________

Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.

Hosea Project Care Net

Google
Post #: 59
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 2:33:21 PM   
huangshan

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

np We can pick it up when you return later. Just a quick comment on Marxism, it seems to be the flavor of despotism these days.


I'm off to bed now, but... I dunno. Hugo Chavez advocates socialism, and there's probably a bit of Marxism thrown in as well. But China, the Middle East, these aren't (currently) Marxist. Africa, that's probably a different story (but I haven't done my reading on it), but again, I'm not seeing a big connection with liberals on that one.

I think Marxism is a compelling ideology for radicals who are far from the concentrations of power. Disaffected college students, guerrilla movements, the armchair philosopher who is a really bad philosopher. It's a very dangerous ideology (in other places I have argued that it is the most dangerous) because it so aggressively foments civil strife...

I think I'm losing coherency, if not to people reading this, than to me. I gotta get sleep. Later.
Post #: 60
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 3:13:20 PM   
Marcus.


Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
It's always fun to go back and read what you've typed in when your really tired.

As I understand it, Marxism is the parent to Communism and Socialism.

_____________________________

Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.

Hosea Project Care Net

Google
Post #: 61
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 9:59:51 PM   
rgsoundguy


Posts: 398
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Pottstown, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles


I would say that's a fair assessment. Dr. Paul is effectively a Libertarian, in my opinion.



And not to take this too far off topic, but libertarians are the true conservatives IMHO.

_____________________________

Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That convinces me that our nation is insane because we continually elect republicans and democrats expecting change and get none.
Post #: 62
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 10:42:27 PM   
Marcus.


Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
rg,

I completely agree with your signature line.

_____________________________

Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.

Hosea Project Care Net

Google
Post #: 63
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 10:50:10 PM   
ljmac

 

Posts: 1370
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

Liberals:
- Attack our soldiers and defend terrorists



If that's the case, then:

Conservatives - Abuse soldiers and their families, taking for granted their willing sacrifice by taking a hawkish foreign policy stance, eschewing diplomacy, prematurely jumping into a war, and mismanaging it once we're in there.

But then, neither of those is completely accurate, are they?

-Dan.


- John Kerry called our soldiers terrorists. And stupid. That's just the latest of a career built on smearing our armed forces.
- John Murtha called them cold-blooded murderers.
- Dick Durbin said our soldiers are like Nazis and barbarians.
- Obama accused our servicemen of "...just air raiding villages and killing civilians." Then he tried to cut off their funding.
- Al Gore went to court to have their votes thrown out of the presidential election.
- They fight the presence of ROTC on campuses
- In SF they refused a US WWII ship to serve as a memorial
- Ramsey Clark, Carter's Attorney General, served on Hussein's legal team. (That's Saddam, not Barak.)
- Liberals have repeatedly exposed intelligence gathering techniques, increasing the likelihood that our guys will be wounded or killed.
Post #: 64
RE: The liberals - 10/12/2008 11:46:05 PM   
iluvatar


Posts: 1964
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

Liberals:
- Attack our soldiers and defend terrorists



If that's the case, then:

Conservatives - Abuse soldiers and their families, taking for granted their willing sacrifice by taking a hawkish foreign policy stance, eschewing diplomacy, prematurely jumping into a war, and mismanaging it once we're in there.

But then, neither of those is completely accurate, are they?

-Dan.


- John Kerry called our soldiers terrorists. And stupid. That's just the latest of a career built on smearing our armed forces.
- John Murtha called them cold-blooded murderers.
- Dick Durbin said our soldiers are like Nazis and barbarians.
- Obama accused our servicemen of "...just air raiding villages and killing civilians." Then he tried to cut off their funding.
- Al Gore went to court to have their votes thrown out of the presidential election.
- They fight the presence of ROTC on campuses
- In SF they refused a US WWII ship to serve as a memorial
- Ramsey Clark, Carter's Attorney General, served on Hussein's legal team. (That's Saddam, not Barak.)


And W was too ignorant or arrogant to see that his strategy in Iraq wasn't working and kept hammering at it for too long.

quote:


- Liberals have repeatedly exposed intelligence gathering techniques, increasing the likelihood that our guys will be wounded or killed.


Like Valerie Plame?

How long do you want to go on with this?

-Dan.

