Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,502
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Well, I think there are other very important issues at play. The antiamerican socialist propoganda is certainly a primary cause of the problem, but so also is the bad habit our government has had at times interfering in the governments of other nations, installing and supporting dictators, etc..
    Yep, but one thing just doesn't justify the other. Anti-Americans use this kind of thing when they claim that it is an even game: American are at least as evil as nations/groups that aren't democratic. To me it is just like equating adultery and rape. Adultery is gross and a very grivous sin, but we can't accept that rapers try to soften their image by saying that "well, you have committed adultery, so..."

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    The office of the president most certainly should involve "denouncing" torture if he finds that his administration has been involved in it. Torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are a terrible stain on the image of America. Sure, our enemies have amplified that stain beyond measure for their own purposes, but that does not justify Bush's failure to clearly denounce it (in the case of Gitmo anyway).
    Agreed. And I like the fact that you recognize what's in the underlined text.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I wasn't talking about "appeasement." I don't know if Obama would err in that way or not, but his comment about bombing Pakistan suggests he would be willing to use force when necessary. This is another important aspect to investigate. But the point that I was making was that Obama would not continue the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war. Granted, "diplomacy" with Sadam would have been an exercise in vanity, but going to war with him was not necessarily the best choice either.
    Agreed once again. And Iraq was not the best choice actually. I added the Pakistan note to show that Obama talks about "diplomacy first" but then, in an effort to attract a larger electorate, says something diametrically opposite; he just happens to choose Pakistan as an example to demonstrate that he can use force too.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Yes, that is the primary problem with electing a democrat, especially one that leans to the left of his own party. But the odd thing is that Republicans have often gone along with the ultra-leftists appointed by the Democrats, such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg (former lead lawyer for the ACLU that I affectionately refer to as the Anti-Christian League of the Underworld).
    Seems like defenses go low when it comes to approving names for the Supreme Court. They ask questions and that's that.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Yes indeed, that was an "understatement." There are no words for the moral depravity of anyone who approves of infanticide. I can understand how people can be confused about the morality of early abortions (though I don't share that confusion, of course) because there are lots of issues that cloud the discussion. But those issues all evaporate when we are talking about fully formed babies that are simply murdered for the convenience of the mother and the economic gain of the "doctor." I don't know all the details of the bill that Obama was supporting, but from everything I have read and heard from his own mouth, it seems that his mind has been corrupted in this regard. But we are not electing the "Abortion President" so this issue is not decisive in and of itself. If it were, it would me that all Christians would have to vote Republican regardless of the other qualifications the candidates may possess. The fact that this issue is so important to many Christians measn that the Republican party can use it to FORCE Christians to vote Republican by merely presenting themselves as pro-life. I will not allow myself to be manipulated that way.
    Very good comments my friend. "Let's say 'We are pro-life!' and the votes will come!"

    Abortion is not the one and only issue but it is very important because we're talking about people's lives. So I think when deciding for a candidate the elector should take "a weighted average" of different relevant factors and the abortion issue should be one of the highest weights.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I don't think that is correct. It seems that Obama was in his church for political gain and connections. Wright's twisted views seem to be very backwards looking, like he is stuck in the turbulent 1960s ... or it's all his "schtick" that he uses milk his audience like Jesse Jackson. Obama doesn't seem like either a Wright or a Jackson. I get the impression he really is looking towards the future rather than fixating on the past.
    Maybe that "let's look toward the future" is just his "schtick" to get votes. Actions speak louder than words. Obama chose to be associate with this kind of people, so whatever he says now has very little weight in comparison to his "career".

    I don't think he has the same kind of leftist talk as Wright, but the content is very similar but wrapped up in a different rethorical package. It is just like most ambientalists - they actually have strong left-wing socialist views but they don't have the Marxist/Leninist language of old.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I'm a little confused by that comment. Are you saying that the "revolutionary" history of America was intrinsically anit-Christian, or that it's being perverted somehow? I know that the founders of this country had to develop some apologetics to explain away Romans 13 and like passages that tell Christians to obey government. Indeed, some folks here on this forum (wstruse I believe) pointed to the revolutionary history as a sign that America was "anti" God in some sense.
    Revolutionary - that's the kind of word that has different senses, just like "liberal" outside the US. When I mentioned "revolutionary influence" I wasn't talking about the values and beliefs that lead to the American Revolution. American Revolution definitely wasn't "revolutionary" in the same sense as the French Revolution or Socialist Revolution. It was not "anti-God" at all; actually it was the other way around!

