0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2003 10:09 pm
Quote:
See slavery (justified by selected Bible verses).

There is no Bible verse that justifies slavery. There are mentions of slaves in the Old Testament, because there were slaves at that time. I realize that some people may have tried to use the Bible to justify slavery (and perhaps that is what you mean), but that is a very different thing, and they are wrong to do so.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2003 10:13 pm
On Slavery and the Bible. http://home.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2003 10:19 pm
damn i hate it when you do that C.I. it just confuses me. Wink
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2003 10:31 pm
dys, Don't blame the messenger. Wink
0 Replies
 
Mapleleaf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2003 03:32 am
Careful now, maybe this is the time to start a new thread on this topic.
0 Replies
 
Mapleleaf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2003 03:56 am
Quote:

FULL ARTICLE
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2003 08:28 am
The whole stew in that article of CI's about how Christianity and slavery both started in this nation at about the same time, how Jesus never condemned slavery, how the "founding fathers" railed about liberty while owning slaves; all that is very thought-provoking. It ain't like I've never had occasion to think about it before, being of color and all, but it's always fascinating to me the semantic acrobatics that transpire out of these facts.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2003 10:18 am
Christians who don't have the intelligence to discern between some of the left over passages in the Old Testament (it has been edited many times, dropping many of the really ridiculous dogma) and what Jesus advocated abound today. What would one expect in the late 18th Century?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2003 10:27 am
back to the topic, my current preferences are
1. Dean
2. Edwards
3. Kerry
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2003 12:43 pm
1. Dean
2. Dean
3. Kerry
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2003 12:50 pm
Here's Howard Dean's web link. Looks like my kind of president.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/dean.cfm?section=about&page=issues

c.i.
0 Replies
 
Mapleleaf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 02:15 pm
Quote:
February 28, 2003
Graham Files, Becoming 9th Democrat in '04 Race
By TODD S. PURDUM, NYT

Mr. Graham, 66, becomes the ninth Democrat to announce his intention to run, joining a field that includes three fellow senators. A veteran of 16 years in the Senate and former chairman of its Select Committee on Intelligence, he has experience in both domestic and national security affairs.

In recent months, he has sharply questioned the Bush administration's decision to pursue a probable war with Iraq instead of concentrating on fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It was on that ground that he opposed last fall's Congressional resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq.


READ COMPLETE ARTICLE
0 Replies
 
Mapleleaf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 02:20 pm
Quote:
Poll: A Look Ahead to the 2004 Presidential Election

Friday, February 28, 2003

By Dana Blanton, Fox News

Gephardt 16%
Lieberman 15
Kerry 10
Edwards 6
Moseley-Braun 5
Dean 4
Sharpton 4
Kucinich 2
READ ARTICLE HERE
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 02:32 pm
Mapleleaf, Early polls taken now have very little or no meaning, because things will change during the next year. IMHO, I think polls taken this early is a waste of time. However, I did note that the only candidate that shows an increase is Howard Dean, while all the others show a decrease. I hope that's the only meaningful aspect of this poll. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 10:39 pm
Gephardt is showing surprising strength, and Kerry's poor third to Lieberman is unexpected. Still, it is early in the pre-race, fer chrissakes. Clearly, Kerry, Ghephardt, and Lieberman are the current leading contenders, however they rank among one another. I see no chance for any of the others, with the possible, but not likely, exception of Dean. Dean's tie ranking with Sharpton, beneath Mosely-Braun, is not encouraging for his prospects.



timber
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 10:41 pm
on the News Hour tonite they posted a poll from today showing Dean has risen to the number 2 spot
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 10:43 pm
Not surprised at all, Dys, are you?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 10:45 pm
nope, pushing for the number 1
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 10:50 pm
ABC News' The Note
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2003 12:12 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:

Thank you for making my point.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 11:40:12