Letters to the Editor

False prophets

March 24, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

The following passage by Jude in Jude 1:3-4 (ESV) is addressed to Christians: “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude then goes on to explain that these people included unbelievers, fallen angels, sexually immoral, murderers, greedy and rebellious people, scoffers and people who cause divisions. Jude describes their ultimate condemnation and says that they serve as an example of those who will undergo an eternal punishment.

I thought about this indictment when I received a message located at: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106938 which argues that President Obama is the most Biblically hostile president in U.S. history. Several of Jude’s descriptions are mentioned, including hostility to Christians, homosexuality and same sex marriage, abortion for convenience or murder, division between Muslims and Christians and unbelief in Jesus as Messiah,

Jesus said in Matthew 7:15-16: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”

Jesus’ warning has to do with identifying false prophets because He knew this was something we must be able to do even in our time.

Comments

Abdu Omar 3 years, 3 months ago

Sorry, Math, most people hated Bush because he got us into two unwinnable wars, one of which was for no reason. He lied!!! Remember that? Even though other presidents have lied none of their lies cost 5000 American lives. This is why people hate Bush.

Second, Bush's cronyism caused many problems for Americans. First after Hurricane Katrina, there was no leadership in the relief effort. He sat on his thumbs, hoping that the head of FEMA would step up. He was incompetent as was the man who appointed him.

Third, Bush turned his attention away from the real goal in Afghanistan. Where was Bin Laden? He didn't know and didn't look. Here is the most wanted terrorist in the world still causing lots of bombings and death around the world, and Bush falls asleep on that issue. Obama had the cajones to find him, put him out of his misery.

There are many more reasons but lets make this brief.

Armstrong 3 years, 3 months ago

Excellent example of someone who believes what the mainstream media has told them to believe

tomatogrower 3 years, 3 months ago

Why don't you try and dispute what wounded soldier said. Did he not start 2 wars, the worse war with a lie about weapons of mass destruction. Then ruin a CIA agents career, because her and her husband proved it a lie? Didn't he put bin Laden on a back burner?

Armstrong 3 years, 3 months ago

Ok let's dispute. Iraqi army defeated in a matter of one month ( give or take a week) Taliban is now ineffective. Are you going to start crying about Iran next ??? They can't wait to try and kill us. Time to wake up little blue dot

Corey Williams 3 years, 3 months ago

Iraqi army defeated in a month, but the occupation lasted nine years? I guess that means "mission accomplished" to you. And the taliban was certainly driven into hiding in a short time as well. We certainly showed those ruskies who could overthrow an afghani government. Meanwhile, the taliban started regrouping and it was as early as 2008 that it was reported that the US was thinking of negotiating a return with some of their leaders. A move that was supported by Petraeus.
Now it's Iran. Yeah, that's a good idea. Twice as big as Iraq, let's see if the quagmire lasts twice as long. And no clear threats other than that whole "death to America" thing which might be because they're still kind of upset about the shah. Maybe.
And where are we going to get the money for this one? The same place we went to to borrow money for Iraq, China? I guess it's okay to deficit spend and mortgage our country's future as long as none of it is actually spent in this country.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 3 months ago

You forgot to mention that now Iran has had many years to sit by and watch how the US might launch an attack, and build up necessary resources to defend itself. The war on Iraq did nothing but strengthen Iran, while depleting the forces of the US.

Liberty275 3 years, 3 months ago

WWII ended 67 years ago but we still occupy Germany and Japan. The Korean cease-fire is a decade or so later, and we still occupy S Korea.

Why aren't you complaining about them all?

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

LOL! Armstrong's red herring! Good try, red bump.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

I didn't agree with Bush on Iraq but I don't think one can say he lied about the WMDs. Congress had the same intel that he did and they voted for the war too.

And I saw nothing to suggest that he put bin laden on the back burner.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 3 months ago

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

The CIA knew that the document that this claim was based on was a forgery. As well, the British government knew that it was a forgery.

Bush lied, plan and simple.

Corey Williams 3 years, 3 months ago

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

Corey Williams 3 years, 3 months ago

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

Corey Williams 3 years, 3 months ago

"We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

Corey Williams 3 years, 3 months ago

"Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

Corey Williams 3 years, 3 months ago

"Congress had the same intel that he did and they voted for the war too." From the Washington Post: "The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But . . . no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary."

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

Bush Co. lied this country into war with Iraq.

"The Center for Public Integrity has revealed President Bush and top administration officials made a total of 935 false public statements about Iraq’s alleged national security threat in the two years following the 9/11 attacks. President Bush made the most false statements — 260. Colin Powell, his then-secretary of state, made 254 false statements."

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/24/935_lies_and_counting_study_counts

ABC World News w/ Charles Gibson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrZNEj...

Lies Montage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2SdF...

Define: Cognitive Dissonance - The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, esp. as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

Wake up, America.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

Excellent example of someone so deep in denial he wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and smacked him.

shadowlady 3 years, 3 months ago

Bush had his people trying to find Bin Laden, before Obama took office and then who takes the credit for getting him???? What I think is odd, is that Hussain was shown on TV being hanged, but when it came to Bin Laden, no one even seen the body, it was done in a hush hush way, until they say he is dead and thrown in the ocean. Something to think about, and I have questions about it, I'm sure other people do too.

Greg Cooper 3 years, 3 months ago

Oh, yeah, like these?

