FACT: 70% of the population will not vote for a Jewish Socialist.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

[Skwmom]

1. You might think of rewording your headline.

http://macombpolitics.blogspot.com/2014/03/six-in-10-read-only-headlines.html

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

25. It's a fucking joke! Get real.

[artislife]

29. I like your humor!

[PatSeg]

31. Well done

It got me to click on the post!

[bvf]

99. You tell 'em!

And here I was all set to get my dander up.

[PatrickforO]

130. I thought the humor was good too.

The biblical Jesus was in fact a Jewish Socialist.

[Mike Nelson]

2. Don't agree with it being 70%...

...but good post!

[Reter]

11. True, it's more in the US

Over 80%.

[OhWiseOne]

13. Sanders as the nominee give the election to the republicans

and that's a fact Jack

[restorefreedom]

14. and hillary would gift wrap it. nt

[Orrex]

16. But will you vote for her?

[restorefreedom]

17. i am with bernie. nt

and he will be the nom, so no need to start the loyalty oath convo.

[Orrex]

28. Right. But will you vote for her?

It's hardly a loyalty oath--that's a red herring and a scare tactic by people unwilling to face practical reality.

Who do you think Sanders will vote for if he doesn't get the nomination?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

106. "people unwilling to face practical reality"

Uh oh....

[JoeyT]

124. Will Clinton supporters vote for Sanders if he wins?

Or will we see PUMAs come back? I bet we see PUMAs again.

[awoke_in_2003]

126. PUMA was a very vocal minority

that gained a lot of attention because their mouths were loud. Supporters of HRC mostly voted for Obama in the general. Should HRC win the primary, most of us will vote for her in the general. The SC is too important to entrust to republicans.

[Orrex]

135. I can't speak for others, but I'd certainly vote for him

[awoke_in_2003]

95. When you put "nt" in the reply title

it implies there is no text in the message section.

[peacebird]

21. No.

[Orrex]

23. Do you think Sanders will vote for her if he loses?

[peacebird]

35. Yes.

[Orrex]

37. But you won't? Interesting.

Fair enough, but interesting.

[rhett o rick]

93. It's irrelivant if he/she will vote for her. But more important, many, many Sanders supporters

have come out and are enthused because they have an honest candidate and will not be happy to let Clinton steal the nomination.

Like it or not, many Sanders supporters will not again be drawn into the lesser of evils bullcrap.

If you want Jeb to win, nominate Clinton.

[Orrex]

97. It's hardly irrelevant.

If Sanders' acolytes will stomp their feet and hold their breath and stay home on election night, then they'll be handing the election to Republicans. Do you think Sanders wants that?

Do you think that Sanders is so blind as to demand that we can only choose between him and the Republican?


You underestimate your own candidate.

[rhett o rick]

116. I wasn't speaking of Sen Sanders. You make shit up as you go. Of course Sanders would not like it.

But I was referring to those millions that are suddenly enthused about getting out of the Oligarch trap. Those that have given up on the bullcrap that the oligarch calls free elections between Corp Thing 1 vs. Corp Thing 2.

It will be hard for the people to fight your oligarchy controlled government but we are going to try. We might not win the election but we aren't going to stop. It's time to end this status quo crap that is ok with 22% of our children living in poverty. Do you really think that Goldman-Sachs will care about the children living in poverty? Or our vets living in the streets? or our Seniors trying to squeak by?

This is war of the 1% and their puppets against the 99%. It appears you choose the wrong side.

[Orrex]

138. I see that you enjoy making shit up

Doubting Sanders' chances in the general election is hardly the same as choosing to side with the 1%. That's a weak accusation that ignores a whole range of political realities.

Sorry, but you don't get to frame my choice for me, unless you're willing to let me do the same for you.

[RichVRichV]

125. I love how Bernie supporters are constantly being compared to misbehaving children.

Come on, you're better than that.

