dermdoc said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Aggie Dan said:

---

There are a lot of people on this thread pointIng out the spec in their brother's eye.

---

Lol another liberal trying to take the moral high ground.

---

Dead babies are a pretty big speck.

---

Nah, they're tiny when their lives are callously nipped in the damn bud. Don't lie.














Did i just make a dead baby joke? Yes I did. My first kid is due in 3 weeks and just thinking about anyone rationalizing it being a good thing for him or his peers to have life denied them en utero makes me the angriest black man the world has ever seen.

I joke to keep calm.

There are Christians who can vote their conscience in peace with sound Biblical foundations in both major parties. There are also godless followers of an anti (substitute) Christ in each party. Many Bible believing and equally devout people find many of you all to be betrayers of true Christianity. This post is full of self-congratulation, frankly. With who would Christ be aligned? All of you and none of you. He is with Himself as far as political affiliation.

Quote:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Where on earth do you get that?

Pelayo said:

---

Quote:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Where on earth do you get that?

---

Oh, have you not heard? Christians iz ALWAYS tryna starve fools to death. Makes our friggin' day tbh.

This is common knowledge. Get with the times.

Really? So explain to me where Christ said killing unborn babies was good? Especially for selfish reasons. This is not the Old Testament.

And you say all this moral relativism, feel good stuff which is the exact opposite of Christ's teachings. But hey, if if gives you "peace" to rationalize, knock yourself out.

tbirdspur2010 said:

---

Pelayo said:

---

Quote:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Where on earth do you get that?

---

Oh, have you not heard? Christians iz ALWAYS tryna starve fools to death. Makes our friggin' day tbh.

This is common knowledge. Get with the times.

---

Blue star sir. And we talk about starving children at our church every Sunday. Happily.

Oy vey.

krebsm@att.net said:

---

Now if you are suggesting White House has Christians in it you are sadly mistaken , Trump is antichrist and rest his followers

---

Funny that you use the description antichrist.

The word "antichrist" has a very specific Biblical definition. Anyone who denies the divinity of Jesus is an antichrist (1 John 2:22).

All Muslims are antichrists.

A very large portion of postmodern leftists are antichrists.

Trump is thin skinned, lecherous, bragadocious, short fingered vulgarian, but to my knowledge he is not an antichrist.

Modern liberals ally with Muslims because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". They will say otherwise but they absolutely despise Christianity more than anything in the world. They want to blindly admit tens of thousands of Shariah supporting Muslims from hardline Muslim countries on one hand...and genuinely seem to adore these people (because they're brown and not Christian)...yet "you Christians better bake my cake or we will personally see to it that you and your family's lives are ruined".

Modern liberals are BY FAR the greatest enemy and threat this nation has ever faced and it's not even close. The world's most vile terror organizations, combined, pale in comparison.

Liberals always side with evil and darkness. They virtue signal in an attempt to outwardly express their nobility and righteousness...but it's all a con to cover up their dark and twisted core.

The irony is the Leftists don't realize that even the centrist Muslims will require they drop all the edgy conduct they are so into. Nor will they hesitate much in making them get with the program once in charge.

Yes the PC-liberals are the main danger, because they enable all the opportunities the forces of thuggery, anarchy and Islamist terrorism have in the first place. Pre political correctness, much of both would have simply been put down by now.

ArcticPenguin said:

---

Those are a lot of words, so I just scanned them. But, I think I get the jist. Progressive liberals (as you label them) fully understand and do not condone how any religion (including Islam and Christianity) treat any group of people that don't conform to their cultural beliefs. The major difference is that they believe people should have the FREEDOM to choose whether to follow the tenants of a certain religion. In short, they think all groups of people - women, lgbt, black, white, orange, or purple should be left alone.

Liberals strongest belief on social issues is the separation of Church and State. That is true for any religion, rather it be Sharia law or Evangelical law which is pushed hard on this board (and the irony is lost on many).

---

What rubbish. You just described libertarian or even objectivist thought which is the exact opposite of how you statist act and think.

You believe in the destruction of any thought that is not your own using the power of the government, coercion and even violence.

titan said:

---

The irony is the Leftists don't realize that even the centrist Muslims will require they drop all the edgy conduct they are so into. Nor will they hesitate much in making them get with the program once in charge.

Yes the PC-liberals are the main danger, because they enable all the opportunities the forces of thuggery, anarchy and Islamist terrorism have in the first place. Pre political correctness, much of both would have simply been put down by now.

---

Yep. Everything they hate about Christians is about a jillion times worse in Islam. It is surreal.

I don't think Arctic Penguin identifies as Progressive Activist. In another thread, she even confirmed she doesn't feel much representation by the party now. She is just liberal.

The point is she is not mis-representing when keyed that, imo.

Quote:

---

Yep. Everything they hate about Christians is about a jillion times worse in Islam. It is surreal.

---

dermdoc, Yes indeed.

