Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
OK Mike I get your point. We ask our politicians to interview with their employers. And then we say, oh, it is alright to do opposite of what you said in your interview with us. Yes, we understand, expectations. We can never expect our employees or politicians to be loyal to their employers. Exactly, sure the guys in the Invista Lab are given the green light to "sell their inventions", learned in the Invista lab, to Invista's competition. And then the employee accepts a big payment from the competition. Based on your "never a perfect world" you give your politicians the green light to lie, cheat and steal. What a sick world we live in. It is so easy to be a relativist and live in a liberal world. No promises. No expectations. Everything is relative. (I would not expect employees to try being disloyal to their employer, unless they are Democratic politicians. Mike gives his employees a pass on honesty.)
Sorry,misread on my part BSspotter...I was wrong.
Mike said: "It's interesting that you put so much stock into that article..."
Who said I was putting "much stock" in the article? I said it was a "knee-slapper", meaning I got a kick out of it and thought it would spark a discussion like this one. I liked the author's aggressive treatment of the subject, but it's far from an immaculate treatise. Much of it coincides with my outlook, but my opinion preceded my reading of it. Just because I'm not a devout Christian doesn't mean I can't criticize or point-n-laugh at major* hypocrisies of some Christians, or anyone else for that matter.
I'm not making the case for having a saintly President, just for a non-selective application of Christian principles by Christians. I view the results of the SC primary in the same way I view a fatal bombing of an abortion clinic. They voted for a man who not only urinates on Family Values but is very likely to kill thousands of innocent people in unjust war(s). Their vote increases the likelihood for more dead, dismembered children.
*minor hypocrisies are unavoidable—sometimes undetectable—and pervasive in all segments of society, and I don't waste much time on them
Dale That's your personal decision which has nothing to do the perfect ideology or your preference because I was making a much larger point. I 'm not trying to sway you or in any way criticizing your choice.
I knew about Clinton's womanizing before his sit down on 60 minutes and I didn't believe a word he said. I didn't believe his first version of the Lewinsky affair but overall, his presidential decisions did not disappoint me. Historians have given President Clinton his due as being the greatest politicians of all time and amongst the top 15 presidents..Look it up.
As I keep my politics secular; I also try to keep matters on policy separated from human personal failures...I never said it was the right thing to do. That's my personal decision, as you have yours.
To answer your question...Resolute is a double edge sword...Ron Paul has never been president (IMO he will never be) so we can't really compare him to someone who actually won..Campaign rhetoric always sounds good to partisan supporters...i know "Yes we can" turned into a GOP "No you can't"...:-)
"if history holds true to form" ....fill in the blanks.... (I never held) George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George Bush the Younger, John McCain or Baraak Obama close to conservative sainthood , much less eligible for nomination. But then again, none of the above’s actions were consistent with their words. Mike, has Ron Paul's actions been consistent? So do you (or should I say "we") prefer to trust a liar or an honest person? Case proven. We all prefer honesty to deception.
It's interesting that you put so much stock into that article since you said you were agnostic...just saying...this goes with my last sentance.
I ask you and Gary, since both of you are complaining about past and current republican candidates other than Ron Paul...What drives a presidential decision? Is it persuasive arguments in dealing with 535 members of congress? How about dealing with rogue nations? If you're a student of history, then you know that past presidents have done things in office that would be considered inhumane, immoral and not in accordance with the so called American standards but we will never have all the information to justify or criticize their actions. Some of that info is still highly classified.
I ask this question because so many in my party are angry because Guantanamo Bay was not closed in one year, and this president is following the same controversial procedures of the previous administration and has doubled- down on some...I know why the Obama administration backed off their previous campaign promises..1. Presidential daily briefings 2. CIA data 3..An actual sit with leaders 4...His own party did not back him on closing Gitmo 5...SCOTUS 6...An entirely different set of circumstance 7. The military industrial complex fixation on war 8...A revolt of military generals 9. yada yada yada 10..A decision to bargain on short term issues, in order to gain on a long term goal.
In short, it’s noble and completely normal to want a man that’s as close to sainthood as possible but if history holds true to form ....fill in the blanks.
I just read a story in the paper about a little child care provider who became crossway with the State's "Child Care Licensing".
Perhaps her experience will resonate with this thought... "The moniker we must remember is safety. Only the State can truly make us safe. And that is why every profession must be licensed by the State. Your doctor is license. Your insurance agent is licensed. Your police officer is licensed. Your gas station is licensed. Your teacher is licensed. You are licensed. Don't you feel safe? No one will be truly safe until each of us have been implanted with a gps microchip." (Reads a little like Orwell's 1984.)
I am a Republican because I want to feel safe.
I do like Ron Paul. He came to visit our homeschool group in POINT COMFORT, Texas, long ago. He played guitar for us. We campaigned for him every year that he ran. I campaigned with a stroller... and then I campaigned with children on skates. My children always helped out as a part of our (Texas homeschool) Good Citizenship "requirement."
A good find BSspotter. I would like to point out a personal belief that Mr Taylor succintly wrote in paragraph 8...
"The more sincere the Christian, the more naive. This is true for whites and blacks,... Protestants and Catholics...our gullibility is gigantic. (The Republican Party) take(s) their most loyal voters...for granted because their votes can always be counted on, regardless of how little policy action they receive in return. "
BSspotter have you ever studied the last 50 years of Republican Party Platforms? I have read them all since 1960 to present. Each and everyone resonates with "limited government", "individual liberty" and balanced budgets. And what has EVERY Republican President given us? I will give you a hint... more Government (TSA, War on Drugs, EPA), wiretapping and TSA strip searches and the most egregious a $ 14.5 Trillion debt.
And who has given us such anti-belief candidates? I submit to you our Northeastern moderate/liberal Rockefeller Republicans. And who has fallen for it? Locally, I could name names and they would say "Me? I am a conservative." Well whatever, the day is coming when the dollar is worthless, they are hauling your children off to another war and they have confiscated your checking account. And they will ask, "why didn't someone warn us this would happen?"
My local Republican Friends and BSspotter, consider you duly warned. Mr Ron Paul has been the lone voice for 30 years which has been crying in the wilderness. But heck, they said the same things about John the Baptist. (They killed him.)
Small world, I have been reading FPR for about two years I guess. It is one of my RSS feeds.