FogBat

Typical devoted Keynesian. :sick:

IDC who is in the WH, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat - the results for foreign policy will be the same (if not worse). Our FP is in such a mess that no one is willing to accept responsibility for what happens that goes beyond their control, and they are all too eager to blame someone else for their own FUBARs.

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW, here's a sermon by a man down in Houston who pretty much spelled out the sentiments that I bolded.

Not to mention the fact that he does not believe that religious organizations should be allowed to opt out of the over-reaching ObamaCare. Just ask Hobby Lobby and Tyndale House Publishers, to name a few. Absolutely criminal. As an aside, I find it rather amusing (if not downright frightening) that Obama blamed the maladies of the country all on Bush 43 with his "past 8 years" mantra. Why not place the blame squarely where it belongs - precisely on preceding Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ? Nah, that would be too hard, because that would require him to tell the Truth.

There you go again.

I was thinking about this yesterday. The idolatry is just mind-boggling. Then I remembered that, throughout all of human history, crowds of people foment riots whenever their idols were destroyed or "insulted". Seems like the artisans in Ephesus had it easy when there were fewer people paying homage to their "goddess" Diana than when this whole "insulting Mohammed" thing came out - including when Terry Jones burned a Qu'ran and violent protests came out in Afghanistan. To the contrary, when was the last time Christians reacted with such violence whenever a Bible got burned (specifically, when Dan Barker ripped a page out of the Bible in his continued futile attempts to suppress the Truth in unrighteousness) or a crucifix or cross was desecrated?

What I marked in bold might as well apply to everyone else here that has posted on this thread. Everyone might as well be embellishing their arguments, no matter how solid or flimsy their POV is. We all have our presuppositions, and yet some are a bit louder in saying, "Don't you impose your views and morals upon me!" without actually saying it outright. But, since you said earlier that I was citing sources that came from a Christian fundamentalist view, 1, I reject the CF badge only because of its closer affiliation with the Independent Fundamental Baptist churches out there who actually do take things to an extreme. (I'm more in line with the Calvinists than I am with the Arminian IFB crowd, but I still take a stand for the Truth.) 2, I will post a link to something that isn't what you describe as CF for your benefit. Now, getting back to Presidential politics, don't we all just love how "impartial" academia can be? So much for the free exchange of ideas they so prevaricatively lead us to believe. Have you read War is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler? I'm sure that you would agree that there is a clear difference between defending your own turf as opposed to hegemony "nation-building".

:lol: Well played! :thumbsup: Then again, we might revisit this 7 years later and see if he's still wearing the Sabres' Blue and Gold.

Bigot? Oh, please. That word gets tossed out there without merit most of the time these days. Besides, what do you want me to post besides what you call "fundamentalist Christian principles?" The Progressive? The Nation? City Newspaper in Rochester? For the record, I'm not a Romney supporter. He's way too unprincipled for my tastes.

I think they made sure that Ron Paul didn't stand a chance. He would have turned things around in a hurry. After all, he had a consistent track record to back up his words. He would have given Obama a serious run for his money in spite of his advanced years. An excellent reason to tune out the Fourth Estate. They don't report news anymore. They spin the facts and make everything subjective - regardless of what side they're on.

I don't know how you could miss this (or is it irony?). Regardless of the circumstances and reasoning, it was illogical for the colonies to break away and then for the same country to come along and tell another region within its confines that they're not allowed to secede. See the hypocrisy? (EDIT: K-9 has replied in kind, although I think his admission was done so with some strong disagreements.) Now, to something else that has more relevance to current events, I'm not sure how this can be called a "religion of peace". But, then again, this administration has a horrible foreign policy which has brought us the strife in the Middle East. (And people want to give this guy another 4 years???)

My point is that, regardless of how people view the South's futile attempt to successively secede from the Union, they had every right to do so - just like the "Founding Fathers" did when they took the 13 colonies and broke away from England in the American War for Independence. Even a pastor down in the Houston area (who happens to be "black" but who has stated personally from the pulpit that we are all one human race) has said so and that there was no legitimate reason to hold the CSA back from becoming and staying a sovereign nation.

Ok, so the South committed treason by seceding from the Union, but the Union committed treason by seceding from England.

Seriously? Ever heard of something called States Rights (as Myth #5 points out in this article)? (Don't even go into the whole chattel slavery nonsense. The issue was much deeper than that. Lincoln butchered the South in order to hold the Union together. Plus, you can add another thorn to their side called Reconstruction.) Now, if you want to continue to slam the South for their "backward" ways, guess what? The South is better off economically than the Rust Belt (of which Buffalo is a part of). Why do the Hyundai plant in Montgomery and the Mercedes-Benz plant near Tuscaloosa keep producing cars en masse? No labor unions. :D EDIT: if there's something I wish they would improve upon in the South, it's their driving habits. Other than that, it's just peachy. :)

I was citing an example. Perhaps you could read Foxe's Book of Christian Martyrs for many more cases of martyrdom and persecution. Or, you could go to opendoorsusa.org or persecution.com for more.

I've never liked Dick Cheney. I think he's a neocon.

...and I wasn't trying to insult you either. I just don't have the time to posit a voluminous commentary that would rival the late, erudite William F. Buckley, Jr. to state my talking points. EDIT: I hope this helps. Too many Americans have denounced this, given that it came from Pravda. Personally, I thought that the columnist actually knew what he was talking about.

I won't argue against your points. Reagan certainly wasn't perfect. However, IIRC he didn't go about blaming Carter for the economic mess than he inherited, whereas Obama constantly blamed GWB for what happened instead of pointing the finger at Dodd and Frank [or even Paul Krugman] (as someone else pointed out earlier in this thread). My wife spent a few years in journalism, so she knows quite a bit about how polls operate. She and I have had this discussion quite a few times.

Without being encyclopedic, let's just say that this country is definitely not the same as it was when Reagan was in office. Granted, the change in the SU was sudden and severe. What's happening over here is gradual. Pollsters can make a poll say whatever they want it to say. This in the face of a budget that hasn't been passed since around 2009-2010, high gas prices during an anemic economy, and the possibility of a credit downgrade by Moody's (following in the footsteps of Standard and Poor's). Who are the pollsters trying to kid?

1, explain to the rest of us the mindset of Taqqiya. It's quite subtle to say the least for those who really understand it. 2, What would Christ do? I've said this before and I'll say it again: It's situational ethics. It's works, not Gospel. There's a clear difference. 3, In the first few centuries before the Mohammedan conquest (through the sword BTW) of North Africa (and almost Europe), Christianity did not spread through violence but through the proclamation of the Gospel. Look at how it perservered even through Caesarian persecution. As for how Islamic extremists do not reflect the true teachings of Islam, Muslims are still killing one another to this day. At the same time, there are people who are CINO's who have shed blood as well. The Troubles certainly didn't help in this regard.

That's exactly what I was thinking when I read that.

I actually took all of that into account when I posted it. Before you start talking about the Crusades, remember that it was the followers of Mohammed who literally ransacked Christian lands in North Africa and southwest Europe. Be thankful people like Charles Martel put a stop to their advance.

Reminds me of Pharaoh's bad dreams about the lean cattle devouring the fat cattle in Genesis. So, which is it? Feast, or famine?

Speaking of 9.11, take a look at this. Our resident Mohammedan can't explain away 1400 years of bloodshed.

I think we might be saying "God Bless the Russian Federation" sometime in the near future - if not now. After reading this column, I can't help but think that we're going the way of the Soviets - which is exactly what the Russians are looking to leave behind. Doesn't matter who gets elected in November.