The Sore-Loser Party (must read LMAO)

The first resort of a sore loser is to gripe about how the game itself was unfair, how the other team doesn't play nice, how the very act of winning is all the proof necessary that the other side will "do anything" to win. The second resort is to simply make junk up about the other guy that makes you feel better about yourself.

"The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry," writes Jane Smiley, a woman who couldn't catch a clue if you used one as a pestle and her brain pan as the mortar. Smiley's now-famous hissyfit places a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the Republican base is "ignorant" while the Democratic one is enlightened. A similar point was made by the British Daily Mirror, one of whose headlines asked, "How Can 59,054,087 People Be So DUMB?"

One might ask if the Democrats really want to place so much emphasis on "ignorance" of the base as a defining difference between the parties. By all means let's break out the number-two pencils and pit the homeschoolers, tractor drivers, and Sunday-school teachers against the voters who wouldn't have shown up at the polls lest they miss a chance to meet P-Diddy.

Brit's panel segment was just discussing the rash of conspiracy theories they've received from the dem's about this "stolen" election. Charles Krauthammer stated that similar theories have been around for decades calling to mind Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" that made Bill Clinton misbehave. Krauthammer made me stand and cheer when he bravely admitted to be a board member of the VRWC! Bravo Mr. Krauthammer.

I know it's an old thread, but in case you're still interested....

[...]I believe it was the Catholic church which altered the Lord's prayer to EXCLUDE the final statement which says, "for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen". The Bible does include the final statement.

IIRC, the phrase is found in later manuscripts but not in the oldest available ones. Some would say that the phrase was added later; others would doubt the accuracy of the older manuscripts (e.g., "the fact that they survived was because they weren't used as much because they were known to be faulty"). I am not a Biblical scholar but I believe a search for Textus Receptus and/or Westcott-Hort and/or Nestle Greek Text will give you some pages about this.

Look up Matthew 18:11, for example. The KJV, based on the Textus Receptus, includes this phrase. However, I believe Westcott-Hort does not--so some Bibles do not even have a Matthew 18:11. Try sites like http://users.htcomp.net/gatewaybc/on_line_articles/modern_bible_versions.htm and http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcnasv.htm and beware that the New King James Version differs greatly from the King James Version, just like the New American Standard Version differs from the American Standard Version.

The nature of the changed/omitted versus make the Bible seem more liberal, so I do think you're on the right track as to why they are supported by liberals and opposed by evangelicals. Still, the argument about the older age of "liberal" manuscripts is compelling to many. >

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.