_____________________________

Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
Post #: 65
RE: The liberals - 10/13/2008 12:44:23 AM   
nomensrea

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 10/8/2008
Status: offline
ljmac said:
quote:

Liberals:
- Attack our soldiers and defend terrorists
- Fight to remove the cross from public display unless it's in a jar of urine
- Taught children to think oral sex isn't sex
- Believe in equality as long as long as white people have less of it
- Respect the Constitution that's in their heads, but hate the one written on paper
- Are charitable with other people's money, not their own
- Think putting to death convicted killers is bad, but paying baby killers is good
- Think marriage is out of fashion unless it's between sodomites
- Think owning a gun should be illegal, but stabbing a baby in the skull should be legal


Sheesh... no wonder you don't like liberals! I'm a liberal and don't think this list describes me at all. So maybe you're just associating with the wrong liberals (or getting your idea of liberals from too many t.v. talk shows)...

- I support our soldiers. I have loved ones in the war zones right now. I worry about their safety and question the steps that led them to be in such a dangerous position.
- While I think there are places where the display of the cross is inappropriate (mainly due to the fact that we live in a country run by a secular government), I am horrified by the idea of displaying the cross in a jar of urine and insulted at the idea that anyone would think I believe otherwise simply because I am a liberal.
- I know oral sex is sex, which is why I believe that proper sex education needs to be taught in schools.
- I believe there is no such thing as less or more equality -- you either have it or you don't. I believe in equality of privilege, which means that I believe people of color and other minorities should have MORE of it (privilege, i.e. access to resources).
- I respect the Constitution and am learning how to honor its creators' intentions in law school (amidst many other liberals and conservatives).
- I have volunteered my time as a mentor for fifteen years and donate to charity as I am able to do so.
- I believe that the death penalty is inherently flawed, applied inconsistently and that the taking of lives should be left to God not man. I don't believe in paying anybody for killing a baby.
- I am married. I am also in support of my gay friends and colleagues who dream of the opportunity to attain the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage.
- I don't think owning a gun should be illegal. I also don't think late-term abortion should be legal.

I recognize that you have deep-seated disagreements with many people who call themselves liberals; but you'd be surprised how many liberals share similar (if not the same) values with you. The world is not so black and white.
Post #: 66
RE: The liberals - 10/13/2008 2:39:34 AM   
huangshan

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

That's only part of it. It is Christian to give or help out people voluntarily. It isn't Christian to force it, yet the left seems to think forced charity is good and voluntary is bad. When we have the inevitable thread on charitable giving, we see numbers that show the right gives more out of pocket than the left. Yet I am left with the impression, that the left thinks the social programs paid for by our taxes are their charitable giving. If I didn't pay so much in taxes I could give to some more charitable groups I agree with. Instead of ones I abhor through my taxes.

Talk of our rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights as being outlandish or obviously having limits does not sound American to me. Our rights are inalienable, not limited or by the leave of the government as in the rest of the world. I won't support anyone who talks in that manner about our rights. The more I read of our founding, the more our current approach not only strikes me as wrong but it strikes me as treasonous. We are unique among countries, individual rights are at the center of that along with the checks and balances on government. The countries that have collective rights strip away any notion of individual rights. Collective rights are only exercised by those governments and not citizens. But then again those countries don't have citizens but rather subjects.


I think that taxes in a democracy (and in a republican representative democracy like the U.S.) work a lot differently than in many other situations. Taxes aren't so clearly coerced. Yes, it's the government taking money from people, but recall, the government isn't a separate entity. It may feel like it at times, but it's ultimately an extension of the popular will. Of the people, by the people, and for the people and all that. American citizens aren't prisoners of America. It's fully within our power to move elsewhere if we feel that our ability to influence politics is too little and the political wind too fiercely opposing our personal ideals. Alternatively, it's also within our power to make noise and create political opposition within America. I suppose this may be a semantic distinction, but I think it's an important semantic distinction, and as such, I don't see such a clear dichotomy where taxes versus charity are concerned. Given this, many on the left may indeed feel that government social programs are essentially equivalent to charity and I don't think that's so crazy.

The second bit, I'm sorry, I'm not sure what it's in reference to, and I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree. Could you elaborate a bit?

quote:

Disarming the citizenry. The need to be able to arm yourself for self defense is as present as it ever was. The reason for the Second Amendment is to be the final check and balance against our own government. Go back and read Jefferson, mason, Adams, et, al. Tyranny is what most governments either start out as or wind up becoming. I will never give up my weapons. Only someone with designs on changing our government against the wishes of the citizens ever need fear the armed citizen. Disarming the law abiding hurts only the law abiding and makes criminals lives easier. It is the tool of the despot. All the genocides of the last century were at the hands of the government or para-government organizations. Most started with disarming their citizens.


