Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

GOP Convention

12346

Replies

  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Hell, we ain't doing much now and Putin is exploiting our and the EUs/NATOs weakness.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,132 Senior Member
    He called 49 of 50 states in 08, and all 50 in 12. Sneer if you want Snake, but better get ready for Clinton.
    For better or worse, Silver's crystal ball actually works pretty good. But we still have a long way to go in this election.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Hell, we ain't doing much now and Putin is exploiting our and the EUs/NATOs weakness.
    Still, the treaty is in place and up until this week, no US president or nominee has suggested that we may not protect NATO allies, unless we feel like it.

    He's so un-presidential, I keep waiting for us to find out we've been the subjects of a horrible reality show.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    So, Trump wants:

    Japan to pay us or defend itself (nevermind that they had their Constitution written by us which precludes them from declaring war)

    Pull troops from South Korea

    Both countries to be allowed to obtain nukes

    Force Supreme Court justices to resign because they made negative remarks about him

    Build a Super PAC to fight against Cruz

    Expand tort laws to sue media outlets that are critical to him

    Wow. This guy has less working knowledge of government than my 7 year old daughter.

    I'm not so sure Hillary WOULD be worse.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Still, the treaty is in place and up until this week, no US president or nominee has suggested that we may not protect NATO allies, unless we feel like it.

    He's so un-presidential, I keep waiting for us to find out we've been the subjects of a horrible reality show.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

    We will fulfill our NATO obligations, but those countries who can and should pay their amount % of their GNP for defense will be asked to. We have largely footed the bill for decades even when they were capable of paying their fair share. It isn't all about money though, our national interest like the Cold War keeping the Commies at bay.....................

    He did mention Japan and South Korea (Not NATO) who make tons of money off us too (cars/electronic imports), can pay more, I agree.

    As Donald said NATO is now looking at ways incorporate the fight against Terrorism after he made a point they mostly haven't done squat to address the issue.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Did Reagan ever state an endorsement? ...... No, per your post even. If he did not endorse, then to say he did requires that history must have changed, thus revised. Is there a third option? No. FYI, that makes you wrong.

    Reagan stated his support for the party, as did Cruz.


    You are correct here. What pissed me off about Cruz was more that he led us on in the beginning of his speech.

    Reagan also stated that we should stop infighting. Something that Trump and his supporters dont get.
    From your post, although since I posted it it is now wrong, "we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other". I want him to win. (see that part??? or am I wrong again?) If his supporters keep chasing people away, the odds are worse. Hillary is the worst candidate to ever come up and currently Trump is at best in a dead heat, and his supporters want to push away friendly's, and IAW you, that is a good idea. OK, maybe, but I disagree because the R/D numbers are not on your side historically.

    The fact that you ignored me breaks my heart, really it does.
    In case you didnt notice, anyone who is not a Trump fanboy here is called out as a idiot, demeaned, and insulted. Jerm pretty much quit posting here because of you guys, Tuba and bisley are always catching it as am I.

    Read that in a mirror.


    You bet I am worried about a Trump admin.. Historic performance is not a guarantee of future results, but it is a real good way to pick mutual funds and politicians. I find it interesting that people who I assume are intelligent can accept this guy on face value. I HOPE you are right.

    Since he took the candidacy, with less than a majority or even a plurality, I and those who are not impressed have been catching crap here no matter what we say. I have posted many times that I will pull the Trump lever, that doesnt mean I am a Trump lover, yet I am called a lib, a dem, stupid and worse, a Hillary supporter ect ect ...
    The latest response to me saying I will vote for him is "Well go ahead and vote for Mrs. Clinton then " because here in the Trumpfest, if you dont have a liplock on his butt you dont have a opinion and you can be called anything here.

    I really am having a problem trying to figure out some of this argument. Nobody is hitting on the issues I see. All this argument is clouding the issues.

    What I'm seeing here is two factions of conservatives, some that are scared to death of Hillary being elected and are willing to take a chance on a rich, rookie politician who in the past couldn't make his mind up whether he was liberal or conservative, and some that aren't willing to chance it and would rather let Hillary win, even knowing the consequences that await them. The latter group was supporting Cruz until he dropped out.