Is Obama a US citizen? Is the earth flat?

You mean, like those questions?

voevoda 3 years, 3 months ago

Blasphemy is among the sins condemned, its_just _math. How can you use "The Anointed One"--the title of Lord Jesus Christ--as a term of political abuse, especially in this context?

Mike Ford 3 years, 3 months ago

guess what....tom shewman used to use words like liberaltines.... where is he now???? nice subject change,,,,not real smart though,,,, what we expect from you though...little substance....no facts,,,,, desperate sounding nonsense,,,,

parrothead8 3 years, 3 months ago

"Ummm, oh why bother."

That would be great. The conversation might take a turn for the sensical.

grammaddy 3 years, 3 months ago

"....many idiots were hoodwinked by Obama." And George Bush was exactly what everyone wanted??? Twice??It wasn't the "corrupt media" that brought about the hatred for Bush, he did that all by himself. This is why no one with a lick of sense will take the Rethuglicans seriously for a long time. And now, look at the Clown Car full of idiots you folks are trying to push on us .You've alienated the 99%, women and minorities( more than 1/2 of the American population) but yet, you feel you have a chance of winning.Where do they do that?This is a much different country than I grew up in.We want it back.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

I find it interesting that Bush was so hated by so many and yet the Dems could not find a candidate to beat him. What does that say about who the dems put up to run against him? Pretty weak I'd say.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

BTW, if the GOP can't defeat Obama then I'd say the same thing about them. Obama is the lib version of Bush and if the GOP can't beat him it is because they are weak and it is looking that way now.

kochmoney 3 years, 3 months ago

Obama's nowhere near the lib version of Bush. He doesn't shove through his ideological vision without examining the facts and lie to get there. Obama has his own problems, to be sure. He's a people-pleasing over-compromiser and his attempts to lead from the middle have actually driven this country further to the right. He's failed to show leadership on issues that he campaigned about, and he didn't push for enough stimulus to take the country out of recession when he could have done it.

But Bush? Puleeze. Nowhere. Near. That. Bad.

That said, it's totally true that the GOP can't beat him because they are weak. They've sent a clown car of candidates instead of true contenders. They've moved themselves so far over to the right that they can't actually win popular votes anymore, and they're defeating their own best candidates in the primaries. I weep for the future of Kansas if we dont' figure out how bad they've gotten soon.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

Obama is full of lies. He lied about closing GITMO,about not hiring lobbyist, about transparency, etc. He has kept the patriot act, the bush tax cuts, he has also has commissioned the killing of American citizens living in foreign countries when they have not been charged let alone convicted of a crime. How about fast and furious? Not as bad as Bush? I disagree.

Bush was a terrible president, but so is Obama.

kochmoney 3 years, 3 months ago

Obama is a less than ideal president. Bush was probably the worst we've ever had.

kochmoney 3 years, 3 months ago

The first candidate DID defeat him in the popular vote, and the second candidate came very close - would have done the job, had he not been swiftboated with lies.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

No, the first candidate did not defeat him. If he did he'd be president wouldn't he? We don't elect candidates by popular vote.

grammaddy 3 years, 3 months ago

Bush was "elected"by the SupremeCourtin 2000.

kochmoney 3 years, 3 months ago

Do you make a habit out of not reading the entire sentence, or are you making an exception just for me?

parrothead8 3 years, 3 months ago

They DID find candidates to beat him. Twice. Why don't you ask his brother, the former governor of Florida how he "won" the 2000 election?

You "find it interesting that Bush was hated by so many?" Why? Were you not paying attention to the wars we got into and how our economy spiraled downwards during his eight years in office? Do you not understand the concept of people changing their minds? Is it so hard to grasp that 49% of the country could vote for a guy in 2000, but that eight years later many of those people wouldn't like him anymore?

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

parrothead, it says a lot about a person that purposely misquotes someone to make their point. Misquoting someone demonstrates a lack of integrity. Essentially, attributing a quote to someone when they did not write it is lying. Why did you feel it necessary to lie?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

"yet the Dems could not find a candidate to beat him."

Actually, they did find one who did indeed beat him. He just didn't beat him in the vote that turned out to really count. The one at the Supreme Court. A vote that stank so badly that they simultaneously ruled that it could never be used as a precedent.

Kerry ran a horrible campaign, but the rather nasty and mostly inaccurate smear job that Republicans got away with didn't help much.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

Come on do you know how silly that sounds. He didn't beat him. If he did he'd been president and the fact, the indisputable fact is he wasn't president, Bush was.

Both sides, in most modern campaigns run smear jobs. Do you think moveon.org is accurate in all their attacks against republicans?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

It's a fact-- do you find all inconvenient facts silly? But as you pointed out, who becomes president is only loosely correlated to who actually wins the election-- our plutocrats like it that way (which is why our plutocrat founding fathers made it the way they did.)

Yes, smear jobs are not confined strictly to Republlicans, but they are far more accomplished liars than Democrats are, and they do it much more pathologically.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

What is a fact? If Kerry beat Bush he'd been president, since he wasn't he didn't beat him.

