Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

What will America be called if Obama wins the election??

2

Comments

  • EggFteggEggFtegg Member Posts: 1,141
    Originally posted by Keebs1984



    That being said, you do realize the ENTIRE basis of what your profit's, Jesus, teachings were about is highly based on socialism and communism right? He did not go around preaching for the corporations, he went around preaching for the common welfare of man, and the people, something that socialism also preaches (how it is carried out can be quite different mind you).



    So where as Repubbies generally preach for the multi-million dollar corporations, and its true, they do. Democrats are generally preaching more for social welfare. So tell me, which one sounds more aligned with the Christian profit's teachings?



    So you're suggesting that Jesus had been reading Karl Marx before he began his ministry?

    Actually what you're saying here is a fairly common misconception. and it's based on looking at right wing financial policies and assuming that they're all about greed whereas left wing policies are about helping the poor etc so therefore it must follow that like Jesus, socialists are the caring ones.

    Here's the big difference though: Jesus taught about giving to the poor out of love. Socialists want to force rich people to give to the government to spend on the poor.

    There's actually nothing to suggest that right wing politicians feel any less about the poor of the nation, they just believe in different economic principles. They would suggest that socialist policies would lead to a poorer economy and less money to go around. If you tax people less, they have more money to spend, thus boosting the economy providing more opportunities for people to get out of poverty. Less tax means people have more money to give to the causes of their choice, instead of being forced to give money to what the government thinks are good causes.

    I should also point out that Jesus can't really be called a Christian prophet by definition. Other faiths may call him a prophet, Christians tend to call him a Messiah, Christ or Son of God.

     

  • Keebs1984Keebs1984 Member Posts: 1,356
    Originally posted by EggFtegg



     So you're suggesting that Jesus had been reading Karl Marx before he began his ministry?
    Actually what you're saying here is a fairly common misconception. and it's based on looking at right wing financial policies and assuming that they're all about greed whereas left wing policies are about helping the poor etc so therefore it must follow that like Jesus, socialists are the caring ones.
    Here's the big difference though: Jesus taught about giving to the poor out of love. Socialists want to force rich people to give to the government to spend on the poor.
    There's actually nothing to suggest that right wing politicians feel any less about the poor of the nation, they just believe in different economic principles. They would suggest that socialist policies would lead to a poorer economy and less money to go around. If you tax people less, they have more money to spend, thus boosting the economy providing more opportunities for people to get out of poverty. Less tax means people have more money to give to the causes of their choice, instead of being forced to give money to what the government thinks are good causes.
    I should also point out that Jesus can't really be called a Christian prophet by definition. Other faiths may call him a prophet, Christians tend to call him a Messiah, Christ or Son of God.
    You took what I said completely out of context. I was not delving into financial responsibilities or whether or not "Jesus" was forcing his government to give to the poor. That was not the point. The point was that "Jesus" believed that everybody was equal and deserved equal treatment with wealth distribution. Was this not what he was teaching? Did he believe that rich people should only give if they feel like it? Wow sounds like a pretty lackluster prophet to me. I can picture it now:



    "Jesus": "Sorry guys, they dont really want to help you out. I told them to only give you food out of love, but apparently they don't love you enough"



    Socialism as a theory is all about equal distribution, the same thing that "Jesus" advocated. How are there not similarities? Capitialism on the other hand is all about greed. Its about going out and making your own fortune and fame. Quite a stark contradiction to what "Jesus" was teaching woudln't you say?



    By the way, I will call "Jesus" whatever I want. I call him a prophet to a specific religion because thats all he is to me in the stories. I'm not even 100% positive he even existed, but you know thats neither here nor there.

    Eternally mine,
    Keebs


    image

    The MMO gaming blog I write for.

  • mehhemmehhem Member Posts: 653
    haha, nice one
  • CochizeCochize Member Posts: 211

    Longest story ever shortened, if Gore runs he will win.  It doesn't matter what you "educated" Conservatives think about him the public know he was against the war from the start and against Global Warming.  I don't care if you don't believe in Global Warming the public does and they will win the election for him.......again

  • RazorbackRazorback Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 5,253
    Originally posted by Draenor


    teehee.
     