[Orrex]

137. Fine. they're mature adults who've threatened to throw tantrums. Better?

More than a few on DU have declared their intent to stay home on election night if Sanders isn't nominated. If that kind of tantrum draws unwanted comparisons to children, then maybe they should pick another way to show their dissatisfaction.

[rhett o rick]

156. Millions of eligible voters stay home on election night and it seems the authoritarian remedy is

to call them children. You are ignoring the real problem which has to do with not trusting the corrupt system. We are in a revolution and you calling it a tantrum won't change it.

[RichVRichV]

157. I stand corrected. You're not above that.

Someone choosing to exercise their constitutional right how they see fit isn't a tantrum. When someone goes third party it means they found a choice that represents them better outside the two party system. When a person chooses not to exercise their vote it's called disenfranchisement. That usually happens because they no longer feel any choice represents them. 2/3 of the country already doesn't vote. I guess most of the country are children to you.

The liberal left, despite being villified when Democrats lose and marginalized when Democrats win, have been one of the most reliable voting blocks for decades. We come out and vote Democrat even in low turnout elections, even when many moderates are waffleing back and forth between Democrat and Republican. It's to the point that the power structure takes our votes for granted and no longer cares about our voices.

Well many of us have said enough. We're putting the Democratic power structure on notice. Either start listening to us and start representing us or don't count on our votes anymore.

That's not a tantrum, that's Democracy in action. We as citizens are not supposed to be beholden to politicians or parties, they are supposed to be beholden to us.

[Lordquinton]

127. Will you vote for Sanders?

That's the real question.

[Orrex]

139. It's a real question for which I've given a real answer many times

Several times in this very thread, in fact.

The answer, obviously, is yes. I still doubt Sanders' chances of making it to the general election, but of course I'll vote for him if he gets there.

Will you vote for Clinton?

[jwirr]

24. I doubt that and what makes you think Hillary can win?

Do you really think that all those crowds are Jewish socialists?

It is Hillary who is making this election into a personality contest. The people are listening to issues this year. And if the issue of socialism is brought up the issues will top that.

[Bubzer]

32. Issues have already topped the boogie-man of socialism.

The media has been chumming the water with that term for a while now, trying to get the public to bite.
Bernie is great about diffusing it by defining what his brand of socialism is. He doesn't let others define it for him.
Even better, he does it quickly, then moves straight back to the issues that matter.

[jwirr]

39. Absolutely - I doubt there is a Democratic candidate

for president since 1980 who has not been called a socialist including Hillary. They call us a lot of different names but the people are beginning to wise up.

[Bubzer]

45. Identity based politics is slowly losing its grasp.

[Maynar]

113. One can but hope.

[AlbertCat]

53. Sanders as the nominee give the election to the republicans

Only if the Hillary fawners don't vote at all.


And even then... it is no fact.

[sabrina 1]

73. You must be ignoring the polls! Lol!

Bernie will wipe the floor with any of them. Already he is attracting even Repubs sick to death of their extremist party and morons like Donald Trump turning it into a reality tv show.

But if Hillary were to win the nomination, which is looking less and less likely, Dems are going to lose the WH.

Running centrist candidates has totally lost us the Senate and Congress, and pushing someone who ADMITS to being centrist which is what the people do NOT want, did NOT want for the Senate or Congress, will simply have the same result.

Sometimes I think the DLC/Third Way is TRYING to lose but if not, they sure are incompetent when it comes to knowing how to win.

They mistake the wins they DID have for approval of their policies. WRONG, many of us only supported their Centrist Candidates because of BUSH. Remember that 'anyone but Bush' but we intended to fix that once we got control of things.

Instead the Centrists ran centrists, ignored the people, and lost.

[emsimon33]

80. Well said

Democrats are tired of voting for the least objectionable. Hillary can not win the general election. People will pull another 2014 and simply not vote. How many times will it take of people not voting for puppet candidates for the Third Way, neoliberals in the party to be sent back to the Republican Party where they belong?

