Coulter on Trump's future

[Haruo]

[Dave Roberts]

Is there a place where I can throw up?

[William Thornton]

Others say the murderous rampage by radical Islamic terrorists in Paris is politically advantageous to the non-outsiders running for the nomination. Neither Hil or her two alleged opponents could bring themselves to pronounce the phrase, "radical Islamic terrorists" during the debate. That, in spite of the evidence abundantly available....but such things aren't important to my lib friends here who would rather address the threat of global warming, pontificate about paying unskilled hamburger flippers $15/hr, or wring hands over the latest insensitivity on campii.

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

I don't see how how what happened in Paris gets either Trump or Carson elected President. But then Ann Coulter is a few cards short of a full deck.

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

What is the context in which Mrs. Clinton and her opponents failed to say "radical Islamic terrorists"? Did someone say, "would you agree that Sirhan Sirhan and Timothy McVeigh are radical Islamic terrorists"?

[Tim Bonney]

At least Hilary wasn't calling Iowans "stupid." As long as "The Donald" and Ben "the pyramids were grain storage location" Carson are the front runners, the GOP doesn't have much room to criticize.

[Sandy]

If the way some of the GOP candidates have reacted to this, including the acceptance of the small number of Syrian refugees in the US that the President has proposed, I don't think Hillary Clinton will be staying awake at nights worrying about the outcome of the election. Predictably, they've made donkey's rears out of themselves with their turning this into a political "us vs. him" issue again, and with outlandish bigotry and ignorance. Trump is claiming that Obama plans to bring "hundreds of thousands" of Syrians to the US, but has no backup for his claim. It's 10,000, actually. Cruz actually proposed that we only bring in those who are Christian. I guess he doesn't care about the Syrian Jews who are also trying to escape.

This is the same Anne Coulter who predicted that Romney would win the election in 2012 in a landslide, right?

[Chris]

[David Flick]

[Tim Bonney]

David, that is why the term "Conservative Resergence" is so inaccurate. First it wasn't "conservatives" who took over the SBC, it was fundamentalists. But SBC fundamentalists are best served by the idea that anyone who doesn't believe their way is a liberal. So they make sure to grab the conservative label out from under conservatives who aren't fundamentalists.

[Sandy]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

The terms each “side” uses to described themselves should be let up to that side’s take on the issues involved.

To the Sandy/William’s side of the debate, they see it as a Conservative Resurgence. By their definition “Conservative” is one who simply believes that, as with the BF&M 1963 and 2000, the Bible is “truth w/o any mixture or error”. I can understand that viewpoint and have gladly let them go their way to “resurge” as they wish.

To my/David’s side, it was a Fundamentalist Takeover. By definition (to our “side”) a Fundamentalist is one who holds to biblical inerrancy (an untenable view, imo). It was also a Takeover in that many people lost their jobs.

Just merely crying out, you're a “Liberal” or you’re a “Fundamentalist" does little to resolve the issues. No more so than saying you’re an “Alarmist” or you’re a “Denialist”. More depth of study is needed on all sides and a willingness to subject one’s view to correction.

I do recommend William Hull’s latest and last book which finds good points in both “sides”.

[Tim Bonney]

David, I didn't mean to imply that you used the term "conservative resurgence." I have just been disturbed as to how the rise of fundamentalism is US Christianity has been redefining terms to make them meaningless. "Liberal" basically means "anything to the left of me." Conservative and Fundamentalist have been conflated. For me the line in the sand between conservative and fundamentalist always was insistence on a single interpretation of the inspiration of scripture.

You can't even find "moderate" anymore because if you are truly moderate the left calls you a conservative and the right calls you a liberal. So basically these terms have lost their meaning in great part because fundamentalists want to claim to be the only conservatives and claiming that all else is liberalism. The lack of nuance makes the terms useless.

Edit: - Oh, and if you are conservative/orthodox theologically but liberal on some social issue you are a liberal no matter what your theology.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

Dave,

I mistakenly moved this whole Topic.

Read your PM

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Sandy is on target on this, not that revisiting the thing will change any minds here among the ex-SBCers or the lightly affiliated SBCers who are CBF.

I don't see why it matters to laypeople like you at this point. The CBF has some outstanding people involved and some effective organizations, and those without the baggage of a huge, lumbering, sprawling denominational structure. If you were in a position to receive a professorship at an SBC seminary or a job in one of the organization I could see where you would have a sense of loss.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]