I suppose I should mention that I'm not a fan of gun control. I have personally never even touched a gun, but I'm fully in favor of an armed population within reason (no nukes!). I think the issue is largely dead and the Democratic party has largely conceded the issue, with a few residual panderings here and there. That said though, I think the argument that an armed populace defends against the government is just silly. If the army ever went rogue (and given its composition and tradition, I don't think that's at all in the cards) an armed populace would simply exacerbate the situation. I think our political culture and our volunteer military are sufficient to prevent the takeoer of America by a military despot. On this issue, I agree with your conclusion but I find your argument, your path to that conclusion, wanting. It seems factually poor, but also, it seems like poor PR. If you want to persuade people, taking the defensive and (seemingly) phobic tack you have is, I think, likely to turn off those people who would otherwise buy into your conclusion.

An interesting historical note that is in agreement with your position (I think your argument is historically accurate but does not fit the contemporary situation) is Japan. At one point in time, I think around 400-450 years ago, Japan had more muskets than all of Europe combined (at a time when muskets were in vogue), but because the Samurai ruling warrior class felt that the ability of an upstart peasant to blow away a Samurai with years of training was distasteful for all kinds of reasons, they banned the guns.
Post #: 67
RE: The liberals - 10/13/2008 2:51:44 AM   
huangshan

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

As I understand it, Marxism is the parent to Communism and Socialism.


Socialism predates Marxism and is a distinct idea. Marxist ideology does have socialism as a pretty prominent component (totalitarian socialist government is the precursor to a government-free utopia and all that), but the two ideas are distinct. "Socialism" has also changed and has sprouted into many different distinct ideologies since the original seed was planted. Communism is one branch, but there are a multitude of others that aren't so crazy. Post-1978 China is one obvious example, but essentially every government has at least some socialist components.
Post #: 68
RE: The liberals - 10/13/2008 9:46:24 AM   
stamper_ben


Posts: 10946
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
Getting back to the original intent of the OP, I have this question - Why are the liberals so useful with their middle fingers as shown in this video?

_____________________________

We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
Post #: 69
RE: The liberals - 10/13/2008 10:43:30 AM   
blue1914

 

Posts: 398
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Which is, in a nutshell, the point really isn't it? We are on a CHRISTIAN message board - aren't we supposed to be a little different than the world?

Isn't our hallmark supposed to be love-in all things? Faith hope and love, the greatest of these is love-if I have not love, I am a clanging cymbol-LOVE-isn't that supposed to be the name of the game?

The only thing I hate is that it has to be pointed out that there really is no need to hate in any form-disagree (on matter of policy, etc.), sure, but HATE-it's the opposite of LOVE, the thing we ALL as Christians are supposed to have regardless of how we believe.



So I take it you are a Coke drinker?


Actually, when I drank colas, it was generally diet Coke - nowadays though, it's all about the iced tea but I love ALL drinkers of ALL beverages.
Post #: 70
RE: The liberals - 10/13/2008 1:14:27 PM   
devere

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline
The terms liberal or conservative are entirely relative to CONTEXT, have become meaningless and should be dropped from political discourse.

For example, in the Russian world, conservative refers to communist hardliners who would want the resurrection of the USSR, while liberal would be those moving toward capitalism. In economics, at various times, conservatives or liberals have been for high tariffs, taxes and spending

Conservative merely reflects a desire to CONSERVE what is past.
Similarly Liberal means a future oriented approach to provide targets and goals

In a Christian sense, we are both conservative and liberal. We want to retain the faith of our fathers, the old time religion and the power of Word of God today. At the same time, liberal is a Christian teleological distinctive, an acknowledgment that the world is heading toward God's conclusion and the burdens of the past will continue to evaporate as time marches on to that goal.

In a political sense, I will hold true to the pro-life position as an adoptive, foster and World Vision parent. But that brings with it a few other reponsibilities.

