Republicans Are Dying Off

[IDBillzFan]

i don't know a single liberal who disagrees with the principles professed by Christ. I'd argue that, in fact, on the whole, those priciples are more aligned with liberal tenets than conservative ones (hence the overwhelming acceptance and admiration for pope Francis). the disagreement is not with Christianity per se, but rather with what many consider inaccurate and self serving portrayals or interpretations of them.

 

We're not talking about agreeing or disagreeing with the principles professed by Christ, which is why liberals like yourself are widely understood to think you're nice people, but are never really Christians.

 

LA, I think you found your own rabble-rouser as well.

 

Mentioning Christ usually brings them out.

[birdog1960]

 

We're not talking about agreeing or disagreeing with the principles professed by Christ, which is why liberals like yourself are widely understood to think you're nice people, but are never really Christians.

 

 

Mentioning Christ usually brings them out.

wait, the principles preached by Christ are not part of a conversation on Christianity in your alternsative universe? shouldn't they be the basis for Christianity of all flavors? and i'm not sure why you feel qualified to define my religious beliefs.

Edited May 19, 2015 by birdog1960

[IDBillzFan]

wait, the principles preached by Christ are not part of a conversation on Christianity in your alternsative universe? shouldn't they be the basis for Christianity of all flavors? and i'm not sure why you feel qualified to define my religious beliefs.

 

I see I have to shift to Crayolas for you.

 

It's easy for every liberal you know to agree with the principles professed by Christ. It's also easy for every liberal you know to agree with the principles professed by their doctor; get rest, exercise daily, eat a balanced meal, drink water.

 

Agreeing with something and living it are two different things, and for years I've listened to people like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton refer to their Christian faith as though it's just one of those things they'll get to right after they get off the treadmill collecting dust in the spare bedroom.

 

Agreeing with the principals professed by your doctor doesn't make you healthy, and simply agreeing with the principles of Christ does not make you a Christian. Trying to convince Christians that you understand their faith -- and therefor can correct it for them -- simply because you agree with most of the principles of the faith is why no one takes most liberals seriously when it comes to Christianity.

[birdog1960]

 

I see I have to shift to Crayolas for you.

 

It's easy for every liberal you know to agree with the principles professed by Christ. It's also easy for every liberal you know to agree with the principles professed by their doctor; get rest, exercise daily, eat a balanced meal, drink water.

 

Agreeing with something and living it are two different things, and for years I've listened to people like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton refer to their Christian faith as though it's just one of those things they'll get to right after they get off the treadmill collecting dust in the spare bedroom.

 

Agreeing with the principals professed by your doctor doesn't make you healthy, and simply agreeing with the principles of Christ does not make you a Christian. Trying to convince Christians that you understand their faith -- and therefor can correct it for them -- simply because you agree with most of the principles of the faith is why no one takes most liberals seriously when it comes to Christianity.

so let me get this straight. you can't agree with your doctor and be healthy. and you can't be a liberal and be Christian. glad nobody informed before now.

 

your points are completely baseless and illogical.

 

so what you really mean by Christianity is established organized religion and not a belief system based on the teachings of Jesus. I fully reject that premise and definition.

 

and it's no guarantee of a Christian lifestyle (even by your narrow definition) to be identified with any flavor of Christianity that you personally find acceptable.

Edited May 19, 2015 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

so let me get this straight. you can't agree with your doctor and be healthy. and you can't be a liberal and be Christian. glad nobody informed before now.

 

your points are completely baseless and illogical.

 

and it's no guarantee of a Christian lifestyle to be identified with any flavor of Christianity that you personally find acceptable.

Let me spell it out for you: lip service isn't good enough to make you healthy or a Christian.

[Rob's House]

so let me get this straight. you can't agree with your doctor and be healthy. and you can't be a liberal and be Christian. glad nobody informed before now.

 

your points are completely baseless and illogical.

 

and it's no guarantee of a Christian lifestyle to be identified with any flavor of Christianity that you personally find acceptable.

Liberalism is inconsistent with Christianity. I've never understood how anyone can internally reconcile the two.

[birdog1960]

Liberalism is inconsistent with Christianity. I've never understood how anyone can internally reconcile the two.

