Is "Christian-Democrat" an oxymoron? ~ Video

[dwight92070]

Dwight: I don't know a single liberal or progressive who would vandalize a car over Trump. Do you have any source material? Can you please quantify with some research and source materials your claim that liberals are more angry than conservatives?

Dwight speaking: I just got done reading online about the story of Nate Elliot from Washington whose tires were slashed and had yogurt poured into his open sunroof. He saw the guy do it,got him arrested and even went to court to hear his defence. Nate simply had one "Trump" bumper sticker on the back of his car. Riley Silva pled not guilty because he said that "destroying a hate symbol would improve the community." They even had video of the car and both men and the court. Once again, we see a liberal filled with rage who claims he wants to stop hate. So who is claiming the moral high ground here?

Dwight speaking: Also, in a previous post in this thread, I quoted Hillary just this weekend who claimed that half of Trump's supporters are racist, sexest, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic and she called them deplorable. If that's not hatred, what is? Also, you don't remember Democrats cheering and celebrating when Reagan was shot? I certainly do. More liberal hatred.

Claiming a moral high ground for conservatives as not being an angry sort is so completely, objectively false, it makes me wonder: Are you completely unaware of your bias? I know I am biased. I know I have a tendency to view people who have different opinions than me as inferior. But it's my awareness of it that helps me try to be objective. There is such an innocent naïveté to your bias... Such a complete unawareness of it, it makes me wonder if you are completely unaware that you color your interpretation of reality. I don't mean that as an insult. And I don't think you are inferior because of your opinions. It just surprises me from time to time.

Dwight speaking: I would be happy to quantify my statement with research and more source materials, but I have a life and a job outside of The Bible Forum and I have to sleep sometime, so hopefully I can post that later. I don't think I view anyone as inferior to me, even though they may be hypocrites or even criminals. Jesus died for us all. If by "bias" you are referring to unfair prejudice, which is the online definition that I just looked up, please show me where my judgments have been unfair, and your research to back it up.

Dwight




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dwight92070]

Dnesh Dsouza has done extensive research on the Democrat party. You can see his conclusions in the movie "Hillary's America", where it is abundantly clear that the Democrat's have a history of racism, which is obviously anger and even hate. John Wilkes Booth was a Democrat who got so angry that he shot Lincoln. Andrew Jackson was a racist Democrat who owned and sometimes mistreated slaves. Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat racist. FDR has some racist tendencies. Lyndon Johnson, after coming up with his War on Poverty said, "We'll have those niggers voting for us for the next 200 years." The Ku Klux Klan was the military arm of the Democrat party - you can't get more hateful than that group. They were actually sanctioned by the Democrats. Saul Alinsky, a close friend and mentor of Hillary's wrote "Rules for Radicals", dedicating his book, literally, to the first radical, Lucifer.

Do you see a pattern of anger and hate here? Or are all of these lies? No, this is history.

[dwight92070]

The Republicans history is certainly not flawless but it looks nothing like what I just recounted for the Democrats.

[morbo3000]

Dwight speaking: I would be happy to quantify my statement with research and more source materials, but I have a life and a job outside of The Bible Forum and I have to sleep sometime, so hopefully I can post that later.

Just typing something doesn't make it true. While it may seem like extra work, if you are going to make judgmental claims about people, you need to back it up with research, and not anecdotes.

For example:

I asked:

Can you please quantify with some research and source materials your claim that **liberals are more angry than conservatives***

You replied:

I just got done reading online about the story of Nate Elliot from Washington whose tires were slashed and had yogurt poured into his open sunroof.

That's anecdotal evidence about one incident. It doesn't support your claim that one *group* is more angry than the other.

You also claimed:

Also, you don't remember Democrats cheering and celebrating when Reagan was shot? I certainly do. More liberal hatred.

Can you provide reliable evidence that this occurred? Memory is not a reliable source.

If by "bias" you are referring to unfair prejudice, which is the online definition that I just looked up, please show me where my judgments have been unfair, and your research to back it up.

