Eu un icc

[Jefferson]

Eu un icc

Wednesday January 21st, 2004. This is show #15.

 

[Lucky]

There ya go!

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Lucky

Are we going back in time?

Thanks Lucky. It usually takes me somewhere around the middle of February before I stop writing and typing last year's date.

 

[Jefferson]

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Alan Keyes responding to Bill O'Reilly's question if he finds anything of value in any of the Democratic candidates:

"No, because the first question I ask is, 'Where do you stand on abortion?' Because if you don't respect innocent life, if you're willing to say, 'I'm going to let people kill unborn children' then you're disqualified. And they're all pro-abortion so I don't need to know anything more."

 

[Zakath]

Be wary of evaluating a candidates only on single-issue politics. That's how people like Hitler come to power, by telling the people the one thing they want to hear...

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath

Be wary of evaluating a candidates only on single-issue politics. That's how people like Hitler come to power, by telling the people the one thing they want to hear...

So, you're telling us that if you agreed with a candidate on every single issue except one, you would vote for him even if that one disagreement was the candidate's desire to comit genocide on the Jews. That would be evaluating a candidate on single-issue politics and we know you wouldn't want to do that.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

So, you're telling us that if you agreed with a candidate on every single issue except one, you would vote for him even if that one disagreement was the candidate's desire to comit genocide on the Jews. That would be evaluating a candidate on single-issue politics and we know you wouldn't want to do that.

No, that's not what I said. :doh:

If voters only use one issue as their "litmus test" for a candidate, and vote on that issue alone; they may be in for a rude surprise when the candidate turns out to have a number of other views with which they disagree.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath

No, that's not what I said. :doh:

If voters only use one issue as their "litmus test" for a candidate, and vote on that issue alone; they may be in for a rude surprise when the candidate turns out to have a number of other views with which they disagree.

I'm not saying I would vote for a candidate if he is in favor of recriminalizing abortion and also in favor of reinstituting slavery. But I am saying if he is in favor of keeping abortion legal then he automatically loses my vote.

 

[Zakath]

So the abortion issue is your litmus test for any prospective candidate? No matter what else their record shows or what they say, if they did not believe a particular way about the abortion issue you would not consider them?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jefferson

So, you're telling us that if you agreed with a candidate on every single issue except one, you would vote for him even if that one disagreement was the candidate's desire to comit genocide on the Jews. That would be evaluating a candidate on single-issue politics and we know you wouldn't want to do that.

Brilliant point. EVERYONE should be willing to reject candidates based on a single issue depending on what the "single" issue might be.

 

[Zakath]

So your criteria would allow you to reject a law-abiding, monogamous, non-abusive, pro-choice candidate in favor of a child-abusing, fornicating adulterer who supported a pro-life position?

:think:

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath

So the abortion issue is your litmus test for any prospective candidate? No matter what else their record shows or what they say, if they did not believe a particular way about the abortion issue you would not consider them?

Correct.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Correct.

At the very least, you're honest. :thumb:

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Zakath
So your criteria would allow you to reject a law-abiding, monogamous, non-abusive, pro-choice candidate in favor of a child-abusing, fornicating adulterer who supported a pro-life position?
:think:

This sort of question makes the True Believers™ run like rabbits.

Faced with such a choice, I suspect most of them would just stay home...
:chuckle:

 

[Jefferson]

2nd BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Bill O'reilly asked Alan Keyes: "Don't you know homosexual people who are good?" And Alan Keyes didn't answer the question. He evaded it. And it would have been great...for him to say, "No, I don't because people who are homosexuals are giving in to the base elements of the human animal. It's like saying, "Don't you know any good drug dealers who sell drugs to kids?" No, I don't. No, because what they're doing means they're not good...You can't be good if you're advocating doing wrong.

 

[Zakath]

Bill O'reilly asked Alan Keyes: "Don't you know homosexual people who are good?" And Alan Keyes didn't answer the question. He evaded it. And it would have been great...for him to say, "No, I don't because people who are homosexuals are giving in to the base elements of the human animal. It's like saying, "Don't you know any good drug dealers who sell drugs to kids?" No, I don't. No, because what they're doing means they're not good...You can't be good if you're advocating doing wrong.

Jefferson, don't you recall that Jesus taught that no one is good except God? :chuckle:

Enyart needs to spend more time reading his bible and less time watching cable...

 

[Pierre]

Originally posted by Zakath

No, that's not what I said. :doh:

If voters only use one issue as their "litmus test" for a candidate, and vote on that issue alone; they may be in for a rude surprise when the candidate turns out to have a number of other views with which they disagree.

Huge difference between ruling someone out over one issue as opposed to voting for them over one issue. Mr Keyes never hinted or said that he'd vote for a leader that was against abortion. I saw the interview on O'Really show, and he said it was the first thing he looked for.

 

[Pierre]

Originally posted by Zakath

Jefferson, don't you recall that Jesus taught that no one is good except God? :chuckle:

Enyart needs to spend more time reading his bible and less time watching cable...

So what's the real reason you come to Theology online? Make an idiot of yourself? You like being humiliated time after time after time? And when you do get a chance to be heard in a debate, you weasel your way out when you can't answer the questions? It sounds like you're listening to Bob's shows or at least know what's going on. A pity you don't pay attention.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Pierre
Huge difference between ruling someone out over one issue as opposed to voting for them over one issue. Mr Keyes never hinted or said that he'd vote for a leader that was against abortion. I saw the interview on O'Really show, and he said it was the first thing he looked for.

If the quote Jefferson cited was accurate then, Keyes said that "if you're willing to say, 'I'm going to let people kill unborn children' then you're disqualified". That sounds like he'd never vote for someone that was for abortion, so that only leaves those that are against it, doesn't it?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Pierre
So what's the real reason you come to Theology online? Make an idiot of yourself?

So I could enjoy the love of Jesus demonstrated by charming individuals like you. :chuckle:

Seriously, I was asked to come here years ago by a former poster who had a doctrinal falling out with some of the powers that be... Knight or any of the other admins has not asked me to leave, so here I am...

It sounds like you're listening to Bob's shows or at least know what's going on.

I merely read Jefferson's quotes and respond to them, as the mood strikes.