Kerry's Conceeding

[madasacutsnake]

My Methodist Republican in-laws are seldom amused....

Those poor people.

[sparticle]

Originally posted by madasacutsnake
Those poor people.

[masterofNone]

Originally posted by Clytie
yes he did rebuke hypocrates...he hated sin...the actions of the people that violated the law...

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."

hmm. if jesus hated sin, why did he sacrifice himself in order to allow for the forgiveness of it? maybe because he loved the sinner. i have a hard time seeing that attitude reflected in the actions of jerry falwell, pat robertson, ralph reed, or george w. bush. in fact i see a great similarity between the leaders of the "moral majority" and those pharisees the christ found so objectionable.

you speak of jesus adding to the law. this is not true. his teachings are not reflected in any jewish law or indeed in any law of any country i can think of. i'd be happy if someone could cite an example that proved this incorrect.

i return to my original point. in all of the bible there is no reference to jesus being angry at "sinners", only at priests and lawyers. a point the religious right should be reminded of. rudely if possible.

[trisherina]

Praps Clytie meant by "adding to the law" that prior to the appearance of Jesus, there was supposedly no way to salvation other than being born a Jew and following the laws scrupulously under the watchful eye of an angry God. Then Jesus was kind enough to clue people in to the new covenant, and suddenly -- a startling new development -- anyone could be saved! So I guess that "added" a little zing to the primetime lineup.

But no, he was totally not into laws of the "stand on your head and cluck like a chicken to enter the Kingdom" variety. His pronouncements tended to focus a lot more on what secular vanities you should rid yourself of in order to get the old nudge nudge wink wink from the Trinity. I'm sure the New Testament folk must have thought it was great compared to all the rigid laws of the Old Testament. Kind of like going in to work and finding you're going to get pensioned off for just being pleasant around the coffee cooler for a few more years. Ho! Lemme in on that deal.

[masterofNone]

'zactly. sort of like being friends with the boss's son.

[Audreyvgs]

My take on religion goes like this.


At around 4, I was talking once to the Bink about God. I talked and talked and he stopped me, and looked at me funny and said, "What's this about God......you mean like in God Dammit?"

and I realized i had forgotten to tell him about a few things.

[sparticle]

Originally posted by Audreyvgs
My take on religion goes like this.


At around 4, I was talking once to the Bink about God. I talked and talked and he stopped me, and looked at me funny and said, "What's this about God......you mean like in God Dammit?"

and I realized i had forgotten to tell him about a few things.

OMG! HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

"Yeah! THAT guy!" Oh, my! heh heh heh heh.....

[madasacutsnake]

Originally posted by tsunamimom
Ok, I'm a Brit and don't have a vote, but I WOULD HAVE voted for Bush over Kerry. Kerry didn't have a platform, he wasn't clear in the alternatives he was offering, and unfortunately for Kerry supporters a lot of people, including many Democrats, don't like the way the party is heading or how Kerry proposed to lead it. That's why Bush got in - not because of rigged votes, not because the American people are stupid, but because a large enough number want to see this President finish what he started.

The problem with media bias is that the impression is given that there was far more support out there for Kerry than actually was. The figures are there guys - far more support for Bush and his policies than previously thought

If it had just been the Presidential race, you could say it was just about Iraq - but the majority in the House and the Senate? That's an indication of policy support - the majority don't know what Kerry stood for and didn't trust him to follow through.

Kerry did have a platform. It just happens to be diametrically opposed to that ofyour church's.

Now look me in the eye and tell me that you would have voted Bush simply because Kerry did not offer a clear alternative.

[Smartypants]

Originally posted by tsunamimom
Ok, I'm a Brit and don't have a vote, but I WOULD HAVE voted for Bush over Kerry.

... Bush got in ... because a large enough number want to see this President finish what he started.

They wanted to see him finish what he started. My, how the repetition of that rationale sends a chill down my spine! The American President is not a four-year old, and starting a war in the Middle East is not the same as leaving one's plastic army men all over the floor and having to be told that if you take stuff out of your toy box you have to put it back. The world should not be keeping a leader just because he started something and so it's his responsibility to finish it. Incompetence should bring on a dismissal, not the reward of another four years to set things right.

Interesting that Bush throughout his campaign kept talking about what he would do if he were re-elected. Kerry could offer only the possibility of improvement, while Bush had a four-year job record that demonstrated a proven ability to fvck things up royally. <-- british pun intended

The problem with media bias is that the impression is given that there was far more support out there for Kerry than actually was.

Oh, enough of this liberal media bias hoo-ha. The Republican right has emasculated the press to where it's nothing but a mouthpiece for Administration propaganda. The whole misconception that the press leans to the left is yet another example of "I trust the President because of his convincing country bumpkin act, ergo if he says something it must be true." (Unless by "the problem with media bias" you're suggesting that the fearmongering conservative press gave a false impression of Kerry's popularity to drive up Republican votes; that I might agree with. )

While we're on the subject of treating adults like children, if Fox News told you to jump off of Big Ben, would you do it? Seems like over 50% of Americans would.

And while I'm on the subject of Fox News, are you the only UK resident who watches it besides Tony Blair?

