A bit of history you weren't aware of...

[j2k4]

You just hate being caught out, don't you?

You jumped in with both feet blazing because it was anti-Democrat, you did no research, you didn't check the story, you just took the word of a proven liar.

You say, ".. it does not give lie to that which Sampley recounts ..", yes it does, in Sampley's article Jefferson was president when he acquired the book to study Muslims.

There is no other account of this, only from Sampley. Doesn't that sound fishy to you?

If you want to see other accounts of the Quran in question, study the Jefferson archives, as I did.

BTW-
If you want to wade through the archive to find which of us has blasted more member of his own party, I'll win that one hands down, too, so best leave it alone, I think.

What party would that be, I don't have a party, I merely point out your one sided posts with regards Democrats.


It's time to step up to the plate j2, and admit you fucked up good, a simple apology and the promise to be more careful in the future will suffice, no-one wants to see you humiliated.

Fucked up how, precisely?

I asked a question you didn't/couldn't answer.

Sampley used a bit of history for partisan reasons, which purpose was not my own, but served to backstop my question, which had to do with my reckoning that Ellison didn't have, or chose not to stress, all of the relevant facts surrounding Jefferson's ownership of the Quran.

Your nitpicking is an effort to deflect my question by using the tried and true tactic of racist implication in order to avoid a discussion in which your honest and open participation would be discomfitting due to your own political leanings.

That makes you a hijacker, as well as a plagarist, given that you haven't even attributed your cut-and-paste, a mistake I made, but corrected immediately.

[Biggles]

Is that the treaty of 1797 which said

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries" I think the rider "except if you steal stuff then without recourse to any religious pretext we shall be sorely aggrieved and kick the crap out of you" is missing.

To be fair, until the inception of Israel the US had quite good relations with the ME. The Barbary pirates hardly count as everyone fought them - including other Muslims.

I doubt Jefferson's Quran was a revered religious text though as Jefferson did not have a lot of time for religion. He was very much part of the 18th century enlightenment and was, I believe, a humanist.

So perhaps both Ellison and Ted Sampley are both missing the point

[j2k4]

Is that the treaty of 1797 which said

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries" I think the rider "except if you steal stuff then without recourse to any religious pretext we shall be sorely aggrieved and kick the crap out of you" is missing.

To be fair, until the inception of Israel the US had quite good relations with the ME. The Barbary pirates hardly count as everyone fought them - including other Muslims.

I doubt Jefferson's Quran was a revered religious text though as Jefferson did not have a lot of time for religion. He was very much part of the 18th century enlightenment and was, I believe, a humanist.

So perhaps both Ellison and Ted Sampley are both missing the point

Why, thank you, Les.

I wasn't claiming Sampley's view as my own, it was merely the vehicle by which I chose my own context.

Had I pared Sampley's screed down to the elements strictly applicable to my query, I think I'd have been slightly more vulnerable to Ava's wild supposition, but he isn't given to curiosities, he's hide-bound to criticize first.

It occurs to me that if I were to start a thread about the media's prurient interest in the death of a certain blonde floozy with big mams, it'd be some Republican plot, and I'd be a Bush apologist for bringing it up.

[Ava Estelle]

Fucked up how, precisely?

By quoting Sampley, who made the story of the Quran up.

I asked a question you didn't/couldn't answer.

I did answer, your story was a load of bullshit, THAT was the answer.

Sampley used a bit of history for partisan reasons,

No he didn't, he made up a story to suit his own agenda.

which purpose was not my own, but served to backstop my question, which had to do with my reckoning that Ellison didn't have, or chose not to stress, all of the relevant facts surrounding Jefferson's ownership of the Quran.

What facts? There were no facts, only lies, Ellison was right, Jefferson bought the Quran as part of his studies into religions, he did so as a student, not as president.

Your nitpicking is an effort to deflect my question by using the tried and true tactic of racist implication in order to avoid a discussion in which your honest and open participation would be discomfitting due to your own political leanings.

Bullshit again, how is pointing out the lies you posted nitpicking?

That makes you a hijacker, as well as a plagarist, given that you haven't even attributed your cut-and-paste, a mistake I made, but corrected immediately.

I have attributed it, it was from the Jefferson Archives.

Here we have a born liar and bullshitter, Ted Sampley, who makes up a story about Jefferson buying the Quran to study Muslims with the intent to wage war against them.

The truth is, he bought the books as a student, many years before becoming president, when he was studying law. He used it as part of his studies into relative religions, and the study of natural law. All this information is available in the Jefferson Archives, with many references from Jefferson, from his student years, to the books in question.

You then take Sampley's lie, and turn it into an accusation against Ellison, saying he misunderstood the reason Jefferson owned the books.

All of this is bullshit, the lies from Sampley, and the continued squirming from you. Once again you prove your total incapacity to admit you were drawn into a lie because of your deep desire to dish dirt on all and any Democrats, with no concern whatsoever for the truth.

Ellison would have known why Jefferson owned the books, he would have done the research, unlike you, and learned beforehand, a lesson you should learn, as your Fox News mentality is getting rather tiresome.

[zapjb]

Well said. I don't have the patience or the eloquence.

[Ava Estelle]

Where's the invisible man gone?

Surely it doesn't take two weeks to back his story up ... does it?

[j2k4]

Where's the invisible man gone?

Surely it doesn't take two weeks to back his story up ... does it?

Oh, no-

I've been refuted by an anti-semite-racist.

[Ava Estelle]

Really? Care to explain?

[j2k4]

Really? Care to explain?

No.

Between this and your incredibly egregious and uncalled-for retort to Rafi in the "bomb Iran" thread, you've damaged yourself to such an extent in my eyes I really don't wish to have anything more to do with you.

You are everything they always said about you, Rikk, and I feel regret for ever expressing any belief your original expulsion from this board was in error.

You stand revealed, and it is an ugly and sickening sight.

[Ava Estelle]

Temper, temper, you really don't like being proved wrong, do you.

In this case you were suckered into believing Duke wrote that piece, you were too quick to clutch at your straw to bother looking at the author.

As to the other thread you refer to, I expressed the opinion that if Israel continue it's genocide of the Palestinians, and their neighbours became nuclear powers, Israel would deserve all it got. Just because you don't agree with that makes no difference to me, your views of the world are an absolute disgrace. Watching your ego dissolve over the last few weeks has been a source of delight.