I do not believe that you have any clue what you actually meant by the above, pieter. I know I don't. I do see that instead of addressing my claim that you see all Christians as extremist, you ignore it all together.
From what I read of your posts, you seem to define the "extreme left" as anyone more liberal than VP Cheney. First, you have no reason to believe that. Don't you think whoever made that Bush/Nazi site is an extremist?Your link seemed to imply that no sane person could ever consider voting for a Democratic candidate because all them liberals think alike, and here's what one thinks, therefore that's what they all think. No that is what you inferred. I made the link and I stated that those that agree with are extremists and asked the question why would anyone supportthem. You need to stay within the bounds of what was posted and not make things up. But I know it is hard for liberals to do that.I merely pointed out that using your logic, no one should support any self-styled Christian leader because of some of the sleazier actions of Jarry Falwell. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. My logic? Apparently you didn't even understand the post.
And if that wasn't what you were implying by what you linked, try explaining yourself when you do post links. If you could read and understand what is actually posted instead of reading things into them that aren't there, you would have understood. One more time. I posted a link to a claim that Bush was a Nazi and I asked the question why would anyone supportthose people.
Cheney realized immediately that O'Neill at the Treasury was no team player but a disruptive influence opposing the president's plans while poisoning morale in his own department.
.....
O'Neill, a career bureaucrat who left government for private business and wealth as Alcoa's CEO, entered the Treasury fully committed against much of George W. Bush's campaign platform. He had argued for higher taxes dating back to the first President Bush and passionately pressed for radical action against global warming.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having a course in “queer theory.” I’m sure that the course isn’t just about promoting gay politics. I’m sure that the professor and the students spend a lot of time talking about their feelings. And I’m sure that it’s a must for people who actually want to become “queer theorists” after they graduate.
That you have no idea what "emulating Jesus of Nazareth" means is obvious from your posts, jethro.
You'll have to better than that, pieter, because I still have no idea what you mean. I know something about Jesus, not everything of course, because there is a lot there. So if you want to be understood then you'll need to be more specific. That is if you are able to.
I knew you wouldn't understand. Are all liberals as dense as you are, pieter? In what aspect of emulation were you referring to? Come on you can do it. I know you can. Come on, you'll be proud of yourself when you can accomplish it!
I had hope for you, pieter. But I guess it was to much to expect. But let me try one more time. I'll even make it real simple for you: what in particular did I post that you deem to be nonchristian?
jethro, in the reference "Matthew 25:31 ff, the "ff" is a bit of standard footnoting abbreviation that means "and following," generally to the end of the chapter. Matthew 25:31 and the verses that follow are the bit about "as ye have done unto the least of my bretheren, so have ye done unto me" and vice versa.
And I would have thought that a Christian would have read and reflected upon a Scriptural reference before firing off a snappy retort. Maybe we were raised in different churches.
I thought it was touchy-feely Liberals who went for schools without grades . . . are you saying that Christian schools should not give tests or hand out grades?
More importantly, jethro, I am not the one who has attempted to wrap himself in the mantle of the Lord by using images of Jesus as avatars in the last couple of weeks. That's you, and you're hardly one to take exception to asigning a grade as passing judgement; judgement is your middle name.
31] "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' [37] Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? [39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' [40] And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; [42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' [44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' [45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
I thought it was touchy-feely Liberals who went for schools without grades . . . are you saying that Christian schools should not give tests or hand out grades? No I am fine with all of that.
More importantly, jethro, I am not the one who has attempted to wrap himself in the mantle of the Lord by using images of Jesus as avatars in the last couple of weeks. That's you, and you're hardly one to take exception to asigning a grade as passing judgement; judgement is your middle name.
Isn't somthing like "do not judge lest ye be judged," or something like that? I have no problem being held to the same standard I apply to everyone else.
I have seen precious little compassion for the poor, the sick, the lame, the imprisoned and the least among us in your posts -- something that one would expect from one brandishing pictures of Jesus.
