|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2004 09:57:01 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
As it seems you got your information verbatim from the Glenn Beck Show, the overtly Christian right-wing conservative political talk show host... |
As a Christian, I find your use of the word 'Christian" as an epithet meant to malign the character of Mr. Beck to be most offensive. And I find that it is not only you, but others as well, that seem to find it perfectly acceptable to equate Christianity with a lack of integrity, but would never make the same association concerning members of any other religion.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you personally, find this to be acceptable behaviour?
As for me, I will henceforth refrain from engaging in discussion with those who cannot set aside their obvious derision of and intolerance toward those who do not share their religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 11:04:14 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
According to this world-wide, informal, nonscientific internet poll, if you like George Bush and plan to vote for him.....well, you are pretty much alone, at least from a global perspective:
//www.betavote.com/vote/
(slow site!) |
(very slow. I gave up waiting...)
But, in general, my response is:
1 - Thank God we don't allow the rest of the world to elect our leaders (even though, if Kerry's elected, they'll be allowed to direct at least our foreign policy, via his "global test").
2 - Thank God we don't allow our leaders to be selected via unregulated internet polling. (MadMordegan's ridiculous debate-night poll numbers show the uselessness of that method.) |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 11:06:23 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
No, it won't.
There won't be any butterfly ballots this time around.
There won't be any punch-card ballots, either.
Were there OTHER problems that you are referring to, as well? If so, please provide a list. |
Ya, the staff in charge of elections in FL. |
The same democratically controlled staff that spent weeks attempting to manufacture votes via the infamous dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads? (And that still, ultimately, could never garner enough votes for a victory?) |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 11:33:01 AM · #29 |
Ron,
You're really reaching to find fault and something to complain about.
If you're really offended about the contemporary notion/misconception that devout Christians are somehow aligned with the "conservative right-wing" and with the Republican party, then, you should direct your ire against the leadership of the Republican party and its public mouth pieces (i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, the 700 club, the Christian Coalition, and others).
Unfortunately, the Republican party has mounted a blatant and concerted effort to court born-again Evangelical Christians, and have thereby equated being "Christian" with being aligned with the Republican party (and, rightly or wrongly, with the conservative right-wing). By way of example, about a month ago the Republican National Committee (RNC) urged Evangelical pastors to actively recruit members of their congregation for the Republican party and, too, the RNC requested that pastors forward to the party contact information on their congregation. By making such a self-serving request, the RNC actually placed the churches that responded in jeopardy; because those churches could've have lost their (557) tax-exempt status with the IRS -- whereby non-profit, including religious organizations, receive certain tax benefits as long as they don't directly advocate for a political party.
Again, if there's anyone that should rightfully be the recipient of your ire for exploiting and mischaracterizing people of the Christian faith, its the Republican party and its cohorts. In the first presidential debate, for example, Mr. Bush resorted to his religious crutch once again. In his closing statement Mr. Bush clearly invoked biblical imagery when he uttered:
Bush: We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace.
Once again, if there's anyone to blame for the contemporary notion that devout "Christians" are somehow aligned with a particular party, it's the Republican party and those that do not stand up for their faith's core values: tolerance, love of neighbor, charity and forgiveness.
-------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
As it seems you got your information verbatim from the Glenn Beck Show, the overtly Christian right-wing conservative political talk show host... |
As a Christian, I find your use of the word 'Christian" as an epithet meant to malign the character of Mr. Beck to be most offensive. And I find that it is not only you, but others as well, that seem to find it perfectly acceptable to equate Christianity with a lack of integrity, but would never make the same association concerning members of any other religion.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you personally, find this to be acceptable behaviour?
As for me, I will henceforth refrain from engaging in discussion with those who cannot set aside their obvious derision of and intolerance toward those who do not share their religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 11:56:59 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Ron,
You're really reaching to find fault and something to complain about. |
Not just that but he nor anyone else touched on several well referenced posts on page 1 by gingerbaker. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 12:09:32 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
As it seems you got your information verbatim from the Glenn Beck Show, the overtly Christian right-wing conservative political talk show host... |
As a Christian, I find your use of the word "Christian" as an epithet meant to malign the character of Mr. Beck to be most offensive. And I find that it is not only you, but others as well, that seem to find it perfectly acceptable to equate Christianity with a lack of integrity, but would never make the same association concerning members of any other religion.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you personally, find this to be acceptable behaviour?
As for me, I will henceforth refrain from engaging in discussion with those who cannot set aside their obvious derision of and intolerance toward those who do not share their religious beliefs. |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Ron,
You're really reaching to find fault and something to complain about.
If you're really offended about the contemporary notion/misconception that devout Christians are somehow aligned with the "conservative right-wing" and with the Republican party, then, you should direct your ire against the leadership of the Republican party and its public mouth pieces (i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, the 700 club, the Christian Coalition, and others). |
I am not offended if someone entertains the notion that devout Christians are aligned with the "conservative right-wing" and with the Republican party. I never implied that I was. What I am offended by is the inclusion of "Christian" in the litany of character traits that the writer ( gingerbaker ) deems as automatic reasons to dismiss the views of Mr. Beck.
It is my opinion that if Mr. Beck had been Jewish, gingerbaker would NOT have said "overtly Jewish right-wing conservative..." and that if Mr. Beck had been a Buddhist, gingerbaker would NOT have said "overtly Buddhist right-wing conservative...".
It is only Christians who are subjected to such callous treatment, and apparently with impunity. And not by gingerbaker alone.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Unfortunately, the Republican party has mounted a blatant and concerted effort to court born-again Evangelical Christians, and have thereby equated being "Christian" with being aligned with the Republican party (and, rightly or wrongly, with the conservative right-wing). |
Why "Unfortunately"? Because Kerry has not been able to court that segment of the population to support his campaign? You use the phrase "blatant and concerted effort" as though it were a negative approach - but how would you characterize the Kerry's campaign to court the Black vote, if not blatant ( conspicuous ) and concerted ( combined planning ).
Originally posted by bdobe:
By way of example, about a month ago the Republican National Committee (RNC) urged Evangelical pastors to actively recruit members of their congregation for the Republican party and, too, the RNC requested that pastors forward to the party contact information on their congregation. By making such a self-serving request, the RNC actually placed the churches that responded in jeopardy; because those churches could've have lost their (557) tax-exempt status with the IRS -- whereby non-profit, including religious organizations, receive certain tax benefits as long as they don't directly advocate for a political party. |
Just out of curiousity, how do the ( 557 ) churches avoid losing their tax-exempt status when they let Bill Clinton make political speeches from the pulpit, as he has done on several occasions?
Originally posted by bdobe:
Again, if there's anyone that should rightfully be the recipient of your ire for exploiting and mischaracterizing people of the Christian faith, its the Republican party and its cohorts. In the first presidential debate, for example, Mr. Bush resorted to his religious crutch once again. In his closing statement Mr. Bush clearly invoked biblical imagery when he uttered:
Bush: We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. |
Your use of the term "religious crutch" says just about all I need to know about you. It reveals your own derision for all who have religious beliefs of ANY sort. Very telling.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Once again, if there's anyone to blame for the contemporary notion that devout "Christians" are somehow aligned with a particular party, it's the Republican party and those that do not stand up for their faith's core values: tolerance, love of neighbor, charity and forgiveness. |
Is there a particular reason why you felt it necessary to put the word Christian in quotation marks?
You speak of tolerance, yet it appears that you are only tolerant of those who are not "Christians" or "Republicans" or "Conservatives"
You speak of love of neighbor, yet it appears that you do not "love" "Christians", "Republicans", "Conservatives"
You speak of charity and forgiveness, but do not show the least bit of charity or forgiveness toward the President |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 12:21:30 PM · #32 |
Ron, I'm sorry, I think you've lost it and are over reaching in your response. There isn't a single think I can possibly respond to in your reply.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
As it seems you got your information verbatim from the Glenn Beck Show, the overtly Christian right-wing conservative political talk show host... |
As a Christian, I find your use of the word "Christian" as an epithet meant to malign the character of Mr. Beck to be most offensive. And I find that it is not only you, but others as well, that seem to find it perfectly acceptable to equate Christianity with a lack of integrity, but would never make the same association concerning members of any other religion.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you personally, find this to be acceptable behaviour?
As for me, I will henceforth refrain from engaging in discussion with those who cannot set aside their obvious derision of and intolerance toward those who do not share their religious beliefs. |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Ron,
You're really reaching to find fault and something to complain about.
If you're really offended about the contemporary notion/misconception that devout Christians are somehow aligned with the "conservative right-wing" and with the Republican party, then, you should direct your ire against the leadership of the Republican party and its public mouth pieces (i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, the 700 club, the Christian Coalition, and others). |
I am not offended if someone entertains the notion that devout Christians are aligned with the "conservative right-wing" and with the Republican party. I never implied that I was. What I am offended by is the inclusion of "Christian" in the litany of character traits that the writer ( gingerbaker ) deems as automatic reasons to dismiss the views of Mr. Beck.
It is my opinion that if Mr. Beck had been Jewish, gingerbaker would NOT have said "overtly Jewish right-wing conservative..." and that if Mr. Beck had been a Buddhist, gingerbaker would NOT have said "overtly Buddhist right-wing conservative...".
It is only Christians who are subjected to such callous treatment, and apparently with impunity. And not by gingerbaker alone.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Unfortunately, the Republican party has mounted a blatant and concerted effort to court born-again Evangelical Christians, and have thereby equated being "Christian" with being aligned with the Republican party (and, rightly or wrongly, with the conservative right-wing). |
Why "Unfortunately"? Because Kerry has not been able to court that segment of the population to support his campaign? You use the phrase "blatant and concerted effort" as though it were a negative approach - but how would you characterize the Kerry's campaign to court the Black vote, if not blatant ( conspicuous ) and concerted ( combined planning ).
Originally posted by bdobe:
By way of example, about a month ago the Republican National Committee (RNC) urged Evangelical pastors to actively recruit members of their congregation for the Republican party and, too, the RNC requested that pastors forward to the party contact information on their congregation. By making such a self-serving request, the RNC actually placed the churches that responded in jeopardy; because those churches could've have lost their (557) tax-exempt status with the IRS -- whereby non-profit, including religious organizations, receive certain tax benefits as long as they don't directly advocate for a political party. |
Just out of curiousity, how do the ( 557 ) churches avoid losing their tax-exempt status when they let Bill Clinton make political speeches from the pulpit, as he has done on several occasions?
Originally posted by bdobe:
Again, if there's anyone that should rightfully be the recipient of your ire for exploiting and mischaracterizing people of the Christian faith, its the Republican party and its cohorts. In the first presidential debate, for example, Mr. Bush resorted to his religious crutch once again. In his closing statement Mr. Bush clearly invoked biblical imagery when he uttered:
Bush: We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. |
Your use of the term "religious crutch" says just about all I need to know about you. It reveals your own derision for all who have religious beliefs of ANY sort. Very telling.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Once again, if there's anyone to blame for the contemporary notion that devout "Christians" are somehow aligned with a particular party, it's the Republican party and those that do not stand up for their faith's core values: tolerance, love of neighbor, charity and forgiveness. |
Is there a particular reason why you felt it necessary to put the word Christian in quotation marks?
You speak of tolerance, yet it appears that you are only tolerant of those who are not "Christians" or "Republicans" or "Conservatives"
You speak of love of neighbor, yet it appears that you do not "love" "Christians", "Republicans", "Conservatives"
You speak of charity and forgiveness, but do not show the least bit of charity or forgiveness toward the President |
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 12:40:44 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Ron, I'm sorry, I think you've lost it and are over reaching in your response. There isn't a single think I can possibly respond to in your reply.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
As it seems you got your information verbatim from the Glenn Beck Show, the overtly Christian right-wing conservative political talk show host... |
As a Christian, I find your use of the word "Christian" as an epithet meant to malign the character of Mr. Beck to be most offensive. And I find that it is not only you, but others as well, that seem to find it perfectly acceptable to equate Christianity with a lack of integrity, but would never make the same association concerning members of any other religion.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you personally, find this to be acceptable behaviour?
As for me, I will henceforth refrain from engaging in discussion with those who cannot set aside their obvious derision of and intolerance toward those who do not share their religious beliefs. |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Ron,
You're really reaching to find fault and something to complain about.
If you're really offended about the contemporary notion/misconception that devout Christians are somehow aligned with the "conservative right-wing" and with the Republican party, then, you should direct your ire against the leadership of the Republican party and its public mouth pieces (i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, the 700 club, the Christian Coalition, and others). |
I am not offended if someone entertains the notion that devout Christians are aligned with the "conservative right-wing" and with the Republican party. I never implied that I was. What I am offended by is the inclusion of "Christian" in the litany of character traits that the writer ( gingerbaker ) deems as automatic reasons to dismiss the views of Mr. Beck.
It is my opinion that if Mr. Beck had been Jewish, gingerbaker would NOT have said "overtly Jewish right-wing conservative..." and that if Mr. Beck had been a Buddhist, gingerbaker would NOT have said "overtly Buddhist right-wing conservative...".
It is only Christians who are subjected to such callous treatment, and apparently with impunity. And not by gingerbaker alone.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Unfortunately, the Republican party has mounted a blatant and concerted effort to court born-again Evangelical Christians, and have thereby equated being "Christian" with being aligned with the Republican party (and, rightly or wrongly, with the conservative right-wing). |
Why "Unfortunately"? Because Kerry has not been able to court that segment of the population to support his campaign? You use the phrase "blatant and concerted effort" as though it were a negative approach - but how would you characterize the Kerry's campaign to court the Black vote, if not blatant ( conspicuous ) and concerted ( combined planning ).
Originally posted by bdobe:
By way of example, about a month ago the Republican National Committee (RNC) urged Evangelical pastors to actively recruit members of their congregation for the Republican party and, too, the RNC requested that pastors forward to the party contact information on their congregation. By making such a self-serving request, the RNC actually placed the churches that responded in jeopardy; because those churches could've have lost their (557) tax-exempt status with the IRS -- whereby non-profit, including religious organizations, receive certain tax benefits as long as they don't directly advocate for a political party. |
Just out of curiousity, how do the ( 557 ) churches avoid losing their tax-exempt status when they let Bill Clinton make political speeches from the pulpit, as he has done on several occasions?
Originally posted by bdobe:
Again, if there's anyone that should rightfully be the recipient of your ire for exploiting and mischaracterizing people of the Christian faith, its the Republican party and its cohorts. In the first presidential debate, for example, Mr. Bush resorted to his religious crutch once again. In his closing statement Mr. Bush clearly invoked biblical imagery when he uttered:
Bush: We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. |
Your use of the term "religious crutch" says just about all I need to know about you. It reveals your own derision for all who have religious beliefs of ANY sort. Very telling.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Once again, if there's anyone to blame for the contemporary notion that devout "Christians" are somehow aligned with a particular party, it's the Republican party and those that do not stand up for their faith's core values: tolerance, love of neighbor, charity and forgiveness. |
Is there a particular reason why you felt it necessary to put the word Christian in quotation marks?
You speak of tolerance, yet it appears that you are only tolerant of those who are not "Christians" or "Republicans" or "Conservatives"
You speak of love of neighbor, yet it appears that you do not "love" "Christians", "Republicans", "Conservatives"
You speak of charity and forgiveness, but do not show the least bit of charity or forgiveness toward the President |
|
Well, you could TRY by responding to my direct questions:
1) Why "Unfortunately"?
2) How would you characterize Kerry's campaign to court the Black vote, if not blatant ( conspicuous ) and concerted ( combined planning )?
3) How do the ( 557 ) churches avoid losing their tax-exempt status when they let Bill Clinton make political speeches from the pulpit, as he has done on several occasions?
4) Is there a particular reason why you felt it necessary to put the word Christian in quotation marks?
And, I'll add this one:
5) Why do you associate the term "crutch" with the work "religious", as in the phrase "religious crutch"?
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 01:00:29 PM · #34 |
The tone of your original response does not even merit a reply. Why just look at the slander you insinuate at in your original remarks:
Originally posted by RonB:
Is there a particular reason why you felt it necessary to put the word Christian in quotation marks?
You speak of tolerance, yet it appears that you are only tolerant of those who are not "Christians" or "Republicans" or "Conservatives"
You speak of love of neighbor, yet it appears that you do not "love" "Christians", "Republicans", "Conservatives"
You speak of charity and forgiveness, but do not show the least bit of charity or forgiveness toward the President
|
|
|
|
|
10/05/2004 01:14:08 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
The tone of your original response does not even merit a reply. Why just look at the slander you insinuate at in your original remarks:
Originally posted by RonB:
Is there a particular reason why you felt it necessary to put the word Christian in quotation marks?
You speak of tolerance, yet it appears that you are only tolerant of those who are not "Christians" or "Republicans" or "Conservatives"
You speak of love of neighbor, yet it appears that you do not "love" "Christians", "Republicans", "Conservatives"
You speak of charity and forgiveness, but do not show the least bit of charity or forgiveness toward the President
|
|
Slander: A false and malicious statement about someone.
Which statement is false?
Which statement is malicious?
I did not say that you WERE intolerant, only the you APPEAR TO BE intolerant, and that only toward SOME groups;
I did not say that you DID NOT love, only the you APPEAR TO NOT love, and that only toward SOME groups;
I DID say that you have not shown the least bit of charity and forgiveness toward the President. If that statement is false, please point out an example where you believe that you HAVE shown charity and/or forgiveness toward the President, and I will be happy to post a retraction. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 04:08:29 PM · #36 |
My parting post for the evening...
From Electoral-Vote.com (run by a Democrat, in case nobody noticed): Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 200 Bush 321
(Still to early to call, of course...)
Enjoy the debate! :)
(edited to fix image link)
Message edited by author 2004-10-05 20:09:18. |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 08:00:58 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
As it seems you got your information verbatim from the Glenn Beck Show, the overtly Christian right-wing conservative political talk show host... |
As a Christian, I find your use of the word 'Christian" as an epithet meant to malign the character of Mr. Beck to be most offensive. And I find that it is not only you, but others as well, that seem to find it perfectly acceptable to equate Christianity with a lack of integrity, but would never make the same association concerning members of any other religion.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you personally, find this to be acceptable behaviour?
As for me, I will henceforth refrain from engaging in discussion with those who cannot set aside their obvious derision of and intolerance toward those who do not share their religious beliefs. |
I'm sorry that you take it that way as it wasn't my intention. I was simply startled by the man's web site, which was overtly Christian, and highly political. I just thought it was descriptive, for readers who, like myself, had never heard of the man before.
That is why I gave a description of who Greg Palast was. I do not think I cast any aspersions on the man or his religion, but simply called it as I saw it - a surprising mixture, for me at least, of the sacred and the profane. :D
Sorry if my post upset you over this. :) |
|
|
|
10/05/2004 11:08:27 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You speak of charity and forgiveness, but do not show the least bit of charity or forgiveness toward the President |
Is the president in need of forgiveness (and charity?) Has he asked for any forgiveness? Has Dick Cheney asked for forgiveness? For what actions would the president and VP be in need of forgiveness? Forgiveness is given when asked for and when the person asking for it admits to something they did that was wrong and usually promises to stop the offending actions/behavior. So far, I have not seen any actions that they have taken up (the war, Guantanamo Bay detainees, misleading Congress on Medicare, and just plain misleading in general) where they have admited they were wrong and are going to genuinely try to stop it. I'll gladly give them my forgiveness when they stop the war and other horrendous acts. Only, I think they will have a hard time garnering the forgiveness of family of lost soldiers in Iraq, or civilian population in Iraq. :(
|
|
|
|
10/06/2004 05:33:51 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
As it seems you got your information verbatim from the Glenn Beck Show, the overtly Christian right-wing conservative political talk show host... |
As a Christian, I find your use of the word 'Christian" as an epithet meant to malign the character of Mr. Beck to be most offensive. And I find that it is not only you, but others as well, that seem to find it perfectly acceptable to equate Christianity with a lack of integrity, but would never make the same association concerning members of any other religion.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you personally, find this to be acceptable behaviour?
As for me, I will henceforth refrain from engaging in discussion with those who cannot set aside their obvious derision of and intolerance toward those who do not share their religious beliefs. |
I'm sorry that you take it that way as it wasn't my intention. I was simply startled by the man's web site, which was overtly Christian, and highly political. I just thought it was descriptive, for readers who, like myself, had never heard of the man before.
That is why I gave a description of who Greg Palast was. I do not think I cast any aspersions on the man or his religion, but simply called it as I saw it - a surprising mixture, for me at least, of the sacred and the profane. :D
Sorry if my post upset you over this. :) |
In all fairness, then, you should have disclosed Greg Palast's religious affiliation ( Jewish ), political leaning ( left-wing ), and socioeconomic philosophy ( socialist ). |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 05:55:09 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
You speak of charity and forgiveness, but do not show the least bit of charity or forgiveness toward the President |
Is the president in need of forgiveness (and charity?) Has he asked for any forgiveness? Has Dick Cheney asked for forgiveness? For what actions would the president and VP be in need of forgiveness? Forgiveness is given when asked for and when the person asking for it admits to something they did that was wrong and usually promises to stop the offending actions/behavior. So far, I have not seen any actions that they have taken up (the war, Guantanamo Bay detainees, misleading Congress on Medicare, and just plain misleading in general) where they have admited they were wrong and are going to genuinely try to stop it. I'll gladly give them my forgiveness when they stop the war and other horrendous acts. Only, I think they will have a hard time garnering the forgiveness of family of lost soldiers in Iraq, or civilian population in Iraq. :( |
Jesus Christ prayed for those who were nailing Him to the cross, "Forgive them for they know not what they are doing". He did not pray "Forgive them only if they apologize and request forgiveness". If I were to make forgiveness conditional, as it appears you do, then I would be effectively taking the position that I, a disciple of Christ, am entitled to impose conditions on forgiveness, in spite of the fact that He, himself, did not. |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 06:58:40 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by RonB:
In all fairness, then, you should have disclosed Greg Palast's religious affiliation ( Jewish ), political leaning ( left-wing ), and socioeconomic philosophy ( socialist ). |
For what? Is Greg Palast trying to consolidate political power or gain access to politicians?
How do you know that Greg Palast is a socialist? |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 07:15:46 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by RonB:
In all fairness, then, you should have disclosed Greg Palast's religious affiliation ( Jewish ), political leaning ( left-wing ), and socioeconomic philosophy ( socialist ). |
I have no idea what religion Greg palast practices, as it not displayed on his web site or his writings, or listed as a creed of his, etc.as far as I can tell.
My impression is that he is NOT a socialist, as I have seen zero to indicate this either. Frankly, "socialist" seems to be a term easily bandied about lately, as if it had a derogatory intent, and seems ascribed to anyone who doesn't believe in supply side economics.
Caring about people, or social programs, does not make one a socialist. Supporting government regulations on commerce does not make one a socialist.
And being Jewish does not make one a socialist either. Or do you feel otherwise? |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 07:16:29 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
You speak of charity and forgiveness, but do not show the least bit of charity or forgiveness toward the President |
Is the president in need of forgiveness (and charity?) Has he asked for any forgiveness? Has Dick Cheney asked for forgiveness? For what actions would the president and VP be in need of forgiveness? Forgiveness is given when asked for and when the person asking for it admits to something they did that was wrong and usually promises to stop the offending actions/behavior. So far, I have not seen any actions that they have taken up (the war, Guantanamo Bay detainees, misleading Congress on Medicare, and just plain misleading in general) where they have admited they were wrong and are going to genuinely try to stop it. I'll gladly give them my forgiveness when they stop the war and other horrendous acts. Only, I think they will have a hard time garnering the forgiveness of family of lost soldiers in Iraq, or civilian population in Iraq. :( |
Jesus Christ prayed for those who were nailing Him to the cross, "Forgive them for they know not what they are doing". He did not pray "Forgive them only if they apologize and request forgiveness". If I were to make forgiveness conditional, as it appears you do, then I would be effectively taking the position that I, a disciple of Christ, am entitled to impose conditions on forgiveness, in spite of the fact that He, himself, did not. |
You will use any conceiveable argument to justify your support and defense of this shrewd, manipulative, secretive, incompetent, and diabolical administration who has blood on their hands...and a lot of it. Not just for the past 4 years, but for many years for anyone of them that have served in other administrations, such as Bush I and Reagan. Your argument can be turned around to say why hasn't the Bush administration forgiven the terrorists, or the detainees at Guantanamo Bay (who have not even been charged with any crimes and are not allowed access to lawyers or their families)?
I would still like to hear what issues you think the Bush administration is deserving forgiveness on.
Message edited by author 2004-10-06 11:22:31. |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 07:52:37 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
In all fairness, then, you should have disclosed Greg Palast's religious affiliation ( Jewish ), political leaning ( left-wing ), and socioeconomic philosophy ( socialist ). |
For what? Is Greg Palast trying to consolidate political power or gain access to politicians?
1) How do you know that Greg Palast is a socialist? |
Is Glen Beck? And even if your answer is yes, why is his religious affiliation pertinent?
2) While he never actually acknowledges being a socialist, his socioeconomic policies reveal a strong socialistic stance. In reviewing his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" the Epinions.com reviewer wrote
"He doesn̢۪t come straight out of the closet and endorse socialism, but you get the feeling that a collectivist economy is what he wants to see, in all countries of the world. Democratic socialism seems like the system he advocates."
Greg was also one of the speakers at the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City this past March.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 08:31:45 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 08:31:45 AM EDT.
|