    OK first of all, Trump won. Get over it. And you aren't changing the Trumpeters. We're not willing to let Hillary win without a fight.

    Second of all, those consequences are bad enough(They are immediately very bad) that we who will vote for Trump are willing to take a chance on Trump way before we would take a chance on weathering the storm and letting Hillary win. Yeah there's some iffy questions about Trump, but the consequences of Hillary getting in the White House we feel are much worse than the consequences of Trump getting there, even in the worst case scenario. One question though. I missed the part where you said you'd vote for Trump or I wouldn't be arguing with you. I was like that too but lately Trump's been growing on me.
    .
    If you disagree state your reasons in enough detail where we can see and compare with our reasons. Can we do this civily instead of throwing mud pies? We've all been guilty of that. This is an olive branch.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,182 Senior Member
    Zorba, if a state votes to not allow it then to override that is forcing anothers opinion/belief system, ie. hurts no one, on those people. In their opinion it affects how they want to raise their kids and live their life. Those folks have as much right to raise their kids as anyone else.
    If a state votes to not allow it, it is forcing that opinion on the gays. What the gays do has nothing to do with how you, or I, or anyone else raises their kids. Its strictly the Gays' business and affects NO ONE ELSE. Heck, I see all kinds of stuff I disagree with every darn day - and my parents raised me to recognize it and deal with it as appropriate, ignore it or avoid it. But if it isn't affecting me - which 99% of it isn't, it isn't my business and I'm not trying to legislate my opinion/ethic/"morality"/whatever on "those people".
    As to the A button. It is a matter of opinion when life begins. We can, through science determine the point +- 2weeks that it will become a kid, but thats it. To say it cant happen is forcing a belief on others, and conversely, saying it is OK through the second birthday is the same.
    That's right. Its a matter of OPINION. So my opinion, or yours, are only valid for ME, and YOU - not anybody else. I have my own opinion on the subject, but I'm not going to impose it on anyone else. Now we have the "life begins at conception" crowd trying to impose THEIR opinion on everyone. Why don't they simply mind their own business?

    It really does boil down to people minding their own business - neither party is particularly good at it. Who do I vote for? That too is a good point. I don't want the Socialism on the Left - but I sure don't want the theocracy of the Right either. BOTH are Slavery. I tend to vote for the person who has the best "Live and let live" record, i.e. the ones who MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS and STAY OUT of other's. Kinda hard, isn't it?

    Trump is the first GOP candidate/POTUS nominee post-Reagan who isn't banging on the Bible with every breath. Do I trust him? Hell no, I don't trust ANYONE who has ANYTHING to do with Gov't, he may be just terrible. But he at least makes mostly the right noises, which is more than Cruz did - even though when Cruz puts his Holy BOOK down, I tend to agree with most else he has to say.

    A Wiccan candidate would be interesting. They have a pretty highly developed sense of ethics, particularly in "Live and let live" which resonates with me - BUT - they're also way too "The world is full of sunshine and love" peacenik garbage to be able to deal with the evil in the world. Maybe an Asatruar would be good? Not sure. *shrug*

    Don't get me wrong, I don't care that a given candidate is Christian - that much is pretty unavoidable in the US anyway - its when they spout "Christian Nation" garbage that I start looking at them askance. Seems that most of them in recent memory feel they have to put in an appearance to be vetted by Bob Jones University - who are a bunch of whack-jobs as far as I'm concerned. One thing I'll say for Romney, he didn't.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,182 Senior Member
    As to the lifestyle, my opinion is I dont care. Really I neither agree or disagree until it starts to interfere by excluding anatomy as a basis of common sense rest room usage for example. That goes for all lifestyles, churchs, biker gangs, whatever.

    Sorry, I missed this. I agree completely. Reality *is* anatomy.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Did Reagan ever state an endorsement? ...... No, per your post even. If he did not endorse, then to say he did requires that history must have changed, thus revised. Is there a third option? No. FYI, that makes you wrong.

