Wasn't sure where to put this

[Sarge]

Kind of a long article, but an excellent read. Takes Democrat hypocrisy to task.


https://therepublicanstandard.com/roanoke-times-12-questions-12-answers/

 

[ZonaBurgh]

As one who leans fiscally conservative, I agree with the article.

Those having opposite views will call bullshit.

We live in a world of sound bites, and calm, rational, civilized discussion be damned.

The country is swirling down a rabbit hole, and I don't see that being reversed any time soon.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Kind of a long article, but an excellent read. Takes Democrat hypocrisy to task.


https://therepublicanstandard.com/roanoke-times-12-questions-12-answers/

Simply one of the best articles I've read in some time. And written by a Liberal. I've been to Roanoke. Surprising that this is a Liberal rag. Roanoke never struck me as Liberal in any way.

My favorite part of the 12 questions:

10. Ronald Reagan has been regarded as the father of the modern Republican Party. His final speech as president has been described as a “love letter to immigrants.” In it, Reagan declared that “we lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people — our strength — from every country and every corner of the world.” How you reconcile what Trump said with what Reagan said? Or should we no longer regard Reagan as the guiding spirit for Republicanism?

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

— Ronald Reagan, “A Time For Choosing” (1964)

Unfortunately, it is the well-grounded fear of many in middle America — conservatives, independents, libertarians and moderates — that Democrats simply don’t believe that America is anything other than a racist, bigoted, white-nationalist fueled center of hatred. That is certainly how progressives have labored to present the American condition to millions of others in order to create an us/them narrative.

…and yes, Americans resent being told that we are something other than what we are: the last best hope for freedom on earth. We actually believe this. Democrats spend a lot of time kowtowing to a base that says we are the opposite of this.

More to the point, the insinuation is resented, not just because it isn’t true but because we know that deep down, they don’t believe that either. It’s a line, used by politicians to cash out a little bit of the public trust for personal and temporary gain — and it is eating away at our national discourse.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

10. Ronald Reagan has been regarded as the father of the modern Republican Party. His final speech as president has been described as a “love letter to immigrants.” In it, Reagan declared that “we lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people — our strength — from every country and every corner of the world.” How you reconcile what Trump said with what Reagan said? Or should we no longer regard Reagan as the guiding spirit for Republicanism?

The answer is that Trump is as big a supporter of immigration as Reagan. His wife is an immigrant. The assumption in the question is invalid so the question should be dismissed as a naive and juvenile attempt at making a point.

 

[Steeltime]

Good find, Sarge. I really like the following analysis:

11. The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, faced a divided nation and appealed to “the better angels of our nature.” Do you believe Trump’s “go back” attack appeals to “the better angels of our nature”? Or should we no longer look to Lincoln as an inspirational figure?

Does Antifa speak to the angels of our better nature?
Does Rep. Maxine Waters telling crowds that Republicans “are not welcome here” speak to our better nature?
Does harassing Republicans at restaurants speak to our better nature?
Does tearing down statues speak to our better nature?
Does hanging a man like Kavanaugh on hearsay speak to our better nature?
Does destroying a kid’s life for “smirking” speak to our better nature?
Does caging one’s opposition as racists, haters and bigots speak to our better nature?

What turns the stomachs of most observers isn’t the rhetoric, but rather how disingenuous and false the concerns actually sound. How is “go back” any different from defending a position that would push every Jew in Israel into the sea? “Go back” seems like perfectly acceptable rhetoric… but only when Democrats use it to pursue an agenda

 

[DBS1970]

Good find, Sarge. I really like the following analysis:

11. The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, faced a divided nation and appealed to “the better angels of our nature.” Do you believe Trump’s “go back” attack appeals to “the better angels of our nature”? Or should we no longer look to Lincoln as an inspirational figure?

Does Antifa speak to the angels of our better nature?
Does Rep. Maxine Waters telling crowds that Republicans “are not welcome here” speak to our better nature?
Does harassing Republicans at restaurants speak to our better nature?
Does tearing down statues speak to our better nature?
Does hanging a man like Kavanaugh on hearsay speak to our better nature?
Does destroying a kid’s life for “smirking” speak to our better nature?
Does caging one’s opposition as racists, haters and bigots speak to our better nature?

What turns the stomachs of most observers isn’t the rhetoric, but rather how disingenuous and false the concerns actually sound. How is “go back” any different from defending a position that would push every Jew in Israel into the sea? “Go back” seems like perfectly acceptable rhetoric… but only when Democrats use it to pursue an agenda

Context is everything.

