Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 08:50:32 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:16:51 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:45:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Seems to be more to this than meets the eye.

http://tinyurl.com/2wkmqt

Ah nuts - I was setting Doug up for just this - I was just trying to
work through his prejudices first. :)

Oh well...

Sorry 'bout that.

No problem Rev.


How do you feel about theocracies?

I, for one, think he was one of the greatest philosophers ever.

Not to mention one of the best General Managers in baseball.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:40:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Your point that those whose faith is based in fundamental Dominionism
is somehow anathema to rational humanist society is correct. However,
my point is that not all Christians are Reconstructionists just as all
Jews are not Orthodox and all Muslims are not Wahabists. To view all
Christians, Jews and Muslims as essentially the same is - well, no
other word for it - bigoted.
I never said all religious people were extremists. Are you going to pretend
I said that anyway, just to maintain an imaginary edge in this discussion?

Heh - nice try Doug.

You got caught, you tried to weasel your way out of it and you lost.

No more discussion or prolonged dissertations needed. Your whole
construct is dust and no magic potion (as in off track misdirection or
unpleasantness) will put it back together again.

Keep this lesson in mind the next time you want to paint with a broad
brush.


Jesus...some of the stuff you're posting reads just like the
lunatic-fringe absolutism I see on the gun boards. Mellow out, Tom.
Doug's comments didn't seem that binary to me.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:40:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..

Your point that those whose faith is based in fundamental Dominionism
is somehow anathema to rational humanist society is correct. However,
my point is that not all Christians are Reconstructionists just as all
Jews are not Orthodox and all Muslims are not Wahabists. To view all
Christians, Jews and Muslims as essentially the same is - well, no
other word for it - bigoted.

I never said all religious people were extremists. Are you going to
pretend
I said that anyway, just to maintain an imaginary edge in this discussion?

Heh - nice try Doug.

You got caught, you tried to weasel your way out of it and you lost.

No more discussion or prolonged dissertations needed. Your whole
construct is dust and no magic potion (as in off track misdirection or
unpleasantness) will put it back together again.

Keep this lesson in mind the next time you want to paint with a broad
brush.


Sorry. I thought you were reading **ALL** the messages in this thread, not
just the response to your messages. You missed something which would've
prevented you from saying "broad brush". It was a response to Del Cecchi.

Here it is.

Kristian: Someone who uses their religion to defeat humanitarian programs in
countries they really don't care about.
Christian: Someone who doesn't.

That's not painting with a broad brush. That's perfectly true and accurate.
However, I'll add 3 words to the definition of Kristian. Now, the definition
reads "....don't care about, including THIS country."

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:06:52 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:40:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Your point that those whose faith is based in fundamental Dominionism
is somehow anathema to rational humanist society is correct. However,
my point is that not all Christians are Reconstructionists just as all
Jews are not Orthodox and all Muslims are not Wahabists. To view all
Christians, Jews and Muslims as essentially the same is - well, no
other word for it - bigoted.
I never said all religious people were extremists. Are you going to pretend
I said that anyway, just to maintain an imaginary edge in this discussion?

Heh - nice try Doug.

You got caught, you tried to weasel your way out of it and you lost.

No more discussion or prolonged dissertations needed. Your whole
construct is dust and no magic potion (as in off track misdirection or
unpleasantness) will put it back together again.

Keep this lesson in mind the next time you want to paint with a broad
brush.


Jesus...some of the stuff you're posting reads just like the
lunatic-fringe absolutism I see on the gun boards. Mellow out, Tom.
Doug's comments didn't seem that binary to me.

How would a religious bigot know when someone is religiously bigotted,
Harry? Wouldn't they think it was 'not very binary'?
--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:16:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:40:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Your point that those whose faith is based in fundamental Dominionism
is somehow anathema to rational humanist society is correct. However,
my point is that not all Christians are Reconstructionists just as all
Jews are not Orthodox and all Muslims are not Wahabists. To view all
Christians, Jews and Muslims as essentially the same is - well, no
other word for it - bigoted.

I never said all religious people were extremists. Are you going to
pretend
I said that anyway, just to maintain an imaginary edge in this discussion?

Heh - nice try Doug.

