Dems So full of anger and hate

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Is it not "ratcheting the rhetoric up" to accuse someone of intentionally trying to run the government into the ground? To say that he does not care about our country? To say that he's going to give it over to the Muslims?

One, I did not make such an accusation. Perhaps others have, but as you called me out specifically, I strenuously object to that characterization of my posts, as I have not said anything he does is intentionally designed to harm this nation.

Two, I didn't say he does not care about our country, so again I object to this characterization.

Three, I certainly haven't joined the shrill minority that are convinced he is a "closet Muslim" who desires the downfall of the U.S.

What I have said, in so many words, is that his domestic and foreign policies are not only ill-suited to the current U.S. and world situation, but also go against the historical dynamic of this country's heritage and sociopolitical ideologies. He is advocating a socialist agenda for this nation. No one can reasonably or accurately deny that. That being the case, I will not hesitate to point it out.

So, if you want to complain about "ratcheting up the rhetoric" you should start by toning down your own, because unwittingly or not, you have completely misrepresented what I have been saying.

What you fail to realize is that calling the president "The Great Pretender" is equally as serious and "ratcheted up" as what the democrats are saying.

Hardly. It is a short-hand way of expressing my sincere belief that he is unqualified for the office, and the evidence is overwhelming that that opinion is based in fact. What the Democrats are doing is "going nuclear" by using the current fear-mongering words in the language to describe their opponents: "Jihadist." "Terrorist." "Arsonist." "Kidnapper." The use of those words -- particularly the first two -- are inexcusable escalations of what should be an intellectual discussion of the issues before Congress. Calling a party that is interested in keeping the majority views of the voting public front-and-center of the debate "terrorists" or "jihadists" is destructive and unproductive. Calling the president "the Great Pretender" doesn't rise anywhere near that level of political hackery, particularly since I am not in the midst of the Congressional debate, but the ones using those words certainly are.

One simply has to do with violence, the other with subterfuge.

My use of that phrase is only "subterfuge" to those who don't like what I say. It isn't misleading at all. In fact, as I said above, it is shorthand for stating factual evidence.

Both are equally serious. Both are used with the intention to demonize someone in the eyes of others.

Your opinion. You're welcome to it. If the phrase "the Great Pretender" offends you, feel free to put me on "ignore."

And then to write out that no name calling will be replied to and to try to call others out for name calling, the sentence after one calls names? That is pure hypocrisy.

Calling what I say "hypocrisy" is the equivalent of saying that it is hypocritical of me to use the word "Negro" to describe an African-American and then criticizing someone else for uttering the despicable six-letter term that also starts with "n." The first is a rather archaic word that has fallen into disfavor, but not disuse. The second is just plain ugly and hate-filled -- unless, of course, they use it among themselves, which doesn't make sense to me at all. But making that same comparison to my use of the phrase "the Great Pretender" and the words the elected Democrats are using against Republicans in public forums and in the media isn't rational, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Now, before I go on with this little bit, let me say that I did not vote for President Obama. I do not like many of the decisions he's made. I do not agree with many of his policies.

I really don't care. But I would point out this is the kind of disclaimer people put out there to deny what they really feel or do in an effort to make themselves seem more reasonable.

But let me ask you this, do you think God was surprised when President Obama was elected?

Of course not! That doesn't mean He didn't expect us to react to it. Has it occurred to you that his election is a wake-up call for a Christian nation sliding downhill into apostasy? Has it occurred to you that this kind of reaction, in its various forms, is exactly what He wants from His people? Do you recall the violence against the leaders of ancient Israel who had led her astray? How, when the people awoke to their sin, they punished those who had led them down that path? It happened many times. But we aren't doing that. We are talking, reasoning, debating, and our leaders are taking action.

Do you think this is out of God's hands? I don't.

Neither do I. Just because God raises up a leader ...

And since this is the man that God has allowed to take the leadership position in this country ...

