What do republicans think?

[penchief]

What do the republicans on this board think about the RNC ad running in Tennessee that takes pot shots at Harold Ford's character and plays on racial prejudice?

Are you growing uneasy with your party's constant appeals to prejudice to win elections?

What are your thoughts about this ad specifically and how do you feel about the republican party's penchant for playing on racial prejudice and gay bashing during campaigns?

[mlyonsd]

Thanks for posting a link to the ad.

Too funny, I guess we're supposed to just take your word for it.

[penchief]

Thanks for posting a link to the ad.

Too funny, I guess we're supposed to just take your word for it.

Sorry. It's been all over the news. I figured that anyone posting on DC planet has already seen it. I'll try to find a link because Lord knows I can't post a video.

I'll be right back.

[ck_IN]

Could you post a link to a youtube or something for that ad? I saw it on Fox but they do lean right.

What I did see however had no racial prejudice whatsoever. The man has taken several rhetorical stands and then voted exactly the opposite of those stands. Citing those differences is fair political game. Who cares what the race of the person is?

As for constant appeals to prejudice by the GOP please cite some concrete examples. I do remember an anti Bush ad that blamed him for doing nothing about a black man dragged behind a truck. The fact is that the criminal system was prosecuting the crime. I've seen Je$$ie Jack$on several times denoucing repubs and conducting race baiting. Ditto for Al $harpton. However I do believe those people and that ad were backed by the democracts.

Perhaps you have the wrong party in mind when you speak of appealing to prejudice.

[penchief]

Here you go. Sorry about that. I just assumed everybody had seen it. Click on the little box just below the headlines on the left.

"Harold, call me." Wink wink.

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=5569157

[mlyonsd]

Is this what you mean?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224508,00.html

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Republican Bob Corker (javascript:siteSearch('Bob Corker');) and Democrat Harold Ford Jr. (javascript:siteSearch('Harold Ford Jr.');) remain neck-and-neck in the race to replace Bill Frist in the U.S. Senate with two weeks left before the Nov. 7 election, a new poll shows.

Of 625 likely voters surveyed by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for The Commercial Appeal, the Chattanooga Times Free Press and MSNBC, 45 percent support Corker while 43 percent said they'd vote for Ford.
In a poll by the same company three weeks ago, Ford held 43 percent and Corker had the support of 42 percent.

The poll was conducted Oct. 18-20 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points, which leaves the race in a statistical tie.

Democrats must pick up six seats in the Senate to gain a majority, and further polling from Mason-Dixon indicates Republicans trail in the six closest races except in Tennessee and Virginia.

"Tennessee and Virginia are going to be the two states that, right now, are going to control the outcome in the Senate. If the Republicans can win both, they'll have a 50-50 tie and Vice President Cheney breaks the tie. But if they lose one or the other, it looks like chances are pretty good they'll lose control of the Senate," said J. Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

The Republican National Committee has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars recently on TV advertisement in an effort to make Tennessee a "firewall" against a Democratic takeover of the Senate.

The survey concluded Thursday, the day before the RNC began airing an ad statewide which has a hunter saying Harold Ford wants to take their guns away and a white woman saying the black congressman attended a party sponsored by Playboy. She then winks as she invites him to call her.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Geer said Ford remains close to Corker, despite a barrage of negative attacks on him.
"This poll helps me understand why the national party launched that over-the-top ad against Ford using the blonde at the end saying 'Call me.' That ad, using sexual innuendo, is run by a party and a candidate when they are behind," said Geer, author of a newly published study of negative attack ads in presidential campaigns.

Ford senior campaign adviser Michael Powell said the poll confirmed something the Ford campaign has known.

"The race is a dead heat," he said. "We are well-funded and well-organized and we are confident that in the last two weeks, Tennesseans will reject Bob Corker's negative personal attacks and vote for hope over fear, the future over the past and change over more of the same."

Corker spokesman Todd Womack said the poll "reflects what we're seeing every day on the campaign trail — that we have the momentum. Congressman Ford's campaign is cash-strapped, in disarray and has peaked. Bob Corker is a real Tennessean who has spent his life using bold solutions to solve complex problems."

The poll also found that incumbent Gov. Phil Bredesen holds a 62 to 27 percent lead over Republican challenger Jim Bryson.

[penchief]

Is this what you mean?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224508,00.html

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Republican Bob Corker (javascript:siteSearch('Bob Corker');) and Democrat Harold Ford Jr. (javascript:siteSearch('Harold Ford Jr.');) remain neck-and-neck in the race to replace Bill Frist in the U.S. Senate with two weeks left before the Nov. 7 election, a new poll shows.

Of 625 likely voters surveyed by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for The Commercial Appeal, the Chattanooga Times Free Press and MSNBC, 45 percent support Corker while 43 percent said they'd vote for Ford.
In a poll by the same company three weeks ago, Ford held 43 percent and Corker had the support of 42 percent.

