posted
Lyr, During the primaries, he had to watch his step and play up to the base because if he did not, many people would jump all over him. During the general, these same people are going to be supporting him. I think he'll have a lot more latitude.
Also, regardless, he is going to offer much more substance than the superficial rhetoric that he's been pitching to the base. I think he's trying to get as much winning of them over now, so that he can distance himself from the things he's saying now when he is courting independents.
I still thinks he's going to lose (especially if, as seems likely, he goes up against Barack Obama), but he's not going to be the "alienating everyone but the Republican base" walk in the park that you seem to be seeing him as.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he's going to be a walk in the park at all, and I've said that multiple times in many different threads on the board. Perhaps I overstated the situation earlier, as I'm sure he has more positions to offer, but like I said, he's not running as the same McCain he was eight years ago, so it's hard to say exactly what we're going to get by the time he really starts campaigning against whoever the Democratic nominee is.
If he keeps campaigning the way he has thus far, I think it'll be a lot closer to a walk in the park. But I haven't seen the breakout yet. He's going to have some more latitude once his opposition is silenced enough to allow him a freer hand, but he still won't be able to run without supervision. He still has to attract donors, which is nowhere near as guaranteed as it used to be in a presidential race where a Democrat is raising untold millions, that's never happened before. He can't afford, literally, to alienate anyone.
He'll have more latitude than he did in January, but, that isn't to say he'll be able to do whatever he wants personally. There are a lot of people he's going to have to sate.
I'm expecting his General run to be different than his primary run, but lower taxes and the war, those are thorns he's not going to be able to dump and I think you can hear his inner fiscal conservative screaming in protest. It won't be easy, but he's going to give the Democrats a LOT to work with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
McCain is still running against Huckabee on the right and Obama on the left. When he doesn't need to worry about Huckabee, and when Obama doesn't need to worry about Clinton, things will change radically on both sides.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's going to be another bitter fight once the candidates are settled on, and I'm pretty sure HR will go through its usual painfully ascerbic conversations on that topic. I foresee a lot of wincing for me in the future months.
However. However. Regardless of how much I want Obama to win, I would not be deeply depressed by any of the current frontrunners (McCain, Obama, HRClinton) making it to the Presidency. That is awesome.
---
Edited to add: I am not commenting on Huckabee because I am (perhaps wrongly) not seeing him as in as much of a race with McCain as Obama still is with HRClinton. Also, I have more reservations about him, so it would make my post not totally positive. (And I want fervently to be positive for good reasons right now.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Clinton is in the race, I'm going to have to restrict myself to threads about Jane Austen movies. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's going to be another bitter fight once the candidates are settled on, and I'm pretty sure HR will go through its usual painfully ascerbic conversations on that topic. I foresee a lot of wincing for me in the future months.
I joined in November of 04, so I just missed the last election here. But I don't think this will be nearly as rancorous or "mean" as the 04 election was. I think like any election there will be plenty of back and forth, as there should be.
And I can only guess what it's like in the threads here, but I think we'll be pretty good about keeping it confined to just a few threads. We have been pretty good about it thus far.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I recall correctly, maybe to a pretty small extent. However, we had a minor influx when one of his essays (and Empire) was discussed on, I think, Rush Limbaugh. OSC has gotten more vitrolic and has been looking into different types of media to disseminate his opinions. I'm afraid that he'll acheive a wider audience and we'll have a bunch of people coming here to post about how he's so totally right and liberals should all be branded traitors or that he's the most evil person evar!!!
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We'll also be getting our fair share of people telling anyone who doesn't agree with their attacks on OSC and/or McCain is only doing so because they haven't thought things through and never consider other viewpoints.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, why are you arguing with crazy people? Seriously. Couldn't your time be better spent going down to a therapist's office and baiting some patients or something?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But baiting some patients is what I'm doing here.
Oh, OK. Well, very Christlike behavior there, Ron, for such a devout fellow.
One of my fondest memories of reading the New Testament is the first time I read about Jesus heaping scorn and ridicule on sick people.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In all fairness, as has been pointed out, Obama is only a junior senator with no seniority, so has had little opportunity to do anything of consequence.
