PDA

View Full Version : Race and the 2008 Election



JohnnyMack
10/21/2008, 11:07 AM
I've had some interesting conversations of late regarding my choice in the upcoming Presidential election. The first conversation I had was with a friend of mine who is a pharmacist (not a tech, not an assistant but a pharmacist, with a degree on the wall and in charge of the whole operation). This person said, "I'm not voting for Obama 'cause I don't want to have to look at that ****** on TV for the next four years".

Had another conversation over a beer with someone who is the CFO of a company in Ft. Worth. Not a huge company but it employs several hundred people. This person said, "I just don't know what that ****** stands for".

I'm driving home on the highway a week or so ago and I happen to have an Obama sticker on the back of my car. I'm driving home, minding my own business when a car (a red two door Chevy cavalier) comes along side me and in it are two white males in the front seat, two white females in the back. Neither man has a shirt on, they are tattooed to the hilt and the passenger is screaming something at my car while giving the old Heil Hitler with his right hand.

I'd like to think that it's truly a minority of people who think like this, but it seems so widespread. I wonder if any of the other Obama supporters around here have had similar instances or if I'm nuts?

olevetonahill
10/21/2008, 11:17 AM
I think its a Minority of Folks who feel that way .
Im Voting JSM . Not Because of any color , But because I feel he has what we need .
If Colin Powell, Condi rice, etc. Had run I would seriously look at them as My Candidate.

stoops the eternal pimp
10/21/2008, 11:19 AM
I m not a political guru like yourself or some of the other posters but I've observed some of that kind of reaction to him...You've got a certain number of people that are not gonna vote for him because of race..and then you have a certain amount of people that are gonna vote for him because of his race...

Just wonder which group is actually gonna account for more votes

crawfish
10/21/2008, 11:22 AM
I've talked to numerous people who are going to vote for Obama BECAUSE he's black. But I guess that's not being racist, but progressive.

badger
10/21/2008, 11:24 AM
My magic eight ball says that all signs point to this thread not ending well.

However, since we're not to that point yet and God willing will not ever be, let's just say for now that what concerns me most is having a divided leadership team so that we are neither taxed to death or welfared to oblivion.

So... convince me that the Congress is going Republican and I'll vote for the Democrat. Convince me that the Congress is going Democrat and I'll vote for the Republican. There's still a month left!

Oh, and race has no factor. I think all of us Republicans wanted Colin Powell in 1996.

Lott's Bandana
10/21/2008, 11:28 AM
I'm driving home on the highway a week or so ago and I happen to have an Obama sticker on the back of my car. I'm driving home, minding my own business when a car (a red two door Chevy cavalier) comes along side me and in it are two white males in the front seat, two white females in the back. Neither man has a shirt on, they are tattooed to the hilt and the passenger is screaming something at my car while giving the old Heil Hitler with his right hand.


To me, the fascinating thing about that story is....if you happened to be of a different ethnic origin, would they have been so brazen in their response to your bumper sticker?

NormanPride
10/21/2008, 11:30 AM
There is a solution to the whole Republican/Democrat thing. Vote independent.

Scott D
10/21/2008, 11:31 AM
To me, the fascinating thing about that story is....if you happened to be of a different ethnic origin, would they have been so brazen in their response to your bumper sticker?

Honest answer? Probably, because they had 'numbers'. It's pretty amazing the kind of **** people will pull when they are in packs rather than by themselves.

Sooner in Tampa
10/21/2008, 11:32 AM
I've talked to numerous people who are going to vote for Obama BECAUSE he's black. But I guess that's not being racist, but progressive.
But...do they know his mama is white?

salth2o
10/21/2008, 11:46 AM
But...do they know his mama is white?

We do, but I don't think he does!

SoonerInKCMO
10/21/2008, 11:48 AM
I wonder if any of the other Obama supporters around here have had similar instances or if I'm nuts?

I don't see why this has to be an either/or situation. :confused:

TUSooner
10/21/2008, 12:01 PM
I know a lady who likes Obama, but she says she won't vote for him because on her job she has to deal with lots of "black people with attitude," and she doesn't want to do anything that would make them happy. I had to laugh.

Lott's Bandana
10/21/2008, 12:10 PM
I've talked to numerous people who are going to vote for Obama BECAUSE he's black. But I guess that's not being racist, but absurd.

If that's the reason then they should be rounded up, made to stand against a wall and bitch-slapped.

Sooner98
10/21/2008, 12:19 PM
I've had some interesting conversations of late regarding my choice in the upcoming Presidential election. The first conversation I had was with a friend of mine who is a pharmacist (not a tech, not an assistant but a pharmacist, with a degree on the wall and in charge of the whole operation). This person said, "I'm not voting for Obama 'cause I don't want to have to look at that ****** on TV for the next four years".

Had another conversation over a beer with someone who is the CFO of a company in Ft. Worth. Not a huge company but it employs several hundred people. This person said, "I just don't know what that ****** stands for".

I'm driving home on the highway a week or so ago and I happen to have an Obama sticker on the back of my car. I'm driving home, minding my own business when a car (a red two door Chevy cavalier) comes along side me and in it are two white males in the front seat, two white females in the back. Neither man has a shirt on, they are tattooed to the hilt and the passenger is screaming something at my car while giving the old Heil Hitler with his right hand.

I'd like to think that it's truly a minority of people who think like this, but it seems so widespread. I wonder if any of the other Obama supporters around here have had similar instances or if I'm nuts?

3 anecdotes = "widespread"?

Frozen Sooner
10/21/2008, 12:28 PM
I've had a few instances sort of like that while making voter ID calls or canvassing or whatever.

I think there's certainly a number of people who refuse to vote for Obama simply because he's black. That being said, I think that most of them probably aren't registered to vote or don't make it to the polls anyhow.

There's also a number of people who will vote for Obama simply because he's black, but I think that number's been pretty greatly exaggerated. If it were the case that blacks will automatically vote for blacks, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, and Jesse Jackson would have likely done a lot better in the Washington DC primaries than they did.

yermom
10/21/2008, 12:29 PM
like that is the only 3 instances of it he's seen or heard of...

the thing is that this element of society has had to stay dormant with the PC police around, i'll bet this gets them more out of the woodwork and motivated, especially if he's elected

picasso
10/21/2008, 12:33 PM
I think he's in the position he is because he's black. A great talking, affable, charismatic white politician with his lack of experience wouldn't have a chance Jerry.

yermom
10/21/2008, 12:40 PM
he's the Donovan McNabb of politics?

Frozen Sooner
10/21/2008, 12:43 PM
I think he's in the position he is because he's black. A great talking, affable, charismatic white politician with his lack of experience wouldn't have a chance Jerry.

You mean like Jesse Jackson?

picasso
10/21/2008, 12:43 PM
haha. more like the manchurian candidate.

hey, he's gonna win so good luck to 'em.

But it ain't gonna be pretty when the media decides to turn on him.

out, sick of politics.

picasso
10/21/2008, 12:44 PM
You mean like Jesse Jackson?

please, is there a real comparison there?

Frozen Sooner
10/21/2008, 12:46 PM
If there is, I'm not the one making it.

Perhaps there's more to this Obama character than simply being a charasmatic black man, nes pas?

picasso
10/21/2008, 12:47 PM
I most certainly agree there but you have to admit his race is on his side. I think more so than not.

Frozen Sooner
10/21/2008, 12:55 PM
I most certainly agree there but you have to admit his race is on his side. I think more so than not.

I don't know that I have to admit any such thing. I do agree that with some voters his race plays a factor in the decision. That being said, I don't think it's the primary factor for very many voters-and of those who DO make their primary decision based on race (one way or the other), I don't know how many of them are actually going to make it to the polls.

I find it beyond ludicrous that some people are making the claim that Colin Powell, for instance, made his choice solely on race. Colin Powell has had several opportunities to endorse black candidates and never has. Beyond that, Powell laid out a very cogent argument as to why he was endorsing Obama-an argument that some choose to ignore for whatever reason.

Scott D
10/21/2008, 12:57 PM
I most certainly agree there but you have to admit his race is on his side. I think more so than not.

pretty sure lots of people were hoping that a pretty charismatic white guy could have run for a 3rd term in 2000, despite perjuring himself. Seems to me that charisma knows no race.

JohnnyMack
10/21/2008, 01:19 PM
3 anecdotes = "widespread"?

I meant widespread as in the 3 instances I related were across a fairly wide swath of the populace. From the CFO of a company down to a couple of schmucks in a cavalier. Very different demographics, but similar attitudes.

LosAngelesSooner
10/21/2008, 01:26 PM
I most certainly agree there but you have to admit his race is on his side. I think more so than not.That's ludicrous.

crawfish
10/21/2008, 01:26 PM
There's also a number of people who will vote for Obama simply because he's black, but I think that number's been pretty greatly exaggerated. If it were the case that blacks will automatically vote for blacks, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, and Jesse Jackson would have likely done a lot better in the Washington DC primaries than they did.

And you think the numbers of people who will vote against his race hasn't been?

I think Obama will get far more "because he's black" votes than any of the other candidates you mentioned. The key to being a successful black presidential candidate? Don't make the white voters feel guilty for being white. Obama's the only one who seems to have figured that out. (Except Keyes, but he's never been a serious candidate anyway.)

Frozen Sooner
10/21/2008, 01:31 PM
I think I generally see the race "issue" being played up by the same people-who one day pin their hopes on the so-called Bradley Effect then the next decry the "racism" of blacks voting for a black candidate.

But yes, I think both have been overeaggerated. Which is evident from my other posts.

crawfish
10/21/2008, 01:36 PM
I think I generally see the race "issue" being played up by the same people-who one day pin their hopes on the so-called Bradley Effect then the next decry the "racism" of blacks voting for a black candidate.

But yes, I think both have been overeaggerated. Which is evident from my other posts.

Perhaps I should read your other posts. ;)

I'm strictly hit-and-run these days.

Stoop Dawg
10/21/2008, 02:14 PM
I meant widespread as in the 3 instances I related were across a fairly wide swath of the populace. From the CFO of a company down to a couple of schmucks in a cavalier. Very different demographics, but similar attitudes.

Different demographics, but same geographical area, right? Oklahoma and Texas? You'll probably get similar results in Bama and Mississippi.

I think if you go to the north and/or either coast you'll get different results. That's not to say that there aren't *some*, but not as many.

Stoop Dawg
10/21/2008, 02:15 PM
I think he's in the position he is because he's black. A great talking, affable, charismatic white politician with his lack of experience wouldn't have a chance Jerry.


You mean like Jesse Jackson?

