Why Perry Can't Win

[Ringel05]

You make a hell of a lot of assumptions and it shows with every post you make. Now that's pathetic.
I'll move on now, I really hate to keep you from your windmill tilting since it seems it's all you're capable of doing (and badly at that). I'll say hi the next time I decide to visit the binjo ditch you live in.
Oh and watch out for anyone offering to give you an enema, I'd really hate to see you completely diminished......... Tata!

Wooo, pointing out you wasted your life must burn, eh, guy..

Hey, make it simple for you.

If Stalin won, most Russians got to keep on living.
If Hitler won, they got to be lampshades and bars of soap.

That's why Russians admire Stalin. He saved them as a people. Even if he was an evil jerk.

Ah yes, time for my morning visit to the binjo ditch, damn is that relieving!
Do ya feel refreshed now? Properly nourished? You should.

 

[JoeB131]

No, the vast majority were carried out by soldiers following orders, and people who wanted to foreword the cause of the Nazi party. Again, we begin yet another circle. Most kiddies know about Jephthah. Your experiences are not everyone else's, (well maybe some one els's) but not everyone's. As for a link, hold on, let me edit something up real fast.

Actually, if anything, the quality of religious education has declined since I was in back in the 70's.

Had a co-worker who co-incidently went to the same school I went to in the 1990's. (The nuns are all dead or retired now.) The conversation had switched to the Book of Job, and he had no idea what that was about. Job has been removed from the syllabus.

Which actually might be a good thing. Bible thumpers love Job, but it really doesn't reflect well on God when you think about it. God essentially messes up this whole man's life on a bet with Satan, and when he ask, "But why, God?" (I guess ultimately, that's the question all of us ask), God says, "Hey, Because I can. I'm God!"

But God gave him replacement kids, so it was all good.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why Perry will win if he gets the nomination: He ain't Obama.

Thats exactly right. People on these board muck up the analysis and present it like the GOP candidate is running against some icon with a stellar record. Its stellar only to about 20% of the people who would all vote for Obama if the unemployment rate were 50%.

But heres the poop............

In November of 2008, just one month after one of the hugest collapses in American economic history....the lamest GOP candidate ever still only lost 5 or 6 key states by 3 to 4 points. Since then, these states have fallen further and further into the shitter. In '12, no red states are going back to blue. To win Ohio, Florida, Indiana and Montana........all the GOP candidate is going to have to do is show up. Close to 80 electoral votes. Arizona is now leaning strong GOP, as is Missouri. Virginia was lost by McCain by only 6%. Put just one in the Perry column and its election over.

 

[JoeB131]

Why Perry will win if he gets the nomination: He ain't Obama.

Thats exactly right. People on these board muck up the analysis and present it like the GOP candidate is running against some icon with a stellar record. Its stellar only to about 20% of the people who would all vote for Obama if the unemployment rate were 50%.

But heres the poop............

In November of 2008, just one month after one of the hugest collapses in American economic history....the lamest GOP candidate ever still only lost 5 or 6 key states by 3 to 4 points. Since then, these states have fallen further and further into the shitter. To win Ohio, Florida, Indiana and Montana........all the GOP candidate is going to have to do is show up. Close to 80 electoral votes. Virginia was lost by McCain by only 6%. Put it in the Perry column and its election over.

I think the flaw in that analysis was that neither McCain nor Obama was an incumbent. An incumbent has a built in advantage in that he's a known quantity, even if that quantity sucks.

"The Devil You Know".

In our entire history, 10 presidents have been voted out. One of those was never elected to begin with. 22 presidents have won second terms. Even with recessions and other problems. so you need a good candidate to unseat an incumbent.

I think Perry is probably the only one who could. I think anyone who thinks the GOP could nominated Herman Cain or Ron Paul and win is deluding themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB is still in denial and Rabbi believes a moral case cannot be made against slavery.

Nothing has changed over night then.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB is still in denial and Rabbi believes a moral case cannot be made against slavery.

Nothing has changed over night then.

Jake is still a fake republican trying to foist a Democrat on us.

Everything is status quo....

 

[NGSamson]

No, the vast majority were carried out by soldiers following orders, and people who wanted to foreword the cause of the Nazi party. Again, we begin yet another circle. Most kiddies know about Jephthah. Your experiences are not everyone else's, (well maybe some one els's) but not everyone's. As for a link, hold on, let me edit something up real fast.

Actually, if anything, the quality of religious education has declined since I was in back in the 70's.

Had a co-worker who co-incidently went to the same school I went to in the 1990's. (The nuns are all dead or retired now.) The conversation had switched to the Book of Job, and he had no idea what that was about. Job has been removed from the syllabus.

Which actually might be a good thing. Bible thumpers love Job, but it really doesn't reflect well on God when you think about it. God essentially messes up this whole man's life on a bet with Satan, and when he ask, "But why, God?" (I guess ultimately, that's the question all of us ask), God says, "Hey, Because I can. I'm God!"

But God gave him replacement kids, so it was all good.

Yet another example of how you post an opinion, from ignorance. Every story has a point. You ignore the point, and quote an edited version of the story to support your opinion. Its a sign of weakness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB is still in denial and Rabbi believes a moral case cannot be made against slavery.

Nothing has changed over night then.

Jake is still a fake republican trying to foist a Democrat on us.

Everything is status quo....

Romney and Perry are pubs, but you are not, simply a hard right non-conservative reactionary.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you think a farmer who depends on his animals for a livelyhood is abusive to them animals? Do you think he would beat his horse bloody if it was sick and couldn't work? Or here's a concept feed house take care of it if it's sick to keep it in good working order. I realize your liberal minded types fail to understand that concept. I realize Roots taught you a lot. Was there abuse of slaves? Yes there was to the extent you would have us believe? Hell ******* no states has slave protection laws.

Sweet Evil C'Thulhu, are you comparing human beings to Farm Animals?

Actually, if an animal was sick, they euthanized it, usually.

But there was a reason why they beat the slaves bloody- terror and intimidation. A horse can't plot an elaborate escape. A human being can. And if you didn't have threat of doing terrible things to them if they tried, a lot more of them would have just walked off.

When they whipped a slave, they brought out all the other slaves to watch. That was the point, it was a terror tactic. (The military also used flogging in the 19th century.)

Sweet Evil C'Thulhu, are you comparing human beings to Farm Animals?

Actually, if an animal was sick, they euthanized it, usually.

Again you are ******* clueless of the time and period. Here's a thought do some research on 19th century America. Slaves were considered as live stock I actually thought you knew that since you seen to think you have knowledge of the period.

But there was a reason why they beat the slaves bloody- terror and intimidation. A horse can't plot an elaborate escape. A human being can. And if you didn't have threat of doing terrible things to them if they tried, a lot more of them would have just walked off.

A slave owner is not going to beat a slave on a whime, they were high value and states as I have stated have slave abuse laws.

Here's a link that might help you break through your ignorance

Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin

Were the laws enforced? Some just like today some laws aren't enforced and should be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah Ol' Reb gave me a laugh with that too. What? Does he think one of the slaves whipped out their cell phone and snapped off a few shots? A video mabye? Then uploaded it to YeOldeYouTube.com? LOL

So since there are not a lot of photos, slaves were never whipped? And lemme guess: George Washington never abused his slaves!

Jeez you'd have to have a Confederate flag hanging somewhere to be that stup... oh wait.

George Washington was actually famous for his humane treatment of his slaves . . . until simpleminded leftist twits with public school educations decided to attack him to further their agenda.

Washington not only left provisions in his will to free his slaves, but left financial provisions in his estate to educate the younger ones and to provide for the elderly ones.

And no, there probably wasn't a whole lot of whipping, "Roots" notwithstanding. You have no idea how much that actually incapacitates and potentially damages someone. It would hardly be an ideal punishment for someone you wanted to perform hard physical labor, now would it?

Just curious: Your post seems to be referring to me, when you say "simple minded leftist twit with public education." Would that be the case? Hmmm. See signature below...

Have you ever contemplated getting over yourself? I realize YOUR world revolves around you, but that doesn't make you even vaguely important to anyone else's.

Or did you just not notice the herds of people wandering around for some time now, blathering about how the Founding Fathers were "rich white slaveowners, so why should we pay attention to the laws and documents they gave us"? You thought YOU were the only one "brilliant" enough to come up with that tripe?

Also, I suppose Washington was just as humane as could be - I mean, if you define "humane" as having several grown men tied down and then put through the torture of have healthy teeth pulled so that Ol' George could have one whip nippy set of dentures for himself.

Where the **** do you get this insane twaddle? George Washington's dentures were ivory, moron. They're on display at the National Museum of Dentistry in Baltimore.

George Washington - A Dental Victim

I don't think that makes George any less great (well, maybe just a tad but still). It was just the times and the place. But it's amazing how Rightwing whackjobs will defend ignorance because they are either so insecure or so stupid (or both) that they have some need to maintain complete bullshit, lest their heroes, candidates etc... be human and flawed.

If we're all about defending ignorance, how come no right-wingers are here defending YOU?

Newsflash: We were abusive to slaves. This includes the majority of the Founding Fathers. Oh well, that's ancient history. It doesn't make me feel any less great about my country. I've lived in lots of places and I love the good ol' US of A the best!

Newsflash: Prove it. I don't doubt there were isolated cases of abusive people owning and mistreating slaves, just as there have always been isolated cases of abusive people owning and mistreating animals, even expensive ones. It wasn't commonplace, if only because it would have been counter-productive to the whole purpose of owning slaves. And as a nation, we have a much better track record on the whole "slave" issue than virtually any other group in human history (and they've pretty much ALL had experience with slavery).

 

[Cecilie1200]

What I want to know is, where does he think he came by what he thinks of as the "universal, obvious truth" that "it's wrong to own another person", given that no other culture in the history of humanity ever believed that . . . until Christianity built Western civilization.

I guess the first 1700 years before the Enlightenment, when Western Civilization was plunged into darkness, ignorance and backwardness doesn't count, eh? Yes, let's go back to the 12th century as our benchmark for moral constructs, shall we?

That's not only not an argument, that isn't even coherent.

Consider the source.

 

[Dot Com]

If you want to go back to Bu$h II's 'pay to play' politics, he's your man Charles Dameron: Rick Perry's Crony Capitalism Problem - WSJ.com

 

[Toro]

I guess the first 1700 years before the Enlightenment, when Western Civilization was plunged into darkness, ignorance and backwardness doesn't count, eh? Yes, let's go back to the 12th century as our benchmark for moral constructs, shall we?

That's not only not an argument, that isn't even coherent.

Consider the source.

The racist and the Dominatrix having moral quandries about slavery. Surprise, surprise.

 

[The Rabbi]

Okay, what is your point?

But Jephthah offers to sacrifice the first thing he meets when he comes home, and God is totally good when that turns out to be his daughter.

This guy show the absurdity of it all.

I've said before, you are simply wrong. He does not offer a human sacrifice. There is no proof in the text, which you cannot read, that he does.

Really?

SAB, Judges 11

11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

11:34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
11:35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.

11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
11:40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Sounds pretty clear to me... The girl got butchered.

Now, I realize that there are fundies who try to claim the "Sacrifice" was that she lived out her life as a virgin or some nonsense. But there's really nothing in the bible to indicate that. She was slaughtered.

You understand that isn't the text of Bible, right? You understand when it says "and she knew no man" that implies she continued living, right? You understand that the G-d of the Hebrew Bible does not demand or accept human sacrifices, right?

A little knowledge is an absurd thing.

 

[NGSamson]

You make a hell of a lot of assumptions and it shows with every post you make. Now that's pathetic.
I'll move on now, I really hate to keep you from your windmill tilting since it seems it's all you're capable of doing (and badly at that). I'll say hi the next time I decide to visit the binjo ditch you live in.
Oh and watch out for anyone offering to give you an enema, I'd really hate to see you completely diminished......... Tata!

Wooo, pointing out you wasted your life must burn, eh, guy..

Hey, make it simple for you.

If Stalin won, most Russians got to keep on living.
If Hitler won, they got to be lampshades and bars of soap.

That's why Russians admire Stalin. He saved them as a people. Even if he was an evil jerk.

Ah yes, time for my morning visit to the binjo ditch, damn is that relieving!
Do ya feel refreshed now? Properly nourished? You should.

Gross.

 

[JoeB131]

[SAB, Judges 11

11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
11:40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Sounds pretty clear to me... The girl got butchered.

Now, I realize that there are fundies who try to claim the "Sacrifice" was that she lived out her life as a virgin or some nonsense. But there's really nothing in the bible to indicate that. She was slaughtered.

You understand that isn't the text of Bible, right? You understand when it says "and she knew no man" that implies she continued living, right? You understand that the G-d of the Hebrew Bible does not demand or accept human sacrifices, right?

A little knowledge is an absurd thing.

It implies she kept living ONLY if you have a vivid imagination. The fact that she is never mentioned again would imply that she didn't.

I think, "He did with her as he had vowed" is a pretty clear indication what happened to this girl.

Also, in the OVERALL context of the Book of Judges, you have to keep in mind the entire book is about how Israel had fallen from Grace, how God frequently delivered them into the hands of their enemies, and how the Judges were by and large not virtuous men. (It's why this book gets quickly brushed over in Sunday School. Lots of ugly stories.)

 

[JoeB131]

Sweet Evil C'Thulhu, are you comparing human beings to Farm Animals?

Actually, if an animal was sick, they euthanized it, usually.

Again you are ******* clueless of the time and period. Here's a thought do some research on 19th century America. Slaves were considered as live stock I actually thought you knew that since you seen to think you have knowledge of the period.

Probably more than you did. Yes, they were considered livestock. That was the problem. That's what made it WRONG.

But the fact is, they were considered worst than livestock in some ways. Livestock didn't routinely get raped. Most fine southern gentlemen were expected to learn about sex with the household slaves before they ever got married.

But there was a reason why they beat the slaves bloody- terror and intimidation. A horse can't plot an elaborate escape. A human being can. And if you didn't have threat of doing terrible things to them if they tried, a lot more of them would have just walked off.

A slave owner is not going to beat a slave on a whime, they were high value and states as I have stated have slave abuse laws.

Were the laws enforced? Some just like today some laws aren't enforced and should be.

you see, it wasn't a whim. It was calculated psychological terror. Beating a horse isn't going to make all the other horses act better. beating a slave will have a psychological effect on the other slaves, because being HUMAN BEINGS, they had a concept of what was going on.

 

[NGSamson]

[SAB, Judges 11

11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
11:40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Sounds pretty clear to me... The girl got butchered.

Now, I realize that there are fundies who try to claim the "Sacrifice" was that she lived out her life as a virgin or some nonsense. But there's really nothing in the bible to indicate that. She was slaughtered.

You understand that isn't the text of Bible, right? You understand when it says "and she knew no man" that implies she continued living, right? You understand that the G-d of the Hebrew Bible does not demand or accept human sacrifices, right?

A little knowledge is an absurd thing.

It implies she kept living ONLY if you have a vivid imagination. The fact that she is never mentioned again would imply that she didn't.

I think, "He did with her as he had vowed" is a pretty clear indication what happened to this girl.

Also, in the OVERALL context of the Book of Judges, you have to keep in mind the entire book is about how Israel had fallen from Grace, how God frequently delivered them into the hands of their enemies, and how the Judges were by and large not virtuous men. (It's why this book gets quickly brushed over in Sunday School. Lots of ugly stories.)

Again your bias is glaring. You have part of it right, but the part you leave out (as you tend to do) is that Israel comes back from the brink after they stop worshiping idols, and do what they are supposed to. it presents examples of what not to do. And it is commonly taught in Sunday School.

 

[JoeB131]

Again your bias is glaring. You have part of it right, but the part you leave out (as you tend to do) is that Israel comes back from the brink after they stop worshiping idols, and do what they are supposed to. it presents examples of what not to do. And it is commonly taught in Sunday School.

Not that I take these things too literally, but frankly, that doesn't impress me all that much.

So it's another case of "I'm God, and I'm insecure". Which really describes much of the bible, with God acting like an angry 16 year old girl.

The bible is full of really nasty, unpleasent characters, but God is frequently the worst of the lot.

 

[NGSamson]

Again your bias is glaring. You have part of it right, but the part you leave out (as you tend to do) is that Israel comes back from the brink after they stop worshiping idols, and do what they are supposed to. it presents examples of what not to do. And it is commonly taught in Sunday School.

Not that I take these things too literally, but frankly, that doesn't impress me all that much.

So it's another case of "I'm God, and I'm insecure". Which really describes much of the bible, with God acting like an angry 16 year old girl.

The bible is full of really nasty, unpleasent characters, but God is frequently the worst of the lot.

No, its a case of you having a hate for religion, namely judo-Christian religion because that's what pseudo intellectuals do. You also tend to edit the facts you present, relying on readers ignorance or unwillingness to check the BS you post.