Skip to main content

Couldn't decide whether to post this here or in the Politics forum, so I am posting it both places.

Now comes the Beckster, already having declared the President of the United States to be a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people," yet reaching again into what seems to be an inexhaustible store of libel against the leader of the free world, Beck now declaims upon what he sees as Mr. Obama's "liberation theology":


"It's all about victims and victimhood; oppressors and the oppressed; reparations, not repentance; collectivism, not individual salvation. I don't know what that is, other than it's not Muslim, it's not Christian. It's a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it."

Link: http://content.usatoday.com/co...beration-christian/1

And just WHO is this self-anointed theologian who purports to instruct us on the faith of the President? Who is telling us that the President's beliefs are "not Muslim...not Christian?" Why, it is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, otherwise known as Mormons.

Before you apostles of tolerance out there get your panties in a wad and accuse me of that most deadly of sins, INtolerance, be advised of the following documentation concerning just one of the perverted and heretical beliefs of the faith to which Mr. Beck attaches his roly-poly self. What I will reproduce below is from sources within the Mormon Church, including two "Prophets" of that church. The significance of being the Prophet (and there is only one at a time) in that church is that the Prophet is supposed to directly receive revelation from God Himself, such that when the Mormon Prophet (full title "Prophet, Seer and Revelator") delivers doctrine to the followers of Mormonism, that doctrine stands on a plane of equality with the Bible itself. That being said, I wll now provide you with documented information from an online source that explains just how far Glenn Beck's chosen faith has strayed on just one matter, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Read this and decide if Beck, a Mormon, is the kind of authority you wish to depend on in matters of theology. Read this and decide whether a belief system that includes the documented, egregiously heretical doctrines described below are anything approaching "Christian." As incentive for you to continue reading what might be an over-long post for some, let me summarize what is proven below. Mormons do NOT believe that Mary conceived through the Holy Ghost. Their highest authorities, their "Prophets," supposedly based on information directly received from God, believe that God had a physical body, fully equipped with male genitalia, and that this Mormon version of God, had physical sexual intercourse with Mary and that she became pregnant thereby.

Read these excerpts from "The Changing World of Mormonism, by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Their entire, and very revealing, book is online at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm

Now for the Mormon Doctrine on the virgin birth. Read this, those of you who watched Beck ooze righteousness this past Saturday as he attempted to get America to "return to God." Is it the Mormon "God" he would have this nation return to?

From "The Changing World of Mormonism":

<<<
The idea that God is just an exalted man has led Mormon leaders to proclaim a doctrine about the birth of Christ which is very shocking to orthodox Christians.

Brigham Young once stated: "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).
This statement is in conflict with both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In Matthew 1:18 and 20 we read: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.... for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." The Book of Mormon agrees with the Bible on this point, for in Alma 7:10 we read: "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, ... she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

In spite of these plain statements, Joseph Fielding Smith denied that the Book of Mormon and the Bible teach that Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost: "They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 19).

The reason that Joseph Fielding Smith objects to the teaching that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost is that according to Mormon theology, this would make Jesus the son of the Holy Ghost rather than the Son of God the Father. This idea arises from an improper understanding of the term Holy Ghost. The term Holy Ghost means exactly the same as the term Holy Spirit. The American College Dictionary defines the term "Holy Spirit" as 'the Holy Ghost." Now, since the Bible tells us that God is a Spirit and that He is holy, it is apparent that God Himself must be the Holy Spirit. So we see that there is no contradiction in saying that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost and also is the Son of God.

Since Christians believe that God is a Spirit, they view the conception of Christ as a miraculous event having nothing to with sex or any physical act. Mormon theology, on the otherhand, teaches that God is a man and that Christ was conceived through a sexual act between Mary and God the Father. In other words, the birth of Christ is considered a natural, rather than a miraculous occurrence. Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., said: "The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit" (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44).

The late President Joseph Fielding Smith declared: "Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 18).

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie further explains:
"These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 546-47)."And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, ... Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man" (p. 742).

The Mormon writer Carlfred B. Broderick made these comments:

There are two basic elements in the Gospel view of sexuality as I interpret it from the scriptures. The first is that sex is good—that sexuality, far from being the antithesis of spirituality, is actually on attribute of God....

