Quetzal
New member
My favorite type of game.
Liberals have it made in the 2016 election
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
On the surface, the Cruz resume looks impressive. But if you consider his views on issues, his agenda, etc , he is still totally unfit to be President . His vicious homophobic bigotry alone would disqualify him .
Would you vote for a Presidential candidate who held the same racist views as the KKK ? Well Cruz is just as hostile to gay people as KKK members are to blacks .
Obama is much more than a "community organizer ". And where did this term get such a negative connotation ? Jesus was a community organizer . Obama was also a profession of constitutional law and a US senator .
Would you vote for a Presidential candidate who held the same racist views as the KKK ? Well Cruz is just as hostile to gay people as KKK members are to blacks .
Obama is much more than a "community organizer ". And where did this term get such a negative connotation ? Jesus was a community organizer . Obama was also a profession of constitutional law and a US senator .
Interplanner
Well-known member
Community organizer has a horrible connotation if you understand big government socialism (as funded worldwide by George Soros, Nazi collaborator in Hungary in WW2) and Saul Alinsky communism. Perhaps you should get familiar with the book TAKEDOWN or the documentary AGENDA--GRINDING AMERICA DOWN and then come back to the question.
Obama has as much hostility to the Constitution as the average Muslim. The 1st two Amendments stand in their way. He was not elected because he was black, but because the media/education/entertainment machine has succeeded in getting most of America to think that big government is best, in ridiculing the Constitution, and in scorning the nature of the Christian roots of America. That is, to validate the virtues necessary for citizens to be civil, responsible, and fair without the machinery of a massive government managing them, or, without 'imposing' religion per se, like shari'a law would do.
He might have been a professor of the Constitution, but you must realize that these days that means you are there to fundamentally change it, don't you? He said it was fundamentally flawed. Like he would know.
So listen to Larry Elder for 5 minutes and then see if you want to have anything to do with an "Obama" again.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...racist?&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
Your claim that Jesus was a community organizer is pretty ridiculous. Actually, there was a movement in Judaism that was trying to free Israel but that is not what Christ was trying to do. In the first place, it was a situation where they felt very energized to save the ability to practice the Mosaic Law. But if you know Luke-Acts well, you know that the bottom line is to show that Paul was not out there to disrupt the Roman administration, although he wanted individuals to be righteous, as can be seen in the final speeches of Paul in Acts. In 22, he is momentarily misidentified as an Egyptian terrorist who would be dangerous to the Roman administration, but it was dropped.
The free Israel movement went away from the Christian mission that God wanted for Israel, and went toward more and more physical conflict with Rome and then went bizarre with messianic pretenders claiming that God would intervene on their behalf from heaven, and re-establish the theocracy etc.
Christ was none of those, and all that continues on is his mission of the Gospel; that God was in Christ reconciling the world from its debt of sin by the righteousness of God in Christ.
Don't be so sure, you, nor I have any idea how this man will govern.
I'd suggest watching the video in the OP a few more times.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
right, a heckuva lot more impressive than bammy's
"college lecturer" is not a qualification for the most demanding executive office in the country
neither is "partial-term senator with no record of accomplishment"
musterion
Well-known member
Agree, I hear words like 'establishment' and 'illumine' passed around. Who can possibly be better described by these words the Donald Trump? He has four to eight billion dollars; with that much wealth he cannot be pro democracy, as such a notion, applied to him, would be to negate his essence. He is really too rich to be president; meaning it seems he would increase his power more by not being president. I think he has a desire for fame? :idunno:
I think the senate likes, or at least prefers Cruz to Trump, they show their open dislike for Trump.
Totally agree.
Hillary is not my choice by a long shot either; she would be like Obama. Bernie is the real danger. He hates capitalism and is a stone socialist; he wants to destroy the market, which would destroy this country.
His support is the very young, poor and stupid, those with no economic stake in our economy. Too bad really they are such fools, as they ruin their chances of acquiring any economic stability in their future. It will have far less effect on old established persons.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill
Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.
Winston Churchill
On young liberals, Winston Churchill was most likely right, although I would add the young are both idealistic and shortsighted.
I don't think so. I suspect you'd see more of Bill in her presidency. But it may all come down to the least offensive choice or a write in.
I can't see myself voting for him, but he'd never be allowed to wreck the system. I like a few of his ideas and that you understand where he actually stands.
Churchill was born to the ruling class and was insulated from want. Of course he defended it against socialism. Doesn't mean, catchy as it is, that it's gospel. Capitalism is a philosophy of the social Darwinist, the creed of greed and the gospel of self-justified indifference. It's inherent virtue is a belief that anyone can win the lottery, though the men who run it know better.
Or, it's easy to do that sort of thing.
Bill was penned in by a strong Republican congress. I think Hillary would be to the left of him, although not as far left as Bernie.
Capitalism is a philosophy of the individual; social Darwinism is the state impinging on the will of democracy. the will of the people. They are not the same. Capitalism is a means to liberty, more than a philosophy, as it is rooted in pragmatism.
Always remember, the more free the the economy, the more free the people; the conclusion is inexplicable!
I don't see it that way. He was a deal maker with a few ideas. The Republicans had it before he got his hands on the wheel and nearly wrecked the economy. So why should we believe his presidency invested them with a difference they lacked when in power? The name of Bush has yet to be kind to our economy.
Maybe. She was the driving force behind their attempt at universal healthcare. Hard to say. I think responsible and intelligent regulation of a market economy will ultimately do more for people than the alternatives. But if we keep going down the path of diminishing returns for the middle class we invite socialism as an understandable response from the next generation.
Get as much as you can within what's legal seems a fairly capitalistic and Darwinistic principle. If you can't afford the best price? Tough break. What's humane and virtuous within it is mostly infused.
Free to do what is the question. If it's free to serve the one percent while their own standard of living is reduced or the product of impossible debt then it's not much of a thing as freedom goes.
This is a great culture to be wealthy in. It's a great system to be wealthy or even middle class with a terrific idea in. Most people don't fall into either camp and the system that once made those lives comfortable has neglected what's best for everyone for too long, finding within the anonymity of the corporate culture not only an excuse for poor conduct, but the ability to wrap that conduct in the appearance of virtue...obligation to the shareholder, don't you know.
It is that greed that's endangering the shooting match. If not for it you wouldn't be hearing the least call for socialized anything.