When did Liberalism become an evil thing? Is Liberalism evil? Shouldn't we all be a bit more liberal?Echoing the sentiments of many in the Religious Right, [url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=561132#561132]WinePusher[/url] wrote: Liberals are not good people.
The evil of Liberalism
Moderator: Moderators
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
The evil of Liberalism
Post #1Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #131
Excuse me, how is having your law license suspended not losing your law license?kayky wrote:Clinton did not lose his law liscense. It was suspended for a number of years, and he just didn't bother to renew it.East of Eden wrote:
I don't know about her, but Slick Willie certainly did, being convicted of perjury and losing his law license over it.
Only in your head.
Are you serious? If the republicans could have brought him up on rape charges, they certainly would have!
So you're now omniscient and know what Bush thought? Nice double standard you've got going there, Bush, Clinton and Biden all said the same thing, but Bush is the only bad one of the group.Bush used "intel" to support his own determination to invade Iraq. It was his deception and his blunder. But even this you try to blame on democrats!!
First we would have to see Obama actually do that, his MO seems to be my way or the highway.This is actually funny. The current republicans in Congress will filibuster their own ideas if they get a hint that Obama might support them!
Like Herman Cain?You do know that democrats of this ilk are now republicans, right?
Please tell Obama that.And a successful president must gravitate to the center.
I didn't say that, I said I would have to check into it first, this story has been confirmed.The other day I posted a NYT article, and you said they were not a reliable source. Which is it?
Funny Reagan didn't do that. According to the Founders, the first requirement for a public servant was character, Clinton didn't have any.We can agree that Clinton was like many men who find themselves in power.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
- help3434
- Guru
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm
- Location: United States
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Post #132
Russell Kirk must be rolling in grave at all of that reckless interventionism that you advocate being described as "conservative".marketandchurch wrote:
And no, JFK was an interventionist who believed in the universal rights of man, as endowed by the creator. He would be in Syria right now, or at least make the moral case to the public for doing so. He would have not "waited" for the European & Arab consensus to attack Gaddafi, and he would alienate as many of our traditional allies as Obama has. JFK's record is more conservative then most who ran in the GOP primary. Feel free to check out his inaugural address, no Democrat could read that at a Democratic convention, let alone a campaign speech, and be allowed to compete as a Democrat. Unless it was an open primary, and conservatives are allowed to vote in them.