In the light of their understanding that God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone, latter-day prophets have made it clear that despite what it says in Matthew 1:20, the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus.... The Savior was fathered by a personage of flesh and bone, and was literally what Nephi said he was, "Son of the Eternal Father" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, pp. 100-101).

President Brigham Young had this to say concerning the birth of Christ: "The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband" (Deseret News, October 10, 1866).
This same type of reasoning led Apostle Orson Pratt to say:

A photograph of The Seer, page 158. Apostle Orson Pratt states that Mary and God the Father associated together in the capacity of husband and wife.

The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband.

Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity (The Seer, p. 158).

Brigham Young added that "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

In a sermon delivered in the tabernacle on April 9, 1852, Brigham Young climaxed his teaching with the following explanation:
I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon the subject, when I replied, to this idea—"if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).>>>>>

GLENN BECK, Saturday's spokesman for bringing America back to God! Is the God of Glenn Beck's faith, described above, the God that America should embrace? It is Beck's God! A God of flesh and blood! A sexually-active Deity. If Beck should deny this, then he will be denying his own professed faith, for the above is a true and correct description of Mormon beliefs about the virgin birth! Strange, yes--but true!

Just who does Beck, then, think he is to decide whether the faith of the President is Christian or Muslim or something else?! Beck declares the President's religious faith "...a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it." Can any belief system be further out of the mainstream of Christian belief than the one to which Beck adheres?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hi Beter,

Regardless of who is asking, the question is an important question and deserves an answer.

Of course, from Obama and his supporters, we will not get an answer to the question of his religious affiliation or lack thereof -- or of his American citizenship or lack thereof.

Simple questions which could so easily and so quickly be put to rest. Yet, he will not answer them. WHY?

I believe we ALL know the answer.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Christian_or_Muslim
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Beter,

Regardless of who is asking, the question is an important question and deserves an answer.

Of course, from Obama and his supporters, we will not get an answer to the question of his religious affiliation or lack thereof -- or of his American citizenship or lack thereof.

Simple questions which could so easily and so quickly be put to rest. Yet, he will not answer them. WHY?

I believe we ALL know the answer.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Bill, your "birther" ideology places you squarely in the category of CRACKPOT.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, there are archived printed copies of two Hawaiian newspapers that printed the announcement of Obama's birth in Honolulu in 1964. There is no way that could have been faked. That information is carefully avoided by you and the other dedicated "birthers" who continue to assert that the President was born outside the U.S.

And those who a short 20 months ago were criticizing Obama for his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago have now decided that he is, after all, a Muslim. Is there no limit to the lengths to which you and other cranks and nuts will go in your bizarre determination to propagate such lies about the President? Bill, you of all persons should know what the Bible says about the "lake of fire" and "all liars." (Revelation 21:8)
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Beter,

Regardless of who is asking, the question is an important question and deserves an answer.

Of course, from Obama and his supporters, we will not get an answer to the question of his religious affiliation or lack thereof -- or of his American citizenship or lack thereof.

Simple questions which could so easily and so quickly be put to rest. Yet, he will not answer them. WHY?

I believe we ALL know the answer.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill, your "birther" ideology places you squarely in the category of CRACKPOT.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, there are archived printed copies of two Hawaiian newspapers that printed the announcement of Obama's birth in Honolulu in 1964. There is no way that could have been faked. That information is carefully avoided by you and the other dedicated "birthers" who continue to assert that the President was born outside the U.S.

And those who a short 20 months ago were criticizing Obama for his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago have now decided that he is, after all, a Muslim. Is there no limit to the lengths to which you and other cranks and nuts will go in your bizarre determination to propagate such lies about the President? Bill, you of all persons should know what the Bible says about the "lake of fire" and "all liars." (Revelation 21:8)

Hi Beter,

Honest, I am not trying to denigrate your god, Obama. You say there are newspaper clippings which show his Honolulu birth. Newspaper clippings are easily faked.

If he truly has the Hawaiian birth certificate, why will he not show it and put all this to bed? This is not rocket science -- and it certainly does not endanger national security. So, why doesn't he do it?

You have claimed that his birth certificate has been posted on the internet. NO. A phony, sterilized certificate was posted -- but, not an authentic birth certificate.

And, by the same token, if he is not a Muslim -- why will he not publicly declare his religion?

He does neither. Why? Is it arrogance? Is it because he cannot without proving that he has been untruthful to the American people?