Jesus was a liberal. most would even say radical.

 

most would call Francis positions on many social issues liberals. Many have labelled him such on balance. Do you feel his faith and politics are unreconcilable? i certainly don't.

[Rob's House]

Jesus was a liberal. most would even say radical.

 

most would call Francis positions on many social issues liberals. Many have labelled him such on balance. Do you feel his faith and politics are unreconcilable? i certainly don't.

How do you figure that?

[meazza]

How do you figure that?

 

He spent most of his adult life preaching rather than actually working.

[birdog1960]

How do you figure that?

his ideas were novel to most of the ancient world. he was killed because he was a threat to the status quo and the establishment. much the same as many modern day liberals.

[Magox]

his ideas were novel to most of the ancient world. he was killed because he was a threat to the status quo and the establishment. much the same as many modern day liberals.

You could have made much better arguments than this one....

[birdog1960]

You could have made much better arguments than this one....

should we move on to whether quakers and gay episcopalian bishops are Christians?

[Rob's House]

 

He spent most of his adult life preaching rather than actually working.

Nice!

his ideas were novel to most of the ancient world. he was killed because he was a threat to the status quo and the establishment. much the same as many modern day liberals.

Really?

[TH3]

Except they can't drop issues like gay marriage because the left keeps talking about how much they want it. And instead of respecting people's religious convictions, the Christians get mocked for it, and then the left media piles on with more mocking, and then nutsuckers like birdog suddenly repeat for the umpteenth time that the right needs to stop talking about something that the left keeps talking about.

 

If only liberals were as tolerant of Christian beliefs as they are of Muslim beliefs. I mean, if a Christian believes marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, its blasphemy. But if a Muslim tries to murder someone who was drawing a cartoon, the cartoonist had it coming.

 

It's a no-win for Christian conservatives, so to ask them to stop responding to questions about gay marriage is a fool's journey.

Hence, the GOP dying off....

[Chef Jim]

If the GOP is dying off how do you explain theist recent mid-term elections.

[meazza]

If the GOP is dying off how do you explain theist recent mid-term elections.

 

Liberals are usually younger until they see their first pay stub.

[IDBillzFan]

so let me get this straight. you can't agree with your doctor and be healthy. and you can't be a liberal and be Christian. glad nobody informed before now.

 

your points are completely baseless and illogical.

 

so what you really mean by Christianity is established organized religion and not a belief system based on the teachings of Jesus. I fully reject that premise and definition.

 

and it's no guarantee of a Christian lifestyle (even by your narrow definition) to be identified with any flavor of Christianity that you personally find acceptable.

 

Honestly, it's like trying to have a conversation with a mop.

 

It would seem virtually impossible to read what I wrote and come back with a response like above, and yet somehow, remarkably, you did it. Even baskin understood it, and he can barely type a full sentence without choking on the keyboard.

 

his ideas were novel to most of the ancient world. he was killed because he was a threat to the status quo and the establishment. much the same as many modern day liberals.

 

This is probably more ridiculous than your other post. Tell us....what ideas of his were novel? Please be specific. What was it that actually made his ideas novel to "the ancient world."

 

Then tell us, how was he a threat to the status quo? To whom was he the greatest threat? And why?

 

And when you get done googling that, tell us...how does all of that prove that modern day liberals are just like Jesus?

 

We'll wait.

[OCinBuffalo]

Talk about garbage math. I imagine that since there were more Rs in 1928, more of them died off then as well.

 

Let's let the objective political scientists, and not the wishful "political writers" have a go, shall we?

 

The GOP Is the Strongest It's Been in Decades

 

Before the 2014 elections, the parties were pretty close to parity: The index stood at 7.98. This indicated an insignificant advantage for the Republicans, although it placed them well above their post-World War II average of -20. It goes without saying that Republicans improved upon their showing in the 2014 elections. Their 54 Senate seats represent the second-best tally for the party since 1928. Their 247 House seats is the most the party has won since 1928, although when combined with the popular vote percentage, it drops to the second-highest since then (in 1946, the party did slightly better).

