PDA

View Full Version : Gore - An Intelligent Man Who Has Learned A Great Deal...


AustinChief
09-20-2000, 06:17 PM
Over the last eight years. Now he can lie with the best of them:

He is scaring the elderly by stating his mother-in-laws meds and his dogs are exactly the same and cost his mother-in-law three times as much as for his pup.

He lambasts the movie industry for being too sexual and violent and threatens sanctions against Hollywood. Only days later he grabs money from them at a fund raiser promising not to censor, but rather "nudge" them into doing the right thing.

He tells the Teamsters a touching story how his mother would sing lullabies to him in his cradle. One of his favorites was the ageless classic "look for the union label". Endearing isn't it? Too bad the tune was constructed in 1975 and not mass produced until 1977. So unless Al had his mother singing to him at the ripe age of TWENTY-SEVEN I guess we can assume this is yet another falsehood.

Finally the New York Times has information stating that Gore has gone soft on his gun control policy.

Mr. Gore, I can understand the waffling, you have been brainwashed by it for almost 8 years, but even my 10 year old knows not to lie, especially if she knows she will get caught.



[This message has been edited by KCWolfman (edited 09-20-2000).]

Cannibal
09-20-2000, 06:35 PM
Not to start an argument on the points here, but what politician hasn't lied or stretched the truth? Unfortunately it is a way of life, on both sides of the aile...

Romel
09-20-2000, 06:38 PM
Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.com)

AustinChief
09-20-2000, 06:40 PM
DaWolf - I agree that politicians have done anything imaginable to be elected. But when blatant LIES like those listed above come to light, one should be called to the mat and asked to explain himself.

I hope George W. does just that during the debates.

AustinChief
09-20-2000, 06:41 PM
DanT - Tough break for Nader, he did not get the backing of the Teamsters as he expected. Al's lies helped seal that one up.

bud
09-20-2000, 06:56 PM
He tells the Teamsters a touching story how his mother would sing lullabies to him in his cradle. One of his favorites was the ageless classic "look for the union label". Endearing isn't it? Too bad the tune was constructed in 1975 and not mass produced until 1977. So unless Al had his mother singing to him at the ripe age of TWENTY-SEVEN I guess we can assume this is yet another falsehood.

Well, Al did invent the internet, so maybe his mother wrote that song... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif



------------------
Lightening Crashes... and i am there...

KCWolfman
09-20-2000, 07:02 PM
Does Algore actually belive that he can get away with this kind of stuff? Surely he knew that he would get caught. Or does he even know what he's saying when he says it? Maybe in his mind this stuff is true. I mean to say something crazy like the fact that he invented the net is crazy. Everyone knows it isn't true, so why say something like that unless you belive it? I for one think the man is mentaly sick. Vote for Dubba', Algore IS A RISKY SCHEME!

------------------
WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, THE TOUGH GET GOING!

mlyonsd
09-20-2000, 07:20 PM
Al Gore a risky scheme? He's been in there for 8 years now, and anything risky that hasn't happened yet, won't happen. Bush is the one to be scared of. He brings strong religous issues into government, which church and state should NOT be mixed. He has a narrow mind and is not the man to lead this country. No, I don't vote along party lines. I vote for the better candidate. I wanted Bush Sr. in '92. This year, I see Gore as clearly the better candidate. The only Bush argument I support is getting rid of affirmative action. Everything else I disagree with.

KCWolfman
09-20-2000, 07:42 PM
First of all, Algore is delerious wich makes him risky. He also wants to increase the size of our government the likes of wich have not been seen before in this country. In other words more government controll on our lives; VERY RISKY. Secondly as to Bush and religion, I have not heard him say he is going to impose his beliefs on us. Further more the Founding Fathers did not mean that they wanted religion to stay out of government, but rather government stay out of religion. Besides that both Algore and Joe Lieberman claim that religion plays a big part in there lives. Algore has even stated that he ask What Would Jesus Do when making decisions. Sorry but your point doesn't hold water.

------------------
WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, THE TOUGH GET GOING!