[Clytie]

Originally posted by masterofNone
hmm. if jesus hated sin, why did he sacrifice himself in order to allow for the forgiveness of it? maybe because he loved the sinner. i have a hard time seeing that attitude reflected in the actions of jerry falwell, pat robertson, ralph reed, or george w. bush. in fact i see a great similarity between the leaders of the "moral majority" and those pharisees the christ found so objectionable.

you speak of jesus adding to the law. this is not true. his teachings are not reflected in any jewish law or indeed in any law of any country i can think of. i'd be happy if someone could cite an example that proved this incorrect.

i return to my original point. in all of the bible there is no reference to jesus being angry at "sinners", only at priests and lawyers. a point the religious right should be reminded of. rudely if possible.

i never said he hated sinners... i believe i said the opposite Or in any case alluded to it. The people Jesus was the angriest at were the people that were hypocrates… such as the scribes and Pharisees. But mostly they were adding things to the Law…saying that you had to do this and this to obtain a good standing with God. And if you were holy then you would have tassles on your robes…and if you were holy when you were fasting you would mourn and let everyone know that you were fasting/ Look at me I am sooo godly. Vainty….vainity… *sighs* trish is right about the ‘adding to the law’ if you had studied Matthew chapter 5 you would understand what I mean. Jesus went through the Law and pointed out that even if they hadn’t ‘done the deed’ but had thought it – they were still guilty

Matthew 5: 21 & 22; 27 & 28[21] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
[22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in dange

[27] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
[28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.r of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


I hope this clears up what I meant by “adding to the Law”

Christ came to die on the cross to save the sinner. Romans 5:8 is very clear on that. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” His death on the cross was for sinners. No one is perfect. Christ had to die to provide an atonement for the sinner. To make a way so that we (sinners) could be reconciled back to God.

Interesting point to note… when God discusses the sins that he hates… he condemns lying, pride and murder all on the same level. (proverbs 6)

[Magpie]

Originally posted by sparticle
OMG! HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

"Yeah! THAT guy!" Oh, my! heh heh heh heh.....

HAHA! I think I posted Crow's 4yr old encounter w/a life size bronze jesus/crusifix in a Catholic Hospital...

"Hey Mom? Who's that guy on the stick?"

I'm such a heathen.

[Coffee]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

Evidence Mounts that the Vote Was Hacked
By Thom Hartmann
CommonDreams.org

Saturday 06 November 2004

When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004),
the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's
16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence,
he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it
and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had
previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not
have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead
against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.

"It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.

And some believe evidence is accumulating that the national effort happened
on November 2, 2004.

The State of Florida, for example, publishes a county-by-county record of
votes cast and people registered to vote by party affiliation. Net denizen
Kathy Dopp compiled the official state information into a table, available at
http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm, and noticed something startling.

While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to
produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios largely matched
the Kerry/Bush vote, in Florida's counties using results from optically scanned
paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to
hacking - the results seem to contain substantial anomalies.

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them
Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and
7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country
where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and
a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but
4,433 voted for Bush.

The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the counties where
optical scanners were used. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went
58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.

Yet in the touch-screen counties, where investigators may have been more
vigorously looking for such anomalies, high percentages of registered Democrats
generally equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry. (I had earlier reported
that county size was a variable - this turns out not to be the case. Just the
use of touch-screens versus optical scanners.)

More visual analysis of the results can be seen at http://us
together.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm, and
www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm. Note the trend line - the only variable that determines a swing toward Bush
was the use of optical scan machines.

One possible explanation for this is the "Dixiecrat" theory, that in
Florida white voters (particularly the rural ones) have been registered as Democrats
for years, but voting Republican since Reagan. Looking at the 2000
statistics, also available on Dopp's site, there are similar anomalies, although the
trends are not as strong as in 2004. But some suggest the 2000 election may have
been questionable in Florida, too.

One of the people involved in Dopp's analysis noted that it may be possible
to determine the validity of the "rural Democrat" theory by comparing
Florida's white rural counties to those of Pennsylvania, another swing state but one
that went for Kerry, as the exit polls there predicted. Interestingly, the
Pennsylvania analysis, available at
http://ustogether.org/election04/PA_vote_patt.htm, doesn't show the same kind of swings as does Florida, lending credence
to the possibility of problems in Florida.

Even more significantly, Dopp had first run the analysis while filtering
out smaller (rural) counties, and still found that the only variable that
accounted for a swing toward Republican voting was the use of optical-scan machines,
whereas counties with touch-screen machines generally didn't swing -
regardless of size.

Others offer similar insights, based on other data. A professor at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, noted that in Florida the vote to raise the
minimum wage was approved by 72%, although Kerry got 48%. "The correlation
between voting for the minimum wage increase and voting for Kerry isn't likely to
be perfect," he noted, "but one would normally expect that the gap - of 1.5
million votes - to be far smaller than it was."

While all of this may or may not be evidence of vote tampering, it again
brings the nation back to the question of why several states using electronic
voting machines or scanners programmed by private, for-profit corporations and
often connected to modems produced votes inconsistent with exit poll numbers.

Those exit poll results have been a problem for reporters ever since
Election Day.

Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the
radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight,
during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the
reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to
inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was
winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report.

But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal
states.

****Cut due to message length...follow link above for full text.