 

At the state level, the GOP’s share of governorships is the ninth-highest since Reconstruction, and the third-highest in the post-war era (1996 and 1998 were higher). The party’s showing in state legislatures is the highest since 1920, the ninth-highest ever, and the third-highest since the end of Reconstruction.

 

Overall, this gives the Republicans an index score of 33.8. This is the Republican Party’s best showing in the index since 1928, and marks only the third time that the party has been above 15 in the index since the end of World War II. You can see the full trend, taken back to 1928, here:

 

And of course there's the "demographic argument" which, once again has been debunked by the link above:

 

 

Obviously, this interpretation is at odds with the prevailing theme of a Republican Party with serious demographic problems. One can argue that these problems make it difficult for the GOP to win the presidency. But those same shifts have strengthened it in the states, which is where most lawmaking takes place.

 

Add that to this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-2016s-millennial-whisperer-predictions-presidential-race/story?id=30963287(video plays so turn volume down if at work)

 

And you not only have the dubunking of the demographic myth, but also of the millenial myth. Gen Y and Millenials are not as liberal as is needed.

 

What do I mean by "is needed"? Simple: they are not liberal enough and won't swing things enough to turn around the massive losses liberals have taken in the white vote, which btw still represented 72% of the electorate in 2012. And, with no "Hey! Vote for the black guy candidate, then self-congratulate for personally ending racism!" D candidate running in 2016, that 72 is probably gonna be more like 75%.

 

Both the OP and the writer of his link are delusional. Hell, it's been suggested by many pollsters that given the polling right now? Hillary has no chance of winning the general. Not with her fundamentals, not with her negatives, not with the low turnout, and not with the shifts in attitudes.

 

And, for historical perspective: look at the overall trend in the graph since 1964(extra credit if you know what else happened that year). There's an undeniable upward mean. Yes, there are low points, but, each is higher than the last, and each is followed by skyrocketing R strength index gains. Hmm. What do 1976, 1992 and 2008 have in common? Answer for unmitigated morons: the nation was subjected to the first 2 years of a D president's wingnut agenda.

 

Nothing like a first term of a D to turn people into Rs, generationally, such that one generation dying off is made irrelevant by the next that's been created. The awfulness of 1964-->today is the best creator of Rs known to man.

Edited May 20, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

 

Honestly, it's like trying to have a conversation with a mop.

 

It would seem virtually impossible to read what I wrote and come back with a response like above, and yet somehow, remarkably, you did it. Even baskin understood it, and he can barely type a full sentence without choking on the keyboard.

 

 

This is probably more ridiculous than your other post. Tell us....what ideas of his were novel? Please be specific. What was it that actually made his ideas novel to "the ancient world."

 

Then tell us, how was he a threat to the status quo? To whom was he the greatest threat? And why?

 

And when you get done googling that, tell us...how does all of that prove that modern day liberals are just like Jesus?

 

We'll wait.

stop waiting. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/jesus-money-changers-modern-banks.html there are many more references available on the reason Jesus was executed by the romans. Almost all agree it was for sedition which by definition is a threat to the status quo.

 

another ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_1.shtml

Edited May 20, 2015 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

stop waiting. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/jesus-money-changers-modern-banks.html there are many more references available on the reason Jesus was executed by the romans. Almost all agree it was for sedition which by definition is a threat to the status quo.

 

another ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_1.shtml

 

You didn't actually answer his questions, mop.

 

And the Romans didn't execute Jesus because they somehow feared him. They couldn't have cared less - to them, he was just one more fringe lunatic Judaic rabbi in a semi-autonomous province (fun fact: the Jews enjoyed the special privilege under Roman suzerainty of being a self-ruling body) of lousy with fringe lunatic Judaic rabbis. Nor were Jesus' teachings all that novel at the time - they were consistent with other Pharisee teachings of the time.

 

The real reason is that he called the other Pharisees hypocrites and liars; and rather than kill him themselves, the other Pharisees traded the threat of their rebellion for Rome's execution of their troublesome rabbi. Rome acquiesced because the life of one fringe lunatic Judaic rabbi was worth a couple decades' peace. It had nothing to do with "liberalism" or upsetting the status quo.