I note that you've changed your avatar to one more in synch with your apparent beliefs, though.
I have seen precious little compassion for the poor, the sick, the lame, the imprisoned and the least among us in your posts -- something that one would expect from one brandishing pictures of Jesus.
Exactly how would you do any of this on a bulletin board? Now getting back to my earlier question: what about my posts indicates to you that I have "precious little compassion?"
I note that you've changed your avatar to one more in synch with your apparent beliefs, though
I believe in both, pieter. I get the feeling that somehow you think they are mutually exclusive. They are not, although I am sure you like to believe it to be so.
Colossians 3: 1] If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. [2] Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. [3] For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. [4] When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. [5] Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. [6] On account of these the wrath of God is coming. [7] In these you once walked, when you lived in them. [8] But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth. [9] Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices [10] and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. [11] Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scyth'ian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all. [12] Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, [13] forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. [14] And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. [15] And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. [16] Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, and sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God. [17] And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. [18] Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. [19] Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. [20] Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. [21] Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. [22] Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. [23] Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, [24] knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. [25] For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.
Can you do anything besides copy and paste? Like tell us what Paul was getting at in that chapter? From the way you present yourself in this thread, which is the only way I can know you, I see little compassion, kindness, lowliness (humility), meekness, patience, forgiveness and love.
And since you asked, no, I am not an Anglican, although I have attended Episcopal services. I was raised in a succession of mainstream Protestant non-fundamentalist churches. I am also not the one who has been using a picture of Jesus as his avatar.
Can you do anything besides copy and paste? Maybe I was just trying to help others should they wish to join the discussion.Like tell us what Paul was getting at in that chapter? You apparently understand what he is saying, why don't you gives us your view?From the way you present yourself in this thread, which is the only way I can know you, I see little compassion, kindness, lowliness (humility), meekness, patience, forgiveness and love. So you are judging my whole life on limited information. Nice. But you still have not answered the specific question, which once again was what specifically about my posts indicates that I have "little compassion, kindness, lowliness (humility), meekness, patience, forgiveness and love?"
And since you asked, no, I am not an Anglican, although I have attended Episcopal services. I was raised in a succession of mainstream Protestant non-fundamentalist churches. I am also not the one who has been using a picture of Jesus as his avatar. So you are okay with the gay thing, well good for you. I am okay with it, too, as long as the militants do not try to force everyone else to accept their behavior.
From the way you present yourself in this thread, which is the only way I can know you, I see little compassion, kindness, lowliness (humility), meekness, patience, forgiveness and love.
So you are judging my whole life on limited information. Nice. But you still have not answered the specific question, which once again was what specifically about my posts indicates that I have "little compassion, kindness, lowliness (humility), meekness, patience, forgiveness and love?"
I am judging your thread persona, not your "whole life," and I'm not going by specifics, just the subtext of anger and absolute self-certainty which pervades your writings. When I have asked you questions, you insist that I answer them first; I interpret that as fear, possibly from someone who scores points by asking "trick questions."
But hey -- I'm just one of those Internet liberals, so why do you care so passionately about what I think of you?
When I have asked you questions, you insist that I answer them first; I interpret that as fear, possibly from someone who scores points by asking "trick questions." Let me tell you that your "questions" were not really specific enough for me to understand what you were asking.
But hey -- I'm just one of those Internet liberals, so why do you care so passionately about what I think of you? You must have a perception problem, because I don't think I have given any indication that I do care about what you think of me. I am trying to draw out of you the basis of your comments in order to show they have no substance. Since you have been unwilling to state your basis, I guess I was right.
here's a tip for ya Bodine...people are all different from each other. all of them. Man, that is just so profound! I am stunned at your brilliance!
and some people actually seek not to judge others, but mearly to understand them. Maybe they do. But you can live in this world without making judgments. Christ made judgments regarding Jewish hierarchy. His apostles made judgments about nonchristians. I mean Christianity is about forgiveness. How can there be forgiveness if there are not first judgments?
pieter wrote: I've told you the impression you give me, and why -- Bobbie Burns wished for that most eloquently, but you don't seem to care.
