Obama's Abominations 2009-2012

[deliverance]

There is a difference I tried articulate the other night.

Exactly. He tried articulate the other night?

[southpaw]

Nice visual.

[rightsideslurve]

While I do think Southpaw and RidgeDad, as well as some others, tend to be slightly intolerant (so is the other side), it's also unfair to miscue the biblical references they make.

What is the point of making decisions in life if you cant make them based on what you think is right?

No one in this country, not McCain, nor Obama, nor Romney, nor Clinton, nor Huckabee, nor anyone, would assume the office of the President of the United State with the intentions of doing whats wrong for our country. Each person and party has their ideas of what is in the best interest of the country.

George Bush didn't take office saying, "let's start a war we cant win, run up the national debt, and ignore the constitution in the interest of national security" and Barack Obama surely didnt take office thinking "Lets kill the stock market, cause turmoil and hatred towards our party, drive the national debt higher, and forget about the guy in the middle-class"

No, both men assumed the office of president with the intent to protect, serve, and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. THAT is what they intend to do. Each has their own way of doing it. Neither is entirely right, neither is entirely wrong, which one is MORE correct cannot be measure, as it is simply an interpretation based on each individual's own party beliefs. Beliefs that, in fact, have gotten so obscured and polarized that we have resorted to calling each other extremists over legitimate (but opposing) points of view.

And as far as the framer's original intent: I've always had the interpretation that it was not freedom "from" religion, but freedom from religious persecution...which amounts to a "freedom to worship and believe as you may" which can be most closely defined as freedom of "religious preference and belief"

[southpaw]

While I do think Southpaw and RidgeDad, as well as some others, tend to be slightly intolerant (so is the other side), it's also unfair to miscue the biblical references they make.

Hey pal, you don't see me getting into this bible thumping jamboree. I don't quote the bible. I may refer to it in an historical context. But you don't see me John 3:16ing off on anybody here. I don't judge people using the bible. So don't blanket statements like liberals do about what people say without first doing the background. Some other guys quote the bible on here but don't lump me in with them. Got it?

I can play dirty too.

[southpaw]

And as far as the framer's original intent: I've always had the interpretation that it was not freedom "from" religion, but freedom from religious persecution...which amounts to a "freedom to worship and believe as you may" which can be most closely defined as freedom of "religious preference and belief"

Splitting hairs...it has evolved into that but the original connotation was freedom "from" state sponsored religion.

[deliverance]

You're a good guy who speaks what he believes--don't sell yourself short.

:shock: . He makes fun of you in almost every post now about the "Reality, PA" quote. I'm surprised that you have such nice things to say about him. I still think he's an extremist. :lol: .

[RidgeDad]

I still think he's an extremist. :lol: .

And you're not? Go count mufflers or something. :roll:

[deliverance]

How am I an extremist? I barely even pay attention to politics. I'm registered as an Independent, yet I am an extremist? Go back to touching little boys.

[rightsideslurve]

So don't blanket statements like liberals do about what people say without first doing the background.

^^^^Thats the intolerance i was talking about. I didnt mean religiously intolerant...i mean you, at times, act like anyone who is not a conservative republican like you is just flat wrong. And in THAT sense, you are being intolerant of the other side

[southpaw]

I guess I would fit right in with the Daily Kooks. They are the standard bearers of tolerance. I think you confuse a perceived lack of tolerance with debating the merits of the opposition. Liberals tend to cry "intolerance" or "extremism" when they fail to defend their positions.