In the context of replying to leftists running down the country and pandering to identity groups "go back" is a perfectly valid response.

 

[DBS1970]

Good find, Sarge. I really like the following analysis:

11. The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, faced a divided nation and appealed to “the better angels of our nature.” Do you believe Trump’s “go back” attack appeals to “the better angels of our nature”? Or should we no longer look to Lincoln as an inspirational figure?

Does Antifa speak to the angels of our better nature?
Does Rep. Maxine Waters telling crowds that Republicans “are not welcome here” speak to our better nature?
Does harassing Republicans at restaurants speak to our better nature?
Does tearing down statues speak to our better nature?
Does hanging a man like Kavanaugh on hearsay speak to our better nature?
Does destroying a kid’s life for “smirking” speak to our better nature?
Does caging one’s opposition as racists, haters and bigots speak to our better nature?

What turns the stomachs of most observers isn’t the rhetoric, but rather how disingenuous and false the concerns actually sound. How is “go back” any different from defending a position that would push every Jew in Israel into the sea? “Go back” seems like perfectly acceptable rhetoric… but only when Democrats use it to pursue an agenda

Context is everything.

In the context of replying to leftists running down the country and pandering to grievance identity groups "go back" is a perfectly valid response.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I hate echos

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I hate echos

 

[Spike]

I didn't know where to put this




Bishop says homosexuality passed on to the unborn when pregnant women enjoy anal sex

Homosexuality is usually a problem transferred to a foetus, when a pregnant woman has anal sex and enjoys it, the Bishop of Morphou Neophytos said during a recent speech

During his speech to a group of people in Akaki, the bishop said Saint Porfyrios made mention of the issue in his writings. “It is a problem, which is usually transmitted by parents to the child,” the bishop said.

The bishop said that when the woman enjoys anal sex, “a desire is created, which is then transmitted to the unborn child.”

https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/07/26/...he-unborn-when-pregnant-women-enjoy-anal-sex/

 

[stevielee]

I didn't know where to put this




Bishop says homosexuality passed on to the unborn when pregnant women enjoy anal sex

Homosexuality is usually a problem transferred to a foetus, when a pregnant woman has anal sex and enjoys it, the Bishop of Morphou Neophytos said during a recent speech

During his speech to a group of people in Akaki, the bishop said Saint Porfyrios made mention of the issue in his writings. “It is a problem, which is usually transmitted by parents to the child,” the bishop said.

The bishop said that when the woman enjoys anal sex, “a desire is created, which is then transmitted to the unborn child.”

https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/07/26/...he-unborn-when-pregnant-women-enjoy-anal-sex/

WTF?? So by that theory if she enjoys pole smoking then the kid will also be a meat smoker?

Sent from my VS988 using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Confluence]

More study is needed

WTF?? So by that theory if she enjoys pole smoking then the kid will also be a meat smoker?

Sent from my VS988 using Steeler Nation mobile app

Sent from my SM-G950U using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[stevielee]

More study is needed

Sent from my SM-G950U using Steeler Nation mobile app

Getting harder to be a Catholic these days

Sent from my VS988 using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Vincent]

The answer is that Trump is as big a supporter of immigration as Reagan. His wife is an immigrant.

LEGAL immigration. The party of satan is opposed to anything that is legal, orderly, or otherwise benefits our Republic.

 

[Vincent]

... seems like perfectly acceptable rhetoric… but only when Democrats use it to pursue an agenda

ANYTHING goes with totalitarians as long as they're doling it out. Otherwise STFU. Its how they roll.

Seriously. Close your eyes and imagine what would happen if they EVER regain control. In the last 2 years you've seen 'rhetoric' escalate into violence like never before. The violence has always been there. But its ratcheting up. Watch what happens if the House goes red again, the Senate stays solidly red and Trump has free reign for 4 years. They'll be wild in the streets. Then if they were to regain power in 24, what might happen? Would it be any different than France in 1789? Russia in 1917? Germany in 1933? Cuba in 1959? China in 1966? Cambodia in 1976? Do you have a taste for Political Opposition Dim Sum?

Why would it be different here? They've killed upwards of 70 million of our children. They've demonstrated their 'stomachs' for unspeakable barbarity.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The answer is that Trump is as big a supporter of immigration as Reagan. His wife is an immigrant. The assumption in the question is invalid so the question should be dismissed as a naive and juvenile attempt at making a point.

Actually two out of three wives. Trump loves immigrants.