I wasn't pointing out a specific bias. I was asking if you were aware you are. We all are. You don't seem aware that you have any biases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thrombomodulin]

it is abundantly clear that the Democrat's have a history of racism, which is obviously anger and even hate. John Wilkes Booth was a Democrat who got so angry that he shot Lincoln. ... No, this is history.

I would like to comment on the example of John Wilkes Booth because I think it unfair - or at least inconsistent with the view of government that I understand you hold. The war was not yet over as an active army, that had not surrendered, remained in the field for the South at the time Lincoln was assassinated. John Wilkes Booth saw himself as an agent working on behalf of the confederacy. I wonder why you would regard his conduct as anything other than blameless, for it can be completely justified by the fact that he was acting on behalf of a power authorized by God to rule for a certain period of time (Romans 13:1-2). One might say that Booth's actions were not justified because the South ultimately lost the war, but John Wilkes Booth would not have had the benefit of knowing the future in order to inform his decisions at the time he assassinated Lincoln. I don't see how you can regard Booth as having anything wrong. Killing is part of the act of war - which States must engage in to defend their existence as the South was. What is not justified about what he did from your point of view?

Peter

[dwight92070]

The Republican anti-slavery north was fighting the Democrat pro-slavery south. Which side was God on - or which side was on God's side? The anti-slavery side, IMO, lines up with the Bible. The pro-slavery side does not, especially when you consider that slaves were terribly mistreated. Booth's beliefs did not coincide with scripture. Besides that, Booth was a terrorist and a coward. If he had escaped and reported to General Lee what he had done, shooting the President in the back of the head. I wouldn't be surprised if Lee would have executed him on the spot. Lincoln was unarmed and not on the battlefield. So Booth's beliefs and his actions were dishonorable and unscriptural.

[dwight92070]

"Hillary's America" provides plenty of research and sources. If you don't agree with that, then you wouldn't accept my research either.

[morbo3000]

"Hillary's America" provides plenty of research and sources. If you don't agree with that, then you wouldn't accept my research either.

That's lazy.

Dinesh is a loon. Every reputable news agency panned the movie as paranoid propaganda. Of course, you'll probably say "that's liberal media bias," which would itself be conspiratorial paranoia.

Back to the original point. You have accused liberals of being categorically angrier than conservatives. Just because you type those words, does not mean it is true. If you are going to accuse my friends and family of being angrier than conservatives, you have to back that up with facts, not anecdotes. Not hide behind a movie. Point to some polls. Psychological studies. Case studies. Focus groups. From reputable scientific sources.

[morbo3000]

"Hillary's America" provides plenty of research and sources. If you don't agree with that, then you wouldn't accept my research either.

[/quote]

That's lazy. Don't hide behind a movie. You can either back up your statements with facts, or they are just empty words.

You have accused liberals of being categorically angrier than conservatives. Just because you type those words, does not mean it is true. If you are going to accuse my friends and family of being angrier than conservatives, you have to back that up with facts, not anecdotes. Not hide behind a movie. Point to some polls. Psychological studies. Case studies. Focus groups. From reputable scientific sources.

[dwight92070]

That's what liberals do. If they can't refute an arguement, they call names. You give me your research and case studies to refute Dnesh. You won't because you can't. Or are you being lazy? You hide behind "case studies and research". I "hide" behind the movie because I know it is factual. Liberal hatred is all around us daily. You don't need a case study to see it. The media is simply a wing of the Democrat party, with few exceptions. Their double standard in questioning conservatives vs. liberals is blatant. They don't even try to hide it anymore. If you don't see it, you are blind. Dnesh is a loon. Paranoid propaganda. Name calling, that's all you liberals have because you don't have the truth. Here's some other names liberals often use or have made up:
1. Racist - You hate blacks
2. Homophobe - You hate homosexuals
3. Sexist - You hate women
4. Xenophobe - You hate foreigners
5. Islamaphobe - You hate Muslims
At least 3 of these names were invented by liberals, so they could attack conservatives who simply disagree with them, but are not actually guilty of those things at all. And more often than not, the attackers are guilty of those very things.