AustinChief
09-20-2000, 08:07 PM
DaKCMan - So if you disagree with religion being brought into the mix, then you disagree with Al's choice for VP?

mlyonsd
09-21-2000, 04:05 AM
If Lieberman is only in office to spread his religous views, then yes I disagree with him. However, I think he will be in office to do his job. It shouldn't matter if he's Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or whatever...I blame the press for making such a big deal out of this.

mmlwt
09-21-2000, 06:06 AM
If I remember correctly, and I always do, this countrywas founded on the principle of freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion.

The fact that Bush is a "religious" person does not mean that he will try to sway the supreme court to change the laws it has so freely screwed with. There is no provision in the constitution that seperates church and state, it states that the state will NOT determine my religion or yours. It has nothing to do with religion in schools or anything other than what it says. Before our forefathers came to this country they were told what religion they could be, here they were free to choose their religion.

I would bet our forefathers are rolling over in their graves seeing the way we have allowed our country to go to hell in a hand basket.

I could go on, but...after all this is a football BB.

------------------
Nuc'em all and let those who remain sort them out!

ColoradoChief
09-21-2000, 06:18 AM
When I saw this title you had me scared for a moment Russ. I thought you had gone over to the "Dark Side."

LOL

------------------
Gary

redbrian
09-21-2000, 07:21 AM
Just once, I'd like to see a topic like "Bush will make a great President because......" instead of constantly whining about the "other guy". EVERY TIME any of you Bush and/or Gore backers talk politics on this BB, all you can do is point out something negative about your candidate's opponent, as if that somehow makes your preferred candidate a better person.

htismaqe
09-21-2000, 07:26 AM
Clint,

I've never seen you point out anything positive about ANYBODY http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

If you're not seeing positive things said about Bush, you're not reading myself, Bliss, Morphius, Titus, Logical, and many others.

Luz
i left a lot of people off the list...

Raiderhader
09-21-2000, 07:33 AM
A list of 'good' things about Bush: (As if the responses wont be about his cocaine usage, but I digress):

He will appoint approx. 3 Supreme Court Justices, as the more 'conservative' of the two candidates, those appointees will adhere to the constitution as was designed by the Founding Fathers rather than Judicial Activism thus leaving the law 'creation' to the legislative branch of our government.

He will not spend wildly on new goverment programs for health care, drugs or any other nonsense that we cannot afford.

He will work to eliminate the Marriage Tax penalties as well as reductions in the rate of taxation for Capital Gains.

He will eliminate unfunded federal mandates on states.

He will eliminate the majority if not all of Clinton's exective orders.

He will restore the military to an entity capable of defending the country and it's allies.

Pretty much boils down to overall philosophy.

redbrian
09-21-2000, 07:45 AM
KCTitus,

Thanks. That reply was the first of its kind on either BB.

Mark M [BornChiefs]
09-21-2000, 09:36 AM
note: I think most profesional politicians are generally ut from the same cloth...different print...both of these candidates were raised in political families...

I would rather see a candidate who actually does and says what he believes instead of what is PC and falls within party lines.

My main concern with Gore, (other than the fact that he will be an environmental psycho and try to scare joe public with the "sky is falling" to push his agenda) is that he has "been in bed with the devil, clinton, for 8 years. I see him doing things which have a negative affect on agriculture, and it is hard enough to make a living in this industry....unless you are a corporate farmer.

I studied people and world culture a little in college and have another issue. Its not that I don't think Leiberman is not qualified or a decent person, but in world politics, particularly in the Middle east, how can a jewish person not have a bias? Would PLO or Islamic leaders be as willing to deal with him if necessary? The same issues would apply with a female president...ITs not that I think they aren't capable to do the job, but how "others work and play well with them"... A muslim country which makes women cover their face in public isn't going to respect her as a decision maker...therefore affecting our affectiveness.

Bush is no genious, but I see him as the lesser of 2 evils....He won't take my guns, I wish someone would put a little GOD back into schools, and not focus so much on special interest groups.

just my humble opinion

Squish
09-21-2000, 09:55 AM
Just to clarify something. Al Gore pushed legislation which made the internet available for commercial use. So, in effect, helped invented the internet as we know it.

