No, and you didn't either because Larry is not doing anything for Bush. If you think he is, then you can't read or are being dishonest.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Fundraisers get paid back
- Thread starter Pennsylvania Jim
- Start date
The Galatian
Active Member
Oh yeah, "Larry isn't really a republican." 
Well, I am sure, Galatian, that the Easterner probably agrees with you that Clinton is more conservative than Bush. In fact, probably all of the CP agree with you that Clinton is more conservative than Bush. Evidently you left the Democrat Party in 2000 after 8 years of conservative Clinton government....
"Longest period of prosperity in US history. Low inflation, full employment, businesses building and selling lots of products. Why should that be a bad thing?" you ask.
As I pointed out, it was a stock market bubble. You wonder why a bubble is a bad thing--because when the bubble bursts, one has a crash. When there is a crash, the uninformed lose money. So do those who do not heed the warnings.
"Longest period of prosperity in US history. Low inflation, full employment, businesses building and selling lots of products. Why should that be a bad thing?" you ask.
As I pointed out, it was a stock market bubble. You wonder why a bubble is a bad thing--because when the bubble bursts, one has a crash. When there is a crash, the uninformed lose money. So do those who do not heed the warnings.
The Galatian
Active Member
See above. Which of those records do you think is conservative, and which do you think is liberal. Step up and tell the truth.
So are you saying all those things aren't liberal, or are you saying Bush didn't do them? Straight answer? Just once?
After McGovern.
Barbarian on Clinton's economy.
Longest period of prosperity in US history. Low inflation, full employment, businesses building and selling lots of products. Why should that be a bad thing?
Stock market bubbles don't increase wealth. But that's what the Clinton economy did. Stock market bubbles don't reduce unemployment, or build new factories.
Sorry about your loss. But prosperity, unless it's obtained by increasing deficits, is not a bubble.
Isn't it remarkable that the "crash" didn't happen until Bush's economic policies kicked in?
Bad luck, that.
Happens to a lot of republicans. "It's not my fault! Blame it on (last democrat)!
Sure. Used to be the party of personal responsibility. Now it's the party of excuses.
I am not sure when the stock market crashed but it was before Nine Eleven. AOL was selling so high at one time that it would take 600 years at the then rate of dividends to recover one's investment. That is a bubble. Clinton presided over a bubble. Clinton himself admitted that he had raised taxes too high.
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
Originally posted by The Galatian:
Oh yeah, "Larry isn't really a republican."
He's not. Repeating lies doesn't make them true. It simply makes you look silly and uninformed. It is a shame when someone who merely points out the truth is attacked and called a republican. It is a shame that the truth is so lowly valued by Galatian and some others. It is a shame when lies are persisted in even after being corrected.
The Galatian
Active Member
So why do you think people are amused when you deny it, Larry?
I don't think they are amused, but I don't know. I think what you have confused is the pursuit of the truth with a politcal loyalty. Your nearly incesssant lies about Bush showed a political loyalty you had, and you seem to have assumed that anyone who points out the truth about Bush is a de facto Republican or Bush supporter. That shows a lack of critical thinking on your part. One can defend the truth about Bush wihtout being a loyal, or even nominal, Republican, just as one can defend the truth about Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, or other Democrats without being a Democrat.
You simply did not think clearly through that charge before you made it. If you would have thought through it, you probably would have easily seen the problems you created for yourself. Whether or not you would have admitted them or not would be a different story.
You simply did not think clearly through that charge before you made it. If you would have thought through it, you probably would have easily seen the problems you created for yourself. Whether or not you would have admitted them or not would be a different story.
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
No, I'm amused.
The Galatian
Active Member
I believe that a lot of people supported Bush who were not Republicans because they believed that the war was legal and that foreign aid should continue and that Kerry had a bad record in the Senate and when he returned from Vietnam.
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
Really, Larry, your posts are very one-sided in favor of Republicans. That's ok, but you really shouldn't tout yourself as perfectly objective at the same time. Given all the glaring failures of the GOP and President Bush, your constant defense of them causes you to lose credibility as an unbiased observer.
Look, Bush is not the conservative dream. He is a moderate and we know his understanding of theology is weak for a President. However, he will not have a Monica in the oval office or anywhere else. He is a war leader and at that he is very good. He is going to make some economic reforms and start things rolling on the cultural scene.
It is wrong to expect any leader to do all the work. Most of the work has to be done by the common man at the grassroots level. The real question is who will the GOP select in 4 years as the stage is now empty and the GOP likes to have a frontrunner.
It is wrong to expect any leader to do all the work. Most of the work has to be done by the common man at the grassroots level. The real question is who will the GOP select in 4 years as the stage is now empty and the GOP likes to have a frontrunner.
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
1. You are correct that he is not a conservative dream.
2. It's a matter of perspective, I guess but by the standards as they were before the Bush family pushed everything to the left, he's a liberal. And I'd characterize his theology more as heretical than weak.
3. Hopefully he will not have a monica inthe oval office, as you say. But neither did Jimmy
Carter. Big deal.
