PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Jews don't like Barry O


Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 04:47 PM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/31061

Shock Poll: Jews Now Favor McCain in New York, 54-32
John Podhoretz - 09.17.2008 - 6:17 PM
The Siena poll, one of the two key polls of New York state voters, has come out with its monthly snapshot of the presidential race in the Empire State. And it’s stunning. It is remarkable, though not eye-opening, that John McCain is now only 5 points behind Barack Obama, 46-41 – not shocking because polls have narrowed to similar margins in New Jersey. (It should be noted, however, that according to a Rasmussen poll released yesterday, Obama is leading in New York by 55-42.)

No, the shocking detail has to do with a wild, 35-point swing toward McCain among Jewish voters. Obama led among them by a margin of 50-37 in August. This month, McCain is actually leading Obama by a margin of 54 percent to 32 percent.

Siena polled 626 likely voters this month. Of those, according to Steve Greenberg, the spokesman for the Siena poll, 77 were Jews, or 12 percent of the sample. That is Siena’s best guess of the size of the Jewish vote in New York state in November. With a sample size that small, the margin of error for the Jewish voter sample is plus-or-minus 11 points.

That means the poll could be off by as many as 11 points in either direction — i.e., McCain could be leading by as little as 11 points or by as many as 33.

The only difference between the September poll and the August poll as a matter of methodology is that in September, Siena polled likely voters, whereas in August it only polled registered voters.

The poll could, of course, be an outlier. But if it even begins to approximate the truth, it is huge news. No Republican has scored more than 39 percent of the Jewish vote in modern times, and that was Ronald Reagan in 1980, following a series of missteps by the Carter administration. These sorts of numbers for McCain have implications in two other states particularly — Florida and Pennsylvania.

In Florida, the implications are obvious. Obama’s own Jewish organizers in Florida are telling the campaign they are finding profound resistance to him, particularly in South Florida. The polling overall there seems to be moving inexorably in McCain’s direction, which is necessary for him; it is nearly impossible to see how he can win the election if he loses Florida.

But what about Pennsylvania? That is a state it appears Obama must win. There are, it is estimated, more than 200,000 Jewish voters in Pennsylvania, a state John Kerry won by 140,000 votes. If we assume Pennsylvania’s 200,000 voting Jews voted in the same way as Jews nationwide in 2004 and went 76-24 for Kerry, we can attribute 150,000 Jewish votes to Kerry, his entire margin of victory plus seven percent. Now imagine if that number had been closer to 50-50. Kerry would have received 100,000 Jewish votes rather than 150,000. Bush would have received 100,000 Jewish votes rather than 50,000. Kerry’s margin of victory would then have shrunk to 40,000 votes.

It appears Obama may have a tougher time in Pennsylvania than Kerry did because of his difficulty attracting the ethnic white vote in the western part of the state. If there is a Jewish swing away from him as well, he really could lose there. And if he loses there and loses Ohio, he is sunk. Ohio has approximately 80,000 Jewish voters, so a swing away from Obama to a 50-50 race would cost him 25,000 votes Kerry presumably received in 2004 — and in a state that Bush won by 121,000 votes.

We’ll need more data from two other states with a significant Jewish population to allow for a measurable sample size in a poll – Florida and California – and a polling firm willing to break out the Jewish vote as Siena has, to see whether this is just statistical smoke or whether Obama has a brushfire he needs to put out somehow before it consumes him.

Donger
09-17-2008, 04:58 PM
Why wouldn't Jews support Barack Hussein?

bango
09-17-2008, 05:40 PM
Why wouldn't Jews support Barack Hussein?

Is he Jewish? Perhaps he is not liberal enough for them. I hear that they are very, very liberal. Every single one of them.

Donger
09-17-2008, 05:42 PM
Is he Jewish? Perhaps he is not liberal enough for them. I hear that they are very, very liberal. Every single one of them.

I have no idea. I was under the impression that Jews vote Democrat something like 80%

bango
09-17-2008, 05:45 PM
I have no idea. I was under the impression that Jews vote Democrat something like 80%

I heard that it was pretty high. I was not aware that it was that high. I wonder if that is a large enough base to make things hard for him if they do not turnout for him. I doubt that they vote for McCain. I wonder if the claims about his Islamacy have maybe gotten to them.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2008, 05:52 PM
A poll of 77 people is what you are going on?

77 people?

ROFL

bango
09-17-2008, 05:54 PM
A poll of 77 people is what you are going on?

77 people?

ROFL

That is close to 100.

Cave Johnson
09-17-2008, 05:54 PM
Two words: push polling.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/09/16/jewish_voters_report_calls_disparaging_obama/

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/15/i-just-got-push-polled-on-obama-and-israel.aspx

That, and the fact that I don't think Obama is as completely in the tank for Israel as they would like.

RJ
09-17-2008, 06:08 PM
It's because he's a shwatza.

Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 06:08 PM
two words: Jew hater


He is a follower of Islam, after all.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2008, 06:09 PM
two words: Jew hater


He is a follower of Islam, after all.

Moronical. An imbecile. Like the dumbest mother****er that ever lived.

alnorth
09-17-2008, 06:30 PM
1) I am going to be very reluctant to trust a poll with a margin of error of +/- 11%

(keep in mind also, "margin of error" typically means 95% chance of being within that range, not 100%)

2) If this is anywhere close to being true, it could explain why Florida is falling out of reach and PA is so close.

Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 06:31 PM
Moronical. An imbecile. Like the dumbest mother****er that ever lived.

you little socialist bung licker...

Donger
09-17-2008, 06:34 PM
"According to Gallup's aggregated tracking data for all of April, 61% of Jewish voters would vote for Obama, much higher than the national average of 45% of all registered voters."

This was from April, mind you.

Mecca
09-17-2008, 06:36 PM
1) I am going to be very reluctant to trust a poll with a margin of error of +/- 11%

(keep in mind also, "margin of error" typically means 95% chance of being within that range, not 100%)

2) If this is anywhere close to being true, it could explain why Florida is falling out of reach and PA is so close.

You missed that news about Florida being even eh?

***SPRAYER
09-17-2008, 06:46 PM
It's because he's a shwatza.


Shwatza? I thought it was Schwarzes? That's actually a German word, by the way.

Ironic.

DaKCMan AP
09-17-2008, 06:50 PM
I like Obama just fine, thanks. McCain and his bitchy sidekick, on the other hand..

alnorth
09-17-2008, 06:52 PM
You missed that news about Florida being even eh?

What, CNN's silly poll of 907 Registered Voters? ROFL

I'll wait till a real pollster weighs in.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 08:43 PM
J Street, formed as a competitor to AIPAC ( Likud leaning) loves Obama.
It's only certain Jews that don't like him. Hawks, NCs and Likud. They don't feel he's a reliable bet for bombing Iran. American Jews are predominantly liberal.

HonestChieffan
09-17-2008, 08:55 PM
Jews support Israel. Barack is pro Pallestinian. Either that or Jews dont like Black people.

bango
09-17-2008, 08:55 PM
J Street, formed as a competitor to AIPAC ( Likud leaning) loves Obama.
It's only certain Jews that don't like him. Hawks, NCs and Likud. They don't feel he's a reliable bet for bombing Iran. American Jews are predominantly liberal.

The Jews want to bomb Iran?

RJ
09-17-2008, 08:56 PM
If Obama loses he can lay the blame at the feet of the Jews and white women.

I hope they're happy with themselves.

Taco John
09-17-2008, 09:01 PM
I know a fair amount of Jews, and 100 percent of them are Hillary fans who despise McCain and are planning on voting for Obama despite the fact he disshelved Hillary.

I don't know why I was shocked to learn that every Jew I know was a Hillary supporter.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 09:03 PM
The Jews want to bomb Iran?

Do you know what the pronoun "they" stands for?
Usually the preceding noun(s).

Friendo
09-17-2008, 09:04 PM
don't let me down...

http://podblanc.com/jesse-jackson-apologizes-to-the-jews-dont-let-me-down-hymietown

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 09:06 PM
What does that have to do with Obama?

JJ has said some nasty stuff about Obama too which even po'd his son who was campaigning for him.

bango
09-17-2008, 09:08 PM
Do you know what the pronoun "they" stands for?
Usually the preceding noun(s).

No need to become snippy about it. Could you answer the question that I asked or am I in for more english lessons and smart remarks?

Friendo
09-17-2008, 09:09 PM
What does that have to do with Obama?

JJ has said some nasty stuff about Obama too which even po'd his son who was campaigning for him.

nothing--it's f***ing humor :cuss::cuss::cuss:

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 09:09 PM
No need to become snippy about it. Could you answer the question that I asked or am I in for more english lessons and smart remarks?

I'm not trying to be snippy. If you read it, it's all there. And has to do with the pronoun "they."

bango
09-17-2008, 09:27 PM
I'm not trying to be snippy. If you read it, it's all there. And has to do with the pronoun "they."

Nevermind. I guess that I will go around thinking that you think that the Jews are looking forward to bombing Iran.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 09:34 PM
Nevermind. I guess that I will go around thinking that you think that the Jews are looking forward to bombing Iran.

All you have to do is read it properly. It's plain English. There's no need for me to explain something that obvious and simple.

bango
09-17-2008, 09:55 PM
All you have to do is read it properly. It's plain English. There's no need for me to explain something that obvious and simple.