You got caught, you tried to weasel your way out of it and you lost.

No more discussion or prolonged dissertations needed. Your whole
construct is dust and no magic potion (as in off track misdirection or
unpleasantness) will put it back together again.

Keep this lesson in mind the next time you want to paint with a broad
brush.


Sorry. I thought you were reading **ALL** the messages in this thread, not
just the response to your messages. You missed something which would've
prevented you from saying "broad brush". It was a response to Del Cecchi.

Here it is.

Kristian: Someone who uses their religion to defeat humanitarian programs in
countries they really don't care about.
Christian: Someone who doesn't.

That's not painting with a broad brush. That's perfectly true and accurate.
However, I'll add 3 words to the definition of Kristian. Now, the definition
reads "....don't care about, including THIS country."


Let's see, 42 posts later he defines himself out of his corner.

Sounds like weaseling to me.
--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:16:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:40:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...

Your point that those whose faith is based in fundamental Dominionism
is somehow anathema to rational humanist society is correct. However,
my point is that not all Christians are Reconstructionists just as all
Jews are not Orthodox and all Muslims are not Wahabists. To view all
Christians, Jews and Muslims as essentially the same is - well, no
other word for it - bigoted.

I never said all religious people were extremists. Are you going to
pretend
I said that anyway, just to maintain an imaginary edge in this
discussion?

Heh - nice try Doug.

You got caught, you tried to weasel your way out of it and you lost.

No more discussion or prolonged dissertations needed. Your whole
construct is dust and no magic potion (as in off track misdirection or
unpleasantness) will put it back together again.

Keep this lesson in mind the next time you want to paint with a broad
brush.


Sorry. I thought you were reading **ALL** the messages in this thread, not
just the response to your messages. You missed something which would've
prevented you from saying "broad brush". It was a response to Del Cecchi.

Here it is.

Kristian: Someone who uses their religion to defeat humanitarian programs
in
countries they really don't care about.
Christian: Someone who doesn't.

That's not painting with a broad brush. That's perfectly true and
accurate.
However, I'll add 3 words to the definition of Kristian. Now, the
definition
reads "....don't care about, including THIS country."


Let's see, 42 posts later he defines himself out of his corner.

Sounds like weaseling to me.
--
John H


No, you moron. I provided that definition YESTERDAY. You missed it, in the
same way you miss 98% of most discussions here. It frustrates you, so 198
messages later, you attempt to end these discussions by whining about them
being off topic.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:01:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:


If you read all the way to the bottom of the item, you'll see that
your link actually validates my point about some Christians who
describe themselvs as "evangelical" (including the Methodist preacher
quoted)
having difficulty with Romney's Mormon faith.

From your link:
Evangelicals are hugely influential in the Iowa caucuses, making up by
some estimates some 40 percent of Republican caucus-goers. Many of
them, however, have profound reservations about Mr. Romney's Mormon
faith.
Mr. Hurd, the pastor of West Hill United Methodist Church here who
identified himself as an evangelical, said he wrestled with that issue
himself but decided in the end it should not matter in his decision.
"Although they have a theology vastly different from mine, Mormons
generally are good citizens," he said.
Mr. Hurd also offered some insight into where his fellow Alliance
board members are leaning. He said they are mainly divided between Mr.
Romney and Mr. Huckabee, with the latter probably holding the edge.
"A lot of them are troubled by his Mormon religion," he said. "That's
probably the difference."

*******

So there's a statement, by an Iowa pastor describing himself as
"evangelical", confirming that many Christians of his acquaintance are
"troubled by (Romney's) Mormon religion."

Not quite... there are no quotes around evangelical in the article. So
it didn't come out of his mouth, but probably went something like
this:
"Do you evangelize as part of your faith?"
"Yes."
"So would you consider yourself an evangelical Christian?"
"I suppose."

My whole point continues to be that it is the *media* who seems to
find the labels "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" (which *you*
improperly used) important, not Christians themselves.

