Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Rufus_1611, Jul 10, 2007.
What this guy is really saying is can you imagine an America without the freedom to express different points of view. Yes, I can because that's where this idiot and everyone else who only listens to their own perspective want to take us.
Look. I don't agree with Pastor Baldwin on a number of issues but this article is a well-reasoned article from someone with an intelligent perspective on this issue and I consider this man to be a defender of the faith and a brother in Christ. Further, this man is the pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL has been recognized by Ronald Reagan for his church's influence, he ran for the Vice-Presidency of the United States of America under the Constitution Party ticket and has written two books. You might disagree with the man but I do not see any argument that remotely fits the idea that he's an "idiot" and if you had an argument you could make it without calling a brother who confesses Christ as being an "idiot". I would desire you please give me the Christian argument for why folks who don't think like you do should be called names as I believe Jesus Christ warns about such things...
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." - Matthew 5:22
Synonyms for "idiot" - ass, blockhead, boob, booby, cretin, dimwit, donkey, dork, dumb ox, dumbbell, dunce, dunderhead, fool, halfwit, ignoramus, imbecile, jackass, jerk, kook*, meathead, mental defective, moron, nincompoop, ninny*, nitwit, pinhead*, pointy head, simpleton, stupid, tomfool, twit*, yo-yo (Source: http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/idiot)
I certainly agree with the "socialism" comment. It is obvious to most who have even a remote knowledge of governmental definitions and stances that we are far more socialistic in our practices that we are democratic. Even for those who desire to argue that we are not, it is hard to disagree that if we are not socialistic (in many things, not all), that we are for certain an aristocracy to a point.
from the article
We expect government to fund our retirement, to reimburse our losses, and to even pay for our health care. What we cannot get from Uncle Sam, we expect from Lady Luck. Americans today want the fruit of freedom but seem unwilling to pay its purchase price. It was not always this way.
Americans want security, not some theoretical freedom. And exactly what freedom did they really want in 1776? Primarially the freedom to murder Indian People and steal their assets. The argument over taxes was about retaining the stolen stuff or paying taxes on it.