Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:AGC said:RetiredAg said:How about you try to discuss things without the condescension? That will be much more fruitful. Please explain to me, without the strawmen and falsehoods, what I'm missing. You said that I am "to a certain extent" crying wolf. Please explain.AGC said:RetiredAg said:And you talk of me missing the point? This has nothing to do w/ "not liking" Graham, Baptists, MQB or the politics board. Nice strawmen though (odd too, given that nobody mentioned Baptists or MQB). This isn't about Trump, no matter how much you may try to make it so. This is about how we seem to have a decline in the emphasis on character and integrity in our society. Trump, Graham, etc are merely examples of this. Since this is somehow stuck on the political aspect, this is something that we see in both sides. Tribalism tends to be blinding though.AGC said:RetiredAg said:It is about integrity and character when one is willing to overlook one's integrity and character simply because they may be "mistreated" no matter what. Integrity and character matter regardless of how one is treated. That's what separates high character/integrity people from low. So, in the example we've latched to unfortunately, we have Christian "leaders" doing a complete 180 on the subject simply because it's their "platform".Quote:
it's not about integrity and character. If you're going to be called racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, islamaphobic, etc. no matter who you run eventually the only appeal is platform
So you end up with someone like Graham to whom, 20 years ago, the character of a husband and father was an indicator of the level of trust one could hold in them, yet now it matters not. Not to mention the damage that people like Graham do to the witness of the church when their hypocrisy is put on full display.
You've missed the point and I'm not sure how. We get that you don't like Graham, baptists, MQB, and the politics board. The point is that when more principled people are treated the same way, why should you believe the criticisms? You're read the fable about the boy who cries wolf, right? That's the press. And you to a certain extent.
What am I crying wolf about? What criticisms am I believing that I shouldn't?
Now re-read my posts together and see if you can understand. Your questions aren't pertinent.
It's not condescension. It's frustration. I've explained my stance quite a bit and you don't seem to put my responses together. When every candidate is treated the same regardless of actual character and integrity, the criticism is eventually disregarded. Hence the Romney and McCain references. Both were immintently better people derided as murderers and a great many other things. Look at how Pence has been treated for going out of his way to be above reproach in his marriage. Quite simply, it doesn't matter who has an R next to their name. They'll be slimed and mistreated. So why should people pay attention to it? Further the malfeasance and criminal behavior of those currently in power resisting and attacking trump from the DoJ and FBI undermine such character claims.
Beyond that you fundamentally disagree with the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils. How could you ever accept what is viewed as a reasonable explanation by most, including a great many Christians? How will you ever be satisfied by the answer if you reject the basic premise?
Obama was accused of being a Muslim born in Kenya, trained at a madrassa, who was a postcolonial America-hater that idolized terrorists. Please stop pretending hyperbole only goes one way in American politics. What's pathetic is that the response on one side is to justify the idolizing of a terrible human being.
Accusations are a funny thing. Thanks for picking several that bear out as grounded in reality. How would you characterize reverend Wright and his sermons, if not postcolonial and American hating? And obama's pardon of actual terrorists while in office? Sounds like they were more than hyperbole to me.
Romney killing a woman with cancer via Bain? Or giffords getting shot because of a target on her district in a political graphic? Pence hating gays? Yeah that's a negative.
You still haven't actually addressed the argument though. My point was that in treating Romney, McCain and GWB so poorly that you made others tone deaf to your objections as all are imminently more principled that's trump. And all you can do is say, "but O"?
It's funny how you've proven my point by assuming the accusations against Obama are true while the accusations against people on your side are false or blown out of proportion. Shouldn't that make Democrats so tone deaf to your objections that they would nominate a Trump-like character? And all you can do is validate the point?
There's a difference between saying that someone who attends a church for a long time agrees with his pastor's message (O) and that someone killed a person with cancer because of a hedge fund they worked for (Romney). There's a difference between saying that someone who is friend with Bill Ayers (O) is responsible for a shooting of a dem by a crazy guy. If you can demonstrate the history with more moderate candidates being demonized with worse accusations like those, then present your evidence. Otherwise let's not treat your response like you demonstrated anything comparable.
O pardoned an actual domestic terrorist from Puerto Rico. It's a bit embarrassing to have to defend that against the label of hyperbole from a history professor.