Posted on 06/29/2015 7:16:05 AM PDT by Borges
There are plenty of non-Jews that push the same agenda, like liberals, RINOs, useful idiots, this pope, etc and they are of all sort of nationalities and races.
Focus on fighting the individuals or political groups that have values you disagree with and you’ll go a lot further.
Remember one of the biggest champion of conservatism was a Jew - Goldwater.
Which Lutheran group does he belong to?
With a little bit of research, one discovers this guy is a grade A all purpose nutjob.
It's almost as bad as some trying to tie all people attending a meeting to criminals who were also present. Wait. What? It's the exact same thing.
There are three kinds of people who will use the word Zionist in a sentence...
Jihadists
Neo nazi’s
Far left moonbats.
The Jewish vote has never gone republican, ever.
You realize stalking people to unrelated threads to try to continue arguments is against the forum rules, right?
“Funny how the Supreme Court has all these seats that ‘belong’ to different selected groups, and yet not one is reserved for the WASP culture that created America.”
Yeah, all the Catholic and Jewish presidents need to get with the program and nominate some WASPs to the SC already.
Freegards
>>That’s the hazard of having people involved.
Got Discernment?
“The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”
—Albert Einstein
This guy is no Dietrich Bonhoeffer that is for sure.
He must have an affimative action background.
I don’t disagree with you; I’m simply pointing out that anywhere people are involved, the same issues arise. A lack of complete and total truth doesn’t mean that the person/institution is completely wrong. It means they are human. The points made by Merton and Einstein are appropriate but both point to an idealistic view of reality, a view too often used to condemn ANY group who demonstrates ANY lack of forthrightness or perfection or worse still, to say I’m better than that group/person.
No man swindles himself more deeply than he who says, “I am holier than thou.”
Not practicing Jews. Jews who replaced their beautiful theology with the religion of socialism.
Clever. But for some time Presidents and Congress and even the American people pale in comparison to the power wielded by our judicial overlords. The nine oligarchs can remake the pillars of society by ordering it done.
I see no rule against trying to understand how a person is thinking. I welcome your finding ANYTHING I have ever posted on any thread and questioning me on it.
ps - Doesn’t feel so good when you get unfairly beaten with the same stick you have been using, does it?
“I see no rule against trying to understand how a person is thinking.”
That’s not the rule you violated:
“Linking to Previous Posts on the Religion Forum:
The objective, on the Religion Forum, of not bringing forward disputes from prior threads is to discourage flame wars spreading, in particular the needling or badgering of other posters by bringing up their past remarks, again and again.
However, if you were to say “I recall your saying something else on an earlier thread” and the poster challenged you “Oh yeah, where?” then you would be obligated to link to the previous thread and I would not pull it.
If you want to argue the previous claim, then go back to the earlier thread, ping all the interested parties and say something like “Here you say the sky is green. Why?” The respondent will be obligated then to explain the green comment in context with that particular thread and parties involved in it.
If however you are seeking to “impeach the witness” by showing he waffles back and forth THAT is “making it personal” and I will pull it to avoid a flame war.
And if you are trying to embarrass another Freeper by recalling his inconvenient comments from prior threads, THAT is also “making it personal” and I will pull it to avoid a flame war.
A poster may quote himself from a prior thread. And he may link to articles he has previously posted. That is not “making it personal” - he is merely reasserting his own views. He may link to articles posted by others or other posters’ remarks which are not part of any dispute, e.g. “You hit the nail on the head when you said...”
If however he is linking to an article posted by someone else - and that article was a “caucus” of which he was not a member - then I might pull the post anyway if I think it would have the affect of defeating the caucus label. Besides, he can always quote the source article directly without seemingly trying to work around the caucus protection. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
“ps - Doesn’t feel so good when you get unfairly beaten with the same stick you have been using, does it?”
You’re violating yet another rule of the religion forum, now by “making it personal”. That’s two strikes, a third and I will be forced to inform the moderator.
This thread is not in the Religion forum, Ace.
The judicial overlords rule because we let them. I don’t like it either, but then only 50-60% who can actually do vote in national elections anyhow, less for state and local. What was the religious make up of the Roe v. Wade court? I’m thinking it wasn’t full of Jews and Catholics.
Freegards
Well, “thread jumping” is still not cool on the general forum either, ace:
“Don’t jump threads - If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it’s considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/help.htm
Unfortunately Martin Luther was an anti-Semite and believed in Replacement Theology. Look it up. However, one can be an “overcome” and a Protestant. Just read your Bible and pray that you will be found worthy to escape the Year of Jacob’s Trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.