    I'm talking about the Communist/Globalist subtle revolutionary influence that saturates American colleges, NGOs, mainstream media (MSM), etc. So Obama is one more brick in this house.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Well, it's more than "sounding cool." We really don't know what he would do in office. And that's actually one of the biggest problems. All we really have to go on is his voting record in the Senate which was little more than party-line as you would expect for a newbie Senator. So there is a big "unknown" with Obama and that uncertainty becomes positively frightening if we follow the lines of implication that you have pointed out in such extreme detail. But those are still only implications ... I don't know the truth of the matter yet.
    Yeah, it seems like America wants to find that out in the most frightening way: "let's vote for him and see what happens". The average American knows that MSM is not telling the whole story about him (though one can find it he researches) but life is busy: most people can't take their time to do in-depth research on Obama's past. Of course the more you know about it, the more it stinks.

    You know, even Conservative media in general is self-censoring the information above about Obama buying out time in court to show his real birth certificate!

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    You will be happy to know that I deleted my profile from his site. I couldn't find a "delete" button (big surprise) so I just removed all the info and changed my name to "Deleted12345678".

    Great chatting my friend. Thank's again for working with me on these important issues. I hope others join in the conversation.

    Richard
    Oh yeah, I had noticed the removal! I just didn't like your choice of using the "BibleWheel" alias in his page.

    Great chatting!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,502
    Since you mentioned Obama's pro-abortion voting record, I'm posting the link that follows:

    Mainstream Media Ignore Obama’s Radical Abortion Record

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Hello Greenbrier, can you point me to instances of his "even-handed approach" in his book?
    Hey Victor,

    Page 56

    "Sometimes finding the right balance is relatively easy. We all agree, for instance, that society has a right to constrain individual freedom when it threatens to do harm to others. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater; your right to practice your religion does not encompass human sacrifice. Likewise, we all agree that there must be limits to the state's power to control our behavior, even if it is for our own good. Not many Americans would feel comfortable with the government monitoring what we eat, no matter how many deaths and how much medical spending may be due to rising rates of obesity...

    Unfortunately, too often in our national debates we don't get to the point where we weigh these difficult choices. Instead, we either exaggerate the degree to which policies we don't like impinge on our most sacred values, or play dumb when our own preferred policies conflict with important countervailing values."

    That's just something at random from the book in the chapter on values. I don't by any means thing that Barack is right about everything. I think Wright was probably not the best of shephards for Obama's understanding of Christ. But like Apolos in Acts, perhaps it is just a lack of understanding of some things that could be corrected.

    It's a bit difficult to point to a particular passage in the book that testifies specificially to even-handedness - just my overall impression of what I've read and how I've seen him behalve in the public eye. I don't recall in my lifetime more focused on a candidates personal views about religion though that probably that happened in the Kennedy election too.

    Jeff

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbrier View Post
    Hey Victor,

    Page 56

    "Sometimes finding the right balance is relatively easy. We all agree, for instance, that society has a right to constrain individual freedom when it threatens to do harm to others. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater; your right to practice your religion does not encompass human sacrifice. Likewise, we all agree that there must be limits to the state's power to control our behavior, even if it is for our own good. Not many Americans would feel comfortable with the government monitoring what we eat, no matter how many deaths and how much medical spending may be due to rising rates of obesity...
    Sorry Jeff, but that's like claiming that "saying that 3 + 3 = 6" is a sign of even-handedness. This is rethorics displayed in an effort to show how much he is "balanced". But then he says with a straight face that the killing of babies is a "woman's right".

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbrier View Post
    Unfortunately, too often in our national debates we don't get to the point where we weigh these difficult choices. Instead, we either exaggerate the degree to which policies we don't like impinge on our most sacred values, or play dumb when our own preferred policies conflict with important countervailing values."
    He is the one setting the example on "playing dumb" all the time. OTOH, contrary to him, a good bunch of people with conservative values take their time to ponder and reflect upon these core issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbrier View Post
    That's just something at random from the book in the chapter on values. I don't by any means thing that Barack is right about everything.
    He's utterly wrong about the core issues. That's what matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbrier View Post
    I think Wright was probably not the best of shephards for Obama's understanding of Christ. But like Apolos in Acts, perhaps it is just a lack of understanding of some things that could be corrected.
    The comparison is horrendous. US cannot afford his 'correcting his understanding' at the same time as he is president. The comparison to Apollos is incorrect since Apollos' knowledge was incomplete, not flat-out wrong like Obama's. And of course Obama knew Wright's extreme views and agrees with all of that. He is just tackling the ears of the American people so that he can get elected. He presents himself in his talks as if he were a balanced man but all his actions show otherwise. That's increasingly obvious in the proportion as you investigate his life.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,502
    Quick lesson in sociology
    Olavo de Carvalho

    Emile Durkheim, the founder of sociology, taught that there is a limit to the quota of abnormality which the collective mind is capable of perceiving. This can be given two interpretations, either simultaneously or alternatively:

    I — when standards fall below the limit, society automatically adjusts its focus of perception to consider as normal what once appeared abnormal, to accept as normal, commonplace and desirable, what was once feared as weird and scandalous.

