Given these choices...

[TomVols]

I voted for Bush. Clark has done nothing to impress me thus far.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Bump

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Just wonderin,

Has anybody changed their mind on this vote since you first voted? If you voted for Clark, would you now not vote for Clark? If you voted for Bush, would you now not vote for Bush? This is, given the same two choices? If you changed your vote, then please tell me why you would no longer vote for your original choice.

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

I voted for Mr. Clark in the poll but would not do so now. It was a simple case of overexuberance caused by a fellow Arkansan running for president who might have chance to defeat President Bush - hyped up by the great 4-0 start to the football season by the University of Arkansas Razorbacks and the fact that President Bush is a Texan(I am too but I still grew up being a Razorback fan due to reading Dave Campbell's Texas Football magazine and due to red being my favorite color - a combination which led me to become a Hog fan at 8 years old before the start of the 1964 season).

After the Razorbacks came back down to earth and I got over the exuberance of Mr. Clark's entry into the Democrat presidential race, I settled back into my ideological political thinking.

I still wouldn't mind seeing Mr. Clark defeat President Bush since Mr. Bush's WMD justification for invading Iraq has not been proven true(and I doubt it will be). But Mr. Clark will have to do so without my advocacy or vote.

SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION!
SUPPPORT THE CONSTITUTION PARTY!!

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ken,

When you were for Clark, was there any ideological reasons at all that compelled you to support him. Or, was it all just hype on your part because the Razorbacks were winning? If it was the latter, how can we know that your support for the Constitution party isn't because the Razorbacks are winning again? How do we know that you aren't trying to sway people to vote for someone you don't agree with just so that Clark could win....

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
1)When you were for Clark, was there any ideological reasons at all that compelled you to support him.

2) Or, was it all just hype on your part because the Razorbacks were winning?

3) If it was the latter, how can we know that your support for the Constitution party isn't because the Razorbacks are winning again?

4) How do we know that you aren't trying to sway people to vote for someone you don't agree with just so that Clark could win

1)Nope.

2)The Razorbacks winning helped but it was mainly the fact that Mr. Clark is an Arkansan - so I would have been exuberant even without the early success of the Hogs - especially with my growing disgust with President Bush over his false justification for invading Iraq and his liberal domestic agenda.

3)Because my attention is now on the upcoming 2nd season of Stan Heath coaching the basketball Hogs.

4)My commitment to the Constitution Party is rock solid. I personally know the Arkansas State Chairman of the party(he used to live in El Dorado and we attended the same church) and I have supported the Constitution Party presidential candidate in 1992, Howard Phillips. I want to be active in politics and the Constitution Party is where I will not have to compromise my advocacy of limited, constitutional government. The Libertarian Party is also attractive but I prefer to be active in a party where the limited, constitutional government advocacy is grounded in Christianity.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Bump

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

bump

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

bump

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
In his September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan declared: "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." (ADL Report, 1994)

And just what is anti-Semitic about this statement? Do you as a Christian not believe that Christianity advances a culture and that men are set free by the gospel? </font>[/QUOTE]When you say "set free by the gospel", do you mean that they recieve salvation through Jesus Christ? If that is what you are asking, I would say yes, salvation is through Christ alone, and there is no other way for men to be saved. All those who are not saved through Christ alone suffer eternal torment in Hell after they die. Do you agree with this?

http://www.godsfellowship.com/bb/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=31967&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
All those who are not saved through Christ alone suffer eternal torment in Hell after they die. Do you agree with this?

This is not the forum for anything other than brief references to theology. I certainly believe that my Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation and that those who do not come to Him in repentance and faith in this age will certainly have to answer to God for not doing so in the next age.

If you want to discuss theology deeply, go here - www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001905#000011

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ken,

You are the one who asked the question. I answered and then continued by asking the another question based on the original question asked by you. In other words, you opened the door. Don't get upset when I walk inside the door you opened. It almost seems as if you are upset that I asked that question. I wonder why. Is it because you know most people here don't agree with your false theology? Is it because you false theology hurts your credidbility? I don't know?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Well, Joseph, I am the one arguing for the proposition that the gospel sets men free and you are evidently arguing against that proposition and seem to be declaring your belief that the gospel of Jesus Christ is anti-Semitic since you evidently disagree with Pat Buchanan's statement that "Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free."

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Not true.

I am arguing that Buchannans distortions of history and constant defending of Nazis is what makes him anti-semitic. Maybe you disagree with me?

You believe that all men will be saved whether it is in this life or in purgatory. This is not what the Bible teaches.

Good try though.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

"constant defending of Nazis" is quite an accusation.

I assume that you can produce documentation?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Already have, Jim.

Go back and read the entire thread.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[fromtheright]

It's funny, I never got a response from Buchanan's corner with my earlier observation in this thread:

Personally I don't know for a fact that Patrick Buchanan is a racist (although I first posted this before I read the stunning evidence posted by Joseph B. above), but would automatically suspect someone of being a racist if he is a contributor to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens newsletter and had been a contributor to The Spotlight, the tabloid of the unabashedly anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby. "By their fruits..."

My observation is that in picking him either you agree with him or perhaps you're choosing the "lesser of the evils" between him and Bush.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Bump

 

[fromtheright]

Maybe I haven't been doing this long enough, but what does it mean when a post says just "Bump"? I'm assuming it means it was deleted by a moderator or administrator. Correct?

 

[Daisy]

No, not at all. It means that time has passed, interest has waned, no one has posted to this thread recently and the thread has worked its way to the bottom of the forum's first page or on to the second where it's likely to never be seen again.

"Bump" is posting to a thread when you have nothing to say, but won't let it go, to keep it on top of the thread heap.