    Reagan stated his support for the party, as did Cruz.

    Reagan also stated that we should stop infighting. Something that Trump and his supporters dont get. From your post, although since I posted it it is now wrong, "we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other". I want him to win. (see that part??? or am I wrong again?) If his supporters keep chasing people away, the odds are worse. Hillary is the worst candidate to ever come up and currently Trump is at best in a dead heat, and his supporters want to push away friendly's, and IAW you, that is a good idea. OK, maybe, but I disagree because the R/D numbers are not on your side historically.

    The fact that you ignored me breaks my heart, really it does.
    In case you didnt notice, anyone who is not a Trump fanboy here is called out as a idiot, demeaned, and insulted. Jerm pretty much quit posting here because of you guys, Tuba and bisley are always catching it as am I.

    Read that in a mirror.

    You bet I am worried about a Trump admin.. Historic performance is not a guarantee of future results, but it is a real good way to pick mutual funds and politicians. I find it interesting that people who I assume are intelligent can accept this guy on face value. I HOPE you are right.

    Since he took the candidacy, with less than a majority or even a plurality, I and those who are not impressed have been catching crap here no matter what we say. I have posted many times that I will pull the Trump lever, that doesnt mean I am a Trump lover, yet I am called a lib, a dem, stupid and worse, a Hillary supporter ect ect ...
    The latest response to me saying I will vote for him is "Well go ahead and vote for Mrs. Clinton then " because here in the Trumpfest, if you dont have a liplock on his butt you dont have a opinion and you can be called anything here.


    Hey, I never picked up on that. If I would have i would have no argument with you. I can't really blame you for not being a Trump Fan. I just couldn't see not voting for him and/or staying home and letting Hildabeast or someone worse waltz in the oval office. You got no real argument with me. I have only recently been converted to a Born Again True Believing Trumper. Before, when we all started arguing this, I was in the lesser of the evils bunch like you.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Whatever Trump does with foreign policy won't be near as bad than what we have now and when Pantsuit was Sec of State she helped engineer the mess we are in now with Obammy...........pulled outta Iraq too soon, screwed up Egypt/Libya/Syria and created a vacuum for ISIS to form and thrive and oh, the Iran deal she supports giving them a path to NUKES and 150 billion to help the spread Iran's state sponsored terrorism.........we are a laughing stock of our enemies and they no longer fear us.

    Japan does have a constitution we crafted with changes providing for their national defense. They can pay and do more for their own defense.

    A lot has changed since WWII and Germany hid behind that and still does to a large part as an excuse not to do more like only sending support or humanitarian outfits to fight Terrorism.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Nate Silver (538.com) puts Trump's chances at 38%. You guys better get ready for Clinton.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

    7 Times Nate Silver Was Hilariously Wrong About Donald Trump

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/#ixzz4FAzjgKhp
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    This is something I generally agree with Trump on. We have massively subsidized the defense of many of our allies for far too long. I'd much rather have a world in which the burden of defending against tyranny is more broadly diffuse. Yes in a way that will be conceeding some power, but it will also mean that more people and countries will have skin in the game and be forced to step up when bad actors start making noise. We are currently fighting a GLOBAL war on terror, not just an American one.

    Yep, GWOT, I got a couple awards/medals for that from the support I gave our Warfighters on deployments............not PC to call it that anymore.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    "I'd been absent for a while, so I had missed the Trump furor. Then I was accused of being lib eralized by attending college."

    Yes, correct... that was me in so many words, but I thought you went off to Big University someplace, not locally brai................er educated :tooth:

    You have changed maybe ever so slightly, I think..something is different about you I'm telling ya.............what's yer wife say?
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Yep, GWOT, I got a couple awards/medals for that from the support I gave our Warfighters on deployments............not PC to call it that anymore.

    OH Please! Screw PC, I'm sick of it. Call it what it is! It's a damn war and we should declare it.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    If that's what he actually said, and meant it, then that's fine as far as it goes. I'm not too keen on state and local gov'ts being able to restrict people's rights - that's what the gun grabbers are doing. Slippery slope and all that. However, that hasn't been his line hitherto. I could care less what others do, I just don't want their so-called "morality" foisted on me. As soon as someone claims we're a "Christian Nation", they've just lost me.