As I said, this is not rocket science. He loves to talk. This would only take him less than a minute to clear up both issues. Why doesn't he?

You and I both know the answer to that. Just as sure as I know that your response will be to call me names instead of an honest answer -- for the only honest answer is that he should take care of this business -- unless it will mean that constitutionally he will lose his job.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Recession-Depression-Recovery-1
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Beter,

Regardless of who is asking, the question is an important question and deserves an answer.

Of course, from Obama and his supporters, we will not get an answer to the question of his religious affiliation or lack thereof -- or of his American citizenship or lack thereof.

Simple questions which could so easily and so quickly be put to rest. Yet, he will not answer them. WHY?

I believe we ALL know the answer.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill, your "birther" ideology places you squarely in the category of CRACKPOT.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, there are archived printed copies of two Hawaiian newspapers that printed the announcement of Obama's birth in Honolulu in 1964. There is no way that could have been faked. That information is carefully avoided by you and the other dedicated "birthers" who continue to assert that the President was born outside the U.S.

And those who a short 20 months ago were criticizing Obama for his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago have now decided that he is, after all, a Muslim. Is there no limit to the lengths to which you and other cranks and nuts will go in your bizarre determination to propagate such lies about the President? Bill, you of all persons should know what the Bible says about the "lake of fire" and "all liars." (Revelation 21:8)

Hi Beter,

Honest, I am not trying to denigrate your god, Obama. You say there are newspaper clippings which show his Honolulu birth. Newspaper clippings are easily faked.

If he truly has the Hawaiian birth certificate, why will he not show it and put all this to bed? This is not rocket science -- and it certainly does not endanger national security. So, why doesn't he do it?

You have claimed that his birth certificate has been posted on the internet. NO. A phony, sterilized certificate was posted -- but, not an authentic birth certificate.

And, by the same token, if he is not a Muslim -- why will he not publicly declare his religion?

He does neither. Why? Is it arrogance? Is it because he cannot without proving that he has been untruthful to the American people?

As I said, this is not rocket science. He loves to talk. This would only take him less than a minute to clear up both issues. Why doesn't he?

You and I both know the answer to that. Just as sure as I know that your response will be to call me names instead of an honest answer -- for the only honest answer is that he should take care of this business -- unless it will mean that constitutionally he will lose his job.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


No, Bill, newspaper entries within 40+ year-old hard-copy editions of those newspapers in the "morgues" of those newspapers are NOT "easily faked" and in attempting to cavalierly dismiss them as evidence, you show your abysmal and pitiful ignorance on the matter. As to truly phony birth certificates, your relentless adherence to the discredited "birther" theories was on display on these forums not long ago when you gullibly served up a bogus "Kenyan birth certificate" for the President, manufactured by some mischievous crank and thoroughly discredited on numerous counts. You and your fellow "birthers" are a laughingstock with zero credibility except among your miserably deluded selves. You truly should be ashamed.
Last edited by beternU
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
No, Bill, newspaper entries within 40+ year-old hard-copy editions of those newspapers in the "morgues" of those newspapers are NOT "easily faked" and in attempting to cavalierly dismiss them as evidence, you show your abysmal and pitiful ignorance on the matter. As to truly phony birth certificates, your relentless adherence to the discredited "birther" theories was on display on these forums not long ago when you gullibly served up a bogus "Kenyan birth certificate" for the President, manufactured by some mischievous crank and thoroughly discredited on numerous counts. You and your fellow "birthers" are a laughingstock with zero credibility except among your miserably deluded selves. You truly should be ashamed.

AND, DON'T FORGET TO BOW TOWARD MECCA AS YOU PRAY TO "ALLAH OBAMA"!

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Obama-HIgher-Power-1a
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
No, Bill, newspaper entries within 40+ year-old hard-copy editions of those newspapers in the "morgues" of those newspapers are NOT "easily faked" and in attempting to cavalierly dismiss them as evidence, you show your abysmal and pitiful ignorance on the matter. As to truly phony birth certificates, your relentless adherence to the discredited "birther" theories was on display on these forums not long ago when you gullibly served up a bogus "Kenyan birth certificate" for the President, manufactured by some mischievous crank and thoroughly discredited on numerous counts. You and your fellow "birthers" are a laughingstock with zero credibility except among your miserably deluded selves. You truly should be ashamed.

AND, DON'T FORGET TO BOW TOWARD MECCA AS YOU PRAY TO "ALLAH OBAMA"!


Is this cartoon another attempt at humor? You give Christians such a bad name.
Bill said-And, by the same token, if he is not a Muslim -- why will he not publicly declare his religion?

He does neither. Why? Is it arrogance? Is it because he cannot without proving that he has been untruthful to the American people?

As I said, this is not rocket science. He loves to talk. This would only take him less than a minute to clear up both issues. Why doesn't he?


Could it be for the same reason that you Bill will not give a answer to those that keep asking you if you are working for Satan?

All of this is complete insanity. Of course he is an American citizen. Do you honestly believe that the Republicans in congress would allow him to be president if they could prove that he is not? He has to have proof of citizenship to take office.

As for his religion. I don't care what it is. It has nothing to do with his job. To me those that worry so much about these silly issues can not find anything more note worthy to complain about with this President. If this is your biggest worry when it comes to President Obama, then I guess he is doing a pretty darn good job. eh?

Use some common sense please.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:

Before you apostles of tolerance out there get your panties in a wad and accuse me of that most deadly of sins, INtolerance, be advised of the following documentation concerning just one of the perverted and heretical beliefs of the faith to which Mr. Beck attaches his roly-poly self.



Nah.. g'Head. be as intolerant as you like. Beck is a total whackjob. he's even more nuts than o'reily and limbaugh, and only slightly less insane than michael moore.

disliking the man because he was republican, or because he was mormon, that'd be intolerant.

disliking him because he's crazier than a hampster on heroin, that's totally allowable Smiler
differeing opinions and ideals should be respected. fruitcakes should be locked in a cabinet, in the dark, away from microphones and cameras, and left to rot.
Typically folks who bash Glenn Beck are folks who listen to lies about him told by leftist progressives, or cherry pick bits and peices of his shows to try to cast him in a bad light.
Beck hates Obama for the same reason I do... HE IGNORES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!
Beck is a true constitutional conservative, Obama is a radical communist sympathizer who HATES THE CONSTITUTION. He wants this country "transformed" into something radically differenct than the foundation our founding fathers put in place.
All this "religion" talk around Beck is just an attempt to distract from his real message.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
No, Bill, newspaper entries within 40+ year-old hard-copy editions of those newspapers in the "morgues" of those newspapers are NOT "easily faked" and in attempting to cavalierly dismiss them as evidence, you show your abysmal and pitiful ignorance on the matter. As to truly phony birth certificates, your relentless adherence to the discredited "birther" theories was on display on these forums not long ago when you gullibly served up a bogus "Kenyan birth certificate" for the President, manufactured by some mischievous crank and thoroughly discredited on numerous counts. You and your fellow "birthers" are a laughingstock with zero credibility except among your miserably deluded selves. You truly should be ashamed.

AND, DON'T FORGET TO BOW TOWARD MECCA AS YOU PRAY TO "ALLAH OBAMA"!


The childish irrelevancies you are posting on the subject equate to a complete surrender on your part, Bill. You have no defense, no justification for your asinine assertions about the President's place of birth or his religion, so instead you serve up silly-assed cartoons and even sillier-assed one-liners. You are a truly pitiful, lying, hypocritical, small-minded weasel, Bill. Your presence and performance on this forum become ever more disgraceful with each post you submit.
Beck is "whacky".. but not a "whacko"....
He is a silly guy, and makes a lot of jokes while he is talking. But if you watch his show, and study with him about all the coruption that exists in our gov't....that's D's and R's... then you'll see what he is really all about. We have alowed absolute communist take over our country, and their agenda is spreading like wild-fire with every passing "stimulus" bill. We must know the enemy if we are to defeat it... unfortunately, most o the greatest enemies of The United States of America are in great positions of power right now in The United States of America.
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
Beck is "whacky".. but not a "whacko"....
He is a silly guy, and makes a lot of jokes while he is talking. But if you watch his show, and study with him about all the coruption that exists in our gov't....that's D's and R's... then you'll see what he is really all about. We have alowed absolute communist take over our country, and their agenda is spreading like wild-fire with every passing "stimulus" bill. We must know the enemy if we are to defeat it... unfortunately, most o the greatest enemies of The United States of America are in great positions of power right now in The United States of America.


Rielly, you are so abysmally out of touch with what communism is that you have surrendered all credibility on the topic. Get yourself educated and then come back here and try to post something that makes sense.