Psssst, Jesse Jackson isn't white. ;)

JohnnyMack
10/21/2008, 02:22 PM
Different demographics, but same geographical area, right? Oklahoma and Texas? You'll probably get similar results in Bama and Mississippi.

I think if you go to the north and/or either coast you'll get different results. That's not to say that there aren't *some*, but not as many.

Right. I guess my question is really how pervasive is racism in my geographical area making no assumption for one's level of education or income?

Frozen Sooner
10/21/2008, 02:27 PM
Psssst, Jesse Jackson isn't white. ;)

True.

The point was that Jesse Jackson is an affable, charismatic, great-talking black candidate and he didn't see anywhere near the level of support (among black OR white voters) that Barack Obama has seen.

But yeah, the comment didn't make sense in strict context. My bad.

stoops the eternal pimp
10/21/2008, 02:30 PM
I think loathing Jesse Jackson is a color blind issue:D

Stoop Dawg
10/21/2008, 02:34 PM
Right. I guess my question is really how pervasive is racism in my geographical area making no assumption for one's level of education or income?

I'm gonna go with "relatively high, but very age-dependent".

People will deny it until they are blue in the face, but if you listen to them talk about race it just comes out. Listen for some of the back-handed compliments that people hand out. They think they are being PC, but it's just the opposite.

"That man was very intelligent - AND HE WAS BLACK!"

That's a compliment, right? :rolleyes:

picasso
10/21/2008, 02:38 PM
pretty sure lots of people were hoping that a pretty charismatic white guy could have run for a 3rd term in 2000, despite perjuring himself. Seems to me that charisma knows no race.
great point. But Bubba Clinton was much much more qualified than Obama. I mean BO brought down said Clintons. still an amazing feat.

and c'mon Froz, you don't have to do anything. like I give a flip.:)

I just think race is on BO's side and some folks here don't want to admit it. Nothing racist about that.

soonerscuba
10/21/2008, 02:44 PM
Heh. People act as if the Republicans don't have a lockstep group of voters with unconditional loyalty despite the fact the party has done nothing for them. They're called pro-lifers.

There are people on both sides of the aisle with dumb reasons for voting, it's the reason they're called "useful idiots".

LosAngelesSooner
10/21/2008, 03:05 PM
I just think race is on BO's side and some folks here don't want to admit it.Again. That's just ludicrous.

GrapevineSooner
10/21/2008, 03:11 PM
We heard you the first time.

LosAngelesSooner
10/21/2008, 03:13 PM
Didn't stop y'all from saying the same ridiculous thing a second time.

frankensooner
10/21/2008, 03:13 PM
LAS quit dragging rappers into this. ;)

Sooner24
10/21/2008, 03:16 PM
I've had a few instances sort of like that while making voter ID calls or canvassing or whatever.

I think there's certainly a number of people who refuse to vote for Obama simply because he's black. That being said, I think that most of them probably aren't registered to vote or don't make it to the polls anyhow.

There's also a number of people who will vote for Obama simply because he's black, but I think that number's been pretty greatly exaggerated. If it were the case that blacks will automatically vote for blacks, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, and Jesse Jackson would have likely done a lot better in the Washington DC primaries than they did.

Alert ACORN!!!

KC//CRIMSON
10/21/2008, 03:17 PM
LAS quit dragging rappers into this. ;)


Daddy Yankee!

LosAngelesSooner
10/21/2008, 03:17 PM
LAS quit dragging rappers into this. ;)What...
http://cofcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/ludacris1-300x300.jpg (http://thejournalista.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ludacris.jpg?w=240&h=300)

WHAT?!?!?!?!?
http://snicka.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/obama-luda.jpg

GrapevineSooner
10/21/2008, 03:23 PM
Didn't stop y'all from saying the same ridiculous thing a second time.

Except I didn't say it.

And don't try to lump me in with anybody.

LosAngelesSooner
10/21/2008, 03:24 PM
Except I didn't say it.

And don't try to lump me in with anybody.
Then why didn't you say the same thing to Picasso? He said it twice. And he said it twice first. ;)

Besides, you're ruining a very effective Rapper threadjack. :D

Stoop Dawg
10/21/2008, 03:27 PM
Again. That's just ludicrous.

I think it would be difficult to argue that race, overall, is working in Obama's favor. But there is no question that it gives him an advantage in certain demographics. I guess it's possible that new black voter registrations outnumber new white voter registrations this year just because they are becoming more politically inclined, but I'm guessing that having a black candidate might be adding a little extra motivation.

LosAngelesSooner
10/21/2008, 03:31 PM
I think it would be difficult to argue that race, overall, is working in Obama's favor. But there is no question that it gives him an advantage in certain demographics. I guess it's possible that new black voter registrations outnumber new white voter registrations this year just because they are becoming more politically inclined, but I'm guessing that having a black candidate might be adding a little extra motivation.Okay. I can totally go along with THAT. That's a pretty fair assertion and a well thought out statement.

I would even say that the facts out there probably back you up.

HOWEVER...I would STILL argue that the backlash AGAINST his race is hurting him more in the South and in the rural parts of many states (especially the swing states) MORE than the turnout of the previously unregistered black voters whom he's motivated is helping him.

GrapevineSooner
10/21/2008, 03:37 PM
Then why didn't you say the same thing to Picasso? He said it twice. And he said it twice first. ;)

Besides, you're ruining a very effective Rapper threadjack. :D

Probably because I agree with what Stoop Dawgy Dawg just said, fo shizzle.

LosAngelesSooner
10/21/2008, 03:39 PM
Probably because I agree with what Stoop Dawgy Dawg just said, fo shizzle.Can I lump you in with him, then? :D

http://streetknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/snoop-dogg-smoking.jpg

You in da Dawg Pound now, Grizape Vizine!1!

GrapevineSooner
10/21/2008, 03:39 PM
Okay. I can totally go along with THAT. That's a pretty fair assertion and a well thought out statement.

I would even say that the facts out there probably back you up.

HOWEVER...I would STILL argue that the backlash AGAINST his race is hurting him more in the South and in the rural parts of many states (especially the swing states) MORE than the turnout of the previously unregistered black voters whom he's motivated is helping him.

And getting back on point, I don't know there's going to be empirical evidence to suggest either opinion is correct.

It's just a gut feeling, IMO. And completely understandable given the example that SD provided and what you provided, LAS.

And yes, you can lump me in with Stoop. ;)

Stoop Dawg
10/21/2008, 03:43 PM
HOWEVER...I would STILL argue that the backlash AGAINST his race is hurting him more in the South and in the rural parts of many states (especially the swing states) MORE than the turnout of the previously unregistered black voters whom he's motivated is helping him.

You are probably correct, but I think the gap might not be as wide as you may imagine.

Blacks make up less than 20% of the population (13% in 2002, the most recent number I could find quickly).

About 22% of whites live in "non-metropolitan" (rural) areas (in 2002, the most recent number I could find quickly).

If we make the VERY broad generalizations that blacks are more likely to vote for a black candidate, and that rural white voters are more inclined to vote against a black candidate, it's not THAT big of a gap.

Of course, trying to draw conclusions based on 2002 census data and overly broad generalizations is probably not a good idea. But I've been wondering about the race issue lately too and I'm starting to think that it's not as big a deal as I once thought it was. Of course, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

LosAngelesSooner
10/21/2008, 03:48 PM
Another very good post. And you bring up interesting points. Ultimately I guess my reaction is more of a "gut feeling" thing in this case. But the numbers you provide do give pause.

It will really be interesting to see how everything pans out on election day and in the weeks afterward as the numbers are analyzed.

I'm really not scared about the outcome of the Presidential election as some. I'm backing McCain and I've donated to his campaign, but I don't hate Obama and I CERTAINLY am not scared of him (despite all the lame fear mongering some have engaged in). I'll be okay with either candidate (as opposed to the past 2 elections). The Congressional elections are the ones that are worrying me more right now...

Edmond Sooner
10/21/2008, 04:38 PM
The Congressional elections are the ones that are worrying me more right now...

This is where I'm at, too, because I've concluded that the presidential election is all but over - all that's left is to count the actual votes.

I am most definitely not an Obama supporter, but I wish him all the best in the years ahead; he's going to inherit a whole ****load of problems that will have to be dealt with. I do not envy him the job.

The congressional races is where I've turned my focus, since the potential of a Democrat supermajority is what ruffles my pickle.

It's not a partisan worry. Just looking at it historically:

1. The GOP supermajority after the Civil War embittered the South for a hundred years with Reconstruction, and, ironically, in the so doing delayed the coming of the Civil Rights movement for generations.

2. Ditto for the supermajority that LBJ got to play with in 1965. The overreach of the Great Society programs led to a backlash that has divided this country to this day.

There are other examples, on both sides of the aisle. Presidents with huge majorities of their party in charge of Congress tend to overreach, as do the legislators themselves - FDR's court packing scheme being a prime example on the Democrat side of the former; the impeachment of Andrew Johnson by the Republicans of the latter.

In any event, I think this is one of the most interesting times, politically, to be alive in American history. No matter how it all plays out, it's going to be fascinating to watch.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/21/2008, 04:48 PM
We're ****ed.

All you crackers voting for a honky. You should be ashamed.

olevetonahill
10/21/2008, 04:50 PM
Yall would be proud of me . I just str8ened a friend Out about Obama.
He said He wasnt gonna vote for him cause He just found out Hes Muslim .
I convinced him that Obama isnt . :P

Stoop Dawg
10/21/2008, 05:08 PM
All you crackers voting for a honky. You should be ashamed.

Why?

I'm not ashamed one bit that I'm casting my vote for McCain.

JLEW1818
10/21/2008, 05:20 PM
so ya'll think Obama has it in the bag?

olevetonahill
10/21/2008, 05:30 PM
so ya'll think Obama has it in the bag?

I dont .

JohnnyMack
10/21/2008, 08:01 PM
so ya'll think Obama has it in the bag?

No way.

Edmond Sooner
10/21/2008, 08:34 PM
Why?

I'm not ashamed one bit that I'm casting my vote for McCain.

Me neither.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/21/2008, 09:51 PM
Shut up, white bread. *OPPRESSION*

Stoop Dawg
10/21/2008, 10:53 PM
Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?

SleestakSooner
10/21/2008, 11:10 PM
I think its a Minority of Folks who feel that way .
Im Voting JSM . Not Because of any color , But because I feel he has what we need .
If Colin Powell, Condi rice, etc. Had run I would seriously look at them as My Candidate.

What if Colin Powell had endorsed Obama... oh wait he already did!

olevetonahill
10/21/2008, 11:16 PM
What if Colin Powell had endorsed Obama... oh wait he already did!

