I just thought that some perspective on a few of his/her posts would help us understand why someone does this kind of thing.
I don't know what kind of game he/she was playing and I wish that he/she could just have honestly participated - and maybe sometimes did, who knows? But I think we can see from this that sometimes when we feel someone on DU is ripping us apart, maybe it really is someone who has a bad agenda and it isn't really DU, but the individual who is the problem.
I hope it encourages people to alert the mods more. I know I felt like a snitch at first, but this is OUR board and if someone is just a plant and isn't honestly participating, they don't deserve to be here. If someone is acting like a freeper, the mods can help steer them away from those kinds of behaviors. And the rest of US will feel less freeped upon.
Silverhair, if you ever choose to leave the darkside for real, don't hide. Ask questions and find your place in DU. People having their own opinions and dislikes is the way things are. It isn't right to push any religion down anyone's throat or other viewpoint for that matter. I hope you got that somewhere in the back of your mind and that in time you'll make choices that don't cater to this administration's policies, because even if you think you are one of the chosen few, they will turn on you. And their type of destruction is worse than any honest argument you will get here.
*********SILVERHAIR Classics ************
Who could forget? The ever popular
IF Dick resigned, who would the village idiot pick as replacement?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2462875#2464105**** Tigress DEM points out >>>>> Silver hair's contributions: *****
67. Condi. NT
In response to 47
68. The VP has no real power.
He can break ties in the Senate. Attends a lot of state funerals. Other than that he tends to such errands as the POTUS assigns him.
OR If MoveOn Starts to Attack Democrats...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2461188#2464113***In response to 1***
91. Why bother? He doesn't hold any office. He is retired now. NT
*********** BUT WAIT there's MORE!!! **************************************************
A MOLE'S EYE VIEW ON --- Why DEMS don't win (Aren't you breathless with excitement?!)
*****************************************************************************************
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2448115***Here's some FIRE for you - in response to 88 *****
143. "...not...politically correct."?? Try ...historically full of shit.
That would be more accurate.
It is one thing to be open-minded. It is another to listen to someone argue that the world is flat.
***** What got MOLE Boy out of his burrow?? *****
88. He was arguing for academic freedom
A ringing endorsement of that French guy would be to say that he is correct, there was no Holocaust and it was all cooked up by the Jews.
He was defending the right scholars to come up with theories, even when they are not necessarily politically correrct.
Agree or disagree with Chomsky's defense of that professor's right to come up with cockamamie theories. But at least get his motives right.
***********
response to #18 run of the mill, but possibly reveals a bit:
****************************************************************
140. I too agree.
MrBenchley and I often argue strongly about guns. I am strongly RKBA & he is pro gun-control.
But on this issue, I am in total agreement.
***In response to 21 "many" vs "most" ***
164. No, YOU are wrong. Try reading what he ACTUALLY wrote.
Edited on Fri Feb-10-06 08:33 AM by Silverhair
He said, "many". "Most" is a word that you have substituted for "many", and then argued against "most". In my dictionary, the two words have different meanings.
Honesty requires that you you NOT put words in his mouth. You have been dishonest in your arguement.
He said that many are under 30.
***In response to 99***
152. McGovern beat McGovern
He was down double digits in the polls from the convention to the election. The American public rejected him soundly.
Let's remember some of the events. There was the Eagleton mess and McGovern's flip/flop. there was his idea of having the gov't send $1,000.00 dollars a year to every American. And, during a time of war, he wanted to cut the defense budget by one third.
Reagan won because under Jimmy Carter the economy had gone badly south, and defense had been neglected. Jimmy has made his statement about American having an inordinate fear of Communism. Numerous countries came within the orbit of the Soviet Empire during his watch and Americans were scared. Reagan offered strength.
Mondale was a disaster from the start. Picking Ferraro emphasized his weakness. And promising to raise taxes didn't help him.
BTW - If we are all about "love", I can point to many hate-christianity threads here, and please don't try to say they don't exist.
For that matter, read the huge post above that is so condescending to people who live in mobile homes. Try going to someone who lives in one with that kind of attitude and get them to vote for your candidate.
***In response to 187****
194. The election of 1980 was BEFORE the begining of Reagan's Presidency.
When one talks about the election of 1980, one can ONLY speak of things as they were at the time. Events later than 1980 can not impact an election that occurs in 1980. So to talk about what Reagan may or may not have done after he became President is NOT germaine to the 1980 election itself.
In 1976 Carter had blasted Ford for having a misery index of 13.45. He said that any President with such an high misery index did not deserve re-election. In 1980, with his own misery index at 20.76, his own words were thrown back in his face.
The perception of the American military was that it had been weakened. Reagan promised to increase military spending.
I am not defending Reagan. I am pointing out that Carter was in a very bad position to run for re-election.
***In response to 265***
279. Perception creates it's own reality.
I will grant that Carter was not to blame most of it. But that does not matter. The perception was all that mattered.
The public perception was what determined the elections. It happened on his watch, therefore he is to blame, even if he isn't. The public perception of the military was that not enough was being done. That was reinforced by the hostage crisis and the botched rescue attempt only three years after Israel has pulled off the Entebbe rescue.
******In reply to 150 (Ah a mole would know this one.) *******
154. You DID hear about his senate career - from the Republicans.
Of course, they only told part of his career, and then with their spin. But since Kerry was trying to talk about Vietnam, that left the Republican message unchallenged.
****In response to 167*****
195. You don't get people to vote for you by offending them. NT
****REPLY TO 171 ****
197. And that is why we are viewed as weak on Nat'l Security.
Your statement would be viewed by the average person as meaning: "There is no threat to America so we can let our guard down."
Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, Muslims are rioting worldwide, Muslims recently rioted for about two weeks in France, every few weeks seems to bring a new Muslim bombing incident somewhere in the world. Never mind your explanations. That is what the average American voter is seeing on the news. So the average voter genuinely believes that there is danger. And you are going to try to tell them there isn't?
*************** ( Aw, admitt it BUSH Makes you feel safer, mole boy/girl.) *************
WAIT THERE IS MORE >>>> WE ARE ALL DOOMED ANYWaY! Don'tcha know?
In response to 241
****************************************************************************************
256. Privacy is ultimately doomed, no matter who wins.
Democrat, Republican, or some other party, privacy will cease to exist within twenty years.
With the increasing ability of one person, or a small group of persons to cause really serious major harm, including killing tens of thousands, the demand for preventive instead of reactive law enforcement will increase. Preventive enforcement will mean monitoring. Modern technology makes it increasingly possible to identify a person as they are becoming radicalized.
Right now, it would be possible for a small group, (less than 20) to bring a modern industrial country to it's knees, in a single day. I won't say how over the internet. It would simply involve the group to think militarily and read some history, instead of thinking in terms of theatrical type targets.
And they would not need a nuke to do it.
Fortunately, modern terrorists tend to think in terms of theater, and of their acts as a kind of performance art.
********* performance art? like being a mole and pretending a viewpoint not your own? ****
In reply to 293
306. To predict something is not to desire it.
Someday, somewhere, there will be another really major terrorist attack. And the countries of the globe will be forced to a permanent preventive stance. To say a storm is coming does not mean one desires the storm, nor does anger change the inevitable.
****** terrorism is inevitable? especially when you send Haliburton over to train them ****
In reply to 250
257. And then they would vote Republican. *** :rofl: ****
They would think that you didn't understand the danger.
And further, you would have alienated a percentage of Christian voters by referring to their religion as a whackjob. There ARE Christians who ARE Democrats. The belief in the rapture is shared by many millions of American Christians, including many that vote Democratic. By making the Democratic Party hostile to their faith, you kiss off their votes.
You would doom Democrats to permanent losing status.
**** you would like that wouldn't you? ain't gonna happen. real DEMS deal with these issues with real comments about their real feelings. not some moldy thoughts that attempt to divide US. *****
In reply to 276
278. LOL !! Late 19th century? There is a 6th century sermon about it.
Edited on Sun Feb-12-06 08:49 AM by Silverhair
Try looking up Ephraem the Sryian, sermon titled: "Sermon on the Last Times, The AntiChrist, and The End of the World". He clearly talks about it, although he does not use the word Rapture. The doctrine is a vital part of the pretribulationist part of premillenarianism.
And then there is Irenaus writing in "Against Heresies" in which he take a very definate futurist interpretation of parts of Daniel and of the Revelation. He wrote in about the 2nd century.
As the early chruch consolidated into the Roman Catholic church, Augustine's amillenialism became orthodox, until the time of the Reformation.
Increase Mather, Puritan preacher, preached that "all the saints will be caught up in the air" to escape the tribulation. Althoug you probably hate him, (NO, he did NOT burn witches. He was against it.) it does prove that the doctrine was around well before the 19th century.
19th century invention? Definately NOT.
And Yes, many of them do vote Democratic. My neighbor two houses down is one. I am another. Most black churches believe in the Rapture, and most blacks vote Democratic.
I guess you would be happier if we were all ejected from the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party were to openly attack their beliefs, you could well see large segments of black preachers leaving the Party and influencing their congregations. Would that make you happy?
In reply to 313
314. You are attempting to set up a religious test to be a Democrat.
And it would appear that you want anybody that fails your religious test must be kicked out of the party.
You seriously misunderstand elements of the belief in the Rapture. The site you list holds to a different interpretation, but proves nothing. Anyway, whether the Rapture is sound Christian doctrine or not is ENTIRELY BESIDE THE POINT.
My point is: Many Democrats believe it, and you are attacking what they believe. If you want to attend some black churches that believe in the Rapture, come on down here and I can take you to a different one each Sunday.
Regarding MLK, his public sermons never talked about basic salvation either. His call was to preach to the nation about a horrible social sin. Because he never preached about salvation does not mean that he disregarded it. You are trying to make an argument from silence.
His denomination was National Baptist. They have over seven million members. You may find their beliefs on their web site here:
http://www.nationalbaptist.com/images/documents/26.pdf Paragraph XVIII deals with last day matters. It is PDF so I can't cut & paste.
The Church of God in Christ is the largest black Pentecostal denomination. They have over 5 million members. You may find their beliefs on their web site:
http://www.cogic.org/dctrn.htm "THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
We believe in the second coming of Christ; that He shall come from heaven to earth, personally, bodily, visibly (Acts 1:11; Titus 2:11-13; St. Matthew 16:27; 24:30; 25:30; Luke 21:27; John 1:14, 17; Titus 2:11) and that the Church, the bride, will be caught up to meet Him in the air (I Thessalonians, 4:16-17). We admonish all who have this hope to purify themselves as He is pure."
In addition, there are many other small independent black churches, and my experience over a lifetime is that almost all of them will believe in the Rapture.
That these are often strong allies to Democrats is shown by this sociological article:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_1_60... And I personally know white Democrats who believe in the Rapture.
You may hate the belief all you want to, but as you attack the belief, you need to be solidly aware that you are attacking the belief of tens of millions of Democrats. Maybe you would be happier if those millions of votes left the Party?
**** rethugs had to do their research to hold onto their 2% ****
In reply to 328
329. Now you have shifted to arguing about the rapture itself.
In your first post in this sub-thread, #250, you said, "That's exactly what I'd tell them. ... Random attacks by various whackjobs are inevitable... For Christians in this country it's whackjob Rapturism,..." I understand that as meaning that is what you would say if you were an official Democratic spokesperson.
My argument is that millions of voting Democrats believe in the rapture, and if the Democratic Party did as you urge, - publicly condemn such a belief - it would grievously offend most of them into sitting home at elections, or voting Republican. With that as an official stance of the Democratic Party, it would never win any election again. But you could console yourself in having a "pure" Party.
I believe I have proved that part of my argument.
I am not going to argue about whether the belief itself is valid. You are arguing from a Roman Catholic perspective, and you should realize that many of the Catholic doctrines, and even some books of the Catholic Bible, (Apocrypha) are rejected by Protestants. So to argue with a Protestant about the Rapture by quoting Roman Catholic doctrinal references is a waste. You have to start with something commonly accepted. I have proved that the belief itself is not of 19th century origin, but can be traced back to reformation times and to the early church.
In reply to 333
334. So what if it Dispensationalism is recent ?
I have proved that millions of Democrats belief in the Rapture. If the Democratic Party took your advise and called them "whackjobs", we would lose most of those votes.
Nor can you prove that it is anti-Democratic Party in values. After all, millions of Democrats sincerely believe in it, and still vote Democratic.
Disagree as an individual if you want to, but don't try to get the Democratic Party to take an official stance that millions of it's members are religious whackjobs.
In reply to 335
336. Did you even read the references I gave you on black churches?
Edited on Tue Feb-14-06 11:17 PM by Silverhair
The Church of God in Christ, a black Pentacostal demonination with 5.5 million members has the Rapture as one of their doctrines on their web site.
Are you saying that they vote Republican?
You have blinders on. You hate the doctrine so much that you can't imagine anyone believing it except those whom you consider your enemies. Take off the blinders. Many Democrats do believe it too.
Remember, in your post #250 you said that Democrats should call those who believe in it "whackjobs". Are you now modifing that position?
An "ethical" position on what happens after death, or translation if it happens, is not something that any earthly political party can have a genuine position on.
***** Like the rethugs DON'T take any position on religious doctrine? Is this guy someone who wanted to be a DEM and thinks he was robbed or is Silverhair just blowing smoke up DU's ass? ****
In response to 337
338. They believe in the rapture. That was what you were calling a "whackjob".
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 06:12 AM by Silverhair
If you want to call everyone who believes in the Rapture a whackjob, then you are insulting a whole lot of Democrats. The term Dispensationalism is almost never used.
Also, you don't understand the doctrine as well as you think you do.
First, you have to be saved, which means that you have to accept Jesus as Lord of your life. That means that you have to agree to attempt to do things the way Jesus would do them, and learn to live in His Love toward people. (That does not mean gooey, sentimental love. Sometimes, real Love has to be "Tough Love".) Such a person can believe in a Rapture, and while personally looking forward to the rapture for it's promised meeting with Jesus, can also fear it for those who would be - left behind. (BTW - I haven't read the books in the series, and I thought the first of the movies of the series was really, really stupid.)
I disagree strongly with many Roman Catholic doctrines, but I don't try to say that the Democratic Party should call then "whackjobs" for believing in Papal Infallibility. BTW - I am aware that P I only applies to matter of Faith & Doctrine, that it is not general infallibility. But several Popes have really failed on birth control. But I do NOT want the Democratic Party to attack the Catholic Church. It is enough that a Catholic accept that their Church does not get to write the secular laws of America. If they will agree to that, I am content and will accept them as a Democrat.
Religious tolerance is a progressive value, and you have NOT been showing much of that.
In response to 339
340. So you want kick them out of the Democratic Party?
That includes millions of black votes.
What happened to the progressive value of religious tolerance?
In reply to 208
211. To do that, you first need to talk about what we are doing wrong.
You can't correct mistakes until you identify them. I we refuse to look at our mistakes, we will continue to make them - and continue to lose.
***** ( keep 'em mired in defeatism )********
In response to 324
330. A distinction without a difference.
Most people will see no difference between an "advocacy group" and a "special interest group". In fact, I don't. It is just semantics. I suppose the difference is if the group is for or against something one supports.
That is NOT at attack on the PFAW.
****** yeah, we know rethugs don't quite get the "advocacy" vs "special interest" difference. to advocate for something doesn't mean you are looking to buy your way into an area of special interest. it means you believe that what you are advocating deserves its fair chance to be heard and voted on. **************
There are a few more threads:
So...how do you think this shooting will affect the administration?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2456252***** Silverhair's response? Surprise! (Not!) ******
Not at all. NT
***********************************************************************
If the draft were reinstated today, how long would it take to actually get
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=24548958. Six months to produce a minimum combat soldier.
Edited on Sun Feb-12-06 01:30 PM by Silverhair
And that is for a guy that is barely capable. One year to train him with a unit and get the unit to working cohesively. Longer is he is going to be an elite troop.
That is measuring from the time a new soldier is inducted. It does not count time to crank the system up to make more combat soldiers.
I spent nine years of active duty, with one of those in Vietnam, and I have tried to stay informed about today's military, therefore my opinion is an informed one.
**********************************************************************************
Friday = wear blue = impeachment (?)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2450190#245094213. I see it a banging our heads against a wall. NT
***************************************************************************************
Do you believe that post Katrina NOLA was a martial law dry run?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=24465208. Martial Law was NOT declared.
I don't think you really know what Martial Law is. Most people here on DU don't either.
Martial Law is a change in the court system. Troops may enforce emergency orders, but that is NOT martial law. Further, a federal judge ruled that the firearms confiscation was illegal.
11. Proof please? We have already seen that rumors can be wildly...
...exegerated. Further, how many shootings were by law inforcement, and how many were by criminals taking advantage of the LEO's being overwhelmed by the situation?
13. In other words - he is repeating a rumor.
And what makes him think those guys were well informed? I have nine years of active duty (One in Vietnam) and one year in the reserves, and I know that the rumor mill runs rampant among troops.
16. Because that is the nature of rumors.
The troops would not have been deliberately lieing, as such. They could have believed it themselves. But it is the nature of rumors to grow as they are repeated. That is just the way things are. And when solid information is scarce, speculation breeds rumors which are then believed.
********************************************* So, I'm thinking the mole man is protesting too much, we must have hit the nail right on the head. NOW don't be spreading those fact based rumors.... gotta have the talking points ***********************
Jack Carter, son of president, running for Senate in Nevada.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=24447295. Most of them were there longer than three or four years.
Of course, Hillary was just barely a New Yorker.
His point is that it usually takes more than three years to learn the people of a state. He did NOT say that you had to be born there. That is your own gross exaggeration on what he actually said.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