... does not mean He intends for us to sit idly by. He also raised up Hitler and Hirohito. No, I am not comparing the Great Pretender to them. Far, far from it. But He did raise up those two evil men. Why? When you can answer that question, get back to me.

I will not disrespect him by calling him "The Great Pretender", or any other such names.

I will, but not from disrespect. It is an accurate reflection of the belief I hold that he is unqualified and morally reprehensible, and while I obviously will get argument from others regarding that belief, I have evidence that supports it. I often put it out here on the boards to corroborate what I say. I am sorry it offends you, but it is not anywhere near the same level of shrill rhetoric that his cohorts have been calling my preferred political leadership. If you think it is, please rethink.

It is disrespectful, and it is un-Godly. Whether you like him or not, he is still your leader.

This your military training talking, and I understand it. I served 20 years as a combat officer in the Army. You may not like your C.O., but he's still your C.O. The Army doesn't provide for many ways to address an unfair, unqualified, or morally objectionable commander. But there are ways. The same is true for addressing unfair, unqualified, morally objectionable leaders in the political arena. We make noise. We write letters. We call our congressman. They take action. That's the way it's done.

He is still the elected head of our country. And he is the man that God has allowed to take office.

For what purpose? Again, when you can answer that question above, get back to me.

 

[Zaac]

Is it not "ratcheting the rhetoric up" to accuse someone of intentionally trying to run the government into the ground? To say that he does not care about our country? To say that he's going to give it over to the Muslims?

What you fail to realize is that calling the president "The Great Pretender" is equally as serious and "ratcheted up" as what the democrats are saying. One simply has to do with violence, the other with subterfuge. Both are equally serious. Both are used with the intention to demonize someone in the eyes of others.

100% correct. Yet they wonder how I know they aren't seriously praying for the President as commanded by Scripture. The current attitudes of some Christians against the President is one of the primary reasons I think Christians need to be quiet about the President and all things political unless they can do it in a Christ honoring way.

To continuously be so disrespectful and un-Christlike simply because you disagree with the President's political position runs contrary to the witness Christians should be giving for Christ.

PREACH the Gospel because whenever we get involved in worldly affairs and not maintain a Christ first approach, we start acting the fool just like the world. Over something that has no eternal value.

And then to write out that no name calling will be replied to and to try to call others out for name calling, the sentence after one calls names? That is pure hypocrisy.

Yep. But the justifying will pridefully continue because there's more to this than just name calling. It's outright unrighteous anger that will become hatred if not nailed to the Cross.

Now, before I go on with this little bit, let me say that I did not vote for President Obama. I do not like many of the decisions he's made. I do not agree with many of his policies.

Ditto.

But let me ask you this, do you think God was surprised when President Obama was elected? Do you think this is out of God's hands? I don't. And since this is the man that God has allowed to take the leadership position in this country, I will not disrespect him by calling him "The Great Pretender", or any other such names. It is disrespectful, and it is un-Godly. Whether you like him or not, he is still your leader. He is still the elected head of our country. And he is the man that God has allowed to take office.

AMEN!!!:applause:

 

[Aaron]

A Republican farts in an elevator, and the Dems melt tar and gather feathers. A Dem defecates on the table and everyone is expected to come and dine.

No thanks.

The problem is with the Dems.

 

[Sapper Woody]

if you want to complain about "ratcheting up the rhetoric" you should start by toning down your own, because unwittingly or not, you have completely misrepresented what I have been saying.

I apologize. When I typed those generalizations, I wasn't speaking specifically of you, but rather just making a point that both sides were doing the same thing. It wasn't my intent to make it seem as if I were singling you out in that portion.

Hardly. It is a short-hand way of expressing my sincere belief that he is unqualified for the office, and the evidence is overwhelming that that opinion is based in fact. What the Democrats are doing is "going nuclear" by using the current fear-mongering words in the language to describe their opponents: "Jihadist." "Terrorist." "Arsonist." "Kidnapper." The use of those words -- particularly the first two -- are inexcusable escalations of what should be an intellectual discussion of the issues before Congress. Calling a party that is interested in keeping the majority views of the voting public front-and-center of the debate "terrorists" or "jihadists" is destructive and unproductive. Calling the president "the Great Pretender" doesn't rise anywhere near that level of political hackery, particularly since I am not in the midst of the Congressional debate, but the ones using those words certainly are.

