1. 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!

Changing my mind?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 6, 2004.

  1. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    CMG, still waiting.
     
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm an independent and have voted both sides of the isle since JFK.

    I may not even vote in this election.

    But, I would love to hear our President's response to these two requests.

    Mister Bush, shut down our abortuaries!

    Mister Bush, seal up our borders!

    HankD
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Amazing arguments cmg.

    I think you are doing more to HURT Mr Bush'e chances amomg the undecided here.

    Or possibly, cmg is a Democratic plant here to make people so angry at him that they will vote against Bush?
     
  4. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    C4K, I think that you will find that in the long run the alliance between the liberal Democrats and the Constitution Party to siphon off GOP votes will backfire on the Constitution Party.

    Bush is the head of the GOP. If he wants to plead with Peroutka for CP votes, that is his choice. Peroutka probably has some price that he wants to back off.

    If Bush does not want to make a deal with Peroutka and the election is lost, I will not be angry at Bush. It is a good thing to rid the GOP of the far right just as it would be a good thing to rid the GOP of the lefties.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    You may be right (not in the poltical sense - it is clear you are moderate there ;) ).

    I would classify myself as right of Bush (in case you can't tell) and would prefer a right and left party so that voters have a clear choice. Now, we have basically two candidates in the same basic range of the poltical spectrum.
     
  6. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, they are not in the same range of the political spectrum. Kerry is as far left as one can go in the Democrat Party without becoming a Green. Bush is a moderate Republican who leans towards the right, as evidenced by examples such as the continuation of foreign aid, the attack against terror on the Iraq front, the partial-birth abortion ban, tax cuts for everyone, and the attempt to amend the Constitution to stop judicial activism in the area of marriage as one man and one woman only.

    Of the items in the examples above, Kerry would only support the continuation of foreign aid.

    The Constitution Party is not so far right that it does not eat at the table with liberal Democrats and Libertarians. Sheer cynical necessity. The right wing is earmarked by sheer cynical necessity.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    I've been wating for weeks CMG, I wish you would tell us all what you REALLY think of the Constitutuon Party ;) .
     
  8. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is that so important to you? How does that affect you?
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Because of the scourge of homosexuality and the threat that the movement poses to the American family.
     
  10. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    How is the American family threatened? I hear this a lot, but I don't see any connection.
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Oh my - by the breakdown of what a God ordained family is, by the pattern set that this is "normal." By poor little childrenhaving two mommies or two daddies and growing up with NO IDEA about what God's plan for the family, by making what God calls "that which is unseemly" into "normalacy."

    The home as one man and one woman is the first institution God ordained and down we are flushing it down the drain in the name of politcal correctness.

    In Romania, where homosexuality is still seen as an abomination, and over the protest of the Romanian government, Bush appointed a homosexual as ambassador. Today, he adn his partner live at the US Embassy and American taxpayers are paying to support their sin!
     
  12. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Taking money by force from U.S. taxpayers and giving it to foreign countries is a liberal/socialist concept. It is the antithesis of conservatism and individual liberty.
     
  13. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A well-stated point showing the ultra-right position on foreign aid. Dear Reader, don't worry if your computer's radar does not reach way far out into right field to get a fix on the Constitution Party--the CP is so far out in right field that radar can't get a fix on them.

    The conservative answer is simple. It is part of a sovereign government's power since the ancient world for a government to be able to help their nation's friends and allies. It is not about the money but it is about the beggars outside the gate. Since government is ordained by God, government has the authority to protect the nation--that means the authority to do whatever is necessary to aid allies.
     
  14. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    How can anyone believe you since you lie? You accused me of something that is not true, and you don't have the character to admit your mistake. I thought the Bible said something about liars ending up in a very bad place?
     
  15. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's only an ultra-right position in your eyes, cmg, because you are so far to the left. You are a perfect example of what is wrong with the Republican Party and why it has become basically an echo of the Democratic Party. You, cmg, are a Republican In Name Only, a RINO.
     
  16. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Republican Party has never opposed foreign aid as a majority of the party. That is what separates you from the GOP. The GOP is in center field, you are in right field, and the Demos are in left field.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And you and your ilk are constantly trying to pull the GOP farther and farther to the left, cmg the RINO. I wish you and your buddies, Guiliani and Bloomberg, would join the Democratic Party where ya'll belong with your other liberal friends.

    Maybe if you would pay attention to these folks - www.gopwing.com - you would understand that the guiding philosophy of the GOP should be that of Barry Goldwater of 1964 and Ronald Reagan of 1980, not that of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. By the way there is a whole group after folks like you - www.rinohuntersclub.com .
     
  18. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From the 1936 Republican Party platforM:

    Foreign Affairs

    We pledge ourselves to promote and maintain peace by all honorable means not leading to foreign alliances or political commitments.

    Obedient to the traditional foreign policy of America and to the repeatedly expressed will of the American people, we pledge that America shall not become a member of the League of Nations nor of the World Court nor shall America take on any entangling alliances in foreign affairs.
     
  19. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I can't see that the 1936 platform says anything about foreign aid. All of that ended on December 7, 1941. The isolation of the 1930s is over. I don't recall Ronald Reagan as against foreign aid either. Actually, it was GOP President Dwight D. Eisenhower who started the Food For Peace program fifty years ago, as I referenced on the issue of starvation in the Sudan. So for the last fifty years the GOP has been pro-foreign aid.

    As for Barry Goldwater, he was a failed candidate, like Bob Dole. Actually, Goldwater caused a split in the party, because states like Indiana went for Johnson in 1964--the first time in a long time that Indiana went Democrat and the last time that Indiana went Democrat. Goldwater was not popular in his own party and I wonder if there is any evidence that he wanted to abolish foreign aid? I myself voted against Goldwater in spite of the fact that I had visited friends in Arizona who were for him and in spite of the fact that I liked him as a Senator.

    You can't just walk into the party and dictate the party's stance. Isolationism was rejected; Bob Taft was never nominated and died in 1953. The party chose Ike over Taft in 1952. The GOP understands the role of the USA in the world, and more importantly, the GOP supported FDR on Lend-Lease and the Marshall Plan, etc. The GOP merely seeks to make foreign aid more cost effective and to eliminate waste and overspending in that area.

    Ike was right!
     
  20. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hoosier Wendell Wilkie, wildly popular in Indiana, ended GOP isolation. According to the History Channel website,

    "...Wilkie, a utility magnate and outspoken critic of the New Deal, shared with Roosevelt an unwavering opposition to America's neutrality in the global crisis. To the chagrin of many in his party, Wilkie refused to criticize the president's foreign policy during his campaign [for President in 1940] and called for greater national support for controversial Roosevelt initiatives such as the Lend-Lease Act. Soon after his electoral defeat, Wilkie embarked on a new campaign to awaken America from its isolationist slumber, and on July 23, 1941, he was heard urging unlimited aid to Britain in its struggle against Nazi Germany. That year, he traveled to Britain and the Middle East as President Roosevelt's personal representative and in 1942 visited the U.S.S.R. and China in the same capacity."
     
Loading...