What A Contrast!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OldRegular, Jun 22, 2009.

  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    While in Iran people are dying in an attempt to bring down a despotic regime in America many are bowing down or caving in before the despot Obama, some even going so far as to call him god like. Sad but true!
     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    > While in Iran people are dying in an attempt to bring down a despotic regime

    The regime set up by Bush and friends?
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    It is pathetically obvious that you are not a student of history.:tonofbricks: The regime in Iran came into power during the Carter administration! Don't believe that Carter was or is a friend of President Bush.
     
  4. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    The rule of the Ayatollah's started with the Iranian people deposing the U.S.-installed Shah of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeni returned from exile in France to assume the leadership of the country. He was no friend of the US.
     
  5. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Correct! That is when the Iranians took several, perhaps all, of the American embassy staff hostage and kept them until Reagan became president.
     
  6. Joseph M. Smith

    Joseph M. Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am saddened that so little respect is being shown to the President. Not only does Scripture command us to respect and pray for those who are in authority, but common decency requires us to speak of Mr. Obama in language that demonstrates respect.

    His genial demeanor, his work on so many issues not of his own making, and his determination to advance the situation of ordinary Americans, of whatever race, make him a person to be honored and helped, with our prayers. I can do no less.
     
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    When he shows some respect for this country and the Constitution then perhaps I can show some respect for him. But I am not holding my breath.
     
  8. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==According to the Oxford Dictionary a despot is an "absolute ruler...tyrant". President Obama is no more a despot than President Bush was. President Obama is not, nor was President Bush, an absolute ruler.
     
    #8 Martin, Jun 22, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 22, 2009
  9. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Of course, you are correct. However you must understand that common decency plays no role in politics on the right or on the left. The left spent the last eight years demonizing President Bush and now the right is doing the same thing to President Obama. To these people, on the right and on the left, things like common decency and respect are things that are only applied towards those they agree with. Also, in my experience, the vast majority of these people work very hard to find their way around Scriptural admonitions on this issue. I have even heard a small few so called Christian conservatives out right deny what the Scriptures say on this. I think it is sad that so many Christians have been sucked into the political sewage.

    I did not vote for President Obama, and I disagree with many of his policy goals, however he is the duly elected President of the United States of America (not a despot). For that reason, if for no other, he deserves my honor (Rom 13:5-7).
     
  10. Freedom

    Freedom
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does this mean? Empty words of blind hate.
     
  11. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    You obviously would not understand JC!
     
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Not yet but he is working on it.

    Tell me since you are so wise and pious. Where did he get the authority to fire the head of GM? Where did he get the authority to give 20% of Chrysler to Fiat? Where did he get the authority to shaft the secure bond holders of GM and Chrysler, putting them at the end of the line for compensation after bankruptcy instead of the head of the line?
     
  13. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Where did he get those powers? From the same place Bush got the powers to pass the unconstitutional Patriot Act. Thanks to unconstitutional bailouts by Presidents Bush and Obama, the federal government is now supporting GM (etc) and therefore has the ability to impose its will on them.

    However none of that equals despot or even comes close to despot. If you think it does, you don't know what a despot is.

    As for your "so wise and pious" remark, that is uncalled for. All I did was point out the correct definition of "despot".
     
  14. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Your piety is admirable.:laugh: Perhaps under "bo" we will return to the "divine right of kings" or worse "Sharia Law"!:BangHead:

    Romans 13:7 states "give honor to whom honor is due". "bo" is not due honor until he shows respect for this country and the Constitution.
     
  15. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I am amazed by your brilliance!:tonofbricks: The President does not pass laws, the Congress does. Furthermore, most of the Patriot Act, if not all, was upheld by the Supreme Court.

    FYI Bush is no longer president. We only have one at a time. Bush did not shaft company officials or bondholders. The fact that taxpayer money was used to bailout GM, Chrysler, and numerous banks does not give "bo" authority over them.

    Glad to see that you consider certain acts by Bush and "bo" as unconstitutional!

    I know what constitutes a despot and in the situations I mentioned "bo" was a despot.

    That was in reference to your earlier post. You know the one where you pontificate about "common decency".
     
  16. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==That is a very unBiblical statement and a sad example of how Christians get decieved by the sewer of politics.

    In Romans 13:3-7 Paul is talking about being subject to the ruling authorities. As Christians we are to be subject to the authorities giving tax to whom tax is due, custom to whom custom is due, fear to whom fear is due, and honor to whom honor is due. Paul does not give us a choice nor does he condition his remarks with statements like "if you like the authorities", "if you agree with the authorities", or "if the authorities are nice". It is a command, we are to give honor to the governing authorities. Paul did not just preach this, he practiced it (ex: Acts 23:1-5, 24:10-11, 26:1-3, etc). We should obey the Scriptures.
     
  17. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I am aware of the balance of government. Bush signed the Patriot Act into being after it was approved by the Congress. As for it being up held by the Supreme Court, so what? The Supreme Court is not infallible. As can be easily shown, the Patriot Act violates the Constitution of the United States.

    ==Actually it does. When the Federal Government funds a program or business it has control over that program or business. The bailouts were unconstitutional under Bush and Obama. It is sheer hypocrisy to justify one and condemn the other.


    ==President Obama is not a despot according to the definition of the term. So unless you have invented a new definition, you are wrong.
     
  18. Freedom

    Freedom
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, I think very few people here realize how dangerous this economic situation will become. Notice I say "will become." It's far from over. They have 11.5% unemployment in CA with no real end in sight. Think that sub prime loans were the only problem. We're just about to get hit with a round of foreclosures on homes bought with prime rate loans and jumbo loads. These are more upper middle class people. The next big issue will be credit card default and increased personal bankruptcies.

    We'll be down and out if the oil producing nations decide to price oil in terms of euro's rather than US dollars. There will no longer be a need for the world to hold dollars and the dollar will crash. Hyper-inflation like in some South American countries in the past. Everyone bashes the recovery efforts but even though I don't think they were handled in the best way I do believe that they were absolutely necessary.
     
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Now you tell me!

    So Justice Martin, prove it if it is so easily shown and you are infallible!

    Just where in the Constitution does the president get that authority?

    I didn't justify Bush. However, he fired no one and shafted no bond holders./

    You may disagree but the truth is that "bo" was a despot in the issues I mentioned.

    Disagree while you can. The day is coming if "bo" persists when no one can disagree.
     
  20. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==In practice, the Patriot Act has been used to deny American citizens charged of a crime their due process (real life example). Guilty or not, every American citizen is granted certain rights by the United States Constitution (Amendment 6). Those rights are in practice violated by the Patriot Act. That is just one example of how the Patriot Act has serious Constitutional problems.

    I have a feeling that if President Obama, and not President Bush, had signed the Patriot Act into law you would be totally against it and accusing him of being a despot.


    ==It is common sense. If the Federal Government is funding something it has a right to say how that money is used. In the same way, if you donate money to a church or ministry you have a legal right to say how that money is used.


    ==No, he just violated the United States Constitution.

    What did Benjamin Franklin say?

    "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"

    There are many Republicans who need to learn the meaning of that statement.

    ==Not according to the meaning of the term despot. You can't just redefine terms to fit your political agenda.

    ==Funny, I recall Democrats saying the same type thing about President Bush. This type of fear mongering is typical of political mudslinging.

    I have noticed that you refer to President Obama as "bo". I suppose this is why you have not responded to the Biblical teaching and examples on this matter. In Romans 13:3-7 Paul is talking about being subject to the ruling authorities. As Christians we are to be subject to the authorities giving tax to whom tax is due, custom to whom custom is due, fear to whom fear is due, and honor to whom honor is due. Paul does not give us a choice nor does he condition his remarks with statements like "if you like the authorities", "if you agree with the authorities", or "if the authorities are nice". It is a command, we are to give honor to the governing authorities. Paul did not just preach this, he practiced it (ex: Acts 23:1-5, 24:10-11, 26:1-3, etc). Let's think about and examine Paul's attitude towards leaders and yours. Who obeys the Biblical teaching of Romans 13:5-7, 1Tim 2:1-7,Titus 3:1-2 better? You or Paul?
     

Share This Page

Loading...