    II — when the abnormality is excessive, surpassing the limits of the acceptable quota, it tends to pass unperceived or simply to be denied. The intolerable becomes nonexistent.

    While it hardly corresponds to measurable quantities, the 'Durkheim constant,' as it is usually called, has been found to be an effective analytical tool, particularly at times of historical acceleration, when various changes in standards occur and are put in place within a single generation and can be seen, so to speak, with one’s own eyes.

    Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Robert Bork and Charles Krauthammer used this constant intelligently to explain the dizzying changes in American morality since the 60s. Bork wrote in 1996: 'it is highly unlikely that a vigorous economy can be sustained by a weakened hedonistic environment of culture, particularly when this culture distorts incentives, rejecting personal achievement as a criterion for the distribution of rewards.' Twelve years later, the idea that bank loans are not a bargain between responsible parties but rather an indiscriminate universal right guaranteed by the government and by pressure from activist NGOs, has done its dirty work. The fact that the creators of the problem do not feel the least bit responsible for it, preferring to cast the blame precisely on those who did everything to avoid it, illustrates the fall of moral standards that I see accompanying the fall of lending standards.

    However, the most interesting thing about this is not the application of the principle for the purposes of explanation but rather its practical use as a political weapon. For over a century, all movements interested in imposing sociocultural modifications against the preferences of the majority have avoided direct confrontation with public opinion. They have tried to deceive it by clever use of the 'Durkheim constant,' which every revolutionary activist worth his salt knows by heart.

    According to Interpretation I, the principle is applied by means of mild continuous pressure, carefully, slowly, gradually lowering the standards, first in the popular imagination by means of the arts and show business, then in the realm of ideas and educational values, followed by the field of overt activism proclaiming the most aberrant novelties to be sacred rights, and finally in the realm of law, criminalizing adversaries and diehards, assuming that any are left. With almost infallible consistency, we find that self-proclaimed conservatives conform passively — sometimes comfortably — to change without noticing that a new identity has been foisted on them from the outside like a straitjacket by those who hate them the most.

    According to Interpretation II, the Durkheim constant is used to turn society upside down overnight without encountering any resistance by means of lies and bluffs so colossal that the population instinctively refuses to believe that there is anything real behind them. The actual victim of the swindle reacts vehemently to any attempt to expose it, because he feels that admitting the reality of the situation would be a humiliating confession of stupidity. In order not to feel like a fool, the poor devil is willing to be a fool without sensing that he is one, confirming the old Jewish proverb 'a fool has no delight in understanding.' This is why the biggest revolutionary organization in the history of Latin America, the Forum of São Paulo, was set up there in an environment in which all reports about it were ridiculed as signs of insanity, despite all manner of documentary support and proof of its existence. And it is why the United States of America may soon have a president without any proof of US nationality, financed by thieves and tied by a thousand commitments to terrorist and genocidal groups, while his own biggest opponent proclaims he is 'a decent person that you do not have to be scared about.'

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,502
    A must-see and to-the-point video about Obama's view on abortion.

    http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=Kri8G-lGYfg

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    A must-see and to-the-point video about Obama's view on abortion.

    http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=Kri8G-lGYfg
    Yes indeed, that is a MUST SEE video. There is no ambiguity about Obama's extreme pro-abortion position. He goes well beyond mere adherence to the Democratic "party line" that demands support for a woman's "right to choose." He seems to be on the outer fringe of the far left on this issue.

    I normally do not allow abortion to be the decisive issue in presidential campaigns because that would enable the political parties to coerce my vote by merely saying what they think I want to hear. A classic case is Bush, who said he would sign a ban on partial-birth abortion but no Republicans ever managed to write a bill that would pass the Supreme Court. But in the extreme case of Obama, who seems to lack any sense of the meaning and sanctity of human life, I find myself compelled to exclude him as a possible candidate. And the problem is greatly exasperated by his extremely weak legal judgment - especially considering that he was president of the Harvard Law Review - in which he is incapable of recognizing that a fully developed baby one hour prior to birth is just as "human" and deserving of human rights as it is one hour after birth. His position is fundamentally incoherent. Such a man is not qualified to lead the country. But then, on the other hand, I think his intellectual and leadership qualities are light-years beyond our current president and his would-be successor.