Gee, Ron. That sounds like a totally fair condemnation of Obama. Why, I'm sure you were positively aghast when the Republican party put somebody up who had accomplished even less as a figurehead in the Texas governership, one of the nation's most toothless posts.
Oh wait, you didn't, because that was George W. Bush and you reserve these hypocritical condemnations for Democrats.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: One of my fondest memories of reading the New Testament is the first time I read about Jesus heaping scorn and ridicule on sick people.
That's right, man. Jesus is effing metal. \m/
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: One of my fondest memories of reading the New Testament is the first time I read about Jesus heaping scorn and ridicule on sick people.
Was that before or after the part where he inhabited the body of Eric Clapton and saved the Carolinas from unification?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesus did refer to the Pharisees as "white-washed sepulchres, white on the outside, but inside filled with dead men's bones and all uncleanness." (Matthew 23:27) They were the people who were really sick mentally. By their own choice. Sometimes people need to be confronted with a true, even if graphic or dramatic, characterization of the true nature of their mindset.
Personally, I think it is funny when people who are largely ignorant of the Bible or do not even believe in its inspiration, try to use it to make their points, perhaps supposing that they are being clever.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Rakeesh just forgot that if his interpretation doesn't match yours then he must be wrong. Forgive his ignorance.
I'm pretty sure one of the Jewish members of Hatrack could introduce you to a broader view of the Pharisees though I doubt any of them would want to waste their time.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is funny when people who are largely ignorant of the Bible or do not even believe in its inspiration, try to use it to make their points
I'm amused by the emphasis there. I think it's much more reasonable to use the Bible to make your points if you don't believe in its inspiration than if you're largely ignorant of it, but your sentence implies the reverse.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jesus did refer to the Pharisees as "white-washed sepulchres, white on the outside, but inside filled with dead men's bones and all uncleanness." (Matthew 23:27) They were the people who were really sick mentally. By their own choice. Sometimes people need to be confronted with a true, even if graphic or dramatic, characterization of the true nature of their mindset.
Personally, I think it is funny when people who are largely ignorant of the Bible or do not even believe in its inspiration, try to use it to make their points, perhaps supposing that they are being clever.
Yes, and of course now you're going to tell us there isn't any scorn or mockery in your words. And let's not forget that just because Jesus is qualified to judge when someone is mentally ill, hardly means you are.
Here's what I think is really funny: people who think that people who use the Bible to make points contrary to their own narrow-minded perspective must be fraudulent, incorrect, or just trying to be clever.
Christ appears to be a very, very simple Savior to you, Ron. People are right and decent and Christian insofar as they agree with you. If they disagree with you, they're not just wrong and defying God, they might actually be crazy. You are certainly not Christ, to so utterly and irrevocably judge people on such a subjective issue. And your 'scientist' reference is certainly not sufficient to lend you credibility on the 'mentally sick' aspect, either.
And all of this is setting aside the idiocy Matt pointed out, that someone could choose to be mentally ill. Yeah, people just will their brain chemistry out of whack.
quote:Sometimes people need to be confronted with a true, even if graphic or dramatic, characterization of the true nature of their mindset.
The truth of your confrontation is of course up for debate-no, you do not have a lock on Truth, you are a Christian, not Christ Himself-but 'graphic' and 'dramatic' are not very applicable. 'Derisive' and 'contemptuous' are much more appropriate.
I don't really see you doing any charity for the poor, or tending for the sick, or anything else Christ did. Instead, your Christianity here on Hatrack appears to be limited exclusively to argumentative, defensive Christianity. I can't recall a time when you tried to improve the environment by building something up; the only improvement you seem interested in is tearing things (and people) down, all while casually ignoring people pointing out your own errors.
The only kind of help you try to provide is by pointing out how wrong, stupid, or crazy people who disagree with you are. It's annoying when people try to assert that Christ is all about blanket tolerance and respect and love for everyone and everything, and it's equally annoying when someone like you (by behavior) asserts that Christ is contempt and scorn and mockery of wrong concepts.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They were the people who were really sick mentally. By their own choice.