You did tell me your impression of me and you cited my posts as to why you have that impression. My question is: what specifically about my posts gives you that impression?
Three adults who want to live together as a husband and two wives asked a federal court this week to strike down Utah's ban on polygamy as a violation of their constitutional rights.
It has been said that President Bush, if re-elected, intends to make his second term robust with big ideas. Perhaps one such idea he should seriously consider is supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
Jethro, "subtext" is not specific -- but if you want specifics, this post was rather telling re: your view of the world.
I fail to see where the linked post indicates that I do not have a heart of compassion, or kindness, or humility, or gentleness or patience.
By the way, are those folks asking that the ban on polygamy be struck down "liberals"? I doubt it.
Maybe not. I don't know. But they are using a warped liberal legal opinion, that logically does not have any limitations, in an attempt to get something they want.
They'll paint John Kerry as an extreme left winger just like they did Ducockeyed. And they will associate him with that paragon of virtue (that's sarcasm folks) Ted Kennedy. As for Clark, you better hope the dems do better than him because he may well be insane. Just look into his eyes. The best hope for dems is John Edwards.
His drawl alone will cost him votes in many states north and west of the Mason-Dixon,
Yes that was a hindrance to Bill Clinton. What was I thinking? But seriously Edwards could possibly take some southern states and Bush needs everyone of them.
If you are a Democrat and it troubles you that General Clark is proud to have Madonna's endorsement, that moveon.org celebrates by having a curse-in, and Senator Kerry uses the f-word in a magazine interview, you might want to reconsider your party affiliation. The Democratic Party has earned a reputation as a poor defender of our civilization against external threats. In fact, it has become a poor defender of our civilization. Period.
Edwards has three-times the drawl that Clinton has, but half the brains.
Maybe but I think John Edwards is to smart to commit perjury and obstruct justice.
He cannot win.
Isn't that what they said about Clinton? I heard his speech last night. Smooth. If he is always that good at speaking he has a chance.
Kerry-Clark on the other hand? That is a two-hero team that CAN win, and my bet is that GDUbbya is now, actually thinking that he might lose. He better be, or he will, IF that is the team he faces in November, and every "Pundit" that commented last night, said just about the same thing.
Clark will drag any ticket down. He is unfit. That is why he was fired from his job by Clinton.
By the way... Clark has no power to stop ANYONE from endorsing him.
True, but a candidate need not embrace each endorsment as Clark apparently did with Madonna's.
yea bodine...get over here and wash my feet
LOL
Good one, Crabby.
jethro, try emulating your avatar.
I do not believe that you have any clue what you actually meant by the above, pieter. I know I don't. I do see that instead of addressing my claim that you see all Christians as extremist, you ignore it all together.
From what I read of your posts, you seem to define the "extreme left" as anyone more liberal than VP Cheney. First, you have no reason to believe that. Don't you think whoever made that Bush/Nazi site is an extremist?Your link seemed to imply that no sane person could ever consider voting for a Democratic candidate because all them liberals think alike, and here's what one thinks, therefore that's what they all think. No that is what you inferred. I made the link and I stated that those that agree with are extremists and asked the question why would anyone
support them. You need to stay within the bounds of what was posted and not make things up. But I know it is hard for liberals to do that.I merely pointed out that using your logic, no one should support any self-styled Christian leader because of some of the sleazier actions of Jarry Falwell. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. My logic? Apparently you didn't even understand the post.
And if that wasn't what you were implying by what you linked, try explaining yourself when you do post links. If you could read and understand what is actually posted instead of reading things into them that aren't there, you would have understood. One more time. I posted a link to a claim that Bush was a Nazi and I asked the question why would anyone
support those people.
