Beck's Aug 24th Event in Jerusalem: Will any GOP candidates attend? should they?

Well i had to do something while Harry Reid (mormon) lied about his attitude towards Israel

GTood he just finnished

akid it was your sanctimonious self that was trying hard to get me nanned from FRee Republic

You are the person trying hard to get banned. I am sure you will accomplish it.

I will not be voting for Romney either as I have already said several times anyone can look at my record and know who I support in short order but you have never bothered, even though I invited you to do this. Your statements are vile, and you know better. I have not treated you with any bigotry, and I was glad for your single rational post.

This post is irrational in my opinion. Obviously, you will not be asking anyone who actually knows what scripture says, but you are welcome to worship as you please and believe as you please. I have made no claims other than to judge your behavior here on FR. This is inside of my rights. As for your immortal soul, that's not my province. So spare me your thoughts on this. Spare me your Mitt bashing and your name calling. Stick to the facts and you will always be welcome. This is a foreign concept to you, but so be it.

I suspect you need to brush up on your understanding of the Holy Trinity, unless you would place Jesus above the Father who is master of all, the creator and the source of all. You make statements that directly oppose those made by Jesus and Paul and tell me that you know much.. but what ever you believe, you believe and I am fine with that.

And, I noticed you didn't copy JR on the post where you claim he agrees with you. I am interested at this point, if he is interested in going on the record agreeing with your libels. He would be a different guy than I think I know, though we have only met briefly and I am sure he doesn't recall me as anything other than a pest. But, I have been wrong in the past and I am sure I will be wrong again in the future. My recommendation is that you are unsafe to continue here. But, this isn't my house. Its JR's and the Mods have the only and the last say, not me. I have learned over the years to trust them to do the right thing.

Have a good life.

Colofornian, Don't feel bad, I just decided not to waste my time with you. I thought Nana could be brought back from the brink, but I was wrong.

Also, remember to look at the post being replied to.. it helps in sorting our who the "you" refers to.

As for Nana, I went back in her history about 5 months.. and her posts were pretty consistent. I haven't taken the time to look at yours. You really don't interest me that much at the moment as you are seemingly a member of this pack.

We had to live with a pack like you in the threads for the candidate I really like, but fortunately, the leader of this group is gone an it is a blessing. I haven't bothered to figure out who is the leader of yours. I keyed in on Nana because she said something trollish, then I wondered who she was.

And, we have another volunteer named Colofornian, who joins Elsie and Tennessee Nana in an anti-Mormon smear campaign. As this isn't a debate about the facts, but rather pointing that this behavior is loathsome, boorish and reprehensible; I have also pointed out, that such behavior could become even actionable. [Dalight]

(Jim, is this what we really want @ FR? Instead of sound debate, we have posters like dalight implying going after FREEPERS with "actionable" legal action. Post #162 & others have mentioned "libel.")

Is this what FR is becoming with certain posters? They'll muscle into Romney threads...start dropping legal action hints and implied threats left and right in an attempt to get posters to not say anything negative long run about Mitt Romney?

Do we want such trollish posters trying to put such a squeeze on FR posters? (I don't think so)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. A New York Times article states that it was still aged seven in Delaware in 1895. [4] Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, with ultimate goal to raise the age to eighteen; the campaign was successful: by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen.[5][6]
I am not saying that this was good or proper, but at the time it was certainly not considered child rape. Make sure you know your facts before making random charges that Offend and Stigmatize members of a religion based on behaviors of people other than themselves, especially if you are completely wrong and now you are defaming these folks.

Well, thank you for the legal clarifications, dalight. Indeed, most of the pre-1890s didn't see age-of-consent laws.

But you know, this whole discussion would be akin to someone railing vs. child-labor slavery in the pre-1865 years...only for you to come on with your Wikipedia quotes claiming that it wasn't "technically" child-labor slavery because these black kids were, after all, considered only "chattel" or "property."

IOW, you seem to fall back into the sorry immoral stance that "whatever's legal is moral" position...Oh sure, you tried to offer this weak disclaimer of "I am not saying that this was good or proper..."...but your sorry bottom-line was in your learned "lecture" mode line: "Make sure you know your facts before making random charges..."

C'mon, really? You would "lecture" somebody describing in the worst possible way child-labor slavery (pre-1865 years) just because it was "legal" then?

Really?

(I think the slave industry would have absolutely "loved" your legal aid or PR spin back then!)

Ive been reading a lot about the reason beck might be going to Jerusalem

besides the fact he will make a packet from the saps he “Barnums”

Several times I have come across the idea that Beck thinks he is one of the 2 prophets who get killed in Jerusalem and lie around dead for 3 1/2 days

Thoughts on this ???

(I think the slave industry would have absolutely "loved" your legal aid or PR spin back then!)

You still aren't very interesting. But, you have managed bizarre, and unhinged. As logic, reason and fairness are not necessary in the conduct of your argument, I don't know where to go.

You have accepted that the rape charge is unfair, you haven't recognized that such a charge would never have been considered or laid at the time because such a marriage would neither be considered immoral or illegal, with the exception that in the case of Joseph Smith, he was already married. People seriously, and strenuously objected to this.

But, strangely, your position is what was considered the Liberal position at the time. But, then, some 20 years later, the Republican party was the Liberal party and the Democrats were the Conservatives. The rise of the primacy of the rights of the individual, the core value of the Liberal philosophy started in a good place to us all now, in the dignity of the individual and the basic right to self determination which is offended by the concept of life-long imposed servitude as property.

Yet, this same philosophy became extended to form the basis of the primacy of the woman's interest over the life of her unborn child that is the foundation of the "right" to abort. Something that I hope we can agree offends the basic dignity of life, yet these "rights" are but extensions of "rights" that we as 21th Century individuals find truly basic.

Oddly, though, it was not Jewish custom that led exclusively to the acceptance of the one man, one wife norm that we cherish today. In fact, this was a Roman sensibility that became increasingly more accepted in Jewish and then early Christian society. Augustine of Hippo came out and clearly defined this norm, "That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself." And by the 5th Century, Polygamy was only infrequently practiced in either the Jewish or Christian communities. The Jewish community accepted the absolute ban of this practice by Rabbi Gershom in the year 1000CE. It was this 1000+ year history that Joseph Smith assaulted, but he was by no means the first or the last, as the proponents of gay marriage are following that outrage with the greater outrage of legalizing plural marriages once again. But, understand, it is the dignity of women that is offended by plural marriage, not the explicit teachings of the Bible. But, as Augustine pointed out, both the man and the woman's dignity and respect for each other is best served by the one man, one woman formulation and this has become a basic tenant of both Judaism and most branches of Christianity.

As for Mormonism, God puts these things here for a reason, and its up to us to discover and understand this reason. Islam is here to do the role they are doing which is declared in Genesis. Perhaps the why is as you understand it, simply to teach us to say no. So, I can't and won't fault you for doing this. But, I believe your behavior is undercutting your message.

BTW, David Einhorn is one of my hero's from that time, was threatened with being tarred and feathered literally for taking an anti-slavery stance in his congregation in Philadelphia. However, Einhorn was considered a Universalist even though he was a Jewish Rabbi and his ideas animated the core of what is called Classical Reform Judiasm, which with the Quakers and Unitarians and others were the primary opposition to slavery at the time.

One can imagine what you would say about these people, but understand that you are adopting the ethics and morals they held dear. And there is a reason, it is the message is more important than the messenger.

Keep care.

You have accepted that the rape charge is unfair, you haven't recognized that such a charge would never have been considered or laid at the time because such a marriage would neither be considered immoral or illegal, with the exception that in the case of Joseph Smith, he was already married. People seriously, and strenuously objected to this.

The "unfair" part is dependent upon which eyes we are talking about.

Unfair to the 14 yo girl Smith married while he himself was well into his 30s? Obviously it was. (Especially since Smith indicated it would go well eternally with her family for that to happen)

Would it technically be "unfair" to label somebody a "rapist" when no law existed against it? Well only insofar as it would be to call a plantation-owning family in the 1850s "child kidnappers" because they secured and kept children against their will.

Technically -- legally (and this is where you try to emerge...the legal -- vs. the moral angle) -- it wouldn't be "child kidnapping" just like TN Nana's charge wouldn't be "child rape."

How about if a slave-owner forced sex upon a 14 yo slave he owned? "Legal?" Yup.

I can just imagine a thread like this...where TN Nana accuses some 19th century figure of "child kidnapping."

You then rush in to chastise TN Nana -- in defense of the slavery industry -- and you say to her: "I am not saying that this was good or proper..."...(But) "Make sure you know your facts before making random charges..."

So the "unfair" only has to do with the technical legal angle. What do you think the eyes of God would conclude? Fair or unfair? What do you think the eyes of such victims would conclude? Fair or unfair?

...with the exception that in the case of Joseph Smith, he was already married. People seriously, and strenuously objected to this. But, strangely, your position is what was considered the Liberal position at the time. But, then, some 20 years later, the Republican party was the Liberal party and the Democrats were the Conservatives. The rise of the primacy of the rights of the individual, the core value of the Liberal philosophy started in a good place to us all now, in the dignity of the individual and the basic right to self determination which is offended by the concept of life-long imposed servitude as property.

Well, it sounds to me as if you're defining "conservative" here as conserving the status quo -- which would have been things like slavery and polygamy. Versus defining "liberal" in its "derivative" sense, liberating.

I suppose if you're looking at it from that angle, I could agree with you.

Certainly, there's nothing wrong with coming down on the side of those held in unjust servitude. That was the position of the Republicans from the get-go:

The Republican party's initial social issues "rights" issues it took on was the "twin relics of barbarism" -- slavery and polygamy.

And it was popular with the populace! By 1898, 28 banners were delivered to Congress -- featuring 7 million signatures. Over what issue? The people didn't want Congress to seat newly elected Democrat B.H. Roberts.

What did Roberts represent?

He was elected Congressman from Utah. Roberts had taken a third simultaneous wife around 1893 -- after Utah supposedly had dumped polygamy. Then the Utah voters showed their true position on polygamy in 1898 by voting Democrat Roberts in.

Congress did the right thing in 1898. It listened to the people and dumped Roberts. Of course by the 1890s, the law was starting to catch up with what was moral. Still, Roberts was never charged with illegal cohabitation or any such law.

As for Mormonism, God puts these things here for a reason, and its up to us to discover and understand this reason. Islam is here to do the role they are doing which is declared in Genesis. Perhaps the why is as you understand it, simply to teach us to say no. So, I can't and won't fault you for doing this. But, I believe your behavior is undercutting your message.

God is not the author of Mormonism. He doesn't place cults and world religions like Islam on the earth. Neither does He place pagan idol-worship religions on the earth.

Yes, God in His sovereignty allows them to be here...at times to flourish. But that's not the same thing as saying He's their author.

The people group behind Islam are traced back in Galatians 4 to Hagar's child.

We all know that the Hagar-Abram matter was because this couple took things into their own hands, disbelieving God that He would miraculously ensure that Sarai was impregnated. She was indeed. But not until after they disobeyed God.

Disobedience is the root of the people arising unto Islam. Including disobedience in who Abram was to sleep with.

Disobedience in matters like God's grace, one marital partner, new revelations not from God, was the origins of the Mormon people.

Is this what FR is becoming with certain posters? They'll muscle into Romney threads...start dropping legal action hints and implied threats left and right in an attempt to get posters to not say anything negative long run about Mitt Romney?

This isn't a Romney thread, these folks sacked the thread with blatant bigotry, and libels about Mormonism, that even though I have very little sympathy for Mormon teaching, clear and blatant religiously bigoted statements are generally unacceptable and specifically prohibited by our TOS. If these folks were saying this about Judaism, the whole community would be up in arms. I can't insist on my defense and not provide it to others.

This thread was about Presidential candidates going to Israel to attend Glenn Beck's event and it was throroughly hijacked into an anti-Mitt (which would be ok without the libels) and anti-Glenn Beck coupled with more libels that someone can actually act on..

If the behavior of this group weren't pernicious, and not drawing complaints of other freepers, I would have let it go, but instead, it seemed reasonable to draw these people out, expose them for who they are and let you understand the nature of the problem and the disruption they cause.

Its not about not saying anything negative about Romney, its about making sure what we say is factual, foundationed in evidence, and logical argument and doesn't violate our TOS so that FR is exposed to Legal and Moral risk.

Specifically, the attack against Beck is fraught with peril couched in the terms of obvious calumnies. (The making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone's reputation; slander.) They are seeking to create monetary damages through the vehicle of FR to the Mercury Radio Arts company. The thread topic was reasonable, and these people if they knew how to argue their points would be valuable, but instead, they are just leaving a record that could draw this institution into court and putting a huge exclamation point on it by citing reasons of religious intolerance as the primary reason to oppose and damage the commercial interests of Glenn Beck and this firm. We can speak freely, but only the truth is a defense, and where an animus can be proven, a willful intent to harm regardless of the facts, it is a recipe for disaster.

However, the presence of my counter statements and statements of FR policy are equally protective, but this is but one thread. It is not my business to watch these people and I would have preferred to not have engaged them, but after the 20th or 30th post haranguing me, I decided they were enough of a problem to bring to your attention.

God bless you and thank you for this forum.

The people group behind Islam are traced back in Galatians 4 to Hagar's child.

Mohammad, taught the connection of the Arabic people to Ishmael the son of Hagar. The actual trace is not anywhere near as clear. His point was to assert the primacy of his faith over Judaism which had rejected his teaching. But, in making this claim, he took on the aspects as well of Genesis 16:12 “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him”.

But your interpretation is quite foolish and naive. A site that explains the dynamic between these faiths in a mannor that Christians can relate to is: Isaac or Ishmael

Enjoy.

The Republican party's initial social issues "rights" issues it took on was the "twin relics of barbarism" -- slavery and polygamy.

BTW now you are getting interesting, facts evidence, debate..

The problem is though, that to do this the Republican party also asserted in unconstitutional ways, the primacy of the Federal government to affect these changes against the wishes of the States. This is a stance for which we are paying dearly today.

I will reply to your prior foolishness with the fact that people of the time, just didn't feel that way, you are interpreting events through your own value system, not theirs. If kidnapping was charged at the time, and proven, then this certainly would be a fair and appropriate statement to make, but Nana didn't bother to know and state the facts, but rather went for the libelous and more defamatory lie. Understand? The rest of the crap you are selling equating insisting that we observe the law of the time and the custom of the time in judging the behavior of the time is equivalent to supporting slavery and thus you call me out for my support of slavery, is absurd on its face, and a lamentable drift into dementia..

I will not be voting for Romney either as I have already said several times anyone can look at my record and know who I support in short order but you have never bothered, even though I invited you to do this.

Yet you've expended a lot of electrons DEFENDING romney, dalight.

Spare me your Mitt bashing . .

You don't like rinos like mitt being bashed? hmmmmm

My recommendation is that you are unsafe to continue here. But, this isn't my house. Its JR's and the Mods have the only and the last say, not me. I have learned over the years to trust them to do the right thing.

So, dalight, you don't like mitt bashing, defend mitt against bashing and then presume to want an anti-romney conservative to be banned because she opposes romney. If anything speaks, it indicates that the real troll may be you dalight.

You don't like rinos like mitt being bashed? hmmmmm

Stick to the truth and stay on topic and you can have at it all day long.

Hijack an interesting thread and chase off the sane people, I get irritated.

If you would or any of your pack of crazies would actually check, it is obviously who I am supporting. And its not Romney, TPay, Huckster, or any of the other midgets who have put their name in though I do like and appreciate Herman Cain. I want him in the Senate. I am a huge West fan but he is not running. If he would become a Governor for a bit I would be interested in him for President in about 12 years, but for now.. he is just a personal hero, but I decided not to bring my candidate into this bizarre land of hatred and twisted logic.

Stick to the truth and stay on topic and you can have at it all day long.

I did stick to the truth - I cited YOUR very words.

If you would or any of your pack of crazies would actually check, it is obviously who I am supporting. And its not Romney, TPay, Huckster, or any of the other midgets who have put their name in though I do like and appreciate Herman Cain.

So you claim not to have a dog in this fight - yet you vociferously defend romney - to the point of trolling to get a conservate, anti-romney freeper banned. Perhaps you need to stick to the truth instead.

Wow what an arrogant self aggrandizing little cuss...

We are blessed and lucky to have you here to save FreeRepublic then.

Yes that is dripping with sarcasm...

So you claim not to have a dog in this fight - yet you vociferously defend romney - to the point of trolling to get a conservate, anti-romney freeper banned. Perhaps you need to stick to the truth instead.

I applaud the anti-Romney, though, I think he is a non-starter, just a fly in the ointment, his time has come and gone, he will never rise above RomneyCare.. and his defense of it was political suicide. With stuff like this, who needs to be offensive, sell religious bigotry, and make libelous statements? Folks who insist on that crap don't belong here. Change your ways, and you do belong here. Its that simple. The investment was not in Romney but you, with the hopes we might get some real posters rather than pains in the tail.

But, I will point out for the umpteenth time, this thread is about Politicians going to Israel to declare their support for her and to tell Obama to pound sand if he thinks he can gain by destroying her. It isn't about Romney!!!!

Wow what an arrogant self aggrandizing little cuss...

Sure does seem to have an "Attitude of Superiority" doesn't he?

It's beginning to be obvious that the Romney/Huntsman forces are trying to direct the message at FR.

I am just glad I now know who the person in charge of deciding who deserves to be on FR actually is.