Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to True. However . . .

Lindy brought up an Old Testament idea.
Tom Brosz — (archived)

I responded.

It must be a lot of fun for some of you--needling Judeo-Christians about how consistent their principles are with their religion. I'm sure it's a lot easier for those people whose principles aren't written down in stone, or even in sand--principles that are whatever the hell they decide they are that day, and they can change them tomorrow without fear of inconsistency or condemnation by their fellows.

When you ask a Democratic candidate what his stand is on something, his response typically translates out to "what stand will get you to vote for me?"

When people mentioned "values" as a reason to vote, they weren't talking about Bush being a "Jesus freak." They were talking about him having a solid base of principles that doesn't blow with the wind. Whatever else you can say about him, he doesn't sway with the opinion polls.

Kerry was an empty suit, that could go anywhere or nowhere. Kerry, IMO, would have been equally likely to nuke Iraq as pull all the troops out within a month. No set principles, no other guidelines other than "what might work today?"

To be fair, this has not been an exclusive trait of Democrats. Nixon had a lot of the "empty suit" about him too, and could blow in any direction. Wage-price controls--good grief.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (40 posts)