The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

BTR, I would go so far as to say a vast majority of the very dedicated Christians don't fit that description. A group is collectively being blamed for the actions of a small few.

I think that there are politicians who talk about "traditional values" and honestly believe that and conduct themselves according to those views.

LJBlazerFan Wrote:BTR, I would go so far as to say a vast majority of the very dedicated Christians don't fit that description. A group is collectively being blamed for the actions of a small few.

I think that there are politicians who talk about "traditional values" and honestly believe that and conduct themselves according to those views.

You are probably right on both statements. I really do believe that there are some politicians who are dedicated to their faith (whatever it may be). I know one politician personally who really does have a very strong faith and does try to vote the way he believes. I also believe that there are some politicians who are using "Christianity" for their political gain. I unfortunately know a few of those personally as well. I am very happy that I left politics over a decade ago. I do not miss it...

BTR

There are 2 reasons I can't stand Richard Shelby. 1 is that he was the lead man in editing many pages out of the 9/11 commission report. Second, and most importantly.... he's a republican!

blazinrunner Wrote:Second, and most importantly.... he's a republican!

Interesting reasons... I can think of many of reasons why I dislike Bill Clinton but being a democrat isn't one of them.

yeah, that little cheating on his wife and lying under oath.

blazinrunner Wrote:Second, and most importantly.... he's a republican!

Wow, that's a well-reasoned arguement.

Seriously, the term, "traditional values" is (if my 7th grade Civics hasn't completely abandoned me) what is called a "valence term".

That is, one of those vague terms that really offer no indication of how a politician thinks on any given issue, but we'd all support.

Example: "I, Simon P. Bedfellow, am for education and against crime!" Well, who the heck is against education and for crime?!?

The side that screams it loudest gets the "moral" high ground.

Speaking strictly of politics, Democrats, you let Republicans beat you to the punch. You can't come up with a better counterpunch than you have, shame on you.

Seems like Democrats got a lot of mileage out of calling Republicans "hatemongers" in the 90's. No one's hands are clean.

Where I stand on everything else, in effort of full disclosure:

I like Bush.
I didn't like Clinton.
Joe Leiberman is a good man.
Roy Moore is a hack.

I own a pickup truck, a KJV, and a handgun.

Wow, I just thought it was cool that we may be getting $20 million for research.

But if you want to start talking church and state, it can be argued that without religion there can be no true right or wrong. With no right or wrong, laws cannot be made. With no laws, there is no government.

The church and government aren't as far apart as one might believe.

Smaug Wrote:Seems like Democrats got a lot of mileage out of calling Republicans "hatemongers" in the 90's. No one's hands are clean.

Let's not forget what that idiot Howard Dean said recently - and how no Democrats stood up against that.