Do you get it now?
Cheney realized immediately that O'Neill at the Treasury was no team player but a disruptive influence opposing the president's plans while poisoning morale in his own department.
.....
O'Neill, a career bureaucrat who left government for private business and wealth as Alcoa's CEO, entered the Treasury fully committed against much of George W. Bush's campaign platform. He had argued for higher taxes dating back to the first President Bush and passionately pressed for radical action against global warming.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20040115.shtml
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having a course in “queer theory.” I’m sure that the course isn’t just about promoting gay politics. I’m sure that the professor and the students spend a lot of time talking about their feelings. And I’m sure that it’s a must for people who actually want to become “queer theorists” after they graduate.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20040115.shtml
That you have no idea what "emulating Jesus of Nazareth" means is obvious from your posts, jethro.
That you have no idea what "emulating Jesus of Nazareth" means is obvious from your posts, jethro.
You'll have to better than that, pieter, because I still have no idea what you mean. I know something about Jesus, not everything of course, because there is a lot there. So if you want to be understood then you'll need to be more specific. That is if you are able to.
I knew you wouldn't understand. Are all liberals as dense as you are, pieter? In what aspect of emulation were you referring to? Come on you can do it. I know you can. Come on, you'll be proud of yourself when you can accomplish it!
I'll be proud of you when you act like the Christian you profess to be. THX might, as well.
I had hope for you, pieter. But I guess it was to much to expect. But let me try one more time. I'll even make it real simple for you: what in particular did I post that you deem to be nonchristian?
Or maybe I should ask it this way: in your mind, pieter, how does a christian act?
In accordance with Jesus' words in, for openers, Matthew 25:31 ff
or as Paul counseled the Colossians:
Dude, you have tested my patience no end!
And I gave you an F. It's on your Permanent Record.
Matthew 25:31: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne."
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/
And I gave you an F.
An F? Aren't you telling me to follow the christian way? Well dude, what was that about not judging?
jethro, in the reference "Matthew 25:31 ff, the "ff" is a bit of standard footnoting abbreviation that means "and following," generally to the end of the chapter. Matthew 25:31 and the verses that follow are the bit about "as ye have done unto the least of my bretheren, so have ye done unto me" and vice versa.
And I would have thought that a Christian would have read and reflected upon a Scriptural reference before firing off a snappy retort. Maybe we were raised in different churches.
I thought it was touchy-feely Liberals who went for schools without grades . . . are you saying that Christian schools should not give tests or hand out grades?
More importantly, jethro, I am not the one who has attempted to wrap himself in the mantle of the Lord by using images of Jesus as avatars in the last couple of weeks. That's you, and you're hardly one to take exception to asigning a grade as passing judgement; judgement is your middle name.
You mean like this:
31] "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
[35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
[36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
[37] Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
[38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
[39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
[40] And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
[44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
[45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
So how do you know what side I will be on?
I thought it was touchy-feely Liberals who went for schools without grades . . . are you saying that Christian schools should not give tests or hand out grades? No I am fine with all of that.
More importantly, jethro, I am not the one who has attempted to wrap himself in the mantle of the Lord by using images of Jesus as avatars in the last couple of weeks. That's you, and you're hardly one to take exception to asigning a grade as passing judgement; judgement is your middle name.
Isn't somthing like "do not judge lest ye be judged," or something like that? I have no problem being held to the same standard I apply to everyone else.
Maybe we were raised in different churches.
No doubt this is true. Which church were you raised in? The one that allows gay bishops although homosexuality is not condoned in the Bible?
I have seen precious little compassion for the poor, the sick, the lame, the imprisoned and the least among us in your posts -- something that one would expect from one brandishing pictures of Jesus.
I note that you've changed your avatar to one more in synch with your apparent beliefs, though.