I said the Man . Not his endorsement :rolleyes:

soonerboomer93
10/22/2008, 12:02 AM
I'm sorry, but race is in play, and it's in play for both sides. Anyone who thinks other wise is fooling them selves.

There are people who won't vote for Obama because he is half black, and there are people only voting for him because he's black.

The candidates may be avoiding it, but it is there.

And frankly, if they didn't want it in play, Obama wouldn't have made his acceptance speach infront of 80k people at Mile High. If Howard Dean was the nominee, he wouldn't have made his speech there.

yermom
10/22/2008, 01:35 AM
what does Mile High have to do with it? :confused:

StoopTroup
10/22/2008, 01:41 AM
I voting for the Hawaiian.

I hate Alaska.

;) :pop:

soonerboomer93
10/22/2008, 01:52 AM
what does Mile High have to do with it? :confused:

How many people were in attendance at the convention, how many do you think were actually there for the Biden speach in the convention hall. Why did they have to do his acceptance speach in a professional football stadium that holds around 80k people, versus the infront of the delegates like they have at conventions for a number of year.

They wanted to create an event based on Barack Obama being the first major black candidate, so they held it in the stadium, instead of in the convention where it would have been held for any other candidate.

yermom
10/22/2008, 01:57 AM
ahh, ok. i didn't realize the whole DNC wasn't at the stadium

i'm still not that sure it has that much to do with race though. would they not have done that if HRC won?

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 04:41 AM
They did it to generate excitement for their brand this year. And it's worked. It had nothing to do with his race. That's just silly...

Lott's Bandana
10/22/2008, 07:56 AM
Looking back now, I think it is curiously ironic he did all this at Invesco Field.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/22/2008, 08:30 AM
He did it because black people are better at football than white people.

C&CDean
10/22/2008, 08:48 AM
If anyone out there actually thinks this election is race neutral - couldn't think of any other way to describe it - then may I suggest that person is off their ****ing nut?

Hordes, and I do mean HORDES of people are going to vote for Obama for only ONE reason. His race. Hordes of people are NOT going to vote for Obama for ONE reason. His race.

What is going to sway it in Obama's favor is that there are also HORDES of white people who are voting for him for ONE reason. His race. Some see themselves as white apologists who are going to make up for the whole slavery shabang. Some see themselves as "progressive" and are gonna vote a black man cause it's the "in" thing to do. Some actually see him as the saviour of our country. I would have to say the last group is in the minority though. And it's a damn good thing, cause these are the ****ing morons.

Anyhow, I ain't voting for him for a multitude of reasons. Is race one of them? Maybe. But it's not anywhere near the deciding factor. He's got enough other baggage - not to mention zip on experience to sway my vote to whoever he is running against.

sooner_born_1960
10/22/2008, 10:26 AM
zip? He's a community organizer fer Christ's sake.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/22/2008, 10:34 AM
Stop oppressing the black man, you dirty honky.

pergdaddy
10/22/2008, 10:41 AM
Isn't Colin Powell an Obama advisor? Hasn't Obama stated that if he wins, Powell will be a close advisor?

Race is a big issue no matter how you view it. It's playing a factor into this race no matter who will admit it or not. It's just like abortion, it's an issue that, dear lord, is an issue that is always heated and rarely ever has a good outcome when people talk about it.

There are things that Obama and McCain that I agree with and I disagree with.

I'm voting for who will do the best job. I could care less if their white, black, asian, mexican, Klingon, it doesn't matter. Just lead this country, do your best, make some progress in getting America back to where it should be. that's all I ask. Oh, that and quit taxing me so damn much.

C&CDean
10/22/2008, 10:44 AM
zip? He's a community organizer fer Christ's sake.

Oh. My bad. Guess I can drop the lack of experience deal and go ahead and vote for him now.

sooner_born_1960
10/22/2008, 10:46 AM
It is the "in" thing to do.

C&CDean
10/22/2008, 10:50 AM
It is the "in" thing to do.

There is that. And also I need to make up for my great-great grandpa's slave ownership. Wait. My great grandpa immigrated from Germany and didn't even own any slaves - cause it was illegal and he was poorer than a slave himself. My great-great Gpa never even set foot in this country.

Yup, I gotta do it for the cause it's the hip and cool thing to do.

stoops the eternal pimp
10/22/2008, 10:50 AM
fer rizzle dizzle

C&CDean
10/22/2008, 10:52 AM
Barakizzle fo da Obizzle shizzle

RedStripe
10/22/2008, 11:05 AM
Stern interviews Obama supporters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg)

The link has some language.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/22/2008, 11:06 AM
My family owned slaves.

Distant relatives still hold some of the land that was worked by slaves. Hell, I've read from more than one source that upon emancipation, many slaves took the last names of their former masters, hence why when you crack open a phone book or review the famous people that share my last name, a large majority of them are black. From North Carolina to Greeneville, Tennessee, my people have oppressed blacks for the whole trip and at one time, made buttloads of cash in tobacco doing it.

I ain't seen a dime of that money. I've had to work my *** off to get what I got. So did my daddy, his daddy, and his daddy before him.

So I qualify as the distant son of a slaveholder. I'm proud of my family's strong agricultural and military history, too. Should I vote for BHO because of this, and if I don't, am I simply continuing the tradition of oppression set by my forefathers? Should I, if I want to do the right thing, step up and vote for a black man because of the sins of my fathers?

THAT is racism. Plain and frickin' simple.

I'm not voting for Barack Hussein Obama because he has yet to announce cuts in federal spending (outside of pulling troops from Iraq), reducing excessive expenditures on already mismanaged, bloated programs, proposals to increase taxes on a certain range of income to pay for budget shortfalls and to fund planned programs instead of reducing the money that our federal government is soaking up like a sponge. I'm not voting for the man because of his radical associations. I'm not voting for the man because he's too busy pushing talking points of the evils of action already taken to galvanize his party base instead of proposing true solutions outside of more taxes, more spending, and less commitment to securing the remaining provinces in Iraq so we can turn them over to Iraqi hands in a safe, secure manner, less commitment to steering away from timelines and steering more toward finishing the job so the nation we shattered can once again stand viable and free.

THAT'S why. Not because my great great grandpappy owned slaves and I'm continuing in his stead to oppress black men nationwide. Not only is that ridiculous, that's simply retarded.

picasso
10/22/2008, 11:11 AM
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/

C&CDean
10/22/2008, 11:12 AM
Yup. And there's a lot of retards out there ain't there Johnny Mack?

C&CDean
10/22/2008, 11:14 AM
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/

WTF do they know? They're just stupid GIs who are too dumb to get a real job. They probably shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

soonerboomer93
10/22/2008, 11:18 AM
They did it to generate excitement for their brand this year. And it's worked. It had nothing to do with his race. That's just silly...

Oh, they would have done it for HRC also.

If you think they would have done it for Howard Dean and any other white male politician, then that's just silly...

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 12:17 PM
WTF do they know? They're just stupid GIs who are too dumb to get a real job. They probably shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

Oh quit with your ****ing pity party. It's getting pathetic.

The Maestro
10/22/2008, 12:33 PM
Based on the stupidity of a lot of American voters, I just wonder how different it might be if his name was "Steve Thomas" instead of Barack Obama?

Something to consider...when your last name rhymes with a guy that spearheaded the worst terrorist attack ever.

Not that I think it matters, but it does to a LOT of people who get caught up in the name.

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 12:38 PM
Based on the stupidity of a lot of American voters, I just wonder how different it might be if his name was "Steve Thomas" instead of Barack Obama?

Something to consider...when your last name rhymes with a guy that spearheaded the worst terrorist attack ever.

Not that I think it matters, but it does to a LOT of people who get caught up in the name.

Werd.

picasso
10/22/2008, 12:41 PM
Based on the stupidity of a lot of American voters, I just wonder how different it might be if his name was "Steve Thomas" instead of Barack Obama?

Something to consider...when your last name rhymes with a guy that spearheaded the worst terrorist attack ever.

Not that I think it matters, but it does to a LOT of people who get caught up in the name.

2 people have bombed the Pentagon. OBL and Bill Ayers.

belch.

frankensooner
10/22/2008, 12:42 PM
My forebears also were slaveholders. My family came to this great land in 1640 and settled in Virgina. There is a point there named after us.


In the 1950's my dad intergrated one of the first school districts in Oklahoma.

I don't know if that helps with our family's past wrongs but hey, its a start. ;)

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 12:44 PM
belch.

That's the most insightful thing you've said lately.

The Maestro
10/22/2008, 12:45 PM
I am not an Obama supporter, but if he is elected I will give him the respect his position deserves. I just hate the "let's move to Canada" crowd, either way.

That said, when I hear people bitch about him I tell them to shut up and run against him...open election. The guy could have been a hot shot attorney but chose to run for Prez...it says something. Now if he could please leave Socialism out of the plan I would appreciate it, but the guy did run...and appears to be poised to win. A lot of other Americans could have tried to beat him, but didn't or couldn't.

Frozen Sooner
10/22/2008, 12:47 PM
2 people have bombed the Pentagon. OBL and Bill Ayers.

belch.

And each candidate has the endorsement of one of them.

C&CDean
10/22/2008, 12:57 PM
Oh quit with your ****ing pity party. It's getting pathetic.

Nay. What's getting pathetic is your constant Deep Throating of your boy. And, which category do you fall in? The apologist, the progressive, or the ****ing moron?

When he gets elected (and I believe he will) and when the **** is worse than it is today (and I believe it will be - and would be if JM were elected too) and the press starts their crucifiction (this one I don't know about since he's the media darling and he's gonna have to really screw the pooch for them to turn on him) and you fellatio artists realize that all the bull**** about "CHANGE!" is in the crapper, whatcha gonna do JM? I know, you'll blame the righties.

I will support whoever gets voted in. At least until they perjure themselves and get impeached.

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 01:05 PM
Nay. What's getting pathetic is your constant Deep Throating of your boy. And, which category do you fall in? The apologist, the progressive, or the ****ing moron?

When he gets elected (and I believe he will) and when the **** is worse than it is today (and I believe it will be - and would be if JM were elected too) and the press starts their crucifiction (this one I don't know about since he's the media darling and he's gonna have to really screw the pooch for them to turn on him) and you fellatio artists realize that all the bull**** about "CHANGE!" is in the crapper, whatcha gonna do JM? I know, you'll blame the righties.

I will support whoever gets voted in. At least until they perjure themselves and get impeached.

Question: Does the current administration have ANY accountability for our current situation in your mind? Or are you prepared to pull a Tommy Boy and go, "What'd you do?!?!?!" I think that's important to establish before anyone else is elected POTUS.