[Old Crow]

104. Great observations there.

I learn a lot from reading the figure-skate posts.

Favorite line from this one: "Sometimes I think the DLC/Third Way is TRYING to lose but if not, they sure are incompetent when it comes to knowing how to win."

Amen to that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

107. The Democrats INVITED the Right into their party to teach them how to win....

The Right was more than happy to infiltrate the Party to teach them how to lose.

[sabrina 1]

111. Lol, well, I was there when Bush was in power, and confess to

being so scared of him winning in 2004 I held my nose too, telling myself and anyone who would listen, it was only temporary, we had to stop him and his neocon warmongers first and whoever his party chose next to replace him.

But it was a very reluctant decision. It felt like being trapped with no way out, other than to concede. Which we did. But we are now in different times, we saw it all play out and our going along no matter how reluctantly, didn't work out the way we thought it could.

You are very sweet to say that, btw!

[McKim]

117. A Very Astute Observation

I have sometimes wondered if they are closet Republicans sent to ruin the Democratic Party. They seems to represent the same interests as the Republicans. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck......

[draa]

110. +1

[dorkzilla]

118. the argument that only Hillary can win is faulty, and it won't be Democratic Bernie

Supporters who don't vote for her in the general, it will be the gigantic block of independents that nobody bothers to poll. It will also be the young kids who are excited to vote in their first presidential election for someone they're really lit up about.

[sabrina 1]

119. Yes, Bernie is attracting voters from across the political spectrum. Hillary

doesn't have that appeal outside of a very small loyal base. I've seen many Repubs now eg, state they will be voting for him even though 'I have always voted Republican, but this guy is the real deal, he is talking about things I care about, amazingly since he's a Liberal. I don't agree with him on some issues, but he's an honest man, and I like that, we need that'.

Such people are going to register as Dems just to vote for Bernie, but if he isn't the nominee,, they will not be voting for whoever is.

[dorkzilla]

121. as an old punchline goes "Ed Zachary" nt

[A Simple Game]

143. Be fair, Hillary will attract Republicans to the polls too.

Not in the same way as Bernie, but if she is the nominee Republicans will not stay home.

[sabrina 1]

145. Well that's true.

They will definitely be motivated in that case.

[frylock]

87. Insightful analysis.

[rhett o rick]

92. Lead me thru how that's a fact.

In the General if the nominee is:

Sanders Sanders supporters + Clinton supporters* + some cross over Republicans.

Clinton Some Sanders supporters + Clinton Supporters

My math shows Sanders as getting more votes than Clinton.

Show me your math.

[PatrynXX]

98. at this rate it's 99.99999999999%

sheesh

[PatrickforO]

132. Ah, to use another well known phrase from popular culture,

"I don't think so, Tim."

If Sanders gets the nomination, people will work like crazy to get him in and will show at the polls in droves, because he's the best candidate we've had in fifty years.

[restorefreedom]

4. its lost

they won't get it, and they would be aghast at anyone calling Jesus a socialist, even though it appears that that is what he was.

[Thor_MN]

5. Facts don't matter, many "Christian" religions only follow the Old Testament.

Since the OT, or the Torah, is what they follow, they are more akin to Judaism. But if you called them Jewish, be prepared to dodge punches. They accept Christ as their saber. They will cut people they don't like bloody with their Christ, but ignore everything attributed to him.

[Fawke Em]

6. I do that all the time and people are too stunned to argue.

I always ask über Evangelicals why they so revere the 10 Commandments when A. they're more akin to Judaism and B. since Jesus' own words abolished them during the Sermon on the Mount. Then I ask why they don't follow the Beatitudes instead.

They usually just can't seem to answer.