    But his refusal to endorse Trump shows his true colors, methinks. He can NOT be a "Constitutional defender" AND a Christianist at the same time - its one or or the other. He could be a "Constitutional defender" and a Christian - but I've seen little evidence of that.

    You're in denial on that bolded part. Herewith are a couple of sort of long articles that explain the founding of the colonies. Truth is truth. Denying it does not make it false.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding

    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3787.html

    I'ma have to get back with you later on that Ethics thing. I know more than you think I do about that branch of philosophy. Sayin'.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    And as an aside. IMHO, anyone who would agree to work with someone in a handshake, then have that other party insult and lie about that ones family, and you STILL work with them, then you are not much of a man.

    My opinion, but it works for me.

    I guess that wild shot was aimed at me. So I'll answer it anyway. Been in that situation a few times over my lifetime regarding handshake deal then having myself and family talked about like a dog. I still held up my part of the bargain, and was paid my price for work. Never worked for them again, but I finished what I started and agreed to do. Others in the area knew what was going on. They didn't deal with those persons again, either, EVER, but they dealt with me, and actually sought me out to work for them.

    It's real simple, sugardoodles, and here's how it was explained to me by my paternal Granddad and Dad. When you are born you have only two things to call your own, your NAME and your WORD. You do not EVER act in such a way as to bring dishonor to either, EVER. Bringing shame upon your name, or not keeping your word were considered to be the worst things you could do to yourself.

    So if you have a handshake agreement or give your word and the other person acts like an enormous anus chapeau, you still keep your word and do that to which you have agreed to do. If you lower yourself to their level, then HOW IN HELL CAN YOU CLAIM TO BE THE BETTER MAN? Answer me that. You have lowered yourself into their filthy pig sty and wallowed with them. Your idea of what a man is differs slightly from what I consider to be a man.

    BE THE BETTER MAN! In the end, the only person you need to impress is yourself. And I'm sayin'.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,558 Senior Member
    IIRC, it was a Cruz Super PAC that fired the first shot on families. Don't believe Ted spoke out about that. It wasn't him, but it was the folks who support him. If Trump is expected to disavow his own supporters, well, et tu Ted?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,182 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    You're in denial on that bolded part. Herewith are a couple of sort of long articles that explain the founding of the colonies. Truth is truth. Denying it does not make it false.
    It is indeed false - There is nothing codified in our founding documents that is SPECIFICALLY Christian.

    NOTHING.

    SHOW ME.

    You can't. Its not in the Declaration, and its not in the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights. And the founder's intentions were made pretty clear in other documents and letters that this nation is NOT founded on Christianity. They were trying to avoid the abuses that had occurred in both England, and several of the original colonies before we were a nation. Jefferson in particular was QUITE clear about this. Your linked article is interesting, but does little to dispel the fact that we're not a "Christian Nation". Yes, the founders were probably mostly Christian - after all, Christians had had 1,800 years to kill off all opposition in Europe at least, what else could they be? - but they (founding fathers) had the brains to NOT encode any particular religion into our founding documents. I realize that some Christians, particularly Christianists, think Christianity "invented" everything, but I have news: They didn't.

    If we were a "Christian Nation", we'd be no better than "The Islamic Republic of Iran" (I've seen this posted on the outside of their embassy in Athens. Makes me physically sick.). Completely anti-ethical. One more time: Needless interference with free will is the greatest evil of all. A theocratic state is all about suppression of free will. The Declaration is weakly monotheistic at best, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are non-theistic - as it should be.

    Our nation was loosely modeled after Roman law and gov't (by way of English common law); and the entire concept of Democracy comes to us from ancient Greece - where the word originates. So does that make us a "Pagan Nation" because those people were Pagans? We should be so lucky, but it wouldn't be any more right than a "Christian Nation" or an "Islamic Nation". Indeed, both Greece and Rome were to a large extent Theocratic - would you want that? No? Why not? Oh - because it isn't YOUR religion?!? Its a little different when the shoe is on the other foot! After all, Christians were thrown to the lions by the Theocratic Romans - suddenly Theocracy isn't so wonderful, is it?