I've seen this bumper sticker before, and I feel it applies to some of the posters here in regards to their feelings of Clinton and Gore. "Hate is not a family value"

Fanatacism is great for football, but it tends to turn away the "middle" voters. Thus, the democrats will hold the office of presidency for another 4 years until many Republicans figure this out.

------------------
Don't think....feel.

Raiderhader
09-21-2000, 10:15 AM
KCatMU: If someone says they create something, wouldnt the casual observer think he was instrumental in the invention?

Gore had no more to do with the invention of the Internet or it's creation or anything else than did Elvis have to do with the 49ers winning the SB.

It was a misleading statement that was not challenged by his allies in the press.

Second, I've allways found that statement interesting, 'Hate is not a family value' and your application thereof. Why and How does philosophical disagreement with Clinton/Gore become 'Hate'. Maybe you could help me understand this assertion.

Lastly, as far as fanaticism is concerned, I guess you have not forrayed into Gore's book, Earth in the Lerch...err...Balance. Conservatives and/or 'Right Wingers' do not hold a monopoly on fanaticism or hate for that matter.

redbrian
09-21-2000, 10:20 AM
"Gore had no more to do with the invention of the Internet or it's creation or anything else than did Elvis have to do with the 49ers winning the SB."

I'm not saying whether you're right or wrong, but if Gore isn't partially responsible for creating the internet because all he did was sponsor a bill, then no politician has ever created anything, because all any poitician ever does is push paper & campaign.

Fat Homer
09-21-2000, 10:43 AM
Wanna know what makes me sick? Algore lies through his teeth, gets caught lying through his teeth, his own g'damn aides admit he's lying through his teeth... yet he's still beloved by many Americans because he's a socialist(errr, Democrat), because of that staged goo-fest where he and Tipper locked lips?! And because - and this may sound harsh, but it is accurate - there are too many ignorant Americans! Too many people buy into his BS. Want to know why? Because the media promotes it as truth!! I find it absolutely insulting.

redbrian
09-21-2000, 10:48 AM
The moment your W-2 says "politician" on it, you are a liar.

If the American people are really that affected by a single kiss on TV, maybe they ARE ignorant, or maybe Bush is so pathetic that a stupid, staged kiss can actually cost him votes.

If your wife leaves you for a guy with a 2" penis, chances are yours is 1".

Raiderhader
09-21-2000, 10:55 AM
EXACTLY, Clint...you figured it out. Politicians dont create/invent anything.

chiefs2034
09-21-2000, 10:57 AM
When Dan Qualye was VP and made a mistake the democratic media made a laughing stock out of him. Not that he was the right man for the job, the media had picked their men and it wasn't going to be Bush and Quayle.

Again the media is attempting to form a bias in favor of Algore and his VP guy. It doesn't matter that our military is at a level where we cannot defend our country's intrests let alone our own land. In a time when terrorism is the greatest threat to our safety our Navy, Army, Marine Corps and Air Force are at their lowest manning and equipment levels since before Reagan was elected president.

If the democrats have their way, we will be defenseless against a country that has nukes.

Bush may not be the best candidate we've ever had, but, he is miles better than Gore.

Alan Keyes would have been the best choice for president.....intelligence and morals, you can't beat that.

------------------
Remember Joe Delaney?
Some of us do and are acting on our belief that he was a hero.
This is a bandwagon that all are invited to jump on!!!

37 Forever

diz
09-21-2000, 11:46 AM
I've seen a couple of posts on this thread regarding religion in schools and I just want to state my opinion on the matter.

If they want to TEACH every religion that exists, in school, then I say fine.

If they want to PREACH ONE particular religion (possibly through the use of school prayer), I say Constitutional violation. The State as supported by the people (public education) cannot mandate that a person pray or even endure religious ceremonies that they do not agree with. As far as bringing God into school goes; who's God are you going to bring in? The Christian version because the majority of US citizens are Christian? Well, I have news for ya, Christianity IS NOT the most widely practiced religion in the world. So do we preach Judaism? Buddhism? Islam? Hindu?

If they want to PREACH every religion that exists, in school, then I say fine. But this certainly wouldn't leave much time for class now would it.