I have seen precious little compassion for the poor, the sick, the lame, the imprisoned and the least among us in your posts -- something that one would expect from one brandishing pictures of Jesus.
Exactly how would you do any of this on a bulletin board? Now getting back to my earlier question: what about my posts indicates to you that I have "precious little compassion?"
I note that you've changed your avatar to one more in synch with your apparent beliefs, though
I believe in both, pieter. I get the feeling that somehow you think they are mutually exclusive. They are not, although I am sure you like to believe it to be so.
Colossians 3:
1] If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
[2] Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.
[3] For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
[4] When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
[5] Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
[6] On account of these the wrath of God is coming.
[7] In these you once walked, when you lived in them.
[8] But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth.
[9] Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices
[10] and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
[11] Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scyth'ian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all.
[12] Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience,
[13] forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
[14] And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.
[15] And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.
[16] Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, and sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
[17] And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
[18] Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
[19] Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.
[20] Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
[21] Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.
[22] Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.
[23] Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men,
[24] knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ.
[25] For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.
Can you do anything besides copy and paste? Like tell us what Paul was getting at in that chapter? From the way you present yourself in this thread, which is the only way I can know you, I see little compassion, kindness, lowliness (humility), meekness, patience, forgiveness and love.
And since you asked, no, I am not an Anglican, although I have attended Episcopal services. I was raised in a succession of mainstream Protestant non-fundamentalist churches. I am also not the one who has been using a picture of Jesus as his avatar.
bodine still hasn't offered to wash my feet yet.
Can you do anything besides copy and paste? Maybe I was just trying to help others should they wish to join the discussion.Like tell us what Paul was getting at in that chapter? You apparently understand what he is saying, why don't you gives us your view?From the way you present yourself in this thread, which is the only way I can know you, I see little compassion, kindness, lowliness (humility), meekness, patience, forgiveness and love. So you are judging my whole life on limited information. Nice. But you still have not answered the specific question, which once again was what specifically about my posts indicates that I have "little compassion, kindness, lowliness (humility), meekness, patience, forgiveness and love?"
And since you asked, no, I am not an Anglican, although I have attended Episcopal services. I was raised in a succession of mainstream Protestant non-fundamentalist churches. I am also not the one who has been using a picture of Jesus as his avatar. So you are okay with the gay thing, well good for you. I am okay with it, too, as long as the militants do not try to force everyone else to accept their behavior.
bodine still hasn't offered to wash my feet yet.
And I won't. I don't have the right delousing chemicals nor do I own a gas mask!
not very Jesus of you.
he has already...I'd like to hear your view of what Paul was saying there...and of course that's what he asked you for.
what do you mean when you say "accept" and how is it any different than being okay with it?
not very Jesus of you.
You know I looked back at my posts and I do not see where I claimed to be like Jesus.
You apparently understand what he is saying, why don't you gives us your view?
he has already...I'd like to hear your view of what Paul was saying there...and of course that's what he asked you for.
No I don't think so. He pasted a few words from one verse. I believe it is much more complicated than that.
I am okay with it, too, as long as the militants do not try to force everyone else to accept their behavior.
what do you mean when you say "accept" and how is it any different than being okay with it?
The difference being that I wouldn't agree with laws against it but I wouldn't put it on the same level as appropriate behavior.
I think Bodine doesn't want to emulate Jesus...he wants to be more like His Dad.
and why do you think that, crabs?
I've talked with you.
You like to judge people.
I am judging your thread persona, not your "whole life," and I'm not going by specifics, just the subtext of anger and absolute self-certainty which pervades your writings. When I have asked you questions, you insist that I answer them first; I interpret that as fear, possibly from someone who scores points by asking "trick questions."
But hey -- I'm just one of those Internet liberals, so why do you care so passionately about what I think of you?
You like to judge people.
Everyone judges. You just need to expect to be judged by the same standards you judge others.
When I have asked you questions, you insist that I answer them first; I interpret that as fear, possibly from someone who scores points by asking "trick questions." Let me tell you that your "questions" were not really specific enough for me to understand what you were asking.
