Certainly. I personally consider a 20 year drinking binge, a DWI, and a cocaine habit to be pretty unchristian, as best I understand it.Hmm...you can always spot a true Christian by the fruit that they bear.
Why would they? I don't claim my particular "family values" are the soveirgn cure to all ills. Nor do I even claim they are superior.No kidding!! It's a good thing he quit all and found the Lord, huh Morat?
I sure hope you have no skeletons in your closet that could come sneaking out ~ someone may hold it against you for decades
Originally posted by blindfaith
No kidding!! It's a good thing he quit all and found the Lord, huh Morat?
I sure hope you have no skeletons in your closet that could come sneaking out ~ someone may hold it against you for decades.
Originally posted by Clay
they totally blew trent lotts comments out of proportion.
he put that man in the white house because God knew about the terrorist attacks, about iraq, because of korea, because of the economy, and to keep taxes down.
Originally posted by blindfaith
you can always spot a true Christian by the fruit that they bear
Originally posted by blindfaith
Thank you two feathers ~ that was a very nice compliment.
Originally posted by ocean
This is very scary to hear some people think like this. Liberals are doing much more to help the country than conservatives, IMO. All conservatives want to do is start wars and destroy the environment and kill the economy. Liberals actually want to PREVENT wars, instead of just win them.
Albert J. Gore and Bill Clinton are also professing Christians. Now whether they fit YOUR definition of a Christian is a different story.
There seems to be an extreme Christian bias in your post. According to you, Christians are the only people that matter, everyone else be [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].
People who think like this are the main reason I am moving to Canada.
P.S. George W. Bush did not actually win the election, Gore got more votes.
He only won in the electoral college if he won in Florida. And, based on the comprehensive tallies by the media, that's highly debatable.Bush did win the election, which is why he sits in the Oval Office and people call him Mr. President. My advice to you is to study up on the electoral college.
Originally posted by Morat
He only won in the electoral college if he won in Florida. And, based on the comprehensive tallies by the media, that's highly debatable.
Personally, I view it as a "possesion is 9/10s the law", and don't really argue about who won or lost Florida. Or the election. After all, Bush is President.
However, I thought I'd point out the little flaw in your response.
Yes. The comprehensive one ordered up by several media groups in tandem showed that Gore had quite a few more votes. Leastwise, more people got up there and tried to vote for Gore than Bush. Nor am I discussing "butterfly ballots" but simple overvotes where Gore was marked, then a second minor candidate. (Not that I think 3000 elderly Jews were attempting vote for Buchanon. Nor do I consider the scrub lists in Florida ethical, or legal. Jim Crow is quite alive in Florida.) HereAnd the recounts (post-election, of course) show that Bush did win in Florida.
When you speak of Bush's victory in Florida as "highly debatable," do you know of a recount that showed Gore ahead of Bush in Florida? How many recounts does one need, anyway?
Or are you implying that there's any validity at all in the odd "butterfly ballot argument"?
Even so, there's no flaw in my response. ocean was arguing that Bush wasn't president (legitimately) because "Gore got more votes." All I did was remind him that there's this thing called the electoral college.
According to the study, 5,277 voters made a clean punch for Gore and a clean punch for Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan, candidates whose political philosophies are poles apart. An additional 1,650 voters made clean punches for Bush and Buchanan. If many of the Buchanan votes were in error brought on by a badly designed ballot, a CNN analysis found that Gore could have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.
Eighteen other counties used another confusing ballot design known as the "caterpillar" or "broken" ballot, where six or seven presidential candidates are listed in one column and the names of the remaining minor party candidates appeared at the top of a second one. According to the study, more than 15,000 people who voted for either Gore or Bush also selected one candidate in the second column, apparently thinking the second column represented a new race.
Had many of these voters not marked a minor candidate in the second column, Gore would have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.
However, the double votes on both butterfly and caterpillar ballots were clearly invalid under any interpretation of the law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?