And also that there are Christians who do not have a problem with the
Mormon faith. Sure some do, but there are groups who are opposed to
Romney for other reasons as well. So? Weird people everywhere.

twisted logic deleted



Huckabee is a perfect match for the GOP base.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

JG2U wrote:

And he's a proven liar. Ever seen the speech he gave at that Alabama
church picked apart? Obama stood in church and lied repeatedly about
his father's and his own life's events, timelines, etc. All just to
fit in with the occasion and to pander to the congregation.


Ahhh. Obama upsets Jackoff. Delicious.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:33:49 -0500, HK wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:01:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:


If you read all the way to the bottom of the item, you'll see that
your link actually validates my point about some Christians who
describe themselvs as "evangelical" (including the Methodist preacher
quoted)
having difficulty with Romney's Mormon faith.

From your link:
Evangelicals are hugely influential in the Iowa caucuses, making up by
some estimates some 40 percent of Republican caucus-goers. Many of
them, however, have profound reservations about Mr. Romney's Mormon
faith.
Mr. Hurd, the pastor of West Hill United Methodist Church here who
identified himself as an evangelical, said he wrestled with that issue
himself but decided in the end it should not matter in his decision.
"Although they have a theology vastly different from mine, Mormons
generally are good citizens," he said.
Mr. Hurd also offered some insight into where his fellow Alliance
board members are leaning. He said they are mainly divided between Mr.
Romney and Mr. Huckabee, with the latter probably holding the edge.
"A lot of them are troubled by his Mormon religion," he said. "That's
probably the difference."

*******

So there's a statement, by an Iowa pastor describing himself as
"evangelical", confirming that many Christians of his acquaintance are
"troubled by (Romney's) Mormon religion."
Not quite... there are no quotes around evangelical in the article. So
it didn't come out of his mouth, but probably went something like
this:
"Do you evangelize as part of your faith?"
"Yes."
"So would you consider yourself an evangelical Christian?"
"I suppose."

My whole point continues to be that it is the *media* who seems to
find the labels "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" (which *you*
improperly used) important, not Christians themselves.

And also that there are Christians who do not have a problem with the
Mormon faith. Sure some do, but there are groups who are opposed to
Romney for other reasons as well. So? Weird people everywhere.

twisted logic deleted


Huckabee is a perfect match for the GOP base.

He's a good and decent guy, and as you've pointed out, too decent to
win the presidency. That's too bad, as he's at least in the middle
somewhere between Bush on the right and Billary/Obama on the far left.

Now turn your "filter" back on, Harry. :-)


Huckabee is a simple-minded, overly religious fool.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Jan 4, 6:53 pm, JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 18:13:44 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Jan 4, 3:49?pm, JG2U wrote:

That's a problem with your family... I don't know any Christians
who
have a problem with the Mormon faith. ?

Here, meet some:

http://lifeandtruth.com/mormonism.htm

Here, the opposite:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-christian-iow...

Weird people everywhere, huh?

If you read all the way to the bottom of the item, you'll see that
your link actually validates my point about some Christians who
describe themselvs as "evangelical" (including the Methodist preacher
quoted)
having difficulty with Romney's Mormon faith.

From your link:

Evangelicals are hugely influential in the Iowa caucuses, making up by
some estimates some 40 percent of Republican caucus-goers. Many of
them, however, have profound reservations about Mr. Romney's Mormon
faith.
Mr. Hurd, the pastor of West Hill United Methodist Church here who
identified himself as an evangelical, said he wrestled with that issue
himself but decided in the end it should not matter in his decision.
"Although they have a theology vastly different from mine, Mormons
generally are good citizens," he said.
Mr. Hurd also offered some insight into where his fellow Alliance
board members are leaning. He said they are mainly divided between Mr.
Romney and Mr. Huckabee, with the latter probably holding the edge.
"A lot of them are troubled by his Mormon religion," he said. "That's
probably the difference."

*******

So there's a statement, by an Iowa pastor describing himself as
"evangelical", confirming that many Christians of his acquaintance are
"troubled by (Romney's) Mormon religion."

So if you have never met a Christian who has any problems with the
Mormon faith you probably are not an evangelical Christian living in
Iowa. Reports from evangelical Christians there (as evident in your
own link) confirm that Mormonism is/was an issue that many of them
considered a strike against Romney.


Most "evangelicals" don't consider the United Methodists to be
"evangelicals".