    And what will it be called if Hillary gets elected? 
    No need for a word, it aint happening.
    Hillarious ?

    +-+-+-+-+-+
    "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
    http://purepwnage.com
    image
    -+-+-+-+-+-+
    "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon

  • bhagamubhagamu Member Posts: 425
    Originally posted by Draenor

    Originally posted by Keebs1984

    I am rooting for Obama for the Democratic ticket right now...

    Never been a fan of Hitlery...erm Hillary, sorry.

    The rest of the Democrats on the ticket seem to be more of the same we've had for the past 50 years, rich, white, anglo-saxon, protestant/evangelical christians. More of the same...yawn.



    As for the Repubies, it will definitely be a race between McCain and Guiliani. I don't know who I prefer. On purely a political basis I'd go with Guiliani, however he lacks any real government experience (mayor of New York City doesnt really count). McCain on the other hand has a lot of government experience, but I don't agree with his political views. We will see...the coming months will tell all.

    Show me a liberal democrat politician who claims to be a follower of Christ and I will show you a big fat friggen liar.

    Show me just about any politician and I'll show you a liar...but you get the idea.

     

    And yes, I'm serious.

    Russ Feingold (D-Wis Senator) [He's a Jew, discount this if you wish]

    John Kerry (D-Wis) Senator [Catholic]

    John Edwards (D-S.C. former Senator) [United Methodist (?) Check me on this]

    Edward Kennedy (D-Mass. Senator) [Also Catholic]

    Franklin Delano Roosevelt (ex-President, deceased) [For good measure]

    www.draftgore.com
    Gore '08

  • DraenorDraenor Member UncommonPosts: 7,918
    Originally posted by EggFtegg

    Originally posted by Draenor
    And what will it be called if Hillary gets elected? 



    Hilarious! (or was that just too obvious?)

    I'd be interested to hear your main points as to why a Democrat's views are, by nature, opposed to Christian views?


    The Bible is clear about its intention for human sexuality, liberals are the biggest proponents of things like planned parenthood, abortion, and generally advocate condom use rather than abstinence.  All of which stand in stark contrast for God's expressed plan for sex.  Sexual immorality is really only the tip of the iceberg, the whole concept of moral relativity that is being perpetuated by liberals these days is in such stark contrast to what a Christian believes that it's impossible to say that you believe in both.  Morality is not relative, there is only one set of moral standards to live by for a Christian, and that is God's.

    Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.

  • DraenorDraenor Member UncommonPosts: 7,918
    Originally posted by bhagamu

    Originally posted by Draenor

    Originally posted by Keebs1984

    I am rooting for Obama for the Democratic ticket right now...

    Never been a fan of Hitlery...erm Hillary, sorry.

    The rest of the Democrats on the ticket seem to be more of the same we've had for the past 50 years, rich, white, anglo-saxon, protestant/evangelical christians. More of the same...yawn.



    As for the Repubies, it will definitely be a race between McCain and Guiliani. I don't know who I prefer. On purely a political basis I'd go with Guiliani, however he lacks any real government experience (mayor of New York City doesnt really count). McCain on the other hand has a lot of government experience, but I don't agree with his political views. We will see...the coming months will tell all.

    Show me a liberal democrat politician who claims to be a follower of Christ and I will show you a big fat friggen liar.

    Show me just about any politician and I'll show you a liar...but you get the idea.

     

    And yes, I'm serious.

    Russ Feingold (D-Wis Senator) [He's a Jew, discount this if you wish]

    John Kerry (D-Wis) Senator [Catholic]

    John Edwards (D-S.C. former Senator) [United Methodist (?) Check me on this]

    Edward Kennedy (D-Mass. Senator) [Also Catholic]

    Franklin Delano Roosevelt (ex-President, deceased) [For good measure]

    I don't discount a Jewish person's declaration of their faith, any orthodox or devout jew would find it impossible to be a liberal as well, for most of the same reasons that a Christian would.  Though Christians are not subject to what is known as the law, the law would actually make it even MORE difficult for a jew to be a liberal than it would a Christian.

    John Kerry: pro abortion

    John Edwards:  pro abortion

    Ted Kennedy:  Alcoholic who is pro abortion

    It is impossible to be a follower of Christ and put so little thought and care into the beautiful process of child's development inside of its mother so as to advocate its termination.  And as for Ted Kennedy's alcoholism:  Ephesians.

    I'm not saying that these people have to be perfect, or that they have to live sin free life.  But when a man is openly in favor of everyone in the country being allowed to do something that conflicts soo directly with what is taught in the Bible, you have to wonder....

    I used pro abortion because it is the most prevelant issue...I'm sure that if I went down the list of things that these men believe that it wouldn't be hard to come up with more of their stances that are in a fundamental conflict with what we believe.

    Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.

  • bhagamubhagamu Member Posts: 425

    Well see, I posted that up earlier. If you believe a Christian to follow whatever you have accepted, then I can't help you. There isn't a liberal Democratic Draenor-thinkalike because Draenor isn't a liberal Democrat.

    However, as I understand it, there are many respected and accomplished Christians who do strongly believe in a woman's right to choose, all the while using scripture to back it. They call themselves Christians because of their devout faith... But then again, being that I'm not Christian, I don't know how important having faith is to you guys.

    Unfortunately, such a debate would degenerate into "moot point". These men are Christians because of their faith. According to you, they are not, because they do not interpret scripture as you have interpreted it.

    Same goes with Christian homosexuals. As far as advocating condom use instruction over abstinence, I don't think that the Democratic Party seeks to use government as a means for moral instruction. However, I think that people have accepted that instructing condom use AND abstinence (you didn't think Democrats were advocating having rampant sex, did you?) protects young people in our country, be they any religion, much more effectively than abstinence-only education. That's a seperate debate, though.

    www.draftgore.com
    Gore '08

  • EggFteggEggFtegg Member Posts: 1,141
    Originally posted by Keebs1984

    Originally posted by EggFtegg



     So you're suggesting that Jesus had been reading Karl Marx before he began his ministry?
    Actually what you're saying here is a fairly common misconception. and it's based on looking at right wing financial policies and assuming that they're all about greed whereas left wing policies are about helping the poor etc so therefore it must follow that like Jesus, socialists are the caring ones.
    Here's the big difference though: Jesus taught about giving to the poor out of love. Socialists want to force rich people to give to the government to spend on the poor.
    There's actually nothing to suggest that right wing politicians feel any less about the poor of the nation, they just believe in different economic principles. They would suggest that socialist policies would lead to a poorer economy and less money to go around. If you tax people less, they have more money to spend, thus boosting the economy providing more opportunities for people to get out of poverty. Less tax means people have more money to give to the causes of their choice, instead of being forced to give money to what the government thinks are good causes.
    I should also point out that Jesus can't really be called a Christian prophet by definition. Other faiths may call him a prophet, Christians tend to call him a Messiah, Christ or Son of God.
    You took what I said completely out of context. I was not delving into financial responsibilities or whether or not "Jesus" was forcing his government to give to the poor. That was not the point. The point was that "Jesus" believed that everybody was equal and deserved equal treatment with wealth distribution. Was this not what he was teaching? Did he believe that rich people should only give if they feel like it? Wow sounds like a pretty lackluster prophet to me. I can picture it now:



    "Jesus": "Sorry guys, they dont really want to help you out. I told them to only give you food out of love, but apparently they don't love you enough"



    Socialism as a theory is all about equal distribution, the same thing that "Jesus" advocated. How are there not similarities? Capitialism on the other hand is all about greed. Its about going out and making your own fortune and fame. Quite a stark contradiction to what "Jesus" was teaching woudln't you say?



    By the way, I will call "Jesus" whatever I want. I call him a prophet to a specific religion because thats all he is to me in the stories. I'm not even 100% positive he even existed, but you know thats neither here nor there.

    Not "if they feel like it", I said out of love. He did of course say that the second most important commandment is for people to love their neighbour as themselves.

    This difference is one of free will though. If someone is forced to give their money, where is the morality in that?

    Your perception of capitalism is that it's about greed. That doesn't mean that those who advocate it see it that way. As I pointed out, many of them believe that capitalism is the system which will bring the most benefit to the poor in the long run. Whether they are correct in that is another matter.

    What's to stop a capitalist making loads of money by working hard and giving a high proportion or even all of his money away?

    Jesus didn't advocate any particular economic system. If we're trying to look out for others, it's up to our judgement, which system we think will do the best job.

    I wasn't trying to tell you what to call Jesus or that you should even believe he existed, it's purely a matter of definition. According to Christians, prophets were foretelling the coming of Christ. Therefore, to Christians, Jesus can't be a prophet because he is that Christ. So saying "prophet" is one thing, but "christian prophet" doesn't make sense.



  • bhagamubhagamu Member Posts: 425

    That anti-socialism/income tax argument is a very very big fallacy. You argue that none have the right to force others to pay money etc. etc.

    I think it is morally incumbent upon you to pay taxes to your government if you have representation. The government may use that money within the bounds instructed by its constitution and according to the will of its collective representation. Socialists don't want to force rich people to give to the government - the very concept of "tax" forces everyone to give to the government. Socialists argue that the rich should contribute a larger share, which is a seperate argument.

    In addition to being responsible for law enforcement, the government is a foundation upon which an economic institution can be built. Without regulation and limited liability, corporations would not exist. We have a Federal Reserve to monitor inflation and money supply. Likewise, we use socially responsible fiscal policies like AFDC and Medicaid to make sure that our nations' consumers can still benefit from the economy as well.

    www.draftgore.com
    Gore '08

  • EggFteggEggFtegg Member Posts: 1,141
    Originally posted by Draenor

    Originally posted by EggFtegg

    Originally posted by Draenor
    And what will it be called if Hillary gets elected? 



    Hilarious! (or was that just too obvious?)

    I'd be interested to hear your main points as to why a Democrat's views are, by nature, opposed to Christian views?


    The Bible is clear about its intention for human sexuality, liberals are the biggest proponents of things like planned parenthood, abortion, and generally advocate condom use rather than abstinence.  All of which stand in stark contrast for God's expressed plan for sex.  Sexual immorality is really only the tip of the iceberg, the whole concept of moral relativity that is being perpetuated by liberals these days is in such stark contrast to what a Christian believes that it's impossible to say that you believe in both.  Morality is not relative, there is only one set of moral standards to live by for a Christian, and that is God's.

    That may be the case (although the Bible doesn't say a lot about contraception so that's purely a matter of interpretation). However, it's quite possible for a Christian to make a distinction between the laws of a nation and God's moral standards. If we follow your argument through, then we should be locking people up if they don't love God with all their heart, as that ,we're told, is the most important commandment.

    God gave us the free will to choose. Spreading morality with force isn't what Jesus teaches (he who is without sin cast the first stone), and it's not "unchristian" to view a nation's laws in that manner. So someone could on one hand try to follow Christ's example as best they can in their own life, and on the other be supporting bills that give people the freedom to make their own mistakes.

  • DraenorDraenor Member UncommonPosts: 7,918
    There is a need for separation between a person's standards for society, and a person's standards for their own self, I agree.  BUT...when a person chooses the career path of politician, and then stands in direct contrast to what is so heavily implied in the Bible(yes they didn't have abortion, but the value that God puts on a life is extremely high, as your body doesn't belong to you, it belongs to God)  Then I cannot with good conscious say that such a person is a Christian.  They might celebrate Christmas, and they might go to church every now and then for a press release.  But such things do not make a person a fully devoted follower of Christ.  And that is what a Christian is, someone who tries to follow the example of Christ.  The politicians that you named, certainly do not do that.

    Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.

  • EggFteggEggFtegg Member Posts: 1,141
    Originally posted by bhagamu


    That anti-socialism/income tax argument is a very very big fallacy. You argue that none have the right to force others to pay money etc. etc.
    I think it is morally incumbent upon you to pay taxes to your government if you have representation. The government may use that money within the bounds instructed by its constitution and according to the will of its collective representation. Socialists don't want to force rich people to give to the government - the very concept of "tax" forces everyone to give to the government. Socialists argue that the rich should contribute a larger share, which is a seperate argument.
    In addition to being responsible for law enforcement, the government is a foundation upon which an economic institution can be built. Without regulation and limited liability, corporations would not exist. We have a Federal Reserve to monitor inflation and money supply. Likewise, we use socially responsible fiscal policies like AFDC and Medicaid to make sure that our nations' consumers can still benefit from the economy as well.



    That wasn't my argument. I was pointing out the difference between the teachings of Jesus (charitable giving) and socialism (redistribution of wealth).

    I said that tax is enforced giving, I didn't say an elected government has no right to tax, nor that people shouldn't pay that tax.

    Under socialism, those who don't have money, are not expected to pay tax. Yes, all those earning over a certain amount would be expected to pay tax, but socialists certainly do want to force the rich to give to the government.

  • DraenorDraenor Member UncommonPosts: 7,918
    All should note:  Jesus was probably a libertarian...but the Bible does say that you should obey the laws of your govnernment so long as they do not interfere with your spiritual life.  So it is implied that people living in oppressive governments can and should revolt.

    Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.

  • InflictionInfliction Member Posts: 1,115
    Originally posted by Draenor

    Originally posted by Keebs1984

    I am rooting for Obama for the Democratic ticket right now...

    Never been a fan of Hitlery...erm Hillary, sorry.

    The rest of the Democrats on the ticket seem to be more of the same we've had for the past 50 years, rich, white, anglo-saxon, protestant/evangelical christians. More of the same...yawn.



    As for the Repubies, it will definitely be a race between McCain and Guiliani. I don't know who I prefer. On purely a political basis I'd go with Guiliani, however he lacks any real government experience (mayor of New York City doesnt really count). McCain on the other hand has a lot of government experience, but I don't agree with his political views. We will see...the coming months will tell all.

    Show me a liberal democrat politician who claims to be a follower of Christ and I will show you a big fat friggen liar.

    Show me just about any politician and I'll show you a liar...but you get the idea.

     

    And yes, I'm serious.

    And for this reason I tend to lean toward the Democratic candidates. Government should be secular.

    image

  • InflictionInfliction Member Posts: 1,115
    Originally posted by Draenor

    All should note:  Jesus was probably a libertarian...but the Bible does say that you should obey the laws of your govnernment so long as they do not interfere with your spiritual life.  So it is implied that people living in oppressive governments can and should revolt.
    And you wouldn't call not allowing gays to marry oppressive? Your views sicken me sometimes.

    image

  • bhagamubhagamu Member Posts: 425
    Originally posted by Draenor

    Then I cannot with good conscious say that such a person is a Christian.  They might celebrate Christmas, and they might go to church every now and then for a press release.  But such things do not make a person a fully devoted follower of Christ.  And that is what a Christian is, someone who tries to follow the example of Christ.  The politicians that you named, certainly do not do that.


    Who are you to challenge or question another's faith? I thought only God had the authority to do that. Giving yourself this authority to say that _____ is not a Christian shocks me very much. Again, I'm not Christian, so I don't know how things work, but this is, nevertheless, shocking.

    www.draftgore.com
    Gore '08

  • DraenorDraenor Member UncommonPosts: 7,918
    Originally posted by bhagamu

    Originally posted by Draenor

    Then I cannot with good conscious say that such a person is a Christian.  They might celebrate Christmas, and they might go to church every now and then for a press release.  But such things do not make a person a fully devoted follower of Christ.  And that is what a Christian is, someone who tries to follow the example of Christ.  The politicians that you named, certainly do not do that.
    Who are you to challenge or question another's faith? I thought only God had the authority to do that. Giving yourself this authority to say that _____ is not a Christian shocks me very much. Again, I'm not Christian, so I don't know how things work, but this is, nevertheless, shocking.

    It is not for me to judge whether or not a person will be going to heaven or hell, or to render judgement as though I am God.  I can, however, point out when people are claiming a faith and then not sticking to it, it's what we Christians like to call "righteous indignation'

    It's okay to get pissed off and call someone on the carpet as long as you do so with the intent of showing them that their ways are wrong, even Jesus walked into a temple and started kicking over tables because they made him so angry(defiling his church) 

    Infliction:  You don't know my stance on gay marriage, if you did, you wouldn't have said that.  Don't make assumptions about me and then turn around and tell me that I sicken you.  I've said multiple times that I know that there is a need for separation of what the church does and what the government does, because our society is so corrupt.  That translates to gay marriage as well, as long as they aren't getting married under a Christian union, then I don't care.  What sickens me is your assumption of an inconsistancy of belief on my part.

    Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.

  • bhagamubhagamu Member Posts: 425

    I think that Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy and Roosevelt did and do what they believe to be right by their faith and by their conscience, just like you do. To call them out on pro-choice and use that as justification for your belief that they are not Christian is not ... I don't know. I'm not convinced.  

    www.draftgore.com
    Gore '08

  • TaguritTagurit Member Posts: 309
    Originally posted by bhagamu


    I think that Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy and Roosevelt did and do what they believe to be right by their faith and by their conscience, just like you do. To call them out on pro-choice and use that as justification for your belief that they are not Christian is kind of unfortunate.
    For most politicians, I think they do what they do according to whomever yells at them the loudest or what interest group pays the most money.  To give most modern day politicians such credit is a stretch.



    Draenor is right about what these politicians stand for.  They are not supporting biblical principles on many of the issues they stand for.  There are many republicans who also don't too for that matter.  In this they are compromising their beliefs for politics.  That is why I don't look to any politician as any kind of example.
  • bhagamubhagamu Member Posts: 425

    Well. As someone said before "Show me any politician and I'll show you a liar"; but for this I thought that we were choosing to ignore that part.

    You have a very skeptical outlook on politicians. While it's true that politicans are expected to be accountable to their constituents, I don't think you can say politicians compromise their beliefs. It's not as easy as you think. When you get elected, it's not about only using your {morality, beliefs, convictions} and making decisions on what you see fit. Remember, they are representatives of the people, and if their constituents posess a different collective belief, then they must vote accordingly.

    I'm not sure how much that had to do with the topic at hand. But you still haven't convinced me that the liberal democratic politicians I have listed are not Christian. (By the way, I do not equate the adjectives Christian and ethical; this discussion is exactly about Draenor's assertion).

     

    www.draftgore.com
    Gore '08

  • TaguritTagurit Member Posts: 309
    Originally posted by bhagamu


    Well. As someone said before "Show me any politician and I'll show you a liar"; but for this I thought that we were choosing to ignore that part.
    You have a very skeptical outlook on politicians. While it's true that politicans are expected to be accountable to their constituents, I don't think you can say politicians compromise their beliefs. It's not as easy as you think. When you get elected, it's not about only using your {morality, beliefs, convictions} and making decisions on what you see fit. Remember, they are representatives of the people, and if their constituents posess a different collective belief, then they must vote accordingly.
    I'm not sure how much that had to do with the topic at hand. But you still haven't convinced me that the liberal democratic politicians I have listed are not Christian. (By the way, I do not equate the adjectives Christian and ethical; this discussion is exactly about Draenor's assertion).
     
    It can all be boiled down to this:  They support policies which advocate taking a human life for selfish principles.  This and this alone is anti-Christian.  It is not War nor is it in self-defense. 
  • DraenorDraenor Member UncommonPosts: 7,918
    Originally posted by bhagamu


    I think that Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy and Roosevelt did and do what they believe to be right by their faith and by their conscience, just like you do. To call them out on pro-choice and use that as justification for your belief that they are not Christian is not ... I don't know. I'm not convinced.  
    A christian is a follower of Christ, and the message that Christ gave to us.  To proclaim yourself a Christian and then to advocate in front of an entire nation something that is an abomination in the eyes of God, is a mockery of my faith.

    Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.

  • bhagamubhagamu Member Posts: 425
    Originally posted by Draenor

    A christian is a follower of Christ, and the message that Christ gave to us.  To proclaim yourself a Christian and then to advocate in front of an entire nation something that is an abomination in the eyes of God, is a mockery of my faith.

    They believe choice to be right by their faith, by their conviction in what they believe to be God's word, and you believe it to be wrong by  yours. How is it any different?

    To make such bold rhetorically heated statements, that this is a "mockery of my faith", is quite unappreciated. There are many devout Christians who support a woman's right to choose. You make a sweeping generalization, a judgment, that questions and challenges the faith of each and every one of them. I'm sure each of the gentlemen I have named and many  more, can defend their beliefs by scripture just as admirably as you defend yours.

    www.draftgore.com
    Gore '08

Sign In or Register to comment.