It certainly is. Even in the `milder versions'. Much closer to the Old Testament tone the Left so goes on about. Its amazing they don't see that. If only for strategy reasons of which is worse. List almost every `sacred cow' to the modern left and Islam is opposed to most of them. Especially of the social behavior variety.

titan said:

---

I don't think Arctic Penguin identifies as Progressive Activist. In another thread, she even confirmed she doesn't feel much representation by the party now. She is just liberal.

---

I agree. But I would be curious who she votes for. Because it is pretty obvious the dem party is being driven by the hard core progressives.

In general, Christians are much more loving, accepting, peaceful, charitable and compassionate than Muslims, and it's not even close. Jesus was a man of peace and love and compassion and preached these things...Muhammed was a murdering rapist who commanded violence and forced a SIX year old into marriage.

I would be extremely surprised if a single liberal on this board would quote this and say they are in agreement (without some stupid cop out qualifier). I am convinced they are incapable of doing so, even though it's the truth.

Can I get any liberals on here to simply say "I agree with this"? Without a "...but"?

titan said:

---

I don't think Arctic Penguin identifies as Progressive Activist. In another thread, she even confirmed she doesn't feel much representation by the party now. She is just liberal.

---

All i've ever seen is Arctic penguin do is goal tend for the left. Truthfully I didn't know there were any classical liberals still left on this board. If they were they would act much more like the never Trumper's in calling a spade a spade.

Liberals have been ousted from their own party as much as conservatives have been from their's.

Quote:

---

All i've ever seen is Arctic penguin do is goal tend for the left. Truthfully I didn't know there were any classical liberals still left on this board. If they were they would act much more like the never Trumper's in calling a spade a spade.

Liberals have been ousted from their own party as much as conservatives have been from their's.

---

Not classic liberals, either. Classic liberalism is probably in the paleocons or similar. Not many of just that blend left. Just trying to point out what is a Center Left vs a RadLeft, a Regressive PC-Leftist.

Goes like this:

Left to Right

PC-Left, SJW (Progressive, Activist) Center Left (`liberal') (Independents) (Center Right,etc)

PC-Left (Progressive Activist)
most of Obama admin, SJWs, etc
give a pass to Islam
Bulk of TV Mainstream Media
Racial-Marxists
Antifa
Tend to be victim-minded, anti-colonial
`human-hating' type greens
(others)

Center left (`liberal')
Does not care for Islam, knows it is
hostile to liberty, left mainly on
sex/bedrooom issues, just like
her post said
Pro America -- more like Trek ideals
The non radical version of environmentally concerned
(others)

The dis-connection in communication today is the MSM and Academia are PC-Left as is the Democratic Party. So liberals get pinned with the voice of them.

Agree completely and your term liberal is where most of the left leaning posters on here are. But the key is who they vote for and what their candidate does.

Ok, I don't see the need for differentiation if they never call out the wackos in their midst. Just like moderate Muslims to me.

Then again I thought Democrats of the 1970s were awful and that they would lead to what we have today. But those Democrats would write me because serv then again I thought Democrats of the 1970s were awful and that they would be what we have today. But those Democrats would be called rational moderates today, but I was correct in what their beliefs would do.

That's the rub isn't it- who do they then vote for? But know a fair number of liberals that did not vote for Obama again in 2012 and didn't for Hillary. One voted for Bernie, but her reasoning made sense --- `he's too out there for the entrenched to let him really do --so only basic Democrat stuff will get passed.'

Quote:

---

Ok, I don't see the need for differentiation if they never call out the wackos in their midst. Just like moderate Muslims to me.

---

Not unlike the `moderate' Muslims actually, is that is should not be underestimated the degree of narrative tyranny that has been going on. Centrist Muslims were not supported by the Obamians, MB, Cair, etc, was. So many tread carefully. Notice Egypt seems to be flexing muscle a bit now that they know the WH is not on the wrong side. Our media does not cover or encourage centrist Muslim response when they make excuses for radical Muslims. Somewhat enable the apologists. It makes it hard for others to speak up.

Center left, just say, 1990's style liberals -- - they have no place to go.

Quote:

---

Then again I thought Democrats of the 1970s were awful and that they would lead to what we have today. But those Democrats would write me because serv then again I thought Democrats of the 1970s were awful and that they would be what we have today. But those Democrats would be called rational moderates today, but I was correct in what their beliefs would do.

---

True, that's the dilemma. But if nothing else distinctions should be made so you don't needlessly multiply the odds against you.

Most conservative Christians on this site would go out of their way to make it known that they despise the Westboro "Baptists". How often do you see liberals on here criticizing the violent, hateful and ignorant rabid left (antifa, BLM etc)? If you pressed them on it, they may half heartedly say they agree (likely with some type of disclaimer), but it is extremely rare that they come out with criticism or condemnation of anything "left" on their own. Obviously they'll deny this.

Vernada said:

---

The idea that the right has a monopoly on Christianity is not only asinine but probably the most dangerously divisive belief one could hold.

---

The irony of this post is beyond words.

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Staff, can I down vote this moronic nonsense without getting banned?

I have never met anyone who HAPPILY wanted people to starve or get medical care. But I am not a big banning fan. The more they post, the more they reveal.

