Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
- Status
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Right, Obama was scared of insults and let Kim do whatever he wanted.lain:
Must be why Reagan did not resort to that when he was dealing with Khomeini - no matter what his people said about us and or The President.
And even that example, or any other, is not to be the Believer's measure of such things - not if said Believer's actual moral compass is The Scripture he or she claims is said moral compass.
The typical Trump supporter continues to prove his or her actual "Bible" writers are none other then the same writers who write for a Howard Stern or a Jerry Springer.
Flip the coin ......
The typical Clinton supporter continues to prove his or her actual "Bible" writers are none other them the same writers who write for a Howard Stern or a Jerry Springer.
This is why the morality issue is not going to hold up when it comes to politics, because the silence from the left on morality was blatantly obvious for years and years.
Neither side can play the morality card with a straight face.
And the public realizes that the outcry of 'morality' is not genuine.
And the Clinton family did much to perpetuate the silence on morality,
The women that spoke up against Clinton about his rape and molestation were scorned and hounded by the left.
They should have been shunned him, but, no, the left had no intention of doing that even though they were completely aware of Clinton's actions.
They didn't shun the perpetrator at all, they shunned the victims,
So when the tables are turned they have no moral foundation to stand upon.
I suspect that soon enough, both Bill and Hillary will be thrown under the bus by the left, as NOW they are a hindrance to their cause.
Too little, too late.
The public knows that morality is not their main agenda, and never has been.
Neither one individual (politician or not), nor another, is to be the standard measure of morality for the individual claiming Christ as their moral compass.
But look at who I am having to remind of that - an ever rationalizing Trump supporter.
You've long since proven who your actual moral compass is - the crook currently in the Oval Office he so spits on before all the world but to the Alt-Trump reality of the Trump supporter.
Rationalize away, Tam. Trump is only your latest example of said delusion.
You've long since proven your moral compass sides with the left.
There is nothing the left can say that the right cannot throw right back at them.
Morality is not clouding the issue now any more than it did for Clinton.
Morality has never been their concern, and no one is going to fall for your mistaken notion that morality has ever been a concern for the left.
They do what politicians have done all along, use any tragedy they can to bolster support of their party line no matter how hypocritical it is.
It's a fake outcry.
But Danoh, as usual, is blind to his own recurring pattern of double-standard.
Danoh be Danoh.
Same ol same ol.
What part of my "Neither one individual (politician or not), nor another, is to be the standard measure of morality for the individual claiming Christ as their moral compass.
But look at who I am having to remind of that - an ever rationalizing Trump supporter."
You say something like this, and then you turn right around and box everyone that voted for Trump as having the SAME moral compass he does.
Just more of your double-standard again.
You try to rationalize this by condemning nearly all of Americans that voted for either.
So your "individual" mantra is again more of your double-standard toward Trump.
And you just did it again.
You cannot escape your recurring pattern.
To even suggest that one must have the exact same moral standards as the ones being voted for is ridiculous.
Otherwise you are going to have to call every single Clinton voter a deplorable evil rationalizer, like you do me and others for voting for Trump.
But that doesn't benefit Danoh's agenda, so it's all Trump Trump Trump.
Once again demonstrating your recurring pattern of one-sidedness when it comes to Trump.
Just trying to be helpful so you can learn about yourself.
But nevertheless, you're a peach.
Danoh,
A question for you. Do you criticize/condemn Christians who vote Democrat? They vote for a platform, not just individual politicians, who not only condone, but openly push for, murder. Does that find a way into your moral compass? You do remember that Hillary was voted the woman of the year by the Margret Sanger foundation don't you? Hillary responded by saying that it was the greatest honor of her life.
And Sanger openly pushed eugenics too. I've read some of her writings, and her writings are so oppressively evil that I couldn't read for more than a few minutes at a time.
A question for you. Do you criticize/condemn Christians who vote Democrat? They vote for a platform, not just individual politicians, who not only condone, but openly push for, murder. Does that find a way into your moral compass? You do remember that Hillary was voted the woman of the year by the Margret Sanger foundation don't you? Hillary responded by saying that it was the greatest honor of her life.
And Sanger openly pushed eugenics too. I've read some of her writings, and her writings are so oppressively evil that I couldn't read for more than a few minutes at a time.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
On top of her being a sexual molester supporter.
Now that, anna, was a very powerful post. It was a masterful display of being extremely concise. There wasn't a superfluous word in it.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I've read some of her writings also. She was involved in eugenics, that's true, and not to be dismissed. But some of what is said of her is completely false. Sanger was pro-birth control and anti-abortion, and she had no desire to 'wipe out the Black race.' One quote of hers is quite commonly lifted out of context. Maybe you know which one I mean.
Further, here she is in 1945:
Discrimination is a world-wide thing. It has to be opposed everywhere. That is why I feel the Negro’s plight here is linked with that of the oppressed around the globe.
The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes. That is where it lies.
. . . .
When we first started out an anti-Negro white man offered me $10,000 if I started in Harlem first. His idea was simply to cut down the number of Negroes. ‘Spread it as far as you can among them,’ he said. That is, of course, not our idea. I turned him down. But that is an example of how vicious some people can be about this thing.
The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes. That is where it lies.
. . . .
When we first started out an anti-Negro white man offered me $10,000 if I started in Harlem first. His idea was simply to cut down the number of Negroes. ‘Spread it as far as you can among them,’ he said. That is, of course, not our idea. I turned him down. But that is an example of how vicious some people can be about this thing.
Sanger's outreach to impoverished women was about birth control, not abortion. I think that fact gets lost in the rhetoric.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Now that, anna, was a very powerful post. It was a masterful display of being extremely concise. There wasn't a superfluous word in it.
And so elegantly... :chuckle:
I agree. I just wish I could write so elegantly and concisely. You have it down to an artform.
:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I agree. I just wish I could write so elegantly and concisely. You have it down to an artform.
It's a heavy burden. I bear it the best I can.
Have you read her book/booklet Woman and the New Race? In it she openly advocates infanticide as well as eugenics as viable means of population control and for improving the human race. She quotes the Greeks as an example in favor of infanticide. She blames the immigrant, the poor, the poorly educated, and says they must not be allowed to procreate as they like. Her solution is abortion, which is nothing less than infanticide, when other means of birth control do not work. And when it is propogated among the different races takes on the mantle of racism for it is the population expansion of those groups which she saw as contributing to the problem.
In her view, the only ones with unlimited rights to propogate are the wealthy and well-educated. She was one very scary woman. Her ideas are unabashedly evil.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Quotes from Chapter 2 of that book:
Usually this desire [for family limitation] has been laid to economic pressure... It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion.
. . . .
It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide.
. . . .
It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide.
Just out of curiosity, do you disagree with either of those two statements?
Later, we have the infamous cherry-picked quote:
Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members.
Do you think she means that as an moral imperative, or as an observation of the current situation? Because depending on one's ideology, interpretation will go one way or the other. I understand how the statement sounds horrifying. I've always been pro-life. But I don't read it as an imperative, it's clear she saw abortion and infanticide as a horror. She didn't advocate for abortion. She advocated for easy access to contraceptives.
I disagree with that one.
- Status