The poll was conducted Oct. 18-20 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points, which leaves the race in a statistical tie.

Democrats must pick up six seats in the Senate to gain a majority, and further polling from Mason-Dixon indicates Republicans trail in the six closest races except in Tennessee and Virginia.

"Tennessee and Virginia are going to be the two states that, right now, are going to control the outcome in the Senate. If the Republicans can win both, they'll have a 50-50 tie and Vice President Cheney breaks the tie. But if they lose one or the other, it looks like chances are pretty good they'll lose control of the Senate," said J. Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

The Republican National Committee has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars recently on TV advertisement in an effort to make Tennessee a "firewall" against a Democratic takeover of the Senate.

The survey concluded Thursday, the day before the RNC began airing an ad statewide which has a hunter saying Harold Ford wants to take their guns away and a white woman saying the black congressman attended a party sponsored by Playboy. She then winks as she invites him to call her.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Geer said Ford remains close to Corker, despite a barrage of negative attacks on him.
"This poll helps me understand why the national party launched that over-the-top ad against Ford using the blonde at the end saying 'Call me.' That ad, using sexual innuendo, is run by a party and a candidate when they are behind," said Geer, author of a newly published study of negative attack ads in presidential campaigns.

Ford senior campaign adviser Michael Powell said the poll confirmed something the Ford campaign has known.

"The race is a dead heat," he said. "We are well-funded and well-organized and we are confident that in the last two weeks, Tennesseans will reject Bob Corker's negative personal attacks and vote for hope over fear, the future over the past and change over more of the same."

Corker spokesman Todd Womack said the poll "reflects what we're seeing every day on the campaign trail — that we have the momentum. Congressman Ford's campaign is cash-strapped, in disarray and has peaked. Bob Corker is a real Tennessean who has spent his life using bold solutions to solve complex problems."

The poll also found that incumbent Gov. Phil Bredesen holds a 62 to 27 percent lead over Republican challenger Jim Bryson.

I'm not sure but I don't think so. I can't tell if the article you posted is even relevent to what I'm talking about.

I think we posted at about the same time but you must have beaten me by a hair. If you look at the post previous to yours I provided a link with a video of the ad.

Let me know what you think.

[Adept Havelock]

I've seen the ad. Looks like the "southern strategy" of the 70's and 80's is alive and well. ;)

In an unrelated note, another sign of the end of the world. While I post this, the Weather Channel's local broadcast is playing Pink Floyd's "Run Like Hell" in the background. ROFL

[ck_IN]

Interesting penchief. That's not the ad I saw on Shep Smith. But that one seems even more harmless then the one I did see. Again, where's this prejudice you speak of? Unless white people questioning the character of a black man instantly qualifies as prejudice.

It was a tacky ad and I see Corker is asking for it to be stopped. However outside of general tackiness I don't see the big deal. The ad I saw on Fox was more issues oriented and it did make a good point about how the man says one thing and does another.

Lighten up. This is politics. All the Bush = Hitler hyperbole doesn't seem to bother libs.

[penchief]

Here you go. Sorry about that. I just assumed everybody had seen it. Click on the little box just below the headlines on the left.

"Harold, call me." Wink wink.

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=5569157

Here's my post that got dwarfed by mlyonsd's post just so nobody thinks I didn't try to post the link. Poor thread-posting etiquette on my part.

[mlyonsd]

If it were me I'd have run the ad with a black woman winking at the camera to avoid any fuel for racial intent issues.

It could be said that the ones finding the way it was originally aired offensive were the true racists.

Sorry, but if you're going to go to a Playboy party and run for political office you're also going to have to wear your big boy pants and suck it up.

Neither party is lily white (get it) when it comes to political ads.

[penchief]

Interesting penchief. That's not the ad I saw on Shep Smith. But that one seems even more harmless then the one I did see. Again, where's this prejudice you speak of? Unless white people questioning the character of a black man instantly qualifies as prejudice.

It was a tacky ad and I see Corker is asking for it to be stopped. However outside of general tackiness I don't see the big deal. The ad I saw on Fox was more issues oriented and it did make a good point about how the man says one thing and does another.

Lighten up. This is politics. All the Bush = Hitler hyperbole doesn't seem to bother libs.

White blonde woman telling how she met Harold Ford at the Playboy mansion. And then at the end of the ad, winking and whispering to Harold in the camera, "call me."

You're right! This doesn't play on the ol' "Black men just want to screw our white women" much, does it?

Then they show that slimy black-leathered hollywood-type talking about how there's nothing wrong with taking money from porno directors like I have to assume Harold Ford did. Another appeal to the fears and prejudices of less tolerant Tennesseeans.