In the words of left leaning posters, Dems are afraid of the right imposing morality laws. While I am not addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of that idea, I will address this:

If that is truly the case, I find it to be silly, asinine, ridiculous, and scary that the left is more opposed to morality laws being enacted than a self serving govt enacting laws that serve it's own totalitarian existence.

While I do not support either, I also do not see much of a difference in the two, except that government can and will affect your life right now, rather than when it is your time for judgement. In all actuality, the very definition of "morality" changes depending on who uses it. Would the self serving govt that the left would love to have enact police state (more than they already have, anyway) laws and regulations that they set forth and define based on what they deem to be moral and righteous to them?

If anything, this line exposes the left. It shows who they really are by who they fear more, and by who they would also rather submit. They would rather submit to their own man made god, ie government, than a religious God, ie Christian God.

I would suggest that it is actually more dangerous in this line of thought. The big brother government, always shaping your life, changing the rules depending on political affiliation, etc. This is no more free than any other form of oppressive government.

At least, in the current set up we have, you can be a Christian and adhere to those values and still remain free with regard to interaction with our govt...currently and relatively, respectively.

But to worship our government, to put all faith and support in what amounts to nothing but an oligarchy, that can change laws and rules on a whim, punish those they oppose, etc, that is truly dangerous territory. I would rather live my life by the values I choose, and still be left alone by the government, and you left alone as well even if you have differing views...but not the left.

The left wants to impose their views on everyone else, because they know better than you. And what's more, they will use their God to do it.

Liberalism, ideas so good we have to force them on people!

dermdoc said:

---

I have never met anyone who HAPPILY wanted people to starve or get medical care. But I am not a big banning fan. The more they post, the more they reveal.

---

It has to be a troll post, right derm? Liberals don't really believe that idiocy, do they?

Bobcat06 said:

---

krebsm@att.net said:

---

Now if you are suggesting White House has Christians in it you are sadly mistaken , Trump is antichrist and rest his followers

---

Funny that you use the description antichrist.

The word "antichrist" has a very specific Biblical definition. Anyone who denies the divinity of Jesus is an antichrist (1 John 2:22).

All Muslims are antichrists.

A very large portion of postmodern leftists are antichrists.

Trump is thin skinned, lecherous, bragadocious, short fingered vulgarian, but to my knowledge he is not an antichrist.

---

Actually "anti" can also be interpreted as "substitute" in this context, i.e., giving something or someone else the place Christ should hold. The way some people give primacy to their political affiliation could fit the bill, too.

garc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I have never met anyone who HAPPILY wanted people to starve or get medical care. But I am not a big banning fan. The more they post, the more they reveal.

---

It has to be a troll post, right derm? Liberals don't really believe that idiocy, do they?

---

Unfortunately it is not.

garc said:

---

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Staff, can I down vote this moronic nonsense without getting banned?

---

I am still amazed that people find the ability to make these statements. Somehow the government is cure. The same government that cannot run any program efficiently is somehow the only way to provide food, shelter, and healthcare to those in need. Billions of dollars are stolen from us by the government every year under the guise of charity, yet millions continue to starve while others pilfer those funds. Government healthcare? As if watching how our bravest have been 'taken care of' by the VHA isn't the ultimate cautionary tale.

R's and D's alike, stealing money that could otherwise end up in communities and directly into the hands who need it the most. The money needs to be in the hands of people like some on this site, not in politicians hands who use it as a means to power.

Religion should not be the guiding force in politics, ever. Electable representatives and policy platforms on both sides have been shifting more and more to the extremes to be the most conservative/liberal politician out of their pool of candidates. IMO the more extreme we get off to either side or the other brings us closer to disaster. Bringing religion into it just creates a f***ed up morality position within that.

Vote left or right but be willing to work with both sides for the good of this country.

dermdoc said:

---

garc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I have never met anyone who HAPPILY wanted people to starve or get medical care. But I am not a big banning fan. The more they post, the more they reveal.

---

It has to be a troll post, right derm? Liberals don't really believe that idiocy, do they?

---

Unfortunately it is not.

---

It's a ridiculous, broad-brush caricature of the other side. Just like Wycliffe's 4:47 post earlier today. Hopefully people don't really believe either of those things.

tarletontexan said:

---

Religion should not be the guiding force in politics, ever. Electable representatives and policy platforms on both sides have been shifting more and more to the extremes to be the most conservative/liberal politician out of their pool of candidates. IMO the more extreme we get off to either side or the other brings us closer to disaster. Bringing religion into it just creates a f***ed up morality position within that.

Vote left or right but be willing to work with both sides for the good of this country.

---

Tell us about all the "more conservative" politicians and the many conservative things they've done. We just elected the most liberal republican president ever, and all we hear is how the world is going to end.

Blows my mind how much the left has melted when Trump isn't even a true conservative.

tbirdspur2010 said:

---

Blows my mind how much the left has melted when Trump isn't even a true conservative.

---

Which is what gets at the heart of the issue. This isn't about Trump, or the things he says. They're mad because they lost power. They would have melted down no matter which Republican won. They did the same thing when Gore lost.