Howard Dean

Well, first take the trouble to read the material, and then we can talk after that...

Wait... don't tell me... you never learned how to read?

I guess that might be part of the reason our world is in the situation it is in right now...

We don't want the truth...

We want entertaining sound bites...

No wonder George W. Bush is the President of the US!

Your words strike me as the words of a raving fundamentalist... you probably don't believe in the separation of church and state either... and you probably think of the Crusades as the pinnacle of human achievement! How convenient it is for pseudo-Christians like you to use 2 Corinthians 6:14 to justify your own racism, while ignoring the rest of Christian doctrine... such as, for example, "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Do unto others and you would have done unto you"! You strike me as being the kind of Christian who probably looks up to the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson! My suggestion to you... get rid of your provincial KKK mentality and try broadening your horizons! There's a lot more to the world than your back yard!

I feel like I'm talking to Leonard Shelby. As I stated before, the move to diversify employee investment came before Enron's downfall. This should come as no shock; conservatives almost always advocate an increase in personal responsibility.

It's simple, not simplistic; and intentionally so. The simpler an argument is, the harder it is to avoid, though you've certainly tried to. I see nary a counterpoint to my claims. Trying to let other people's articles argue for you is bad enough, but you're not even picking ones relevant to the questions you're being subjected to.

That level of research and debate isn't going to cut it here. Never has, never will.

I need some conclusive evidence here. Your claims ring hollow.

Well, I've provided you with a great deal of strong factual material. Sorry, but your flip dismissal of these facts just doesn't cut it here! Never has, never will!

You can't throw up half a dozen articles (most of which don't even apply to what James said), and then require that everyone read them before discussing anything with you. That's cowardly, and stupid.


It's painfully obvious to every forum regular that accusations of racism and bigotry are among your choice argumentative crutches.

This entire paragraph is just insulting speculation, filled with "you probably" this and "I'll bet you're" that. That's not civilized discussion; that's socially inept childishness.

What're you looking for? And that reminds me: didn't you promise to address any number of issues some weeks ago? Toose's point about the Republican view towards business in general, for example (though the "restocking inventories" embarrassment of an argument has gone unanswered, too).


Hey, Abe Lincoln's dead. That's factual material. Problem is, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with what we're talking about.

Such is the nature of the "factual material" you've provided. Why? Because all of it intends to make one point: that Bush and Starr had some sort of tie. But as everyone else reading this thread knows by now, I'm not denying that they did. Rather, I'm pointing out that whether or not they did is irrelevant when you look at the timeline of events, which shows us that Enron was nabbed after its supposed benefactor Bush took office. If he was looking out for them, why were they nabbed very shortly after their alleged crony became the most powerful man in the world?

Do you get it yet? Or are we going to get another massive post trying to demonstrate a link that no one's been denying?

How relevant are any of the points you have raised to a discussion of Howard Dean?

Anyway, I'll come back to this some other time. More important things to do right now!

Good question. Maybe you should ask yourself, because you're the one who brought it up. Oh, wait, I forgot; we learned from our last argument that you can declare a topic irrelevant, even if you're the one who started discussing it. My mistake.


Uh-huh.

You have to give the Dems credit. I can't believe they found a candidate worse for the country than Bush.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

I want Bush to win this year!Yea go Repubicans!
A quick question why is the donkey used for the Dems and a Elephant used for the Republian?
Anyone know?See you around!JM

__________________
Jackie Malfoy
Fourteen
Slytherin
Favorite Movie of all time:Star Wars!
Online offline boyfriend:AdarkSideJedi(brad)
Other Sites I belong tooeathcurse.com Darkmark.com and StarWars.com and Adult Swim.com!

Do you know what 2 Corinthians 6:14 means? It means that Christians should not be yoked to unbelievers. It has nothing to do with race. He is a Christian married to a Jew. Two different faiths. I don't even know what her race is, so quit jumping to conclusions.

And BTW, two of my long-time friends (15 years) are a mixed-race couple. He happens to be black, and he was in my wedding. OMIGOSH. a black man in my wedding!!! He's not just an acquaintance. He was also in my accountability group and my Bible study class for years. It gets worse. When I was asked to teach a Bible study class at my church, he is the man I asked to be the director of the class. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that prevents mixed-race marriages. In fact, Galatians 3:23, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Colossians 3:11, among others eliminate discrimination of any kind for believers.

But, we are still supposed to marry only believers. It even goes beyond that. We are supposed to marry believers with the same spiritual maturity.

I'm not a fan of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson either. I mostly cringe when they speak in public.

Where do you get off calling me a pseudo-Christian and a KKK fan? You don't know squat about me. I spend a lot of time correcting Christians who don't understand the Bible, who probably haven't even read it. I've read it all the way through once a year for since 1994.

What's with the personal attacks? All I asked you to do was post excerpts with a link. I didn't insult you at all.

__________________
Jim Lewis
To BE or Not to BE, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Barium Enema
Crouching Tiger, Paint Your Wagon - Movies Without Nudity

Forgot about this part. I could care less about separation of church and state. It is irrelevant to how I live my life. Whether there is a government-run church or a church-run government or complete separation of the two, I'm still going to live my life according to Scripture.

And no, I'm not a fan of the Crusades.

I can't imagine anyone worse for the country than Bush!

Howard Dean happens to be a qualified professional who seems to know what he is saying. He happens to be a medical doctor, which means that he is actually qualified, unlike Bush, who is not qualified in anything other than screwing up the world as we know it. Howard Dean also happens to be a responsible adult, which is more than anyone could ever say about Bush.