    I enjoy debating/discussing things like this - I've made it my business to (try to) learn about such things ever since I first became aware of the concept of Theocracy (and the Christianists who wish it on our great nation) around the age of 12 or 14. I also, about the same time, became aware of an anti-ethical concept known by the word "heresy" - what a black evil that is. That concept led me to Church history, the "Christianization of Europe" (Stalin and Hitler had nothing on these guys!), which eventually led me to a pair of delightful chaps known as the Emperors Theodosius who bear a large part of the responsibility for Christian abuses of the next 1,000 years.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,484 Senior Member
    The most important documents of these times all say "In God We Trust" on them. They are pretty much the only ones anyone cares about anymore. Kind of ironic.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Ok, I'll play along...

    Yes, there are plenty of people who don't agree with the gay "lifestyle" - frankly, I'm one of them.

    However, it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Allowing them to get married hurts no-one. Dis-allowing them is forcing the BELIEFS of others on them.

    The (Needless) interference of free will is the greatest evil of all. That's what Christianists and Islamists do.

    I didn't say that because Cruz is a Christian he will impose his morality - I said because he is a Christianist... His rhetoric is full of Christianist speech. "Christian Nation" is the first clue, the "usual" hot button issues such as Gay Marriage, Abortion, et al, are more. 2,000 years of blood stained history is on my side.

    As long as the gay life style doesn't cost me anything in Taxes I just act like it isn't there and I figure (I know you don't want to hear this but) I figure it's between them and God. I'm an ol' White Guy with some new Ideas. I don't wish them any ill will.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Ok, I'll play along...

    Yes, there are plenty of people who don't agree with the gay "lifestyle" - frankly, I'm one of them.

    However, it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Allowing them to get married hurts no-one. Dis-allowing them is forcing the BELIEFS of others on them.

    The (Needless) interference of free will is the greatest evil of all. That's what Christianists and Islamists do.

    I didn't say that because Cruz is a Christian he will impose his morality - I said because he is a Christianist... His rhetoric is full of Christianist speech. "Christian Nation" is the first clue, the "usual" hot button issues such as Gay Marriage, Abortion, et al, are more. 2,000 years of blood stained history is on my side.


    But you can say this place is or was a Christian nation. When it was founded it was most definitely founded by a vast majority of Christian people upon Judeo-Christian principles. And if you read the writings of the founders they were most definitely believers in Christianity. However, when they wrote up the constitution and the laws of the land they most definitely left room for those of other religious persuasion. Maybe they just never dreamed people of religions other than the Judeo-Christian variety would come here.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,182 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    As long as the gay life style doesn't cost me anything in Taxes I just act like it isn't there and I figure (I know you don't want to hear this but) I figure it's between them and God. I'm an ol' White Guy with some new Ideas. I don't wish them any ill will.

    Why wouldn't I "want to hear this"? Because you're exactly right, it *is* between them and whatever God/Gods/Goddess/Goddesses/whatevers they believe in - if any.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,182 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    But you can say this place is or was a Christian nation. When it was founded it was most definitely founded by a vast majority of Christian people upon Judeo-Christian principles. And if you read the writings of the founders they were most definitely believers in Christianity. However, when they wrote up the constitution and the laws of the land they most definitely left room for those of other religious persuasion. Maybe they just never dreamed people of religions other than the Judeo-Christian variety would come here.

    Close, but not quite. So-called "Judeo-Christian" principles are not unique to JCI monotheism - at least the ones our nation was founded upon (There are other "Judeo-Christian" principles that have no bearing here - and indeed, THOSE are most of the problem). This is an important point - going back to "(some) Christians think everything good came from their religion". Hardly. Ethics existed long before Christianity, and will exist long after it. Our founders were very ethical people and tried their best to encode that into our founding documents. The trouble is, of course, that ethics cannot be fully encoded. That is why laws, so called "morals", and ethics seldom intersect. Ethics are what interest me, laws are our ever imperfect attempt to codify the uncodifiable. "Morals" generally are even a poorer attempt to codify ethics, often without anything tangible to back them up. But we could get lost in the semantics - and I *hate* semantic arguments, they do little but waste time.