[restorefreedom]

15. a faith of convenience is a hollow thing

father william mulcahey, MASH

[whatthehey]

20. Not one jot nor tittle...

[zeemike]

40. No they don't

If they did they would let their land lay fallow every 7 years, not lend money for interest, and forgive all debts every 50 years...and that is one of the Ten Commandments.
So it is not just Jesus they ignore.

[Thor_MN]

85. I just chalk that up to arguementive nature,

because it doesn't make much sense.

[Fawke Em]

105. I don't think so.

A "jot and tittle" is, I guess, a time or money measure, but where it's used means that spending money or time doesn't mean shit if you're not helping the poor or downtrodden.

[lonestarnot]

7. Facts mean nothing. That why you posted 70%?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

27. It is meant to be funny - DU'ers have a hard time with humor sometimes.

[bvf]

102. Some of the responses in this thread

are beyond belief.

Crimony!

[bigdarryl]

8. Stupid poll because 70% of the population doesn't vote in any election in this country

[Fawke Em]

18. Sure they do: for American Idol and The Voice.

Sadly.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

33. Not a poll - just a funny picture - jeez

[redstateblues]

9. The percentage of DUers that would vote for Jesus

would probably be around 10%.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. Jesus isn't the problem . . .

"Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians - you are not like him." - Mahatma Gandhi

[Orrex]

10. Every time the Sanders:Jesus connection is made...

It casts doubt on the seriousness of the person drawing the connection.

Sanders himself wouldn't be so foolish as to make that allusion, but I've seen it again and again on DU, on Facebook, on Twitter, etc.

[Fawke Em]

30. Remember how the right believed the left all thought Obama was the Messiah?

I think that idiotic meme will kick into high gear should we nominate Bernie, but, if they want to play that stupid game, I believe it will be fun to challenge them on who, exactly, they think Jesus was and what his philosophies regarding capitalism are. LOL.

Like John Fugelsang said:

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

36. I guess we can't post funny pics here anymore - people are way to serious

[Orrex]

41. If that's how you feel about it, then that's on you.

If you define humor as "factually inaccurate and irrelevant in any case," then go ahead and laugh your ass off.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

43. Some people on this thread liked it. Humor isn't necessarily true or real. See "The Onion".

[Orrex]

47. Believe whatever you like, if it makes you feel better.

Given your choice of candidate and your estimate of his chances, it's clear that you're comfortable with all sorts of far-fetched beliefs.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

50. So you are telling me you've NEVER heard of the comic tool of SATIRE?

You should be uncomfortable with your complete lack of humor. End of discussion. Feel free to get in a last batshit post.

[Orrex]

51. Every one of your posts is the batshit post.

And we can only hope that each is the last.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

54. Every one of your posts is a batshit post.

And we can only hope that each is the last.

[Orrex]

58. Right. But will you vote for her?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

83. If she's the nominee I'd be crazy not to. But Bernie will be the nominee.

[Orrex]

84. And if by some miracle Sanders wins the nomination, then I will happily vote for him.

[AlbertCat]

57. Some people on this thread liked it.

It's a great post! Very droll!


Some people might feel threatened that the "socialist" meme is already dead and won't help their preferred candidate...who could very well lose. So they have no sense of humor.

[Orrex]

59. Great post? The meme is trite and months old.

Some people might feel threatened that the "socialist" meme is already dead and won't help their preferred candidate...who could very well lose. So they have no sense of humor.

Nope. You're reaching for the tired and misguided false dichotomy that anyone who doubts Sanders' chances of winning must therefore be afraid of him.

That's a beloved tactic among his supporters, based in nothing but wishful thinking.

Likening him to the Messiah is also pretty lame, and I doubt that Sanders himself would approve.

[Trajan]

78. You need to stop those awful people from doing that

See you next century ... You are gonna be very busy ...

[whopis01]

142. Well let him who is without doubt cast the first doubt n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

12. Jesus references now?

You guys...


This is getting increasingly weird.

[L. Coyote]

67. Memes are the new Burma Shave signs.

[delrem]

133. Well, those guys can't very well reference how much cash Sanders' campaign has,

and how a surplus of cash is necessary to win, and how they are banking on that. Like you guys do.

So their guy goes to Liberty University to explain his philosophy, whereas your guy doesn't.

The difference in approach, in understanding, makes for different senses of humor.
Do you remember that the ancients defined human kind as being the species capable of humor?
Humor really does make us people.
Not war. Not money. Understanding and humor are the two linchpins.

[ozone_man]

19. Oh, but they do.

In Vermont, Bernie gets 70%.

[Laser102]

22. Although I support Hillary, this just makes me sad. No one should be defined by their religion.

If Hillary doesn't make it, I will gladly vote for Bernie. He's a good man.

[Bubzer]

44. +1

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

56. Some people define THEMSELVES by their religion. This pic is for them.

[homegirl]

26. Remember 2008

How many said Americans would never vote for a black man for president?

Love the graphic.

[mountain grammy]

38. Exactly!

I even said it myself. Won't make that mistake again.

[oberliner]

34. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Jesus is/was a Jewish Socialist

This meme is completely wrong is every respect.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

42. It's a joke - it doesn't have to be factually correct.

[Orrex]

61. But if it's a joke, then it should be funny. So it fails by that measure.

If it's satire, then it should be a witty commentary on its subject. So it fails by that measure as well.


The zeal of the joke's apologists who insist that it's funny is a reliable indicator of how funny it isn't.

[bettyellen]

71. like your OP about Vince Forster, right? Dump, indeed.

[Orrex]

72. ^^Thread win.

[zeemike]

48. Well there is no doubt they were both Jews.

And in almost every quote from Jesus sure sounds like socialism...and it is noteworthy that after the death of Jesus his followers actually became communist...in fact they practically invented it when they "held all things in common".

What you meant is that they are not political socialist...members of a socialist party.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

62. Tell it to the 67 people that rec'd my post. You seem very out of touch.

[Orrex]

63. A careful search might be able to turn up at least 67 Sanders supporters

So what was your point?

[zeemike]

64. Well I just made it 68

Because I approve that message,

My response was to he who said that Bernie and Jesus were not a Jews or a socialist, when the facts are that they were...but not members of the socialist party.

[Orrex]

70. Was Jesus a time-traveller? No? Then he wasn't a socialist.

Instead, he is retroactively identified as a socialist, which is very different. It's like those people who try to coopt Thomas Edison by claiming that had Asperger's or by claiming that Thomas Jefferson was a modern-style Libertarian; it's meant to flatter those who are now categorized that way. Absent the input of the person in question, such post mortem diagnosis is at best idle speculation.

[zeemike]

75. Well that assumes we invented socialism in modern times.

And it is a political term not a social one.
In fact the principles of communism is in the bible...found in Acts chapter 4.

[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common...
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

The principles that Jesus preached were and are the same as the principles of socialism...that is what made him a socialist, not party affiliation.

[Orrex]

79. Nope.

The term is modern, regardless of how you might want to retcon ancient history.

Again: Jesus was not a socialist. He advocated certain policies that are now seen as consistent with what is now termed socialism.

[zeemike]

81. Well ism is a modern word additive.

But it is just a modern way of describing a concept that is as old as mankind.
Just because we found a new word to describe it don't change the facts.

[Orrex]

82. Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of retconning

Find a label that's favorable to your agenda, find some historical or fictional figure that you want to coopt, and assign your favorable label to that person.

Besides which, Jesus would be more accurately described as a monarch and tyrant, and a petty, vindictive one at that. His miracles, after all, were performed for the sake of his own glory, and not for some enlightened, anachronistic socialist philosophy.

Are we to believe that Sanders is the one true path to Salvation? If not, then you should reject that insipid Messiah imagery once and for all.

[zeemike]

86. Nope, not going to bite on any of that.

[Orrex]

88. Because it's irrefutable. Thanks for playing.

[zeemike]

90. No because it is stupid and provocative.

And I don't wish to waste my time on it.

[Orrex]

91. But comparing Sanders to Christ isn't stupid and provocative?

Please. At least try to pretend to show some consistency.

[zeemike]

94. Well that charge was inevitable.

When you know full well there was no comparison with Jesus beyond they were both Jews with socialist views. And done so in the spirit of sarcasm and snark to point out hypocrisy.

But the cheap shot is expected...it never fails to show up.
For some it is triggered by any mention of Jesus or religion and others any mention of Sanders in a positive way, but it always comes out.

[Orrex]

96. It always comes out because it's obvious and true.

I hate to break it to you, but the meme explicitly likens Sanders to Jesus. I know that you're in denial, but that's the entire purpose of the image.

I don't give a shit about faith or religion, but it's preposterous and false to embrace the comparison and then deny the comparison.

Further, Jesus also had tyrannical, monarchistic views, as in John 14:6 and elsewhere. Why are you cherry-picking your meme?

[zeemike]

112. No it is an obvious straw man argument.

All one has to do is mention Jesus and it is a comparison no matter what the point is that is made.
And it is obvious that you are being disingenuous when you say you don't care about faith and religion...what you mean to say is you hold such things in contempt. And then prove it by making the claim of tyranny.
But don't try to quote the bible to me...I have read it and more importantly I understand what it says, and it is not what you claim it to be.
But this is not the place to argue it with you, so I decline.

[Orrex]

114. Nope. Try again.

Not a strawman--it's the explicit intent of the meme. If you disagree, then please provide the explanation that you declare to be correct.

Maybe I do hold religion in contempt, not least because it perverts every aspect of the political universe that it touches. Feel better now?

But don't try to quote the bible to me...I have read it and more importantly I understand what it says, and it is not what you claim it to be.

Yeah, that's the claim that everyone makes to justify cherry-picking.

[zeemike]

123. I did provide the explanation and it went right over your head.

Or at least you pretended it did...so no need to repeat something you refused to get the first time.

And we all understand...you feel justified in your contempt...as all those who feel contempt do.
And can never understand how anyone can not love the feeling of contempt and self righteousness. And I could never explain it to you.
Nor wold any discussion of the bible produce anything but more feelings of contempt and self rightiousness...it feeds on such things.

[Orrex]

141. Your explanation was unconvincing

It was every bit as self-serving as you imagine mine to be, so your answer is far from exclusive or definitive. And your pedestrian commentary certainly didn't go "over my head."


It goes both ways, too; you feel justified in your self-righteousness, as all self-righteous people do, especially if they can invoke a Bronze Age collection of stories to support that self-righteousness.

[zeemike]

146. Well count me surprised.

I never thought that I could convince you. People caught up in their own certainty seldom can be.

But your justification is better than mine because you know all about what happened 2000 years ago through the magic of your belief system...which can never be wrong.

You are a funny guy Orrex...and the more I talk to you the more I am convinced that I must be on the right track...when they resort to the "I'm rubber, you are glue" argument you know you are on to something.

[Orrex]

148. You seem not to understand how discussion works

If you voice a criticism, you need to be ready to address an equivalent criticism of yourself. You can't simply invoke some playground rebuttal and hope to convince anyone. Interstingly, I've been faulted for identifying exactly that sort of tantrum as a tactic of Sanders' supporters. Thanks for helping to make my case!

But your justification is better than mine because you know all about what happened 2000 years ago through the magic of your belief system...which can never be wrong.

This is why your explanation was unconvincing; you don't understand my position, and you can't document yours. I don't claim to know what happened 2000 years ago, except to say that I'm pretty sure that you don't know any better than I do. Your interpretation depends upon anachronstic shoehorning of a political philosophy that didn't exist until 18 centuries after Jesus gave up the ghost. I'm simply (and correctly) pointing out the absurdity of this retconning.

Further, reading the same book of Bronze Age stories that you read, I draw different conclusions. Why do you presume exclusive authority to declare what's correct and what's not? As was pointed out downthread, Jesus also had a pretty tolerant view of slavery--is that the kind of socialist you want to worship?

[zeemike]

149. I understand your position far better than you think I do.

I have had these arguments many times before for at least 20 years and they all follow the same patern...it is like there is a school out there that teaches it.

Like the claim that I can't document it...and if I tried to do so it would be said that it is debunked or wrong because you CAN document your position...no evidence will ever be accepted by you because if it were you would have to admit you were wrong.

And so you revert to word definitions saying that socialism did not exist because it was invented as a political POV...as if it was a new concept that sprang forth in the 19th century.
Ignoring the fact that it has been with us as long as tribes have.

But you say you have read it and reach another conclusion...but for the life of me I don't understand how you can read the Sermon on the Mount and conclude that he was anything but a socialist...but not in the political sense but in the moral one because no political socialist would stand for "love them that hate you"

[Orrex]

152. Nope, you state outright that you don't understand my position

I'm not impressed by your decades of repeated platitudes, either. If we want to play that game, I've been at it longer than you, and I know how your type argues as well.

no evidence will ever be accepted by you because if it were you would have to admit you were wrong.

This is flatly incorrect on several levels. First, you flatter yourself to imagine that you've given a persuasive argument, which you haven't. Second, you imagine that your persuasive argument would persuade me if only I'd listen, but this is wrong because your argument is unpersuasive. Third, you imagine that I am incapable of admitting error or changing my view; this is flat-out wrong because I have a well-demonstrated history on DU of amending my opinion when faced with a persuasive argument or convincing argument.

In short, if I haven't changed my view, then what you perceive as my stubbornness is hardly to blame.

But you say you have read it and reach another conclusion...but for the life of me I don't understand how you can read the Sermon on the Mount and conclude that he was anything but a socialist...but not in the political sense but in the moral one because no political socialist would stand for "love them that hate you"

Perhaps you're forgetting that the Sermon on the Mount isn't the entirety of the New Testament. As is always the case, you're cherry-picking your favorite Jesus-isms and conveniently ignoring the rest. Sorry, but that's intellectually dishonest. What would Sanders do? Would he approve of such trickery?


Look, I appreciate your need to appear credible, and I encourage you to keep trying. Good luck!

[zeemike]

153. Frankly I think most of what you say is projection

But I am 72 years old and I have been at it sense my 30s and on the net sense about 94...so if you have been doing it longer good for you.

This is not the place for it but if you want to play the game OK with me.
So show me a quote by Jesus that proves your point...not just some random quote from the NT but a quote from Jesus, sense he is what we are talking about not Paul, or others.
And I will answer it and if you can prove your point I will admit I am wrong.

[Orrex]

154. Nope. And now you're a pop psychologist. Lovely.

At least we know where things stand.

Frankly, I don't believe that you will admit your error, because since 1994 I haven't seen even one online true believer admit error when it comes to matters of biblical interpretation. It simply doesn't happen.

You do realize, of course, that the quotes in the bible are quote, right? Not the literal and verifiable word of Jesus? I ask because, if you don't realize this, then there's no point in going further. If you do realize it, then you must understand that you're dismissing Paul's statements but embracing Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's and John's reporting.

That's called cherry-picking, and it proves my point. Will you now admit that you're wrong?

[zeemike]

155. Paul never met Jesus but Mathew, Mark, Luke and John knew him personally.

But you want to use his word and not those of the witnesses. What sense does that make?
The four witnesses tell you what they heard him say, but that is not good enough, you want a tape of him saying it or you call it bullshit...but with Paul who never heard a word of it says something you can hang your theory on you want accepted as fact.

But even so, you will only use some of Paul's statements...the ones that fit your theory...and dismiss all the rest as irrelevant.
This is so typical...and seen it over and over in these kinds of discussion.