It is easy for opponents of the current administration to cry "communism" and "socialism" and "fascism" but in virtually every case, those doing so have no real and practical knowledge of the tenets of those ideologies. It is just ignorant scattershot name-calling and it is truly a pitiful excuse for informed debate.
No BeternU.. YOU are out of touch with what communism really is... Read the commusnist manafesto, then look at the big gov't steps taken by the leftist politicians over the last 70 years or so... We are in perfet lock step with that manafesto. You either have never read it or don't know what communism is. They don't come out and tell you that they think freedom is bad and that gov't knows best and that we are all idiots and only they know how to spend our money. They slide it using "social justice"... Look at the tax bracket... 49% pay no federal income tax... they use social warfare to make sure the lower economic class stays on their side..."those evil ol rich people".. unfortunately, those evil ol rich people are the ones who provide jobs to the lower economic class... tax them too high, they cut jobs.. then there are more folks to live off of the gov't... see the pattern??? no?? Didn't think you would. It's so simple that I can't even try to explain it anymore... Anyone who has the willful blindness is takes to not see this is to hopeless to educate on it... Absolutely absurd.
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
No BeternU.. YOU are out of touch with what communism really is... Read the commusnist manafesto, then look at the big gov't steps taken by the leftist politicians over the last 70 years or so... We are in perfet lock step with that manafesto. You either have never read it or don't know what communism is. They don't come out and tell you that they think freedom is bad and that gov't knows best and that we are all idiots and only they know how to spend our money. They slide it using "social justice"... Look at the tax bracket... 49% pay no federal income tax... they use social warfare to make sure the lower economic class stays on their side..."those evil ol rich people".. unfortunately, those evil ol rich people are the ones who provide jobs to the lower economic class... tax them too high, they cut jobs.. then there are more folks to live off of the gov't... see the pattern??? no?? Didn't think you would. It's so simple that I can't even try to explain it anymore... Anyone who has the willful blindness is takes to not see this is to hopeless to educate on it... Absolutely absurd.


And what, pray tell, is the "commusnist manafesto"? I G N O R A N T!
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
And what, pray tell, is the "commusnist manafesto"? I G N O R A N T!


LMAO!!!! Name calling... the sign of a real winner in, not only debates, but life as well... nice work. And where as I don't know if you are askin rhetorically because of my typos, or honestly becuase you are the one who is "ignorant" of what the communist manifesto is... I'll give you this....

These are ten major established beliefs of communism... You just tell me... you know what, don't even bother.. just tell yourself if any of this sounds familiar.. particularly from our current administration. I know you won't answer truthfully to me because you are too stubborn to admit you are wrong.... but just read these and think on it to yourself....

1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10.Free education for all children in public schools.

Now.. I'm going to assume you have at least the reading comprehension of a 12 year old... but if you don't, I can go down those one by one and give you a modern day example if you'd like... but I trust you beternU!!! You can do it all by yourself!!! lol
quote:
10.Free education for all children in public schools.


And if you go by Cuba's example, children belong to the 'state'. Remember Elian Gonzalez?

For Elian, absolute control by the Communist party will begin in elementary school with the so-called "Cumulative School File." This is a little like a report card, but it is not limited to academic achievements. It measures "revolutionary integration," not only of the student but also of his family. This file documents whether or not the child and family participate in mass demonstrations, or whether they belong to a church or religious group. The file accompanies the child for life, and is continually updated. His university options will depend on what that file says. If he does not profess a truly Marxist life, he will be denied many career possibilities.

From his elementary school days on, he will hear that God does not exist, and that religion is "the opium of the masses." If any student speaks about God, his parents will be called to the school, warned that they are "confusing" the child and threatened. The Code for Children, Youth and Family provides for a three-year prison sentence for any parent who teaches a child ideas contrary to communism. The code is very clear: No Cuban parent has the right to "deform" the ideology of his children, and the state is the true "Father."

Article 8 of that same code reads, "Society and the state work for the efficient protection of youth against all influences contrary to their Communist formation." It is mandatory for all Cuban children over the age of 12 to do time in a Communist work camp in the countryside. Away from all parental supervision for nine months at a time, children there suffer from venereal disease, as well as teenage pregnancy, which inevitably ends in forced abortion.
Peter "Rielly", I think it is YOU who is showing himself to be foolish. I answered this post in the other thread, but I must speak up here. If you want to get into a battle of wits with BeternU, you might as well give up now. You have already proven that you can't match his intellect, simply by posting this foolish thread.

