Posted on 07/16/2012 9:11:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Recently I heard a friend of mine echo the sentiment former Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker expressed in an interview with WND: “I would vote for the devil himself over Barack Obama.” People say this to make clear how deeply they abhor Obama and all his works. Sadly, for them and for America, their passionate hatred of Obama puts them exactly where the devil wants them to be. The Father of Lies chuckles with satisfaction. He gloats triumphantly at the fact that their hatred of his appearance in one form has maneuvered them into supporting his triumph in another.
I grieve deeply as I contemplate the fact that millions of Americans are letting themselves be caught in this diabolical snare. As I tried to point out in 2008, the lesser of evils is still evil. No matter how such an election turns out, people content to choose between Satan and Beelzebub have made clear their willingness to let things go to hell. Moreover, the nature of their choice is so clear to them that they practically boast of the passionate hatred that impels them to it. With this practical boast they become the willing, proud accomplices of the very evil they profess to hate.
I’m morally certain this is why Christ admonished his disciples to make striving for God’s perfection the standard for their actions, rather than their hatred of evil. He thought it better to fail reaching for this standard than succeed by abandoning one’s life to the devil’s dominion. He thought it better to fail in the world’s eyes while commending one’s spirit to God (as he does on the cross) than succeed by casting one’s lot with God’s adversary.
All this came to my mind this week as I read the excellent half-truths in David Limbaugh’s column
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Given a grossly swollen (and, demonstrably, UN-conservative) sense of self-entitlement, on the part of said visitor? They might feel that way, certainly -- there are selfishly petty and irrational types all over, sad to say -- but feelings, however dearly held or keenly felt, are not the same (and, in such matters, cannot trump) as reason.
In any event, it remains incontrovertible that -- once your host has stated "Stop it. Now." -- one either stops, or LEAVES.
Well I saw an encounter where suddenly the host called the guest a liar, did not give the guest a chance to reply to that accusation, and kicked the guest out.
He’d never had to deal with someone that stinky for a position that important... not saying that would be a right or wrong answer.
Also, you cannot reduce the matter to FEELINGS as you are attempting to do. Principles stand. You don’t falsely advertise is one.
Romney may lean Left but he ain't a goddam Red!
And...?
Again: that's simply the chance you take, walking about inside of someone else's house. No entitlements; no guarantees.
(... and, of course: said guest might very well have been a liar; and one's host, in such an instance, is in no way required to coddle such, upon discovery of same. Doe-eyed sympathies offered towards the offending party, in such cases, are plainly misplaced ones.)
And the host may have been a false advertiser, too.
I honestly reason and believe that to fit the tone of some of the happenings here, the place ought to abandon the name Free Republic and adopt Conservative Republic. There are sanctions the external world can apply to misrepresentations: shame is one.
Of course I can. That's all that's being offered by way of limp rebuttal, after all: "... oh, but he felt entitled to behave in such-and-such a way, our theoretical visitor -- despite being explicitly told not to, by said property's host/owner -- because he FELT that [Insert Flimsy Rationale Here] -- !"
Arrant, addled nonsense. You wouldn't tolerate someone pissing all over the good furniture and setting fire to the dog, after repeatedly ordering them not to do so, in your own house. Afford others that same baseline amount of control over theirs.
What was that about having to restate arguments and its affect on the validity of what you claim, that you said earlier?
And suffering an injury does not boil down to mere subjective feelings: an implied promise was breached.
Then lay out your best evidence, in such an instance, and make whatever specific case you can. Show whatever cards you may think you have.
Can't do it? Won't do it? No earthly reason to care, then.
And you have utterly failed to show how any analogy to what happened can be drawn to “setting fire to the dog” and such.
I can ask the same of you and if you can’t or won’t there is no earthly reason for me to care either... la di da good bye to you in specific!
(Just returning your gesture.)
"Is this another kind of Godwin’s law? Find me the entry in the debate dictionary that proves anything remotely close to what you say."
Play one side of the net or the other, Mr. McEnroe... but: play on that side, regardless.
I mimic your swing and you are now COMPLAINING! That’s rich.
Ummmmmmm... I'm not the one obliquely accusing our host of misbehavior or "false advertising,"... so, no, actually. You can't. (Good heavens, what on earth is the matter with you...?)
la di da good bye to you in specific!
Bizarre.
Oh, well... whatever. Flounce away, then, if you like.
I actually quoted yours, and now you're having a full-out, red-faced tantrum, by way of response. And weren't you saying something about "la-di-da"ing off into the distance, just scant moments agone...?
Again: absolutely bizarre.
This quote is a keeper: “Logically, the only people who should support Romney are those who embrace Obama’s goals, but resent Obama’s failure to achieve them. They want to replace his clumsy, bluntly socialist incompetence with Romney’s more engaging and sweetly deceptive method of attaining the same end.”
Those willing to vote for Romney call the other side stupid. Those unwilling to vote for Romney call the other side Mittbotts and Romney lovers.
Both sides are just fanning the flames of the bonfire that the GOP-E is enjoying immensely.
Those willing to support Romney see, in Obama, a president who actively works to sandbag this country and its economy. They see, and rightly, a candidate in Romney who would at least give the economy a respite if not a short-term boots.
Those opposed to Romney see a GOP-E willing to embrace socialism out of fear of voter reprisal if they stand up to the looters. They see a corrupt, pallid institution at odds with the long-term conservative goals of paring back government, all in the name of preserving their spot at the Beltway trough. And they wonder if a Romney victory would be a pyrhhic one for this country that would entrench those hogs in their wallow.
There is nothing stupid about either position. Both are attempts to try and sort out the least bad path through the gauntlet that has been thrown down in front of us.
I wish everyone would step back for a moment and realize that the only winner from all of this flaming is the jackasses in the GOP-E who have their RINO and see the havoc that RINO is causing in the camps of their enemy - not the Dems, but the Tea Party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.