If you want to state as fact that Kerry got more votes then I'll accept that as fact, but it is not fact that Kerry beat him.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

Kerry did not get more votes than Bush in 2004. Gore did in fact get more votes than Bush in 2000, yet lost the electoral vote, a quirk in our system, yet not the first time it has happened. And for those who blame the Supreme Court, I would ask if they believe a more fair ruling would have come from a heavily divided Supreme Court or from the Florida Supreme Court, who's seven members at that time were all nominated by Democrats? (one justice was dually nominated by a Democrat and a Republican). After all, Gore brought the case to the courts, someone has to decide. Which body will likely make the correct ruling?

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

Youre right about Gore Posting too quick. Thanks

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

A full and complete recount of the votes in Florida would have been the right way to determine the winner. But that's precisely what the majority of the SCOTUS was trying to prevent when they selected Bush as the winner.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

The problem is when common sense is trumped by the law. Florida law stated that hand recounts were permissible only when the electronic voting machines malfunctioned. That did not happen. In the counties in question, they purchased lower quality machines at a reduced cost. They had a 1% error rate built into them. They performed well within that error rate. Maybe those counties should have bought better machines, but they did function as they were designed. The law trumped common sense. Another problem was that a recount would have taken longer than was permissible, as the Secretary of State needed to certify the result by a certain date. That date was written into the law. A third problem would have come up if the Secretary of State did not certified the votes. At that point, would the entire election be thrown to the House of Reps.? Wouldn't that be denying all Florida voters of their right to vote? Ultimately, a court, some court, would have to decide these issues. The Supreme Court, when they first got the case, sent it back to the State Supreme Court with instruction as to how to interpret the law. It was the Florida court that failed to follow the law, thereby necessitating Supreme Court intervention. An interesting side note, several months after the election, several news organizations representing a broad political landscape, asked for and received all the ballots from the state. Their hand count had Bush winning.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

All perfectly acceptable rationales for the Republican majority to declare Bush the winner even though there was no good indication that he had actually won.

And the fact is, the deadlines that were imposed were entirely arbitrary. If there had been the will to count the votes, it could have been done. They just preferred the outcome that could be achieved by not counting them.

Anyway, it's all moot now-- our screwed up election process gave us one of the worst presidents in US history, who left us a parting gift of two quagmire wars and a trashed economy, and we're hurtling headlong off the global warming cliff. But none of that matters as long as there was rationale, however perverted, for how he got there.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the dates were all arbitrary. The fact is that all states set a date at which the election results must be certified. It's the law in each and every state. What the Florida Supreme Court was saying was that is was O.K. for the Secretary of State to ignore that law and continue a hand recount until it was completed. That might make good common sense, but it makes bad law. And a supreme court, whether state or federal, needs to follow the law. Should that date conflict with common sense, then it's up to the state legislature to change the law. It doesn't make sense to me that you can have a system where you make up the rules as you go. Recounts in some counties, not in others. Machines that work as intended, but have hand recounts even though state law prohibits that. Turn in the results whenever you feel like it. That sound like anarchy to me. Not a very good way to run a presidential election.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

"It doesn't make sense to me that you can have a system where you make up the rules as you go."

That's pretty much what happened, though-- it was just the Supreme Court that got the last shot at making up the rules as they went.

"Not a very good way to run a presidential election."

I agree. And sadly, nothing has been fixed since then.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

What the Supreme Court did was say that the state must follow the law. If that's making up rules as you go, I just don't see it. That the laws don't make sense, that's certainly true in some cases. But it's not up to the Supreme Court or the Florida Supreme Court to say that the Secretary of State should only follow the laws that make sense and that they're free to ignore the laws that don't make sense. In fact the Florida court did tell the Secretary of State to ignore the law. The state legislature can amend the laws if they choose. They could have intervened and passed a law to change the date, if they chose to do so. They didn't. As for your contention that the Supreme Court was intent on doing anything in particular, I don't believe that to be true. Upon receiving the case and reviewing it, their first ruling was to bounce it back to the state court. Had they had a specific agenda, they could have just ruled as they saw fit. They deferred to the state. It was only after the Florida Supreme Court ruled with total disregard for the guidance they were given (follow the law), that when the case came before them a second time did they make their ruling. The bottom line is that it is not the place for a court, any court, to do the right thing. It's their job to interpret the law. It's the function of the legislature to say what is right and wrong with the laws that they pass.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

With regards to the deadline, check out this article.

http://www.censurethefive.org/

It's pretty clear that the Republican Supreme Court majority had one goal, and one goal only when they made their ruling-- to install Bush as President. There was no other consideration.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

I find it curious Bozo that you've remained silent as to the issue of the actions of the Florida Supreme Court. Their seven members, all nominated by Democrats, made several rulings that the Supreme Court ultimately reversed. Do you trust the rulings of the state court above those of the federal court? Is there really any reason to believe the state rulings were not just correct, but non partisan while the federal court's rulings were wrong and partisan? And if you somehow came to some conclusion that both were wrong/partisan, then who the heck should rule on these matters?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

Which Florida rulings are you referring to? Can you be specific about which ones are "partisan?"

And are you contending that there were no alternatives to the wholly political ruling made by the US Supreme Court that installed Bush as President without any clear count of the Florida vote upon which to base that ruling?