Oh, and by the way, the "Rielly" in your name is in quotes because you don't even know how to spell your fake name!
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Peter "Rielly", I think it is YOU who is showing himself to be foolish. I answered this post in the other thread, but I must speak up here. If you want to get into a battle of wits with BeternU, you might as well give up now. You have already proven that you can't match his intellect, simply by posting this foolish thread.

Oh, and by the way, the "Rielly" in your name is in quotes because you don't even know how to spell your fake name!

Hi O,

A person can choose to spell or pronounce his/her name any way he/she chooses. The city in Texas, Houston, and the man it is named after, pronounced the name: "Hyuus' tan."

Yet, I have Friends who are a missionaries couple, Steve and Leslie Houston -- who pronounce their name "Hows' tan."

So, if Peter wants to spell his name "Rielly" -- that is quite proper.

Now, to your claim of who is intelligent and who is not intelligent -- I have a simple test for initially looking at a person's intelligence. An intelligent person can express himself or herself without having to resort to curse words and other vulgarities. An intelligent person can express himself or herself with having to resort to name calling, i.e., stupid, ignorant, idiot, etc. -- or, "And what, pray tell, is the "communist manifesto"? I G N O R A N T!"

An intelligent person can communicate or dialogue with others in a civil manner with no name calling, vulgarity, or other insults. If a a person wants to be taken as an intellectual -- the first step is to learn to communicate at that level.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_Donkey_Bear_TALK
After hearing the hate and anger spewing from Ed Shultz about FOX News and Beck, I just have to say I still like being a conservative and still like Beck. If someone is spewing that much hatred there is something wrong with him or her. I hope Beternu and others are not like him.
Though statements like "IGNORANT" come into question.
Now they have started a website called teapartytracker.org just to find the negativity in the organization. This is either a desperate attempt to bad mouth the Tea Party or make up trash about them. Let's start a .org called NAACP-TP-NLM-MMtracker.org.
I wonder how much racism and hatred we would find? Something tells me it would not take long.
quote:
Originally posted by tada:
After hearing the hate and anger spewing from Ed Shultz about FOX News and Beck, I just have to say I still like being a conservative and still like Beck. If someone is spewing that much hatred there is something wrong with him or her. I hope Beternu and others are not like him.
Though statements like "IGNORANT" come into question.
Now they have started a website called teapartytracker.org just to find the negativity in the organization. This is either a desperate attempt to bad mouth the Tea Party or make up trash about them. Let's start a .org called NAACP-TP-NLM-MMtracker.org.
I wonder how much racism and hatred we would find? Something tells me it would not take long.


tada,

You can sign me up.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Peter "Rielly", I think it is YOU who is showing himself to be foolish. I answered this post in the other thread, but I must speak up here. If you want to get into a battle of wits with BeternU, you might as well give up now. You have already proven that you can't match his intellect, simply by posting this foolish thread.

Oh, and by the way, the "Rielly" in your name is in quotes because you don't even know how to spell your fake name!

Hi O,

A person can choose to spell or pronounce his/her name any way he/she chooses. The city in Texas, Houston, and the man it is named after, pronounced the name: "Hyuus' tan."

Yet, I have Friends who are a missionaries couple, Steve and Leslie Houston -- who pronounce their name "Hows' tan."

So, if Peter wants to spell his name "Rielly" -- that is quite proper.

Now, to your claim of who is intelligent and who is not intelligent -- I have a simple test for initially looking at a person's intelligence. An intelligent person can express himself or herself without having to resort to curse words and other vulgarities. An intelligent person can express himself or herself with having to resort to name calling, i.e., stupid, ignorant, idiot, etc. -- or, "And what, pray tell, is the "communist manifesto"? I G N O R A N T!"