4. He is a war leader in the unnecessary, bloody mess that HE started. Sort of like the volunteer fireman who sets fires for the thrill of putting them out.
5. I don't see any economic reforms on the horizon that can compensate for his wild,out-of-control socialistic spending spree. Big (huge, massive) government is his hallmark.
6. As to the cultural scene, he remains silent about abortion and I don't see any reason to expect that he'll reverse his promotion of the homosexual agenda in government.
7. I agree that it is wrong to expect a leader to do all the work. I just wish that what he did was for our side, not the liberals.
8. The GOP will select another liberal for 2008, because you and millions of other conservatives have shown that you'll fully support them.
2. It's a matter of perspective, I guess but by the standards as they were before the Bush family pushed everything to the left, he's a liberal. And I'd characterize his theology more as heretical than weak.
3. Hopefully he will not have a monica inthe oval office, as you say. But neither did Jimmy
Carter. Big deal.
4. He is a war leader in the unnecessary, bloody mess that HE started. Sort of like the volunteer fireman who sets fires for the thrill of putting them out.
5. I don't see any economic reforms on the horizon that can compensate for his wild,out-of-control socialistic spending spree. Big (huge, massive) government is his hallmark.
6. As to the cultural scene, he remains silent about abortion and I don't see any reason to expect that he'll reverse his promotion of the homosexual agenda in government.
7. I agree that it is wrong to expect a leader to do all the work. I just wish that what he did was for our side, not the liberals.
8. The GOP will select another liberal for 2008, because you and millions of other conservatives have shown that you'll fully support them.
That is because the vast majority of lies and distortions are written about the Republicans. If people were writing lies about Democrats, I would be pointing those out as well.
I don't tout myself as perfectly objective, but I am clearly more objective than most.
I have not constantly defended them, as you well know. You should not have made this statement. On many occasions, I have criticized Bush for spending, for lack of pro life activity, for failure to back judges, for failure to use the bully pulpit, etc. I have no problems criticizing Bush. It is unfortunate for America that Bush was the best electable candidate in the last election. I don't hold out great hope that he will do great things. I think, on the whole, that he will be better than the alternative was, and that is why I voted for him. But I have no unqualified support. I never have had. I never will have. But when someone distorts the truth, I will point that out.
The Constitutional Party lost the election. They borrowed a page from the left about illegal and unconstitutional wars and lost. During the Vietnam war one Boston politican said that he supported the war and thought that the draft-dodgers should be shot. The CP is on the side of the street people and they got what they deserved for their refusal to support the nation at war.
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
Larry, you cannot see your own posts objectively. With all the rantings from other members about Kerry prior to the election (many of which I areed with), there were a GOOD NUMBER that were exaggerations or unfair. But I NEVER ONCE remember you chiming in to correct an unfair statement in defense of Kerry. On the other hand, I cannot remember you ever voluntarily criticizing Bush. You will say "I think he's done a lot of bad things" when you want to prove your objectivity, but never volunteer criticism of the many things with which you claim to disagree, as you did for Kerry. That doesn't look like striving for truth, to me.
I respect your right to an opinion, of course. But your characterization of your biased opinion as defense of truth is laughable. If you think that you are more fair than average, you are blind to your own extreme lack of objectivity.
I wonder why it is that so many threads in which you participate become threads about Pastor Larry, just like this one.
I respect your right to an opinion, of course. But your characterization of your biased opinion as defense of truth is laughable. If you think that you are more fair than average, you are blind to your own extreme lack of objectivity.
I wonder why it is that so many threads in which you participate become threads about Pastor Larry, just like this one.
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
...as CMG continues to spew unfair and non-factual hatred toward a party who's name he can't even spell.
I didn't read many posts about Kerry that I remember. I do remember saying that I thought the whole Vietnam war issue should not be brought up. It was a defense of Kerry in that respect. But I typically didn't read those threads and that makes it hard to comment on them.
I never voluntarily criticized anyone that I remember. I think all I did was respond to other people's comments. Yet, just this morning I criticized Bush yet again. Last week I made the comment that unfortunately for Kerry, Bush was the best man electable; unfortunately for America, Bush was the best man electable. If that is not unsoliciated criticism, then perhaps we need to define terms.
It is only laughable if you are so biased as to not recognize the truth. I cannot change that about you or others. But neither can I ignore the truth simply because you do not see it.
Because people like Galatian and you make silly comments about me. If you go back and look, you will see that this all started when Galatian lied by making the stupid assertion that I was a Republican. He had already been corrected on that numerous times before but decided to lie about it anyway. Then you chimed in about it. And you will notice that my comments about myself are only in response to ridiculous assertions about me like that. If you didn't have such an infatuation with me, I wouldn't have to say anything about this. But for some reason, you can't stay on topic of the thread; you have to talk about me. If you want the thread to not be about me, then stop talking about me. That's a simple solution. Talk about issues, not about people. But when you talk about individuals, expect to be responded to.