In one short ad, the Republican National Committee has been able to tie Harold Ford, Jr. to Hollywood porno types who wish to screw your our women by seducing them with drugs and money. Meanwhile, the fact that the RNC is targeting rednecks who are insecure about their penis size has nothing to do with that ad running in Tennessee.

Yeah, right.

[ck_IN]

Whoa settle down penchief. I take it you have a problem with white women and black men.

Supposedly she was to have met him at a Playboy party. Now I don't frequent the mag often but I don't think there's that many black playmates. Would you have been ok if she was Asian? Maybe Hispanic?

I've no idea what the guy with the comment about porn directors was about. Did Ford take money from such types? If he did then it's legit to point it out. Just like Ford would point it out if Corker took money from Abrahmoff.

<i>Meanwhile, the fact that the RNC is targeting rednecks who are insecure about their penis size</i>

Nice Southern sterotype you have there. I also like how you weaved in the black male myth. Very nice. *golf clap*

As for tolerance it seems to be in short supply on the part of those crying about this ad. Might I say even hypocritical?

[penchief]

Whoa settle down penchief. I take it you have a problem with white women and black men.

Supposedly she was to have met him at a Playboy party. Now I don't frequent the mag often but I don't think there's that many black playmates. Would you have been ok if she was Asian? Maybe Hispanic?

I've no idea what the guy with the comment about porn directors was about. Did Ford take money from such types? If he did then it's legit to point it out. Just like Ford would point it out if Corker took money from Abrahmoff.

<i>Meanwhile, the fact that the RNC is targeting rednecks who are insecure about their penis size</i>

Nice Southern sterotype you have there. I also like how you weaved in the black male myth. Very nice. *golf clap*

As for tolerance it seems to be in short supply on the part of those crying about this ad. Might I say even hypocritical?

Hey, I'm not the one perpetuating those stereotypes. The RNC is.

They're the ones playing on that crap. I'm just criticizing it.

[Logical]

Are you growing uneasy with your party's constant appeals to prejudice to win elections?


Yes, but not nearly as uncomfortable as I am with their mixing of religion with party politics.

[headsnap]

Hey, I'm not the one perpetuating those stereotypes. The RNC is.

They're the ones playing on that crap. I'm just criticizing it.
overcompensate much?

[penchief]

overcompensate much?

Uh.........okay..........what's your point?

[chagrin]

I guess if they really want to hang gay people, do you intend to limit or censor their right to free speech, dipshit?

[SBK]

That ad is hilarious.

I think penchiefs argument is much along the "infallibility" lines that libs have been using. Apparantly Ford is black so you can't say anything about him or you're racist.

[penchief]

Yes, but not nearly as uncomfortable as I am with their mixing of religion with party politics.

I have to agree. I don't like it either. However, I do like that they are trying to point out the huge disconnect between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the republican party. Democrat policies have been more equitible and charitable.

If bringing a little religion into the mix on the democrat side would highlight the republican party's hypocricy just enough to an end all that fundamentalist madness on the right, I might be willing to turn my head and hold my nose just long enough.

[penchief]

Some of you guys are either just playing stupid or your just plain stupid.

Pretending that ad is innocent is like pretending George Bush really is making all the decisions.

[SBK]

I have to agree. I don't like it either. However, I do like that they are trying to point out the huge disconnect between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the republican party. Democrat policies have been more equitible and charitable.

If bringing a little religion into the mix on the democrat side would highlight the republican party's hypocricy just enough to an end all that fundamentalist madness on the right, I might be willing to turn my head and hold my nose just long enough.

Have you ever even opened a bible? :shake:

[penchief]

Have you ever even opened a bible? :shake:

Have you?

[SBK]

Have you?

I have, and I fail to see where the dems are in line with biblical teaching. I was hoping you could shed some light on the subject.

Where does the bible stand on abortion? How about homosexual marriage? Income redistribution? Death penalty?

How about where does the bible stand on being a left winger or a right winger?

[headsnap]

Uh.........okay..........what's your point?
It's a Black man with a White woman!!!!!!!!!!!!


gasp...




I think you are just as, if not more guilty of stereotyping than the ad is.





liberal guilt?

[penchief]

I have, and I fail to see where the dems are in line with biblical teaching. I was hoping you could shed some light on the subject.

Where does the bible stand on abortion? How about homosexual marriage? Income redistribution? Death penalty?

How about where does the bible stand on being a left winger or a right winger?

You tell me. republicans are the experts. You're the ones who have all the moral authority. Tell me why you own religion.

I've witnessed the policies and behavior of republican politicians over the last 20 years and I believe they behave like modern day pharasees and hypocrites.

They stoop to the sleaziest behavior during campaigns. They dishonestly destroy reputations and appeal to fear and bias as tactics to motivate voters.

They are the guardians of greed in this country. They take their payoff and leave the door unlocked when they go to bed. They serve greedy self-interests above of the interests of humanity and the interests of God's green earth.

We're in the middle of a military occupation that has resulted unthinkable harm to a country and people who did not attack us, not to mention the cost to us in blood, treasure, and integrity. This president thinks God told him to start a Holy War. I think that registers as a disconnect.

Yeah, it sounds like the republican party's got that Christianity thing down pat.

[Logical]

I guess if they really want to hang gay people, do you intend to limit or censor their right to free speech, dipshit?

Who suggested limiting or censoring? I see some people criticizing, that is a central notion of free speech.

[penchief]

It's a Black man with a White woman!!!!!!!!!!!!

gasp...




I think you are just as, if not more guilty of stereotyping than the ad is.





liberal guilt?

That's just like republicans literally waging class warfare via policy and legislation and then when democrats cry foul they accuse democrats of playing the "class warfare" card.

Typical, though.

[SBK]

You tell me. republicans are the experts. You're the ones who have all the moral authority. Tell me why you own religion.

I've witnessed the policies and behavior of republican politicians over the last 20 years and I believe they behave like modern day pharasees and hypocrites.

They stoop to the sleaziest behavior during campaigns. They dishonestly destroy reputations and appeal to fear and bias as tactics to motivate voters.

They are the guardians of greed in this country. They take their payoff and leave the door unlocked when they go to bed. They serve greedy self-interests above of the interests of humanity and the interests of God's green earth.

We're in the middle of a military occupation that has resulted unthinkable harm to a country and people who did not attack us, not to mention the cost to us in blood, treasure, and integrity. This president thinks God told him to start a Holy War. I think that registers as a disconnect.

Yeah, it sounds like the republican party's got that Christianity thing down pat.

I'll take this answer as no.

[memyselfI]

I'm more offended by the notion that attending a Playboy mansion party is somehow a bad thing...

my God, no wonder RWNJs are so fugged up.

[Logical]

I have, and I fail to see where the dems are in line with biblical teaching. I was hoping you could shed some light on the subject.

Where does the bible stand on abortion? How about homosexual marriage? Income redistribution? Death penalty?

How about where does the bible stand on being a left winger or a right winger?

Christianity is based on the New Testament not the Old and thus is silent on abortion, homosexuality and is clearly in favor of income redistribution. Death penalty would be less clear given the mixed messages in the new testatment.

[SBK]

Christianity is based on the New Testament not the Old and thus is silent on abortion, homosexuality and is clearly in favor of income redistribution. Death penalty would be less clear given the mixed messages in the new testatment.

Care to give examples? Help Penchief out on this one.

[penchief]

I guess if they really want to hang gay people, do you intend to limit or censor their right to free speech, dipshit?

Free speech is not the point. The point is that they are playing on stereotypes to incite voters out of fear and prejudice.

Why aren't their ads about the issues? Why would they resort to a humorous attempt to subtly inject race into the contest? You don't think that does a disservice to the electorate? You don't think that's childish?

I'm as big an advocate for free speech as anyone I know. But the issue here is not free speech. The issue here is how anyone can even defend the republican party anymore. How they can even trust them. They lie right to our faces and they try to create division in this country every election.

IMO, What's in question here is the republican party's integrity and sincerity. Not their right to make classless attack ads against their opponents.

[SBK]

Free speech is not the point. The point is that they are playing on stereotypes to incite voters out of fear and prejudice.

Why aren't their ads about the issues? Why would they resort to a humorous attempt to subtly inject race into the contest? You don't think that does a disservice to the electorate? You don't think that's childish?

I'm as big an advocate for free speech as anyone I know. But the issue here is not free speech. The issue here is how anyone can even defend the republican party anymore. How they can even trust them. They lie right to our faces and they try to create division in this country every election.

IMO, What's in question here is the republican party's integrity and sincerity. Not their right to make classless attack ads against their opponents.

There are some swipes in this ad, but there are a lot of issues that are covered in there as well.

I think the racist card is something only the "tolerant" liberals among us see. I didn't even think about color, I saw a chick asking a guy to call her. :hmmm:

[patteeu]

Some of you guys are either just playing stupid or your just plain stupid.

Pretending that ad is innocent is like pretending George Bush really is making all the decisions.

Apparently you have to be intensely focused on the stereotypes you've pointed out to be offended by this ad. It seemed pretty tame and nonoffensive to me.

[patteeu]

I'm more offended by the notion that attending a Playboy mansion party is somehow a bad thing...

my God, no wonder RWNJs are so fugged up.

penchief thinks it's a bad thing because that's where we keep our white women.

[banyon]

I have, and I fail to see where the dems are in line with biblical teaching. I was hoping you could shed some light on the subject.

Where does the bible stand on abortion? How about homosexual marriage? Income redistribution? Death penalty?

How about where does the bible stand on being a left winger or a right winger?

Bible says that abortion isn't murder. Says that people should not commit homosexual acts. Says slavery is okay. Says that rich people will probably not get into heaven. Does not advocate cutting taxes. Death penalty is okay in the Old Testament, but pretty negatively painted in the New.

[ck_IN]

<i>Yes, but not nearly as uncomfortable as I am with their mixing of religion with party politics.</i>

Both parties use religion in their politics. Every two years we see white Dem politicians in black churches singing 'We shall overcome'. Once elected they don't know any black people. Our first black president, Bill Clinton, hit up every black church he could find and pandered to every black issue he could think of. Once elected he had an almost lilly white cabinent. The only difference is that the Repubs are actually giving their religious types a seat at the table. The Dems use them and then toss them out.

[ck_IN]

<i>They stoop to the sleaziest behavior during campaigns. They dishonestly destroy reputations and appeal to fear and bias as tactics to motivate voters.</i>

Oh you mean like that ad against Bush about the guy dragged behind the truck slamming Bush while the case was being prosecuted? Or perhaps the election year ads we always get about how the GOP will destroy social security because they hate old people. Or maybe all the Katrina hype about how the GOP failed when in reality the feds can't do a thing until the mayor and or governer ask them to.

Destroy reputations you say? You mean like what happened to Scooter Libby? Or that indictment that never happened on Rove over Plame when in reality a dem did the leak?

The Dems have zero ground to talk when it comes to sleaze and scare tactics.

[ck_IN]

<i>That's just like republicans literally waging class warfare via policy and legislation and then when democrats cry foul they accuse democrats of playing the "class warfare" card.</i> :BS:

What the hell are you talking about? Every time the Dems get in power the first thing they say is 'soak the rich'. That's not class warfare? The social security scare lies they spread isn't class warfare? Both parties engage to an extent but the Dems are the masters.

As for this ad, honestly what is your problem? There's no racism in this ad, unless you choose to manufacture some. It's a dumb little ad that should be ignored for its tackiness. Your moral outrage is way overblown.

[banyon]

Oh, the poor, f***ing rich always have it so bad. :deevee:

If the policy battle is "class warfare" then the halftime score is Rich Guys 120 Poor Guys 2.

When Dems act responsibly (as they often do not) they sometimes help push the pendulum the other way.

[ck_IN]

Banyon I'm not advocating or denouncing the 'rich'.

I'm saying the tax code is routinely used by the Dems for class warfare. The tax code should be used to gather revenue to fund govt services. It should never be used as a stick to beat someone with.

What exactly is 'rich' anyway? I always hear how evil and awful they are and how they never pay their fair share however I never hear anyone define the term. Convienent.

[jspchief]

One thing I don't get...

If the intent of the ad really was veiled racism with the whole black man/white woman thing... who are they supposedly targeting?

Anyone that would be put-off by that probably wasn't going to vote for a black man anyway. Basically it's a claim that they were trying to tap into a demographic who's voting preference never would have been in question.

I'd be just as inclined to say the Dems are trying to make it a race issue in an attempt to build steam behind the black vote. Maybe make more blacks mad enough to actually show up to the polls and vote Dem.

[Baby Lee]

"Hi, this is Sal Governale.
White Women . . . Should not drink and do drugs . . or they will wind up with black babies."

For those who get this reference, ROFL ROFL.
For those who don't, STFU.

[SBK]

Bible says that abortion isn't murder. Says that people should not commit homosexual acts. Says slavery is okay. Says that rich people will probably not get into heaven. Does not advocate cutting taxes. Death penalty is okay in the Old Testament, but pretty negatively painted in the New.

Care to shed light on where we can read these verses? Especially the ones that say abortion isn't murder.

[penchief]

penchief thinks it's a bad thing because that's where we keep our white women.

Them and the greasy porno types.

All I'm asking for is substance. Why do republicans choose cheap shots above serving the electorate's interests?

[jspchief]

All I'm asking for is substance. Why so politicians choose cheap shots above serving the electorate's interests?Fixed.

[banyon]

Care to shed light on where we can read these verses? Especially the ones that say abortion isn't murder.

Re: Abortion
Exodus 21:22-25:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

There are a slew of verses that refer to slavery as acceptable behavior.

[SBK]

Re: Abortion
Exodus 21:22-25:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

There are a slew of verses that refer to slavery as acceptable behavior.

This verse seems to imply a struggle between two men, and perhaps an accident.

Does abortion involved either of those? :shake:

I also find it interesting that folks say that the old testament doesn't apply, then we get a verse about the old Jewish law.

[Laz]

republicans think????? :hmmm:

[SBK]

republicans think????? :hmmm:

Actually it is the republicans that think, the democrats are the one that make decisions based upon feelings and emotions. :shake:

[Laz]

Actually it is the republicans that think, the democrats are the one that make decisions based upon feelings and emotions. :shake:
HA HA HA ... that's a good joke


best one i've heard today ROFL

[penchief]

Actually it is the republicans that think, the democrats are the one that make decisions based upon feelings and emotions. :shake:

What do they think about?

[WilliamTheIrish]

One thing I don't get...

If the intent of the ad really was veiled racism with the whole black man/white woman thing... who are they supposedly targeting?

Anyone that would be put-off by that probably wasn't going to vote for a black man anyway. Basically it's a claim that they were trying to tap into a demographic who's voting preference never would have been in question.

I'd be just as inclined to say the Dems are trying to make it a race issue in an attempt to build steam behind the black vote. Maybe make more blacks mad enough to actually show up to the polls and vote Dem.

Since nobody wanted to touch this I thought I'd quote it. It's the only sensible post in this thread.

[SBK]

What do they think about?

We spend our time thinking about how freakin stupid liberals are. :)

[penchief]

One thing I don't get...

If the intent of the ad really was veiled racism with the whole black man/white woman thing... who are they supposedly targeting?

Anyone that would be put-off by that probably wasn't going to vote for a black man anyway. Basically it's a claim that they were trying to tap into a demographic who's voting preference never would have been in question.

I'd be just as inclined to say the Dems are trying to make it a race issue in an attempt to build steam behind the black vote. Maybe make more blacks mad enough to actually show up to the polls and vote Dem.

I tend to agree with your overall assessment. However, the ideology of the current administration is one which believes that picking the scab off the wound is often beneficial to their political prospects.

Appeals to prejudice and bias are not logical. They are subliminal and subconscious, yet emotional. No person would claim to be swayed by racism but anyone can be swayed by an uncomfortable feeling inspired by subtle rascism.

I fully believe everybody here who has said they don't see anything racial about the ad. In a perfect world, you would be absolutely correct. In that world race would be no issue in this ad. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman have pioneered 'swiftboating.'

I'm only trying to make appeals for what I believe is a more reasonable approach than the ideals of partisanship, dishonesty, and chaos that have been forced upon us by political ideologues.

Cognitive dissonance rules American politics these days and I'm hoping we'll wake up and face the music before it's too late.

[banyon]

This verse seems to imply a struggle between two men, and perhaps an accident.

Does abortion involved either of those? :shake:

Don't be obtuse, clearly a fetus has been killed, and the penalty proscribed (a fine) is different than the prescribed penalty for murder (which is death). AFAIK, there are no other verses that speak more directly on this issue.

I also find it interesting that folks say that the old testament doesn't apply, then we get a verse about the old Jewish law.

I don't think you'd confuse me with those people.

[penchief]

We spend our time thinking about how freakin stupid liberals are. :)

Exactly. That's my point.

[SBK]

Don't be obtuse, clearly a fetus has been killed, and the penalty proscribed (a fine) is different than the prescribed penalty for murder (which is death). AFAIK, there are no other verses that speak more directly on this issue.



I fail to see the struggle between two men in which a woman is struck and her child is killed.

Are abortions done in a cage match?

I would say clearly that an abortion is a child being killed, by the choice of the mother, which this verse isn't even close to.

And if you're to believe this verse, can the father of the baby demand a large sum of money from the doctor?

To use this verse to justify the killing of one of God's children (the most innocent life on earth) is crazyness.

[SBK]

Exactly. That's my point.

Actually, conservatives use logic to come to a decision. That's why you don't hear conservatives demanding "fairness" and "feelings" and other sorts of emotional words. We know that logically life isn't "fair", that "feelings" don't solve problems.

I'm glad you appreciated my last joke. :p

[MarcBulger]

I don't know how bad is it. Was it like here in Mo when the NAACP ran adds about Republicans buring churches and dragging people to death?

[banyon]

I fail to see the struggle between two men in which a woman is struck and her child is killed.

Are abortions done in a cage match?

I would say clearly that an abortion is a child being killed, by the choice of the mother, which this verse isn't even close to.

And if you're to believe this verse, can the father of the baby demand a large sum of money from the doctor?

To use this verse to justify the killing of one of God's children (the most innocent life on earth) is crazyness.

It's like you're willfully ignoring the point of my post which is that the verse dictates that the death of a fetus is to be treated differently than the death of a person.

And yes, if you applied the verse literally as law, then the woman's husband (not necessarily the father) would be able to demand the $, if there weren't other laws to the contrary.

If it doesn't fit with your worldview and you want to ignore it, then that's fine, but you asked the question and I provided the verse that supports that view. If you've got one that more directly addresses the issue of killing an unborn fetus, go ahead and hit me with it.

Your last point about killing one of God's Children, you're not going to persuade me with unnecessarily melodramatic catch phrases like that. It's question-begging in a big way.

[SBK]

It's like you're willfully ignoring the point of my post which is that the verse dictates that the death of a fetus is to be treated differently than the death of a person.

And yes, if you applied the verse literally as law, then the woman's husband (not necessarily the father) would be able to demand the $, if there weren't other laws to the contrary.