Also, did you even look at the link I posted? It's pretty damning stuff, and you just keep on defending a horrific chapter in US judicial history.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

Each state has a date written into it's law when the vote must be certified. The federal government then has a different date when the certified results must be received. Now maybe a hundred and fifty years ago there would need to be a certain amount of time to get the results to Washington. Obviously, now the results can be transmitted within seconds. But the laws didn't change. Florida could have been given more time to count, if they chose to do so. But it's the legislature that has to do that. What the Florida court ruled was that because there was sufficient time to get it into Washington, the vote could continue and should continue. Unfortunately, the law said otherwise. And that's where my comments amount common sense and the law diverge.
Secretary of State Harris was ready to certify the results on the date the law prescribed, with whatever best information she had at the time. Obviously, that would be in favor of Bush. Any ruling the Florida court would make other than that one could only help Gore and was therefore partisan, just as the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court would help only Bush? The question is, why trust one and not the other. Or why not trust both, or neither?
I did "glance" at your link. From the quick look I gave it, it appeared to be opinion, rather than fact.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

"Florida could have been given more time to count, if they chose to do so."

But the US Supreme Court prevented them from doing so-- for good reason-- they wanted to install Bush as president, and a full recount, easily done and not prohibited under Florida law, would have prevented this.

As near as I can tell, the "partisan" choice that the Florida Supreme Court likely would have taken was to require a full and impartial recount. The US Supreme Court prevented that recount, and instead went with a clearly flawed counting process because it created the outcome they wanted.

"From the quick look I gave it, it appeared to be opinion, rather than fact."

No, it was facts that didn't support your opinion.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

"But the U.S. Supreme Court prevented them from doing so". No. Florida law prevented them from doing so. What the Supreme Court did was to tell the state of Florida to follow the laws of the state of Florida. It was the Florida Supreme Court that was trying to pass a new law with a new date that the vote needed to be certified by. Courts don't pass new laws. That's what legislatures do. And the Florida legislature could have done that, if they chose to. They didn't. That following the law prevented a further recount is simply a byproduct of the law. Heck, we could still be counting those ballots if the Florida Supreme Court had it's way. That would have taken away the vote of every Floridian. The election would have then gone to the House. I understand you don't like the result. But it was the law. What i would be interested in is, given a dozen years to contemplate the matter, has the Florida legislature changed the date of certification? For that matter, have the other 49 states changed their dates, or will they all wait for another Gore v. Bush? Or, and here's the real question, if they haven't changed the dates for certification, perhaps there's a good reason for that, one that has been discussed by our legislatures. Perhaps there are reasons neither of us have thought of.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

"No. Florida law prevented them from doing so. "

Wrong.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

There was a specific date that the vote needed to be certified by. There was then another date, (I'm going on memory here), that the certified vote needed to get to Washington. The Florida Supreme Court said that the state law did not need to be followed, as long as the certified vote arrived in Washington on time.
Both laws are valid. The Florida Supreme Court cannot say it's O.K. for the Secretary of State to ignore one law, but then compel her to follow another.
I'm not sure why you dismiss the partisan nature of the Florida court's ruling, given it's political makeup, yet condemn the U.S. Supreme Court given it's political makeup.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

For you, expecting a full and impartial recount that was doable and permissible under state law is "partisan."

That pretty much says it all.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

And if you had looked at the link I posted above, you'd know it's wrong. That date was not set in stone, and the chief judge of the Florida Supreme Court knew it, as did the US Supreme Court, which is why they couldn't allow the Florida Supreme Court do the right thing.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

O.K., I went back and looked again at your link.
Justice Shaw begins by saying "In my opinion...". He then gives his opinion as to why the Florida law should be interpreted in such a way as he believes. The "safe harbor", as he says. What you're not admitting is that within the law, there was a specific date. Justice Shaw states he disagrees with it's rationale. That's fine. Justices have made such rulings forever. Only to be overturned in higher courts. It was his opinion and it was wrong. The law was not written in stone. It was written on paper. It was passed by both state legislatures and singed into law by the governor. (whenever that was). It may be an inconvenient truth, but a truth nonetheless. That was the law in Florida at that time. And the Supreme Court of the land ruled that the law should be followed. And again, no mention that the Florida court's rulings may have been based on purely partisan political reasons, given their makeup. I found it interesting that your link described five members of that court as conservative, a somewhat ambiguous term, while not mentioning they were all nominated by Democrats. Somewhat misleading, if you ask me.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

Under federal law, it's states that have primary control over how they run their elections. And in Florida, the final decision on whether there was time for a full and impartial recount lie with the Florida Supreme court-- Therefore, Justice Shaw's opinion is far from irrelevant, and it's been supported by many legal minds who have looked at the situation.

But as is typical for you, you'll accept any rationale, however strained and perverted, that supports your preferred outcome.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

Perhaps we should ask for a ruling from some constitutional scholar as to whether or not "primary control", as Bozo in Lawrence, Ks. interprets that, should be the final say. Where might we find such a constitutional scholar. I know a place in Washington where nine of them reside. And you still avoid the issue that you believe the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings were partisan, yet the Florida's court's rulings were not. Is it because you prefer the outcome from the state?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

P.S. Bozo, in the many decades I have been voting in presidential elections, I have voted for two Democrats, zero Republicans and many third party candidates. And from that, you can tell me that my preferred outcome was, what? (Al Gore was not one of the two Democrats that I did vote for).

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

So, you're merely arguing for argument's sake.

BTW, I didn't vote for Gore either-- but I still think actually the counting votes is an essential part of having elections.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

"And you still avoid the issue that you believe the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings were partisan, yet the Florida's court's rulings were not. Is it because you prefer the outcome from the state?"

If insisting that a complete and impartial count of the vote takes place is "partisan," then I'm guilty as charged.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

What about having another election in Florida? Why was that not an option? Don't recount the votes....don't let the supreme court make the decision, have another state election. A closely monitored state election. Was there ever any discussion of this?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

The Supreme Court wasn't the least bit interested in having a fair election, and then counting the votes completely and impartially. Their only interest was in installing Bush as President. And that's what they did.

Assuming anything approaching democracy and a free society survive long enough, I predict in 30 years or so, the election of 2000, and the Supreme Court ruling, will be widely viewed as one of the low points in court history, right down there with Dred Scott and the rulings that declared corporations to be people.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

So let's see. We hold an election, the results are very close, but the voting machines, with no interference from humans looking to divine the intent by looking at hanging chads, etc., the machines count the votes and declare that Bush won. State law states that in close elections such as this one, the ballots must be counted a second time, by the machines. Bush wins that again. Bozo, you think that's not "fair" because some people couldn't manage the instructions and properly complete their ballot, so the machines kicked those out. Now you think it's better to have people hold those ballots up to the light to see if the chad is hanging, dimpled, pregnant, etc. And from that we'll determine the intent of the voter. That's your better system? Or as Crazy suggests, we just hold another election. Maybe if Gore wins, we do a best two out of three. Or follow the practice of MLB and have best four out of seven. Or, how about this, we have an election, we set down a bunch of rules. We'll call them laws. And then we follow them. How about that for a unique system.

Liberty275 3 years, 3 months ago

"Rethuglicans"

Did tusckahoma teach you a new word?

Corey Williams 3 years, 3 months ago

Don't blame satan for that 8 year trainwreck. Bush kept saying somehow god wanted him to do stuff.

tomatogrower 3 years, 3 months ago

Isn't it funny. God has told a lot of these conservatives to run for office, but he hasn't talked to Obama. Who is the real false profit. Not those who want us to believe God is talking to them. Riiight. Wink, wink.

Corey Williams 3 years, 3 months ago

What's funny is that most (all?) of the (R)s running for president that said "god told me to" have since dropped out.

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

Considering red states/conservatives buy more porn than blue states/ liberals, it is pretty amusing that conservatives attack morality. "Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage." "States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."" http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html I guess they just can't control themselves, so they want to ban it for everybody. I don't remember liberals having to hold Porn Sundays.

Armstrong 3 years, 3 months ago

And why is it you seem to know so much about porn deec ??????

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

I know how to use google. You should try it; it's easy

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

Also the traditionalist catholic ex used to watch a lot of internet porn in between affairs. It was pretty interesting how he'd have tabs open for religious and porn sites, and toggle back and forth.

Armstrong 3 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

kernal 3 years, 3 months ago

Foul! That was really rude and uncalled for, Armstrong.

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

Thanks for defending me. I was out all morning and missed it.

Christine Anderson 3 years, 3 months ago

Kernal, that was really sh@**!. Porn addiction has destroyed many homes and marriages. Clearly, deec has lived it. So have I. I believe you owe her an apology.

Christine Anderson 3 years, 3 months ago

Shoot, I'm sorry, kernal. Next time I'll wear the bifocals. That should have been directed to Armstrong.

tomatogrower 3 years, 3 months ago

Hmm. Building walls. How many conservative politicians and extremist preachers labeled people not the "right kind" of Christian. We have Catholic priests molesting children. We have nut case preachers taking a whole lot of money from people who believed him when he said the world was coming to an end, then saying "oops, I was wrong." . And I'm sure thinking, "See ya around, sucker." Not to mention all the other televangelists who live high off the hog from "prayer" donations sent in by people who can't afford it There are preachers who are preaching hate of Muslims, whether or not they have ever thought of jihad. There are some that even burn other people's sacred books. We had a minister in Kansas who killed his wife for another woman. And he isn't the only "holier than thou" minister fooling around on his wife with another woman or a man. We have a "holier than thou" politician whose wife, sadly, had a late term abortion to save her life, so she could raise her other children, but he and she would deny that right to other women. We have right wing preachers right here in Kansas who have their poor members tithe their welfare checks, instead of helping them get off welfare.

When these things are done by conservative "religious" folk, other conservatives say that they are just human and forgive them. If they are done by people in the middle of political spectrum or to the left of the middle, then they are evil and followers of the devil.

I don't have time to look up the exact quote in the Bible, but I believe the it warns people that false prophets will try and come across as "good" Christians, even "better than thou" Christians, but they will be very evil. President Obama doesn't do this. He comes across as very secular, and realizes that not everyone in our great country is a strict, flat earth Christian, and they should have freedoms too. Who are the real false prophets?

When I first read this letter I thought Coan was referring to these hypocrites, but then I realized he was talking about President Obama. There are many churches all around this country who preach the love of Jesus, who accepted people and was killed, because religion and politics were too chummy. They would even welcome people like the Phelps, hoping to cure them of their hatred. If your church preaches hate, they are the false prophets. Open your eyes and try reading the Bible. Who is really building walls?

tomatogrower 3 years, 3 months ago

He got this on the internet. It must be true. Like those death panels, and fake birth certificate. And he just knows anytime now this guy in Nigeria is going to send him some millions of dollars, because he just wired the guy a thousand dollars. And besides his preacher tells him it's true, so it must be.

Darrell Lea 3 years, 3 months ago

Isn't it ironic how those who choose to misinterpret their favorite religious text never see themselves as the "false prophets" they go on about? It's always the other guy.

In an effort to familiarize readers with some of the crackpots out there, here's some more happy text from the "About Us" page on the Wallbuilders web site, referenced in paragraph two of the letter:

"WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built – a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined."

"In the Old Testament book of Nehemiah, the nation of Israel rallied together in a grassroots movement to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and thus restore stability, safety, and a promising future to that great city. We have chosen this historical concept of "rebuilding the walls" to represent allegorically the call for citizen involvement in rebuilding our nation's foundations."

"WallBuilders' goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena."

voevoda 3 years, 3 months ago

Does Carl Burkhead mean to condemn the website critical of President Obama, because it is false and divisive? That does seem to be the implication of his letter. Or maybe the other way around? It's odd that he didn't ascertain that his point would be clear to readers.

Jimo 3 years, 3 months ago

No one said that when racist, Christianist whites finally sunk to a minority in this country that the event would be as peaceful as a lamb. When your entire worldview paints yourself as the only "real Americans" but you are repeatedly confronted with evidence to the contrary, the reaction isn't a self-aware reflection on how your beliefs differ from reality or an appreciation of the wide variety of creation but rather an ever greater insistence on orthodoxy in ideology and dogma so extreme that it can never be extreme enough.

(Isn't it curious that each of our GOP candidate's obsessive need to proclaim themselves as "true conservatives" is paired with a recent history of endorsing the very policies they brand derisively today with (supposed) perjorative labels such as "liberal," "socialist", or "communist"?)

Today's radical Republicans remind me of no one more than those who are repulsed so much by their own uncontrollable homosexual urges that they are transformed into obsessive anti-gay antagonists.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 3 months ago

Yet another example of closed-mindedness from resident far-leftist Jimo, who has previously said on this forum, "The only feudalism we have in America is the concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of a few."

Corey Williams 3 years, 3 months ago

Brought to you by the man who said "By the way, if you want to spell "judgment" with an "e," then I suggest that you move to England."

cato_the_elder 3 years, 3 months ago

So? Are you just another leftist poster on this forum who can't spell either?

Armstrong 3 years, 3 months ago

The real fun is watching the defense of Obama. The guy can't run on his record so the rhetoric / logic has to be prettty original as to why the clown deserves another term.

Liberty275 3 years, 3 months ago

What other choice does America have? A Mormon, a crook and a far right wingnut. Obama is the worst president in my lifetime, but the republicans don't have anything any better.

Armstrong 3 years, 3 months ago

Got proof ? Goerge Zimmerman is Mexican, common knowledge tells you the KKK is not a big fan of any race but white

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

Armstrong, have you noticed that the media is trying to portray Zimmerman as a white hispanic? He is hispanic and if it were a cop that shot him there'd be no mention of white.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

Were you there? Do you know what happened? The police investigating didn't arrest him because they felt he didn't commit a crime. Did he? I don't know so I'll neither condemn him nor defend him. Let's see how it plays out.

Stu Clark 3 years, 3 months ago

Do you even know what cognitive dissonance is? It refers to the clinging to behaviors that the subject knows are not in his (or her) best interests. It may surprise you, but I think that most libs actually believe that the country will be better served by the policies they support. So no CD is involved.

Gotalife 3 years, 3 months ago

I seriously doubt that the President loses any sleep worrying about what any of you are saying about him. As a person of the Christian faith, I am embarrassed by most of the right wing rhetoric, it sounds really desperate folks.

Liberty275 3 years, 3 months ago

"unbelievers, fallen angels, sexually immoral, murderers, greedy and rebellious people, scoffers"

5 out of 7 isn't bad. I haven't killed anyone and angels are just part of the god-fantasy, so you'll have to excuse me on those.

Additionally, all prophets are frauds.

Gotalife 3 years, 3 months ago

It baffles me that some people are unable to separate religious beliefs from the business of politics. Not being able to do so, means you will constantly be disappointed with politicians and life in general. That is what we now find in this conversational rhetoric: hopelessness, frustration, and once again desperation. I find it particularly amusing that some want to operate the country under one way of religious thought, all the while condemning other nations from doing the same thing; how about that hypocrisy?

Gotalife 3 years, 3 months ago

And no, I do not need or want a long rambling conversation about our forefathers and how the US is a Christian nation. I am well versed in our history.

Armstrong 3 years, 3 months ago

The difference being Christians don't execute people at soccer games, stone people to death and or fly planes into buildings.

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

They just blow up federal buildings, shoot doctors in churches and torture unbelievers to death. And don't forget physicallyand sexually abusing children for hundreds of years.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

http://www.hiyoooo.com/

Great examples of modern day christian terrorism. But we shouldn't forget the centuries of terrorism preceding today's christianity. After all, that is how it became entrenched in today's society. I think we can safely say terrorism works. At least they no longer use the Breaking Wheel and such.

Cognitive dissonance, anyone? The Inquisition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lDNapxgMys

Gotalife 3 years, 3 months ago

Wow! After what one of our own American soldiers did to innocent women and children, I wouldn't think you would want to go there. I am sure we can come up with a very long list of supposed "Christian" people who did horrific things in the name of religion.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

To be clear there is a difference between people who do bad things and belong to some religious organization and those that do bad things in the name of religion. The two are not the same. McVeigh blow up the federal building, but not in the name of religion. The guy that shot Tiller did it because of his religous beliefs.

Have Christians done bad things in the name of religion? Yes, but not on a large scale for a long time.

And there is no proof right now that Bales committed the killings. It is still alleged and no one is alleging he did it in the name of Christianity.

Those that are Islamic are the ones that are killing on a large scale in the name of religion and yet, somehow, they tend to get a free pass.

Liberty275 3 years, 3 months ago

Atheists win. Stalin killed 23,000,000 in the name of communism and ridding the world of gods.

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

The various inquisitions lasted for centuries and thousands were killed. Many thousands more were tortured.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

Gee Deec and was the last inquisition? Not very recent as I pointed out.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

600 years of terrorism by christians just brushed aside as if nothing! Way to go! Cognitive dissonance can be a painful thing...It took centuries of terrorism by christians for fred to get where he is today--a christian, I presume.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

"Have Christians done bad things in the name of religion? Yes, but not on a large scale for a long time."

Not true at all. A very large component in the ginning up for war in Iraq and Afghanistan was to play off centuries-old animosities of Christians and Muslims. There was (and still is) a very strong crusader motivation for a large segment of the Republican base.

Christine Anderson 3 years, 3 months ago

I consider myself a Christian, but yes, there have been horrific things done in the name of "christianity". The Crusades come to mind. There was nothing holy about that.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

The Crusades started in 11th century and lasted 300 years or so...

The Inquisition started in the 12th century and lasted 600 years or so. Galileo Galilei, one of the fathers of science, was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy" and sentenced to life imprisonment for discovering heliocentrisim (the planets revolve around the sun).

The Salem Witch Trials (1692) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuSwx3d0R7w

I'm not being mean when I say christianity has a long history of terrorism--I'm being factual.

Gotalife 3 years, 3 months ago

And somehow Mertz, your way of speaking is equally frightening when you try to lessen the role Christianity has played in the destruction of others now and in the past. You are focused on only a few individuals mentioned. I am pretty sure Deec knows exactly what we're talking about here; at the same time, it seems to have gone totally over your head.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

Gotalife what a waste of a post. This type of media cannot accomodate long fully complete analysis of issues or comments in just one post. It requires a back and forth but you expect me to list fully all the bad things done in the name of religion.

Why didn't you name the ones I missed?

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

"List all the bad things done in the name of religion." Anything and everything.

Gotalife 3 years, 3 months ago

What I am saying is when you put a person in charge of government who uses religion as a way to govern, you harm others who do not think this way. You force religious beliefs on those who don't share them, you make decisions based on your own morality and not on what's best for all Americans. The Salem Witch trials are a good early example of persecution in the name of religion (and yes I said an "early example" lets don't play semantics), the Phelps church and anyone who thinks like them, the Catholic priests who abuse children and believe they are above the law because of the high religious ranking, and on and on and on and on. And especially those on here who now use religion to wage their political battles for them. It would be nice to see some degree of acceptance for these things that have been done. Sadly, I see that is not your cup of TEA. Might I suggest that BAA and Mertz take a course in religion and or politics at one of our nearby higher learning institutes.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

Gotalife you have absolutely no clue about me. Nowhere can you find a post from me that supports your assumptions about me. Why can't you post without being insulting? Generally, people who feel the need to attack a person instead of their argument are insecure; what is your reason?

For the record, i don't want any leader leading based on their religious beliefs. Decisions should be made based on the Constitution of this country - period. Why? Majority changes and while today you may agree witht he religous beliefs of someone in office, tomorrow you may not. To protect my rights I have to protect the rights of others, even those with whom I disagree.

Now your turn, tell me where I am wrong and feel free to attack me personally as I realize that it means nothing unless I let it :)

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 years, 3 months ago

Geez, not too much more to say about this, I guess just that it never ceases to amaze me how much hobgobbelry and fiction can be drummed up by people who firmly believe their religious fantisies and how much that should provide them wist some creditibility to bash and trash others from the Prfesident of the United States (the black guy in the White House) to any neighbor who's car is still in the driveway on Sunday morning.

Gotalife 3 years, 3 months ago

I see no personal insults, just general assumptions based on the language you are using. Mertz, calm down, take a deep breath (in through the nose and out through the mouth); everything will be alright. I'm pretty sure the sun will come up tomorrow and you will be able to share your thoughts another day and in hopes of finding those who agree with you.

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

No insults? Then what was meant by this statement - "Might I suggest that BAA and Mertz take a course in religion and or politics at one of our nearby higher learning institutes."

Was not its purpose to suggest that we were not educated on the subject of religion and politics? Is that constructive? Nah, it was a jab.

What language did I use to suggest that I support using religion as a basis to govern?

Are you going to tell me you disagree with me about using the Constitution to govern? If not, then I guess I found someone who agrees with me.

Gotalife 3 years, 3 months ago

It was not meant to be a jab, but a really helpful suggestion, especially if you plan to try to influence anyone about anything now or in the future. It may just be me, but the hostility from within you seems to be overflowing. I am moving on now to other blogs and posts, enjoy your day....it's warm, get outside and take in a little mind clearing fresh air. (Smile)

Brock Masters 3 years, 3 months ago

No substance....gotcha. Have a good day too.