I will have to contemplate which party would have sufficiently developed policies to accomodate the 40M additional people that would have been born post Roe v Wade. When I look at the statistics, I find it staggering that abortion rates are so much higher in "red states" as opposed to "blue states." So maybe, preaching to the choir in this case is to those outside the church. Finally, if Roe v Wade is reversed in its entirety, we have to cost out enforcement, processes and punitive measures. Already, we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world (over 2M is enough to be the 51st state)

Secondly, it is critical to ensure that we don't ignore or compromise other critical Christian issues. One of the most troubling things about our current leaders example (and its showing) to the Christian teenagers is their lack of respect for authority, processes and accountability and their denial of facts which are so easily disproved by publicly available documentation. Additionally, we should never put people on a pedestal but I have noted that the Obama family has been a powerful role model for them. They are impressed that while Obama had Islam and broken family in his background that he chose to be a solid Christian family man. On the other hand, I am not so sure that I am comfortable with the present administration cosying up to those who financed 911, the Saudi Arabians who represent the worst of Islam at the expense of many Christian brethren in the middle east.

Finally, his issue of guilt by association is counterproductive. God calls some of us to the safe and secure places and others to the more dangerous depending on our ministry and strength. If we were to apply the current standard, then the 11 disciples could be slandered simply for sitting, dining and working with Judas Iscariot. Even, Jesus would be tarnished by it, because of his choice. Similarly, the biography of King David shows a man who worked along with some pretty unsavory characters and yet maintain his cool when ambition opportunities were presented to him often vis a vis King Saul.
Post #: 71
RE: The liberals - 10/13/2008 10:40:30 PM   
ljmac

 

Posts: 1370
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: devere

The terms liberal or conservative are entirely relative to CONTEXT, have become meaningless and should be dropped from political discourse.

For example, in the Russian world, conservative refers to communist hardliners who would want the resurrection of the USSR, while liberal would be those moving toward capitalism. In economics, at various times, conservatives or liberals have been for high tariffs, taxes and spending

Conservative merely reflects a desire to CONSERVE what is past.
Similarly Liberal means a future oriented approach to provide targets and goals

In a Christian sense, we are both conservative and liberal. We want to retain the faith of our fathers, the old time religion and the power of Word of God today. At the same time, liberal is a Christian teleological distinctive, an acknowledgment that the world is heading toward God's conclusion and the burdens of the past will continue to evaporate as time marches on to that goal.

In a political sense, I will hold true to the pro-life position as an adoptive, foster and World Vision parent. But that brings with it a few other reponsibilities.

I will have to contemplate which party would have sufficiently developed policies to accomodate the 40M additional people that would have been born post Roe v Wade. When I look at the statistics, I find it staggering that abortion rates are so much higher in "red states" as opposed to "blue states." So maybe, preaching to the choir in this case is to those outside the church. Finally, if Roe v Wade is reversed in its entirety, we have to cost out enforcement, processes and punitive measures. Already, we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world (over 2M is enough to be the 51st state)

Secondly, it is critical to ensure that we don't ignore or compromise other critical Christian issues. One of the most troubling things about our current leaders example (and its showing) to the Christian teenagers is their lack of respect for authority, processes and accountability and their denial of facts which are so easily disproved by publicly available documentation. Additionally, we should never put people on a pedestal but I have noted that the Obama family has been a powerful role model for them. They are impressed that while Obama had Islam and broken family in his background that he chose to be a solid Christian family man. On the other hand, I am not so sure that I am comfortable with the present administration cosying up to those who financed 911, the Saudi Arabians who represent the worst of Islam at the expense of many Christian brethren in the middle east.

Finally, his issue of guilt by association is counterproductive. God calls some of us to the safe and secure places and others to the more dangerous depending on our ministry and strength. If we were to apply the current standard, then the 11 disciples could be slandered simply for sitting, dining and working with Judas Iscariot. Even, Jesus would be tarnished by it, because of his choice. Similarly, the biography of King David shows a man who worked along with some pretty unsavory characters and yet maintain his cool when ambition opportunities were presented to him often vis a vis King Saul.

quote:

if Roe v Wade is reversed in its entirety, we have to cost out enforcement, processes and punitive measures. Already, we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world (over 2M is enough to be the 51st state)


Translation: Too many poor black and brown kids will survive and that means a lot of criminals.

Conservatives belive in capital punishment of convicted killers. Liberals believe in capital punishment of the innocent.
Post #: 72
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events >> RE: The liberals
Jump to post #:
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages