Link?
So is John Ashcroft a member of the Assemblies of God?
I found this website - is it the correct one?
If so, I have some questions (using information at the site)
http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/pentecostal-evangel/Life_QA/Healings.cfm
“I was healed by the power of God of a brain tumor — more than 30 years ago. As a pastor, when a neighbor’s eye had been pierced by a scissor point, I prayed for her over the phone and she was instantly healed.
…
Encourage those who need a miracle to call out to the Lord first — before consulting a physician.”
So this church believes in miracles and also recommends faith healing before medical care?
http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/pentecostal-evangel/Life_QA/second_coming.cfm
“As God’s children, our earthly lives will end in one of two ways: by death or via the Rapture…”
And believes in the Rapture?
http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/pentecostal-evangel/Life_QA/Religions.cfm
“The real question is: On what basis can we claim that Christianity alone brings people into right relationship with God? The answer is simple: Only the gospel provides a true antidote to the problem of sin.”
But the Rapture will only save Christians from Hell?
http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/pentecostal-evangel/Life_QA/Hell.cfm
“If God is love, how can people go to hell who have never heard about Christ?
…
Hell was created for the devil and his angels. (See Matthew 25:41.) The whole process of redemption effected on the cross shows that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (See 2 Peter 3:9.) God is also holy and cannot tolerate sin. We condemn ourselves by willfully sinning. By sending His Son to offer up His life, God has provided a way of escape from the just consequences of our sins and has called us to let people know about Jesus Christ and His atoning blood that brings reconciliation between God and man.
If the message of salvation is not communicated to a lost world, it will not be God’s fault, but ours who are charged by Him to relay the message.”
And the only way to be saved from Hell is for Christians to tell you about the danger and convert you to their Christianity?
Does all this mean that John Ashcroft believes that all Muslims, Jews etc will go to Hell unless they are converted to Christianity?
And that it is his sacred duty to bring salvation to the World, including the Middle East?
Because he wasn’t “given” the election. He won it. Every recount showed him winning, and the numbers kept getting bigger. The so-called experts are wrong.
Except that Clinton committed a felony while in office, and that is why he was impeached. Everyone seems to overlook that one small detail.
Ah, Grasshopper - there we come to a fine point of distinction, and the basis of my post. If someone that you trust tells you something and you tell it to others and act on the basis of what you were told, and then later it is found out that what you were told was incorrect, did you lie when you told others? The answer is NO. You acted in good faith; you did not lie. Same with Bush. He acted in good faith on intelligence that said WMDs. Hell, the entire free world operated on the same intelligence for the ten years following Gulf War 1.
And there it is - he did not lie. At least, as far as I know today, and I have seen absolutely no proof that Bush knew the intel was wrong and acted on it anyway. And was it a matter of the intel being wrong or the intel being deliberately distorted for some reason? That, we don’t know. Only time will tell. It looks like we may have done the right thing for the wrong reason, and again - only time will tell.
I made the point that I lumped the entire group I was pitting under the label of liberals because the vast majority of the people doing it are liberals. I’ll retract that label - my error. Let’s bag them all as spoiled brats and let it go at that.
Actually you said about liberals:
- they have blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred of Bush
- they are asswipes who spew venom
- they throw temper tantrums like a bunch of spoiled brats
- they puke out bigotry and hatred on a daily basis
You didn’t give a single example to back any of this up.
Aren’t you therefore guilty of precisely what you ‘claimed’ liberals are guilty of?
Aren’t you therefore a hypocrite?
P.S. Your apology sucks. You’re still an asshole.
Aldeberan don’t need no stinkin’ links.
His post is his cite.
Y’know, if you continue to submit falsehoods in every post, we are going to get to the point where we don’t believe anything you post.
There were several ways in which recounts might have been undertaken in Florida (varying the way that votes were tabulated and recounting or declining to recount various districts) and several of them would have given the Florida vote to Gore. In the interests of avoiding the sort of street riots that plague many other countries when they have elections, I would say that we went through the appropriate channels and, fair or not, we should accept the election results. It is certainly true that the election as it was counted gave Florida to Bush.
The claim that every recount showed Bush winning with successively higher numbers, however, is simply a lie. Among the two or three potential recounts available to Florida, the one that the Republicans prefer to look at (for which I do not blame them) showed Bush increasing his lead over Gore, but that is not “every” recount and at least two possible recounts showed Gore decisively beating Bush. Arguments about which recounts should have been used dominated this Forum along with GD and IMHO for weeks, and it is unlikely that anyone will now change their opinions by rehashing those ancient threads. Boldly declaring a falsehood, however, does not turn it into a truth.
Thanks, Tom. That’s exactly what I was going to say. Except to add that the type of recount that the Bush campaign would have considered “acceptable” (mainly because it was unfeasible in the amount of time available) was a hand-recount of the entire state. That is one of the types of recounts that would have resulted in a narrow Gore victory.
On the other hand, Gore’s overly slick and disreputable “just count the counties that voted for me most” tactic would have backfired, and resulted in a larger Bush margin.
Irony, indeed.
IIRC, though, Gore initially asked for a state wide recount and was rebuffed by the Bush side. After that, Gore asked for a count in the disputed counties and was accused of cherry picking.
Bush is the one who balked at a statewide recount, not Gore.
Well, first off, I didn’t apologize. I just changed the label.
I also said:
Thanks for providing the confirmation.
The only thing I would like to add to tonights festivities is that Muad’Dib has made the only point that appeals to me so far.
No (with some reservations) I tend to believe what I see and read in the news, at least unless I have some reason to believe otherwise. So, I believe that there were videotapes showing Osama bin Laden gloating over and claiming “credit” for the September 11 attacks; and I also believe that civilians–including children–have been killed and maimed in the American invasion of Iraq and the resulting war against the Iraqi insurgents (or the war against the foreign terrorists in Iraq, or the war against the foreign terrorists in Iraq and Iraqi insurgents, as the case may be).
You can of course hold on to your belief that everything an American says about the deaths of several thousands of people on September 11, 2001–Americans and also our guests from around the world–is a lie because you are an Arab and a Muslim and in your brain that means we are the Great Satan.
You can also think that Americans are beasts who murder our own countrymen in order to blame it on foreigners, invade their countries, and steal their oil. (Or is it the Israelis who are the monsters and attack their own best allies and murder thousands of innocent people, and we Americans are merely dupes of the cunning Zionist plotters?)
I do not think so, but I don’t suppose that will sway your opinions any.
I agree with you. But haven’t you appealed to historians before to help validate your points? For example: “Another interesting point about fascist economics: Most historians agree that Nazi Germany actually did a worse job of mobilizing and coordinating its economy for total war than did the Western Allies (notably the USA under Franklin Roosevelt).”
Oddly enough, there is a middle ground between “Historians are the Grand Exalted High Priests of the Revealed Truth” and “Everything historians say is a lie”.
Note that I’m not saying in this thread that I reject some viewpoint because it’s espoused by historians; I just refuse to reject a claim because historians haven’t yet pronounced judgement on it.
When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, he claimed that Poland had actually attacked Germany. Should everyone have waited a few decades to let the professional historians pass judgement on this claim before they acted?
Ah yes, from one unsupported insult to another. I apologise for thinking you had some decency.
The proof you are a hypocrite and an asshole is your first post in this thread, in which you claim a bunch of people have made appalling accusations without any proof.
Your very post villifies these people without any proof.
Can you see the logic yet?
If you need more, here we go:
Clothahump is a vicious lying insulting paedophile hypocrite who was responsible for 9/11.
Now, I’m quite sure he will now jump on board and post about what an asshole I am and stuff like that. Knock yourself out. Just keep in mind that every post like that confirms the accuracy of what I have said.
Oh, sure, no one would disagree. But was Aldebaran claiming that “Historians are the Grand Exalted High Priests of the Revealed Truth”? Wasn’t your remark really just a red herring? I’m not knocking you for a logical fallacy or anything. I mean, this is the Pit and all, not Great Debates. I’m willing to give you that it was merely a rhetorical vice. But as such, was your response to him really any more compelling than “You have poopie on your head.”
What Aldebaran said was that “there is no solid proof whatsoever who was really involved in these attacks”–apparently because no historian has published an “in depth study about these events”; but perhaps in a “few decades” we’ll know something about this event–“or maybe not”.
I’m not quite sure what we’re all supposed to do in the meantime. I guess at this rate we should all be about ready to give those Germans a good talking to about staging the attack on the Gleiwitz radio station.