Wha? Mental illness can be a choice? Does "mentally ill" just mean "disagrees with me" to you?
I think he meant, (and I could be completely wrong) that you can choose to believe something that is wrong for bad reasons, and if you keep saying you believe it and act on it you can reach a state where you no longer choose to reconsider that belief in the face of reality.
I don't think Jesus was calling the pharisees crazy. I think he was calling them spiritually ill as they were freaking out when Jesus healed on the sabbath, but many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.
Their hypocrisy was not obvious to them, but it was obvious to any neutral party.
Kwea: That passage is bandied about alot these days. You should be made aware that for Mormons the passage is erroneously translated and should read, "Judge not unrighteously that ye be not judged, but judge righteous judgment."
Even without Joseph Smith's correction Jesus' succeeding remarks indicate that judgment is important, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
It is merely another variation on "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you." The idea that Jesus would not have us ever judge anything is contrary to the spirit of learning to be as God is.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think he meant, (and I could be completely wrong) that you can choose to believe something that is wrong for bad reasons, and if you keep saying you believe it and act on it you can reach a state where you no longer choose to reconsider that belief in the face of reality.
When Ron starts to show any signs of having a nuanced position, I'll treat it that way. Until then, broad strokes get answered as they are presented.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, do you mean literally mistranslated, or that there was a change made in copying at some point? Because I'm looking at the Greek text right now, and I'm just not seeing how your "translation" is possible.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, Jesus also said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." (Mat. 7:20) Apparently when He said do not judge, he was talking about meting out punishment. There are distinct phases to judgment: investigation, which we ARE supposed to do, and execution of justice, which we are to leave to God (or to the duly appointed authorities). When Jesus said to judge not, He was saying do not hang people before they have been accorded due process.
And yes, your choices can affect your sanity. If you tell lies habitually, or choose to live a lie, this can have an actual, physical effect on your brain. Your brain does adapt to the habitual patterns of thought you indulge. It is possible to unlearn wrong patterns of thought, and to establish healthy patterns of thought in their place. There are people in whom habitual hatred of a specific race has become established. As a result, they see what they expect, which only confirms to them their prejudices. But this can be unlearned, if they are willing to face up to the irrationality of the racism they had entertained, and make an effort to see how things really are. Same with the political view that would cause some people to "rage against imagined villains" such as the administration, or the military, or Republicans, or whatever.
[ February 23, 2008, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Same with the political view that would cause some people to "rage against imagined villains" such as the administration, or the military, or Republicans, or whatever.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: BlackBlade, do you mean literally mistranslated, or that there was a change made in copying at some point? Because I'm looking at the Greek text right now, and I'm just not seeing how your "translation" is possible.
I couldn't rightly say. From my understanding the Joseph Smith translation claims that the corrections are how the text read when the words were written.
Some passages were intentionally changed by dishonest scribes, and some were simply mistakenly copied.
As an aside, it's not "my" translation.
But I am interested in what you mean by that rendering of the translation being impossible.
posted
It just occured to me, in response to the thread title one possible answer is, "Well, you've gotta hand it to him, he's done pretty good for a crazy guy!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Regardless of how much I want Obama to win, I would not be deeply depressed by any of the current frontrunners (McCain, Obama, HRClinton) making it to the Presidency. That is awesome.
Agreed.
(However, McCain's age makes his choice of running mate extremely important to me.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. If Clinton got the nomination, I would be strongly considering McCain. Not for his stand on the issues - in more than a few places I flatly disagree with him - but because I beleive he could bring some integrity back to the office and the country, and he would be more likely to get the parties working together. (Although recent revelations and his torture bill vote may lessen that perception, so stay tuned) Clinton is too polarizing, and every bit as prone to secrecy and hiring for loyalty over competence as the man currently in office. We would end up with a another president devoutly supported by a third of the country and tolerated or openly disliked by the rest, and that simply doesn't work.
It would be great to see a woman president. I don't think this woman should be president, at least not right now. Let her try again in four or eight years, when (hopefully) the parties have reconciled somewhat.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you both. But even with HRC, the bottom wouldn't be dropping out of my stomach. Don't think it's the right time, don't think she's the right person. However, the contrast would be appreciable.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clinton is too polarizing, and every bit as prone to secrecy and hiring for loyalty over competence as the man currently in office. We would end up with a another president devoutly supported by a third of the country and tolerated or openly disliked by the rest, and that simply doesn't work.
I worry about this greatly, and it's a large part of the reason I'm going with Obama over her. But for me personally, however much I might like McCain personally (less now than I did a few years ago, now I think he's a bit of a dishonest prick, but that's affected by how the party has constrained him to run his primary campaign, so we'll see in the General), his policies are way too much for me to swallow. We're at a crossroads. McCain's government hands off let the people figure it out plan I think is utterly disastrous in the face of the problems before us. I'd rather Clinton was in office and there was so much partisan politics that NOTHING got done rather than have him take us in the other direction. I can't get past his policies. I'm someone that votes 80% on your positions/plans/policies 20% everything else, including personality, likeability (both to a lesser extent) and what kind of person you are, respect, integrity, the more intangible stuff.
It's ironic to me that Clinton has had her biggest bumps in the polls arguably when she's broken loose from her handlers to let her real self through, and every time she runs back to calculating and plotting she loses ground. I like her policies, but I think other people could implement them better...which is frankly why I want her in the Senate. She DOES have good ideas, and there she can hone them and push them through and work with Obama to make them as good as can be. I think she is much more suited to those kind of politics over Executive powers and politics. Policy wise she's fine, but she loses the other 20% for me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But I am interested in what you mean by that rendering of the translation being impossible.
I mean that the words are κρίνω (judge), καταδικάζω (condemn) and κρίμα (judgement). There is nothing about those words that indicates whether the judgement is "righteous" or "unrighteous," nor are there any adjectives or adverbs in the verses that would modify them in that way. Granted, I am not fluent in Greek. I am looking at the verses with the aid of a greek lexicon/dictionary. But I do not see any way that the translation you have quoted is possible. There certainly is no way to add in the phrase "but judge righteous judgment" -- that isn't even a question of translation, there aren't any extra words there to be translated.
If what you are claiming is that there was a scribal error (or intention) that changed the verse, please call it that, and not a "mistranslation." In the future. As a matter of accuracy. If what you are claiming is that the common rendering of the text is a mistranslation, then I dispute your contention.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.
That's just silly. Polygamy was permissible back then. Why would they bother "divorcing their wives out of convenience"?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.
That's just silly. Polygamy was permissible back then. Why would they bother "divorcing their wives out of convenience"?
Just a guess, but the pharisees would not be required by law to take care of an ex wife. They could put her away and just forget she ever existed. Polygamy is an expensive vocation. Also, although it was permissible, are you so certain that at that time it was commonly practiced by the Jews? Polygamy is permissible in many Muslim nations but in for example Malaysia, I never had occasion to meet a polygamist.
dkw: I see your point, and I shall try to draw a distinction between words being omitted and words being rendered incorrectly. I have no contention with you that in the Greek, the passage likely reads as it does in English. But I also see the Greek as a step in the right direction not the Bible in all it's original purity.
posted
I agree with you, Chris. That's why I support Obama. I still think none of these three would be disastrous, though. This is the best slate of contenders I can recall.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Same with the political view that would cause some people to "rage against imagined villains" such as the administration, or the military, or Republicans, or whatever.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but many of them committed adultery frequently by divorcing their wives out of convenience.
That's just silly. Polygamy was permissible back then. Why would they bother "divorcing their wives out of convenience"?
Just a guess, but the pharisees would not be required by law to take care of an ex wife. They could put her away and just forget she ever existed. Polygamy is an expensive vocation. Also, although it was permissible, are you so certain that at that time it was commonly practiced by the Jews? Polygamy is permissible in many Muslim nations but in for example Malaysia, I never had occasion to meet a polygamist.
I'm not sure it matters. If they did divorce their wives and remarry, that's hardly adultery.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone on the Mcclaughlin group suggested that Hillary is in the impossible situation of having to whack the baby seal if she wants to get ahead.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