    The whole kerfuffle that crops up from time to time over the "10 Commandments" is an excellent example. Several of the commandments deal with ethics - which will be agreed to by any ethical person regardless of time, place, or religion. Others are peculiar to JCI monotheism, and JCI monotheism ONLY. Those should be left to JCI monotheists and certainly NOT encoded into the laws of our nation. And a couple of others - depending upon which particular version is under discussion - could go either way depending on interpretation, blah, blah. So Christianist judges like Alabama's Moore want to claim our laws are based on the Decalogue. Uh, not so fast...

    As for whether or not the founders were Christians - like I said before, what else could they be at that time and place? Maybe one or two weren't, but the rest certainly were. What they were NOT were Christianists - they wanted a nation founded on Ethics, not any one religion - theirs or anyone else's. That demonstrates an extremely high level of Ethics on their part - something the Ted Cruzes and the Rick Perrys of the world lack and lack sorely. But who am I? I have my own failings as do we all!

    Let's face it, if everyone's ethics were perfect, we would have no need whatsoever for governments of any kind. But mankind hasn't yet evolved to that stage - but we will eventually. However, that day isn't this day!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    You make some very valid points about ethics, but you portray them as the alternative to a religion that you have a visceral dislike for. The truth is that ethics exist within religions, just as they do, outside of it. In your world, you can label anyone who draws their wisdom and ethics from the Bible as a 'Christianist,' and that allows you to discount or ignore their ethics.

    How anyone can look at Donald Trump's campaign and pronounce him to be the 'most ethical' is mind-boggling. Apparently, ethics are just whatever you want them to be, at any given moment.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/07/22/cnn-probably-regrets-polling-viewers-trumps-rnc-speech-well-wow-368574

    CNN probably regrets polling viewers after Trump’s RNC speech because, well… WOW

    For viewers, a whopping 57 percent said they had a “very positive” reaction to the speech, while only 24 percent said the speech had a “negative effect.”

    Even more incredible for Trump was that 73 percent of viewers said the policies proposed in the speech would move the country in the “right direction,” with only 24 percent saying otherwise.


    Networks on Trump: A ‘Dark Speech’ From a ‘Vengeful’ ‘Demagogue’

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2016/07/22/networks-trump-dark-speech-vengeful-demagogue
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    This begs the question:

    How many people actually watched the entire speech?
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    This begs the question:

    How many people actually watched the entire speech?

    I did :tooth:

    His haters on CNN/MSNBC/Big 3 networks must have too to have so much vitriol to spew about it after it was over (some pre-written I'm sure), cable shows carried it to raise their ratings fer sure.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,797 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    This begs the question:

    How many people actually watched the entire speech?
    The last night I watched the entire show, from 7:30 until the end. The other nights I watch most of it, and have the entire series on DVR. BTW, I watched it on the CSPAN channel and wasn't subjected to the bloviators on the other news channels.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    The last night I watched the entire show, from 7:30 until the end. The other nights I watch most of it, and have the entire series on DVR.

    I have been trying to avoid hearing Trump for a couple of weeks, so I could maybe watch his entire acceptance speech. I made it almost to the end - maybe missed a couple of minutes. But, I saw enough to be impressed with the improvement he shows, when he sticks to the script. Of course, he, too, was impressed, and promptly stepped in poo, again, the very next day. He has a lot to learn, and seems to take a step backwards, every time he takes two steps forward.

    Still, that's a net gain, and he may yet figure it all out.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,558 Senior Member
    I think the stepping in poo is deliberate. It's more about his appeal to the working class and non-elites. It gives more indication he's an outsider. Not saying he is one, but he acts like one. I've come to realize this is all calculated. And it's working. As others have said, he's selling himself. And doing it well.
    Overkill is underrated.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement