Why Perry Can't Win

[Cecilie1200]

The more the Left attacks Perry, the more they reveal just how terrified they are of him.

And here's a good summary of why:

He will take there attacks, and give them right back twice as hard. He is very skilled at doing that. Even not going to this debate is no big deal, and in a way is good for him because it puts things on his turf. His real test will come in the general election. I said it once and will say it again, I am NO Perry fan, but if its him or Obama I will pull the lever for him.

But he won't get to the general election if he doesn't get the Repub nomination. Skipping debates could lead to that result.

I don't think he needs to worry about Republican voters being as shallow and self-centered as Democrats.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What makes you think slavery is wrong? You realize that every civilization prior to our own practiced slavery, right?

You're being argumentative, right? You're just trying to make a point, right? I mean, you don't really believe that?



Do you?

Can you make a rational argument against slavery, yes or no?

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are a fucking liar, I have never said slavry was a good thing. You on the other hand seem to think slaves were beat on a daily bases, which would be incoorect. Since yoiu like using images to prove your point I am still waiting on more images from you where slaves had whip marks on their back. With over 4 million slaves should should be able to find a boat load of images.

Given that photography was a difficult and expensive process prior to 1860 or so, not really.
And given the other crazy stuff you've said, like it was the fault of that father of the little girl who got shot for not protecting her, not idiotic laws that let crazy people buy guns, arguing with you is kind of a useless excercise.

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?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Given that photography was a difficult and expensive process prior to 1860 or so, not really.
And given the other crazy stuff you've said, like it was the fault of that father of the little girl who got shot for not protecting her, not idiotic laws that let crazy people buy guns, arguing with you is kind of a useless excercise.

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...

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.

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.

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!

 

[NGSamson]

And you left something out in your little cut and past session

Eph.-9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

More editing on your part, not to mention, if you were stupid enough to try and use the new testament to make your case you should have known Philemon would have been one of many books in there that would have blown your ass out of the water again. So not only do you steal other peoples stories, you edit your cut and past. Let me guess, Mine dont count because of the difference in translation right ?

NO, yours don't count because they are irrelevent. The wrong is in human beings owning other human beings, not if the bible then tells the owners to play nice sometimes.

It's like saying that verses that advocate rape are okay if they require the rapist to use a rubber.

It's sheer idiocy, and not what a perfect moral God would do. A perfect moral god would say something like,

"If someone does work for you, fairly compensate them at an agreed upon price!"

Wow. What a concept!

Sheesh....

Ok, so what you quoted from the Bible is irrelevant, got it. You spelled that wrong by the way. And your life is some one eles's story, got it, Dang, you would think a professional writer would come up with something better.

 

[NGSamson]

And you left something out in your little cut and past session

Eph.-9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

More editing on your part, not to mention, if you were stupid enough to try and use the new testament to make your case you should have known Philemon would have been one of many books in there that would have blown your ass out of the water again. So not only do you steal other peoples stories, you edit your cut and past. Let me guess, Mine dont count because of the difference in translation right ?

NO, yours don't count because they are irrelevent. The wrong is in human beings owning other human beings, not if the bible then tells the owners to play nice sometimes.

It's like saying that verses that advocate rape are okay if they require the rapist to use a rubber.

It's sheer idiocy, and not what a perfect moral God would do. A perfect moral god would say something like,

"If someone does work for you, fairly compensate them at an agreed upon price!"

Wow. What a concept!

Sheesh....

Gee, you mean something like this?

24:14 Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants & Vowels)
לֹא־תַעֲשֹׁק שָׂכִיר עָנִי וְאֶבְיֹון מֵאַחֶיךָ אֹו מִגֵּרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בְּאַרְצְךָ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ׃

No. I mean go read it and figure it out for your self. Jesus never directly addressed a bunch of things like rape, incest or having sex with animals either so are those acts ok as well ?

 

[JoeB131]

You're being argumentative, right? You're just trying to make a point, right? I mean, you don't really believe that?

Do you?

Can you make a rational argument against slavery, yes or no?

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 get pretty tired of Christianity getting credit for "Western Civilization" when there was a Western Civilization that was pretty advanced before Rome adopted Christianity as the state religion and fell into the Dark Ages (the first "Faith-based Iniative").

CHattel slavery was purely a western thing. Yes, there were other forms of servitude in Asia and the pre-Columbian Americas, but nothing like what came later. In fact, the European slavery was so horrid that the population of the Americas dropped by 70% in the two centuries after Columbus "discovered" America. That why they had to start importing Africans in.

And when sensible people objected to all this as, you know, like wrong. Well, lo and behold, someone whipped out a bible and showed them the verses where God said that was just dandy.

 

[JoeB131]

No. I mean go read it and figure it out for your self. Jesus never directly addressed a bunch of things like rape, incest or having sex with animals either so are those acts ok as well ?

No, Jesus did nothing to revoke the barbaric sex laws of the old testement.

Like these-

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Wow. Great laws... YOu know, you'd think this would be one of the laws Jesus would fix if he were doing a Kinder Gentler thing... but he didn't.

In fact, laws allowing a rapist to marry his victim remained on the books in England until 1850.

 

[BoycottTheday]

I don't think he needs to worry about Republican voters being as shallow and self-centered as Democrats.

And since when are dog an pony shows debates?

A debate is between two people imho.

I dont even watch the stupid media shows that are put on, with their moRonic questions,

who other than someone inside the beltway cares about them in the first place?

 

[Toro]

When he got to the point of defending Stalin and comparing communism to Christianity he kind of lost any credibility he had. Which wasn't much to begin with.

Slavery a bad thing, yes or no?

I'm await your reasoned argument as to why it is bad. Until then I reserve judgment.

Oh, so you're waiting for me to convince you? You haven't made up your mind yet? I can give you a very good argument based on American history why slavery stunts economic growth and social development.

But here's the thing. If you want to have even a shred of credibility when attempting to take the moral high ground over another poster, when someone asks you if slavery is a bad thing, the answer is always and every time an unequivocal "yes."

"Don't listen to him! He equates Stalinism with Christianity!"
"Is slavery bad?"
"I don't know."

It sort of undermines your position.

Which should be plainly obvious.

 

[NGSamson]

No. I mean go read it and figure it out for your self. Jesus never directly addressed a bunch of things like rape, incest or having sex with animals either so are those acts ok as well ?

No, Jesus did nothing to revoke the barbaric sex laws of the old testement.

Like these-

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Wow. Great laws... YOu know, you'd think this would be one of the laws Jesus would fix if he were doing a Kinder Gentler thing... but he didn't.

In fact, laws allowing a rapist to marry his victim remained on the books in England until 1850.

You have provided no evidence of that. All you can do is cut, past, and edit Bible chapter and verse to support your point of view. You should have done that with the story you presented as your life experience. You have proven your self as a liar and quite ignorant, as well as a bigot. You are also not accustomed to being challenged. The proof is in the fact that you have to edit the rare facts you quote . You are just an insecure pseudo intellectual. Hell, With your penchant for claiming other peoples intellectual property as your own I dont know that you rate that high, you may just be a run of the mill liar. Either way you are a douche wagon.

 

[Toro]

You're being argumentative, right? You're just trying to make a point, right? I mean, you don't really believe that?



Do you?

Can you make a rational argument against slavery, yes or no?

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?

 

[JoeB131]

No. I mean go read it and figure it out for your self. Jesus never directly addressed a bunch of things like rape, incest or having sex with animals either so are those acts ok as well ?

No, Jesus did nothing to revoke the barbaric sex laws of the old testement.

Like these-

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Wow. Great laws... YOu know, you'd think this would be one of the laws Jesus would fix if he were doing a Kinder Gentler thing... but he didn't.

In fact, laws allowing a rapist to marry his victim remained on the books in England until 1850.

You have provided no evidence of that. All you can do is cut, past, and edit Bible chapter and verse to support your point of view. .... The proof is in the fact that you have to edit the rare facts you quote ..

I'm going to edit you down to only reasoned arguments from now on... So oddly, taking out the whining and the personal insults, your actual argument is only two sentences.


Yes, I get the whole "You are taking it out of context" argument, like there's a context where stoning a rape victim to death or making her marry her rapist ever sounds humane.

We could post the WHOLE bible here, but it wouldn't sound any better.

Do you know who edits the bible? The Churches. They only read the verses that make God sound good, and frankly, those are in the minority. When someone like me comes along and asks a question about the more barbaric verses, we get the old canards..

"Well, that was for THOSE times"

or

"Well that was the OLD Testament."

In fact, the ironic thing is that in 12 years of Catholic education, I never heard of Elisha and the Bears or Jephthah sacrificing his daughter. They didn't like to tell those stories, and limited your access to it. It's the Potemkin Village version of religion. I didn't find out about these juicy stories until after I rejected religion.

I suspect they try to hide the story of Noah (you know, the one were you've spent THREE DAYS now not answering why drowing babies is a good thing) if it wasn't so well known and so early in the book.

 

[NGSamson]

Can you make a rational argument against slavery, yes or no?

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?

Here is the thing, Humans know certain things are bad, and have a natural reaction to them. The fact that slaves had to be bound or marked should be evidence of that. And it looks like slavery is being confused with indentured servitude.

indentured servant
noun
Definition of INDENTURED SERVANT
: a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance

Indentured servant - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


slave
   [sleyv] Show IPA noun, verb, slaved, slav·ing.
noun
1.
a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2.
a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.

Slave | Define Slave at Dictionary.com

There is a difference.

 

[NGSamson]

No, Jesus did nothing to revoke the barbaric sex laws of the old testement.

Like these-

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Wow. Great laws... YOu know, you'd think this would be one of the laws Jesus would fix if he were doing a Kinder Gentler thing... but he didn't.

In fact, laws allowing a rapist to marry his victim remained on the books in England until 1850.

You have provided no evidence of that. All you can do is cut, past, and edit Bible chapter and verse to support your point of view. .... The proof is in the fact that you have to edit the rare facts you quote ..

I'm going to edit you down to only reasoned arguments from now on... So oddly, taking out the whining and the personal insults, your actual argument is only two sentences.


Yes, I get the whole "You are taking it out of context" argument, like there's a context where stoning a rape victim to death or making her marry her rapist ever sounds humane.

We could post the WHOLE bible here, but it wouldn't sound any better.

Do you know who edits the bible? The Churches. They only read the verses that make God sound good, and frankly, those are in the minority. When someone like me comes along and asks a question about the more barbaric verses, we get the old canards..

"Well, that was for THOSE times"

or

"Well that was the OLD Testament."

In fact, the ironic thing is that in 12 years of Catholic education, I never heard of Elisha and the Bears or Jephthah sacrificing his daughter. They didn't like to tell those stories, and limited your access to it. It's the Potemkin Village version of religion. I didn't find out about these juicy stories until after I rejected religion.

I suspect they try to hide the story of Noah (you know, the one were you've spent THREE DAYS now not answering why drowing babies is a good thing) if it wasn't so well known and so early in the book.

No, you are customizing your evidence to agree with what you believe, nothing wrong with that, just stop trying to say that they are facts. Thats intellectuality dishonest. And I believe you meant the catholic schooling that you borrowed (stole?) you never heard of Elisha and the bears. And Jephthah has been covered already. On that one you are attempting to save face by re posting the same shit in the hopes that no other readers will see that you already posted it before and that it was addressed. Bad idea to do that here, people usually read most if not all the post before they comment. They will see you have been running in circles and getting swatted at the end of every one, from religion to history. I do have a question though, you said in two separate threads (on this board) that you had doubts when you were 11, and that the nuns would not let you read the bible until later on in your borrowed (stolen?) Past. Why didn't you just grab the family bible and read it your self ? And dont even go on about being insulted, Guy, you do plenty of that your self there, Guy. Thicken that skin, and dont be such a pussy.

 

[NGSamson]

Oh, and your not just taking it out of context, you are editing and customizing what you quote to support your point of view. Weak.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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...

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.

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.

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!

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 fucking no states has slave protection laws.

 

[JoeB131]

.. And Jephthah has been covered already.... I do have a question though, you said in two separate threads (on this board) that you had doubts when you were 11, and that the nuns would not let you read the bible until later on in your borrowed (stolen?) Past. Why didn't you just grab the family bible and read it your self ? .

Once again, you take out the personal insults and stupid accusations, it becomes a lot easier to address the substance of what you say.

When was Jephthah covered? Sorry, must have missed that.

What kind of bizarro world do you live in where a man butchers his young daughter because he makes a foolish oath and God is still loving and decent? yeah, they hid this story for a reason.

As for why I didn't read the bible when I was 11. I had better things to do when I was 11. Like play with my friends and watch cartoons, which is what 11 year olds do.

Today I enjoy reading the bible. It's freakin' hysterical. But frankly, I've read the verse, and the verse itself is every bit as retarded as what Sister Mary Butch (not trademarked) said. God drowns everyone because he didn't like what they were doing, but sin still existed even after he killed everyone.

Noah gets drunk, his son sees him naked, they curse his grandchildren through Ham to be slaves, and then we move on to the Tower of Babel.

Now, the interesting thing was that people took that verse to justify slavery. Black people descended from Ham, so it was okay to enslave them.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, and your not just taking it out of context, you are editing and customizing what you quote to support your point of view. Weak.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9

Yeah, I'm sure you can't really put that in ANY context where that sounds good.

 

[JoeB131]

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 fucking 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.)