Again sorry to have bothered you. More proof that the Socialization of Education is failing us. Is it that hard to just answer the damn question. You could have just said yes that you think that the Jews would like to bomb Iran. You never came out and said it. You implied it, but you never actually stated it. Of all of the things that you say here I never thought that you would cower from something like that. That is how a socialist may have responded. I never thought that a Traditional Conservative such as yourself would ever be able to be compared to something that you despise so very much. You know that word that you use to blame everything that is wrong in the world on.

Logical
09-17-2008, 10:06 PM
J Street, formed as a competitor to AIPAC ( Likud leaning) loves Obama.
It's only certain Jews that don't like him. Hawks, NCs and Likud. They don't feel he's a reliable bet for bombing Iran. American Jews are predominantly liberal. OK BEP I am still going to pick on you, Jews want the US to bomb Iran, do you have proof. That is a pretty contemptible position to hold.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 10:07 PM
Contemptible. That's funny. But please note, I did not say Jews at all. You dubbed that in on your own.
I said which politically affiliated Jews. You have the same reading comprehension problem. I said Jews were usually liberal.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 10:09 PM
Again sorry to have bothered you. More proof that the Socialization of Education is failing us. Is it that hard to just answer the damn question. You could have just said yes that you think that the Jews would like to bomb Iran. You never came out and said it. You implied it, but you never actually stated it. Of all of the things that you say here I never thought that you would cower from something like that. That is how a socialist may have responded. I never thought that a Traditional Conservative such as yourself would ever be able to be compared to something that you despise so very much. You know that word that you use to blame everything that is wrong in the world on.
I implied nothing. I was specific. You need to look up the meaning of the word "they" and see what proper nouns immediately preceded it.

Logical
09-17-2008, 10:10 PM
Contemptible. That's funny. But please note, I did not say Jews at all. You dubbed that in on your own.
I said which politically affiliated Jews. You have the same reading comprehension problem. I said Jews were usually liberal.Yes you must be right, that sentence is so completely clear, that two people completely misread it in two completely different ways. It is not possible that you wrote a poorly constructed sentence.:rolleyes:

Logical
09-17-2008, 10:14 PM
I implied nothing. I was specific. You need to look up the meaning of the word "they" and see what proper nouns immediately preceded it.Jesus, just admit you ****ed up by not politely answering him. Oh and for the record your sentence is not in the least clear. I hope mine here were.:mad:

HonestChieffan
09-17-2008, 10:16 PM
were what?

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 10:18 PM
Yes you must be right that sentence is so completely clear that two people completely misread it in two completely different ways. It is not possible that you wrote a poorly constructed sentence.:rolleyes:

It was merely intended to be brief. Even if two people took it a certain way doesn't mean it says what was claimed. It's not knowing all the definitions of the word "they". Three definitions.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/they

The first definition applies:

1. Used to refer to the ones previously mentioned or implied.

Definition of previous
1. Existing or occurring before something else in time or order; prior:

What words existed just prior to using the word "they"?
Hawks, NCs and Likud etc. As well as saying "certain jews" previously, and the context was that JStreet ( liberal counterpart to AIPAC) loved Obama and that most jews were liberal.

Sorry I don't see it. And 2 reading it incorrectly doesn't mean anything.
There was no need to answer at all. It says what it says.

Logical
09-17-2008, 10:23 PM
It was merely intended to be brief. Even if two people took it a certain way doesn't mean it says what was claimed. It's not knowing all the definitions of the word "they". Three definitions.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/they

The first definition applies:

1. Used to refer to the ones previously mentioned or implied.

Definition of previous
1. Existing or occurring before something else in time or order; prior:

What words existed just prior to using the word "they"?
Hawks, NCs and Likud etc. All in the context of saying "certain jews", that JStreet ( liberal counterpart to AIPAC) loved Obama and that most jews were liberal.

Sorry I don't see it. And 2 reading it incorrectly doesn't mean anything.

Are you Sarah Palin or just Blond? The sentence allows you to guess as to who is to do the bombing, are the Jews in the US going to do the bombing, is the United States going to do the bombing, or is Israel going to do the bombing they (Hawks, NC, etc.)?

Logical
09-17-2008, 10:23 PM
It was merely intended to be brief. Even if two people took it a certain way doesn't mean it says what was claimed. It's not knowing all the definitions of the word "they". Three definitions.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/they

The first definition applies:

1. Used to refer to the ones previously mentioned or implied.

Definition of previous
1. Existing or occurring before something else in time or order; prior:

What words existed just prior to using the word "they"?
Hawks, NCs and Likud etc. All in the context of saying "certain jews", that JStreet ( liberal counterpart to AIPAC) loved Obama and that most jews were liberal.

Sorry I don't see it. And 2 reading it incorrectly doesn't mean anything.

Are you Sarah Palin or just Blond? The sentence allows you to guess as to who is to do the bombing, are the Jews in the US going to do the bombing, is the United States going to do the bombing, or is Israel going to do the bombing they (Hawks, NC, etc.) want?

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 10:28 PM
I never said "Jews" as a generality but specified which ones felt Obama was unreliable regarding strikes on Iran. What was implied was liberal Jews such as JStreet don't favor it. I just didn't get into details.

You must have missed earlier posts because I've posted many times before that one is Norman Podhoretz who has pushed for this by the US. I gave details too. Even a YouTube of him. He met with Bush because State was opposed and it's gone back and forth between factions in the WH.

Lieberman is another one. There's also been news about the same faction in Israel wanting to do it themselves if we won't. It's not all Jews though. They don't all agree, pretty much like any group. AIPAC for and JStreet against it.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 10:37 PM
Jews support Israel. Barack is pro Pallestinian. Either that or Jews dont like Black people.

Not all Jews think alike and they tend to be liberal.
Some Jews I know personally adore Barack Obama.
In fact, even in Israel they disagree with each other about FP and their govt.

Logical
09-17-2008, 10:44 PM
I never said "Jews" as a generality but specified which ones felt Obama was unreliable regarding strikes on Iran. What was implied was liberal Jews such as JStreet don't favor it. I just didn't get into details.

You must have missed earlier posts because I've posted many times before that one is Norman Podhoretz who has pushed for this by the US. I gave details too. Even a YouTube of him. He met with Bush because State was opposed and it's gone back and forth between factions in the WH.

Lieberman is another one. There's also been news about the same faction in Israel wanting to do it themselves if we won't. It's not all Jews though. They don't all agree, pretty much like any group. AIPAC for and JStreet against it.

Folks this is what we call a DEnise style squiggle, it is used when the poster realizes that she either failed to specify which specific party would do the bombing, or that the word "they" might not have been used as clearly as she first thought, or both. The poster then does not quote anyone and changes the subject and implies that either bango or I or both has not been following her endless tirade against Norman Podhurtz.

Meet the
Squiggle.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 10:49 PM
In your opinion. You and bango didn't know what the word "they" meant.

Just look at this thread's title. It was "Jews ( generality ) don't like Barry O."
That's what I was responding to...this idea that they all think alike with one opinion.
I was not trying to change the debate to specifics on bombing Iran— just that they disagreed.
BTW I am a member of JStreet. So I get the emails on this.

I'm not gonna argue all night with an ill tempered poster.
Go find something better to do. Soreloser.

Logical
09-17-2008, 11:02 PM
In your opinion. You and bango didn't know what the word "they" meant.

Just look at this thread's title. It was "Jews ( generality ) don't like Barry O."
That's what I was responding to...this idea that they all think alike with one opinion.
I was not trying to change the debate to specifics on bombing Iran— just that they disagreed.
BTW I am a member of JStreet. So I get the emails on this.

I'm not gonna argue all night with an ill tempered poster.
Go find something better to do.I probably would not be ill tempered, were it not for a poster trying to paint bango and I as stupid, not knowing the meaning of the word "they". This is especially galling when said poster went to all the trouble of posting there are not one, not two, but three correct interpretations for the use of the word "they".

I understand that little miss perfect cannot possibly have made an error, and further that it is perfectly acceptable for her to be rude, perhaps she can join Tom C@sh in the Programmer Hall of Infamy.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:08 PM
I understand that little miss perfect cannot possibly have made an error, and further that it is perfectly acceptable for her to be rude, perhaps she can join Tom C@sh in the Programmer Hall of Infamy.

When all else fails, threaten with name calling, ad hominem attacks and bully tactics.

I can't believe you just called someone else rude.

Logical
09-17-2008, 11:12 PM
When all else fails, threaten with name calling, ad hominem attacks and bully tactics.

I can't believe you just called someone else rude.Thank you, given you are the only poster on this BB to ever threatened someone with potentially life threatening physical violence, because you are a *****in soldier, color me unimpressed by your castigating comment.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2008, 12:17 AM
Again sorry to have bothered you.

You weren't bothering me—not in the least. I was trying to get you to read it again to get your answer was all. It was already there. What's wrong with that? Nothing. I do that with my students. What you don't get on the net is tone. I wasn't trying to be rude.

patteeu
09-18-2008, 07:42 AM
Why wouldn't Jews support Barack Hussein?

Whatever it is, it's probably the same reason Hamas supports him (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php).*




-------------
* I think that since this interview happened, Hamas has come out and "clarified" their position, in an effort to protect Obama, by saying they don't endorse any US candidate for POTUS. But let's be real here.

penchief
09-18-2008, 07:44 AM
Why wouldn't Jews support Barack Hussein?

Because Barack Hussein is not a candidate?

patteeu
09-18-2008, 07:47 AM
Yes you must be right, that sentence is so completely clear, that two people completely misread it in two completely different ways. It is not possible that you wrote a poorly constructed sentence.:rolleyes:

I honestly thought her sentence was very clear. The people she's accusing of wanting to bomb Iran are "certain Jews", which I think is pretty accurate.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 07:55 AM
Whatever it is, it's probably the same reason Hamas supports him (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php).*




-------------
* I think that since this interview happened, Hamas has come out and "clarified" their position, in an effort to protect Obama, by saying they don't endorse any US candidate for POTUS. But let's be real here.

Don't forget the Dear Leader Kim Jong Il is also an Obama supporter (http://freekorea.us/2008/06/22/obama-gets-another-unwanted-endorsement/). I'm in Korea now. This guy is the biggest nutcase on earth.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-18-2008, 07:58 AM
Don't forget the Dear Leader Kim Jong Il is also an Obama supporter (http://freekorea.us/2008/06/22/obama-gets-another-unwanted-endorsement/). I'm in Korea now. This guy is the biggest nutcase on earth.

it's debatable if he is "The Biggest" nutcase on the earth, but he sure is a nutcase who was given Nuclear weapons indirectly by our government.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 08:02 AM
it's debatable if he is "The Biggest" nutcase on the earth, but he sure is a nutcase who was given Nuclear weapons indirectly by our government.

Oh trust me, this guy thinks he's a god (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0103/p01s04-woap.html). Really.


By Robert Marquand | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – North Koreans are taught to worship Kim Jong Il as a god. In a manner unique among nations, the North exerts extraordinary control through deification - a cult ideology of complete subservience - that goes beyond the "Stalinist" label often used to describe the newly nuclear North. <!-- -->
While outsiders can see film clips of huge festivals honoring Mr. Kim, the extraordinary degree of cult worship is not well known, nor that programs promoting the ideology of Kim are growing, according to refugees, diplomats, and others who have visited the Hermit Kingdom.

penchief
09-18-2008, 08:11 AM
Don't forget the Dear Leader Kim Jong Il is also an Obama supporter (http://freekorea.us/2008/06/22/obama-gets-another-unwanted-endorsement/). I'm in Korea now. This guy is the biggest nutcase on earth.

How Christian of you to imply that because our enemies are hoping for a change of policy and a change of conduct in America that Obama is the somehow the candidate of terrorists and dictators.

See, the problem with black and white people like you is that this kind of idiocy works on you. The truth doesn't matter to you. Issues don't matter to you. The only thing that matters is your ideology. You ARE the perfect example of the type person that right wing politics targets. You respond to fear, prejudice, hatred, military aggression, and false pride.

Has it ever occurred to you that the unChristian behavior of this Administration has fostered an environment of greed, destruction, and death that calls for drastic change? Has it ever occurred to you that imposing one's will onto others is the root of the problem and not the solution?

You talk about your beliefs as if your faith makes you and your opinions superior. And that, my friend, is part of the problem with you and with the far right in this country. If you had your way we'd all be living with fascism.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 08:40 AM
How Christian of you to imply that because our enemies are hoping for a change of policy and a change of conduct in America that Obama is the somehow the candidate of terrorists and dictators.

See, the problem with black and white people like you is that this kind of idiocy works on you. The truth doesn't matter to you. Issues don't matter to you. The only thing that matters is your ideology. You ARE the perfect example of the type person that right wing politics targets. You respond to fear, prejudice, hatred, military aggression, and false pride.

Has it ever occurred to you that the unChristian behavior of this Administration has fostered an environment of greed, destruction, and death that calls for drastic change? Has it ever occurred to you that imposing one's will onto others is the root of the problem and not the solution?

You talk about your beliefs as if your faith makes you and your opinions superior. And that, my friend, is part of the problem with you and with the far right in this country. If you had your way we'd all be living with fascism.

Mr. penchief,
These issues obviously matter very deeply to you. Thank you for your concern for our great republic.

I am a professional Soldier. Foreign policy is not something I take casually or uncritically. Until you have found yourself in a foreign country surrounded by other people not like you with the words "US ARMY" sewn on your chest, there is only so much you can relate to by pure imagination.

The world is a very, very dangerous place. I have full trust and confidence in President Bush as Commander-in-Chief. I also served with fidelity for 7 years under Pres. Clinton. It was during the Clinton administration I was sent to Haiti with the 10th Mountain Division in 1994 to liberate the Haitians from the dictator Raul Cedras.

I also have the unique and sacred privilege of serving in the US Army Chaplain Corps, helping Soldiers in the discovery, practice and formation of their own religious faith. Part of our duty is to analyze the religions of the enemy and the people in the operating environment. These tasks are extremely complex and crucial to the establishment of stable conditions in war, most especially in a counterinsurgency fight. I do not take them lightly. You may know that I was in Iraq this February. The reason for that was that General Petraeus' Command Chaplain was given a counterinsurgency task critical to the pacification of Iraq that involved Iraq's powerful clerics. I was one of only two Soldiers in the entire Army selected to deploy to Iraq for that task. As you may know, religion is very, very important in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While I respect your viewpoints, it is unfair place statements in my mouth that I have not said and motives in my heart that you cannot possibly see. It is deeply troubling to many of us in uniform that Kim Jong Il's regime supports an Obama presidency. You ascribe that to the anticipation of a change of policy - to what?

Until you have seen with your own eyes the kind of rank, black evil that dictators like Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein have visited upon their own people, and observed the deep psychological, spiritual, emotional, social and economic wounds they have perpetrated upon the innocent, you can not possibly fully appreciate the role of the US military as an instrument of liberation and restoration of hope. The people of Iraq and North Korea have lived in a hell-on-earth that you cannot possibly imagine. I did not understand it in its naked reality until the poor Iraqi people began to share some of their horror stories with us. The same goes for the reports from North Koreans who have been fortunate enough to escape the Juche Regime.

There is a reason we have not been successfully attacked since September 11th, 2001. The price of liberty as Thomas Jefferson said so sagaciously is eternal vigilance.

My Christian life is lived out on a daily basis in the Chapel communities and on the battlefields of the US military. I am not aware of any one who knows me in person who questions my committment to Jesus Christ.

Perhaps I do respond to fear, prejudice, hatred, military aggression, and false pride - God, not you, will judge me. I do my best to respond with a clear conscience and a servant's heart.

KCJohnny
:arrow:

Programmer
09-18-2008, 09:02 AM
Jews don't like Barry O?

If you were to check I'm sure there are many other groups in the country that don't like the "favored son" either.

penchief
09-18-2008, 09:15 AM
Mr. penchief,
These issues obviously matter very deeply to you. Thank you for your concern for our great republic.

I am a professional Soldier. Foreign policy is not something I take casually or uncritically. Until you have found yourself in a foreign country surrounded by other people not like you with the words "US ARMY" sewn on your chest, there is only so much you can relate to by pure imagination.

The world is a very, very dangerous place. I have full trust and confidence in President Bush as Commander-in-Chief. I also served with fidelity for 7 years under Pres. Clinton. It was during the Clinton administration I was sent to Haiti with the 10th Mountain Division in 1994 to liberate the Haitians from the dictator Raul Cedras.

I also have the unique and sacred privilege of serving in the US Army Chaplain Corps, helping Soldiers in the discovery, practice and formation of their own religious faith. Part of our duty is to analyze the religions of the enemy and the people in the operating environment. These tasks are extremely complex and crucial to the establishment of stable conditions in war, most especially in a counterinsurgency fight. I do not take them lightly. You may know that I was in Iraq this February. The reason for that was that General Petraeus' Command Chaplain was given a counterinsurgency task critical to the pacification of Iraq that involved Iraq's powerful clerics. I was one of only two Soldiers in the entire Army selected to deploy to Iraq for that task. As you may know, religion is very, very important in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While I respect your viewpoints, it is unfair place statements in my mouth that I have not said and motives in my heart that you cannot possibly see. It is deeply troubling to many of us in uniform that Kim Jong Il's regime supports an Obama presidency. You ascribe that to the anticipation of a change of policy - to what?

Until you have seen with your own eyes the kind of rank, black evil that dictators like Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein have visited upon their own people, and observed the deep psychological, spiritual, emotional, social and economic wounds they have perpetrated upon the innocent, you can not possibly fully appreciate the role of the US military as an instrument of liberation and restoration of hope. The people of Iraq and North Korea have lived in a hell-on-earth that you cannot possibly imagine. I did not understand it in its naked reality until the poor Iraqi people began to share some of their horror stories with us. The same goes for the reports from North Koreans who have been fortunate enough to escape the Juche Regime.

There is a reason we have not been successfully attacked since September 11th, 2001. The price of liberty as Thomas Jefferson said so sagaciously is eternal vigilance.

My Christian life is lived out on a daily basis in the Chapel communities and on the battlefields of the US military. I am not aware of any one who knows me in person who questions my committment to Jesus Christ.

Perhaps I do respond to fear, prejudice, hatred, military aggression, and false pride - God, not you, will judge me. I do my best to respond with a clear conscience and a servant's heart.

KCJohnny
:arrow:

I have been in another country wearing the uniform of my country. However, I don't use that fact as a bludgeon to prove that my opinions are correct. And your faith provides you with nothing more than a perspective. It does not make you more accurate.

I agree with you about putting words in other people's mouths and presuming to know what is in another person's heart. Which is why I have challenged you to confront the statements by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin which directly contradict your assertions about their intentions. Yet you continue to ignore that challenge because it flies directly in the face of your claim which you insist is indisputible.

ALSO, I assume you believe it was wrong at the republican convention and in national TV ads for John McCain and Sarah Palin to declare to know what was in Barack Obama's heart when they claimed that he placed his personal amibitions above the well being of his country. It was a personal smear and it was something that only someone who could look into his heart would know.

I have yet to hear Obama make any claims as to what motives exist in the heart of John McCain or Sarah Palin. So, until you acknowledge that fact and disavow the unChristian tactics of the McCain campaign, I can only assume that you are being disingenuous.

And yes, the world is a dangerous place. Which is why blindly pouring gasoline on a fire is not the smarter thing to do.

Chiefnj2
09-18-2008, 09:15 AM
penchief is close to driving JP over the edge. He already has JP in Col. Nathan R. Jessep mode.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 09:22 AM
II agree with you about putting words in other people's mouths and presuming to know what is in another person's heart.

Then will you disown these statements?

The truth doesn't matter to you. Issues don't matter to you. The only thing that matters is your ideology. You ARE the perfect example of the type person that right wing politics targets. You respond to fear, prejudice, hatred, military aggression, and false pride.

penchief
09-18-2008, 09:37 AM
Then will you disown these statements?

That's not putting words in your mouth. That's my assessment of your behavior. I am not saying you are a bad person or that you are going to hell, so I'm not really judging you. I feel more like I'm describing your behavior. Maybe it is a little judgmental and a little harsh. But you have got to realize that your holier-than-thou approach is going to elicit those kind of statements. Especially when you behave in a less than honorable way.

Until you are able to exhibit any sort of objectivity or fairness in your statements I don't see how I'm wrong. And until you are able to acknowledge that you are peddling opinions as fact, I will continue to think that. It is not my intention to offend you.

A good way for you to show a little more honesty would be to acknowledge that you were wrong in some of your assertions about the intentions of our founding fathers. You could start by addressing those statements that I posted by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin which refute your claim about their intent.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 09:45 AM
That's not putting words in your mouth. That's my assessment of your behavior. I am not saying you are a bad person or that you are going to hell, so I'm not really judging you. I feel more like I'm describing your behavior.

Until you are able to exhibit any sort of objectivity or fairness in your statements I don't see how I'm wrong. And until you are able to acknowledge that you are peddling opinions as fact, I will continue to think that. It is not my intention to offend you.

A good way for you to show a little more honesty would be to acknowledge that you were wrong in some of your assertions about the intentions of our founding fathers. You could start by addressing those statements that I posted by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin which refute your claim about their intent.

I provided a very intentional response to you that took a lot of time to craft.
Per your continuous mentions of Franklin and Jefferson, both favored a religious republic. That is beyond dispute and not worth the effort of restating the obvious. For the uninitiated, you can learn more here (http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html).

penchief
09-18-2008, 09:48 AM
I provided a very intentional response to you that took a lot of time to craft.
Per your continuous mentions of Franklin and Jefferson, both favored a religious republic. That is beyond dispute and not worth the effort of restating the obvious. For the uninitiated, you can learn more here (http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html).

Did you even read their words? Or are you going to make me post them again?

How do you rationalize your assertion against the words of Jefferson, himself?

And what is your opinion of McCain and Palin when they claimed to know what was in Obama's heart? Was that attempt to smear his character wrong? Was it unChristian to do that?

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 09:53 AM
Did you even read their words? Or are you going to make me post them again?

How do you rationalize your assertion against the words of Jefferson, himself?

And what is your opinion of McCain and Palin when they claimed to know what was in Obama's heart? Was that attempt to smear his character wrong? Was it unChristian to do that?

Don't bother if you are looking for response from me. As far as I'm concerned you are trying to rewrite history. Without Christianity, the American Revolution would have fallen on its butt. But please, please, by all means, continue to try to recruit adherents to the marxist we-did-it-all-for-economics view of our Founding Fathers. They do not agree with you at all. They appealed to Heaven in their quest for an independent union of free states.

I tread very reverently over their words - and I admonish you to do the same.

penchief
09-18-2008, 09:58 AM
Don't bother if you are looking for response from me. As far as I'm concerned you are trying to rewrite history. Without Christianity, the American Revolution would have fallen on its butt. But please, please, by all means, recruit adherents to the marxist we-did-it-all-for-economics view of our Founding Fathers.

I tread very reverently over their words - and I admonish you to do the same.

Why do you deny the fact that Jefferson advocated for a separation between church and state? I am not rewriting history. I'm merely asking you to be intellectually honest.

And don't you dare preach to me you arrogant prick. You intentionally misrepresent the truth and then have the nerve to admonish me?

Bootlegged
09-18-2008, 10:02 AM
Why do you deny the fact that Jefferson advocated for a separation between church and state? I am not rewriting history. I'm merely asking you to be intellectually honest.

And don't you dare preach to me you arrogant prick. You intentionally misrepresent the truth and then have the nerve to admonish me?


Oooh....little penchief is going to fight someone in the parking lot again.

ROFL

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 10:03 AM
Why do you deny the fact that Jefferson advocated for a separation between church and state? I am not rewriting history. I'm merely asking you to be intellectually honest.

The words separation of church and state don't appear in any official government documents authored by the founding fathers. This concept and these particular words were invented by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947 (http://www.straight-talk.net/socas/s-badjudgments.shtml) in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. That liberal supreme court imposed it on the nation by a 5 to 4 vote. The ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations and individuals have used it to harass Christians with ever since. It is also used by evolutionists to try to keep a theistic explanation of origins out of the public schools. Many young people today are not aware of the fact that this concept is an ACLU invention, and that it is the extreme opposite of what our founding fathers actually intended. In other words, there is virtually no constitutional support whatsoever for it. Let's examine two of the most common myths about the founding fathers that most public school students are being taught today because of the history revisionists.


Myth #1: Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is the basis for separation of church and state

Some misguided people try to claim that this quote from Thomas Jefferson establishes the "separation of church and state" that we now have today:


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State". <SUP>1</SUP> (http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html#1)


The first problem with that assertion is that this quote is not from an official government document. The second is that it was Jefferson's original intent that this meant that the church was to be protected from the government, not the reverse (which is the case today). For more information about this, see:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9


Myth #2: The founding fathers were "deists (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deist)"
This is a common argument used by secular history revisionists that attempts to distract attention away from the fact that the majority of the founding fathers were committed Christians. For more information about why this is a myth, see this link:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29)

Look penchief, the Fathers wanted a Christian nation because the new republic would simply collapse without a king if there were not a unifying ethic/spirituality to keep the colonies from turning on each other. Surely you know this.

penchief
09-18-2008, 10:26 AM
Look penchief, the Fathers wanted a Christian nation because the new republic would simply collapse without a king if there were not a unifying ethic/spirituality to keep the colonies from turning on each other. Surely you know this. [/LEFT]

You can post all of the biased material you want but that doesn't change the facts.

Nowhere in the United States Constitution is Christianity mentioned.

The first amendment is pretty clear when it states unequivocally that "congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion."

So I don't know where you get your history from but based on your assertions it must not be a reputable source.

penchief
09-18-2008, 10:32 AM
Oooh....little penchief is going to fight someone in the parking lot again.

ROFL

Naw, I just think his unChristian like behavior needs pointed out to him. By the way, how do you know what size I come in?

penchief
09-18-2008, 10:39 AM
Look penchief, the Fathers wanted a Christian nation because the new republic would simply collapse without a king if there were not a unifying ethic/spirituality to keep the colonies from turning on each other. Surely you know this.

Again.

You can post all of the biased material you want but that doesn't change the facts.

Nowhere in the United States Constitution is Christianity mentioned.

The first amendment is pretty clear when it states unequivocally that "congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion."

So I don't know where you get your history from but based on your assertions it must not be a reputable source.

Logical
09-18-2008, 10:44 AM
I honestly thought her sentence was very clear. The people she's accusing of wanting to bomb Iran are "certain Jews", which I think is pretty accurate.
Completely disagree. The sentence allows you to guess as to who is to do the bombing, are the Jews in the US going to do the bombing, is the United States going to do the bombing, or is Israel going to do the bombing they (Hawks, NC, etc.) want?

patteeu
09-18-2008, 10:50 AM
Completely disagree. The sentence allows you to guess as to who is to do the bombing, are the Jews in the US going to do the bombing, is the United States going to do the bombing, or is Israel going to do the bombing they (Hawks, NC, etc.) want?

Sorry, I don't see it. From where I sit, her post is unambiguous.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 10:53 AM
Again.

You can post all of the biased material you want but that doesn't change the facts.

Nowhere in the United States Constitution is Christianity mentioned.

The first amendment is pretty clear when it states unequivocally that "congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion."

So I don't know where you get your history from but based on your assertions it must not be a reputable source.

Dude! What religion do you think they were referring to? Islam? Buddhism? Shintoism? Jainism? Judaism? Hinduism? Secularism? Marxism?

The Constitution dosen't mention Christianity in specific because it was popularly accepted and commonly understood as what was meant by the word "religion".

Feel free however to posit marxist meanings to the words and deeds of the Founding Fathers. The enemies of America have made great inroads to tearing down our civil religion by doing just that.

penchief
09-18-2008, 11:06 AM
Dude! What religion do you they were referring to? Islam? Buddhism? Shintoism? Jainism? Judaism? Hinduism? Secularism? Marxism?

The Constitution dosen't mention Christianity in specific because it was popularly accepted and commonly understood as what was meant by the word "religion".

Feel free however to posit marxist meanings to the words and deeds of the Founding Fathers. The enemies of America have made great inroads to tearing down our civil religion by doing just that.

So now you are presuming to know that our learned founding fathers equated the word religion soley to Christianity? This is just more of your twisting the facts to satisfy your bogus argument.

If we were to assume that you are correct (which you are not), then the first amendment should be interpreted to mean, "congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of Christianity." Correct? Which completely contradicts your made-up assertion.

You might want to end this charade before you look like you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 11:09 AM
You might want to end this charade before you look like you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

One of us should!

penchief
09-18-2008, 11:17 AM
One of us should!

That's it KCJohnny, don't even address the contradiction that you just found yourself making.

If the founding fathers meant for the word "religion" to be synonomous with "Christianity," does that mean the First Amendment should be interpreted to mean "congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of Christianity," yes or no?

You can't keep making bogus claims and not respond to the questions that expose the obvious defects within your logic.

Man up, KCJohnny.

Fat Elvis
09-18-2008, 11:25 AM
That's it KCJohnny, don't even address the contradiction that you just found yourself making.



You can't keep making bogus claims and not respond to the questions that expose the obvious defects within your logic.



You've been around here for 5+ years and still haven't figured out that this is the modus operandi for ShortJeep Johnny?

penchief
09-18-2008, 11:34 AM
You've been around here for 5+ years and still haven't figured out that this is the modus operandi for ShortJeep Johnny?

Well, he's going to have to realize for himself that he's got no integrity if he's willing to make false claims and not answer for them. It seems like a very unChristian way to behave if you ask me.

DaKCMan AP
09-18-2008, 11:43 AM
Look penchief, the Fathers wanted a Christian nation

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL




:shake:

Programmer
09-18-2008, 11:55 AM
The first amendment is pretty clear when it states unequivocally that "congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion."


Where does the bolded statement indicate a separation of Church and State? It simply says (sic) The government will not tell you what religion you have to practice. Very clear to anyone reading it.

What you are falling back on is the "new law" that has been promulgated by the SCOTUS that is against their charter. They are to interpret the constitution, not rewrite the definition.

Those that wrote the constitution did not want a country like England. When you were born there you were automatically a member of the Church of England. That is the premise of "congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion".

The concept isn't really that difficult to understand, unless you are a liberal that has no connection with religion.

Programmer
09-18-2008, 12:01 PM
Look penchief, the Fathers wanted a Christian nation .....



I don't agree with that statement, the founding fathers wanted each of us to have the right to worship as we see fit. They did not want a nation that was restricted from religion as the current discussion is trying to infer.

No government only sanctioned church is what they were trying to stay away from.

Chiefnj2
09-18-2008, 12:17 PM
James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion. This paper, long considered a landmark document in political philosophy, was also cited in the majority opinion in Lee vs. Weisman. The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly, and in 1786, the Assembly adopted the statute of religious freedom of which Jefferson and Madison were the principal architects. The preamble to this bill said that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." The statute itself was much more specific than the establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise [sic] diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities".

penchief
09-18-2008, 12:22 PM
Where does the bolded statement indicate a separation of Church and State? It simply says (sic) The government will not tell you what religion you have to practice. Very clear to anyone reading it.

What you are falling back on is the "new law" that has been promulgated by the SCOTUS that is against their charter. They are to interpret the constitution, not rewrite the definition.

The wording that "congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion" means what you said and more. The clause works both ways. Religious freedom facilities individual liberty. And the prohibition of laws intended to establish religious doctrine as a vehicle for public policy buffers our individual liberties from the type of religious tyranny that undermines freedom.

And it most certainly debunks KCJohnny's claim that the founding fathers intended for America to be a Christian nation.

Programmer
09-18-2008, 12:40 PM
The wording that "congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion" means what you said and more. The clause works both ways. Religious freedom facilities individual liberty. And the prohibition of laws intended to establish religious doctrine as a vehicle for public policy buffers our individual liberties from the type of religious tyranny that undermines freedom.

And it most certainly debunks KCJohnny's claim that the founding fathers intended for America to be a Christian nation.

I do not believe the secondary part of your comment. I don't believe that anyone has intended to establish a religious doctrine as a vehicle for public policy.

I do believe that the SCOTUS has attempted to add that to the phrase, but in reading about the founding fathers and reading what they spoke and wrote I'm sure their intent was not to restrict religion outside of the government naming a "government sanctioned church".

penchief
09-18-2008, 01:01 PM
I do not believe the secondary part of your comment. I don't believe that anyone has intended to establish a religious doctrine as a vehicle for public policy.

I do believe that the SCOTUS has attempted to add that to the phrase, but in reading about the founding fathers and reading what they spoke and wrote I'm sure their intent was not to restrict religion outside of the government naming a "government sanctioned church".

Theocracies haven't existed before? You don't think that our founding fathers understood how theocracies have traditionally suppressed individual liberties? IMO, They were clearly trying to buffer their new republic from the same religious tyranny that many of our forefathers found oppressive.

One need not refer to the Christian theocracies of the past but simply look at the Islamic theocracies of today to understand how destructive religious doctrine can be to the ideals of freedom and democracy. I most definitely believe that our founding fathers intended to preserve the ideals of freedom and democracy by buffering religion from government and vice versa.

tiptap
09-18-2008, 01:13 PM
Dude! What religion do you think they were referring to? Islam? Buddhism? Shintoism? Jainism? Judaism? Hinduism? Secularism? Marxism?

The Constitution dosen't mention Christianity in specific because it was popularly accepted and commonly understood as what was meant by the word "religion".

Feel free however to posit marxist meanings to the words and deeds of the Founding Fathers. The enemies of America have made great inroads to tearing down our civil religion by doing just that.

It is my understanding that Franklin made sure Muslims and Jews had a place of worship within Philadelphia. I think you are mistaken.

Programmer
09-18-2008, 01:16 PM
Theocracies haven't existed before? You don't think that our founding fathers understood how theocracies have traditionally suppressed individual liberties? IMO, They were clearly trying to buffer their new republic from the same religious tyranny that many of our forefathers found oppressive.

One need not refer to the Christian theocracies of the past but simply look at the Islamic theocracies of today to understand how destructive religious doctrine can be to the ideals of freedom and democracy. I most definitely believe that our founding fathers intended to preserve the ideals of freedom and democracy by buffering religion from government and vice versa.

Our belief of what the first amendment says differs. You read more into the words than are there. I prefer to go by the written word without the additional speculation.

clemensol
09-18-2008, 02:14 PM
a few comments:

#1. As a Jew myself, I'm baffled by the assumptions of some of the posters in this thread that Jews have racist feelings toward muslims to a greater extent than the general population. Some of the conservative posters in this thread may think that having a middle name like Hussein is an acceptable reason for not liking a candidate, but don't assume that Jews feel the same way.

#2. Whoever wrote this article desperately needs a crash course in statistics.

#3. While Jewish Americans tend to be liberal, Jews have shifted towards right ward significantly for a good period of time. The main reasons for this are amazing economic advancement and the shift of conservative philosophy on foreign policy. I don't know what the exact numbers are, but I would assume that Obama is doing similarly among Jews when compared to Kerry, Gore.

Programmer
09-18-2008, 02:17 PM
a few comments:

#1. As a Jew myself, I'm baffled by the assumptions of some of the posters in this thread that Jews have racist feelings toward muslims to a greater extent than the general population. Some of the conservative posters in this thread may think that having a middle name like Hussein is an acceptable reason for not liking a candidate, but don't assume that Jews feel the same way.

#2. Whoever wrote this article desperately needs a crash course in statistics.

#3. While Jewish Americans tend to be liberal, Jews have shifted towards right ward significantly for a good period of time. The main reasons for this are amazing economic advancement and the shift of conservative philosophy on foreign policy. I don't know what the exact numbers are, but I would assume that Obama is doing similarly among Jews when compared to Kerry, Gore.


Exellent post.

penchief
09-18-2008, 03:22 PM
Our belief of what the first amendment says differs. You read more into the words than are there. I prefer to go by the written word without the additional speculation.

What would you infer from Thomas Jefferson's own words?

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

Programmer
09-18-2008, 03:52 PM
What would you infer from Thomas Jefferson's own words?

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

1802 and 1813. IIRC the constitution was written a little earlier than that. Jefferson may have changed some of his attitude after the fact.

Do you have any quotes from around say 1775-76? I'd like to see how the verbage differs when he was 30-35 years younger, you know .. when the country was founded?

Logical
09-18-2008, 07:06 PM
Sorry, I don't see it. From where I sit, her post is unambiguous.OK I will play Donger, which group/country is she saying that is to be doing the bombing?

It's only certain Jews that don't like him. Hawks, NCs and Likud. They don't feel he's a reliable bet for bombing Iran. OK either you apply the third sentence to the first or to the 2nd. In either case the third sentence does not tell you who is "for bombing Iran" that Barack is not a reliable bet for.

So I can read this as only certain Jews or as Hawks, NCs and Likud (which are in the 2nd sentence but are actually Parlimentary groups in the Israeli Knesset. If you interpret that then who cares that members of the Israeli Knesset) do not support bombing of Iran. The bombing she never clarifies whom is going to accomplish it?

Sully
09-18-2008, 07:14 PM
Per your continuous mentions of Franklin and Jefferson, both favored a religious republic. That is beyond dispute and not worth the effort of restating the obvious. For the uninitiated, you can learn more here (http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html).

Wow.
You couldn't be more incorrect.
Try reading some history beyond siply the words that back up what you already decided.

Sully
09-18-2008, 07:23 PM
1802 and 1813. IIRC the constitution was written a little earlier than that. Jefferson may have changed some of his attitude after the fact.

Do you have any quotes from around say 1775-76? I'd like to see how the verbage differs when he was 30-35 years younger, you know .. when the country was founded?

The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom- 1786 (Actually written in 1779)- Written by Thomas Jefferson.

Also happens to be one of the three things he requested he be remembered for on his tombstone...

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson, 1786


Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

Take special notice of the bolded part.

Also keep in mind this was a man who rewrote the Bible, omitting all references to Jesus' divinity. He had a strong respect for Christianity, he just didn't subscribe fully to it.

Programmer
09-18-2008, 07:43 PM
Also keep in mind this was a man who rewrote the Bible, omitting all references to Jesus' divinity. He had a strong respect for Christianity, he just didn't subscribe fully to it.

that is the most ludicrous commentary that I've ever seen.

Jesus is what Christianity is all about.

You have a very warped sense of religion and Christianity.

The bolded section: Did nothing to support your claim but it did re-enforce the first amendment about the government not establishing a national religion.

Sully
09-18-2008, 07:45 PM
that is the most ludicrous commentary that I've ever seen.

Jesus is what Christianity is all about.

You have a very warped sense of religion and Christianity.

I do?
All I was telling you was what Jefferson did.
But if you want to resort to insulting my faith again, that's up to you.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 07:49 PM
It is my understanding that Franklin made sure Muslims and Jews had a place of worship within Philadelphia. I think you are mistaken.

The issue is, what did the framers mean when they used the word 'religion'? It is a reach to attribute the 21st century global village definition. Taken in its context and compared with other usages of the word religion during the Revolution and the period up to and beyond the ratification of the Constitution, it is clear that by 'religion' they are chiefly referring to expressions of Christianity common in the colonies, without excluding minority faiths.

Programmer
09-18-2008, 07:51 PM
I do?
All I was telling you was what Jefferson did.
But if you want to resort to insulting my faith again, that's up to you.

That's not an insult to your faith, it's reflection on your belief that Jefferson omitted references to Jesus' divinity and still believed in Christianity.

If you have faith how is it that you buy into an argument as such?

Sully
09-18-2008, 07:52 PM
That's not an insult to your faith, it's reflection on your belief that Jefferson omitted references to Jesus' divinity and still believed in Christianity.
Re-read what I said.
I said :
He had a strong respect for Christianity, he just didn't subscribe fully to it.

I'm pretty clear, here that he DID NOT subscribe fully to Christianity, but he respected the lessons of Jesus and the Bible. I'm not sure how that has any relevance to what I believe, other than what you want to think about my faith.

If you have faith how is it that you buy into an argument as such?
"Buy into it?" It's fact. It's what he did and believed. History is funny that way. These people were not me, they were their own people with their own beliefs.

go bowe
09-18-2008, 07:54 PM
No need to become snippy about it. Could you answer the question that I asked or am I in for more english lessons and smart remarks?smart remarks?

how long have you been here?

smart remarks are a big part of what makes this place so much fun... :D :( :)

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 07:54 PM
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson, 1786


Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;

Now tell me Mr. Jefferson was referring to 'religion' in general and not "our religion" (faith commonly held and shared among the people of the fledgling republic).

It is a grave disservice to our progeny to misrepresent our Founding Fathers.

Sully
09-18-2008, 07:58 PM
Now tell me Mr. Jefferson was referring to 'religion' in general and not "our religion" (faith commonly held and shared among the people of the fledgling republic).

It is a grave disservice to our progeny to misrepresent our Founding Fathers.

So you are changing the point... as well as ignoring the parts of the proof that completely contradict your opinions?

And you think a guy who REWROTE the Bible for himself, omitting all references of Jesus' divinity was subscribing to some widely held Colonial Christian belief?

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 08:01 PM
Thomas Jefferson, from a letter of January 4, 1786, to George Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington):
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free. Establish the law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state to effect and on a general plan.


While Jefferson was not a Churchman nor an orthodox believer, it is blatant revisionism to dissociate his firm conviction that rights come from God, and that the God he refers to as 'the Holy Author of our religion' is most certainly the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

Sully
09-18-2008, 08:04 PM
While Jefferson was not a Churchman nor an orthodox believer, it is blatant revisionism to dissociate his firm conviction that rights come from God, and that the God he refers to as 'the Holy Author of our religion' is most certainly the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

You are just plain wrong.
Next time you are in town, I'd love to take a trip to the library with you, so we can sit and read some of Jefferson's actual writings. It's nice to read more of history than the few selected quotes here and there that only subscribe to your predetermined view.

Logical
09-18-2008, 08:06 PM
While Jefferson was not a Churchman nor an orthodox believer, it is blatant revisionism to dissociate his firm conviction that rights come from God, and that the God he refers to as 'the Holy Author of our religion' is most certainly the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

LMAO LMAO

It is all about KCJohnny, perhap the most self-centered poster on ChiefsPlanet.

Logical
09-18-2008, 08:08 PM
So you are changing the point... as well as ignoring the parts of the proof that completely contradict your opinions?

And you think a guy who REWROTE the Bible for himself, omitting all references of Jesus' divinity was subscribing to some widely held Colonial Christian belief?


I wonder if like almost half the founding fathers he was...:eek:..a Deist.

Sully
09-18-2008, 08:08 PM
LMAO LMAO

It is all about KCJohnny, perhap the most self-centered poster on ChiefsPlanet.

I've seen people be this wrong before. I mean, everyone subscribes to confirmation bias in soe part of their lives. However, it's shocking to me how, when faced with overwhelming evidence that he is incorrect, he would still travel down this path, extrapolating things out of thin air based on some quotes that don't even back up the argument. I hope he can someday see that separation of church and state, and some of the "controversial" faiths of the founding fathers really aren't an affront or threat to hsi faith.

patteeu
09-18-2008, 08:12 PM
OK I will play Donger, which group/country is she saying that is to be doing the bombing?

OK either you apply the third sentence to the first or to the 2nd. In either case the third sentence does not tell you who is "for bombing Iran" that Barack is not a reliable bet for.

So I can read this as only certain Jews or as Hawks, NCs and Likud (which are in the 2nd sentence but are actually Parlimentary groups in the Israeli Knesset. If you interpret that then who cares that members of the Israeli Knesset) do not support bombing of Iran. The bombing she never clarifies whom is going to accomplish it?

The "certain jews" to whom she refers are mostly hawks, neocons, and/or Likud members. "They" refers to those hawkish jews, neocon jews, and likud jews who support bombing Iran.

bango
09-18-2008, 08:21 PM
Does anyone know if Barry even likes the Jews or not?

banyon
09-18-2008, 08:30 PM
1802 and 1813. IIRC the constitution was written a little earlier than that. Jefferson may have changed some of his attitude after the fact.

Do you have any quotes from around say 1775-76? I'd like to see how the verbage differs when he was 30-35 years younger, you know .. when the country was founded?

"verbiage", tard.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 08:31 PM
You are inserting opinions into my posts that I have not advanced. Here is a synopsis of my position:

1. Jefferson (and the consensus of the Framers of the Consitution) invoked God as the Author of Liberty and the source of inalienable rights;
2. Jefferson clearly appeals to the "Holy Author of our religion" in the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom;
3. By "our religion" he is clearly referring to Christianity - and no one has even tried to refute that claim;
4. Jefferson himself was not orthodox in his belief but wished to maintain the facade of belief in order to appeal to the believers in the infant republic;
5. Jefferon is adamant that religion is essential to the strength of the republic, as was Washington, Franklin, Adams, et al.

bango
09-18-2008, 08:32 PM
You are inserting opinions into my posts that I have not advanced. Here is a synopsis of my position:

1. Jefferson (and the consensus of the Framers of the Consitution) invoked God as the Author of Liberty and the source of inalienable rights;
2. Jefferson clearly appeals to the "Holy Author of our religion" in the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom;
3. By "our religion" he is clearly referring to Christianity - and no one has even tried to refute that claim;
4. Jefferson himself was not orthodox in his belief but wished to maintain the facade of belief in order to appeal to the believers in the infant republic;
5. Jefferon is adamant that religion is essential to the strength of the republic, as was Washington, Franklin, Adams, et al.

What is your point?

Programmer
09-18-2008, 08:33 PM
"verbiage", tard.

Go to hell you egocentric asshole.

banyon
09-18-2008, 08:36 PM
Go to hell you egocentric asshole.

Go with Christ.

Logical
09-18-2008, 08:42 PM
You are inserting opinions into my posts that I have not advanced. Here is a synopsis of my position:

1. Jefferson (and the consensus of the Framers of the Consitution) invoked God as the Author of Liberty and the source of inalienable rights;
2. Jefferson clearly appeals to the "Holy Author of our religion" in the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom;
3. By "our religion" he is clearly referring to Christianity - and no one has even tried to refute that claim;
4. Jefferson himself was not orthodox in his belief but wished to maintain the facade of belief in order to appeal to the believers in the infant republic;
5. Jefferon is adamant that religion is essential to the strength of the republic, as was Washington, Franklin, Adams, et al.

1.Wrong they invoked "the Creator" huge difference. 2,3 The second one does not in the least imply the author is God the father. There is no Christianity there implied or otherwise.
4. May be one of the things you will get right in this thread so I will give it to you.
5. Actually "faith" is the word you are looking for if you want to be correct.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 08:42 PM
Thomas Jefferson: Deist or Christian? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006)
<!-- end head -->

<HR SIZE=1>Posted: June 19, 2002
1:00 am Eastern



By D. James Kennedy
<!--- copywrite only show on NON commentary pages as per joseph meeting 8/23/06 ------><!-- copyright -->© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com <!-- end copyright -->
<!-- begin bodytext -->


Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, was a skeptic, a man so hostile to Christianity that he scissored from his Bible all references to miracles. He was, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation tells us, "a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural."
Or was he? While Jefferson has been lionized by those who seek to drive religion from public life, the true Thomas Jefferson is anything but their friend. He was anything but irreligious, anything but an enemy to Christian faith. Our nation's third president was, in fact, a student of Scripture who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes.
Moreover, his "Notes on Religion," nine documents Jefferson wrote in 1776, are "very orthodox statements about the inspiration of Scripture and Jesus as the Christ," according to Mark Beliles, a Providence Foundation scholar and author of an enlightening essay on Jefferson's religious life.
So what about the Jefferson Bible, that miracles-free version of the Scriptures? That, too, is a myth. It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians. Jefferson's "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians" was a tool to evangelize and educate American Indians. There is no evidence that it was an expression of his skepticism.
Jefferson, who gave his money to assist missionary work among the Indians, believed his "abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians" would help civilize and educate America's aboriginal inhabitants. Nor did Jefferson cut all miracles from his work, as Beliles points out. While the original manuscript no longer exists, the Table of Texts that survives includes several accounts of Christ's healings.
But didn't Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? After all, Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in which he cited the First Amendment's creation of a "wall of separation" between church and state, is an ACLU proof-text for its claim that the First Amendment makes the public square a religion-free zone. But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?
Jefferson's outlook on religion and government is more fully revealed in another 1802 letter in which he wrote that he did not want his administration to be a "government without religion," but one that would "strengthen … religious freedom."
Jefferson was a true friend of the Christian faith. But was he a true Christian? A nominal Christian – as demonstrated by his lifelong practice of attending worship services, reading the Bible, and following the moral principles of Christ – Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ. Like so many millions of church members today, he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth that Jesus told Nicodemus was necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Nonetheless, Jefferson's presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church.
Most intriguing is the manner in which Jefferson dated an official document. Instead of "in the year of our Lord," Jefferson used the phrase "in the year of our Lord Christ." Christian historian David Barton has the proof – the original document signed by Jefferson on the "eighteenth day of October in the year of our Lord Christ, 1804."
The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state "must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Judging from the record, it looks like the wall some say Tom built is, in fact, the wall Tom breached. The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU's worst nightmare.


Whatever his personal views, he was willing to maintain solidarity with the Christian churches even permitting divine services to be held in government buildings.

Our nation's third president was, in fact, a student of Scripture who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes.

Logical
09-18-2008, 08:42 PM
Go with Christ.LMAO LMAO LMAO

Rep

BucEyedPea
09-18-2008, 08:46 PM
The "certain jews" to whom she refers are mostly hawks, neocons, and/or Likud members. "They" refers to those hawkish jews, neocon jews, and likud jews who support bombing Iran.
You got it. Supports bombing Iran.

The bombing she never clarifies whom is going to accomplish it?
So. That's because the post was not about that. I said certain Jews didn't feel Obama was a "safe bet for" bombing Iran. It wasn't about who would do it.

FTR the word for is defined here as in definition 3c (iirc)of the Free Dictionary: being in support of something as patteeu clarified.

Stick to math.

bango
09-18-2008, 08:46 PM
Go to hell you egocentric asshole.

Take you own damn ****ing advice for once you afterbirth of a lesbian finger****.

Logical
09-18-2008, 08:49 PM
The "certain jews" to whom she refers are mostly hawks, neocons, and/or Likud members. "They" refers to those hawkish jews, neocon jews, and likud jews who support bombing Iran.OK, lets say you are right (wasn't clear at all), who will do this bombing, I don't see it stated.

It appears from this post bango did not either.

The Jews want to bomb Iran?

banyon
09-18-2008, 08:50 PM
You got it. Supports bombing Iran.


So. That's because the post was not about that. I said certain Jews didn't feel Obama was a "safe bet for" bombing Iran. It wasn't about who would do it.

FTR the word for is defined here as in definition 3c (iirc)of the Free Dictionary: being in support of something as patteeu clarified.

Stick to math.

Yes, but to be fair, if the sentence had said "Jews support planting flower gardens in their atriums", patteeu still would've read it as "Jews support bombing Iran".

tiptap
09-18-2008, 08:56 PM
You are inserting opinions into my posts that I have not advanced. Here is a synopsis of my position:

1. Jefferson (and the consensus of the Framers of the Consitution) invoked God as the Author of Liberty and the source of inalienable rights;
2. Jefferson clearly appeals to the "Holy Author of our religion" in the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom;
3. By "our religion" he is clearly referring to Christianity - and no one has even tried to refute that claim;
4. Jefferson himself was not orthodox in his belief but wished to maintain the facade of belief in order to appeal to the believers in the infant republic;
5. Jefferon is adamant that religion is essential to the strength of the republic, as was Washington, Franklin, Adams, et al.

Most of these sentiments are born from Locke. And as a representative of the Age of Reason, they held that there were innate understandings not derived from experience. But they were not revealed knowledge. As such they were not opposed to the trappings of the existing religion giving range to that innate understanding but at the same time would not feel it is exclusive and or complete of itself.

Jenson71
09-18-2008, 08:56 PM
The faiths of the founding fathers are a variety. More often, there is a respect, and certainly a Deist sense of God. There are so many founding fathers though, and so many words from all that both sides can point and pick and choose for evidence. Like many of us today, we all have different opinions of religion and our own struggles with faith and non-belief, that if we wrote down our feelings on them over a period of 50 years or so, would probably differ and even contradict at times. What is clear though, is that just because the Constitution does not explicitly say "separation of church and state," does not mean this was not a valued position among the framers.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 09:09 PM
The faiths of the founding fathers are a variety. More often, there is a respect, and certainly a Deist sense of God. There are so many founding fathers though, and so many words from all that both sides can point and pick and choose for evidence. Like many of us today, we all have different opinions of religion and our own struggles with faith and non-belief, that if we wrote down our feelings on them over a period of 50 years or so, would probably differ and even contradict at times. What is clear though, is that just because the Constitution does not explicitly say "separation of church and state," does not mean this was not a valued position among the framers.


What the Constitution does say is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That is Amendment number one.

The plurality among the Founding Fathers should not be dismissed, great point. However, the consensus is obviously in favor of God and the demographics clearly point to God as understood primarily by the Christians who made up the preponderance of the early republic's constituency. Otherwise, Jefferson's "our religion" remark makes no sense. He is clearly advancing solidarity with other Americans on the basis of shared religion, not some vague, general reference to 'the Deity'.

Logical
09-18-2008, 09:15 PM
You got it. Supports bombing Iran.


....
Who will do the bombing, it is actually important.
If it is Israel (then what Obama thinks should not affect his popularity, because it is out of Obama's control.

If it is the US Jews, that would be critical to most any Jewish person.

If it is the US (possibly implied but not stated) and I have been asking you for most of this thread.

So you see you should stick to graphic arts and leave English alone. By the way you should have stated US Neocons, Hawks and Likud instead of abreviating and make it possible to assume it was the different parties in the Knesset. (again another example of you being less than clear)

Spend an extra 2 minutes next time it will save you hours of arguing.

Perhaps you will have to ignore me because unlike others around here I won't buckle to your non-sense.

Programmer
09-18-2008, 09:38 PM
Go with Christ.

I do, sorry about you.

banyon
09-18-2008, 09:45 PM
I do, sorry about you.

For your sake let's hope that God shares your attitude that as long as you're doing stuff on the internet, it doesn't count.

Logical
09-18-2008, 09:51 PM
I bet you, bootlicker did not imagine this thread getting 100 responses.ROFL

patteeu
09-19-2008, 05:45 AM
OK, lets say you are right (wasn't clear at all), who will do this bombing, I don't see it stated.

It appears from this post bango did not either.

It's not stated because exactly who would do the bombing isn't central to her point.

Programmer
09-19-2008, 05:57 AM
For your sake let's hope that God shares your attitude that as long as you're doing stuff on the internet, it doesn't count.

I am responsible for my words at all times, as are you. We will see at the end of our lives. I will be somewhere and you will be elsewhere. Of that I have no doubt.

Logical
09-19-2008, 11:10 AM
It's not stated because exactly who would do the bombing isn't central to her point.It certainly should be, it is possibly the most important issue related to that statement.

banyon
09-19-2008, 03:44 PM
I am responsible for my words at all times, as are you. We will see at the end of our lives. I will be somewhere and you will be elsewhere. Of that I have no doubt.

I accepted Christ as my personal savior, who did you accept?

Programmer
09-19-2008, 07:17 PM
I accepted Christ as my personal savior, who did you accept?

I seriously doubt that you have. Your hate shows in each of your posts of late.

You have said that you know everything there is to know about me so I'll let you continue your assumptions. Anything I post would be attacked by your belezebubba side.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:28 PM
I seriously doubt that you have. Your hate shows in each of your posts of late.

You have said that you know everything there is to know about me so I'll let you continue your assumptions. Anything I post would be attacked by your belezebubba side.

It doesn't surprise me that you are stupid enough to conflate a political disagreement as evidence that your faith must be superior.

Programmer
09-19-2008, 08:33 PM
It doesn't surprise me that you are stupid enough to conflate a political disagreement as evidence that your faith must be superior.

Your assumption of my belief is false, but don't let facts get in the way of your self righteous hatred.

Still haven't been able to get past name calling and insults eh?

banyon
09-19-2008, 10:06 PM
.

Bootlegged
10-15-2008, 07:11 AM
apparently with good reason

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 07:15 AM
Seriously, anything with an 11 point MoE is basically a guess. It's essentially useless for statistical purposes.

There is no doubt, however, that Obama has a tougher sell with Jewish voters than most Democratic candidates would, especially older Jewish voters.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 07:17 AM
Per your continuous mentions of Franklin and Jefferson, both favored a religious republic. That is beyond dispute and not worth the effort of restating the obvious. For the uninitiated, you can learn more here (http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html).


Jaw-droppingly wrong, and I'm no Jefferson fan.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 07:22 AM
Don't bother if you are looking for response from me. As far as I'm concerned you are trying to rewrite history. Without Christianity, the American Revolution would have fallen on its butt. But please, please, by all means, continue to try to recruit adherents to the marxist we-did-it-all-for-economics view of our Founding Fathers. They do not agree with you at all. They appealed to Heaven in their quest for an independent union of free states.

I tread very reverently over their words - and I admonish you to do the same.

Please let me know precisely how many times the words "God", "heaven", "Jesus Christ" and other Christian words appear in the Constitution.

How many times in the Declaration of Independence.

Once you have completed that assignment, you will have a better understanding of just how much the Founding Fathers wanted religion entangled in the affairs of governance.

EDIT: Beaten to it, I see. Ignore this as waaaaay late.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 07:30 AM
I haven't skimmed this entire thread, so hopefully not a repost. A letter written by Ben FRankin shortly before his death:

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."


[Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94]

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 07:32 AM
Another from Ben Franklin

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

[Benjamin Franklin, in _Toward The Mystery_]

BucEyedPea
10-15-2008, 07:47 AM
I'm a member of JStreet, created as a rival to AIPAC's power in DC for a more peaceful approach to the ME. It's members are mostly Jewish, even if it includes Gentiles. They are also making an impact as they got a recent aggressive action halted toward Iran. All my email so far has been from jewish members trying to fight what they consider smears of Obama. I also have a jewish friend who is voting for Obama. So lets say what Jews don't like Barry—mostly Republican Jews.

Oh, I forgot, personal real-life, first hand knowledge and experience is not allowed on this BB by some of it's left-wing members. Dayum! I forgot!

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 07:51 AM
I'm a member of JStreet, created as a rival to AIPAC's power in DC for a more peaceful approach to the ME. It's members are mostly Jewish, even if it includes Gentiles. They are also making an impact as they got a recent aggressive action halted toward Iran. All my email so far has been from jewish members trying to fight what they consider smears of Obama. I also have a jewish friend who is voting for Obama. So lets say what Jews don't like Barry—mostly Republican Jews.

Oh, I forgot, personal real-life, first hand knowledge and experience is not allowed on this BB by some of it's left-wing members. Dayum! I forgot!

:shrug: I'm obviously glad to hear it.

My statement was based on this article that I read yesterday or the day before, prior to seeing this thread. According to this, it's not just Jewish Republicans that are having a bit of trouble with the race issue. This is the story of a grandchild trying to convince his grandparents to vote for Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/great.schlep/index.html


Bender's grandparents, Kenny and Selma Furst, 90 and 87 years old, should have been an easy sell to support the Democratic nominee for president.

Like many of the estimated 650,000 Jews living in Florida, the Fursts are lifelong, passionate Democrats and a crucial vote for any Democratic candidate hoping to win the battleground state.

But when Bender -- who is not affiliated with Obama's campaign but supports him -- brought up the idea of voting for Obama over Thanksgiving dinner last year, he was met with an uncharacteristic silence.

BucEyedPea
10-15-2008, 07:59 AM
Amn, I didn't see your post, I responded to the thread title.
I doubt R Jews would be inclined to racism anyway. I'm just saying if any Jews don't like Obama it would be R ones. Not saying the reason. Whatever the reason, it would not be racist but more likely Israel support and/or economics and/or being a hawk in the ME. I see it as being Likud vs Labor in Israel.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 08:04 AM
Amn, I didn't see your post, I responded to the thread title.
I doubt R Jews would be inclined to racism anyway. I'm just saying if any Jews don't like Obama it would be R ones. Not saying the reason. Whatever the reason, it would not be racist but more likely Israel support and/or economics and/or being a hawk in the ME. I see it as being Likud vs Labor in Israel.

:shrug: Maybe. I don't pretend to have studied the topic of Jewish thoughts regarding Obama. The one article I did read, and posted a link to, made it pretty darn clear what was causing their ambivalence towards Obama.


"I grew up with Jewish people and Italian people, but I never lived in a neighborhood that was black," she said. "Somebody said to me, 'What do you object to about him?' I said, well, truthfully, our colors are different."

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 08:06 AM
Also, for purposes of full disclosure -- I am half-Jewish, and on the side that matters. I don't see this as a Jewish thing, honestly -- I think anyone old enough to remember segregation etc. is probably going to have a little trouble overcoming the race issue. Not that it's insurmountable, but...

***SPRAYER
10-15-2008, 08:09 AM
Serious question:

Are black people so perfect that any criticism of them must be the result of racism?

Saulbadguy
10-15-2008, 08:13 AM
He's OK with me!

DaKCMan AP
10-15-2008, 08:20 AM
I like Obama just fine, thanks. McCain and his bitchy sidekick, on the other hand..

.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 08:41 AM
Serious question:

Are black people so perfect that any criticism of them must be the result of racism?

Yes.

Duck Dog
10-15-2008, 09:28 AM
Serious question:

Are black people so perfect that any criticism of them must be the result of racism?

Excellent observation.

KCJohnny
10-15-2008, 09:47 AM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5117023#post5117023)
That would be interesting. Giving a Jackson any Government position would say that Obama is pretty much off his rocker.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Funny, most of us who brought up his other ministerial associations (Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger and Louis Farrakhan who says Barack is the messiah) got shouted down when we tried to tie him to his loony clergy friends.

The Farrakhan/Obama junta is telling by Jackson's warning shot to American Jews:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________

penchief
10-15-2008, 10:11 AM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5117023#post5117023)
That would be interesting. Giving a Jackson any Government position would say that Obama is pretty much off his rocker.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Funny, most of us who brought up his other ministerial associations (Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger and Louis Farrakhan who says Barack is the messiah) got shouted down when we tried to tie him to his loony clergy friends.

The Farrakhan/Obama junta is telling by Jackson's warning shot to American Jews:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________


Isn't this the thread where HypocriteJohnny ran from the direct quotes of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin that refuted his biased claims?

By George, I think it is.

Saulbadguy
10-15-2008, 10:15 AM
Excellent observation.

Funny, I don't see anyone labeling us racists for our hatred of Herm Edwards.

Duck Dog
10-15-2008, 10:19 AM
Funny, I don't see anyone labeling us racists for our hatred of Herm Edwards.

Very telling isn't it? Apparently the success of the Chiefs is more important. Proving what hypocritical moon bats they really are.

StcChief
10-15-2008, 10:39 AM
.hip and cool are better than being able to lead.

vailpass
10-15-2008, 10:40 AM
Very telling isn't it? Apparently the success of the Chiefs is more important. Proving what hypocritical moon bats they really are.

Exactly.

Off topic but...What kind of dogs do you have?

|Zach|
10-15-2008, 10:48 AM
<object width="500" height="282"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1808434&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=0&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=01AA EA&amp;fullscreen=1" /> <embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1808434&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=0&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=01AA EA&amp;fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="500" height="282"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://vimeo.com/1808434?pg=embed&amp;sec=1808434">The Great Schlep</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/thegreatschlep?pg=embed&amp;sec=1808434">The Great Schlep</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com?pg=embed&amp;sec=1808434">Vimeo</a>.

vailpass
10-15-2008, 11:13 AM
<object width="500" height="282"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1808434&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=0&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=01AA EA&amp;fullscreen=1" /> <embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1808434&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=0&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=01AA EA&amp;fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="500" height="282"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://vimeo.com/1808434?pg=embed&amp;sec=1808434">The Great Schlep</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/thegreatschlep?pg=embed&amp;sec=1808434">The Great Schlep</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com?pg=embed&amp;sec=1808434">Vimeo</a>.

Can't stand her political tendencies but she is one funny JAPILF. Of course I'd have to go through Matt Damon :)

go bowe
10-15-2008, 11:49 AM
Yes you must be right, that sentence is so completely clear, that two people completely misread it in two completely different ways. It is not possible that you wrote a poorly constructed sentence.:rolleyes:when i tried to read it, it made my eyes hurt...

Bowser
10-15-2008, 02:28 PM
I think Lattimer might move to New Zealand if Obama wins. I'm looking forward to his meltdown, if nothing else.

He's OK with me!

LMAO

Duck Dog
10-15-2008, 03:13 PM
Exactly.

Off topic but...What kind of dogs do you have?

Labs of the black and yellow variety. Oh shit....can I still say 'black' on here?

BIG_DADDY
10-15-2008, 03:17 PM
How can 32 Jews be that stupid?

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 12:51 PM
I think Lattimer might move to New Zealand if Obama wins. I'm looking forward to his meltdown, if nothing else.



LMAO
:)
http://store.barackobama.com/v/vspfiles/photos/BS26748-2.jpg

DaKCMan AP
10-16-2008, 01:17 PM
hip and cool are better than being able to lead.

CNN poll:

Who displayed better leadership?
Obama 56
McCain 39