If it doesn't fit with your worldview and you want to ignore it, then that's fine, but you asked the question and I provided the verse that supports that view. If you've got one that more directly addresses the issue of killing an unborn fetus, go ahead and hit me with it.

Your last point about killing one of God's Children, you're not going to persuade me with unnecessarily melodramatic catch phrases like that. It's question-begging in a big way.

The verse you provided does not condone abortion.

To even claim that it does is laughable.

[banyon]

The verse you provided does not condone abortion.

To even claim that it does is laughable.

The fact that you have nothing substantive to say, but only a blanket denial speaks volumes. http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/03-yawn.gif

Let me ask you this, ShortBibleBus GuruKid, what is the verse about if it's not about killing an unborn child?

[SBK]

The fact that you have nothing substantive to say, but only a blanket denial speaks volumes. http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/03-yawn.gif

Let me ask you this, ShortBibleBus GuruKid, what is the verse about if it's not about killing an unborn child?

Do yourself a favor and go read that whole section of the bible. You'll find out that if a man dies before he and his wife have kids that the guys brother should have sex with his sister in law in order to keep the family line going.

You'll find out what to do with people having sex with animals. It's the part of the bible dealing with the old law, the one that was replaced by Jesus death and resurrection, making the new law.

If you want to know what the bible says about abortion I suggest you start at the 10 commandments. Perhaps you've heard of the one that says Thou shalt not kill?

I already told you what the verse was about, just because you failed to read my post doesn't mean I didn't already answer your question.

Also, personal insults are a great way to look smart right?

[Adept Havelock]

You'll find out what to do with people having sex with animals. It's the part of the bible dealing with the old law, the one that was replaced by Jesus death and resurrection, making the new law.


Well, every condemnation of gays I hear from religous folks is old law, AFAICT. Why don't those get tossed with the other ones?

[SBK]

Well, every condemnation of gays I hear from religous folks is old law, AFAICT. Why don't those get tossed with the other ones?

Find a place that Jesus refers to homosexuality in a positive light. You might find your answer there.

[Logical]

Find a place that Jesus refers to homosexuality in a positive light. You might find your answer there.

So if Jesus did not say computers were good then they are sinful?ROFL

[SBK]

So if Jesus did not say computers were good then they are sinful?ROFL

He didn't refer to computers, but he did talk about homosexuality, many times. :rolleyes:

[Logical]

...

If you want to know what the bible says about abortion I suggest you start at the 10 commandments. Perhaps you've heard of the one that says Thou shalt not kill?


It says nothing about breaking eggs. For that matter it is non specific on what it is prohibiting being killed.

[Logical]

He didn't refer to computers, but he did talk about homosexuality, many times. :rolleyes:Specific quotations then.

[banyon]

Also, personal insults are a great way to look smart right?

Chill out. I meant it as a clever play on your name, but I guess you didn't find it funny.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a bit.

[penchief]

Is this the same thread I started about the republican party's sleazy campaign tactics?

If it is, I'd like to point out that the conduct of the RNC is anything but Christian.

[Adept Havelock]

He didn't refer to computers, but he did talk about homosexuality, many times. :rolleyes:


Jesus spoke about Homosexuality? :hmmm:

Prove it.


If he did it many times, it shouldn't be a problem for you. :harumph:

He didn't comment positively or negatively about eating shellfish. Does that mean it's still an abomination in your mind too? Or do you only discard those parts of the old law that are embarrassing and/or ridiculous, while keeping the ones you personally find "icky"?

[SBK]

Specific quotations then.

Let me start by saying I was wrong. I meant to write the New Testament, not Jesus specifically. I was doing too many things at once.

But, here's a few quotes from the NT for you.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Romans 1:27
Jude 1:7
1 Timothy 1:9-10

Jesus lays out what marriage is Matthew 19:5-9

[Adept Havelock]

Jesus lays out what marriage is Matthew 19:5-9


That is not Jesus condemning homosexuality. If his new laws replaced the old ones, and he didn't comment on it.... :shrug:

[SBK]

Let me add, anyone that wants to show where the bible points to homosexuality in a positive light is welcome to step up.

[Adept Havelock]

Let me add, anyone that wants to show where the bible points to homosexuality in a positive light is welcome to step up.


Frankly, I don't worry about what that anthology condemns or promotes. It's only revelance to me is your claim that the "old law" was replaced by the "new law". Since Jesus didn't establish a "new law" when the old law condeming homosexuality was tossed out, I can only conclude that he is neutral about it, or simply didn't care. ;)

Again, I ask: Since Jesus didn't comment on it directly, and you assume that in this case the "old law" still applies, does this mean that eating shellfish or wearing garments made from more than one type of cloth is still sinful? To my knowledge, he never commented on either of these, while the Old Testament is quite clear on the matter. Or are you just picking and choosing like a "cafeteria" christian?