Echoes
10/22/2008, 01:06 PM
I think its a Minority of Folks who feel that way .
Im Voting JSM . Not Because of any color , But because I feel he has what we need .
If Colin Powell, Condi rice, etc. Had run I would seriously look at them as My Candidate.

Spek. I believe you would, too. I hope most feel this way... but then again, it's hard to say.

C&CDean
10/22/2008, 01:16 PM
Question: Does the current administration have ANY accountability for our current situation in your mind? Or are you prepared to pull a Tommy Boy and go, "What'd you do?!?!?!" I think that's important to establish before anyone else is elected POTUS.

That depends on what you're calling "our current situation."

And me, unlike you, am not all full of loathing and hate over my current situation. I make good jack. My family is well fed. I will be retiring in 3 years and 10 months because I have worked hard and prepared myself to be financially able to. I pay my health insurance premiums, my taxes, and have not invested in stupid get-rich quick schemes like so many others obviously have/do. I appreciate my president trying to reduce my tax burden.

I believe the war against terror is just and right. I believe we need to be in Iraq - and so did pretty much everybody when GWB chose to go over. I believe GWB got dealt a ****tier hand than pretty much any previous prez. I still support him and don't think things are as ****ed up as your media tells you it is.

So, to answer your question, I don't believe the current administration has ****ed things up so bad we've got to assign them accountability for whatever it is that is ****ing up all you guys' lives. In fact, I give this administration credit for staying the course through the most brutal ****storm any administration has endured. And don't even start with your "Bill Clinton got impeached for a blow job so you can't say that" bull**** either.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/22/2008, 01:22 PM
Question: Is the current administration running for a 3rd term?

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 01:26 PM
Question: Is the current administration running for a 3rd term?

We're dealing with Cheney and this thing isn't over yet, so you never really know.

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 01:32 PM
That depends on what you're calling "our current situation."

And me, unlike you, am not all full of loathing and hate over my current situation. I make good jack. My family is well fed. I will be retiring in 3 years and 10 months because I have worked hard and prepared myself to be financially able to. I pay my health insurance premiums, my taxes, and have not invested in stupid get-rich quick schemes like so many others obviously have/do. I appreciate my president trying to reduce my tax burden.

I believe the war against terror is just and right. I believe we need to be in Iraq - and so did pretty much everybody when GWB chose to go over. I believe GWB got dealt a ****tier hand than pretty much any previous prez. I still support him and don't think things are as ****ed up as your media tells you it is.

So, to answer your question, I don't believe the current administration has ****ed things up so bad we've got to assign them accountability for whatever it is that is ****ing up all you guys' lives. In fact, I give this administration credit for staying the course through the most brutal ****storm any administration has endured. And don't even start with your "Bill Clinton got impeached for a blow job so you can't say that" bull**** either.

I don't sit around and burn W in effigy or wish him ill will (exceptin' for that he's a whorn). I disagree with some of his policy issues (Iraq being one of my main objections) and think he's done a poor job of even pretending to try and balance a budget. I think he spends money like water and wants to at the same time keep lowering taxes. While someone who is old like you doesn't mind it so much, I on the other hand am more like 33 years away from retirement and I don't think we've seen effective policy from Bush in terms of reigning in debt.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 01:53 PM
Nay. What's getting pathetic is your constant Deep Throating of your boy. And, which category do you fall in? The apologist, the progressive, or the ****ing moron?

When he gets elected (and I believe he will) and when the **** is worse than it is today (and I believe it will be - and would be if JM were elected too) and the press starts their crucifiction (this one I don't know about since he's the media darling and he's gonna have to really screw the pooch for them to turn on him) and you fellatio artists realize that all the bull**** about "CHANGE!" is in the crapper, whatcha gonna do JM? I know, you'll blame the righties.

I will support whoever gets voted in. At least until they perjure themselves and get impeached.So you don't think that it's possible for white people to be voting for Obama because they like and agree with his stances on issues and feel that he'd be a better leader?

You think they're only doing it if they're "white apologists" (which I think is the stupidest, lamest, most idiotic concept I've ever heard bandied about) "****ing morons" and "evil America hating progressives?"

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 01:54 PM
By the way, let me state again for the record:
the concept of "white apologists" if ****ING RETARDED.

You may continue...

85Sooner
10/22/2008, 02:03 PM
So you don't think that it's possible for white people to be voting for Obama because they like and agree with his stances on issues and feel that he'd be a better leader?

You think they're only doing it if they're "white apologists" (which I think is the stupidest, lamest, most idiotic concept I've ever heard bandied about) "****ing morons" and "evil America hating progressives?"

I think there are alot of white people who probably like his agenda and it has nothing to do with race.I think there are alot of black people to whom the only issue is race. I also believe that there are some out there that you could label "white apologists" if thats the term. I also think there are alot of people who are tired of the old boy network in washington (of which I am one) however the one thing I distrust more than any of the old boy network in washington is the old boy network in Chicago, arguably the most corrupt and dirty city in the US. So much so, its the only city that I know that is named after their corruption. The Windy City.

C&CDean
10/22/2008, 02:17 PM
By the way, let me state again for the record:
the concept of "white apologists" if ****ING RETARDED.

You may continue...


Well, this wouldn't be the first time you're wrong. And the concept may be retarded, but you (and by "you" I mean you) are completely surrounded by them in LA. They permeate the media, they try and guilt-trip other white people into "feeling the woes of the black man" etc. etc. etc. and try to "make up" for all the past injustices. If you can't see it then you need to get the **** outta the forest.

And while we're on the topic, stating that this election doesn't have anything to do with race isn't retarded. It's uber retarded.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 03:31 PM
So you don't think that it's possible for white people to be voting for Obama because they like and agree with his stances on issues and feel that he'd be a better leader?

You think they're only doing it if they're "white apologists" (which I think is the stupidest, lamest, most idiotic concept I've ever heard bandied about) "****ing morons" and "evil America hating progressives?"

Why don't you just admit you are voting for Obama? At least Mike and Johnny admit it.

I don't see how any Christian could vote for Obama given his abortion stances. Just do some research into the mechanics of partial birth abortion, and if it doesn't make you sick, you may have some issues. Obama voted not to ban it.

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 04:01 PM
I don't see how any Christian could vote for Obama given his abortion stances. Just do some research into the mechanics of partial birth abortion, and if it doesn't make you sick, you may have some issues. Obama voted not to ban it.

Well, my first step is not being a Christian.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 04:02 PM
Well, this wouldn't be the first time you're wrong. And the concept may be retarded, but you (and by "you" I mean you) are completely surrounded by them in LA. They permeate the media, they try and guilt-trip other white people into "feeling the woes of the black man" etc. etc. etc. and try to "make up" for all the past injustices. If you can't see it then you need to get the **** outta the forest.

And while we're on the topic, stating that this election doesn't have anything to do with race isn't retarded. It's uber retarded.If I had a nickle for every time you were wrong about something on this board I wouldn't have needed the Bush tax cut. :rolleyes:

And "white guilt" is FUGGIN RETAHDED.

None of us are being guilt tripped out here in LA, dude. What you're saying is just plain STUPID. I love it that you're trying to tell ME what it's like to live out here in LA and what the media out here is saying to me. Gawd...

Let me be clear about this again: Belief in "white guilt" = STUPID

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 04:06 PM
Well, my first step is not being a Christian.


Good for you. Partial birth abortion doesn't make you sick?

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 04:10 PM
Why don't you just admit you are voting for Obama? At least Mike and Johnny admit it.Because I'm voting for McCain. :rolleyes:


I don't see how any Christian could vote for Obama given his abortion stances. Just do some research into the mechanics of partial birth abortion, and if it doesn't make you sick, you may have some issues. Obama voted not to ban it.Because I believe in the Constitution. I believe in a separation of Church and State. While I personally believe that abortion is wrong: a) I don't believe that it is the most important issue in this election (nor in the top 5) and b) I shouldn't be able to impose my Christian morals on my fellow Muslim, Hindi, Jewish, Athiest, Agnostic, Wiccan, etc U.S. citizens.

Fortunately I'm a man, so I will never be faced with the issue of abortion first hand. But for the women out there, it's not for ME to decide what they do with their bodies. And it's not for us CHRISTIANS to bring our religion into our politics. If it was, then we'd be a throcracy, which, THANK GOD, we are not.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 04:11 PM
Good for you. Partial birth abortion doesn't make you sick?Also, you are aware that you're misrepresenting Obama's stance on this issue in an effort to be "shocking" don't you?

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 04:13 PM
And while we're on the topic, stating that this election doesn't have anything to do with race isn't retarded. It's uber retarded.And for the record...I never stated such a thing.

But I WILL state that using race as a reason TO or NOT TO vote for a candidate is racist and STUPID, regardless of which side of the issue you're on.

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 04:14 PM
Good for you. Partial birth abortion doesn't make you sick?

I'm failing to make the leap you did from my religious beliefs to my stance on abortion.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 04:20 PM
I'm failing to make the leap you did from my religious beliefs to my stance on abortion.
Dude, haven't you learned yet? Christians have a monopoly on values and morals. Duh.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 04:31 PM
Also, you are aware that you're misrepresenting Obama's stance on this issue in an effort to be "shocking" don't you?


So he voted to ban it? How am I misrepresenting his stance? I said how he voted which is pretty clear cut.

If you are voting for McCain, why do you spend every second running down republicans and defending Barack? I don't remember one post where you defended McCain.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 04:32 PM
I'm failing to make the leap you did from my religious beliefs to my stance on abortion.


I don't give a damn about your religious beliefs.

I asked if partial birth abortion makes you sick.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 04:36 PM
So he voted to ban it? How am I misrepresenting his stance? I said how he voted which is pretty clear cut.Perhaps you should look up the vote which you are misrepresenting.

It's only on about a hundred web pages, several links on CNN.com, TIME.com, FOXNEWS.com, BBC.COM and about fifty threads on the S.O. alone.

I'm tempted to put a "Japs Bomb Pearl Harbor" pic up to rightfully represent how OLD the news is that you're misquoting.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 04:37 PM
I don't give a damn about your religious beliefs.VERY Christian of you. :rolleyes:

C&CDean
10/22/2008, 04:37 PM
But I WILL state that using race as a reason TO or NOT TO vote for a candidate is racist and STUPID, regardless of which side of the issue you're on.

Now this is the first cogent, thoughtful, and not-retarded thing you've posted in this thread. Baby steps.

swardboy
10/22/2008, 04:38 PM
Hell, Joe Biden says he's a clean black man and that should be good enough to vote for him.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 04:44 PM
Now this is the first cogent, thoughtful, and not-retarded thing you've posted in this thread. Baby steps.I'd better go back and fix it, then...considering that everything you've said has been idiotic, your endorsement just means I'm starting to catch whatever it is that you've got.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 04:54 PM
Perhaps you should look up the vote which you are misrepresenting.

It's only on about a hundred web pages, several links on CNN.com, TIME.com, FOXNEWS.com, BBC.COM and about fifty threads on the S.O. alone.

I'm tempted to put a "Japs Bomb Pearl Harbor" pic up to rightfully represent how OLD the news is that you're misquoting.

Did he vote to ban it? How many times can you avoid the question? Also address the second portion of my post. You spend an inordinate amount of time defending someone you are voting against. I don't understand why you are lying about who you are voting for.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 04:59 PM
Did he vote to ban it? How many times can you avoid the question? Also address the second portion of my post. You spend an inordinate amount of time defending someone you are voting against. I don't understand why you are lying about who you are voting for.I'm defending my party against IGNORANCE and IDIOTS who don't vote on issues, but vote on hatred, bigotry and lies. I'm not defending Obama, I'm trying to chase hate mongers out of my party (like the guys in the video in the McCain/Palin supporters get PWN3D thread). I'm tired of lame *** Swift Boaters and hypocrites ruining my party. It's time for REAL Republicans to regroup and retake our party from the extremists and the fundameltal Christians and big spenders and deficit builders and nation builders and Constitution destroyers.

There are issues to vote on. The distractions weaken my party.

I'm still voting for McCain and I'm not lying and I really don't care if you believe me.

As for "avoiding" your question. I'm not. I'm simply not going to do your homework for you. You're misrepresenting Obama's stance on an issue. PERIOD. YOU, in fact, are lying (at the worst) or misrepresenting out of ignorance (at the best). Do a little research (and by a little I mean less than 1 minute of GOOGLE) and you'll see HOW you're being inaccurate.

I don't feel like doing your work for you.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 05:14 PM
My first google search revealed this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121

How again does that prove your point?

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 05:47 PM
NOW who's avoiding...?...:rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 05:50 PM
BTW...1 second of research reveals, well, all the facts.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 05:51 PM
In other news ("Police prepare for unrest"):

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/police-prepare-for-unrest-2008-10-21.html

Interesting, that.


(wait for it, wait for it....)

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 05:53 PM
BTW...1 second of research reveals, well, all the facts.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

Gee, I've never seen a supposed supporter of one presidential candidate - or any candidate, for that matter - so hot-fired up to defend his opponent. :confused:

( :rolleyes: )

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 05:55 PM
Not sure that it's as reliable and unbiased as FactCheck.org, but another 1 second GOOGLE search revealed:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

It sure is easy to get the facts.
It sure is hard to sit down, read them all and process the many subtleties in them.
It sure is easy to just be a reactionary and post a half-truth which simplifies your argument and stymies debate.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 05:56 PM
Gee, I've never seen a supposed supporter of one presidential candidate - or any candidate, for that matter - so hot-fired up to defend his opponent. :confused:

( :rolleyes: )That's because you're used to typical "My Party First/Win at all costs" politics. The kind that, you know, DROVE OUR PARTY INTO THE GROUND.

You're also not used to free thinkers and people who are loyal to America before being loyal to their party.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:00 PM
That's because you're used to typical "My Party First/Win at all costs" politics. The kind that, you know, DROVE OUR PARTY INTO THE GROUND.

You're also not used to free thinkers and people who are loyal to America before being loyal to their party.

Gee, you sure do know a lot about an anonymous guy on the internet half way across the country.

Neither one of your assertions, as regards myself, is even remotely true.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:02 PM
I'm so sick of the "US vs. THEM" mentality espoused by the extreme fringes of BOTH parties. It makes me sick.

We're Americans first.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:02 PM
You can list his "stances" all you want. The FACT is he voted against the ban. I can think of no legitimate reason to vote against the ban. The health of the mother is a bunch of bull. If they can tolerate the "procedure", they could tolerate a cesearian section.

I'm not even a "radical Pro-lifer", but how anyone could in any way defend voting against partial birth abortion is beyond me.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:03 PM
Gee, you sure do know a lot about an anonymous guy on the internet half way across the country.

Neither one of your assertions, as regards myself, is even remotely true.Your posts on here consistently prove otherwise. You might want to look into that.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:04 PM
I'm so sick of the "US vs. THEM" mentality espoused by the extreme fringes of BOTH parties. It makes me sick.

We're Americans first.

Well, on that we're in agreement.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:05 PM
I can think of no legitimate reason to vote against the ban. The health of the mother is a bunch of bull.Yep. You're a Christian, all right. :rolleyes:


If they can tolerate the "procedure", they could tolerate a cesearian section.You sure know more than all those doctors. :rolleyes:

You ask me? If I've gotta choose between the woman I love and a baby I've never met, I'm choosing my woman. EVERY...TIME.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:07 PM
Your posts on here consistently prove otherwise. You might want to look into that.

You need to learn to read slower. Or better. Or something.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:07 PM
Yep. You're a Christian, all right. :rolleyes:

You sure know more than all those doctors. :rolleyes:

You ask me? If I've gotta choose between the woman I love and a baby I've never met, I'm choosing my woman. EVERY...TIME.

You obviously never had children.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:10 PM
You obviously never had children.

I don't think LAS is really fooling anyone here - the long timers seem to have his game nailed - but he sure gets a big kick out of pretending.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:11 PM
I find it funny (and I'm not saying you're one of 'em, Edmond) that so many of the same far right "Christians" who gleefully espouse "killing every one of them towl heads" and "nuking Iraq back into glass" and who lecture those "dirty Libz" about how they don't have the stomach for war and are wussies who are "afraid to break a few eggs in order to make an omlette" suddenly get squeemish and sensitive and cryyy when a baby is killed FOR ABSOLUTELY ANY REASON.

Dude, I'm against abortion in most cases. But, again, if I had to choose between the life of the woman I love and some baby I've never met, I'll choose my woman every time and twice on Sunday and if that means I'm going to Hell, fire up the grill.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:11 PM
I don't think LAS is really fooling anyone here - the long timers seem to have his game nailed - but he sure gets a big kick out of pretending.

I should have said, I hope you have never had childen.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:12 PM
You need to learn to read slower. Or better. Or something.You need to learn to write things that adequately reflect what you're suddenly now claiming to believe. :rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:12 PM
You obviously never had children.You obviously don't know what the **** you're talking about mother****er.

Some of us have actually FACED these painful decisions in their lives rather than just sitting behind a virtual pulpit repeating whatever their non-college graduating reverend fed them on Sunday.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:13 PM
I don't think LAS is really fooling anyone here - the long timers seem to have his game nailed - but he sure gets a big kick out of pretending.That explains why so many of them like me. :D

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:14 PM
Every parent I know would give up their life in an instant to save their child. I guess LAS is different.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:14 PM
I find it funny (and I'm not saying you're one of 'em, Edmond) that so many of the same far right "Christians" who gleefully espouse "killing every one of them towl heads" and "nuking Iraq back into glass" and who lecture those "dirty Libz" about how they don't have the stomach for war and are wussies who are "afraid to break a few eggs in order to make an omlette" suddenly get squeemish and sensitive and cryyy when a baby is killed FOR ABSOLUTELY ANY REASON.

:confused:

I'm not the one arguing with you about abortion - our argument is about your ad hominem and untrue characterization of my outlook.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:15 PM
You obviously don't know what the **** you're talking about mother****er.

I guess we know who is NOT a christian.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:15 PM
You need to learn to write things that adequately reflect what you're suddenly now claiming to believe. :rolleyes:

Let's see a post of mine, a single one, that contradicts what you claim I'm "suddenly" believing. Just one will do, LAS.

A link would be nice, too. I'll wait right here while you go find it.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:18 PM
You obviously don't know what the **** you're talking about mother****er.

Some of us have actually FACED these painful decisions in their lives rather than just sitting behind a virtual pulpit repeating whatever their non-college graduating reverend fed them on Sunday.


How would you know if my reverend has a college degree?

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:18 PM
Every parent I know would give up their life in an instant to save their child. I guess LAS is different.Not every one. And you even trying to SAY that is idiotic.

AND there's a difference between "a child" and an "unborn baby."

You've never faced these decisions and it's insulting that you're even trying to continue this charade.


I guess we know who is NOT a christian.Nope. I'm a Catholic. You know, the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS. :pop:

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:19 PM
How would you know if my reverend has a college degree?If he DOES then he's clearly failing in educating his flock.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:20 PM
:confused:

I'm not the one arguing with you about abortion - our argument is about your ad hominem and untrue characterization of my outlook.Bullbutter.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:22 PM
Nope. I'm a Catholic. You know, the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS. :pop:

I thought the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS were a Rabbi and twelve of his Jewish followers? :confused:

By the bye, my wife, who is Catholic, has often talked about "cafeteria Catholicism" - guess you're in that category, eh?

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:23 PM
I thought the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS were a Rabbi and twelve of his Jewish followers? :confused:

By the bye, my wife, who is Catholic, has often talked about "cafeteria Catholicism" - guess you're in that category, eh?And again you show your ignorance.

Messing with the two trolls is FUN! :D

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:23 PM
Bullbutter.

Sez you. But I've noticed that when you've got your back up against the wall in these forums - which is often - you usually resort to spluttering and hissing as opposed to actually making an argument.

QED.

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:23 PM
Not every one. And you even trying to SAY that is idiotic.

AND there's a difference between "a child" and an "unborn baby."

You've never faced these decisions and it's insulting that you're even trying to continue this charade.

Nope. I'm a Catholic. You know, the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS. :pop:

I said every one I know. Maybe you should actually read posts before resorting to name calling. The argument was about partial birth abortion, which in my mind involves a child. I doubt you had to choose whether to have a partial birth abortion or not.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 06:24 PM
The fact that you two keep misquoting, misreferencing and just plain ol' making stuff up is annoying. And boring.

So I'm gonna go eat sushi.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:26 PM
And again you show your ignorance.

Messing with the two trolls is FUN! :D

Which part? Was Jesus a Rabbi, or wasn't he? The New Testament seems to think so. Where his initial apostles Jewish, or weren't they?

I think someone is showing something akin to "ignorance," alrighty...

"Messing with the two trolls is FUN!"

You sound like you need to get out more. I thought LA was sunny year round?

Condescending Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:27 PM
The fact that you are getting owned maybe annoying, so go ahead and bail.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:29 PM
The fact that you two keep misquoting, misreferencing and just plain ol' making stuff up is annoying. And boring.

So I'm gonna go eat sushi.

Which translates to: "I am incapable of continuing this discussion in any substantive way, so I'll just concede by pretending I've won another mighty debate on the internets."

Your concession is accepted.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:29 PM
The fact that you are getting owned maybe annoying, so go ahead and bail.

Heh - spot on and exactly right.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 06:30 PM
Which part? Was Jesus a Rabbi, or wasn't he? The New Testament seems to think so. Where his initial apostles Jewish, or weren't they?

I think someone is showing something akin to "ignorance," alrighty...

"Messing with the two trolls is FUN!"

You sound like you need to get out more. I thought LA was sunny year round?

My bible learning may be a bit rusty, but Jesus wasn't a Rabbi. He was referred to as one because the word "rabbi" means teacher in Hebrew, but he never held the office of Rabbi.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:36 PM
My bible learning may be a bit rusty, but Jesus wasn't a Rabbi. He was referred to as one because the word "rabbi" means teacher in Hebrew, but he never held the office of Rabbi.

In the book of John alone He is referred to at least five times as "Rabbi." His apostles called Him one, and He never corrected them. Strangers called Him one, and He never corrected them, either. Take it up with the authors of the Gospels.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 06:47 PM
In the book of John alone He is referred to at least five times as "Rabbi." His apostles called Him one, and He never corrected them. Strangers called Him one, and He never corrected them, either. Take it up with the authors of the Gospels.

For someone who posted this...


You need to learn to read slower. Or better. Or something.

I am surprised. I said he was referred to as rabbi, the Hebrew word for "teacher", or "my great one". Go figure, his followers called him a teacher:rolleyes:

Perhaps you should learn to follow your own advice

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 06:54 PM
For someone who posted this...



I am surprised. I said he was referred to as rabbi, the Hebrew word for "teacher", or "my great one". Go figure, his followers called him a teacher:rolleyes:

Perhaps you should learn to follow your own advice

No, perhaps you should just admit you stuck your foot in your mouth, and are now trying desperately to pry it out.

Follow along closely now: if someone is routinely referred to as "Rabbi," that indeed makes them a "Rabbi," regardless of what "office" they hold. Not once was it asserted that Jesus held some kind of "office" in any event, but that He was a Rabbi - and he was. He was called Rabbi by numerous people in numerous situations, and this was never contradicted by anybody, least of all Him.

So, was He a Rabbi, or wasn't He? I say He was, and you're too busy confusing yourself to really know what you're trying to say. I can dumb it down further for you, if that would help.

"Perhaps you should learn to follow your own advice"

Physician, heal thyself. To coin a phrase.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:04 PM
Let's just take a brief stroll down proof-text lane:

Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. -John 1:49

The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. -John 3:2

And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? John 6:25

That's in the first six chapters of one Gospel.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:05 PM
No, perhaps you should just admit you stuck your foot in your mouth, and are now trying desperately to pry it out.

Follow along closely now: if someone is routinely referred to as "Rabbi," that indeed makes them a "Rabbi," regardless of what "office" they hold. Not once was it asserted that Jesus held some kind of "office" in any event, but that He was a Rabbi - and he was. He was called Rabbi by numerous people in numerous situations, and this was never contradicted by anybody, least of all Him.

So, was He a Rabbi, or wasn't He? I say He was, and you're too busy confusing yourself to really know what you're trying to say. I can dumb it down further for you, if that would help.

"Perhaps you should learn to follow your own advice"

Physician, heal thyself. To coin a phrase.

So you are saying that if I call you the pope routinely , you're the pope?

Look dude, Rabbi is an official position in the Jewish faith. But the word rabbi is used to refer to Jesus as a teacher. He was addressed as rabbi because his followers looked up to him as a teacher, not because Temple priests conveyed that office upon Him. Was he a rabbi, yes, he most certainly was a teacher. Was he a Rabbi, no. But you are the friggen Pope, so, whatever your holiness.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:06 PM
Let's just take a brief stroll down proof-text lane:

Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. -John 1:49

The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. -John 3:2

And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? John 6:25

That's in the first six chapters of one Gospel.

Are to to thick to understand what I am saying?

HE WAS REFERRED TO AS A RABBI BECAUSE HIS FOLLOWERS LOOKED UP TO HIM AS A TEACHER!

RABBI IS THE HEBREW WORD FOR TEACHER!

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:12 PM
Oh, and lookee here at what I found:

He who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single Torah statement, or even a single letter, must treat him with honor. For so we find with David King of Israel, who learned nothing from Ahitophel except two things, yet called him his teacher (in Hebrew: rabbo meaning ‘his rabbi’), his guide, his intimate, as it is said: 'You are a man of my measure, my guide, my intimate' (Psalms 55:14). One can derive from this the following: If David King of Israel who learned nothing from Ahitophel except for two things, called him his teacher (i.e. rabbo -- his "rabbi"), his guide, his intimate, one who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single statement, or even a single letter, how much more must he treat him with honor.And honor is due only for Torah, as it is said: 'The wise shall inherit honor' (Proverbs 3:35), 'and the perfect shall inherit good' (Proverbs 28:10). And only Torah is truly good, as it is said: 'I have given you a good teaching, do not forsake My Torah' (Psalms 128:2). (Ethics of the Fathers 6:3).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi

So much for all this hair-splitting about an "office."

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:15 PM
Are to to thick to understand what I am saying?

HE WAS REFERRED TO AS A RABBI BECAUSE HIS FOLLOWERS LOOKED UP TO HIM AS A TEACHER!

RABBI IS THE HEBREW WORD FOR TEACHER!

So He wasn't a Rabbi, even though His apostles said He was, and He thought He was. Gotcha.

I disagree - and so does about anybody who can read. Guess we're done here.

On a side note, dude, monitor that blood pressure. Just because you've been shown to be wrong on a point on the internet doesn't mean it's the end of the world. Chill.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:16 PM
Look, I guess it comes down to a matter of opinion here. You think that because Jesus was referred to as a rabbi by his followers he was one.

I contend that they were using the term rabbi as an honorific title to the man the considered to be their teacher.

I have read parts of the bible in greek (I had to have either latin greek or hebrew for my classics degree) and in it, it seems pretty clear that they are using the term to honor Jesus, not to bestow him the office of Rabbi in the Jewish faith. But, two different people reading the same basic thing can come to separate conclusions, or so it would seem.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:17 PM
So you are saying that if I call you the pope routinely , you're the pope?



Read slower. Read better. Or just Read.

Take it from the top: the Bible has not declared Edmond Sooner the Pope. The day It does, your strawman there might have some itsy-bitsy relevance to this topic.

Read slower. Read better. Or just Read.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:18 PM
So He wasn't a Rabbi, even though His apostles said He was, and He thought He was. Gotcha.

I disagree - and so does about anybody who can read. Guess we're done here.

On a side note, dude, monitor that blood pressure. Just because you've been shown to be wrong on a point on the internet doesn't mean it's the end of the world. Chill.

Calm down Pope, it's going to be fine. You can think that you won this argument to alright. Damn, I don't want to go to hell for proving the Pope wrong.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:19 PM
Look, I guess it comes down to a matter of opinion here. You think that because Jesus was referred to as a rabbi by his followers he was one.

I contend that they were using the term rabbi as an honorific title to the man the considered to be their teacher.

I have read parts of the bible in greek (I had to have either latin greek or hebrew for my classics degree) and in it, it seems pretty clear that they are using the term to honor Jesus, not to bestow him the office of Rabbi in the Jewish faith. But, two different people reading the same basic thing can come to separate conclusions, or so it would seem.

Uh, point me to the post where I said Jesus held the office or Rabbi?

So, you read Koine Greek?

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:20 PM
Read slower. Read better. Or just Read.

Take it from the top: the Bible has not declared Edmond Sooner the Pope. The day It does, your strawman there might have some itsy-bitsy relevance to this topic.

Read slower. Read better. Or just Read.

No, you said
...if someone is routinely referred to as "Rabbi," that indeed makes them a "Rabbi,"

not


...if someone is routinely referred to as "Rabbi," in the bible, that indeed makes them a "Rabbi,"

Stop adding **** to what I call you out on and stand on what you have already said.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:22 PM
Uh, point me to the post where I said Jesus held the office or Rabbi?

So, you read Koine Greek?

I read greek, yes.

So you're saying that Jesus was a teacher, not a Jewish Rabbi?

sooner_born_1960
10/22/2008, 07:22 PM
Race and the 2008 Election
Is this the place for all this rabbi, Rabbi, pope talk?

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:22 PM
Stop adding **** to what I contradict you on and stand on what you have already said.

Oh, I stand on everything I've said. Jesus was a Rabbi. What office he held was irrelevant in the context of how that title was used. Go back and re-read. Take your time.

So, you speak Koine Greek?

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:24 PM
I read greek, yes.

So you're saying that Jesus was a teacher, not a Jewish Rabbi?

No, I'm saying Jesus was just what his apostles called him: Rabbi. How much clearer do I have to make it?

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:26 PM
Race and the 2008 Election
Is this the place for all this rabbi, Rabbi, pope talk?

I agree, but Havok there's buddy LAS got spanked and skedaddled out of here singing hosannas, and Havok decided to rush to his buddies defense by nit-picking over something he really doesn't know much about.

That's the sum of it.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:27 PM
Oh, I stand on everything I've said. Jesus was a Rabbi. What office he held was irrelevant in the context of how that title was used. Go back and re-read. Take your time.

So, you speak Koine Greek?

I speak greek alright, there is less of a difference between ancient greek and greek as there is between English and ancient greek. For god's sake, European translations of the bible had Mosses with horns,

Now please, are you saying that Jesus was a teacher, but did not hold the office of Rabbi within the Jewish faith? Cause that is what I have been arguing here. That yes, he was a teacher, but no, he wasn't an official Rabbi in the Jewish faith.

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:28 PM
Oh, and lookee here at what I found:

He who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single Torah statement, or even a single letter, must treat him with honor. For so we find with David King of Israel, who learned nothing from Ahitophel except two things, yet called him his teacher (in Hebrew: rabbo meaning ‘his rabbi’), his guide, his intimate, as it is said: 'You are a man of my measure, my guide, my intimate' (Psalms 55:14). One can derive from this the following: If David King of Israel who learned nothing from Ahitophel except for two things, called him his teacher (i.e. rabbo -- his "rabbi"), his guide, his intimate, one who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single statement, or even a single letter, how much more must he treat him with honor.And honor is due only for Torah, as it is said: 'The wise shall inherit honor' (Proverbs 3:35), 'and the perfect shall inherit good' (Proverbs 28:10). And only Torah is truly good, as it is said: 'I have given you a good teaching, do not forsake My Torah' (Psalms 128:2). (Ethics of the Fathers 6:3).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi

So much for all this hair-splitting about an "office."

This, you know, actual proof of my position has been conveniently ignored, as expected.

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 07:31 PM
I guess we know who is NOT a christian.

ME!!! ME!!!

YAY!!!

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:31 PM
I speak greek alright, there is less of a difference between ancient greek and greek as there is between English and ancient greek. For god's sake, European translations of the bible had Mosses with horns,

Now please, are you saying that Jesus was a teacher, but did not hold the office of Rabbi within the Jewish faith? Cause that is what I have been arguing here. That yes, he was a teacher, but no, he wasn't an official Rabbi in the Jewish faith.

I highlighted this word because it points to the very slender thread you've attempted to pick a fight with me over.

I don't say Jesus was an official anything - I say he was a Rabbi, because the apostles and a good many of people who encountered Him addressed Him by that title.

What is so hard about that to understand?

Now, one more time: Do. You. Speak. Koine. Greek?

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 07:33 PM
Why don't you knobs go find a different thread to jack?

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:36 PM
Why don't you knobs go find a different thread to jack?

I apologize for participating in it. It wasn't initiated by me, but nevertheless you are right.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:41 PM
This, you know, actual proof of my position has been conveniently ignored, as expected.

Fine, I'm a Rabbi too I guess.

Look, you seemed to want to neglect the fact that I pointed out rabbi means teacher. I have been saying all along that in that sense, yes he was a rabbi. You seemed to not like my using the translated word teacher in place of rabbi. I did that eliminate the confusion between a Jewish Rabbi, and a teacher being referred to as a rabbi.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:42 PM
Why don't you knobs go find a different thread to jack?

**** off dip ****!!!!

Fine, Obama is Black, he is running for POTUS, happy?:D

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:43 PM
Fine, I'm a Rabbi too I guess.

Look, you seemed to want to neglect the fact that I pointed out rabbi means teacher. I have been saying all along that in that sense, yes he was a rabbi. You seemed to not like my using the translated word teacher in place of rabbi. I did that eliminate the confusion between a Jewish Rabbi, and a teacher being referred to as a rabbi.

No more hijacking. I'm voting for McCain. How about you?

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:45 PM
No more hijacking. I'm voting for McCain. How about you?

I'm voting for the ****** :D

Edmond Sooner
10/22/2008, 07:46 PM
I'm voting for the ****** :D

:eek:

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:47 PM
:eek:

k-n-o-w-e-r :D

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:48 PM
You see what I did there?

:D:D:D

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 07:52 PM
Oh, the words that are blocked out on this board.

Obama is still black, and this post is still in line with the original topic!

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 09:03 PM
Read slower. Read better. Or just Read.

Take it from the top: the Bible has not declared Edmond Sooner the Pope. The day It does, your strawman there might have some itsy-bitsy relevance to this topic.

Read slower. Read better. Or just Read.LMAO.

You should change your handle to "Condescending Sooner."

*sigh* Now, no...I most certainly WAS NOT conceding a fight that I was so easily winning. I really just got bored...mainly for the same reasons Havok is getting bored, arguing with you two is like debating a 2 year old. You change your positions, don't listen and then cry when you're beaten.

As to the point that you CLAIMED you won (LMAO again) regarding the whole Rabbi bit (which I enjoyed watching Havok school you on) shall I explain how you were wrong?

Let's see...you asked:

I thought the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS were a Rabbi and twelve of his Jewish followers? :confused:
The answer is NO.

The basis if Christianity is that Jesus was Christ, God made flesh, who suffered died and was buried for our sins and who was resurrected three days after His death to ascent do Heaven to assume his rightful place at the right hand of the Father.

Based upon this, your assertion that Jesus, the Rabbi, was the first Christian is a logical fallacy.

Secondly, His followers also were NOT Christians until they cast aside their former JEWISH beliefs and began to follow "the new ways" as laid out by Jesus, the Christ. At that point it was PETER, the founder of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, who became the FIRST CHRISTIAN by establishing worship, prayer and the belief of Jesus as the Christ and the Savior as ordained by the prophets.

Hence, your assertion that his "Jewish followers" were "Christians" is yet another logical fallacy. They aren't. They were Jews. Then, they changed their beliefs and worship, and became Christians. In other words, they were Jews until they became Christians. And their Christianity was demonstrated with the founding of the Catholic Church.


By the bye, my wife, who is Catholic, has often talked about "cafeteria Catholicism" Guess she's in that category, eh? ;)

By the way, that was the oversimplified version. Some of us actually went to school to study the history of Christianity and the Bible and didn't just memorize stuff our pastors told us.

Maaaan....that sushi was NUMMY IN MAH TUMMY!!!!
:D:D:D:D:D

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 09:07 PM
Fine, I'm a Rabbi too I guess.Yeah, you're a Rabbi.

'Cause you're taking him to SCHOOL!

ZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!


Tip your waitress. :D

Curly Bill
10/22/2008, 09:08 PM
YAWN!!!

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 09:14 PM
Yeah. Words are hard...

Curly Bill
10/22/2008, 09:15 PM
Yeah. Words are hard...


Not so much when one has a pat routine that they use constantly.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 09:17 PM
Not so much when one has a pat routine that they use constantly.Ironic post of the year, candidate.

:D

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 09:17 PM
Not so much when one has a pat routine that they use constantly.

WRY_t6GEOB4

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Curly Bill
10/22/2008, 09:18 PM
Ironic post of the year, candidate.

:D

You ever look in a mirror?

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 09:34 PM
You ever look in a mirror?All the time. But there's always some hot dude staring back at me.

:D

sooneron
10/22/2008, 09:37 PM
CS sends another thread down the ****ter.

Curly Bill
10/22/2008, 09:38 PM
All the time. But there's always some hot dude staring back at me.

:D

Yeah we know, we all know, because we've heard it before. Tell us once again how intelligent this guy in the mirror is as well.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 09:39 PM
I give you people gold, and nothing...**** you, I'm going to Guam!

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 09:40 PM
Yeah we know, we all know, because we've heard it before. Tell us once again how intelligent this guy in the mirror is as well.I don't know.

His lips move...but I can't hear what he's sayin'. :confused:

http://www.thewallanalysis.com/Pictures/MovieShots/FullSizeShots/Comfortably1.JPG





:D

JohnnyMack
10/22/2008, 09:47 PM
I'm a about to Swayze-bomb my own thread.

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 09:48 PM
DAY-UM!

SleestakSooner
10/22/2008, 09:53 PM
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e124/joshuaturner/DirtySteve.jpg
He ain't all there is he?

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 09:59 PM
:les:Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo!

LosAngelesSooner
10/22/2008, 10:05 PM
:les:Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo!

Half a Hundred
10/22/2008, 10:32 PM
Don't look at it. Shut your eyes, Marion. Don't look at it, no matter what happens.

Sooner_Havok
10/22/2008, 11:33 PM
I can't believe you finally really did it!! You maniac! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God...damn you all to hell!"

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2000/02/03/Planet.jpg

Edmond Sooner
10/23/2008, 02:22 AM
Let's take this in order of ease of dismissal:

"The basis if Christianity is that Jesus was Christ, God made flesh, who suffered died and was buried for our sins and who was resurrected three days after His death to ascent do Heaven to assume his rightful place at the right hand of the Father.

Based upon this, your assertion that Jesus, the Rabbi, was the first Christian is a logical fallacy."

Wrong. You are transposing historical descriptions with theological ones, and doing it badly. The "basis" you describe is one of faith, while the "logical fallacy" you are attempting to assign to it is one of historical fact.

FACT: the historical Jesus of Nazareth was a Rabbi with twelve Jewish apostles in the early part of the First Century A.D.

BELIEF: Jesus of Nazareth was God on Earth, God made flesh, who was slain before the foundation of the world to atone for the Fall of Man, was resurrected on the Third Day, etc.

Your inability to distinguish between FACT and BELIEF is right in line with your failure to respond with the slightest bit of factual backup to your earlier disproved assertions, and not in the least surprising.

"Hence, your assertion that his "Jewish followers" were "Christians" is yet another logical fallacy. They aren't. They were Jews. Then, they changed their beliefs and worship, and became Christians. In other words, they were Jews until they became Christians. And their Christianity was demonstrated with the founding of the Catholic Church"

Wrong, yet again and per usual. For starters, it is apparent that you haven't the slightest notion of what constitutes a "logical fallacy" - but let's put that aside for the moment.

The followers of Jesus were indeed Christians, and, in point of fact, one of the greatest controversies in the early church was to what extent the apostles could maintain their place in the system of worship in which they were raised. This was the controversy between Peter and Paul that is chronicled in The Acts of the Apostles. This is stuff Sunday Schoolers learn, but of which you are apparently unaware. So much for that bogus claim of your intense "studies" ( :rolleyes: ).

Further, the Catholic Church did not manifest itself as a as a serious historical phenomenon until Ignatius, and was not even formalized until Constantine. So much for yet another area in which it is apparent you simply don't seem to know much about the history of your own church.

"*sigh* Now, no...I most certainly WAS NOT conceding a fight that I was so easily winning."

Where? All the rest of us saw was you fleeing when faced with irrefutable facts. Link, please.

"You change your positions, don't listen and then cry when you're beaten"

Uh-huh. Again, where did this supposedly occur? You seem to be the only one who witnessed it...(*snicker*).

In point of fact, this is called "projection," and is the typical ploy of those who simply rage at those who best them in such encounters. I gather this is your standard modus operandi, and smile accordingly.

Better luck next time, LAS.

Mr. Mack, I again apologize for participating in the jack of your thread in order to straighten out an intellectual poseur.