Mark M [BornChiefs]
09-21-2000, 12:33 PM
disco,

It is precisely the special interest group rainbow flag waving crap like that that is starting to get on my nerves.

Contrary to popular belief in this PC, entitlement, "it wasn't my fault i robbed the bank" society that liberals are building, it IS still ok to:

1. marry a WOMAN, have children, and Stay that way.

2. GOD in schools hasn't EVER harmed anyone, even the dollar bill says "in god we trust".

3. Our society isn't founded on Hindu, Islamic, or other religions. Counties who profess these religions DO bring them into the schools.

4. Get some thicker skin and not get "offended" by every f#$%*n comment that doesn't fit some liberal special interest.

diz
09-21-2000, 12:47 PM
I'm sorry that you feel that way, Iowanian. I am also very sorry that you had to further the conservative cause by insulting me while not recognizing that I said that I was just stating my opinion - I never said that I was offended.

FYI - Our country was not founded on Christianity. If you look at our founding fathers, you will see that most of them were Deists. Does that mean that there should be Deist ceremonies in school? According to you it does.

As far as the use of the word God on a dollar bill, I don't see the correlation between that and forcing someone to practice or endure the practices of ONE PARTICULAR religion in school. Furthermore, even if I did advocate Christian services in public schools, which one would take precendence. Catholicism? Protestantism? What about the Baptists, or the Methodists, or the Mormons, or the Christ Scientists, just to name a few?

If you have a problem with children and their religious habits, or lack of them, then take care of it at home or on your own time. Don't use my tax dollars to further your own personal agenda.

Um, also, you don't know me or my political affiliations and I think it was tremendously shortsited for you to lump me in with your political paradigm.

[This message has been edited by DiscoJones (edited 09-21-2000).]

AustinChief
09-21-2000, 12:54 PM
DiscoJones, your statement about Deists is a lie perpetrated by those who don't like to deal with Judeo-Christian ideology as part of the basis for the founding of our country.

There is NO factual basis for what you are saying. If you could site some documents or speeches by the founding fathers I would be very interested indeed.

Some of the founding fathers were Free Masons, which is an entirely different matter. But their views toward religion, philosophy, and government were largely shaped by Western thought at the time (Magna Carta, French independence writers, the Bible, and major Church influences)...<P>

diz
09-21-2000, 01:04 PM
Fly - Thank you for your input. I honestly do enjoy the SHARING of OPINIONS in a civilized way. Now regarding your staement about the founding fathers and Deism; I honestly don't know that I will spend a lot of time researching this. I think, in this case, that we would BOTH be able to site references to support our cases.

My simple point was this: the founders of our country created the Consitution in order to protect us (the citizens) from having to endure several restrictions that they faced under British law. In this case, people coming here to practice their own religions are not much different from students requesting not to be subjected to practicing one specific religion which they do not personally practice while at school. In both cases, what you do on your own time is your own business.

Still nobody has answered my question...which religion and specifically which subset of that religion would you mandate everyone's children to practice?

[This message has been edited by DiscoJones (edited 09-21-2000).]

Mark M [BornChiefs]
09-21-2000, 01:05 PM
disco,

after reading my post, it probably came off a little more insulting than intended..for that I'm sorry.

I'm just tired.
tired of MY tax dollars being spent on special interest crap while the military is stripped.
I'm tired of being held responsible for the failings of minority groups that I've never done a thing to harm, yesterday, On the radio, someone said that "all blacks should be given $80,000 to compensate the years of mistreatment by white". While I do agree that there was/is some injustice, all groups have had times of turbulation. Why should my tax dollars be spent on political interests like that.

I hear/see things that I don't agree with every day. People tell me I'm bad for eating meat, cruel for hunting, blah blah blah...

I am an Independent, and vote my concience, not by ticket. It just seems that alot of the same people who push the PC crap all of the time, are the same ones wanting religion out of schools...I don't wish to push my religous views on anyone....Its only that I think a town/school should be able to address these issues if they wish. I don't want to see the majority miss out on an opportunity because 1 apple in the barrel doesn't like being red.