But the challenge still stands, give me a quote of what Jesus was reported to say that fits your theory and we will discuss it. But don't accuse me of cherry picking when I insist on the actual quotes of Jesus to discuss what Jesus said and believed.

[bvf]

100. Oh, for crying out loud!

What next, a deconstruction of the joke about the kangaroo who goes into a bar??

Lighten up.

[Orrex]

101. When Sanders' acolytes stop believing that he can walk on water, then I'll lighten up.

[bvf]

108. You seem a mite agitated.

[Orrex]

109. Nope--you're using the tactic of someone who has nothing to say

It's a lame attempt at distraction hoping to make me defend against the claim that I am agitated, rather than discussion the real issue re: the explicit and undeniable Christ comparison of the meme.

Since I am not agitated, I have no need to refute your ham-fisted claim.

[bvf]

115. So this kangaroo goes into a bar, see?

Orders a piña colada with two maraschino cherries.

The bartender says, "That'll be fifteen bucks."

The kangaroo tosses a twenty onto the bar without a word.

The bartender brings the piña colada, and silently regards the kangaroo nursing it for a few minutes before observing, "Say, we don't get many kangaroos in here."

The kangaroo tosses back the last sip, and, getting up to leave, says to the bartender, "And at these prices, you won't get many more."


Hope this helps!

[oberliner]

69. Christianity regards Jesus as the awaited Messiah

Judaism views him as an apostate who was deemed fit to be executed.

[libodem]

68. We could go with Humanism, maybe

[img][/img]

[PowerToThePeople]

52. Elmer just took a dump and it became an OP title.

Eom

[libodem]

55. And, thank you, Jesus!

Amen.

[hay rick]

60. And 80% of the population would never vote for a black community organizer. nt

[zappaman]

65. Pretty sure I wouldn't vote for Jesus.

Is he running?

[Pharaoh]

66. Braaaaaaaaa

never tbouvht they'd vote for a black guy either

[WillyT]

74. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Chitown Kev]

76. K & R

I've seen this before and I love the irony here.

[cascadiance]

77. That's nice. I was actually thinking about a "Jesus" response just looking at the subject line...

... before looking at the post.

I guess I think like the author of the image too.

[Hydraulico]

89. Good one nt

[klook]

103. This one has much better hair.

But the facial hair didn't poll well in focus groups.

[MoonchildCA]

120. Well, seeing as voter turnout is well under 60%,

that 30% percent who will, pretty much gives us the election.

[Cheese Sandwich]

122. Jewish socialists are actually some of the best choices right now so I don't see the problem

[RandySF]

128. I'm voting for someone else, but still...

where in the world did you come up with that figure?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

150. Google images.

[PatrickforO]

129. LOL

It won't be lost on the 70% if we get the word out!

More and more Christians every day are leaving these narrow groups and embracing a social gospel because that's what the bible says Jesus actually taught. A social gospel. Good news for the poor.

And Bernie Sanders is nothing, if not really good news for the poor.

[delrem]

131. Who the fuck is that pious Anglo looking dude in the picture?

Who combed his beard to look like that!
That's quite some artistry. The eyes. The lips!! The hair.

And OMG but what a superman suit!

Has this got something to do with religion?

[FreedomRain]

134. Hey Jesus was only half-Jewish y know...

Every single Democrat gets called socialist, I think a lot of people are just so used to hearing it that it doesn't mean anything to them except maybe the same as "Democrat."

*..other half probably Roman ..

[Fumesucker]

136. Rec for the DUers who have had their sensayumas surgically removed

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

151. Thanks, Fumesucker. I'll let Jeebus pray for them.

[raven mad]

140. Stolen!

And Facebooked!

[Act_of_Reparation]

144. A socialist that tacitly approved of slavery?

Interesting.

[KoKo]

147. Recommend!