But hey -- I'm just one of those Internet liberals, so why do you care so passionately about what I think of you? You must have a perception problem, because I don't think I have given any indication that I do care about what you think of me. I am trying to draw out of you the basis of your comments in order to show they have no substance. Since you have been unwilling to state your basis, I guess I was right.
here's a tip for ya Bodine...people are all different from each other. all of them.
and some people actually seek not to judge others, but mearly to understand them.
I've told you the impression you give me, and why -- Bobbie Burns wished for that most eloquently, but you don't seem to care.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
JT set up a separate thread for this. Why don't you take it over there?
here's a tip for ya Bodine...people are all different from each other. all of them. Man, that is just so profound! I am stunned at your brilliance!
and some people actually seek not to judge others, but mearly to understand them. Maybe they do. But you can live in this world without making judgments. Christ made judgments regarding Jewish hierarchy. His apostles made judgments about nonchristians. I mean Christianity is about forgiveness. How can there be forgiveness if there are not first judgments?
pieter wrote: I've told you the impression you give me, and why -- Bobbie Burns wished for that most eloquently, but you don't seem to care.
You did tell me your impression of me and you cited my posts as to why you have that impression. My question is: what specifically about my posts gives you that impression?
Three adults who want to live together as a husband and two wives asked a federal court this week to strike down Utah's ban on polygamy as a violation of their constitutional rights.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20040116.shtml
It has been said that President Bush, if re-elected, intends to make his second term robust with big ideas. Perhaps one such idea he should seriously consider is supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20040116.shtml
Jethro, "subtext" is not specific -- but if you want specifics, this postwas rather telling re: your view of the world.
By the way, are those folks asking that the ban on polygamy be struck down "liberals"? I doubt it.
Jethro, "subtext" is not specific -- but if you want specifics, this post was rather telling re: your view of the world.
I fail to see where the linked post indicates that I do not have a heart of compassion, or kindness, or humility, or gentleness or patience.
By the way, are those folks asking that the ban on polygamy be struck down "liberals"? I doubt it.
Maybe not. I don't know. But they are using a warped liberal legal opinion, that logically does not have any limitations, in an attempt to get something they want.
They'll paint John Kerry as an extreme left winger just like they did Ducockeyed. And they will associate him with that paragon of virtue (that's sarcasm folks) Ted Kennedy. As for Clark, you better hope the dems do better than him because he may well be insane. Just look into his eyes. The best hope for dems is John Edwards.
His drawl alone will cost him votes in many states north and west of the Mason-Dixon,
Yes that was a hindrance to Bill Clinton. What was I thinking? But seriously Edwards could possibly take some southern states and Bush needs everyone of them.
If you are a Democrat and it troubles you that General Clark is proud to have Madonna's endorsement, that moveon.org celebrates by having a curse-in, and Senator Kerry uses the f-word in a magazine interview, you might want to reconsider your party affiliation. The Democratic Party has earned a reputation as a poor defender of our civilization against external threats. In fact, it has become a poor defender of our civilization. Period.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040120.shtml
Edwards has three-times the drawl that Clinton has, but half the brains.
Maybe but I think John Edwards is to smart to commit perjury and obstruct justice.
He cannot win.
Isn't that what they said about Clinton? I heard his speech last night. Smooth. If he is always that good at speaking he has a chance.
Kerry-Clark on the other hand? That is a two-hero team that CAN win, and my bet is that GDUbbya is now, actually thinking that he might lose. He better be, or he will, IF that is the team he faces in November, and every "Pundit" that commented last night, said just about the same thing.
Clark will drag any ticket down. He is unfit. That is why he was fired from his job by Clinton.
By the way... Clark has no power to stop ANYONE from endorsing him.
True, but a candidate need not embrace each endorsment as Clark apparently did with Madonna's.