Featured Dems So full of anger and hate

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

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.

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.

Ditto.

AMEN!!!:applause:

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

IMO, apples to oranges.

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.

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

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

I wish I could answer that question.