BTW. What would it hurt for the 10 commandments to be seen by children...don't kill, don't steal, treat people well....
or the pledge of alegience....1 nation under GOD with liberty and justice for all.....

redbrian
09-21-2000, 01:11 PM
The Bible-thumping (and that's exactly what we're talking about here...I doubt anyone on this BB would approve of Hinduism being taught in place of Christianity) needs to be kept out of public schools. If a child just HAS to pray in school & can't wait until recess, they can do it in silence.

I personally don't want my child subjected to ANY religious teachings while he/she (I don't know what it's going to be yet) is very young. IMO that "programs" them and eliminates any chance at objectivity later in life.

If it's MY job to teach my kid about sex (which I agree with to a certain extent), then it should be MY job to decide what god my kid will be subjected to.

God can be worshipped during the other 16 or 17 hours a day when school isn't in session.

diz
09-21-2000, 01:19 PM
Ioawanian -

I appreciate your sentiments and there is no offense taken.

In fact, I agree with several of the things that you elude to in your last post. I come from a family of primarily Eastern European immigrants who weren't even in this country until the beginning to middle of the 1900s, so I don't understand how someone could accuse me of being responsible for someone's actions in this country over 200 years ago.

As far as people telling you that you are bad. I get the sense that you are strong enough to stick by your guns and do what you feel like doing. Aside, it is interesting to note that a lot of these grass-roots campaigns on several issues are resultant from the social uprisings in the 60s and 70s. I don't think it's all that bad. This is America and they have every right just like you and I to say what they feel. I personally can handle someone telling me their opinions much better than I can handle them holding a gun to my head and forcing me to agree with them.

Finally, I can see where you are coming from with regard to teaching our nation's children some BASIC values. However, I think that it would best be taught in school in a learning format than just trying to force-feed it to them. Instead of telling them "stealing is bad", show them why. This doesn't even need to be done in a religious context. Aside, with regard to the Pledge of Allegience, I believe (and you can correct me if I'm wrong here Fly), that that was added to the Pledge during the Red Scare years. Just a point of history, I digress.

Mark M [BornChiefs]
09-21-2000, 01:19 PM
Clint,

I'm not proposing that public schools have religous education. What I am more concerned with is the "nit-picking" that happens all of the time that keeps things like the pledge of allegience out of schools, makes it illegal for a HS Graduating class to have an official Baccalauriate(sp?) service, etc..

Since this IS The United States, do you think It is Wrong for Children to say the pledge at school because it says "under GOD"?

Thats the type of thing that bothers me.

AustinChief
09-21-2000, 01:19 PM
I don't want to start a religious debate, but I saw an arguement over something that I thought should be cleared up.

The founding fathers of America were, in general, Deists and Unitarians.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Thomas Paine:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Thomas Jefferson: "I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>John Adams: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't necesarily refelect my feelings but I thought we should be accurate with the facts.

--AustinChief

[This message has been edited by AustinChief (edited 09-21-2000).]

AustinChief
09-21-2000, 01:31 PM
AustinChief, damn, now I'm going to go off and have to do some research...

You're a cad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gracie Dean
09-21-2000, 02:53 PM
What absolutely slays me is that Gore [with considerable help from the media] has crafted a culture where although we know Gore's trustworthiness is shiite, a significant portion of us have become convinced that not only is it not relevant, it isn't fit for public discourse. Not only that, but because he benefits from the moratorium on public discussion of [not "morals," not "fidelity," not "family values," but] the core question of "can this person be trusted to beleive and follow through which what he says at a given moment," and because he kissed his wife [whatever that means in the big picture], he gets the support of BOTH the people who know he's blowing smoke and support true position [the subversives] AND the people who can't figure out that he's a fraud and support his mouthed position [the, shall we say, knowledge deprived].

[cont'd]

Gracie Dean
09-21-2000, 02:54 PM
Case in point - media violence. The people who are avid followers of the government's role in media content know two things and know them well. Under our first amendment, there is little the government has the power to do in this realm [and to this I say good], and regardless of what the government CAN do, Gore will NEVER do anything of substance. Tipper headed the PMRC movement back in the early 90's and, regardless of my personal take on the issue, I think she was genuine. However she dropped out of sight on that issue in a heartbeat shortly after Al Gore visted Hollywood to meet with industry types. People in that meeting have gone on record stating that gore prostrated himself before them, apologized for his own zeal and apologized for the zeal of his wife.

