Dems Said No to God 3X and Booed God

[LadyEagle]

New Allen West Commercial (Florida Congressman):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5ay6C8oy2w&feature=youtu.be

and they booed God!

From RC Politics:

Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected.

Booing God?

Do ya think maybe some booed God when Noah was building the ark?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

New Allen West Commercial (Florida Congressman):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5ay6C8oy2w&feature=youtu.be

and they booed God!

From RC Politics:

Booing God?

Do ya think maybe some booed God when Noah was building the ark?

They didn't boo God - they booed the action of declaring an action passed even though it was clear that there was no 2/3 majority. I would have booed to if a voice vote that close was declared passed by a 2/3 majority. It was abysmal.

So is it better now that they have falsely put God back in their ungodly platform?

 

[Don]

Roger -- give that some thought.

They started out without God in their statement. They chose to vote about it, and the vote indicated they wanted to leave God out of it; but "those that know better" overrode the party vote and put it back in, which caused an outburst. The initial reports indicated the president looked it over without changes; then came back and said they hadn't seen it, giving them the opportunity to put it in.

"Lack of God" fully supported; the party leaders doing what they want, not what the party majority wants; the party nominee making unpopular decisions because he doesn't know what's in the party position (or, worst case, setting up a situation to create an appearance of Christianity because he had to put God back into the party position)....

How is any of this defendable?

 

[Winman]

They didn't boo God - they booed the action of declaring an action passed even though it was clear that there was no 2/3 majority. I would have booed to if a voice vote that close was declared passed by a 2/3 majority. It was abysmal.

So is it better now that they have falsely put God back in their ungodly platform?

Oh, I think they will say it was approved by a 2/3rds vote. They will say they took 3 separate votes, and in 2 of them the I's (yes) were slightly louder than the No's.

But I thought the No's were slightly louder in my opinion. :laugh:

 

[mont974x4]

They shouldn't complain. They should be used to their party leaders forcing things on them.

 

[Revmitchell]

They booed God, they booed Israel, and they booed forcing the vote through. You can be sure they booed it all.

 

[OldRegular]

They didn't boo God - they booed the action of declaring an action passed even though it was clear that there was no 2/3 majority. I would have booed to if a voice vote that close was declared passed by a 2/3 majority. It was abysmal.

So is it better now that they have falsely put God back in their ungodly platform?

I don't know what their reference to God is but in a platform that calls for the unimpeded slaughter of the unborn it is blasphemous, in my humble opinion.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Roger -- give that some thought.

They started out without God in their statement. They chose to vote about it, and the vote indicated they wanted to leave God out of it; but "those that know better" overrode the party vote and put it back in, which caused an outburst. The initial reports indicated the president looked it over without changes; then came back and said they hadn't seen it, giving them the opportunity to put it in.

"Lack of God" fully supported; the party leaders doing what they want, not what the party majority wants; the party nominee making unpopular decisions because he doesn't know what's in the party position (or, worst case, setting up a situation to create an appearance of Christianity because he had to put God back into the party position)....

How is any of this defendable?

Of course not. But nobody booed God.

 

[OldRegular]

They shouldn't complain. They should be used to their party leaders forcing things on them.

The noble born and the base born all over again!

Or the Nobles and the serfs!

Or the "massa" and the slave! And Biden has the nerve to accuse Republicans!

 

[Revmitchell]

Roger -- give that some thought.

They started out without God in their statement. They chose to vote about it, and the vote indicated they wanted to leave God out of it; but "those that know better" overrode the party vote and put it back in, which caused an outburst. The initial reports indicated the president looked it over without changes; then came back and said they hadn't seen it, giving them the opportunity to put it in.

"Lack of God" fully supported; the party leaders doing what they want, not what the party majority wants; the party nominee making unpopular decisions because he doesn't know what's in the party position (or, worst case, setting up a situation to create an appearance of Christianity because he had to put God back into the party position)....

How is any of this defendable?

None of it is defensible and they booed God and the whole kit and kabutal.

 

[jaigner]

The only Christian nation is the church. The United States of America isn't, and never was.

Why should it bother us so that the Democrats aren't acknowledging a God that the USA doesn't serve to begin with?

 

[Jedi Knight]

None of it is defensible and they booed God and the whole kit and kabutal.

Your so right! If it quacks like a duck,acts like a Duck.....

 

[SolaSaint]

Let's face facts, the GOP is afraid to talk about social moral issues at their convention where the Dems are not. That is sad on both sides. The Dems want to show how immoral they can be while the Republicans are hiding their morals.

 

[jaigner]

Your so right! If it quacks like a duck,acts like a Duck.....

Um...what?

I'll say it again. The only Christian nation is the church. Why should it bother us so that politicians aren't acknowledging a God that the USA doesn't serve to begin with?

 

[carpro]

I don't think they literally booed God, but the process that they felt forced Him on them.

It's evident that, when it comes to politics, ideology is their only god. The one true God has no place in their lives.

 

[steaver]

I also find it odd whenever this party recites the pledge of allegence. It's odd to hear them cite life, liberty and justice for all knowing full well that "all" does not include the unborn child. Sickening actually.

And then when the bishop prayed and acknowledged the unborn as human beings they all shouted "Amen". We know what God says about hypocrites!

 

[Jedi Knight]

Um...what?

I'll say it again. The only Christian nation is the church. Why should it bother us so that politicians aren't acknowledging a God that the USA doesn't serve to begin with?

Did our nation use the Koran or Hinduism to influence our constitution? What were the roots of American influence AND why would Christians NOT be surprise to here the Democratic party boo? Jesus said," for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."

 

[jaigner]

Did our nation use the Koran or Hinduism to influence our constitution."

"Country" is more appropriate here than "nation."

No, because most of them were at least nominally influenced by "Christian" moralism, but they didn't use much in the way of Christianity, either. There is more Locke than Jesus.

And even if there were, it wouldn't make any difference. The country never followed Jesus. Again, the only Christian nation in history is the church universal.

 

[Revmitchell]

This country and nation was no doubt founded on Biblical principles. And no amount of liberal revisionism will change that. Why people who call themselves Christians despise that fact so much is beyond me.