I understand what you are saying, but still disagree. The only point I will agree on here is that they have a more public place, and so that compounds what they say. I still hold that calling the president the "Great Pretender" is just as serious of an accusation as calling a political figure/party "jihadists". The implication and end state of calling him that, while not as violent, is just as severe.

My use of that phrase is only "subterfuge" to those who don't like what I say. It isn't misleading at all. In fact, as I said above, it is shorthand for stating factual evidence.

Here's the thing: I don't disagree with your stance. If I could vote the president out of office right now, I would. I think someone else needs to step in. My issue is with the fact that he was called a name a split second before you talking down to people for calling names.

Your opinion. You're welcome to it. If the phrase "the Great Pretender" offends you, feel free to put me on "ignore."

Ignore is for people who don't have the self control to overcome their emotion and form rational responses, or for people with such thin skin that they shouldn't be on this board. It doesn't offend me. Hardly anything does. I'm just trying to make a point.

Calling what I say "hypocrisy" is the equivalent of saying that it is hypocritical of me to use the word "Negro" to describe an African-American and then criticizing someone else for uttering the despicable six-letter term that also starts with "n." The first is a rather archaic word that has fallen into disfavor, but not disuse. The second is just plain ugly and hate-filled -- unless, of course, they use it among themselves, which doesn't make sense to me at all. But making that same comparison to my use of the phrase "the Great Pretender" and the words the elected Democrats are using against Republicans in public forums and in the media isn't rational, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

IMO, apples to oranges.

I really don't care. But I would point out this is the kind of disclaimer people put out there to deny what they really feel or do in an effort to make themselves seem more reasonable.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I just wanted people to know that I don't really like the man, but that I still won't disrespect him.

Of course not! That doesn't mean He didn't expect us to react to it. Has it occurred to you that his election is a wake-up call for a Christian nation sliding downhill into apostasy? Has it occurred to you that this kind of reaction, in its various forms, is exactly what He wants from His people? Do you recall the violence against the leaders of ancient Israel who had led her astray? How, when the people awoke to their sin, they punished those who had led them down that path? It happened many times. But we aren't doing that. We are talking, reasoning, debating, and our leaders are taking action.

Neither do I. Just because God raises up a leader ...

... does not mean He intends for us to sit idly by. He also raised up Hitler and Hirohito. No, I am not comparing the Great Pretender to them. Far, far from it. But He did raise up those two evil men. Why? When you can answer that question, get back to me.

No, he does not expect us to sit idly by. But he doesn't condone disrespect either. There is a process to changing things in the government. That's what should be used. Unless of course tyranny arises within the government. Then it is our responsibility to rise against it with force. But I don't see that becoming an issue.

I will, but not from disrespect. It is an accurate reflection of the belief I hold that he is unqualified and morally reprehensible, and while I obviously will get argument from others regarding that belief, I have evidence that supports it. I often put it out here on the boards to corroborate what I say. I am sorry it offends you, but it is not anywhere near the same level of shrill rhetoric that his cohorts have been calling my preferred political leadership. If you think it is, please rethink.

I agree with the part that I bolded in your quote. But I am still not going to disrespect him by calling him a name.

This your military training talking, and I understand it. I served 20 years as a combat officer in the Army. You may not like your C.O., but he's still your C.O. The Army doesn't provide for many ways to address an unfair, unqualified, or morally objectionable commander. But there are ways. The same is true for addressing unfair, unqualified, morally objectionable leaders in the political arena. We make noise. We write letters. We call our congressman. They take action. That's the way it's done.

Exactly. But calling names doesn't solve the problem, it only exacerbates it, and turns off those who might want to talk.

For what purpose? Again, when you can answer that question above, get back to me.

I wish I could answer that question.