There is simply no comparison. George W. Bush is a spoiled rich kid who doesn't know what he is doing and who has essentially hijacked the US government to serve the interests of his friends and business partners. Howard Dean seems to me to be a conscientious politician who is genuinely concerned about the direction our country is headed.

How you could possibly make such an irresponsible, even absurd, statement is beyond me!

Well, the democrat mascot is a caricature of their opposition, so the donkey represents George W. Bush. On the other hand, the Republican mascot is a caricature of their financial supporters, so the elephant represents big business and corporate America.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Didn't mean to offend you--I just felt offended by your citation of that particular Bible verse in this particular context, hence my somewhat harsh response.

In any case, your interpretation of the Bible verse remains somewhat arbitrary--who's to judge a person's spiritual maturity? What gives the church the right to tell you who you can or cannot marry? There is such a thing as individual liberties--one of the principles this country is based upon. Which means that individuals have the right to have relationships with anyone they choose to. And that no institution has the right to interfere in personal relationships. Anyway, the verse you cited is good advice, to be sure, but I still reserve the right to have a relationship with anyone I personally choose to have a relationship with. And no darned institution, not the government nor even the church, has the right to dictate to me whom I can or cannot have a relationship with.

django,

The church doesn't tell you whom to marry. The Bible does. The Christian has individual liberties as long as he lives within the confines of the Bible. You can't call God Lord of your life and then ignore what He says to do. That's hypocrisy.

Think of it this way. I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins. I don't obey his commands because I'm some sort of slave or robot. I obey them out of love and gratitude.

My interpretation of that verse is not arbitrary. That is the plain and almost universally held interpretation of it. Judging for yourself the maturity level of a potential spouse is arbitrary. But it is no more arbitrary than deciding whether or not you are compatible politically, ethically, or morally. Before considering marriage, I need to make sure that my potential spouse has similar interests, such as hobbies, fitness, sports, etc. All of these decisions are arbitrary. I'm not "judging" the person as in good versus bad. I'm evaluating the compatibility of the person and myself. One of those compatibility issues needs to be spirituality.

All you have to do is attend one of the ladies' Bible studies at our church and listen to the hardships many of them deal with because of their unbelieving husbands or practically spiritually dead husbands. It's not that the men are bad people, but the wives want to go to church with their husbands. They want to discuss spiritual matters with their husbands. They want spiritual leaders, but they don't have one.

There is a lady I know whose two boys were baptized this weekend. The husband doesn't even like her going to church. He came to the baptisms, but he might as well have not even been there. It's heartbreaking for her.

Believers aren't better people than unbelievers. That's not the issue. The issue is that for a Christian, the most important thing in his life should be his faith, his relationship to God. To be married to someone with different values or a different faith is awful to a devoted Christian or a devoted Muslim or a devoted Jew. This is especially true because divorce is not an option for Christians except in cases of adultery or an unbelieving spouse who divorces you. Imagine not being able to discuss with your spouse the singlemost important issue in your life! Its a nightmare.

I see your point. Of course, one would only have a relationship with someone who shares your interests and ideas, but, on the other hand, differences spice up a relationship. No way would I want to have a relationship with someone who was a carbon copy of myself. In any case, I think your interpretation of this particular Bible verse is treading the line of being obnoxious to the extent that you are presuming that the church or the Bible or religious authority or whatever has the right to control an individual's personal relationships and social life. Like I said, no one does. This sort of thing is obnoxious in the extreme. Sorry, but that's my opinion. Sure, I follow Christian doctrine out of love for my savior, but I have my disagreements with your somewhat authoritarian interpretation of Christian doctrine.

Brilliant retort.

According to polls, the majority of Americans make that same "irresponsible, even absurd" statement when asked to choose between the two candidates.

So what if Dean's a doctor? You call him a "qualified" but being a doctor only makes him qualified to remove my appendix; it doesn't mean a damned thing in regards to running a country. But even if you insist on sticking by such a silly standard, Bush has an MBA from Yale, which is far more applicable to the Presidency than an intimate familiarity with the human colon.

You can babble on with phrases like "responsible adult" and "spoiled rich kid," but it's ultimately all rhetoric...and very poor rhetoric, at that.

James never even implied that anyone needs to find a carbon copy of themselves; just that a lifelong, "one flesh" union between people with different religions is clearly inadvisable. The verse in question says the same; if you have a different interpretation, let's hear it, because I think the passage is quite clear.

And on a related note, James has been stunningly patient with you, despite your childish barrage of uninformed accusations. He's presented and supported his point of view clearly and respectfully, even in the face of despicable off-the-cuff insults. He deserves better than the responses you're giving him; even this last one, which doesn't even appear to make any kind of counter-case.

Well, that doesn't say very much for the majority of Americans, does it?

LOL! What it tells me is that Howard Dean is an intelligent, qualified professional. George W. Bush's MBA... Give me a break! The only reason that Bush was even admitted to a university like Yale was because of his father's connections. Face it, man, Bush has no credibility at all vis-a-vis his qualifications or education.

No, I believe it is a dead-on statement of the facts.

The passage leaves room for interpretation. It doesn't necessarily apply to marriage or relationships. In any case, like you said, the Bible gives advice. It doesn't dictate terms to you.

I have hardly insulted or accused James in any way. I stated the fact that I was offended by his interpretation of the Bible. My responses to his statements are more than adequate. Your arrogance and bias as a forum admin, however, is getting on my nerves again! You just don't know when to shut the hell up!