Ragingbear 3 years, 3 months ago

Christians, and indeed all religionists are stupid and should be the new second class.

Liberty275 3 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America

Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified December 15, 1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Corey Williams 3 years, 3 months ago

"Those that breed indiscriminately. Multiply profusely." You mean catholics?

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

“Beware of false prophets"

It appears to me that the concluding sentence of this letter to the editor implies that the writer believes President Obama is a false prophet.

I am totally unaware of any prophecies that President Obama has made. To be a prophet, you need to make at least one prophesy.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

False definition: 1 not genuine 2 a intentionally untrue b : adjusted or made so as to deceive c : intended or tending to mislead 3 not true 4 a : not faithful or loyal : treacherous b : lacking naturalness or sincerity 5 a : not essential or permanent —used of parts of a structure that are temporary or supplemental b : fitting over a main part to strengthen it, to protect it, or to disguise its appearance 6 inaccurate in pitch 7a : based on mistaken ideas b : inconsistent with the facts 8 threateningly sudden or deceptive

Definitions of false, followed by definition #4 of prophet .

(based on mistaken ideas) (The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.) or (inconsistent with the facts) (The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.) or (intentionally untrue) (The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.) or (not essential or permanent) (The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.) or (not faithful or loyal) (The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.)

You are right! At least a few of those apply!

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

That's not all of them! Now that I'm looking it, I can see even more!

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

Oh, I see now. Definition #4. But I don't think he meets the definition of the word as it was understood in antiquity. Of course, languages change over time.
prophet (noun) 1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. 2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression. 3. A predictor; a soothsayer. 4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

I should rephrase my posting.

When Jesus said what is now translated into English as "prophet", there is no doubt that He used the word with the Hebrew concept of "prophet" in mind. He was not talking about (A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.) or (The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause).

He was using the concept of prophet as thought of by Jewish people at the time and also today, and so in the sense of (A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed) or possibly (A predictor; a soothsayer).

The Hebrew concept of "Prophet" is a person that issues prophecies.

This is a list of the Prophets:

The six Former Prophets are Yehoshua, Shof'tim, Shmuel Aleph, Shmuel Bet, Melakhim Aleph, Melakhim Bet.

The three Latter Prophets are Yish'yahu, Yirmiyahu, Yehezkel.

The Twelve Minor Prophets are Hoshea, Yoel, Amos, Obadyah, Yonah, Mikah, Nakhum, Habakuk, Zefanyah, Haggai, Zekaryah, Malakhai.

So what Jesus, who was Jewish of course, actually meant is an imposter for a real prophet. When Jesus walked the earth, there were no living prophets, and there have been none since.

But Jesus did not preach in Hebrew, He preached in Aramaic, which was the commonly used language at the time. We have no record of what He actually said, because what was written down in Antiquity and what we now call the New Testament was written in Greek. What was used in the writer's letter to the editor is all based upon what Jesus is claimed to have said. That is very obvious.

But, after starting with Hebrew, and then going through Aramaic, Greek, English, and 2,000 years, the word used in an English translation today has acquired new meanings.

Jesus said in Matthew 7:15-16: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”

What the concluding sentence of this letter to the editor states is that the writer believes President Obama or possibly other political persons is a false prophet.

What Jesus meant is a person that issues prophecies.

I am totally unaware of any prophecies that President Obama or any other politician has made. To be a prophet, you need to make at least one prophesy, with "prophesy" used in the way Jesus meant it, if you want to use His authority.

The writer of the letter to the editor did not use a consistent train of thought. If you are going to quote someone and then use a definition that is different than what was meant, you are not being consistent.

There certainly have been many false prophets. Many of them claimed that the end of the world was going to happen on a particular date and sometimes, at a particular time.

Mistranslations are very common.

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

Do people get brownie points in heaven these days for inappropriate use of quotation marks? Are they paid by the Koch brothers by the quote mark? What's up with that?

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

"Jesus was a false prophet." He claimed much more than being a prophet.

"He was much too nice to be the prophet of one of his followers." Only one? I'd say there are an awful lot of them.

"I am sure He would not be proud, the way his name is used to rally so much hate." Yes.

"The church morality banks are overdrawn." Not quite all of them.

geekin_topekan 3 years, 3 months ago

Carl says "they serve as an example of those who will undergo an eternal punishment." ++++ WHich means that all will be taken care of in the end. So why is Carl so concerned? Is his God not moving quickly enough for poor Carl? Carl himself is claiming to know what is best for mankind over the actions of his God. Wold that not make Carl a candidate that lake O'flames?

jonas_opines 3 years, 3 months ago

All prophets are likely false. The problem for Carl is that likely also includes Jesus.

Pastor_Bedtime 3 years, 3 months ago

Christian carpetbaggers anxiously await the opportunity to mandate their faith upon all. And just as they attempt to put a stranglehold on my Republican party, they plan to forcibly convert the nation to their warm and comfy modern version of theocratic domination. And if you don't sign on to their agenda, you are godless/athiest/socialist, etc.

whats_going_on 3 years, 3 months ago

Same people, same arguments about the same old garbage. You all DO realize that you aren't going to change each other's minds, right? Find a hobby.

eduardo73 3 years, 3 months ago

Something about the name "wallbuilders" seems to me to conjure up images of those "who would cause divisions," as warned of in the writers chosen passage. I think it's important to be weary of "false prophets" such as these "Wallbuilders."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.