An intelligent person can communicate or dialogue with others in a civil manner with no name calling, vulgarity, or other insults. If a a person wants to be taken as an intellectual -- the first step is to learn to communicate at that level.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


An intelligent person is definitely NOT one who, when driven against the wall, serves up trite little irrelevant slogans or pastes up little cartoons as someone we all know does very frequently!
quote:
Originally posted by tada:
After hearing the hate and anger spewing from Ed Shultz about FOX News and Beck, I just have to say I still like being a conservative and still like Beck. If someone is spewing that much hatred there is something wrong with him or her. I hope Beternu and others are not like him.
Though statements like "IGNORANT" come into question.
Now they have started a website called teapartytracker.org just to find the negativity in the organization. This is either a desperate attempt to bad mouth the Tea Party or make up trash about them. Let's start a .org called NAACP-TP-NLM-MMtracker.org.
I wonder how much racism and hatred we would find? Something tells me it would not take long.


Quite a bit. 'Media(doesn't really)Matters' has a 24/7 group of people pouring over Fox news and Glenn Beck everyday just to see if anyone burps wrong. Can you say OCD?
And there are "birthers" and now "religioners"(?) trying to jump on everything Obama says or does, trying to prove he is a Muslim, born in Kenya.

I think the polarization in this country started when Bush II was in office. We on the left were outraged at what he did. Now the right is getting even. "King George" to "King Barry". And in the end, it is the American citizen who is suffering for the intolerance of BOTH sides.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
An intelligent person is definitely NOT one who, when driven against the wall, serves up trite little irrelevant slogans or pastes up little cartoons as someone we all know does very frequently!

Hi Beter,

While I realize this is beyond the scope of your reasoning and definitely not a part of your world -- but, that is called "Intelligence with a Sense of Humor!"

Try it, you may like it!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-__Snoopy_Running
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
An intelligent person is definitely NOT one who, when driven against the wall, serves up trite little irrelevant slogans or pastes up little cartoons as someone we all know does very frequently!

Hi Beter,

While I realize this is beyond the scope of your reasoning and definitely not a part of your world -- but, that is called "Intelligence with a Sense of Humor!"

Try it, you may like it!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


No, Bill, I have enough intelligence to recognize cowardly evasiveness for what it is and when you use those silly tactics, you are showing just that--cowardly evasiveness--and definitely not intelligence in any form, humorous or otherwise. You simply show repeatedly that you can not rise to the challenge of informed debate and that when shown to be wrong, you cheap out with attempted cuteness. It is evident from many such weasely maneuvers that this is your stock in trade.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
And there are "birthers" and now "religioners"(?) trying to jump on everything Obama says or does, trying to prove he is a Muslim, born in Kenya.

I think the polarization in this country started when Bush II was in office. We on the left were outraged at what he did. Now the right is getting even. "King George" to "King Barry". And in the end, it is the American citizen who is suffering for the intolerance of BOTH sides.


Truer words have never been spoken.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
I think the polarization in this country started when Bush II was in office. We on the left were outraged at what he did. Now the right is getting even. "King George" to "King Barry". And in the end, it is the American citizen who is suffering for the intolerance of BOTH sides.


Actually I think it has been going on a lot longer than that. I have many liberal friends and we have intelligent lengthly discussions without getting angry. It is the far left or right I do not agree with. There has to be middle ground in any debate and people like Ed Shultz is one person that cannot be reasoned with.
For example, One of my liberal friends said that if we let the governemnt tax us to help out the poor, that is a noble cause. I said no it is not a noble cause because you are taking my hard earned money by pointing a gun (aka the IRS)at me and forcing me to help. He still believes this and I know I cannot change his mind and he cannot chnage his. However, we are still good friends. We may disagree but I say we hit middle ground instead of fighting and hitting the ground.

Another thing is the word intolerance. I am sure you do not tolerate a lot of things. However, it is fashionable now (aka politcal correctness) to tolerate anything anybody does. I can tell you one thing about tolerance, I try to be a good Christian but if anyone is doing harm to my family or friends I will not tolerate it and take him down.
quote:
The childish irrelevancies you are posting on the subject equate to a complete surrender on your part, Bill. You have no defense, no justification for your asinine assertions about the President's place of birth or his religion, so instead you serve up silly-assed cartoons and even sillier-assed one-liners. You are a truly pitiful, lying, hypocritical, small-minded weasel, Bill. Your presence and performance on this forum become ever more disgraceful with each post you submit.

Posts: 4476 | Registered: 01 December 2006


But how do you really feel about Bill Gray?
chuckle chuckle
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
I'm talking about tolerating each other's political views in hopes that there can be some sort of compromise.


Sounds good to me if you are for open dialog without hate, anger and a agenda. Which of course unless you are a politician then the agenda part does not apply.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×