    If abortion were not an issue, I would still be somewhat ambivalent - feeling tugged in both directions. There remains my deep desire to see a "new face" on America that is thoughtful, respectful and inclusive of others, strong on defense but not pro-war, etc. Most of the positives that I mentioned earlier in this thread remain. But when I add up all the pros and cons, the sum comes out decidedly on the negative. Unfortunately, I don't have any corresponding "positive" on the side of McCain/Palin. The more I've watcher her, the more convinced I am that she is absolutely unqualified for the office, much in the same way that Bush was (and is) unqualified for the office. I watched her interviews and she just didn't "get" a lot of the questions that were posed to her. She really is a "hocky mom" and not a statesman ready to deal with national and international politics. And there are many other reservations I have about the McCain/Palin ticket that are just as serious as my concerns about Obama.

    So what now? What would be the worst case scenario? McCain dies in office and we get President Palin, or President Obama? Do you see my dilemma? Both choices suck ... and I feel that I can not vote for either side in full good conscience.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,502
    Both choices suck, but for Christians elections are usually choosing the lesser of two evils. The McCain ticket is awful, but Obama is much much much worse. The more you get to know about him, the more horrendous it gets.

    When McCain's nationality was put into question, he quickly presented his birth certificate along with all relevant documents like school records. OTOH, when Obama is oficially asked by a judge to present his birth certificate to put an end to all doubts, what does he do? He goes instead into a extremely complex legal maneuver to avoid showing it. Why doesn't he just present his birth certificate? What the matter with that? Why does everyone behave like this is like a minor issue? Where's MSM? Where are all those conservative news sources? Are there any decent men left in America? Let's pretend a situation doesn't exist and it won't exist...

    One of the strongest moral reservations I have with the McCain/Palin ticket is their complete silence on numerous points like that. The American elector has the right to know about these things, but McCain and Palin don't want to leave their confort zone and want to play like this was a normal election. IT IS NOT! Obama has all the traits of an extremist with a soft mouth and a revolutionary mind.

    What do you think of the birth certificate issue?

    Victor

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Both choices suck, but for Christians elections are usually choosing the lesser of two evils. The McCain ticket is awful, but Obama is much much much worse. The more you get to know about him, the more horrendous it gets.

    When McCain's nationality was put into question, he quickly presented his birth certificate along with all relevant documents like school records. OTOH, when Obama is oficially asked by a judge to present his birth certificate to put an end to all doubts, what does he do? He goes instead into a extremely complex legal maneuver to avoid showing it. Why doesn't he just present his birth certificate? What the matter with that? Why does everyone behave like this is like a minor issue? Where's MSM? Where are all those conservative news sources? Are there any decent men left in America? Let's pretend a situation doesn't exist and it won't exist...

    One of the strongest moral reservations I have with the McCain/Palin ticket is their complete silence on numerous points like that. The American elector has the right to know about these things, but McCain and Palin don't want to leave their confort zone and want to play like this was a normal election. IT IS NOT! Obama has all the traits of an extremist with a soft mouth and a revolutionary mind.

    What do you think of the birth certificate issue?

    Victor
    Good points about the silence of McCain ... unless there are other reasons for the silence, such as the possibility that there really was no story behind the "birth certificate" scandal. They are smart enough to know that they would only hurt themselves if they made accusations that didn't hold up.

    I checked into the birth certificate thing and found that it has apparently been released. But there are other accusations about his refusal to release his college and medical records. These are issues that would be used by the MSM to attack McCain no doubt. So I need to do a little more research on this angle. Do you have a good link that explains the "extremely complex legal maneuver"?

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,502
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Good points about the silence of McCain ... unless there are other reasons for the silence, such as the possibility that there really was no story behind the "birth certificate" scandal. They are smart enough to know that they would only hurt themselves if they made accusations that didn't hold up.

    I checked into the birth certificate thing and found that it has apparently been released.
    Obama posted a fake document on his site and still has not removed it. Why didn't he show it to the judge and ended it all?

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    But there are other accusations about his refusal to release his college and medical records. These are issues that would be used by the MSM to attack McCain no doubt.
    Do you recognize how serious this lack of interest by MSM to investigate Obama is?

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    So I need to do a little more research on this angle. Do you have a good link that explains the "extremely complex legal maneuver"?

    Richard
    There's www.obamacrimes.com that I mentioned above with over 70 million visits. There's also www.americasright.com.

    I just learned that the judge said that the plaintiff was not "qualified" to bring this matter to court. So he will be appealing straight to the Supreme Court.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •