Skip to comments.
Columnist Baldwin: Choosing Between "R" and "D" Like Choosing Between Pharisees and Sadducees
Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^
| 05-27-03
| Chuck Baldwin
Posted on 05/27/2003 3:21:50 PM PDT by Theodore R.
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
Mr. Baldwin has expanded on the old idea of the late George C. Wallace, who said in 1968 that there was not a "dime's worth" of difference between the two national parties.
To: Theodore R.
Neither know what conservativism is.
2
posted on
05/27/2003 3:24:13 PM PDT
by
Digger
To: Digger
..and nether have any COMPETITION.
3
posted on
05/27/2003 3:25:08 PM PDT
by
Digger
To: Theodore R.
Chuck, you ignorant fraud!
God requires good and righteous people/nations to oppose evil.
HELLO CHUCK!!! That's us, the good guys!
To: Theodore R.
Interesting story....
5
posted on
05/27/2003 3:28:13 PM PDT
by
TLBSHOW
(the gift is to see the truth)
To: Theodore R.
Not a lot of difference in some peoples favorite little pet issues, but on the whole, the gulf has never been greater.
To: Theodore R.
So does this mean that George Bush is Caesar and Suddam Hussein is (was) Christ?
To: Grando Calrissian
I think he is saying that secular conservatives regard President Bush in the same light as the Pharisees and Sadducees considered Caesar -- not to be questioned.
To: Grando Calrissian
Chuck the Insane was comparing Bush to the Anti-Christ in his last column.
To: Theodore R.
Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that President Bush has been given divine authority to act outside the U.S. Constitution is branded as unpatriotic or worse. Baloney.
Several conservatives have even gone so far as to call G. W. Bush, "America's King." To them, Bush is Caesar, and America is an empire.
Who? You don't get any points for playing smack-down with a straw man.
10
posted on
05/27/2003 3:43:59 PM PDT
by
marron
To: Theodore R.
Several conservatives have even gone so far as to call G. W. Bush, "America's King." To them, Bush is Caesar, and America is an empire.WTF???? Who are these conservatives who have coronated GWB as "King George" in the media? God, the New York Times wishes some prominent "neocon" would call him "America's King" - they could generate enough hysteria and column-inches to make the entire world say "Jayson who?" in about three days.
To: Theodore R.
Who (I ask in all seriousness) is Chuck Baldwin and why should his opinion be of any concern to me?
12
posted on
05/27/2003 3:53:49 PM PDT
by
Ole Okie
To: Ole Okie
He is a minister in the FL Panhandle base in Pensacola. He was formerly in Jerry Falwell's former Moral Majority. He believes that the Bush administration is too liberal.
To: Theodore R.
Yes, but in throwing in the references to Jesus, one could infer that Mr. Baldwin sees Hussein as Christ.
To: AmericaUnited
It's good that Mr. Baldwin has a keen sense of proportion.
To: Grando Calrissian
In no way would Chuck Baldwin equate Saddam Hussein with Christ. He is referring to the conservative love affair with power and big government instead of constitutional principles.
To: AmericaUnited
Fraud indeed. I would suggest that the Sads and the Phars represented the law, not the truth. The Torah represented truth. There task was to interpret the pentateuch and older books of the Testament. From such stuff theology is born.
As for Repubs and Dems, Repubs argue that they have BOTH the law and the truth on their side. The Dems can only counter with an antithesis: Hillary Clinton.
17
posted on
05/27/2003 4:12:47 PM PDT
by
gaspar
(`)
To: Theodore R.
Then why throw in the stuff about the "Pharisees and Sadducees" opposing Christ:
"While the Pharisees and Sadducees fiercely fought each other, they were both the enemies of Christ. When it came to supporting error and opposing truth, they were united. The same is true today with the Republican and Democratic parties. "
In the context of today, the present, 2003, the only issue where both parties have met in agreement (somewhat) is the War with Iraq. The only issue where it can be argued that opponents have been called unpatriotic in opposition is the the War with Iraq.
It seems a stretch to apply Mr. Baldwin's train of logic to government spending, unless it's sensationalistic in nature.
By your reading of the article, I would agree. There is hardly a difference between the two parties when it comes to the dispersal of pork. In my opinion, the article, and by extension, Mr. Baldwin's point, would have greater merit without using the same straw man I see used in a lot of these articles.
To: Grando Calrissian
In the context of today, the present, 2003, the only issue where both parties have met in agreement (somewhat) is the War with Iraq. The only issue where it can be argued that opponents have been called unpatriotic in opposition is the the War with Iraq. Has either party taken a firm stand on the Fourth Amendment?
19
posted on
05/27/2003 4:29:37 PM PDT
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: supercat
Has either party taken a firm stand on the Fourth Amendment? In context to the Patriot Act, yes. Their stand happens to be firmly against the 4th Amendment.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson