Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

Baloney.

If you judged people based on their character, you wouldn't be a socialist, nor an Obama supporter.

 

You are the one who is bashing them constantly. I have never presented a problem with Jews. You do.

 

Old Regular,
Who did you or would you have voted for in the 1948 election? This is one of those elections where a vote for a Democrat was justified.

 

Capital Hill is where we should really be pointing our fingers. It's the who conglomerate that has us in the mess that we're in. Lobbyists also need to be booted out, as well. One could point to the Reps, and one could point to the Dems, but I, being a Dem, point my fingers at BOTH. They are not working at solving the country's problems, but rather at getting their party the highest seat, the Presidency.

 

This is a deeper problem...the inability to realize you are taking an opinion piece, and calling it a "story" as though it were merely objective reporting.

 

If I've 'bashed' anything here, it's the Golden Calf of the dispensational heresy. To discuss Marxism/Socialism/liberal politics (which is what we've been doing) with no mention of Jewish involvement is tantamount to a discussion on gunpowder with no mention of the Chinese, or thoroughbred horse racing with no mention of Kentucky.

To discuss Obama's politics with no mention of the Marxist Chicago Jews that claim him as their own is tantamount to no mention of the Sicilian in a discussion of Cosa Nostra.

 

This has nothing to do with dispensation or Jews. You are showing your colors.

 

History shows that Truman was a much better president than believed during his tenure.

Apparently until FDR died Truman knew nothing about the effort to develop the atomic bomb. Therefore his decision to use the bomb to bring WWII to an end was particularly courageous and I admire him for it. Such decisions are the reason the job of president is not for everyone. Sadly some liberals/leftists have trashed him in recent years for using the 'Bomb".

All that being said I would have voted for Dewey in 1948 if I had been of age. [I was in the Navy in 1952 but I believe I voted by mail for Eisenhower. Adlai Ewing Stevenson was the typical wimpy liberal of that time.]

I am not one who votes for the "so-called best man". The way our government works is the party system, more so then than now. I believe the Republican Party has been more Conservative than the democrat party at least since Franklin and Eleanor and possibly since Wilson. The problem with the Republican Party is that they have always been burdened with RINO's or as they were called around the 50's - 70's "me too" Republicans. Even those who are legitimate Conservatives sometimes act as if they should be ashamed and coin phrases like "Compassionate Conservative".:tear::BangHead:

 

Nixon was my first vote. My Dad told me Truman was the only Democrat he ever voted for is the main reason I asked the question. My only Democratic vote was for Carter's first term, and that turned out to be a mistake, as I voted for Reagan in 80 and 84. Unless there is a pole reversal, I will never cast another vote for a Democrat for President. Local elections are sometimes a different matter.

 

I voted democrat my whole life, until they nominated Kerry. That was the final straw. I had felt slapped in the face by the Wellstone memorial, then we saw them pretend to be innocent in the Iraq invasion. Then, the devastating book by Zel Miller. But Kerry/Edwards ? A pair of bigger dirtbags never walked the earth.


How do you suppose those construction union executives did while they were complicit in the housing bubble ? (Maybe off-topic, but worth asking.)

 

I voted for a democrat once, in !960. Had moved from Virginia to South Carolina and voted by mail. Senator A. Willis Robertson, father of Pat, was on the ballot without opposition. He was a Conservative as were most southerners in Congress. It was a whim but I have been doing penance ever since. Burn candles, whatever! No use!:smilewinkgrin::tongue3::laugh::laugh:

 

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
On December 7, 1995, the United States Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which would end partial-birth abortions by a margin of 54-44. House members voted 2-to-1 in favor of the ban, 288-139 [Republicans 215-15; Democrats 73-123; Independents 0-1]. When it reached the desk of President Bill Clinton on April 10, 1996, he vetoed the Act, thereby allowing the brutal procedure to continue with no restrictions.

In spite of testimony by medical experts to the contrary, Clinton justified his action with the claim that this procedure affects only hundreds of people and was necessary to protect the life and health of the mother - even though the abortionists themselves admitted its use was purely elective.

Once again on Oct. 8, 1997, the House passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban by a veto-proof vote of 296-132. The Senate passed the bill in May (64-36), three votes less than the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Clinton's veto. On Oct. 10, 1997, President Clinton again signed the veto papers, this time privately and without fanfare in the Oval Office.

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/partbirthabortion.html

How do you justify voting for a man who cared no more about the life of the unborn than to allow such a procedure?

 

I don't. I let people think what they are going to think.

 

I am not surprised. I have yet to find a Christian who will justify their vote for the Abortion Party.

 

Deleted PA - LE

 

I guess my only defense is I wasn't saved until 2001.

But you go right ahead and think what you want to. Maybe someday I'll get to judge you for something you did before you were saved ?

 

<Deleted response to PA- LE>