Now these powers in Hollywood know that Gore will never act substantively against them. They support him, BECAUSE they know he is grandstanding, lying to the public on his intent, and they support his liberalism in general. That's the subversive part. But there is a significant portion of the voting public that know little about Gore outside of the kiss, the Spike Jonze "Al Gore: all american boy" informercial, and his strong statements against the filth their little rugrats are subjected to on TV. Particularly with his connection to Leiberman [again with a strong record of alternating puffery and prostration], these "arousal gappers" actually beleive he can and WILL do something.

[cont'd]

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 09-21-2000).]

Gracie Dean
09-21-2000, 02:54 PM
Its the same with tobacco [I planted it, I hoed it, I shucked it -vs- it killed my poor sister and I dedicate my life to its eradication], the death penalty [as summed up beautifully by John Stewart "Bush is in favor of it, while Gore only 'strongly supports it'"], oil prices ["Mr. Clinton, since opening up reserves won't make any difference and you plan to do it anyway, can I please get out there and DEMAND you do it? I really need this."], the list goes on.

Gracie Dean
09-21-2000, 03:09 PM
And another thing. The saddest thing about the last 8 years was voiced earlier with the "every politician lies" mantra. Yes, graft and puffery has always had a role in government. But just because the Clinton/Gore era has made sociopathic ability to say ANYTHING with a straight face, wagging the finger and casting aspersion upon all doubters, and the equally sociopathic ability to keep all the lies straight, doesn't mean that all politicians must from here on out must conform to that model. If there is a core belief that [at varying times] has made the Democratic party attracitve, it is the belief that democrat goes to goes to his or her position to craft government policy that actively addresses the needs of his or her constituency. People bring their problems, government provides a solution. Liberal or Conservative, you gotta admit trying to help as best you can is an admirable trait.
Clinton is on his way to evisceration of the notion of public service. Its clear his only aim is self-aggrandizement and the vanquishing of enemies. Since he has been the figurehead of government for nearly a decade, people have come to think that is the only way to go. IT ISN'T. Whatever, Bush's faults, no one has refuted the fact that, once on the job, he shores up BI-partisan support. No one refutes that former Democratic foes in Texas have become of his most ardent supporters. No one has made inroads on his position that he'd rather do the right thing in the end than be right start to finsh.

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 09-21-2000).]

DIEHARDCHIEF
09-21-2000, 07:17 PM
continued . . . .

quote:
___________________________________________
JOHN ADAMS:
"Let them revere nothing but Religion, Morality and Liberty."

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation."

"The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and Humanity."
___________________________________________


These quotes from John Adams would seem to show that he is anything but a Deist.

Like you pointed out in your post, these don't neccessarily reflect all my feelings either, but, as you say, we should be as accurate as possible with the facts.


TBT

(Just making sure both sides of the story are presented)

[This message has been edited by Tom_Barndts_Twin (edited 09-21-2000).]

DIEHARDCHIEF
09-21-2000, 07:21 PM
continued . . .


___________________________________________
THOMAS JEFFERSON:
"My views are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which Jesus wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others."
___________________________________________


While unitarianism, is acknowledged in many circles as a Christian denomination, it is vehomently opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity. Jefferson, however, states that he believes the doctrines of Jesus above all others. One of the doctrines Jesus promoted WAS the Trinity. (John, chapter 14)

continued on post directly below . . . .

DIEHARDCHIEF
09-21-2000, 07:22 PM
AustinChief:

To be fair, I just wanted to post a little response to your quotes in post #34:


quote:
___________________________________________
THOMAS PAINE:
"Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be placed on the divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon."
___________________________________________


As you probably know, a deist is one who believes in God but denies the existence of revelation. Seems kind of odd that a "deist" would speak so highly of the Bible(i.e."Word of God"), since we know that the Bible is a book of revelations to man in itself.

continued on post directly below . . .