[SBK]

Frankly, I don't worry about what that book condemns or promotes. It's only revelance to me is your claim that the "old law" was replaced by the "new law". Since Jesus didn't establish a "new law" when the old law condeming homosexuality was tossed out, I can only conclude that he is neutral about it, or simply didn't care. ;)

Jesus changed the old law. The passage where he allows Peter to eat "unclean" meat is where that is described. Jesus death and resurrection brought huge changes, it opened things up for gentiles, not only Jews.

Jesus does reference the old law several times, so if I said that it was thrown out I used the wrong word.

:hmmm:

[Adept Havelock]

Jesus changed the old law. The passage where he allows Peter to eat "unclean" meat is where that is described. Jesus death and resurrection brought huge changes, it opened things up for gentiles, not only Jews.

Jesus does reference the old law several times, so if I said that it was thrown out I used the wrong word.

:hmmm:

I'm still waiting for you to show me where he condemns homosexuality. Not commenting on it does not equal condemnation, only ambiguity.

Here's a hint. You can't. He didn't. Provided you accept that book as holy writ, that is. :)

How about wearing clothing made from two fabrics? Still a sin or not?

As for "opening things up for gentiles, not only Jews", does that mean it's all hunky-dory for Jews, as they don't accept his divinity? Or did you misspeak again?

[banyon]

I agree with SBK that the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexual acts. (although not the status of being homosexual).

[Adept Havelock]

I agree with SBK that the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexual acts. (although not the status of being homosexual).

The OT does, but the OT law was replaced by "The New Covenant" from what I understand. As the main character of the NT didn't comment on it, and so many other "inconvinent" laws from the OT are chucked out because of that, I have to wonder why they make an exception for this one.

[BucEyedPea]

I think that depends on denomination Adept. I never learned that the OT was literally replaced with the NT. That would make the Decalogue obsolete.

Also the Douay-Rheims bible differs from the KJ's Bible in 50,000 places including disagreements over what books belong. DR's goes further and prevents association with practicing homosexuals. Or that is what I was told my a RC scholar and friend of mine who has read it hundreds of times including the disagreements between the two Bibles.

[banyon]

The OT does, but the OT law was replaced by "The New Covenant" from what I understand. As the main character of the NT didn't comment on it, and so many other "inconvinent" laws from the OT are chucked out because of that, I have to wonder why they make an exception for this one.

Yeah, but there are numerous verses in the New Testament outside the gospels (and in the "new" covenant) that speak to the issue.

Jesus's failure to mention the issue might give a believer guidance as to what priority such an issue should have (as it gives me), but does not offer any kind of rejection (nor does it even lend to a reading of ambiguity) of the otherwise held belief that it is an immoral practice (so is failing to tithe!).

[Logical]

Let me start by saying I was wrong. I meant to write the New Testament, not Jesus specifically. I was doing too many things at once.

But, here's a few quotes from the NT for you.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Romans 1:27
Jude 1:7
1 Timothy 1:9-10

Jesus lays out what marriage is Matthew 19:5-9

I will be gracious since you admitted you were wrong. My point was that Jesus himself never condemned gays.

[Adept Havelock]

Yeah, but there are numerous verses in the New Testament outside the gospels (and in the "new" covenant) that speak to the issue.

Jesus's failure to mention the issue might give a believer guidance as to what priority such an issue should have (as it gives me), but does not offer any kind of rejection (nor does it even lend to a reading of ambiguity) of the otherwise held belief that it is an immoral practice (so is failing to tithe!).


I'll take the word of believers on that, as I'm sure you are more versed in it than I am. I was mainly taking issue with SBK's allegation that Jesus spoke against it several times...

Thanks Banyon and BEP. :thumb:

[banyon]

Do yourself a favor and go read that whole section of the bible. You'll find out that if a man dies before he and his wife have kids that the guys brother should have sex with his sister in law in order to keep the family line going.

You'll find out what to do with people having sex with animals. It's the part of the bible dealing with the old law, the one that was replaced by Jesus death and resurrection, making the new law.

If you want to know what the bible says about abortion I suggest you start at the 10 commandments. Perhaps you've heard of the one that says Thou shalt not kill?

So it's just that simple. No killing at all then?

I already told you what the verse was about, just because you failed to read my post doesn't mean I didn't already answer your question?


This was about as directly as you ever analyzed the verse:

I would say clearly that an abortion is a child being killed, by the choice of the mother, which this verse isn't even close to.

I would agree that this verse does not address the mother's choice, but there is no other verse more directly on target. It does specify a penalty for what is a volitional act on the part of the man that causes the fetus's death. That is the part that shows the fetus has a different legal status than a live baby under the old Hebrew Law.

If you want to throw out the Old Testament in its entirety, then you are of course free to do so, but you have to throw out your Ten Commandments too, then.