Edmond Sooner
10/23/2008, 02:49 AM
Now, and again with apologies to Mr. Mack, here's some evidence so that everyone knows just how laughable LAS's assertions have been in this thread:

"At first, Christians worshiped alongside Jews on Saturdays in Jewish temples, but within twenty years of Jesus' death this changed as Sunday began to be regarded as the primary day of worship"

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_church#cite_note-Davidson115-204

"The word "Apostle", from the Greek apostello "to send forth", "to dispatch", has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched--in other words, who is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has, however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as much as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in 1 Kings 14:6 (cf. 1 Kings 12:24). In the New Testament, on the contrary. it occurs, according to Bruder's Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent of which was "Apostle". It seems to us that there is no reasonable doubt about the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later Jews, and probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted "those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service"

Link (from the Catholic Encyclopedia, in point of fact) - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

"From the earliest times the scribes seem to have conceived an exalted opinion of their merits: "The wisdom [knowledge] of the scribe cometh by his time of leisure: and he that is less in action [less steeped in business] shall receive wisdom. With what wisdom shall he be furnished [what knowledge can he acquire] that holdeth the plough, and that glorieth in the goad, that driveth the oxen therewith, and is occupied in their labours, and his whole talk is about the offspring ofbulls?" (thus Hebrew; Ecclus., xxxviii, 25, 26). Evidently the scribe in his own estimation belonged to a higher caste. And so it was understood by the people who, after the time of Hillel introduced the custom of saluting them "Rabbi". The word, derived from the Hebrew Rab, "great", originally seems to have been equivalent to "my lord"; when it became the distinctive title of the scribes the specific force of its pronoun was lost, and "Rabbi" was used very much like our "Doctor"."

Link (Ibid) - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12617b.htm

"Given the historical context in which the Gospels took their final form and during which Christianity first emerged, historians have struggled to understand Jesus' ministry in terms of what is known about first-century Judaism. According to scholars such as Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders, Jesus does not seem to have belonged to any particular party or movement; Jesus was eclectic (and perhaps unique) in combining elements of many of these different—and for most Jews, opposing—positions. Most critical scholars see Jesus as healing people and performing miracles in the prophetic tradition of the Galilee, while preaching God's desire for justice and righteousness in the prophetic tradition of Judea."

Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

"The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110."

Link (my Catholic friends, again) - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

Ah, proof. And actual evidence.

Who wants to bet that all I'll get in reply to actual proof backing up my assertions will be a string of juvenile ad hominem attacks?

Wait for it, wait for it....

On another note, I'm glad I have the rest of the week off. :pop:

Edmond Sooner
10/23/2008, 03:24 AM
Now, let's discuss logical fallacies.

LAS claims he spots a bunch of them, everywhere, but this is a typical tactic of those who haven't the slightest understanding of what committing a "logical fallacy" entails.

Indeed, it's just Deus ex machina jazz for a poseur on the losing end of an internet argument.

Let's look at a few, and follow up with facts and evidence (something LAS doesn't tend to care much for):

"You need to learn to write things that adequately reflect what you're suddenly now claiming to believe."

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief.

Description:

"The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:

1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.

5. I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

6. I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. For example, if someone were to say "If sixteen-headed purple unicorns don't exist, then I would be miserable, so they must exist" it would be clear that this would not be a good line of reasoning. It is important to note that the consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief. It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim."

LAS: Guilty.

"You obviously don't know what the **** you're talking about mother****er."

Fallacy: Ad Hominem.

Description:

"Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."

LAS: Guilty.

"You've never faced these decisions and it's insulting that you're even trying to continue this charade"

Fallacy: Special Pleading.

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.

From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. This principle is a reasonable one. After all, it would not be particularly rational to treat two people differently when there is no relevant difference between them. As an extreme case, it would be very odd for a parent to insist on making one child wear size 5 shoes and the other wear size 7 shoes when the children are both size 5.

It should be noted that the Principle of Relevant Difference does allow people to be treated differently. For example, if one employee was a slacker and the other was a very prodictive worker the boss would be justified in giving only the productive worker a raise. This is because the productive of each is a relevant difference between them. Since it can be reasonable to treat people differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill's turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be a case of Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner (this, of course, assumes that Bill does not accept a standard that requires people to cook dinner regardless of the circumstances). In this case Bill is offering a good reason as to why he should be exempt and, most importantly, it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill.

While determing what counts as a legitimate basis for exemption can be a difficult task, it seems clear that claiming you are exempt because you are you does not provide such a legitimate basis. Thus, unless a clear and relevant justification for exemption can be presented, a person cannot claim to be exempt.

There are cases which are similar to instances of Special Pleading in which a person is offering at least some reason why he should be exempt but the reason is not good enough to warrant the exemption. This could be called "Failed Pleading." For example, a professor may claim to be exempt from helping the rest of the faculty move books to the new department office because it would be beneath his dignity. However, this is not a particularly good reason and would hardly justify his exemption. If it turns out that the real "reason" a person is claiming exemption is that they simply take themselves to be exempt, then they would be committing Special Pleading. Such cases will be fairly common. After all, it is fairly rare for adults to simply claim they are exempt without at least some pretense of justifying the exemption.
Examples of Special Pleading

1. Bill and Jill are married. Both Bill and Jill have put in a full day at the office. Their dog, Rover, has knocked over all the plants in one room and has strewn the dirt all over the carpet. When they return, Bill tells Jill that it is her job to clean up after the dog. When she protests, he says that he has put in a full day at the office and is too tired to clean up after the dog.

2. Jane and Sue share a dorm room.

Jane: "Turn of that stupid stereo, I want to take a nap."
Sue: "Why should I? What are you exhausted or something?"
Jane: "No, I just feel like taking a nap."
Sue: "Well, I feel like playing my stereo."
Jane: "Well, I'm taking my nap. You have to turn your stereo off and that's final."

3. Mike and Barbara share an apartment.

Mike: "Barbara, you've tracked in mud again."
Barbara: "So? It's not my fault."
Mike: "Sure. I suppose it walked in on its own. You made the mess, so you clean it up."
Barbara: "Why?"
Mike: "We agreed that whoever makes a mess has to clean it up. That is fair."
Barbara: "Well, I'm going to watch TV. If you don't like the mud, then you clean it up."
Mike: "Barbara..."
Barbara: "What? I want to watch the show. I don't want to clean up the mud. Like I said, if it bothers you that much, then you should clean it up."

LAS: Guilty.

"The fact that you two keep misquoting, misreferencing and just plain ol' making stuff up is annoying. And boring.

So I'm gonna go eat sushi."

Fallacy: Strawman.

"Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."

LAS: Guilty.

"Some of us actually went to school to study the history of Christianity and the Bible and didn't just memorize stuff our pastors told us"

Fallacy: Personal Attack.

Description:

"Description of Personal Attack

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim. "

LAS: Guilty.

"That's because you're used to typical "My Party First/Win at all costs" politics. The kind that, you know, DROVE OUR PARTY INTO THE GROUND.

You're also not used to free thinkers and people who are loyal to America before being loyal to their party."

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well.

Description:

"This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor."

LAS: Guilty.

Now, there we have us some right-proper "logical fallacies" fer sure - a whole slew of 'em.

Perhaps LAS will finally educate himself to exactly what it means when he types those two words....

Linky: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Gandalf_The_Grey
10/23/2008, 04:09 AM
Dear God...you should be baned for me almost trying to read that...

Condescending Sooner
10/23/2008, 08:45 AM
CS sends another thread down the ****ter.

Sure. LAS had nothing to do with it.

Scott D
10/23/2008, 12:09 PM
Anytime a political thread becomes a religious thread it should be nuked into boliva.

soonerscuba
10/23/2008, 12:24 PM
Anytime a political thread becomes a religious thread it should be nuked into boliva.That's the smartest thing I've ever heard anyone say about anything.

LosAngelesSooner
10/23/2008, 12:59 PM
Let's take this in order of ease of dismissal:

"The basis if Christianity is that Jesus was Christ, God made flesh, who suffered died and was buried for our sins and who was resurrected three days after His death to ascent do Heaven to assume his rightful place at the right hand of the Father.

Based upon this, your assertion that Jesus, the Rabbi, was the first Christian is a logical fallacy."

Wrong. You are transposing historical descriptions with theological ones, and doing it badly. The "basis" you describe is one of faith, while the "logical fallacy" you are attempting to assign to it is one of historical fact.

FACT: the historical Jesus of Nazareth was a Rabbi with twelve Jewish apostles in the early part of the First Century A.D.

BELIEF: Jesus of Nazareth was God on Earth, God made flesh, who was slain before the foundation of the world to atone for the Fall of Man, was resurrected on the Third Day, etc.

Your inability to distinguish between FACT and BELIEF is right in line with your failure to respond with the slightest bit of factual backup to your earlier disproved assertions, and not in the least surprising.

"Hence, your assertion that his "Jewish followers" were "Christians" is yet another logical fallacy. They aren't. They were Jews. Then, they changed their beliefs and worship, and became Christians. In other words, they were Jews until they became Christians. And their Christianity was demonstrated with the founding of the Catholic Church"

Wrong, yet again and per usual. For starters, it is apparent that you haven't the slightest notion of what constitutes a "logical fallacy" - but let's put that aside for the moment.

The followers of Jesus were indeed Christians, and, in point of fact, one of the greatest controversies in the early church was to what extent the apostles could maintain their place in the system of worship in which they were raised. This was the controversy between Peter and Paul that is chronicled in The Acts of the Apostles. This is stuff Sunday Schoolers learn, but of which you are apparently unaware. So much for that bogus claim of your intense "studies" ( :rolleyes: ).

Further, the Catholic Church did not manifest itself as a as a serious historical phenomenon until Ignatius, and was not even formalized until Constantine. So much for yet another area in which it is apparent you simply don't seem to know much about the history of your own church.

"*sigh* Now, no...I most certainly WAS NOT conceding a fight that I was so easily winning."

Where? All the rest of us saw was you fleeing when faced with irrefutable facts. Link, please.

"You change your positions, don't listen and then cry when you're beaten"

Uh-huh. Again, where did this supposedly occur? You seem to be the only one who witnessed it...(*snicker*).

In point of fact, this is called "projection," and is the typical ploy of those who simply rage at those who best them in such encounters. I gather this is your standard modus operandi, and smile accordingly.

Better luck next time, LAS.

Mr. Mack, I again apologize for participating in the jack of your thread in order to straighten out an intellectual poseur.You don't understand the basic concept of a logical fallacy, so I can't argue with you.

Also you don't understand the concept of accepted doctrines of faith, so I can't argue with you.

You're convinced you're right, even though the facts demonstrate you're wrong, so I can't argue with you.

You're using a bunch of quotes, but then misinterpreting what they're saying and failing to see how what they're actually saying supports what I asserted previously, so I can't argue with you.

You're hoping nobody has the time or patience to sit down and read everything you wrote and then see how wrong you are, which is probably true, except that I have a degree in this stuff from Loyola Marymount University and spent 4 years on it, so I already know it better than your quick Google searches can educate you. However we're all bored to death with your lame argument, so I won't argue with you.

No need to keep beating you down. You don't realize how badly you've already lost.

Now I'm gonna go grab lunch...er...I mean, "flee this thread." :rolleyes:

C&CDean
10/23/2008, 01:12 PM
Meh. The only thing "lost" around here is the people posting in this POS thread.

The End.