Leftists talking to Leftists. Now there's a start in the Democrats' quest to reconnect to Flyover Country Americans! (laughing)
Since the core fundamentals of the democrat party are exactly what they are perceived to be it is clear that their intent is not to change but to mask the truth.
Ooh, looks like they want to play bait-and-switch. What else is new...
Oh, but ya'all were very clear: you have no faith or values.
The Bible is also quite clear that 10% of your income should be sufficient to address the problem. How will the demonrats squirm around that? Propose reducing taxes so that all transfer payments = 10% of income? I'd like to see them try (no, really, I would).
There were pictures of it weekly
The left STILL doesn't get it
More lib book deals and conveniently coordinated DNC tactics...
Mormon Democrat. That should be an oxymoron (as opposed to an oxyMormon), but it's not. Still, it was good to see Bush win Utah by a higher margin than any other state.
Rotsa Ruck.
Uh, sure...
So now the scumbag Democrats are going to revise the Bible and proclaim Jesus a big-government socialist. They will paint him as a typical Demcorat: an athiest, a drunken pornographer, and an abortion enthusiast. Finally, they'll claim He was a homosexual. The scumbag Democrats will stop at nothing.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Actually it's pretty funny. They dredge up some leftist Democrats who claim allegiance to religious denominations in order to whitewash the Dem's leftist agenda; to make it look as though there's some kind of religious morality involved.
It's like watching someone trip over their own feet over and over again.
I wonder if anyone will be fooled?
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Note: if they really believed that alleviating poverty was a religious duty, they'd let people keep more of their own money, so they could donate more to churches and private charities who help the poor.
Oh... Democrats look to the polls to see if they should be religious... Now I understand. So when the Muslim population in the US grows they will become Muslim? My guess is yes...
The rats keep trying to hitch their broken wagons up to dead and dying donkeys.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1322238/posts
Democrat Implosion
Mens News Daily ^ | January 16, 2005 | Rudy Takala
Posted on 01/16/2005 9:29:28 PM PST by Nasty McPhilthy
As the day of President Bush’s inauguration draws near, liberal organizations seem to be on the brink of implosion; they don’t know what policies to pursue, they don’t know who their chairman should be, and they don’t know whether they should attack the presidential inauguration as a bourgeoisie-perpetrated fraud or as simply too expensive.
Just recently on C-Span, a group of anarchists could be observed planning a protest to the inaugural ceremony. Other liberals have accused Bush of stealing 118,000 votes in Ohio. But as of late, the primary argument that they’ve asserted for the pursuit of their policies is that Bush doesn’t really have a mandate because the majority of Americans don’t really like the Republicans.
For example, the pro-abortion group NARAL recently sent an e-mail to its members stating, "As he prepares to begin his second term, Bush and his allies are using their trumped up 'mandate' to justify their dangerous and divisive anti-choice agenda. But if winning a slim majority of votes is enough to convince the President of his 'mandate,' then we would like to remind President Bush of just one thing: A majority of Americans supports a woman's right to choose.”
Which, apparently, is why NARAL opposes allowing Americans to vote on abortion. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal and prohibited the individual states from contradicting its legality; Roe v. Wade’s abolition would do nothing but allow the people to vote on it. It’s ironic that the majority of Americans are precisely what NARAL fears.
With regard to the “mandate,” it appears to be a point that the Democrats will continue to stress until the next election. Greg Mitchell ofEditor and Publisher wrote on November fifth, “It’s true that President Bush got more votes than any winning candidate for president in history. He also had more people voting against him than any winning candidate for president in history.” And in a recent e-mail of his own, James Carville wrote, “Bush and the Republicans can only get their way in 2005 if we Democrats forget our own power. They only win if we choose to stop fighting. But if we stick together, we can transform American politics." He spoke of "bullying political tactics and [Bush’s] ‘dangerous’ second-term agenda." Unfortunately, he didn’t elaborate on what “bullying tactics” Republicans were intent on using; most likely, it was the threat of campaigning against the Democrats’ positions.
On an issue related to their future response to these malicious tactics, they will also have to choose a new national chairman for their party in early February. Candidates for the position include Howard Dean and a former representative from Indiana, the pro-life Tim Roemer. The candidates have been focusing profusely on their future strategy in relation to Southern states. According to Howard Dean, his Southern strategy is to “show up." Tim Roemer said it wasn’t about “steering the bus” left or right, but rather “about expanding the bus."
But of course, the chances that they’ll elect a nationally palatable candidate such as Roemer are poor; the chairman of the Massachusetts Democrats has already referred to it as “extremely foolish.”
If Democrats wish to win elections again, they really must “steer the bus right” on cultural issues. In every election they lose, they fault the result on their own inability to “get their message out.” They fault it on their failure to “show up” and scream emphatically at rallies. However, in a nation where two parties constitute the extent of the political system, it’s a weak excuse. America is a nation in which a candidate for president can scream at a rally in Iowa and become the subject of radio stations in all fifty states within hours. Their defeat had more to do with the unpopularity of their ideas than their inability to explain them.
They appear to have come to a dim realization of this, as they haven’t expressed much interest in “the issues” in recent days. Rather, they’ve attacked Republicans as “dangerous,” “unpopular,” and “anti-choice.” Unfortunately, getting the message out about how unpopular Republicans are is not and will not become a very convincing tactic.
Democrats will win again eventually, as politics will continue to undergo its inevitable cycles. However, it will be some time before NARAL, Carville, the anarchists, and numerous other Democrats make the adjustments necessary for this to occur.
The democrats just don't get it.
The Bible's warning against false prophets can also apply to political leaders: By their fruits you will know them.
Watch what they do, not what they say. See if they are in favor of abolishing abortion and condemning gay marriage. Those are the benchmarks in the fight over morals at this time.
bttt
This, from a man who, on a good day, has no conscience....and on a bad day, isn't even conscience.....
Wallis ought to read The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin O'Lasky if he wants to read about the proper approach to alleviating poverty. The welfare state mind set leads to generational poverty and hopelessness. Wallis is a product of the 60's generation who can never seem to get over themselves or admit that their cure for what ails America was nothing more than Marxist snake oil.
The left "marrying" Jim Wallis is like Esau marrying one of Ishmael's daughters. Coming close to the truth, but no banana.